New here?
Create an account to submit posts, participate in discussions and chat with people.
Sign up
You are viewing a single comment's thread. View all
PurestEvil on scored.co
29 days ago 0 points (+0 / -0 ) 1 child
But that's not possible, unless you think that extreme incest is our foundation.
SryServiceDown on scored.co
29 days ago 0 points (+0 / -0 ) 2 children
Perhaps we did. I believe that the Scriptures are correct and true.

Christ is King. Therefore, what He's says about our genesis is what I believe.

To think other than we are created beings seems silly to me. You don't think we came from rocks, do you?
PurestEvil on scored.co
29 days ago 1 point (+0 / -0 / +1Score on mirror ) 1 child
If you ignore humans... where did every other animal come from? Plants, fish, corals, fungi, bacteria, viruses? Did they develop on their own, and only we have put into existence overnight? And what about niggers, aboriginals, Arabs and Indians?

See, no matter what, the same answer must apply to all life. Did everything on Earth exist overnight, or did it develop over billions of years?
SryServiceDown on scored.co
29 days ago 0 points (+0 / -0 ) 1 child
Rationalize a mechanism that constantly reduces aspecies population, and then explain how said process instead grows it.

Is your thought process that a single cell held all the biodiversity we enjoy? And that while presumably competing over the same resources, diverted into predator/prey?

The *theory* of evolution doesn't make any sense.
PurestEvil on scored.co
29 days ago 0 points (+0 / -0 ) 1 child
> constantly reduces aspecies population

What? I don't think that makes any sense. The point is very simple: Successful specimen reproduce more while failing specimen reproduce less (or die out). There is no "reducing" or "increasing" population... at least it doesn't make sense in this context. This is observable even today in every life form, including humans, and it is also common sense. It is even used in machine learning - you run millions of iterations, and the successful ones get scored higher, and you let those with the highest scores get a little variance. Then, using that next generation, you repeat the process.

> Is your thought process that a single cell held all the biodiversity we enjoy?

That's like asking if a piece of iron is "holding" the death of hundreds before it got forged into a sword. Evolution is a process of continuous change, so if there is a point in time where there are 1000000 cells, it's quite possible that all of life emerged from those over a large time span. It's also possible that all of humanity evolved from a single cell that simply spread via cell division and eventually changed into getting bigger, having limbs and having sexual reproduction. It's possible humans, niggers, apes all evolved from a single cell.

But this is not something you can predict. It's only hindsight that skews your view. Or do you already know that in 1000000 millions years we evolve into hairless, gray skinned, less muscular, big brain, alien-looking humanoids, where the relation from humans today to that is the same as apes to humans? They might even be as reluctant to accept they evolved from homo sapiens as we are to accept that we evolved from apes.
-1
SryServiceDown on scored.co
29 days ago -1 points (+0 / -0 / -1Score on mirror ) 1 child
>What? I don't think that makes any sense. The point is very simple: Successful specimen reproduce more while failing specimen reproduce less (or die out).

If you have 10 frogs and 2 of them are the "fittest" and the rest die off. That's the system that continually culls members of a system. Always paring down.

>This is observable even today in every life form, including humans, and it is also common sense.

Evolution is not common sense. It's counter intuitive. We all came from a single organism but throughout human history we haven't seen any critter evolve?

>It is even used in machine learning - you run millions of iterations, and the successful ones get scored higher, and you let those with the highest scores get a little variance. Then, using that next generation, you repeat the process.

A continual system that pares down.

>That's like asking if a piece of iron is "holding" the death of hundreds before it got forged into a sword. Evolution is a process of continuous change, so if there is a point in time where there are 1000000 cells, it's quite possible that all of life emerged from those over a large time span.

No, it's nothing like that. Do you think that all carbon based lifeforms came from a single, common, simple organism?

>It's also possible that all of humanity evolved from a single cell that simply spread via cell division and eventually changed into getting bigger, having limbs and having sexual reproduction. It's possible humans, niggers, apes all evolved from a single cell.

So you would agree then that all of human biodiversity came from a single cell? What other possibility would there be?

>But this is not something you can predict. It's only hindsight that skews your view.

I'm not the one believing we came from rocks. I'd review your views before commenting on mine.

>Or do you already know that in 1000000 millions years we evolve into hairless, gray skinned, less muscular, big brain, alien-looking humanoids, where the relation from humans today to that is the same as apes to humans?

In fact I do know. We will not evolve into homonovus because we have never evolved in the past.

>They might even be as reluctant to accept they evolved from homo sapiens as we are to accept that we evolved from apes.

We didn't evolve from apes. There is no missing link. Nothing on planet earth has ever evolved into anything. Speciation, adaptation sure. Nothing else though.
-3
asdfik on scored.co
29 days ago -3 points (+0 / -0 / -3Score on mirror )
perhaps you're a retard

Christ IS king... OF THE JEWS.
Toast message