How can anyone doubt evolution after looking at the historical evidence?!
>>1350854
They don't, generally speaking the people who doubt it have almost no exposure to the real evidence, just a handful of cherry-picked cases chosen by creationists to make evilution look implausible.
Chick tract thread?
Chick tract thread.
>>1350857
Agreed.
https://www.chick.com/m/reading/tracts/readtract.asp?stk=1041
Those are just the skulls of a Brit and a European.
>>1350857
One thing with Jack Chick is that he thinks non believers often know what they are doing is wrong, but still continue with it for some reason.
Bump
>>1353665
>the ministry of science education
Such an confidentially orwellian-like name.
>>1353676
>concidentally
>>1350854
The same way they doubt human races.
>>1350854
Because the normal man is more alienated in these places, the more delusional and afraid arrive. Creationism is just the start, soon you will have genuine David Icke followers within the next few years. This is the fate of all hysterical places with no strict moderation
>>1350854
We only have evidence of micro-evolution, macro-evolution is still inconclusive as a scientific theory, although it obviously has some merit.
>>1353690
Icke is much more reasonable than the average creationist. Shit, have you actually READ his books? It's full of the same anti-semitic canards, gnostic thought and chaoskampf that have existed for millennia, but with a cool modern twist.
Meanwhile, Creationism is outright denying logic, reason, meaningful associations between datapoints and abnegating historical observation of any kind in favor of an extremely myopic worldview that appeals to a tiny sliver of American protestantism. Icke reaches out through history to support his theory, crackpot as it is, while Creationists actively look away from everything beyond their bibles. I blame Sola Fide for this.
>>1353665
Whales didn't evolve into the animal on the right though.
The inverse supposedly happened.
>>1353693
Alright we have this so called microevolution.
We can observe the impact of mutation (various spontaneous changes to the genetic code), selection (selection of favored individuals) and gene drift (Random selection that occurs in every finite population).
Mutation can generate new traits through random alterations, either positive, negative or neutral.
Selection has a decent chance to sort out the negative traits and keep the positive traits.
Drift is responsible for which neutral traits remain and can influence all traits as well.
But there is no limiting factor to this microevolution. If populations split then two new species can eventually emerge if there is both no interbreeding between the two populations and if either the selection factors for both populations change or the populations are small enough to be significantly affected by gene drift.
And there is definite evidence of various homologies and genetic similarities between species that can in various cases be used to prove their descent. There are also observable cases of the consequences of these population splits in various states of progress towards speciation.
This is essentially macroevolution. Just microevolution over longer time periods.
>>1354772
In response to that whale comic, the guy is so biased it isn't even funny. Just look at this shit. He believes that any explanation given for similar creatures having similar structures is a cop-out fairy tale.
>>1350856
>someone was autistic enough to make a reply to a jack chick tract
I've been surrounded by YEC's all my life. They can be good people, but it's really quite astounding how much mental gymnastics they go through. The amount of people with such willful ignorance combined with the cognitive dissonance and stubbornness is truly remarkable to me.
Most YEC’s and a lot of people generally think that Darwin came up with the idea of evolution. He didn’t. By the time he wrote “On the Origin” the idea of evolution was already common place within the scientific community. That’s why his book was called “On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection. It was the “Natural Selection” part that was new and revolutionary. As opposed for example to evolution by means of passing on acquired traits (Lamarckism)
>>1354949
I remember having this one history and geography teacher who knew Lucy was a biped, but he believed the whole "everything is made for man to use" stuff. At least he's better than my science teacher, who believed everything that Ken Ham says. At least he didn't take Comfort or Hovind seriously.
He tried to use this presentation to convince me.
>>1350854
Because its not evidence its delusion a monkey can never become a man just like a dog can never be a cat or a bird a fish
Why was YEC successful in america?
>>1355052
That's because all three of your statements are true even under the theory of evolution.
A modern species can not become an entirely different modern species that exists at the same time.
However:
The population of a common ancestor of a monkey species and a human species will eventually give rise to a population of that monkey species and a population of that human species.
The population of a common ancestor of a dog species and a cat species will eventually give rise to a population of that dog species and a population of that cat species.
The population of a common ancestor of a bird species and a fish species will eventually give rise to a population of that bird species and a population of that fish species.
>>1350854
Well leftcuck race denialists deny evolution even to this day
>>1355072
>responding to bait
>>1355068
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creationism
Just go to the countries/regions portion and you'll see the U.S.'s history with it.
>>1355075
its not bait
just because everything was created from the same material doesn't me we evolved from one thing to another its silly
>>1355083
>40% of all americans
jesus christ
>>1355100
Exactly.
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=UJKBCIWh6XA
Why do scientists think evolution is true?
>Common traits
When we look at the animals and plants that are alive today we clearly see a lot of similarities. When we group species together based on the number and kind of similarities we get groups like “vertebrates”, “crustaceans”, fungi”, “trees”, “mammals”, etc.
We can pretty accurately establish how closely related curtain species are based on these shared characteristics.
This alone suggest common ancestry just like you can group people together by the same principle. You probably share more characteristics with close kin than with random strangers.
>The fossil record
The fossil record is far from complete and it will never be complete. Not in the sense that there will be a complete fossil for every (small or large) evolutionary step. This is simply due to the fact that fossils are the exception. Most things that die degrade without leaving a trace, let alone a fossil. So we should be grateful for every fossil that we discover.
The fossils that we do find, fit very well with the groups (clades) we made when looking at what is alive today. The animals and plants of the past share a lot of similarities with the animals and plants of today. And, again just like with humans, it makes sense that “more similarities” means “more closely related”. By lining the fossils up next to each other we can see changes over time, as in necks getting longer or tails getting shorter, etc.
[-cont]
![treeoflifefo[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/uPr55iO.jpg "treeoflifefo[1].jpg")
>>1355180
[-cont]
>Radiometric dating
There are a lot of way to determine how old something is. Depending on what it is you can use different methods of measuring. These methods are not perfect. Each has its own accuracy and each has its own range over time. C14 is only useful for things that once were alive (not suitable for “dead rocks”) and is only reliable for samples up to about 40,000 years old. Other methods can accurately go back millions and even billions of years.
