You guys know the drill. Continue where you left off.
Anyone who thinks evolution is real outta be burned at the stake
They are dangerous and could start another mass shooting at any moment
>>1342407
Columbine: never forget.
Does this guy have any certain blog where he upload his stuff?
>>1342744
The guy has been doing this since (at least) the sixties.
Also, this is one of the few pictures of him that you can find.
http://www.chick.com/m/catalog/tracts.asp
>>1342749
He's the happy fellow on the left.
>>1342751
Also, here's this poster that they used to sell on the site. It's gone now, save for a few images online.
Here are some specific ones relating to the subject at hand.
Moving on Up: http://www.chick.com/m/reading/tracts/readtract.asp?stk=1041
Apes, Lies and Mrs. Henn: http://www.chick.com/m/reading/tracts/readtract.asp?stk=1041
>>1342761
Man, i like that style. Reminds about the illustrations from biology books i would read as a kid.
>>1342810
Probably because half the stuff was traced over, though some say Chick himself was used as a model for the expressions on each of their faces.
Plus, the creatures on the chart used in >>1342744 actually came from the book "Early Man" which was published a few years earlier.
>>1342744
Fix't
>>1343360
That monkey will rip his fucking arm off and beat him to death with it.
Just a reminder that these guys represent a tiny minority among all Christians.
>>1342751
Looks like an older John Oliver
>>1343390
Reminder that they have power in the U.S.
>>1343390
Just a reminder some of us live in the bible belt where they are not.
>>1343428
>Tennessee and Mississippi
>among the poorest and blackest states in the union
k...
>>1343433
>Mississippi
>>1343390
>tiny minority
Something like 40% of Americans believe this stuff.
>>1343437
Louisiana*
still, considering they have the demographics of Liberia I wouldn't say theyre representative of US anti-intellectualism at all
Can't tell if we're supposed to identify with the kid on the right. If so, they did a horrible job.
It happened again.
>>1343679
And again.
>>1342823
Hmmm... Interesting point. Reminds me of something I discovered recently related to evolution: The main story people want us to believe is that 4-6 million years ago, humans didn't exist, and that we had a common ancestor with a chimpanzee. They say that this "wan't a chimp" but that it also "wasn't a human." So that means it would have to have features of both. The problem is, chimpanzees don't have features of both, and humans don't have features of both. If humans and chimps don't have features of both, then how could the common ancestor have features of both? That means either humans evoluved from chimps, or chimps evolved from humans. Obviously since humans are more advanced than chimps, the humans must have "evolved" from chimps. However, if chimps evolted into humans, then how are there still chimps? According to evolution, birds evolved from dinosaurs, therefore there are no dinosaurs left. If humans evolved from chimps, then IT MAKES NOT SENSE FOR THERE TO BE ANY CHIMPS
>>1343794
>The problem is, chimpanzees don't have features of both, and humans don't have features of both. If humans and chimps don't have features of both, then how could the common ancestor have features of both?
Are you retarded? Why should we have features of chimps,and they of us, just because we share an ancestor? Does it blow your mind that we don't have gills, even tho our ancestors did?
>>1343794
>this copypasta is still going.
>>1343794
This has to beg the question, why do so many scientists believe in evolution? Even though many scientists do NOT believe in it, there is still a significant percent that does. If you think about it, the darwinists have the same evidence as us, but we can come to different conclusions because we don't have the bias of darwinism. Darwinism is the biased assumption that Richard Darwin had all the correct ideas about life science, based on the fact that he was a leading scientist of the time (the 19th century). Actually, Darwin wasn't even a real scientist, he just drew pictures and made stuff up on a boat, but the darwinists don't want to hear that. The bias of darwinism makes many people deluded into thinking that the evidence always points in favor of THEIR view, even though to an unbiased person that would not be the case. But the delusional/biased people aren't the only ones that make up believers in evolution. Since evolutionists have a monopoly on the media and on education, they are able to brainwash (for lack of a better word) aspiring students. That is how some people can continue to be deluded. However, science teachers also dismiss any evidence against evolution a priori, and even refuse to discuss it at all. Many students end up thinking that the only evidence out there is evidence IN FAVOR of evolution, and they're just ignorant of the facts that go against the mainstream theory.
>>1343817
>This has to beg the question, why do so many scientists believe in evolution?
They don't, they have been persuaded by the evidence. No "belief" needed.
>>1343817
And though I walk through the valley of the shadow of bait, I shall fear no hook.
>>1343824
>>1343806
Ah, the arraignment of baitedness. such a petty soliliquous development in the life and times of this incrementational existance. Dissolocutionally, such an accusation is widespread amongst those denizens of such a forum as this. Such an interlocution inevitariably leads one to assert a number of logical "fallacies," the likes of which include the impossibility of one such that he is of the disposition most true to the ideology in question, simply put, thusforth such a fallacy has been known in the present day and age as a "strawman" or a "slippery slope" fallacious argumentation. one of the concerns with such an argument as "bait" is a supplemenation of one "murphies law," a statute which holds that one extreme argument may be so similar to that of a comedic appropriatation of such as to be indistinguisable from it. this concern though, as far as can be determined by an unbiased and logically unfallacious mind such as have considered the issue, is nevertheless wrought by one slight issue, which is that one can never "prove" the truth value of the stipulation of murphies law using a proof-theoretic analysis, which imbues a degree of uncertainness into the "law." one solution thusly would almost certainly be to accept the non-baitedness of such a claim, taking such a stance as the "null hypothesis" of the claimant, who should be required to prove his own stance as an impressionist of extremism before a communal forum shall take his own thoughts as bait or such as.
