do not comment or vote in linked threads

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

Being a racist loser that makes fun of racist losers doesn't make you any less of a racist loser.

Pretending you're too stupid to understand how you spend your free time doesn't make it any less pathetic to spend your free time that way.

Snapshots:

1. JusticeServedBot strikes once again... - archive.org, archive.today

I am just a simple bot, *not** a moderator of this subreddit* | bot subreddit | contact the maintainers

This is a horrible post. Please do not make one ever again.

expected very little of OP and still ended up disappointed 😞

Meh. Pissing off internet athiests is the easiest fucking thing ever.

its funny because atheists are legit science deniers

[removed]

how

Darwin's theory of evolution has been disproven using math and fossils. The science community doesnt want to discuss it tho as it upsets their worldview.

Geez hicks, this is a new low even for you

quick rundown please sir

-Rothschilds bow to Bogdanoffs -In contact with aliens -Possess psychic-like abilities -Control france with an iron but fair fist -Own castles & banks globally -Direct descendants of the ancient royal blood line -Will bankroll the first cities on Mars (Bogdangrad will be be the first city) -Own 99% of DNA editing research facilities on Earth -First designer babies will in all likelihood be Bogdanoff babies -both brothers said to have 215+ IQ, such intelligence on Earth has only existed deep in Tibetan monasteries & Area 51 -Ancient Indian scriptures tell of two angels who will descend upon Earth and will bring an era of enlightenment and unprecedented technological progress with them -They own Nanobot R&D labs around the world -You likely have Bogdabots inside you right now -The Bogdanoffs are in regular communication with the Archangels Michael and Gabriel, forwarding the word of God to the Orthodox Church. Who do you think set up the meeting between the pope & the Orthodox high command (First meeting between the two organisations in over 1000 years) and arranged the Orthodox leader's first trip to Antarctica in history literally a few days later to the Bogdanoff bunker in Wilkes land? -They learned fluent French in under a week -Nation states entrust their gold reserves with the twins. There's no gold in Ft. Knox, only Ft. Bogdanoff -The twins are about 7 decades old, from the space-time reference point of the base human currently accepted by our society -In reality, they are timeless beings existing in all points of time and space from the big bang to the end of the universe. We don't know their ultimate plans yet. We hope they're benevolent beings.

Based schizo

It makes sense

bomp it

Darwin's theory works well to describe why certain animals have thicker fur or longer beaks but fails at explaining the emergence of new species. Using the math we have developed over decades to determine changes in the evolution of animals, we have found that the time that animals have been on this planet is no where near long enough to facilitate the explosion of species this planet experienced. Especially during the Precambrian explosion, which defies all science (even darwin noted this).

here is an in depth discussion on this

Fun fact, the guy sitting on the right got Unabombed. Lost his right hand and permanently damaged his right eye. Probs why he's sitting side on.

where near long enough

Found the Science denier

https://www.livescience.com/474-controversy-evolution-works.html

Deny science all you want, its typical of an atheist. But read here if you want a learn more (and its not an attempt to sneak jesus in, i promise you)

Do the numbers balance out? Is Neo-Darwinian evolution plausible after all? Axe reasoned as follows. Consider the whole history of living things—the entire group of every living organism ever. It is dominated numerically by bacteria. All other organisms, from tangerine trees to coral polyps, are only a footnote. Suppose, then, that every bacterium that has ever lived contributes one mutation before its demise to the history of life. This is a generous assumption; most bacteria pass on their genetic information unchanged, unmutated. Mutations are the exception. In any case, there have evidently been, in the whole history of life, around 1040 bacteria—yielding around 1040 mutations under Axe’s assumptions. That is a very large number of chances at any game. But given that the odds each time are 1 to 1077 against, it is not large enough. The odds against blind Darwinian chance having turned up even one mutation with the potential to push evolution forward are 1040x(1/1077)—1040 tries, where your odds of success each time are 1 in 1077—which equals 1 in 1037. In practical terms, those odds are still zero. Zero odds of producing a single promising mutation in the whole history of life. Darwin loses.