Note that the methods of dating have been developed independently of evolutionary scientists.
It is a very technical subject. Read the wiki’s for more info (…/wiki/Radiocarbon_dating and …/wiki/Radiometric_dating)
>DNA
This really is the crown jewel. DNA analyses gives unprecedented insights into relationships and ancestry between different species. It proves, without a doubt(!) the common descent of all living things. See pic related. It is such an accurate tool that the same techniques are used as evidence in court, as tools for fighting disease and developing drugs, as tools for engineering ne crops and many more.
All these (and more) points reaffirm the validity of the theory of evolution. The fact that evolution hasn’t been falsified doesn’t mean it cannot be falsified. Any of the above subjects could generate evidence that contradicts evolution. But it hasn’t.
>>1355184
[-epilogue]
And even if we were at the beginning of our quest to understand our world and we had no evidence at all(!), we could still reasonably deduce that an “evolution-like” process was happening. All you have to accept for that is (a) traits are passed on to the next generation and (b) this passing on does not have 100% copying fidelity. I.e. changes will accumulate over time.
>>1355180
>>1355184
>>1355197
Thank you, anon. You're doing the Lord's work.
>>1355184
I would argue that it doesn't conclusively prove the common descent of all living things.
Eukaryotes are most certainly all descended from one common ancestor since the introduction of mitochondria was a singular event etc.
But the wide display of horizontal gene transfer among bacteria and possibly among precursors to bacteria through transduction (Genes transfered through bacteriophages), transformation (Genes transfered through the absorption of ambient DNA) and conjunction (transfer of genes through F-Plasmids etc) casts some doubt on the idea of total common descent as far as I can tell.
Without the full knowledge of how life first formed and when to properly define the autocatalytic processes that would give rise life as life I think it could be a possibility that there were multiple origins of early life that became indistinguishable from one another through various mechanisms of horizontal gene transfer (Not necessarily identical to the ones I just mentioned) or some other mechanism.
>>1355235
Good point. It could be that we find out that there are two or three independent trees of life. But even that wouldn’t disprove evolution or common descent. It would only prove that these are (even) more common processes than we thus far thought.
Meh, I believe in socio economic factors, evolution and the holocaust, but I'm also told that I'm a liberal cuck and then presented with outdated information and conspiracy theories.
So id give a shit, but people can believe whatever delusions they want.
>>1355286
What happens when those who don't accept these ideas teach the next generation? Will we start to go backwards in terms of technological progress?
Anyone wanna check this out?
http://www-personal.umich.edu/~feliks/debunking-evolutionary-propaganda-prt4/
>>1355286
Evolution isn't some political issue, it's just science. It's only a big political issue according to creationists, in America.
Even in Muslim countries they teach evolution.
>>1354793
wtf is this shit even supposed to mean?
>>1355292
As Dave Rubin says: the way society should progress is that all ideas must be given light, and the more ideas that are displayed, the better ideas that are based on logic and fact will succeed.
So long as free speech is given a voice, and ideas are given light, there is hope.
Most people aren't creationist nowadays.
But look at it like this:
Martin Luther King- a reverend- said;
“Science investigates; religion interprets. Science gives man knowledge which is power; religion gives man wisdom which is control. Science deals mainly with facts; religion deals mainly with values.
The two are not rivals. They are complementary.
Science keeps religion from sinking into the valley of crippling irrationalism and paralyzing obscurantism. Religion prevents science from falling into the marsh of obsolete materialism and moral nihilism.”
>>1355313
Basically saying that any explanation is automatically a magical cop-out. Remember, these people are deluded.
>>1355317
Fair enough. And besides, Ken Ham seems to be doing a good job of showing the problems with creationism. I just hope they remain strong in Christ.
>>1355327
Fuck it m8, I'm Christian but the faith has gone under reform to better suit the needs of the modern era.
Christ is based tho.
>>1355334
Amen to that.
>>1353690
I don't know how you did it, but you did. Hit the nail right on the head.
And the delusional are most comfortable shouting and screaming and yelling and using faulty logic and feels more than anything else. Normies just get out because they don't want to deal with this shit. And in the end, every board where discussion is to be had ends being a shitshow of freaks, weirdos, crazies or shitposters who just use it as a platform to fling shit at each other and at reason itself.
>>1355327
>I just hope they remain strong in Christ.
Thta's the fear, isn't it?
That if you accept evolution, you are one step closer to renouncing your faith.
>>1355317
>the way society should progress is that all ideas must be given light
Will never agree to this. Call me whatever the fuck you like, but no.
Some things must be put to rest and outright banned, since they just poison discussion space. i.e. communism, nazism, etc.
>>1355353
But if you don't counter these ideas with other ideas, what's to say that similar ideas won't eventually rise up?
We learn from histories mistakes and crimes and hope that we don't repeat them.
Communism is hated and so is fascism and nazism. They were tried and they both resulted in misery, and death.
>>1355362
Because they're malicious and dangerous. And because you don't allow them room to sprout, or else they get ballsy and start popping up everywhere.
Did you ever honestly have a discussion with a gommie or a stormfag and he came out a wiser man afterward? Because I don't think anyone did, once you've been indoctrinated in this shit only professional help or yourself can get you out.
Do you think Radical Islamism should be allowed too?
>>1355376
.....good point.
>>1355362
>I prefer to keep my faith and my facts separate from one another.
Excuse me, i didnt mean it as a personal attack or critique. But more as an observation on (hard line) Christians.
>>1355376
A good point.
One of the reasons why it's still being practiced and allowed because political correctness doesn't allow us to criticise us like we can with Christianity, apparently criticising Islam is the equivalent of being racist to Arabs apparently.
>>1355374
No, you don't. The second you see a doctrine is intent on causing harm and nothing else, no discussion is to be done, then or ever again. Because idiots or zealots always show up and you will never ever convince them in a public space that their ideology is false. And if you do give them a platform, they will have room to convince the uninformed or the morons or the alienated of their idiocy and you don't want that. It goes the same way for:
>communists
>nazis
>fascists
>radical islam
>radical zionism
>theocratic christianity
>absolutist monarchism
>racial politics of every kind(including positive racism)
>anarchism
>extrmee forms of libertarianism
Etc.
