Shop Mobile More Submit  Join Login
About Traditional Art / Hobbyist Dylan87/Male/Canada Recent Activity
Deviant for 1 Year
Needs Core Membership
Statistics 45 Deviations 619 Comments 2,591 Pageviews
×

Newest Deviations

No Dromaeosaur In Particular by leptoceratops No Dromaeosaur In Particular :iconleptoceratops:leptoceratops 11 6 77th Montgomery's Highlanders (Britain 7yw ) by leptoceratops 77th Montgomery's Highlanders (Britain 7yw ) :iconleptoceratops:leptoceratops 4 0 Hort Frei Infanterie NCO (Prussia 7 years war) by leptoceratops Hort Frei Infanterie NCO (Prussia 7 years war) :iconleptoceratops:leptoceratops 4 0 1st Braganca Infantry (Portugal 7 years war) by leptoceratops 1st Braganca Infantry (Portugal 7 years war) :iconleptoceratops:leptoceratops 4 0 Sciurumimus by leptoceratops Sciurumimus :iconleptoceratops:leptoceratops 10 2 Pterodactyls Kochi by leptoceratops Pterodactyls Kochi :iconleptoceratops:leptoceratops 13 2 Majungasaurus  by leptoceratops Majungasaurus :iconleptoceratops:leptoceratops 25 13 Sordes pilosus by leptoceratops Sordes pilosus :iconleptoceratops:leptoceratops 15 6 Smilodon fatalis  by leptoceratops Smilodon fatalis :iconleptoceratops:leptoceratops 11 2 moreexperimentingwithdigitalart(nemicolopterus) by leptoceratops moreexperimentingwithdigitalart(nemicolopterus) :iconleptoceratops:leptoceratops 5 3 SENATVS POPVLVS QUE ROMANVS by leptoceratops SENATVS POPVLVS QUE ROMANVS :iconleptoceratops:leptoceratops 3 0 Insanity by leptoceratops Insanity :iconleptoceratops:leptoceratops 13 6 Napping Carno couple, featuring annoying shadow! by leptoceratops Napping Carno couple, featuring annoying shadow! :iconleptoceratops:leptoceratops 9 3 An ankylosaurid by leptoceratops An ankylosaurid :iconleptoceratops:leptoceratops 5 20 Dodo by leptoceratops Dodo :iconleptoceratops:leptoceratops 8 7 My favourite dinosaur by leptoceratops My favourite dinosaur :iconleptoceratops:leptoceratops 5 4

Favourites

Bear Family Tree by WDGHK Bear Family Tree :iconwdghk:WDGHK 14 3 Thrinaxodon liorhinus by Kana-hebi Thrinaxodon liorhinus :iconkana-hebi:Kana-hebi 75 3 Predatory Weta by Animalistic-Artworks Predatory Weta :iconanimalistic-artworks:Animalistic-Artworks 41 6 Parotosuchus by Animalistic-Artworks Parotosuchus :iconanimalistic-artworks:Animalistic-Artworks 47 4 Common Brown Butterfly (Heteronympha merope) by Animalistic-Artworks Common Brown Butterfly (Heteronympha merope) :iconanimalistic-artworks:Animalistic-Artworks 4 0 Lystrosaurus murrayi by Animalistic-Artworks Lystrosaurus murrayi :iconanimalistic-artworks:Animalistic-Artworks 66 8 Inostrancevia alexandri by Animalistic-Artworks Inostrancevia alexandri :iconanimalistic-artworks:Animalistic-Artworks 52 10 Crassigyrinus scoticus by Animalistic-Artworks Crassigyrinus scoticus :iconanimalistic-artworks:Animalistic-Artworks 94 26 Amazon Leaf Fish - Monocirrhus polycanthus by Animalistic-Artworks Amazon Leaf Fish - Monocirrhus polycanthus :iconanimalistic-artworks:Animalistic-Artworks 29 4 Barianasuchus by Animalistic-Artworks Barianasuchus :iconanimalistic-artworks:Animalistic-Artworks 58 3 Aethiocarenus burmanicus by Animalistic-Artworks Aethiocarenus burmanicus :iconanimalistic-artworks:Animalistic-Artworks 49 19 Thylacine - a tribute by Animalistic-Artworks Thylacine - a tribute :iconanimalistic-artworks:Animalistic-Artworks 78 5 Varanus priscus (Megalania) by Animalistic-Artworks Varanus priscus (Megalania) :iconanimalistic-artworks:Animalistic-Artworks 79 16 Yutyrannus by Animalistic-Artworks Yutyrannus :iconanimalistic-artworks:Animalistic-Artworks 88 9 Psittacosaurus by Animalistic-Artworks Psittacosaurus :iconanimalistic-artworks:Animalistic-Artworks 95 15 Portrait of a huntress by Osmatar Portrait of a huntress :iconosmatar:Osmatar 98 16