Deny science all you want, its typical of an atheist.

Actually it's typical of a Christian Creationist to deny Science as they believe the Earth is flat and the World was made in 7 days.

https://www.khanacademy.org/partner-content/amnh/human-evolutio/darwin-and-evolution-by-natural-selection/a/charles-darwins-evidence-for-evolution

look at the stupid atheist here unable to do simple math

simple math

Okay, I decide to do a little research into the author you use for your article. It turns out that he a Professor at Yale with a bachelor's degree in classical Hebrew. Last time I check religious degree holders aren't "real scientist."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Gelernter

its says right at the top of the link you posted

David Hillel Gelernter is an American artist, writer, and professor of computer science at Yale University. He is a former national fellow at the American Enterprise Institute and senior fellow in Jewish thought at the Shalem Center, and sat on the National Endowment for the Arts. He publishes widely; his work has appeared in The Wall Street Journal, New York Post, Los Angeles Times, The Weekly Standard, Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, and elsewhere. His paintings have been exhibited in New Haven and Manhattan.

You don't seem to understand that his expertise is in religion not Science.

I like how you spent all that time to discredit the author of a BOOK REVIEW rather than read what he wrote about. Hes not the scientist in question, the books and publications he is referencing are. So try and keep up with that puny atheist brain of yours.

I like how you spent all

I didn't need to spend any time at all dude. All I need to do was do a quick five-second research into the author's background. His super religious background tells me all I need to know about him.

Why dont you both stop serious posting and just fuck already?

Kissing a black stripper belly button isnt as fun as posting on the Internet sometimes.

[deleted]

where did you get 10⁷⁷ from?

its in the article, it the ratio of protein combinations that are sustainable, 1 to 10⁷⁷

yes because no positive mutation has ever occurred and drug resistant bacteria don't exist

Thats not what hes saying? Clearly positive mutations have occured, but Darwin's reasoning of it being a total random process does not fit into the math.

Zero odds of producing a single promising mutation in the whole history of life. Darwin loses.

right? Did you not read what i just wrote? Do you have a learning disability?

his math doesn't even make sense. mutations build off of existing genes which already work, it doesn't roll dice to create a whole new gene.

mutations are random, (according to darwin) so how many possible random mutations are there? (we know this answer btw, if you didnt read the article)

This is like watching my 6 year old niece trying to "scientifically prove" that Santa comes around every Christmas eve. hahahahaha

Aren't you just assuming an evenly distributed set of random mutations, which is dumb and why it doesn't make sense to you?

This nigga has never heard of gradient descent.

man you have the reading comprehension of a ni-

not gonna bother watching the whole video, did they invite any actual scientists or anyone more credible than people from the 'discovery institute'?

present science and math to refute your worldview

heh youre a conservatard so i dont have to engage your ideas

heh youre a conservatard so i dont have to engage your ideas

Unironically this

See I used to think I disliked you because I thought you were an agendaposting rightoid, but now I just know you're just an idiot.

mod of r/bussy

imagine calling anyone an idiot

"I checked your profile and yikes"

🤭🤭🤭

What's the opposite of a ban? 🤔

Hmm. Now that I know you don't believe in evolution a lot of your other opinions are starting to make sense

I believe evolution explains localized, small changes in animals. I dont believe it explains the emergence of species. I dont necessarily believe it was "God" per se. But i also think we have to wrestle with the clear math showing that something else is going on. Maybe its just something we havent discovered yet? The point is to not bury the science because it refutes your religion (either side).

I believe evolution explains localized, small changes in animals.

Good so far, now extrapolate that over billions of years including shifting continents that changes the definition of "localized".

again, im not denying that, i agree with it in that sense. But that doesnt explain the formation of whole new species.

We already have observable instances of new frog species emerging after they spread out into a new different geological climate.

A Russian scientist (Karphchenko) managed to breed a new species of plant in his laboratory by cross-breeding a cabbage and a radish. This plant is known as the Raphanobrassica.