Creationism is a meme even in Christianity. Only backwards southern US states believe in it.
The closest you can get is the more popular intelligent design theory (which is funny because Darwin got flak mostly because of his arguments against it. Said counter-argument was just the usual counter-argument for the teleological argument).
>>1343862
I still don't get why people will happily take the piss out of creationists but tip their fedora at you if you make fun of other religious beliefs. Is there just that much more proof that creationism is nonsense?
I know you can't disprove religion entirely, but surely there are many more common beliefs that seem just as ridiculous, really.
Like, how do people reconcile that stuff about how snakes were cursed to crawl on the ground as a punishment with evolutionary explanations of how they came to be that way?
I don't really know a lot about Christianity, so sorry if I'm referencing a story that isn't actually in the Bible or something.
>>1343871
that story is part of creationism
>>1343871
The snake thing is more of folklore than core belief
Like how Winter happened because the ruler of the underworld kidnapped a goddess's daughter.
And quite frankly it would be a screwed up story if the snake caused all that shit and didn't get punished for it yet everyone else did.
>>1343886
He and his kin were cursed to crawl on their bellies for all time. Basically "How the Snake Lost Its Legs."
>>1343823
Evolution predicts that humans and spiders can have a common ancestor that shares both the features of a spider and a human. However, that common acnestor would also have to have the features of all the other mammals, because the spider-human ancestor would also be the acnestor of all mammals. That gets to be pretty complex.
if you think about it, the common ancestor between humans and spiders actually isn't physically possible. Just think about the number of legs it would have had. Spiders have eight legs, humans have two, so you might think the common ancestor should have had 5 legs. However, the human-spider ancestor would have t o have had the features of the common ancestor of MAMMALs, not just humans. Since humans have 2, and other mammals have 4, then the number for the mammal ancestor would be 3. The spider-human ancestor would be (8+3)/2, which is 5.5. The human-spider ancestor would have to have had 5.5 legs, which is not a possible number of legs. If you have half a leg, it's not really a leg. You can have 5 legs, you can have 6 legs, but you can't have 5.5 legs. I think this means humans and spider would not have had a common ancestor, so they are from separate lineages in a family tree. Spiders might be the brother-in-law, and humans would be the brothers
>>1343871
Snake thing refers only to the devil, Satan used to be more powerful but after he tempted man into corruption God took away his legs (or to use a modern idiom "clipped his wings")
>>1343839
The more important question to be asked is whether or not the assumption can be made that you actually confused Murphy's law with Poe's law.
Or whether or not you've riddled your post with spelling mistakes on purpose.
>>1343794
>>1343923
I'm not sure you know what evolution actually is.
This is advanced shitposting.
This goes beyond.
>>1343390
We represent a tiny fraction of the world population.
We represent most actual honest and believing born again Christians.
The problem is you can't tell the difference between a Christian and a person who says he's a Christian.
>>1343787
This is truly a fantastic post. Not your bullshit "And again", but the fantastic jpg.
>>1343886
The devil is no legend.
>>1343938
You don't know what evolution is either.
It's the most vague and ill defined term in our lexicon.
>>1343966
Ah, the "No True Scotsman" argument. Classy.
>>1343907
not even really the devil
just a story of "why snakes crawl" "why women have shitty childbirthing while all other animals are alright" and "why the world sucks" with the third one being a question that tends to be at the core of a lot of religions.
>>1343370
very underrated
>>1343995
You don't even understand your own accusations.
No true Scotsman is about behavior, not belief, and not transformation.
Real honest to God Christians take the bible far more seriously than any other group on earth. That fact should not be a surprise to anyone who can reason.
>>1343990
The person who thinks that a common ancestor has to have the averaged features of all of its descendants wants to tell me that I don't know what evolution is.
>>1344019
youre not really a 4chaner, a person that post in 4chan has to be a basement dweller neckbeard, therefore your opinions are not valid in any way
>>1344019
What are your thoughts on American foreign policy in the Mideast?
>>1344019
I feel bad for the americans and christians that are associated with retards like you
If I believed in god I'd feel even worse for him
>this is what they think scientific consensus is.
>>1343441
Those polls put Young Earth Creationists, Intelligent Design Creationists, and all the rest in the same camp.
This thread is absolutely and hilariously sad.
>>1342744
The persecution complex on this shit is ridic.
I grew up in Florida and I had a biology teacher who wore a crucifix and taught evolution anyway, without any sort of antagonism.
My girlfriend had one who laughed whenever he brought up evolution and made it perfectly clear that he didn't believe in it but taught it as a theory anyway.
>>1343428
Daily reminder that these states correlate with lower IQ and poverty.