Ban them outright and the people will forget. Once other ideas pop up(though I doubt they haven't been covered in that shot list), fight them too. And for God's sake, don't give them a place and right to speak, the last thing a world needs is a bunch of extremists with a speaker.
>>1355391
Sorry, I'm just really tired. I need to go to bed, but this is such a good thread.
>>1355382
>/pol/
>Christian board
A board that hates on Jews, wants to deny women rights, impose fascist ideology on others, and demands women don't dress like whores, and get butthurt when they are critiqued...
Are you sure they're not radical jihadists themselves.
>>1355406
Of a sort, yes.
>>1355398
Most Muslims aren't even Arabs. And most Muslims aren't radicalized but a good chunk of them really is.
What's interesting is that, as is the case with everywhere on the planet, the better the living conditions the smaller chance of Sharia seeping into the public sphere. See
>azerbaidjan
>tunisia
>albania
I imagine that a steady increase in living conditions in Islam will eventually deradicalize them, if we avoid major war in the next few generations.
>>1355303
Seriously, anyone?
>>1355401
Well At least you have no double standards.
But should you criticise an idea that's rising, you can extinguish the fire before it burns everything ideas.
As sun Tzu said- The supreme art of war is to subdue the enemy without fighting.
>>1355408
Or introduce Islamic reformists and give them a voice, thus allowing them to practice their faith in a way that isn't detrimental to western culture.
>>1355408
I don't know pal, if a majority of Muslim countries don't support gay rights they seem pretty radical to me.
>>1355420
I don't. And I'd have them hung by their feet until blood starts dripping from their eyes but that's another thing altogether.
Rising ideas should be given the necessary amount of weight until they are proven to be malicious. Because at the end of the day let's stop pretending, democracy and free speech is and will always be under siege, from outside and inside forces and making compromises is the only way for it to survive demagogues and populists preying on the fears of the people. At least for now.
I have no qualms in busting a few heads that would love nothing more than to knock on my door at 4 in the morning and dragging me out screaming for wrongthink.
>sun tzu shit
Agree 100%
>>1355418
I looked at the site but it is unreadable.
Nothing new, just the same endless string of YEC retardation. Not worth my time.
>>1355432
you are dangerously close to becoming what you fight against
>>1355432
I don't know pal, you're starting to sound like something you want to hate.
>>1355435
I hate when people just post walls of text instead of maybe putting a link to the page. That happened to me on /christian/. A Baptist kept telling me I was an athiest and would be judged for compromising God's Word. Y'know, fundie stuff.
>>1355441
That's bullshit and you know it.
I'm center-left, atheist. I disagree with libertarians, conservatives, liberals, socialists, ecologists on many many issues, but I would not ban their right to say it or their right to try to implement policies that I don't agree with. In the end, many people might actually do.
All those I enumerated above tho? They would like nothing more than to ban everything else and destroy the foundations of our society to shape them into their own purpose. Why would I allow pests like that to exist when everything, but everything they do is try to destroy everything myself and most of those around me cherish and hold dear? Why should I allow a man who was declared himself to be my enemy in principle and in fact to use freedom of speech against me when he wants to destroy me with it and then ban it?
No. End them by law and if necessary by force.
>>1355440
Never thought of it like that.
You've been pretty based throughout the thread lad, I like you.
>>1355455
Well I'm centre to left as well, but I don't think purging all who preach extremism is going to work when you can take the piss out of them and demonise them without a move of political power.
>>1355401
>banning ideas
That's a very dangerous road to take. Just look at any of the societies - current or historical - that practice it. Freedom isn't always nice, but it sure beats the alternatives.
>>1355286
>I believe in socio economic factors
What do you mean by this?
>>1355461
People have taken the piss out of Hitler in the 20's and many others like him. I'd rather have him crushed than laughed at. All it takes is one more economic crash or a war or a few terrorist bombings and people like that, emboldened by the free speech you support and then the fear and panic will win and then they'll start curtailing the same free speech in the name of security. I will not have it.
Democracy has moved too far ahead of humanity in general and in those gaps appear the despots that will use it against you and I and everyone else.
>>1355466
I live in a country where both communism and nazism are banned and that's just the way I liked it. Yeah, we've been through both of them. And there is nothing that can convince me that allowing free speech to those who protest against it is a good idea.
>>1355479
>And there is nothing that can convince me that allowing free speech to those who protest against it is a good idea.
So in other words, you shouldn't be able to argue banning free speech from them, either. Because you're protesting against free speech right now.
>>1355489
explain or be bullshit.
>>1355488
>violence
I never meant it as "go and beat the shit out of those fags", just as "you are not allowed to say this, and if you keep it up you'll find yourself in jail".
Violence is justified in self defense and I consider fighting for my own rights as self defense. They share the same rights as I do, and yes, I am curtailing theirs. But that is only because if they win I would be left with no rights at all. So no, I don't care if their feelings get hurt.
>>1355486
Let me put this as succinctly as I possibly can: am happy to allow free speech to anyone who doesn't want to ban it.
>>1355500
>Let me put this as succinctly as I possibly can: am happy to allow free speech to anyone who doesn't want to ban it.
Which translates to banning it from certain groups and therefore yourself as well.
>>1355506
Bullshit. You're running in circles and you know it.
>>1355479
Yes but people were racists and were exposed to an idea back then.
They tried it, they failed, and it's now hated. With this modern era, you can now use history as an argument to defy extremism and critique extremist ideologies.
>>1355506
>Which translates to banning it from certain groups and therefore yourself as well.
THIS
Free speech is only truly free if it applies to ALL, without ANY prior restrictions.
>>1355510
But you clearly DON'T want free speech if you support banning anyone from saying free speech shouldn't be allowed. You're half a step from supporting totalitarianism yourself, the only difference is the degree to which people should be allowed to disagree with you.
