Earth is 6000 years old, Bible is true

>>2389106
That claim doesn't sit nicely with the rest of the extensive fossil record predating the dinosaurs, but good try.

>>2389133
https://www.trueorigin.org/dating.php

(David Plaisted)—examines the facts behind radiometric (& other) dating methods cited by evolutionists to “prove” their million-year scenarios.

File: 1482806270612.jpg (109KB, 1100x1200px) Image search: [Google]

109KB, 1100x1200px

>>2389106
Bait.

>>2389184
Ancient explorers and historians, like Josephus, told of small flying reptiles in ancient Egypt and Arabia and described their predators, the ibis, stopping their invasion into Egypt. (Epstein, Perle S., Monsters: Their Histories, Homes, and Habits, 1973, p.43.) A third century historian Gaius Solinus, discussed the Arabian flying serpents, and stated that “the poison is so quick that death follows before pain can be felt.” (Cobbin, Ingram, Condensed Commentary and Family Exposition on the Whole Bible, 1837, p. 171.)

The well-respected Greek researcher Herodotus wrote: “There is a place in Arabia, situated very near the city of Buto, to which I went, on hearing of some winged serpents; and when I arrived there, I saw bones and spines of serpents, in such quantities as it would be impossible to describe. The form of the serpent is like that of the water-snake; but he has wings without feathers, and as like as possible to the wings of a bat.” (Herodotus, Historiae, tr. Henry Clay, 1850, pp. 75-76.) This is a remarkable description of a pterosaur! In his third volume Herodotus goes on to tell how these animals could sometimes be found in the Arabian spice groves. He describes their size, coloration, and reproduction. It seems that venomous flying serpents were infamous for living in frankincense trees. When workers wanted to gather the tree’s incense, they would employ putrid smoke to drive the flying reptiles away. (Note the illustration below to the the left.) Herodotus has been called “the Father of History” because he was the first historian we know who collected his materials systematically and then tested them for accuracy. John Goertzen noted the Egyptian representation of tail vanes with flying reptiles and concluded that they must have observed pterosaurs or they would not have known to sketch this leaf-shaped tail. (Goertzen, J.C., “Shadows of Rhamphorhynchoid Pterosaurs in Ancient Egypt and Nubia,” Cryptozoology, Vol 13, 1998.)

>>2389196
>Well Respected
>Herodotus

File: 1475275388690.jpg (57KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

57KB, 640x480px

>>2389106
"sure"

>>2389254
Daniel was said to kill a dragon in the apocryphal chapters of the Bible. King Cyrus challenged Daniel’s refusal to worship the idol Bel. Daniel revealed to the king a conspiracy on the part of the priests to eat the food offered to Bel, making the god seem real. Not only were the deceptive priests executed, but Daniel was allowed to destroy their idol and a dragon that was being worshipped. In the brief narrative of the dragon (14:23-30), Daniel killed the dragon by baking pitch, fat, and hair to make cakes that cause the dragon to burst open upon consumption. In the Hebrew Midrash version, other ingredients serve the purpose of destroying the dragon.

After Alexander the Great invaded India he brought back reports of seeing a great hissing dragon living in a cave. Later Greek rulers supposedly brought dragons alive from Ethiopia. (Gould, Charles, Mythical Monsters, W.H. Allen & Co., London, 1886, pp. 382-383.) Microsoft Encarta Encyclopedia (“Dinosaur” entry) explains that the historical references to dinosaur bones may extend as far back as the 5th century BC. In fact, some scholars think that the Greek historian Herodotus was referring to fossilized dinosaur skeletons and eggs when he described griffins guarding nests in central Asia. “Dragon bones” mentioned in a 3rd century AD text from China are thought to refer to bones of dinosaurs.

Idiots will respond to this unironically.

File: Swift-Dueling-Dino-Vase.jpg (1MB, 2127x3025px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2127x3025px

Atheists on suicide watch.

>atheists reject science and archeology when it proves the bible

really makes you think

>>2389328
If our civ collapsed, and our descendants found dinosaurs models and pictures of dinosaurs, would you assume that dinosaurs existed with us, or that we found their fossils?

The science is extremely well established, non-avian dinosaurs were wiped out 65 million years ago.

>>2389347
>non-avian dinosaurs were wiped out 65 million years ago.

Proof? You need to back up your claims with evidence.

>>2389368
Do you have examples of dinosaur fossils dated from after 65 million years ago?

File: Slide0225.jpg (25KB, 280x214px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 280x214px

>>2389376
See
>>2389150

Dating methods are extremely unreliable and flawed.

>>2389400
Carbon dating can be imprecise with a thousand years of error, not tens of millions.

I want you to explain to me why you think that you have this figured out, but scientists from all over the world are wrong. You've swallowed half truths and misinformation, just like SJWs.

File: cd12.jpg (89KB, 605x434px) Image search: [Google]

89KB, 605x434px

>>2389412
You should read the link, it has all the information you need.

As for your second point, that's an ad populum logical fallacy.

"How often have you heard evolutionists say: "There's really no disagreement among reputable scientists when it comes to evolution." Or: "Evolution is settled science." Creation Moments has heard such statements fall from the lips of Richard Dawkins, PZ Myers, Eugenie Scott and many others, too numerous to mention.