There is no spontaneous "formation of new species". Groups of animals just tend to mutate and interbreed, until they are no longer capable of mating with the "original" species. When this happens, they are officially a new species.

[removed]

I don’t even have a high school level knowledge of evolution, but that doesn’t matter ... because I’ve read Answers in Genesis

Lmao I thought you people were a myth.

I have so many questions. Like, how have you made it this far without forgetting to keep breathing at some point?

I used to get a ride from a dude who was raised (homeschooled) as a creationist. So obviously I slowly dripped redpills about Darwin into our conversations. By the end of our time together, he was willing to admit that maybe Darwin had some good points and didn't conflict with his beliefs.

I now choose to believe that man is the colonel we all know and love.

This is an r-slurred take, even for you.

It's like saying "sure, you can walk from the couch to the fridge, but you can't walk from your house to the next town over because that's macro-transportation!".

not really. because evolution through mutation is a fundamentally different process than whatever causes variability from one generation to the next, which is the thing responsible for those small changes within species that he's talking about

i could create a new dog breed without needing any mutations to occur

i'm not saying i agree with him though

evolution through mutation is a fundamentally different process than whatever causes variability from one generation to the next

what are you talking about

Evolution is change in the heritable characteristics of biological populations over successive generations.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution

and then right after that:

Different characteristics tend to exist within any given population as a result of mutation, genetic recombination and other sources of genetic variation.

Hicks's argument is that random mutation resulting in a functional organism is too unlikely for it to have lead to new species. Small changes can be explained by genetic recombination.

evolution through mutation is a fundamentally different process than whatever normally causes variability from one generation to the next

Uh no, mutation is literally and by definition what causes this variability.

Do you know what the word "mutate" means?

i could create a new dog breed without needing any mutations to occur

Only by crossing existing breeds. You can definitely breed a new breed into existence "from scratch" by relying on mutations alone, such as breeding dogs and specifically selecting the ones with bigger ears.

You're assuming evolution by mutation to prove evolution by mutation.

Only by crossing existing breeds.

No, retard.

I dont necessarily believe it was "God" per se.

This makes your train of thought even dumber. You are trying your hardest not to look like a fundy, just say it, you think it was God.

If he doesn't believe in evolution then it explains why he has never participated in evolution. Props to him for sticking to moral principles and standing by what he believes 👏👏

Just go full flat earther lad, at least the you might make some friends.

just admit your blind faith in atheism

Faith? Yes. Blind? No.

I agree I'm putting my faith in the smartest men in the world post-enlightenment. I have faith in them as their science when put in practice works and they can explain their theories logically. I don't see any reason to put faith into your blog posts or crusty book.

Atheism unironically requires faith, ironically

I just said that, all science your not an expert in does. Although I do agree you can't definitively disprove their being some higher entity, so I'm agnostic.

Reading is hard😔

Darwin developed his theory almost 150 years ago, dont you think science has progressed since then? Thats what these people are talking about, how the science has progressed so far its disproven it's self.

Your modern scientists has already been outed in previous comments as not an expert in this field. Science does progress, by building on the repeatedly supported foundations of those sciences. You might as well go around saying the old fashioned theory of calculus has been disproven by the new research of a philosophy major.

[deleted]

Still stuck on Darwin? Punctuated equilibrium theory has been around for decades, and Darwin wasn't a phyletic gradualist either he was more along the lines of punctuated gradualism.

[deleted]

Darwin's theory of evolution has been disproven

The only people who think that are Christian Creationist who believe the Earth is flat and the world was made in six days.

why do you think all atheists believe in darwins theory tho?

Source?

[deleted]

Source?

Upvoted OP! Great post!

can we mod JusticeServedBot already?

Who created this bot? I've been seeing some good ones recently

I know this is the wrong thread but I didn’t respond to that John Oliver furry post so I’ll bring it up here. Isn’t it funny how furries try to be woke when minorities would beat them up for trying to rape their dog?