Topic: FAO: mountainman
Anonymous A started this discussion 15 years ago #11,324
What are your thoughts on evolution?
Tekamine !AnRbswGQv. joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 8 minutes later[^] [v] #203,519
Dakota fanning born> dakota fanning pre teen> dakota fanning too old.
Anonymous C joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 10 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #203,520
lol
protip !!pMmAiEwOm joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 12 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #203,524
StatistSocialist3000 joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 10 seconds later, 12 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #203,525
I got banned and I think they banned tor exits mods are fags
StatistSocialist3000 double-posted this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 13 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #203,531
Darwins origin of species convinced me
!VoCaLoNunI joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 12 minutes later, 26 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #203,559
protip !!pMmAiEwOm replied with this 15 years ago, 25 minutes later, 52 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #203,572
sluggy joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 5 hours later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #203,971
@203,531 (StatistSocialist3000)
Seriously? How do you explain irreducibly complex mechanisms?
Heck, darwin himself said the eye could not have evolved
From your atheist bible itself
> "To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of Spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree.
Even your own "messiah" agrees there must have been a creator.
Seriously? How do you explain irreducibly complex mechanisms?
Heck, darwin himself said the eye could not have evolved
From your atheist bible itself
> "To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of Spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree.
Even your own "messiah" agrees there must have been a creator.
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 4 minutes later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #203,974
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 3 hours later, 9 hours after the original post[^] [v] #204,043
@203,971 (sluggy)
> Heck, darwin himself said the eye could not have evolved
Fools. Eyesight originally was some primitive thing that later became the pineal gland.
Oh and originally we saw ultraviolet light and vision was this when we were reptiles. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetrachromacy
Mammals changed to semi-colorblindedness http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dichromacy
Some primates including humans got some color vision http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trichromacy
The fact that literally only humans and some primates have this is proof we evolved from apes.
Pigeons and butterflies have http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentachromacy
And a fish has 16 different color perceptors http://arthropoda.southernfriedscience.com/?p=1776
> Heck, darwin himself said the eye could not have evolved
Fools. Eyesight originally was some primitive thing that later became the pineal gland.
Oh and originally we saw ultraviolet light and vision was this when we were reptiles. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetrachromacy
Mammals changed to semi-colorblindedness http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dichromacy
Some primates including humans got some color vision http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trichromacy
The fact that literally only humans and some primates have this is proof we evolved from apes.
Pigeons and butterflies have http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentachromacy
And a fish has 16 different color perceptors http://arthropoda.southernfriedscience.com/?p=1776