Groups

Activity


  • Listening to: the voices
  • Reading: fanny hill
  • Watching: my sanity slip out of multiple orphuses
  • Playing: five finger filet
  • Eating: your girl
  • Drinking: absinthe
the offending text (humansarefree.com/2013/12/9-sc…)

Evolution is Scientifically Impossible


here we go again.

Evolution is a theory developed one hundred and forty years ago by Charles Darwin (N/A actually, by his grandfather in 1794 - before Charles was even born), before science had the evidence available to prove the theory false.

Erasmus Darwin (aforementioned grandfather of Chuck D.) did not create the theory of evolution, he did however believe in a sort of evolution (not uncommon at the time among the learned folk) and we know this because of a poem of his that is the second part of a set of two in a book he got published in 1791 called The Botanic Garden. It seems that he believed in decent with modification and common decent (at least to a degree). It should also be noted that Charles never met his grandfather, he died about 7 years before he was born.

(Side note: Even if he got his hypothesis from a fever dream, it would have no effect on its validity, so long as its validity could be proven, as is the case).

Charles Darwin likely knew about his grandfathers ideas at an early age and certainly saw that they were self evident in the many Plants he grew up around, It seem the love of all things botanical was an inherited trait seeing as his grandfather formed The 
Lichfield Botanical Society, both his parents were avid gardeners, and he likes to go on about flowers for large sections of On the Origin of Species (which I have actually read unlike someone).

His famous book, On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, has a title that is now known to be scientifically false. New species cannot evolve by natural selection. Modern scientific discoveries are proving evolution to be impossible. No new scientific discoveries have been found to support the Theory of Evolution.

Unfortunately it would take to much time to site almost every paper from every field even slightly pertaining to biology so I'll try to give you an example with words at your reading level:
Image result for natural selection
Life did not start with a bolt of lightning striking a pond of water as claimed by the main stream scientists.

If this were the end of the 19th century you might have a leg to stand on. In It would take to long to to explain the current model for abiogenisis but I will link a rather enlightening study on the subject as well as leave you its abstract:

"A minimal cell can be thought of as comprising informational, compartment-forming and metabolic subsystems. To imagine the abiotic assembly of such an overall system, however, places great demands on hypothetical prebiotic chemistry. The perceived differences and incompatibilities between these subsystems have led to the widely held assumption that one or other subsystem must have preceded the others. Here we experimentally investigate the validity of this assumption by examining the assembly of various biomolecular building blocks from prebiotically plausible intermediates and one-carbon feedstock molecules. We show that precursors of ribonucleotides, amino acids and lipids can all be derived by the reductive homologation of ​hydrogen cyanide and some of its derivatives, and thus that all the cellular subsystems could have arisen simultaneously through common chemistry. The key reaction steps are driven by ultraviolet light, use ​hydrogen sulfide as the reductant and can be accelerated by Cu(I)–Cu(II) photoredox cycling."

www.researchgate.net/publicati…

Kids are taught that life can evolve given enough time. This is a false statement without any scientific support.

no scientific support at all, well except for... well... literally all research pertaining to biology in any way shape or form, publish within the last century and a half.

They are taught that if given enough time, a monkey at a typewriter could punch keys at random and eventually type President's Abraham Lincoln Gettysburg Address. This is nonsense.