>>1355524
Forgot the pic.
>>1355511
No, you ban it. Because there may be a time when it veers its ugly head again and I don't want that to happen and I don't want them to be allowed to spout that bullshit freely.
Nothing exists in a vacuum and, like it or not, compromises have to be made. If that means a hateful groups of 1-2-3% doesn't have the right to talk so be it.
And I repeat, they would like nothing more than to take your freedoms and everyone else's freedoms. Why should they be allowed a platform for this?
>>1350856
>jesus is the strong force
creationists are really dumb
>>1355530
I've honestly never heard someone use that. That was from the tract itself, which is pretty strawman on its own.
>>1355528
Because if you don't allow them freedoms, YOU'RE ALREADY TAKING AWAY EVERYONE'S. "You're free to do whatever I want you to" is no freedom at all.
>>1355525
I want everyone to be allowed free speech as long as they don't want to ban it. Why would they be allowed a right they hate anyway?
Would you allow radical Islam a platform? Or say, a Eugenics Party on voting ballots?
Principles are fine, but don't let them make you weak. You're too naive tebehe.
>>1355074
these are smaller differences than those between chimp subspecies who live right next to eachother
>>1355535
>already taking away everyone's
Nope. Just a minority that hates that right anyway. You're running in circles.
And you're also very naive. Some ideas are malicious and need to be banned, get used to it or go living in Star Trek because until we reach that point, sorry, things need banning.
>>1355539
>I want everyone to be allowed free speech
No you don't. It's not free if there's "as long as".
How can anyone look at pic related and still believe there's a god?
>>1355539
OK, so I dont want to ban free speech.
I say free speech is allowed as long as you dont insult Jesus or the bible. Why would you want to do that in the first place. you're not really missing anything. So you still have free speech, you can say what you want as long as you don't insult my main man.
Agreed?
>>1355544
Yes you are. Just because you wouldn't want to act in a certain way anyway, doesn't mean you don't lose the right to act like that if doing so is banned.
>>1355547
God had bone cancer too?
>>1355534
i don't think creationists even know what the strong force is 2bh
>>1355546
E. B. Hall said "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." right?
Well if a libertarian says he thinks we should level taxes at a 5% maximum, well I'd disagree and call him a fool. I won't fuck him over for it tho.
A nazi says we need to kill Jews and Gyppos. Do you think he should be allowed to say it or not? That's instigating violence tho, right?
Well, he says "killing jews and gyppos isn't wrong." Now, would you allow it? Would you give this man a platform? And possibly other like him, emboldened by this?
Principles work fine on paper, but in reality you can't allow everything, not yet anyway. You either get it or you don't, but listen to me man, you are naive and in this world we leave in idealists are a dime a dozen. You are literally a free speech hippie.
>>1355568
That's what they rely on. It's the blind leading the blind.
>>1355570
I'm not saying you're necessarily wrong in that some ideas should be banned, I'm saying that you're a liar and a hypocrite when you add "but I totally support free speech, guys".
>>1355554
Strawman and you know it. Don't insult me with this shit, we've had a perfectly valid discussion up to this point.
>>1355558
Running in circles. Protecting free speech from those who'd have it banned means they don't get to use it.
That's like allowing someone to go into your swimming pool when he said clearly before he jumped in that he hates swimming pools and he'd shit and piss in it so that no one can use it.
>>1355578
>Running in circles. Protecting free speech from those who'd have it banned means they don't get to use it.
That's not protecting free speech, that's banning it. Protecting it means you stop them from restricting other people's free speech, not that you stop them from saying "I think free speech is a problem and should be banned." Saying something and doing it are two different things.
>>1355577
I'm willing to sacrifice my principles and my code of conduct and possible do harm unto others that would harm it in order to protect it. If you don't think it needs protection, by all means, continue living in that fairy land of yours.
>I'm not saying you're wrong
I'm not. IRL principles don't work like they do on paper. No society is without its victims or blame. That's the way it works anon, either you like it or don't.
Do you thunk generals fighting in wars are hypocrites and liars for saying they love peace?
>>1355594
>Do you thunk generals fighting in wars are hypocrites and liars for saying they love peace?
If they start wars in the name of peace, hell yes.
>>1355499
If there are universal laws that govern nature (e.g. the principle of evolution) then human behavior is subject to those laws. If human behavior follows natural laws, then there is no free will, because free will implies the possibility to defy laws.
Herbert Spencer showed how human society follows the same principles as the unorganic and organic. Evolution is one of those master principles.
>>1355526
Reminder that good and evil are subjective evaluations that are scientifically worthless. There is only function. And as long as social phenomena serve a function within society, the individual attempt to ban them is pointless.
>>1355570
>A nazi says we need to kill Jews and Gyppos. Do you think he should be allowed to say it or not? That's instigating violence tho, right?
>Well, he says "killing jews and gyppos isn't wrong." Now, would you allow it? Would you give this man a platform? And possibly other like him, emboldened by this?
Yes. Yes. Yes.
You allow them to say (not do!) that. That is the price you pay for YOUR right to say whatever YOU want.
The limitations you want to set may be reasonable in your eyes, but once limitations are allowed someone in a position of power may set new limits, and you may not agree with those wholeheartedly.
>>1355578
>Strawman
thta's not a strawman tho. it's just an example of your principle at work
>>1355589
I'm perfectly fine with banning 1% so that 99% can say what they want. On paper sure, that's a heinous crime, but we're talking IRL here and that's as good a percentage you could feasibly get in the long run.
Again, you are talking principles and I agree with you wholeheartedly but principles are hard to apply. And believe you me lad, there are people, and I don't mean /pol/fags who spout maymays out of their ugly cum encrusted dorito filled basement, but real dangerous men trying to fuck you over using your own principles against you and then wiping their asses with them. And again, I repeat, they have declared themselves to be your enemy and the enemy of freedom and free speech and justice and liberty. Why should they be allowed to use these very principles and twist them for their own purpose?
No. fuck;'em, I don't care.
