Bacteriologist:

Google search : "Peer reviewed evidence for evolution."

All na Scam.

Bacteriologist:


Please get an actual scientific textbook and look up the difference between adaptation and evolution.

Just like I thought. Always the same with you evolutionists, can't subscribe your weak arguments for evolution to scrutiny. Just a childish rigmarole you're always on. Now I should forget etymological meanings of words and pick up a twisted scientific narrative written to support a flawed theory by wrongly interchanging words. Tell me how you can believe something to be scientificically proven which still divides the scientific community, something simply accepted by choice, rather than scientific methods of validation. You still can't see that mutation of complex multicellular into completely different organisms cannot be supported by adaptation(falsely called evolution) which occured in unicellular bacteria. If you're not going to explain how any of those in your list can really support the mutation of one species into a completely different species, how apes still all around us, living primitive barbaric lives, somehow mutated into intelligent humans shaping the universe with science and technology, then don't mention me. Inexcusable silliness in an era of enlightenment. I'm ready to rip apart your arguments like I usually do to all evolutionists when you're man enough to present your defense. Until then, don't bother mentioning me again, I won't respond.

blueAgent:


All na Scam.

Sure. Peer reviewed evidence would sound like scam to a creationist. Facts aren't exactly your thing.

RealMrNigerD:


Just like I thought. Always the same with you evolutionists, can't subscribe your weak arguments for evolution to scrutiny. Just a childish rigmarole you're always on. Now I should forget etymological meanings of words and pick up a twisted scientific narrative written to support a flawed theory by wrongly interchanging words. Tell me how you can believe something to be scientificically proven which still divides the scientific community, something simply accepted by choice, rather than scientific methods of validation. You still can't see that mutation of complex multicellular into completely different organisms cannot be supported by adaptation(falsely called evolution) which occured in unicellular bacteria. If you're not going to explain how any of those in your list can really support the mutation of one species into a completely different species, how apes still all around us, living primitive barbaric lives, somehow mutated into intelligent humans shaping the universe with science and technology, then don't mention me. Inexcusable silliness in an era of enlightenment. I'm ready to rip apart your arguments like I usually do to all evolutionists when you're man enough to present your defense. Until then, don't bother mentioning me again, I won't respond.

Whatever helps you sleep at night. A Nobel prize awaits anyone who can debunk the evolution theory. So I wonder what you're waiting for. But yeah, again whatever floats your boat.

Bacteriologist:


Whatever helps you sleep at night. A Nobel prize awaits anyone who can debunk the evolution theory. So I wonder what you're waiting for. But yeah, again whatever floats your boat.

they thinks evolution says apes mutated to humans. they won't try to get evolution properly, they will just come up, misunderstand evolution and then try to argue their wrong understanding of it.

chimps, gorillas, orangutans, and bonobos did not give birth to humans, you people should get this straight. evolution does not say so! what it says is....when you trace the ancestors of these apes backward (and the human being is an ape, he is the fifth ape), you will meet at a comon ancestor at different point on the branches of the family tree with us meeting the chimps first, and then the others as we move backward on the family tree. and no, evolution does not say man is the ultimate, we just got to this point and then broke free of force of natural selection.

these people should first understand a thing before they try to argue against it. failure to do this makes whatever arguement they bring up a failed one already

my advice to you...let those people be. if the theory of relativity was against their god, be sure that they would be against it too despite the evidence for it.

MiddleDimension:


they thinks evolution says apes mutated to humans. they won't try to get evolution properly, they will just come up, misunderstand evolution and then try to argue their wrong understanding of it.

chimps, gorillas, orangutans, and bonobos did not give birth to humans, you people should get this straight. evolution does not say so! what it says is....when you trace the ancestors of these apes backward (and the human being is an ape, he is the fifth ape), you will meet at a comon ancestor at different point on the branches of the family tree with us meeting the chimps first, and then the others as we move backward on the family tree. and no, evolution does not say man is the ultimate, we just got to this point and then broke free of force of natural selection.

these people should first understand a thing before they try to argue against it. failure to do this makes whatever arguement they bring up a failed one already

my advice to you...let those people be. if the theory of relativity was against their god, be sure that they would be against it too despite the evidence for it.

I agree with most of what you have said. The confirmation bias and intellectual dishonesty in most theists is second to none.

I am just shocked there are actual atheists who are supposedly rational debaters who believe evolution is false due to reasons best known to them.

As the popular quote goes: "You cannot believe or disbelieve evolution. You either understand it or you don't."