The example is usually Hamlet and chimps if memory serves but same shit really, also its not nonsense, mostly, in reality chimps given a typewriter usually get destructive after a while and when they do type they have a tendency for repetitiveness in regard to letter choice, but the premise of randomly typing letters will eventually create something you recognize is a mathematical inevitability, and If you ad selective pressures it quickens the process, for the sake of simplicity lets say you have many five letter sequences and that are capable of creating offspring, and that the offspring are susceptible to mutation, and that  there is selective pressure to create patterns most resembling my first name (folowing one liniage to save time):

                                                                         GHBCN
                                                                              ↓
                                                   [GHBZW] [GHBQN] [DHBAE] [HHBCN]
                                                         X            ↓             ↓            ↓
                                                                      ...            ↓           ... 
                                                           [DKWAE] [NHBVE] [DHBQZ] [DYBAQ]
                                                                 ↓            X            ↓            ↓
                                                                ...                        ...            ↓
                                                                               [DABQW] [DYBZX] [DYXAM] [DYQAN]
                                                                                    X             ↓            ↓             ↓
                                                                                                  ...           ...            ↓
                                                                                                     [DYQEX] [GYQAN] [DYXAN] [DYLAN]
                                                                                                          X            ↓            ↓            ↓
                                                                                                                       ...          ...            ↓
                                                                                                                          (this is simplified for the sake                                                                                                                           of time if it wasn't obvious)

Time does not make impossible things possible. As an example, a computer was programmed in an attempt to arrive at the simple 26-letter alphabet. After 35,000,000,000,000 (35 trillion) attempts it has only arrived at 14 letters correctly.

sight your sources. also seeing as their is a 1:26 chance of getting the correct answer, that is 3.7037% and your chances of being struck by lightning are about 1:3,000 that is 0.0333%. I guess being struck by lightning must be impossible. also you don't take into account selective pressure.

What are the odds that a simple single cell organism could evolve given the complexity of more than 60,000 proteins of 100 different configurations all in the correct places? Never in eternity! Time does not make impossible things possible. (...)

what are the chances that I would wake up this morning alive, and that I had eggs and bacon this morning, and that I watched YouTube afterward, and that I skipped lunch, and that I went swimming, and that I swore at some annoying teen ruffians, and that I got some sumol and a cookie at the bakery, and that I wrote this review.

well it is so improbable it must not have happened... if you can't see the logical fallacy than their is no hope for you.
  • Listening to: the voices
  • Reading: fanny hill
  • Watching: my sanity slip out of multiple orphuses
  • Playing: five finger filet
  • Eating: your girl
  • Drinking: absinthe
the offending text (humansarefree.com/2013/12/9-sc…)

This article will prove that the Theory of Evolution fails many challenges, not simply one.

Horse feathers, you wouldn't know a challenge if it [Expunged] on your face.

The Theory of Evolution will never become a law of science because it is wrought with errors. This is why it is still called a theory, instead of a law. The process of natural selection is not an evolutionary process. 

    I don't believe you have any idea what you are talking about, A Physical law is a theoretical statement inferred from observations and must be: True (obviously), Universal, Simple (as possible), Absolute, Stable, and Omnipotent. A theory (of the scientific sort) has a much simpler definition, (yet some how you people grasp the one but not the other) A scientific theory is an explanation of an aspect of reality that has survived all tests and educated scrutiny, these things are not necessarily mutually exclusive either, hence 
Newton's law of universal gravitation is the basis for gravitational Theory.

(side note: Newtons law of universal gravitation has been superseded by the Theory of General Relativity, though the former is still a capable metric for most practical purposes.)

    Evolution is "Just a theory" In that it is proven to be correct by every field of science relating to it and has a century and a half of researchers much more intelligent then yourself trying to find problems with the theory, and though there have been no real major changes since its conception, when a problem occurs the theory is corrected to fit reality. Though their is much we don't know at this point it is impossible for the Theory of evolution to be anything but correct, in order for it to be false basically every branch of biological, paleontological, and geological science (though there is much overlap between these fields) would have to be completely different then they are.

The DNA in plants and animals allows selective breeding to achieve desired results. Dogs are a good example of selective breeding. The DNA in all dogs has many recessive traits.

This is a correct statement, it only took you 309 characters. I predict it may be one of very few.