Daily reminder that Christianity is a faith based on Jewish peasant insurrection in Rome.
>>1343539
Um... No? I haven't.
I noticed that they are occasionally slower, but that they also hunt mammoths to extinction, and build primitive shelter out of the bodies of other animals. How is this less intelligent?
>>1343787
All those responses are retarded. Please cite evidence of someone being fired for "mentioning God" alone.
>>1344754
>Surely, the fucking Jews were correct in selecting and worshiping the "true" god....among all the different cultures and gods created by men throughout history....
Religious idiots should all be gassed for having the gullibility gene that has plagued humanity for thousands of years....
>>1342761
This shit is impossible to read you stupid fuck
>>1344021
You're confused. I never said that. I said the missing link is missing for a reason; it doesn't exist. And all the candidates for missing links are proven frauds.
>>1344024
Correct, but then you contradict yourself as I am no 4channer, and only the opinions of 4channers are useless.
>>1344027
Bless Israel, be blessed. Curse Israel, be cursed. See the Caliphate rising? See it surround Israel?
Now read Ezekiel 38.
>>1344034
We're fine, thanks for your fake concern and bitter worldview.
kek
>>1344132
As is your life.
>>1344793
There is no "missing link," that's a leftover from the Great Chain of Being. What they find are relatives, not direct ancestors.
Also, proven by whom? Biochemists? Engineers?
>>1344866
Yes. Scientists prove that last generation's scientists were wrong, every single generation.
Because science is always wrong.
>>1343539
They have clothing, religion, tools, language, etc ,etc. These people are so deep in denial they're half way through the Earth's crust.
>>1344754
They're so retarded. They're the people that complain that blacks in the USA have a victim complext but they themselves are claiming there's a "war on christmas" and that atheists are opressing them. So fucking retarded. I love seeing conservative Americans visiting London, it's hilarious seeing their shock upon seeing how secular our society is.
I find it incredibly odd that although there is no seperation between Church and state in England we can still be so much more sane than you guys.
>>1344866
Are you more/less/as retarded as the people who think Earth is 6,000 years old?
>>1344877
My point is that that these people aren't qualified for this field. It's like a chemist trying to tell a technician he's wrong about something pertaining to his field.
Dr. David Menton, specialises in biochemistry. Criticizes paleontologists, individuals qualified for the job, on their classification of hominid fossils.
>>1344877
preferable to being """""always right"""""
>>1344924
>I find it incredibly odd that although there is no seperation between Church and state in England we can still be so much more sane than you guys
not really. it kinda evens out when you factor in all of your SJW's
>>1344938
>I don't know what interdisciplinary studies and methodology are please rape my face
>>1343370
/Thread
There are SO MANY misconception about the modern day evolution theory
But anti-evolutionists love to exploit these misunderstandings and imprecisions
>>1344718
what the fuck. The main criticism of the creation hypothesis, at least that of Ken Ham's, is that there for it to be true organisms would be going extinct literally within hours of coming to being. There belief is illogical and relies on a huge amount of faith whereas evolution by natural selection relies upon evidence.
Creationists are in denial. They're pretty much extinct in Europe and are only still a powerful body in America. How does it feel knowing that in 20 years your voice will be even tinier than it is now?
>>1344938
Why do you think we're saying different things?
Science is always wrong, and it always takes a generation or so for the new scientists to figure out how the prior scientists were wrong.
It's been this way for literally thousands of years, ever since scientists thought the earth was balanced on an infinite column of turtles and there were 1,017 stars in the sky.
And literally every generation of scientists say that the prior were wrong, but this time, well, this time, we're right!
>>1344949
He claimed that scientists sawed the actual Lucy fossil's pelvis in half and put it back together. In reality, it was a replica of the fossils. He was trying to bring them down to his level: a hack who tries to use his PhD to make people listen to him.
>>1344939
No, it is not preferable to be wrong, always, in any endeavor.
>>1344959
Because it's junk science.
>>1344962
Those bones are not from one animal.
It's just another hoax.
>>1343370
Creationists sometimes aren't even stupid, they're just so far in denial they refuse to acknowledge evidence as evidence.
>>1344967
>Junk science
There is no junk science, there is science and not-science
>>1344979
That's not it at all. The evidence is the evidence.
Every person looks at the same evidence with a different worldview. You look at the Grand Canyon with a thousand rock layers and think that those thousand rock layers were laid down slowly over time, maybe millions of years, by a little bitty river running through it.
I see the exact same evidence and see that the entire Grand Canyon was shaped by a massive and catastrophic amount of water suddenly being released just upstream after the Flood, and that each of those mud layers were laid down horizontally, whereupon they dried into sedimentary rock about 4600 years ago, by the bible's reckoning.
Same exact evidence. Seen drastically differently by two drastically different worldviews.
>>1344992
The evolution, specifically macro-evilution, is not science.
Especially as it is not observed. Ever. Not once.
Misspelling intentional.
>>1344964
The mistake here is that you assume that you can be indefinitely right while at the mercy of the unknown unknown.