>>1355610
because basing your life on facts then morality makes for a better argument than random morality
>>1351071
Fundies have to beleive this, otherwise there is no accounting for the great misfortune of those people born the "wrong" religion, who never hear Jesus' message, still being burned in the lake of fire. If their notion of God as just and loving is to survive, they must believe that everyone secretly "knows" Jesus is the saviour, they just lie to themselves and others for some reason, so they "deserve" eternal suffering.
>>1353693
Nonsense, both have been observed in laboratories, and in fact they are the same exact thing, lots of "micro" evolutions = one "macro" evolution.
>>1355616
>>1355608
Yes it is. Under the principles of free speech no idea should be above criticism sans free speech itself. Because if you use free speech to criticize its existence you are criticizing the medium, the platform and the principle itself while using them and that is just retarded. And hypocritical.
>>1355608
It is, and you should be ashamed m8.
>>1355602
>slippery slope strawman
I just said the only speech banned is that speech that attacks democracy, the principles of free speech or incites to violence.
>>1355599
>start war in the name of peace
No. If hey find themselves in war, because war happened, and they say they fight so that peace can be achieved. Say... Ike, or Monty or whomever. Would you still think they're hypocrites?
>>1355611
>I'm perfectly fine with banning 1% so that 99% can say what they want. On paper sure, that's a heinous crime, but we're talking IRL here and that's as good a percentage you could feasibly get in the long run.
But you're not doing that. You're banning free speech from EVERYONE, not 1%, so they can't say things you disagree with, plain and simple. This does nothing at all to ensure that the rights of your 99% are protected. It only provides a way for politicians to expand on it like "hey, this ideology kind of sounds like nazism, so lets ban it as well" thus further harming everyone's rights.
>>1355634
Lad, again, I agree with you on paper, but the world doesn't work like that nor will it in the near future. You either accept the fact or not.
>>1355310
>Even in Muslim countries they teach evolution.
>Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and Turkey, legislation forbids teachers to discuss either the evidence for evolution or the modern evolutionary synthesis, the explanatory scientific theory of evolution
Don't know about other muslim-majority schools but since muslim faith schools in Britain don't teach it, I'd say muslims in general support the YEC on this point.
>>1355632
>No. If hey find themselves in war, because war happened, and they say they fight so that peace can be achieved. Say... Ike, or Monty or whomever. Would you still think they're hypocrites?
But that's not what you're doing. It's not even CLOSE to what you're doing. You're banning free speech and proclaiming that you're doing it to protect it. That makes you a hypocrite and a liar.
>>1355641
Then accept that you're a liar and a hypocrite and stop claiming that you support free speech.
>>1355408
>And most Muslims aren't radicalized but a good chunk of them really is.
Depends what you mean by "radicalised". Huge majorities in all muslim countries think homosex should be punished with death, that women are 1/2 a man, that insulting the Prophet should be punished with death, and that leaving islam should be punished with death. If they were Christians holding such views, they'd be among the most extreme of radicals, but because this is the majority view of muslims it's glossed over because we're not allowed to say that brown people have bad ideas or do things poorly.
>>1355643
OK, fuck this argument already
>b-but gommies and nahtzees and salafists iz people too
No and I don't give a shit about their rights when they're trying to take mine. Go live in a hippie commune or something, the world does not work like this.
So I ask again, would you allow a Salafist, a Maoist, a Nazi and a Eugenics party to run on your next election? Yes or no?
>>1355651
How can you possibly be this stupid? You're going to trust the state to determine who can and who cannot have free speech? You realise that means NO-ONE has free speech, right?
>>1355657
>I meant radicalized in the sense that they think the West should be destroyed and that we should surrender to Sharia and shit like that. And that support suicide bombers.
Well then again, most muslims are "radical" according to you. Support for suicide bombers is very high everywhere you find muslims, and all muslims in theory at least want shariah law to be the only law, everywhere on Earth.
>>1355651
>So I ask again, would you allow a Salafist, a Maoist, a Nazi and a Eugenics party to run on your next election? Yes or no?
Y E S
I'd rather fight them in the open political arena than have them brew underground.
Also, their right to be politicals is also my right to be political. else >>1355659
>>1355642
They even have their own Ken Ham: Harun Yahya.
>>1355651
>No and I don't give a shit about their rights
and finally you show us your true face
>>1355666
>Dumbest statement in the thread lad.
Why? Because it's true and blows your "point" completely out of the water?
>>1355651
"I HATE FREE SPEECH! BAN FREE SPEECH! But I totally support free speech."
Just stop it already, faggot. If you wouldn't allow a nazi party to form and get up for an election, then you do not, in fact, support free speech. Either accept it and move on, or fucking kill yourself retard.
>>1355663
Then you are a fool my friend and I am sorry for you. Don't bother replying.
>>1355624
no one said that there is no god
>>1355675
Just read some books on this subject and keep debating people who disagree with you. You'll come around.
>>1355684
They're the kind of people who think up all kinds of false implications to convince people. In their minds, evolution=no God.
>>1355690
>Libertarian I take it?
No, just a left of centre liberal. Free speech is the bedrock of all other rights, if you don't have free speech, then you don't really have any rights.
>>1355690
>Foolishness and idealism. Unsubstantiated by reality.
Whether free speech is an ideal we should strive towards or unsubstantiated idealism is irrelevant. Not supporting it and claiming that you do still makes you a hypocrite and a liar. Now go kill yourself, faggot.
>>1355695
Nice idealism you got there. World does not work like that outside University debates and such.
>>1355690
>Nice quotemining.
how so? It was completely opposite to all the "I allow free speech" claims. a complete 180 turn, pretty significant imo
>>1355709
whatever, kiddo
>>1355703
None of you took my point to head so I'll reiterate and be done with it because I'm tired of running in circles with you.
Free speech is only for those who would not chop at it. Those ideas that do try to take away free speech should be outright banned because they are using the medium against it, they are using the platform to restrict all other platforms and they are using the principle against it.
If you hate the principle, you have no right to use it and that's it.
If you do not understand this you are a fool who does not see further than the tip of his own nose.
>>1355698
God is not falsifiable and therefore not scientific. Evolution is.