A desired trait can be produced in dogs by selecting dogs with a particular trait to produce offspring with that trait. This specialized selective breeding can continue for generation after generation until a breed of dog is developed. This is the same as the "survival of the fittest" theory of the evolutionists.

yes you can breed for a desired trait as you said before, however "survival of the fittest" is a charming phrase, not a theory it is in reference to natural selection an observable fact and one of the key principles the theory of evolution is based upon. Though it is not a very good summary of natural selection, a better statement would be; Survival of the just good enough for just long enough in relation to circumstance, but that's not as catchy.

also their is no such thing as an "Evolutionist", just as there are no Gravitationalists or Helocentrists.



"... When it was first said that the sun stood still and the world turned round, the common sense of mankind declared the doctrine false; but the old saying of Vox populi, vox Dei, as every philosopher knows, cannot be trusted in science. Reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a simple and imperfect eye to one complex and perfect can be shown to exist, each grade being useful to its possessor, as is certainly the case; if further, the eye ever varies and the variations be inherited, as is likewise certainly the case; and if such variations should be useful to any animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, should not be considered as subversive of the theory. How a nerve comes to be sensitive to light, hardly concerns us more than how life itself originated; but I may remark that, as some of the lowest organisms, in which nerves cannot be detected, are capable of perceiving light, it does not seem impossible that certain sensitive elements in their sarcode should become aggregated and developed into nerves, endowed with this special sensibility."

finish your quote your own damn self.

Many different types of dogs can be developed this way, but they can never develop a cat by selectively breeding dogs. Natural selection can never extend outside of the DNA limit. DNA cannot be changed into a new species by natural selection. The same process of selective breeding is done with flowers, fruits, and vegetables.

if you did bread a litter of kittens from a pair of dogs The theory of evolution would be completely shattered. also there is no such thing as "the DNA limit" you pulled that out of your ass.

Let me explain to you evolution, when you have a population of, for the sake of argument parrots.

And these parrots are somehow separated by some natural barrier, lets say you both lived in the same forest until one day your local area became much more arid over time until it over many centuries became desert scrub-land and your population of parrots has changed along with the environment slowly becoming more comfortable on the ground and in short shrubbery, they have also slowly changed there diet so they may take advantage of the most available food. after many hundreds of generations both populations are distinct from their ancestral form, they are not only morphologicaly distinct but also unable to breed successfully with each other, thus two species are born.

File:Westerngroundparrotsing.jpg

New variations of the species are possible, but a new species has never been developed by science. 

Try googling  speciation

In fact, the most modern laboratories are unable to produce a left-hand protein as found in humans and animals.

if by "left hand proteins" you are referring to Chirality, you would be wrong we can synthesize "left" chemicals like for example the amino acid Alanine (if you can make sense of chemistry good on you).


Though when they say left and right they mean that they are mirror images of each other not that they actually make write and left handed parts of things, only an idiot who never did so much as a google search would think that... Oh yeah!

Evolutionist fail to admit that no species has ever been proven to have evolved in any way. Evolution is simply pie-in-the-sky conjecture without scientific proof.

that is ironic coming from a creationist.


If natural selection were true, Eskimos would have fur to keep warm, but they don't. They are just as hairless as everyone else. If natural selection were true, humans in the tropics would have silver, reflective skin to help them keep cool, but they don't. They have black skin, just the opposite of what the theory of natural selection would predict.

First of all Inuits (as they generally prefer to be called) do not need to evolve a thick fur coat because they wear thick fur coats so there is no selective pressure for fur. as far as silver reflective skin there are limits to our natural pigmentation, as well as their being easier solutions then having a dermis made of tin foil. Also it does make sense that people in hot climates have dark skin because melanin acts like an natural shield against UV radiation, whereas in northern climates light skin allows you to absorb more sun light in an environment where there is less so that you don't become vitamin D deficient. Exactly what natural selection would predict you sniveling little [Expunged]

If natural selection were true humans at northern latitudes would have black skin, but they have white skin instead, except the Eskimos who have skin that is halfway between white and black. The people from Russia and the Nordic countries have white skin, blood hair and blue eyes. This is the opposite of what one would predict if natural selection controlled skin color.

See above.