The scientific community has the faith in itself to be effectively right about something, but only transitionally; because we understand what I've said above. In introductory classes, and classes on methodology, this is constantly stressed: That we have been wrong in the past, and that we can be wrong in the future, and that this is in no way something to be afraid of.
If you are somebody who's only ever interested in being "right" you will never learn a thing in your life. You have to isolate an answer from what is wrong to have something with verisimilitude. Otherwise you'll just believe anything you're told. So no. It's better to be able to be wrong, and willing to correct yourself.
>>1345005
Got the math on that, friend?
>>1345005
holy shit you're one of the serious cases. Let me just ask, do you honestly and truly believe Earth is 6,000 yars old?
>>1345016
That's kind of a pointless question
>>1345006
No need for macro and micro evolution
Just evolution
Species change, it's easy to observe in artificial selection made by humans (crops, cattle, dogs)
And they're just few example
>>1345005
If I come across a crime scene with another guy and there is a bullet riddled course, I am going to assume that a guy with a gun did it.
if the other guy looks at the same evidence as says it was probably done by fairies using magic, that does not make his view equally valid
>>1345024
Give or take about 75 years, yes.
>>1345041
>
corpse*
>>1345037
Anything observable is micro.
Anything that says micro turns animals into different kinds of animals is macro.
And evolution only means "change".
Yeah. No shit. Things change. That's why we have words like natural selection, adaptation, breeding, and mutations.
Why do we need "evolution" again?
oh, that's right, to convince you that you're just a random accident in a meaningless universe.
>>1345037
Species are not kinds; dobermans and dachshunds are still dogs; dogs and wolves are still canines.
Canines don't "evolve" into fish. Or birds. Or equines.
>>1345041
And when I point out that the other guy is also a cop, and responded faster than you, your assumption is equally false.
>>1345005
Science is not philosophy or art; it's not subjective and there is only one right answer. Regardless of whether or not you can bare to believe it, the secular, accepted theory of how the grand canyon and similar land forms came to be has a lot more evidence, backing and explanation from experts. The opinion that you desperatly want to be true is extremely lacking in this. I don't feel as though I need to cite anything since none of this evidence is hard to find at all. If you could find this board then you can surely find detailed evidence of how gorges are formed.
I ask you this; if there was conclusive, irrefutable evidence to suggest that nothing in Genesis happened as its said it did, what you stop believing in it? If you could give me irrefutable evidence that Genesis did happen word for word I would become a creationist.
>>1345050
life must be hard under the constant, covert warfare of those nasty scientists.
>>1344969
What other animals were used in its construction then? A extinct species of baboon perhaps.
>>1345055
>dogs and wolves are still canines
and whales are still dogs
>>1344961
>Science is always wrong
Science is always improving, and if you think that EVERYTHING we know today is actually wrong you're absolutely insane.
If a certain hypothesis, even a sound one, is proven to be false, it's thrown away, if not, it stays there and waits for someone else to come and try to falsify it. That's it.
You talk as if someone a couple years from now could simply find out that the Pythagoras theorem is actually wrong, or that viruses can't cause diseases.
If you know that evolution is wrong, it's very simple: PROVE IT. And even if you proved it to be wrong, that doesn't magically proves that creationism is right, you need EVIDENCE in favor of creationism for that.
>>1345050
Evolution isn't the "why", it's just a mechanism.
If all this conversation is about faith and/or religion, well there are plenty of folks that believe and are ok with the fact that evolution is a work God or whoever else
>>1345058
The fact that he is a cop does not make our assumption equal.
If a hundred cops look at the same crime scene and 99 come to one conclusion but 1 comes to a different conclusion, odds are the 99 have it.
The views are not equally valid, one is a fringe view shared by one guy and the other view is what every other expert in the field thinks.
>>1345062
Science is both philosophy and art, especially the medical sciences. They are obviously subjective in many ways, as they are being observed by human beings who use subjective filters to make sense of the evidence.
Little water over long time actually has zero evidence going for it.
Massive water over short time has an abundance of evidence going for it.
But will you see the evidence through a different worldview?
of course not. You'll back your presuppositions with "evidence" that supports your ready made conclusions.
I just wonder why you want to be a random nothing in a meaningless universe so bad that you'll ignore Jesus rising from the dead.
>>1345067
I'm glad I'm not a scientist, yes. The mob mentality is SJW tier.
>>1345068
You know the bones were found scattered over many square miles, yes?
And some of those are not bones, but plaster of paris?
>>1344048
Because they should be put in the same group?
>>1345070
Where do you see a dog?
>>1345073
You're agreeing with me that science is always wrong.
However, you fell into the trap that science is approaching the truth with its many constant failures.
It's also wrong in that regard. It is not.
Reminder that the creation story has no way to explain the diverse fauna of Australia contrasted to EuroAsia.
The difference betwee plants in America and Euroasia prior to Columbus.
Why some of the people that got off the ark later turned into hunter gatherers, despite they already being farmers prior to the flood with many of the places filled with hunter gatherers would have allowed at least some form of agriculture ((Specifically Australia))
Why Africa is the most genetically diverse continent despite post flood humanity starting in the Middle East.