>>1355721
Just say "Free speech should be banned." It's more honest that way. Or take a look at the USA. They have lots of problems, but in over two centuries they've never had to ban free speech, and they still have it.
>>1355721
>Free speech is only for those who would not chop at it.
No. Free speech with conditions is NOT free speech. The problems Europe has with Pisslam are because of alack of free speech, it is not permitted for white Europeans to criticise Islam and it's vile doctrines because muslims are a protected class, if there was free speech in Europe, people would be able to tackle these ideas openly and publicly and demonstrate clearly that our values are better than theirs.
>>1355721
>Free speech is only for those who would not chop at it.
But if I dont want to chop at it, but only want to very very slightly set some standards, would that be allowed?
>>1355725
>God
A sufficiently abstract deist "god" is unfalsifiable, but the god of the Bible makes claims about real facts and those can be investigated empirically. For example, Jesus says that prayer can move mountains,. yet every study made shows prayer has exactly no effect on outcomes.
>>1355725
That's not how they see it. They think that if you accept "evolutionism" or "Darwinism," popular buzzwords among creationists, you must then accept philosophical naturalism (they mistake methodological for philosophical). And, in their minds, there's no need for God.
They are a very odd people.
>>1355737
>not loading obvious metaphor
>>1355746
>hurr its a metaphor!
Here's the problem with this line of thought: How do you know what is metaphor, and what is literal? Adam and Eve are usually described as a metaphor, but historically they were taken quite literally. What else is "just a metaphor"? Maybe the whole "son of God" thing is "just a metaphor"? Maybe the whole notion of god is a metaphor? If you accept that the Bible contains passages that are presented as fact but are meant to be taken metaphorically, then you have no basis for any part of your faith.
>>1355757
The type of language used is very important. I believe there was one chapter which referred to a battle as recorded history, and the following chapter was a poetic form of the battle. Bear in mind that embellishments were made in the poem that weren't there in the record.
Repetition seems to be a key element in Genesis 1, where you see "and God said let there be" and "it was so" used multiple times. Some even argue that that verses 1 and 2 are separate from the creation narrative.
>>1355774
>The type of language used is very important.
But it offers no clue until after the fact. We know, now, that Noah can't have built an ark and saved two of every animal from a global flood, so we have no problem describing that as "metaphor". But back in the day people DID take it literally, and they apparently failed to see whatever clues you think there are in the text that this story is just a story, and not true history. Likewise, people have thought the story of the Exodus may contain mythic "metaphors" about plagues and parting seas, but it was generally accepted as history. But Israeli archeologists have now concluded that the whole story is pure myth, it turned out to just be "a metaphor", but through all the thousands of years since it was written, somehow no-one realised this until it was proven. So no, the text does not offer any way to distinguish metaphor from truth, which means you cannot claim any part of it as true since no-one, including you, knows whether it will be proven "just a metaphor" at some point in the future.
>>1355790
>Israeli archeologists have now concluded that the whole story is pure myth
do you have a link to their research? Or back story?
>>1355790
You must've been a joy to have in class. How do you that they took it literally.
>>1355807
*literally?
>>1355807
>How do you that they took it literally.
not that anon, but just talk to a few Christian. You'll be amazed as to how litteral they take the bible, even today.
>>1355817
Believe me, I know.
>>1355790
>Bible says God is a rock
>haw haw haw, they actually believe He's a rock
Do you think people are this stupid, anon?
![5569b09c85eb771724c3f53517adf0218ec0a04067f5ade235943e1339bf66ea[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/vfYgsJv.jpg "5569b09c85eb771724c3f53517adf0218ec0a04067f5ade235943e1339bf66ea[1].jpg")
>>1355833
>Do you think people are this stupid, anon?
I think they are even more stupid than that
>>1355844
Two can play at that game.
>>1355854
true except for "magically"
learn2physics
>>1355854
>>1355844
>>1355854
>>1355844
>>1355854
>>1355406
>hates Jews
>impose fascist ideology
>butthurt when critiqued
I'll give you those.
But denying women rights and dressing them like civilized people is most definitely Christian.
>>1355800
http://www.haaretz.com/jewish/the-jewish-thinker/were-jews-ever-really-slaves-in-egypt-or-is-passover-a-myth-1.420844
http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Op-Ed-Contributors/The-Exodus-Does-archaeology-have-a-say-348464
>>1356325
Thank you
>>1355757
grow up my man
>>1356681
"Grow up" and stop believing in magic sky pixies, you mean?
>>1355757
>How do you know what is metaphor, and what is literal?
If I told you to take a dick in the ass, would you take it literally?
>>1356723
>HURR
If you were God almighty's Testament to his people then I suspect a great many of your followers would, in fact, practise buttsex on the basis of your suggestion.
>>1350854
Religious people don't care about evidence that's the reason why they are religious.
Reason and logic don't matter to them.
>>1350856
The Cro-Magnon man was NOT homo sapiens, he was far superior to modern man and had a greater cranial capacity.
>>1356794
No.
>>1350856
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S89IskZI740
>>1356808
Yes
>>1356143
>THE ANGLES! OH GOD, THE ANGLES!
>>1356834
You're a moron.
>>1356844
not an argument
>>1356829
What do you think this proves? Use your words.
>>1356829
Yeah this is rubbish. Already 6 minutes in and he's yet to say anything remotely intelligent.
>HURR DE FOSSILS IS HARD
>DURR U CANT PUT EVILUTION IN A LAB
>HERP FYSICS IS MORE HARDER THAN BIOLOGEE TEHREFORE JESUS
>>1356851
You think cro-mags were some kind of unknown super-race.You're not worth arguing with.
>>1350854
>two skulls next to each other
>evolution must be true
This is what evolution has done to science.
>>1356884
>literally shows up out of nowhere in southeast Europe
>literally light years ahead, from the cave paintings in Lascaux to the vowen cloth 30 millenia ago
>imply lack of superiority
>be this autistic
i can't lol
>>1356926
>>imply lack of superiority
They were superior to previous hominids but not to us, since they are us.
>>1356931
Who are the 'us'?