Many evolutionists argue that melanin is a natural sunscreen that evolved in a greater amount to protect dark-skinned people who live near the Equator. They simply ignore the fact that dark-skinned Eskimos live north of the Arctic Circle.

So you acknowledge that your original point is known to be false, Interesting. The reason Inuits have moderately darker skin is because they get their vitamin D from their diet (rich in fish and the fat of marine mammals (high in vitamin D).

Melanin in the skin is not a sound argument in favor of evolution. Dark-skinned people have always lived near the Equator, not white-skinned people, even though the dark skin is more uncomfortable in the hot, sunny climate.

See above... again.

Black skin absorbs the heat from the sun's rays more than white skin. Humans show no sign of natural selection based on the environment. The theory of natural selection is wrong because it cannot create something in the DNA that wasn't there in the beginning.

Yes it can, the most common way this is done is when a gene is in a new lifeforms DNA is duplication, these new genes often mutate until they become completely different from the original and sometimes preform different functions.

Animals like bears, tigers, lions, and zebras living near the equator have heavy fur while humans living north of the Artic Circle have bare skin. A leopard from the jungle near the equator has fur like the snow leopard of the Himalayas.

Lions and Tigers and Bears oh my! But anyway fur has uses other than warmth such as keeping the sun of the skin which in hot climates is more important how much heat the fur itself generates it also gets cold at night in most places like these, fur also acts a shield from parasites (to an extent), also most animals closer to the equator have shorter fur than animals closer to the poles. also snow leopards have much thicker fur than african leopards.

The snow leopard grows thicker hair but the jungle leopard would also if moved to a cold climate. Horses and dogs grow a heavy winter coat in colder climates. Natural selection isn't working as falsely claimed by Charles Darwin.

ARE YOU INSANE! NOT ONLY DID YOU CONTRADICT YOUR PREVIOUS POINT BUT YOUR SECOND SENTENCE IS THE LITERAL DEFINITION OF NATURAL SELECTION!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The cheetah in Africa is an example of an animal in the cat family with very limited variety in the DNA. Each cheetah looks like an identical twin. The cheetah DNA is so identical that the skin from one cheetah can be grafted into another cheetah without any rejection by the body.

this is true of captive cheetahs witch very low genetic diversity due to inbreeding, and thus have a higher chance of disease, but wild cheetahs have higher genetic diversity than captive cheetahs and don't have particularly high levels of genetic disease but they do have abnormally low levels of genetic diversity probably do to genetic
bottle-necking at the end of the last ice-age (though it technically didn't end but...) and even so they are not Like "Identical twins" there is still diversity.
Image result for cheetah
Not twins.



Thus ends part one.
if anyone would like to suggest some targets for a debunking bit that would be nice (unless this is getting boring, a suggestion to stop is still a suggestion).
  • Listening to: the voices
  • Reading: fanny hill
  • Watching: my sanity slip out of multiple orphuses
  • Playing: five finger filet
  • Eating: your girl
  • Drinking: absinthe
As per the norm a link to keep my honest: answersingenesis.org/kids/foss…




by Avery Foley 
on January 13, 2015

Our dear Avery holds a masters degree in theology from the Liberty Baptist Theological Seminary (or liberty university) which is basically a ministerial school, as you can see no degree in science, she is also from my neck of the woods.

“So God created...every winged bird according to its kind...So the evening and the morning were the fifth day.” (GENESIS 1:2123)

“And God made the beast of the earth according to its kind, cattle according to its kind, and everything that creeps on the earth according to its kind...So the evening and the morning were the sixth day.” (GENESIS 1:2531)

I am very sorry but your bronze age fables asserted without evidence will be dismissed without evidence you vapid son of a [expunged]

Many evolutionists believe that dinosaurs didn’t really go extinct but that they are feeding outside on your bird feeders! This idea that dinosaurs evolved into birds is a very popular one. But what does the Bible say about this? Our Bible verses tell us that birds were created on Day Five of the Creation Week and land animals were made on Day Six. Since dinosaurs are land animals (sometimes people call marine reptiles or flying reptiles dinosaurs, but they aren’t actually dinosaurs), all of the dinosaurs were made after birds! Dinosaurs and birds are not related!