>>1345075
I would question anyone's faith who believed God did not make the universe, did not make mankind, and does not give life meaning and purpose.
>>1345043
How does it feel knowing that the so called "Christian Scientists" are the laughing stock of not only the scientific community, but in fac the Western world as a whole? Was it your pastor or your parents who brainwashed you in to believing the Bible word for word? Perhaps a mix of both?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YFjoEgYOgRo
This woman is supposed to be one of the best defenders of young earth creationism. The other is Ken Ham.
>>1345076
Ah, I had thought your example included a man with a gun at the scene, not that you were partnered with an idiot.
Let me ask you this.
If a billion people believe a lie, does that make it true?
If nobody believes the truth, does that make the truth wrong?
>>1345077
>you'll ignore Jesus rising from the dead.
As long as you don't provide evidence for it, I'm not believing any supernatural bullshit.
It's not hard to understand, anon: give me the proof and I'll believe it, in a heartbeat.
>>1345086
>You're agreeing with me that science is always wrong.
No, I'm not. Making mistakes is part of the science, but that doesn't mean that truth can't be achieved. Are you telling me that the Pythagoras theorem is, or even could be, flawed? Are you crazy?
>>1345055
And 2016 ad Canis lupus familiaris isn't 20000 bc Canis lupus lupus
>>1345082
Are you talking about the knee?
>>1345087
Rubbish. Massive floating biospheres of denuded trees and soil floated the more poorly adapted marsupials away on ocean currents to Australia as they were being pushed out by the better adapted placental mammals.
Huge floating biomass islands following ocean currents.
Your fantasy that apes evolved from hunters to farmers is ridiculous; the second son of Adam was a farmer.
Africa is almost solely black. No clue what you're on about here.
>>1345084
I don't think so. Intelligent design creationists assume that there's at least some truth to the timescale we've put evolution on.
Young earthers just go full retard.
>>1345091
Doesn't bother me one bit.
I enjoy Ken Ham; I don't know who that woman is.
>>1345100
The historical record makes it the most well recorded event in ancient history.
See how you just casually toss out all the evidence written by eyewitnesses and carried on about for literally thousands of years?
>>1344924
>in England we can still be so much more sane than you guys.
>still has a "royal" family
>allows capital city to be overwhelmed with muslims, ignoring the cultural issues that take place in places like, oh, I don't know, the fucking U.S...
>constantly punishes citizens for defending themselves and using "excessive force" against criminals
>bans a wide assortment of firearms...then tries to do the same thing with knives....despite the fact the IRA used black market military grade explosives and weapons for years
>creates a welfare state that discourages individual responsibility, and encourages citizens to go on the dole
About the only "sane" thing you fucks have done in the past 50 years is vote to leave the EU.
>>1345088
>Believe in God
>He must have created everything with lightings and explosions!!!
Why couldn't a superior being as a deity create a universe that follows incredibly complicated (for lesser beings) rules?
>>1345086
No he's not. He said science is always improving. Once again a creationist knowingly ducks and dodges in order to try to convince himself more than anybody that what he believes is right. You are aware in your heart of hearts that we are right and the scientific community is right.
Why do you continue to wallow in ignorance and denial? What's the point? Even Augustine of Hippo, in the 4th century, said Genesis cannot be taken as scientific fact.
Genesis 1 and two literally contradict each other.
>>1345111
I enjoy him too, but for different reasons. Did you watch that debate or was it too hard to watch your whole belief system be destroyed?
>>1345100
Yes, I'm telling you that in hyperbolic geometry, Pythagoras' theory is wrong.
>>1345102
There is no 20,000 BC
There is only 4,004 BC
And canines then can mate with canines now, and they have not branched off since then into anything non-canine.
>>1345104
Among other things, yes.
Dr. Johanson gave a lecture at the University of Missouri in Kansas City, Nov. 20, 1986, on Lucy and why he thinks she is our ancestor. It included the ideas already mentioned and that Lucy’s femur and pelvis were more robust than most chimps and therefore, “could have” walked upright. After the lecture he opened the meeting for questions. The audience of approximately 800 was quiet so some creationists asked questions. Roy Holt asked; “How far away from Lucy did you find the knee?” (The knee bones were actually discovered about a year earlier than the rest of Lucy). Dr. Johanson answered (reluctantly) about 200 feet lower (!) and two to three kilometers away (about 1.5 miles!). Continuing, Holt asked, “Then why are you sure it belonged to Lucy?” Dr. Johanson: “Anatomical similarity.”
>>1345113
>evidence
>written by eyewitnesses
Eyewitnesses don't classify as evidence, for fuck sake. Can you prove that they were telling the truth? That they weren't being deceived by someone or by their own senses?
Do you believe in UFOs and in the bigfoot too? There are plenty of eyewitnesses who said they saw then!
>>1345126
No one said anything about hyperbolic geometry. You're simply too dishonest.
>>1345129
The possibility of mating is no longer an accurate way of determining a specie.
And evolution does't bring only to "branching off"
>Anagenesis
>Cladogenesis
>>1345118
So kings could enjoy searching them out.
