Evolution: simplified

[Orion]

Evolution isn't really something an intelligent person should support... Too many flaws, like the circumstances and length of time behind how long it took that first cell to be formed from protein molecules... The fact is that it doesn't work, you can argue for it in some respects, but it requires ignoring too many other facts to make sense

That's a/biogenesis, not evolution.

[Ultima Keyblade]

Evolution isn't really something an intelligent person should support... Too many flaws, like the circumstances and length of time behind how long it took that first cell to be formed from protein molecules... The fact is that it doesn't work, you can argue for it in some respects, but it requires ignoring too many other facts to make sense

Are we mixing up the beginning of life with evolution? Not two studies you should mix in an intelligent debate.

[HadesDragon]

Evolution isn't really something an intelligent person should support... Too many flaws, like the circumstances and length of time behind how long it took that first cell to be formed from protein molecules... The fact is that it doesn't work, you can argue for it in some respects, but it requires ignoring too many other facts to make sense

Abiogenesis and evolution are different things. Evolution isn't concerned with how life began, just how it changes. Even if it was, it's a fact that life exists now, but didn't exist previously, so your statement means absolutely nothing.

[ZoroxX]

Evolution isn't really something an intelligent person should support... Too many flaws, like the circumstances and length of time behind how long it took that first cell to be formed from protein molecules... The fact is that it doesn't work, you can argue for it in some respects, but it requires ignoring too many other facts to make sense

As said, it's an entirely different discussion than evolution. But, please, consider the following experiment.

O carl sagan bby

[▽]

Luckily, science is not a democracy, it is about falsifiability and rigor. So, all this talk about compromise and whatnot is rather futile. In science class, teach science (and that includes the aforementioned abiogenesis). In religious classes teach religion, but do so with every religion, no emphasis on a specific religion, they are all of equal footing.

Abiogenesis is, contrary to the book of genesis, the only viable hypothesis we have as of yet (along with some others, none originating from religion though). To call the acceptance of abiogenesis "unintelligent and illogical" is merely a use of the scotsman fallacy coupled with a complete lack of knowledge of probability and statistics. Though a lack of the most basic gist of scientific fields such as organic chemistry and physics certainly contributes to the misunderstanding.

[Cosmic+Amarna]

Lol hard

[mangartist]

Lol hard

What was... O_o how did , Is she? I don't... qmsfmjaioefjjjjjjmmmmmmmmmmmmmgRAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH

Where does she live? I need to sue for the sudden IQ-drop I experienced.

That woman is one of the best reasons I've seen for restricting childbirth.

[ZoroxX]

That video actually gave me a great chuckle. Good stuff.

EDIT: that video is diddlying embarrassing. "EX-atheist" shirt? Bullshit.