See above. but interesting that you except classification of species beyond "everything that creeps" but in the linnaean sense I'm sure.

Science, when properly understood, always confirms the Bible, and this is exactly what we see with birds and dinosaurs. Birds and dinosaurs are very different.

  1. Birds are warm-blooded (like mammals) but, like other reptiles, dinosaurs were probably cold-blooded.
  2. Birds are supposed to have evolved from theropod dinosaurs (T. rex was one of the theropods), but theropods had a completely different hip than birds.
  3. The lungs of birds are radically different from those of mammals and reptiles and presumably dinosaurs.
  4. Dinosaurs have scale-like structures on their skin called scutes, but birds have feathers which are very complex and grow out of the skin. Some people claim to have found dinosaurs with feathers, but the evidence for this is very weak. Even if we were to find feathers on dinosaurs it would only show that God used a similar design for more than one animal. We know for sure that we will never find a scale or scute turning into a feather!

your initial statement is so false it insults me.

1. False, everything we know about dinosaurs non avian suggests they were Mesotherms

2.False, hip bone morphology has changed many times in many dinosaurs the curvature of the ischium is not an extraordinary feature, it is also interesting because you point that superficiality out and yet ignore every other vestige of avian morphology, because it clearly and obviously shows that birds are not only the descendants of dinosaurs but that they are with out any reasonable doubt dinosaurs themselves. (side note: you do see in the skeletons of dinosaurs closer related to bird have ischium that curve backwards a little (generally) and in Paraves it is painfully obvious)

3.the lungs of birds are not very different from other extant Archosaurs (crocs and that) the only major difference between the lungs of birds and the standard set of lung you have is that they have a series of large air sacs, and though operationally revolutionary, they are not exactly irreducibly complex, their also happens to be evidence that dinosaurs had lungs with air sacs just as birds do, but even if their were not your argument would still be so fallacious that it sickens me that this article is aimed at young children.

4. birds have scutes all you have to do is look at a chicken foot to know that, furthermore we have many instances of less complex feathers on extant bird never mind the vast wealth of paleontological finds we are so fortunate to have, and as far as the authenticity of these finds. it is Impossible to create fake fossils that will pass educated scrutiny and I touched on this in relation to bones in a previous journal, to quote myself "If you honestly believe that fossils being bone carving is a possibility you must have no knowledge of skeletal anatomy and composition, or fossilization, though I should expect as much considering Mr. Wozney is an accountant and has no background in science, and you teach yoga and Wing Chung and have no background in science (are we seeing a trend here). The reason fossils of bones can't be carvings is because bones are not like a slab of marble, (relatively) consistent and uniform, Bones have a thin hard layer on the outside maid of Cortical bone and a spongy inner layer called Cancellous bone. Only Cortical bone is practical for carving and because of this most bone carvings are either small, made of multiple bones, or made of large bones. There is also the slight problem that all non-avian dinosaur fossils are just that, fossils meaning the organic matter has be replaced by minerals over time forming and exact copy of the real animal and therefore not bone."

Dinosaurs, reptiles that are very different from birds, did not change into birds. God specially created birds on Day Five and dinosaurs on Day Six!

people like you sicken me, no child should ever have to mentally stunted by your worthless drivel.
  • Listening to: the voices
  • Reading: fanny hill
  • Watching: my sanity slip out of multiple orphuses
  • Playing: five finger filet
  • Eating: your girl
  • Drinking: absinthe
My internet is finally back, glad to to know you mother fuckers are still doing this shit :)

Tagged by: :icondinosaurzzz: 

Rules:

- You have to type 20 facts about yourself.
- You have to copy this roolz.
- You have to drag a minimun of 8 people into this.