RealMrNigerD:


Just like I thought. Always the same with you evolutionists, can't subscribe your weak arguments for evolution to scrutiny. Just a childish rigmarole you're always on. Now I should forget etymological meanings of words and pick up a twisted scientific narrative written to support a flawed theory by wrongly interchanging words. Tell me how you can believe something to be scientificically proven which still divides the scientific community, something simply accepted by choice, rather than scientific methods of validation. You still can't see that mutation of complex multicellular into completely different organisms cannot be supported by adaptation(falsely called evolution) which occured in unicellular bacteria. If you're not going to explain how any of those in your list can really support the mutation of one species into a completely different species, how apes still all around us, living primitive barbaric lives, somehow mutated into intelligent humans shaping the universe with science and technology, then don't mention me. Inexcusable silliness in an era of enlightenment. I'm ready to rip apart your arguments like I usually do to all evolutionists when you're man enough to present your defense. Until then, don't bother mentioning me again, I won't respond.

See arrogance in ignorance. Someone that has no idea whatsoever on evolution wants to rip apart arguments about the same evolution.

The red parts of the quote is false. There is no dispute about the veracity of evolution within the scientific community. All branches of science agree on evolution, ie Biology, paleontology, Geology, chemistry, anthropology, archeology, Genetics - all branches of science. It is pseudo scientists and theologians or what I call scientific theologians, that quarrel with evolution, principally because it conflicts with their beliefs or the have a wrapped understanding of evolution. Evolution has been validated again and again by all branches of science.

Evolution is like the heliocentric universe proposed by Galileo, much as theologians tried to discredit it because it conflicted with their faith, the theory defeated the earth centered universe eventually.

Since you ignorantly claim mutation cannot in the long run change one specie into a completely different specie, explain to the whole world the origin of species. A Nobel price await you.

Bacteriologist:


You come across as a really stupid and ignorant atheist but I'm going to reply your comment like you're not stupid because of people who will read this thread now and in the distant future.

Your level of ignorance is a threat to society and I must not let it slide. No one deserve to be this stupid.




Below are some of the evidences of evolution:

1. Molecular biology(DNA/RNA sequencing).

2. Comparative anatomy

3. Embryology

4. Fossil records

5. Biogeography

6. Microbial drug resistance

These are 6 (SIX!!) thoroughly tested and accepted evidences for evolution. For you to classify something that has this amount of evidence as false says more about YOU and YOUR STUPIDITY than anything else.

You have made it pretty evident that you have no business discussing scientific subjects. As you're obviously too dumb and intellectually lazy and painfully unable to verify the authenticity of your claims before you make them.





When did it become a must for atheists to have something to say about the origin of creation? Are atheists, biologists or astronomers or archaeologists?

My god! I feel like I am schooling a 4 year old.

Even a 4-year old has more IQ points than you lmao.




Well if you weren't actually stupid and proudly ignorant, you would notice that my moniker is bacteriologist. I am a microbiologist by profession and I have observed firsthand, in the laboratory, the very basic processes of evolution.

One of the result is microbial drug resistance.
Natural selection which is one of the basic concepts of evolution is why certain microorganisms that are susceptinle to a drug, will over time, become unaffected by that particular drug.

It might also interest you to know that the current corona virus is most likely to be an evolved form of the common cold virus as they have been classified under the same family.

I am actually shocked that someone who is supposedly intelligent enough to dump religion is dumb enough to argue in the most ignorant and reprehensible manner. Very similar to the average theist.

A quick Google Search on the evidences of evolution would have saved me this mess. And saved you from coming across as a seriously stupid individual.

I insist that skepticism does not imply actual intelligence.

You make me want to study microbiology already! Great job

blueAgent:


All na Scam.

Yes science that has done a lot - positively - for the humanity is scam but religion that has caused division, wars, persecution, alienation, terrorism, slavery among other crimes is not a scam.

The irony of the whole evolution deniers is that when Charles Darwin propounded his theory of evolution 150 years ago, the world was much more religious, Christianity ruled European political and social life. At first the theory was mocked and riddled, but after looking at presented evidence, it took just 15 years for the theory to be accepted.

Today, when we have far more information and evidences at our disposal, and purports to like in a secular world, a theory that had withstood scrutiny for 150 years is now being denied, not even by scientists but by pseudo scientists and scientific illiterates. They simply either refuse to look at the evidences or deny all evidences, based on religious conviction.