Does that include australian aborigines (average IQ 62)? Does it include pygmies (average height 4'11)? Explain yourself. Are 'us' all humans? Are you implying they are all equally evolved?
>>1356986
Are you an Aborigine? No? What about a pygmy?
Who do you fucking think I mean, you utter simpleton.
>>1356851
>Cro-Magnon is a common name that has been used to describe the first early modern humans (early Homo sapiens sapiens) that lived in the European Upper Paleolithic.
Guess where that's from
>>1356986
Dogs and wolves are the same species, retard.
Pick up a book that wasn't written in animal hides.
>>1356926
Ahwwww, did you make that meme-pic yourself? How cute.
>>1356986
>equally evolved
That's not how evolution works.
>>1356168
The one of the left is for killing burglars, the one of the right is for killing spiders and flies, right?
>>1355757
The OT is metaphorical. The NT is literal, because there are many eye-witness accounts that confirm Christ rose from the dead.
>>1355914
Well the first one was more of an attempt at humor, while the second one was the creation of a butthurt creationist.
You can tell because the first is Christianity paraphrased in an irreverent, absurd and humorous fashion, while the second reiterates the creationist's utter lack of understanding of what atheism is or what the scientific theories he is alluding to even state.
Both images made me laugh.
>>1350854
WE WUZ BUFF AND STUFF
Can we have a ban on these threads? We have one popping up several times a day.
It's a minority of Christian who believe in YEC
>inb4 muh 40%
That includes people who believe in any type of creationism, they don't all have uniform views. Most of them are Old Earth creationists which is far more reasonable, albeit still flawed.
>>1356851
But you presented no argument to be countered in the first place. You merely asserted something to be true without any supporting evidence.
>>1355083
>spread in immigrant communities by Adnan Oktar
Who is a fucking dönmeh crypto-Jew. There we have direct evidence of creationism being propagated by Jews
>>1357056
Panspermia is the superior alternative.
Directed panspermia even more so, if you like to be on the faithful side.
>>1356986
>are all equally evolved?
You seem to believe in a linear path of evolution.
It's simply not the case.
Nobody is "equally evolved" because we aren't in a race towards anything.
There's no end goal in evolution.
Midget pygmies and dumb gas-huffing abos aren't less evolved than white people, they just evolved in a different way to suite their surroundings better.
Everyone's about equidistant from an evolutionary perspective from the apes we came from.
We all just split into different paths.
>>1357110
>WE WUZ CROMAGNONS
>>1357110
Don't be starting any of that neander-ape shit around here. It's based off of bunk science just to make a quick buck.
>>1357295
>Linkspamming
>Not able to articulate an argument
That vid was already posted you retard
>>1357268
>Midget pygmies and dumb gas-huffing abos aren't less evolved than white people,
Yes they are because whiteys can thrive better in their own natural habitats more than the abos and pygmies who were on the verge of extinction.
>>1357334
>Yes they are because whiteys can thrive better in their own natural habitats more than the abos and pygmies who were on the verge of extinction.
We have equally evolved.
And Abos moped around burning forests for 50,000 before White people even fully developed.
If anything they've likely done more evolving because of the massive time spans.
Evolution doesn't mean "things get better", it just means that things are changing overtime to adapt to the habitat.
Abos didn't need to be intelligent and adaptive.
They didn't need to be tall or strong.
They didn't need to be especially strong hunters.
If their race could survive and breed using less energy and less effort than anyone else that just meant they were doing it right.
Pygmies just keep getting eaten by bantu because their tiny bodies are tasty to braindead tribals.
Doesn't mean they're less evolved.
Just means that the environment they developed in has become hostile.
>>1356926
>homo superior
kek'd
>>1356931
>http://chaosandpain.blogspot.com/2009/09/stemming-tide-of-deevolution.html
Cro-Magnon or Nenaderthal?
The answer is nephilim.
>>1357369
>chaosandpain.blogspot
>chaosandpain
>>1357373
holy hell I'm laughing so hard
>>1357369
this is gold
>>1357351
>We have equally evolved
There is no such thing are equality in evolution dumbass.
>And Abos moped around burning forests for 50,000 before White people even fully developed.
Yh because they were stupid fucks who had no self control like the haitians.
>If anything they've likely done more evolving because of the massive time spans
Yh thats why whiteys can thrive better in their continent better than them right kek.
>Evolution doesn't mean "things get better", it just means that things are changing overtime to adapt to the habitat.
Abos are less evolved because they suck as living in their continent more than outsiders that lived in an alien environment compared to Australia cold Europe.
>Abos didn't need to be intelligent and adaptive
HAHAHAHAHAHA
>They didn't need to be tall or strong.
Abos are strong mate they had the best sprinters in human history.
>They didn't need to be especially strong hunters.
Yh they did
>They didn't need to be especially strong hunters.
If their race could survive and breed using less energy and less effort than anyone else that just meant they were doing it right.
They were on the verge of extinction and had no agriculture they were basically monkeys that could walk and hunt things.
>Pygmies just keep getting eaten by bantu because their tiny bodies are tasty to braindead tribals.
Maybe if the dumb pygmies were smarter they could think of ways to beat their more superior nigger cousins.
>>1357396
>They were on the verge of extinction and had no agriculture they were basically monkeys that could walk and hunt things.
>were
kek
>>1357409
>were
Yes because we whiteys felt sorry for the dumb animals and made them nice homes in the middle of nowhere where they can live till they are 30 or something.
>>1357396
>There is no such thing are equality in evolution dumbass.
You're the one contending that evolution is like some race to the finish line.
Equality is the best way to describe the fact that no race is better or worse from having evolved the way they have.
>Have to be a good hunter to burn down forests and pick at the things that couldn't get out in time
>Abos being strong
I've never met an abo that could bench 1pl8.
But then again I've only met around a dozen.
>They were on the verge of extinction and had no agriculture they were basically monkeys that could walk and hunt things.
Having a small but persistent population capable of subsisting off of their local flora and fauna is not a failure m8.
Look at wild mustangs in the US.
The smaller the population the healthier they are.