Facts:

1. I am Canadian

2. My ancestors Hail from Portugal (though I'm an eighth Irish)

3. I like boxer-briefs

4. I'm a straight white( well olive but...) male with brown eyes and brown hair (but I carry recessive red)

5. I have a pet Argentine horned frog named Darwin

6. I am an Atheist

7. 64 is my favorite number

8. I have asthma

9. My knees are crooked, so I can do this i.ytimg.com/vi/3BwDuogNkIo/hqd… but It makes riding a bike hard because my femur starts to buckle and try to detach from my pelvis so I have to hold my leg out every once and a while so it will move into a comfortable position

10. I like to read historical fight manuals (hence my Icon( Hans Talhoffer))

11. My favorite dinosaur is the Appalachian Leptoceratops

12. I have a fair knowledge of history, weapons, and the antique sword market.

13. my mother broke her ankle when she was eleven, my younger brother broke his had when he was eleven, and I fractured my wrist when I was eleven.

14. I have a soft spot for pigeons...

15. my house was built in 1910

16. I build penannular brooches in my spare time

17. I can make a western omelet better than you

18. I really like Halo 2...

19. my shoe size is 11.5

20. I like dinosaurs and that.

I condemn :iconacpre: , :iconacrosaurotaurus: , :iconbioniclesaurus: , :icondontknowwhattodraw94: , :iconbioniclesaurus: , :icondinoswarsrawesome: , :iconcovelloraptor: , :iconepiceiniosaurus: .
  • Listening to: the voices
  • Reading: fanny hill
  • Watching: my sanity slip out of multiple orphuses
  • Playing: five finger filet
  • Eating: your girl
  • Drinking: absinthe
the offending text (humansarefree.com/2013/12/9-sc…)

Evolution is Scientifically Impossible


here we go again.

Evolution is a theory developed one hundred and forty years ago by Charles Darwin (N/A actually, by his grandfather in 1794 - before Charles was even born), before science had the evidence available to prove the theory false.

Erasmus Darwin (aforementioned grandfather of Chuck D.) did not create the theory of evolution, he did however believe in a sort of evolution (not uncommon at the time among the learned folk) and we know this because of a poem of his that is the second part of a set of two in a book he got published in 1791 called The Botanic Garden. It seems that he believed in decent with modification and common decent (at least to a degree). It should also be noted that Charles never met his grandfather, he died about 7 years before he was born.

(Side note: Even if he got his hypothesis from a fever dream, it would have no effect on its validity, so long as its validity could be proven, as is the case).

Charles Darwin likely knew about his grandfathers ideas at an early age and certainly saw that they were self evident in the many Plants he grew up around, It seem the love of all things botanical was an inherited trait seeing as his grandfather formed The 
Lichfield Botanical Society, both his parents were avid gardeners, and he likes to go on about flowers for large sections of On the Origin of Species (which I have actually read unlike someone).

His famous book, On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, has a title that is now known to be scientifically false. New species cannot evolve by natural selection. Modern scientific discoveries are proving evolution to be impossible. No new scientific discoveries have been found to support the Theory of Evolution.

Unfortunately it would take to much time to site almost every paper from every field even slightly pertaining to biology so I'll try to give you an example with words at your reading level:
Image result for natural selection
Life did not start with a bolt of lightning striking a pond of water as claimed by the main stream scientists.

If this were the end of the 19th century you might have a leg to stand on. In It would take to long to to explain the current model for abiogenisis but I will link a rather enlightening study on the subject as well as leave you its abstract:

"A minimal cell can be thought of as comprising informational, compartment-forming and metabolic subsystems. To imagine the abiotic assembly of such an overall system, however, places great demands on hypothetical prebiotic chemistry. The perceived differences and incompatibilities between these subsystems have led to the widely held assumption that one or other subsystem must have preceded the others. Here we experimentally investigate the validity of this assumption by examining the assembly of various biomolecular building blocks from prebiotically plausible intermediates and one-carbon feedstock molecules. We show that precursors of ribonucleotides, amino acids and lipids can all be derived by the reductive homologation of ​hydrogen cyanide and some of its derivatives, and thus that all the cellular subsystems could have arisen simultaneously through common chemistry. The key reaction steps are driven by ultraviolet light, use ​hydrogen sulfide as the reductant and can be accelerated by Cu(I)–Cu(II) photoredox cycling."

www.researchgate.net/publicati…

Kids are taught that life can evolve given enough time. This is a false statement without any scientific support.

no scientific support at all, well except for... well... literally all research pertaining to biology in any way shape or form, publish within the last century and a half.