>>1345119
Yes, that's the false claim, that science is always improving. It is not. It has ruled truth out, and is therefore becoming more and more bizarre. The Law of Gravity created the universe? Are you kidding me?
>>1345123
I don't know what debate you watched, but seeing Bill Nye get #rekt was awesome. And watching Bill Nye get #rekt ever since is even more awesome.
>Herp derp there's a layer in an ice core for every year, just like tree rings herp derp!
>>1345141
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/knee-joint.html
>>1345108
Now, explain to me why the plant life was so difference between America and Euroasia.
If everything originated from the same place on Earth and spread all over it before the flood, shouldn't the plant life have been pretty homogeneous all over it rather than quite different between places like Europe and Eurasia?
Also, tell me why Aboriginals was completely consisting of hunter gathers before the Europeans arrived?
Shouldn't they have continued farming on the more fertile land of Australia, like their ancestors did before the Ark?
>Thinking genetic diversity is only connected to skin color
Lol
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04/30/AR2009043002485.html
Also, you will still find problems even with those floating continents.
consider that Koalas won't eat anything else than eucalyptus leafs growing on a tree. If you give them eucalyptus leafs off a tree they simply won't eat it.
How are those Koalas, who won't eat anything else than eucalyptus leafs growing on trees, survive several months on a ark and on a long trip towards Australia with no eucalyptus trees in sight?
>>1345095
of course not, its about who is qualified to investigate this, and what he evidence shows.
If evolution is indeed not true than almost all qualified scientists are interpreting the evidence wrong.
if you were on a jury would you ignore the opinion of a hundred expert because they were able to find one guy who disagreed with them?
You would basically have to believe all of science was corrupt or irredeemably flawed to accept the creationist position as a valid interpretation of the evidence
>>1345146
Yes, they do. People get sent to death row on the testimony of eyewitnesses. Holy shit. Do you get out of the house at all?
You asked if I thought Pythagoras' theory was wrong.
And I told you exactly how it was wrong, as shown by a later generation of scientists. Just as I have consistently maintained.
>>1345151
I don't care about species, only kinds. God is not an autist, as zoologists are. He breaks things down into only a few categories. But then, it's His creation, so He gets to do that.
>>1345141
So you dont trust the ability of a scientist to match a knee joint to the rest of a skeleton?
>>1345155
www.satan.com
You think that says anything differently? It says exactly the same thing I posted.
You get confused easily.
>>1345156
Same reason. ELE event on earth. Every volcano erupted. Every forest denuded. Eventually the earth itself broke apart into continents.
>>1345158
Yes, the pressure for scientists to toe the evolutionists line is harsh. People lose jobs, lose access to journals, lose their reputations, even lose their lives if they do not bow down to the idol of Darwin.
I would believe the bible, and do.
Let God be right, and all men wrong.
>>1345161
Oh yeah? So I can send you to the death row if I say you killed some random dude? They wouldn't go looking for a lack of alibi or any other evidence to be sure in incriminating you? Where the fuck do you live?
Do you believe in the bigfoot, Loch Ness monster? UFOs? Homeopathy? If no, why not? What about the witnesses?
Fair enough, is Pythagoras wrong in Euclidean geometry then?
>>1345179
So you admit your position is not based on what scientist have determined but on what the bible tells you.
There was a time when most scientists would have agreed with you, but the evidence, and the scientific method led them away from that position, because they believe what they can see over what the bible tells tem.
in any case if you believe the bible over empirical evidence or the scientific method you have no grounds to comment on scientific theory, or what should be taught in science class because the scientific method is not your authority
>>1345179
>Same reason. ELE event on earth. Every volcano erupted. Every forest denuded. Eventually the earth itself broke apart into continents.
An ELE event don't explain why we have been able to see such completelly different faunas on Eurasia and the Americas and not to say Australia.
Are you telling me Corn Somehow went extinct all over the very wide Eurasian continent?
That Tomatoes were?
Shouldn't such catastrophes lead to them going extinct everywhere on the globe?
Also, the rest of my points remain.
>>1345114
Sorry I forgot the trigger warning
The primary but unspoken purpose of the monarch is to uphold the state in times of crisis; the monarch and the rest of the royal family is completey politically neutral; presidents (in the German sense for example) are not at all since they will have had history with previous parties. Since the Queen still retains the right to call a general election, declare war, elect a new pm, etc, if there is a political crisis like What happened in Spain with the Coup, the monarch can restore order. Since the majority of the public love them, including people from other countries, they'd have a lot of sway in a crisis such as that. Also as a consequence of their adoration by millions, they generate much more than their budget through various means.
>Muslim point
> Overwhealmed
>12.4%
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents_in_Great_Britain#2010.E2.80.93present
Depends on your definition of overwhealmed to be honest.
>in b4 cuck
>punishes citizens...
Defending themselves? I'm pretty sure self defence is a valid defence in court that can result in a complain being thrown out of court. As for excessive force... fair enough. If they kill a criminal who tried to mug them out of anger then they must suffer the consequences of their actions.
>gun ban
The ban has had a close to a 100 percent success rate in stopping gun rampages in schools, night clubs, etc. The purpose is to move it further out of reach of criminals and maniacs who tend to act on impulse. Saying "don't ban guns because it won't stop people from getting bombs" is fucking retarded and you know why.