Here is a YouTube video that explains it perfectly

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=18YwBwIK_no

Sadteen:

You make me want to study microbiology already! Great job

non of his opponents who speak mainly from a religious point of view can inspire you to take to their various religions like he has been able to inspire you to move in his direction of discipline.

Bacteriologist:


I agree with most of what you have said. The confirmation bias and intellectual dishonesty in most theists is second to none.

I am just shocked there are actual atheists who are supposedly rational debaters who believe evolution is false due to reasons best known to them.

As the popular quote goes: "You cannot believe or disbelieve evolution. You either understand it or you don't."

when Charles Darwin came up with his theory, the world at that time had not discovered genes! genes just got discovered in the '50s or '60s and genes, the later finding of science, corroborated his theory! a good theory is that which could easily disproved, but yet remains and keep defying all logical and good arguements.

if these theists could bring up a fossil and show that it is older than the time it could have evolved, then evolution will easily be defeated. but no, they cannot! maybe a fossil elephant in the geological time of fishes.

MiddleDimension:

non of his opponents who speak mainly from a religious point of view can inspire you to take to their various religions like he has been able to inspire you to move in his direction of discipline.

Absolutely. I am an intellectual myself except I haven't read extensively on microbiology yet but I was fascinated with the way he conveyed his message so intelligently that it re-piqued my interest in his field. As for his opponents, I find their rebuttals vacuous, mentally weakening, excruciatingly dreadful for my mental health and shrouded in religious sentiments and delusion. I shudder at how people argue fallacies like their lives depended on it

Sadteen:

Absolutely. I am an intellectual myself except I haven't read extensively on microbiology yet but I was fascinated with the way he conveyed his message so intelligently that it re-piqued my interest in his field. As for his opponents, I find their rebuttals vacuous, mentally weakening, excruciatingly dreadful for my mental health and shrouded in religious sentiments and delusion. I shudder at how people argue fallacies like their lives depended on it

Then you have not heard flat earthers. They want to take science back to pre Galileo. Even the church had apologised to Galilei Galileo, but religious fundamentalists deny science because they are holier than the Pope.

wirinet:

Then you have not heard flat earthers. They want to take science back to pre Galileo. Even the church had apologised to Galilei Galileo, but religious fundamentalists deny science because they are holier than the Pope.

There's one girl in my class who is a a flat earther. She also thinks NASA is a hoax and that no one has ever left the earth atmosphere.

wirinet:

Then you have not heard flat earthers. They want to take science back to pre Galileo. Even the church had apologised to Galilei Galileo, but religious fundamentalists deny science because they are holier than the Pope.

was it John Paul now or Benedict that apoligized to Galileo?

MiddleDimension:


was it John Paul now or Benedict that apoligized to Galileo?

Does it matter which pope apologized to Galileo?

wirinet:

Does it matter which pope apologized to Galileo?

i was only affirming what yoi said

Anyone with enough data should watch this debate between various religious priests, experts and professionals in various scientific fields.
Before the rise of pentecostal Christianity, the only religion that rejected evolution in its totality was Islam, most Christian denominations accepted evolution to one extent or the other, from catholics, Methodists, Anglicans, etc. This was because there were honest enough to look at the evidences. Pentecostals either deny all evidences or refuse to even look at them. Some are even dishonest to make silly claims evolution never did, and then discredit the whole theory based on these self made claims.

Here is the debate, enjoy.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tOPJXCDsMLI

wirinet:
Anyone with enough data should watch this debate between various religious priests, experts and professionals in various scientific fields.
Before the rise of pentecostal Christianity, the only religion that rejected evolution in its totality was Islam, most Christian denominations accepted evolution to one extent or the other, from catholics, Methodists, Anglicans, etc. This was because there were honest enough to look at the evidences. Pentecostals either deny all evidences or refuse to even look at them. Some are even dishonest to make silly claims evolution never did, and then discredit the whole theory based on these self made claims.

Here is the debate, enjoy.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tOPJXCDsMLI

i have watched it too. the muslim guy on the side of those who have already accepted it, is a very brilliant guy who debated Tommy Robinson some time ago. he is a true muslim as can be seen from that debate with Tommy Robinson on one of the BBC channels yet, he has accepted evolution to be true.

@RealMrNigerD, i would like to learn a new thing from your much anticipated attempt to tear apart the arguments we have put forward here already.

okedoyinolabisi:
Na research on corona dey trend now o jare. They should not go and dig out another virus for us..lol

you look adorable. Can I send a pm