They are taught that if given enough time, a monkey at a typewriter could punch keys at random and eventually type President's Abraham Lincoln Gettysburg Address. This is nonsense.

The example is usually Hamlet and chimps if memory serves but same shit really, also its not nonsense, mostly, in reality chimps given a typewriter usually get destructive after a while and when they do type they have a tendency for repetitiveness in regard to letter choice, but the premise of randomly typing letters will eventually create something you recognize is a mathematical inevitability, and If you ad selective pressures it quickens the process, for the sake of simplicity lets say you have many five letter sequences and that are capable of creating offspring, and that the offspring are susceptible to mutation, and that  there is selective pressure to create patterns most resembling my first name (folowing one liniage to save time):

                                                                         GHBCN
                                                                              ↓
                                                   [GHBZW] [GHBQN] [DHBAE] [HHBCN]
                                                         X            ↓             ↓            ↓
                                                                      ...            ↓           ... 
                                                           [DKWAE] [NHBVE] [DHBQZ] [DYBAQ]
                                                                 ↓            X            ↓            ↓
                                                                ...                        ...            ↓
                                                                               [DABQW] [DYBZX] [DYXAM] [DYQAN]
                                                                                    X             ↓            ↓             ↓
                                                                                                  ...           ...            ↓
                                                                                                     [DYQEX] [GYQAN] [DYXAN] [DYLAN]
                                                                                                          X            ↓            ↓            ↓
                                                                                                                       ...          ...            ↓
                                                                                                                          (this is simplified for the sake                                                                                                                           of time if it wasn't obvious)

Time does not make impossible things possible. As an example, a computer was programmed in an attempt to arrive at the simple 26-letter alphabet. After 35,000,000,000,000 (35 trillion) attempts it has only arrived at 14 letters correctly.

sight your sources. also seeing as their is a 1:26 chance of getting the correct answer, that is 3.7037% and your chances of being struck by lightning are about 1:3,000 that is 0.0333%. I guess being struck by lightning must be impossible. also you don't take into account selective pressure.

What are the odds that a simple single cell organism could evolve given the complexity of more than 60,000 proteins of 100 different configurations all in the correct places? Never in eternity! Time does not make impossible things possible. (...)

what are the chances that I would wake up this morning alive, and that I had eggs and bacon this morning, and that I watched YouTube afterward, and that I skipped lunch, and that I went swimming, and that I swore at some annoying teen ruffians, and that I got some sumol and a cookie at the bakery, and that I wrote this review.

well it is so improbable it must not have happened... if you can't see the logical fallacy than their is no hope for you.

deviantID

leptoceratops's Profile Picture
leptoceratops
Dylan
Artist | Hobbyist | Traditional Art
Canada
i do sketches sometimes...
Interests

Friends

Comments


Add a Comment:
 
:iconamecco:
AMEcco Featured By Owner 4 days ago  New Deviant Hobbyist General Artist
Thanks for the watch and fav Meow :3 
Reply
:iconleptoceratops:
leptoceratops Featured By Owner 4 days ago  Hobbyist Traditional Artist
yourwellcome
Reply
:icontheindominableone:
TheIndominableOne Featured By Owner Aug 3, 2017
Thanks for the fav.
Reply
:iconleptoceratops:
leptoceratops Featured By Owner Aug 4, 2017  Hobbyist Traditional Artist
your welcome :)
Reply
:iconinkgink:
InkGink Featured By Owner Jul 6, 2017  Hobbyist General Artist
Thanks for the point :D 
Reply
:iconleptoceratops:
leptoceratops Featured By Owner Jul 6, 2017  Hobbyist Traditional Artist
I tried :)
Reply
:iconinkgink:
InkGink Featured By Owner Jul 7, 2017  Hobbyist General Artist
:)
Reply
:iconbraindroppings1:
Braindroppings1 Featured By Owner Jun 27, 2017  Hobbyist Traditional Artist
Thanks for the watch and faves!! :D
Reply
:iconleptoceratops:
leptoceratops Featured By Owner Jun 27, 2017  Hobbyist Traditional Artist
Same to you! :D
Reply
:icongoatrex:
goatrex Featured By Owner Jun 26, 2017
Thanks for the watch!
Reply
Add a Comment: