This is my favorite fucking one so far.

I forgot to add this but we're monkeys are not the same as we're primates is not the same monkeys have tails yes

All you will just say now is what I was thinking about.

Dogs are wolves that have been domesticated over time. One is a predator and one lives in a household. Over time, the wolves that were forced into the household began to physically change because they had to adapt.

Yes, evolution happens over time. Over millions of years, animal species, populations of a species evolves over time into new species that can evolve.

Dogs and wolves are not two completely different animals. They're actually the same animal. It's just one had been domesticated and had physical changes over time and the other one still lives in the wilderness.

These are kind of answering each other's questions here, like you get two different species of dogs and you breed them, you get a new species. So, yeah.

If evolution occur Billy's ability years ago while archaeologists find an archaeological evidence of the other doll fossils they do back 100 to 400,000 years ago

I'll tell you why because the Editors and Homo Sapiens are both humans and they've always been human. They never were monkeys.

They say oh they look like monkeys OK do me a favor never shave never cut your hair never cut your nails never take a bath and you'll look like a Neanderthal real quick

My point is the way they looked then, we look now. The only difference is our grooming standards and our hygiene is way higher. That's the only difference.

Goddamn why we ain't monkeys we are primates we share the same ancestors as chimps and bonobos yada yada yada why what are you not getting about this

100% we evolved on this planet. If you look back in history we've been wiped out from this planet and we'll keep evolving back here. We are this planet's immune system. The sun's the male, the planet's the female.

Well, you literally just said faith means you have no evidence, so if you have no evidence, it's not like a counterpoint to evolution. It just means you want to deny evolution because you want to pretend like there's a god. It's just...

girl what the fuck are you in the shower and you're using this app like just just finish showering like addicted to our phone and shit

I wasn't showering, I was on the treadmill.

So basically have faith in something that you can't prove exists or not. So like you couldn't be able to determine its difference from a flying spaghetti monster for instance.

I mean, using your logic, doesn't that mean that Christianity, Islam, Judaism, and most religions are also lies? Technically, because I mean, you can't see, touch or go back and experience those things either. We can just read a book.

It's just believing in nothing might as well be a flying spaghetti monster. Yeah, they're all lies. It's all bullshit

Ironically or unironically, the only thing that you can prove is science. It's reproducible. Anybody who gets knowledge on the methodologies can reproduce the exact same results. That's kind of the fucking point.

Actually, evolution is also by faith. Because we've never been able to witness evolution. Only mutations, which is what you guys are talking about when you're talking about different animals and different...

I have a question. Are we pro-religion or anti-religion in this discussion? Because I'm a bit lost here.

That's because macroevolution is beyond our lifespan as humans to see. We can definitely keep track of it as it happens, but microevolution is definitely easier to see for humans.

So you're comparing a set of beliefs and traditions that people believe in versus biology and genetic makeup. That is a false equivalency fallacy. Those two things should not be compared. They change completely different.

I agree that myths and making up stuff out of thin air because you're dishonest and you like special pleading and making fallacies is not in the same realm as evidence. It's the rest of it that we know.

I'll let it slide because you're just ignorant. Just do research and you'll see that false equivalency fallacy is an actual fallacy that you're using. It is the unfair comparison between two things and saying it's the same thing when it's completely not.

What you said sounds good and pleasing to people who just doesn't do the proper research or just don't take time to do it. And so it sounds great but it makes no sense if you look into it.

Yes, I agree that made up religions have nothing to do with where humans came from.

I don't quite understand what you mean by made up religion. They do exist. The religions aren't real. So maybe you're saying that God is made up, but the religion is actually a real thing.

Yes, the religion is a made-up thing. Like, people made it up. Like, it's not real. God is not real. Genesis is not real. Creation myths are not real. Evolution is real.

So if religion is made up, who isn't made up by? Because all throughout history we have different people from all over the world claiming some kind of divinity. Who made it up?

What's crazy is most historians credit Dawin for establishing the theory evolution when it existed before Darwin we are poo from Leonardo da Vinci who did it work and he depicted evolution so that the belief of evolution existed before

Which god are you referring to? Are you referring to, I don't know, like your mother? You know, that like birthed you into existence or some imaginary like flying spaghetti monster?

Bro, I don't know what are you going through or maybe it was a bad experience from the past or with trauma but Jesus love you, okay? Just Jesus love you.

You need to look into the Bible more. The Bible is just a puzzle. Figure it out.

Yeah, puzzle for stupid people.

I don't know what trauma you have or lack of critical thinking skills not to be able to realize how fallacious that document is.

Okay, maybe you've never read the Bible and what I'm talking here it's only contact that you have the Bible and so...

okay I'm pray for you guys

I actually am familiar with the Bible. I was raised Christian. I've read that book more times than I care to count

Second of all, you're committing multiple logical fallacies, but I think the most grotesque one is that you're saying that your point of reference is the only point of reference, and unless I have that point of reference, I can't understand what you're saying, which is so fallacious.

Second of all, the Bible isn't reproducible. Like, it literally is a Game of Thrones of a different era. And I don't understand why you can't comprehend that. Like, we know how we've got here.