When they begin to overbreed and burden the local ecosystem they begin to starve to death.
>Maybe if the dumb pygmies were smarter they could think of ways to beat their more superior nigger cousins.
Sure.
But that doesn't mean they're "less evolved", it just means that a new predator has been introduced into their habitat and they're not handling it well.
Happens to other animal populations all the time.
Some bounce back, some don't.
Doesn't make them better or worse.
>>1357439
They begin to starve to death because they are FUCKING HORSES, no thumbs, no intelligence, no ability to agriculture or hunt/gather even. Abos failed to develop these methods while descending from, according to out of Africa, the same ancestor we did. Which means they are less intelligent, but not less evolved (according to you).
>>1357439
>Having a small but persistent population capable of subsisting off of their local flora and fauna is not a failure m8.
Oy anon the Abos had megafauna we whiteys were stuck with the small mammals in Europe to hunt on and some big ungulants I guess it was much harder to survive in Europe than Australia big time so we are the better design.
>>1357459
That's just the megamix of neanderthal and denisovan DNA, and most of it's cosmetic. They had to do deal with thing no other human at the time had to: an almost continent-wide desert, giant animals and venomous animals. They split off after the time of the AMH. Don't bringing any of that Java Man shit.
>>1357461
>>1357459
>Which means they are less intelligent, but not less evolved (according to you).
Yes.
That's what I've been trying to get across.
>>1357461
Yeah but for the majority of their history they didn't need to hunt small mammals.
It's like asking why a dog can't climb a tree but can run on land while a cat can both run on land and climb a tree.
Being able to surround and stab giant sloths to death worked for them.
Using their shitty little spears to stab those big coastal crabs worked for them.
>>1357475
>They had to do deal with thing no other human at the time had to: an almost continent-wide desert, giant animals and venomous animals
>What is Africa
Also the ancestors of sandniggers were hunting and gathering in those barren hellholes they still live in meaning living in the desert aint hard if you aint dumb abo.
>>1357485
Anon megafauna means MORE MEAT TO FEED ON meaning its easier to survive in Australia, also any human tribe could figure out ways to beat Megalania, I mean there are still nigger tribes in Africa that can subdue crocodiles.
>>1357491
>>1357496
Whole different ballgame. Crocs are squat-limbed ambush predators. These are more like their komodo cousins, only scaled up.
>>1357532
Aint nothing a bunch of pointy sticks cant solve, I remember a documentary where niggers speared a single hippo to death.
>>1357532
Humans genocided megafauna everywhere on Earth, except in Africa where they had evolved alongside us and knew how to survive.
>>1357564
These ain't niggers tho. At least they were adapted to their environment, that's why they still have most of their megafauna. This was an entirely new area with a slew of new problems.
>>1357589
>>1350854
How can anyone doubt genetic differences between different populations after looking at the historical evidence?!
>>1357628
Kek
>>1357396
>Abos are less evolved because they suck as living in their continent more than outsiders that lived in an alien environment compared to Australia cold Europe.
>I don't know what invasive species are
Next you'll be telling me that Rabbits are more evolved than all of australia's wildlife and plantlife or something.
>>1357064
Yes there's definitely something off with this guy... A Muslim Quranic literalist who dresses in suits and shows off nearly naked women?? What? A very fishy figure, dönmeh is a definite probability, especially considering his prominent media presence.
Didn't he also successfully get websites claiming he was a dönmeh blocked in Turkey?
>Evolution affects all animals
>except for humans LOL we're all the same haha one species just the HUMAN race ;)
when will this meme end?
>>1357606
Abos are almost the same as niggers(mentally) so they would use nigger level reasoning and use the spam pointy stick strategy most of the time. Also nigs have been dwelling in the Saharan deathtrap since before we whiteys existed.
>>1357745
When the last SJW renounces their faith or dies trying to defend it.
>>1357745
Nobody who knows anything about evolution would say we "Are all the same". But the differences are so miniscule they are hardly mentionable. And yes, we are one species. Otherwise interbreeding couldn't occur.
>>1357770
True, but wouldn't the facial configuration have affected something, or was it just cosmetic?
>>1357775
>Ligre
30 IQ points is a pretty big difference.
>>1357780
>IQ
When will this meme end?
>>1357790
when you come up with a better measure of intelligence, and find that it's very highly correlated with IQ.
>>1357775
>But the differences are so miniscule they are hardly mentionable
google image african prognathism. Yes yes we are the same species but very diverse in phenotypes.
>>1357777
What part of same as niggers mentally cant you understand?
>>1357804
I was meaning like heat distribution of some shit like that. No need to get hostile.
>>1357780
>Liger
>Capable of producing fertile offspring
Still a different species m8.
>>1357835
>Elliot Rogers
>fertile
>>1357834
>heat distribution
Well that explains their nasal structure.
>>1356794
the other arguer was stupid.
According to Smithsonian Mag, a recent scientific study from Oxford proposes a new explanation for why neanderthals never wrapped their big brains around farming or a written language. The study proposes that neanderthals dedicated far more of their brains to controlling their bodies than we do. Though they were shorter than humans, they were also stockier and stronger, particularly in the upper body. The study also suggests neanderthals had to commit more brain power to vision than we do.
From the study:
"Neanderthal brains contained significantly larger visual cortices. This is corroborated by recent endocast work, which found that Neanderthal occipital lobes are relatively larger than those of AMHs [anatomically modern humans]. In addition, previous suggestions that large Neanderthal brains were associated with their high lean body mass imply that Neanderthal also invested more neural tissue in somatic areas involved in body maintenance and control compared with those of contemporary AMHs.
>>1355129
'Humans are very different to chimps' he says as he apes around the stage. 'My imaginary dog backs me up on this.'
>>1358640
Trying to disprove evolution, he made a monkey out of himself.
>>1355479
Stopping them from speaking about it will make them think your hiding something.
a person with a incorrect belief who can't express it will have that belief fester, and will whisper it to others ill informed.
But when these ideas are allowed to be expressed they can easily be outwitted and their flaws broadcasted.
A protest is a perfect opportunity to do this, and to express the justification of the ban.
