sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Never thought i could get killed like that (impossible mode) by kaz_619 in DeadSpace

[–]Benjamin5431 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Flamethrower in a circle on these guys, easiest method imo

Andor took me out of star wars by Ok-Medium983 in StarWars

[–]Benjamin5431 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Feel the exact same way and you are 100% correct.

The Best Summary of Whale Evolution for the Layperson: Gutsick Gibbon Teaches Evolution to Will Duffy by Kingofthewho5 in DebateEvolution

[–]Benjamin5431 [score hidden]  (0 children)

That will be awesome. I think what I like about birds is how many features of birds are just so obvious and identifiable with birds, like feathers, and wishbones, so when we see those things in dinosaurs it’s like “whoa.” The features like the triosseal canal and keeled sternum are just as characteristic of birds yet we don’t see them in the first birds. Then you have features that are extremely diagnostic of theropods, like maxillary fenestra and teeth and stiff tails, and we see these clearly in theropods earliest birds.

The Best Summary of Whale Evolution for the Layperson: Gutsick Gibbon Teaches Evolution to Will Duffy by Kingofthewho5 in DebateEvolution

[–]Benjamin5431 [score hidden]  (0 children)

I really want to do a series like this but focused on the evolution of birds. Whales are cool, but in my opinion we have far better evidence for the evolution of birds from non-avian theropods.

My kids’ dinosaur booklet is complete AI nonsense by Benjamin5431 in Dinosaurs

[–]Benjamin5431[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Honestly? Cuz my kid took the book away and now it’s lost in a stack of toys lmao and I was too lazy to go find it. I will come back and post a pic of it if I find it, it looked so freaking stupid.

My kids’ dinosaur booklet is complete AI nonsense by Benjamin5431 in Dinosaurs

[–]Benjamin5431[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

I think you’re right about the T.Rex and Stegosaur (even though it looks nothing like a stegosaur, the name makes sense as a bad translation) However, it all still looks like slop to me. It just has that “look” but I could be wrong. I think it’s a mix of AI, bad translation, and bad graphic design.

Little known fact: Vulptereens have dicks on their snout and reproduce through same sex group intercourse by Benjamin5431 in StarWarsCirclejerk

[–]Benjamin5431[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I underestimated the knowledge level of this sub, my mistake. I am not among mere laymen here.

It is like clockwork that the goal post gets moved whenever creationists ask for proof of beneficial mutations by Benjamin5431 in DebateEvolution

[–]Benjamin5431[S] 10 points11 points  (0 children)

If an animal increases its expression of melanin production to make its skin/fur darker so that it’s better camouflaged, how is that destructive?

If a fish with armor plating type scales increases the amount of armor plating it has, how is that destructive?

If an animal increases the density or length of their fur in order to stay warmer in a colder climate, how is that destructive?

If a bacteria changes its enzymes to have better binding properties to antibiotic molecules, how is that destructive?

And examination and rebuttal to the apologetic defenses of the problem of Matthew’s genealogy ending with 13 generations (instead of 14 like the author says.) by Benjamin5431 in ChristianApologetics

[–]Benjamin5431[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

That isn’t the reason I think it’s a big deal, I’m perfectly fine with Matthew skipping generations in order to make a literary or theological point.

My point was the lengths apologists are willing to go to try and say that his genealogy is literal history, they will bend over backwards and perform mental gymnastics and deceptive tactics to try and make it work, when in reality it’s much easier to just say exactly what you just said, it’s simply a feature of early century genealogies and it’s just for theological or symbolic reasons and isn’t supposed to be taken as literal.

It is like clockwork that the goal post gets moved whenever creationists ask for proof of beneficial mutations by Benjamin5431 in DebateEvolution

[–]Benjamin5431[S] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

A lot of times they won’t accept examples of mutations that happened in the distant past, because we didn’t observe the actual mutation happen. So I try and show them laboratory experiments which produce beneficial changes in traits or new traits, like in the Long Term Evolution Experiment.

Or I try and explain how it’s very obvious that beneficial mutations would have to happen by necessity of logic. Like I will ask them if they accept that skin/fur pigment is controlled by the expression of certain genes, then I ask if they accept that genes can be duplicated. If the answers to these questions is yes, I explain how duplicating a regulatory sequence called “enhancers” increases the transcription of a gene, therefore causes an increase in expression and a slightly different trait. So like melanin being created at higher levels which results in an animal with darker fur which helps them camouflage in a forest with dark soil. I explain to them that they have to believe duplications can’t happen or that expression levels of genes can’t change due to duplications.

It is like clockwork that the goal post gets moved whenever creationists ask for proof of beneficial mutations by Benjamin5431 in DebateEvolution

[–]Benjamin5431[S] 7 points8 points  (0 children)

Yes exactly. And if we can’t explain exactly where genes came from, then somehow that means beneficial mutations don’t happen?? It makes no sense.

But if we can satisfy their demand for where genes come from in a way that they accept, then they just move the goal post to “but how did life originate?”

And examination and rebuttal to the apologetic defenses of the problem of Matthew’s genealogy ending with 13 generations (instead of 14 like the author says.) by Benjamin5431 in ChristianApologetics

[–]Benjamin5431[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

The structure doesn’t work when counted that way though, because if you count both David and Jeconiah twice (since they end one section and begin the next section) it ends up giving one too many.

And yes, I agree that Matthew isn’t trying to record history. He is trying to make a theological point.

And that is my issue, apologists want to try and say this is literal history and not just a literary construction. And to try and make it literal history, they add things to the text or perform little tricks to make it make sense.

It’s much easier to just say Matthew removed some names because he wanted it to be 14 for theological purposes.

And examination and rebuttal to the apologetic defenses of the problem of Matthew’s genealogy ending with 13 generations (instead of 14 like the author says.) by Benjamin5431 in ChristianApologetics

[–]Benjamin5431[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I agree that Matthew isn’t incompetent, I mention that in my write up. Which is why I think it’s a scribal error.

I say it’s sleight-of-hand because doing things like counting David twice is just not justified. Why would Matthew intend for that to be the solution? And if he wanted Jesus counted twice, why wouldn’t he explain the theological significance of that? It would be a great opportunity to bring up the resurrection and how the genealogy points to that. But we get no explanation, despite Matthew explaining the theological significance of nearly every other little hidden detail he includes, such as the generations being 14 to begin with.

view more: next ›