>creates a welfare state
I'm 50/50 with you on that one
>>1345161
I don't get this all "I believe in God, so I must believe in his holy writings literally".
I assume that you're are christian by the way you talked about "kinds" of living beings, and I don't get this adversion towards modern day scientific theory
Even the catholic church admits that the Bible shouldn't be taken literally
>>1343787
Holy shit that is the most retarded shit I've ever seen
>>1345161
>People get sent to death row on the testimony of eyewitnesses.
This is increasingly acknowledged as a mistake and many have been falsely prosecuted ue to too much trust in eyewitness testimony.
>>1344024
Hey, I qualify as a 4chaner! This day turned out alright.
>>1345152
Oh dear... what you're trying to discredit is this
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hartle%E2%80%93Hawking_state
These men, who are infinitely more intelligent and expert in their knowledge of than either you (less so for me than you since I was already aware of it) have proposed this as an explanation for what the universe is like in the extreme early stages of it; less than miliseconds after the big bang (rapid expansion, not explosion).
Asking what happened before the big bang is not a question before you try to say "lol God did it". Since the space time continium existed only after the big bang, asking what happened before it does not make sense. It's like asking what was my personality like before I was born?
>>1345152
What the fuck? Saying something is not a vlid or sound argument and adding some meme noises doesn't stop it from being what you desperately don't want it to be.
Link me to a video where Ken Ham intellectually destroys, not just Bill Nye or whatever, but anybody on the topic of creationism.
>>1345152
>The Law of Gravity created the universe? Are you kidding me?
Please, tell me this is bait.
Where did this strawman come from?
>>1345005
Right....except the sedimentary layers are older than 4600 years, which makes your theory ridiculous.
>>1345077
>Science is both philosophy and art
No, it's a method.
>>1345197
>accuses people of being triggered
>writes a wall of text to defend his cucked nation
>>1345043
A few things on creationism's "ideas" about evolution:
Evolution is a certifiable fact. It can be seen in the lab. I read something in the New Scientist regarding a twenty-year experiment done with E. coli; they found that, when mathematically modeling the adaptation to the environment, there was no upper limit. Ie, it would forever continue to become better suited. This alone blows macro/micro evolution out the water. You can see evolution in your family tree; you look similar to your father, but not the same. We've bred crops and animals so much that they're so drastically different to their original selves that they're a new species. Dogs are only different to wolves as a result of human selective breeding. We took wolves and selected for traits so much for so long that they became dogs. We did it or similar with wheat, barley, bananas, carrots, chickens (have you ever seen a wild chicken?), pigs, etc.
The whole macro/microevolution thing is such a complete load of bollocks. How can you acknowledge small changes without also acknowledging the accumulation of those changes? We share something like 50% of our DNA with a banana, 95+% with a chimp. DNA is a finite, degenerate system of storing information. There are only four bases (5 if you count uracil in RNA). One base change, removal, insertion can result in debilitating genetic diseases and/or lead to drastically different phenotypes. To state that "macroevolution" is an impossibility is cognitive dissonance at its finest, unless you want to ignore the existence of Huntingtons', MS, Downs', etc.
On the use of the word "kind": it astounds me that creationists invent this nonsense term and never even attempt to make anything near a concrete definition when scientists, actual biologists, zoologists etc cannot solidly define a species properly either. It's hard to define because, guess what, they're fluid as fuck and are changing all the time.
>>1345326
The idea that scientists and the process of peer review is willfully attempting to silence creationist evidence on this matter is laughable. I could name a dozen scientists (and there are no doubt thousands) whose ideas went against the zeitgeist of scientific thought who turned out to be right and were recognised as such. It just needs to be proved. Creationism hasn't been able to do this because its impossible to prove due to it being wrong. Evolution is in no means contradictory with christianity or religion. I know several religious biochemists and geneticists. Evolution could easily be the mechanism employed by God to develop life on Earth. The idea of intelligent, perfect design is however laughable. You only have to look at the mitochondria, the power-generating organelles present in almost all eukaryotic life. These little things generate ATP, the energy unit of the organism. This process is approximately 30% efficient. Why would God design something with such low efficiency? . Not only that, but mitochondria themselves have their own separate DNA fragments, passed down through the mother. This indicates that they were a proto-bacterial species that the unicellular ancestor of the vast majority of eukaryotic species absorbed and integrated them into itself. Not the act of an intelligent creator.
The idea that science works back from a conclusion is erroneous. Darwin and Wallace looked at the evidence in front of them, the overwhelming evidence even then, seen in the Galapagos and other isolated archipelagos, and that was the only conclusion they could come to. Falling back and then saying "Oh I dunno maybe some omnipotent being did it" is the argument you expect from a six-year-old, with zero supporting evidence other than some communally wrote, eternally edited and interpreted book or two. Anyone with any knowledge of genetics acknowledges evolution because it is astoundingly obvious. There's shitloads of evidence.
>>1345332
The "missing link": only a tiny fraction of skeletons are intact enough and in the right location and environment to be fossilised or even recovered. Only a tiny fraction of that tiny fraction are actually fossilised, and even then, we've still got a pretty decent idea of the general direction of a lot of species.
I'll just leave you with something to really make you go hmmm:
If evolution isn't real, why do whales have pelvises?
t. Biochemist
>>1345335
I hope you realize that none of the people on /his/ right now are actually creationist.
I mean, you need to keep doing this, because people eventually fall for the memes and become actual believers in what the trolls are spouting, but still.
>>1343817
>Richard Darwin
>Richard
>All this retardation
>Clearly limited to high school level knowledge about biology, and probably the type that didn't pay attention
>Thinks Darwin is the only basis for it
>Pretends any serious scientists don't support it. (saying "but this guy of a completely unrelated area of science doesn't" isn't proof that serious scientists don't support it, because in that area they are nothing, it's the same like a physicist trying to talk about roman history).
This must be pasta
>>1345338
I will always fall for the creationist bait. I can't help myself.
>>1345332
>>1345335
This one is a good one too: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recurrent_laryngeal_nerve#Evidence_of_evolution
>>1345338
I'm pretty sure the creationists are real, though there's probably only 1 or 2. If they are just trolls they are very dedicated and know the beliefs and Kent Hovind crack pot theories they are pretending to follow very thoroughly
>>1343923
That is not how evolution works, things don't get more complex as you go back, but if you wanna analyze things from your retarded lens: you an find broad similarities like being a vertebrate, etc.
Species diverge. The further back the point of divergence the less you'll have in common unless convergent evolution occurs, hence why some represent it with a tree, since it helps morons like you understand it.
Literally all your misunderstandings would be settled by reading a fucking book carefully and paying for a tutor in HS tier biology.
>>1343923
On the other hand, spiders have eight eyes. Humans have 2 eyes, and so do mammals. That means the spider-human acnestor will have had 5 eyes, just like you would expect. If spiders had 7 eyes, it would not work. However, this seems to actually be evidence in FAVOR of a common acnestor between spiders and humans/all mamals. There is another test for common ancestry, which is to look at the dna. If two species are descended from a common ancestor, then you would expect to see the same sequences of dna in both species. However, the spider genome has not been found to be identical to human dna in that respect, which is a result AGAINST relationship. The same is true for chimpanzees. If you look at chimpanzee dna, it may be similar in some places, but that's because it needs to do similar things (regulate bloodflow, make white blood cells, etc). In fact, humans have not been found, contrary to evolutionary prediciton, to have the same dna as ANY species whose dna has been thoroughly investigated.
>>1343923
I hope you realize that vertebrates and invertebrates diverged a long time ago.
>>1345380
Thank you.
If it weren't for you, I'd be doing my actual schoolwork instead of research when chordates evolved and diverged from cnidaria.
God bless.
This just happened. I am thoroughly sickened by the fact that he dared question, nay deny my faith.
The baptists are officially on my shit-list, and that's been blank for years.
>>1343966
Fools.
If the bible was really written by god why didn't he know about the internet yet?
>>1343987
No God
No devil
Just idiots
Like you
>>1345642
For an omniscient god he sure chose a horrible time period to spread his word.
>>1344009
>LatAm Christians are even more rabidly fundie
Fuck off, we get evolutoin in very single school. FUCK, I went to a private catholic, NUN ADMINISTERED school and they teached evolution still.
>>1343935
Why do Christians just make up shit like this and apply things to a story that obviously weren't intended. Satan is a barely fleshed out concept in the bible. In fact using the word Satan to describe what the serpent is completely wrong. Satan, the name, is only mentioned in Job and the roll he plays is as a being who works for God and has to go to him for permission to harm Job. Your idea of Satan and the Devil and Lucifer and the Serpent all being one thing is a complete construct of the modern era and really shines a light on your absolute ignorance towards the belief system that you base your life around.
But to get back to my original point where in the fuck did you get the idea that what you said is what the story is supposed to be about. Did you come up with it yourself? Did your preacher tell you? How did he find out? Where in the bible does it support anything you just said? You're peddling bullshit.
>>1345267
>Uses cucked unironically
You've been tricked by memes
>>1345639
>proceeds to make himself a new Moses
Post-mental breakdown Robespierre a shit
>>1345940
Atheist kill yourself
>>1345940
In Revelation, the Dragon is the ancient serpent who deceives the entire world (or some phrasing to that effect?, and is in direct opposition to God. Jesus himself is tempted by Satan when he is alone in the desert.
The modern figure is definitely a composite construction of multiple figures and concepts, but it didn't pop out of nowhere.
>>1345267
My wall of text was written because I wanted to discuss it with you; all you wrote was a blatant angry, knee jerk reaction to a "britistahni cuck trying to 'murica isn't perfect, free nation >:("
>>1347454
*trying to say
>>1341405
I don't believe in evolution
Sorry fedoras, I know this makes you angry even though it doesn't affect my or your life in any way
>>1345197
> I stoped somebody from killing me
> I should go to prison
They can't keep getting away with this!
>>1345082
No, the bones of several different individuals were discovered in a 10 square mile area. These individuals belong to the same species.