Clearly these evolutionists are all working off the same page in their playbook. They're also showing that they aren't thinking clearly. Why? Because they are writing books, making films and giving speeches tearing down scientists who disagree with them. But wait - didn't they just say that there's no disagreement among reputable scientists and we're dealing with settled science?

By saying things like this, evolutionists believe that people can be easily fooled by one of the oldest logical fallacies in the book - the argumentum ad populum. As used by evolutionists, this fallacy can be stated like this: "Since all scientists believe in evolution, evolution must be scientifically correct."

Even if the first part of this assertion were true - which it isn't - the second part does not logically follow. It's like the child who tries to justify some undesirable behavior by saying, "It must be okay because all the kids are doing it." Besides, if scientific truth is determined by majority vote or by what most scientists believe at a certain point in time, then Darwinism itself would have been rejected when it was first proposed.

The argumentum ad populum is an illogical way for evolutionists to sway people to their position. Watch out for it whenever it's used by others ... and avoid using it yourself as you seek to defend biblical truth."

>>2389412
radiometric dating doesn't take into account catastrophic events, i.e a global flood

File: 1483898432762.jpg (482KB, 999x1399px) Image search: [Google]

482KB, 999x1399px

>>2389443
>global flood

>>2389454
Not an argument.

>>2389456
not an argument

Oh look, a thread full of redditors.
>>2389347
Lies tend to be established, yes.

>ITT: atheists in damage control

>>2389443
This sentence is utterly meaningless. Even if there was a global flood, these fossils would be underground long before it.

>>2389436
Anon I'm not going through that entire thing and filling in the missing halfs of those half truths for you. I already gave you an argument, you ignored it.

You know how we know that evolution is real? Among all other 4 main categories of evidence, we can and do direct it. The plants you eat for dinner, most of them literally would not exist without evolution being true. We create new dog-breeds all the time, through evolution.

Yes macro-evolution is functionally identical to micro-evolution, they are just on different time scales. If we separated one dog breed from all other dogs, it would eventually have gametes that don't match up for reproduction with outside groups, permanently separating them.

>>2389436
The plants you eat would not exist because almost all of them were drastically altered through artificial selection to the point of speciation. Literally new species created by humans.

>>2389474
Find me dinosaur fossils from later than 65 million years ago.

>>2389505
Fossils don't exist.

>>2389490
Variety within kinds =/= evolution

http://www.newgeology.us/presentation32.html
https://www.trueorigin.org/isakrbtl.php

Nobody disputes there are different dog breeds. They're all still dogs/canines, the same kind their original 2 ancestors were.

A dog does not have the genetic code to turn into a spider or a cow. The gene pool has a limit. You can only go so far with selective breeding.

>Yes macro-evolution is functionally identical to micro-evolution, they are just on different time scales.
That is a statement of faith.

Nobody has seen a dog produce a non-dog. Science is what you can observe, test and repeat. You have left the boundaries of science and now you're in the realm of speculations and imagination.

>>2389509
If you have a gun you should load it, cock it, put it in your mouth and pull the trigger.

>>2389106
why do evolutionists completely ignore all these dinosaur stories and depictions of ancient people?

our ancestors talked about dinosaurs as if they were real animals like any other.

is it cognitive dissonance or are atheists deliberately ignorant?

>>2389533
They also talked about other gods, so you're saying that the Bible isn't real?

>>2389526
YOU REJECT MY IDEOLOGY SO KILL URSELF OMG WTF FUCKGODFUCKINGCHRISTIANSREEE

>>2389537
They talked about largely anthropomorphic gods.

All fucking religous people must fucking hang.

File: Thunderbird.jpg (99KB, 866x518px) Image search: [Google]

99KB, 866x518px

>>2389533
Cognitive dissonance.

They are so brainwashed into "millions of years" that they automatically filter out any physical evidence that proves dinosaurs are not that old. There are hundreds of thousands of dragon/dinosaur stories and they wilfully ignore them because it contradicts their darwinian worldview.

>>2389542
That still doesn't seem to be compatible with Bible.

>>2389537
The Bible also mentions other gods

File: 1459862844401.gif (820KB, 3558x3364px) Image search: [Google]

820KB, 3558x3364px

>>2389543
(You)

You're talking to people that murder to keep lies afloat.
>first christians were gnostic
>romans persecuted them
>then romans compiled the bible to lead astray
>then they burned gnostics as heretics
>then in modern times they invented schizophrenia, a made up illness that serves as an excuse to give drugs that make gnostic meditation an impossible task, as you dont feel your inner self.

Truly there were no signs pointing at the true christians.

>carbon dating is the only kind of radiometric dating

>>2389533
They also describe ghosts, ghouls, trolls, elves, unicorns, dragons, whatever. Ancient people made shit up chief. Here in reality, we need solid evidence to change our understanding of it fundamentally.

Ancient people saying shit does not automatically equal reality.

>>2389525
It is not a statement of faith, You agree that these creatures through evolution. What do you think happens over a time period 100 times that length? The creature changes a much larger amount. No one things dogs can produce non-dogs. No one has ever said that happens.

>>2389546
Meaning they spoke people.

I don't get your point.
Human -> god
Dinosaur -> dragon

See how that works?
>>2389556
>reality
>evidence
Don't exist.

Did not actually think people like this existed, especially not on the internet, especially not on fucking 4chan.

>de ancent mans mention large lizards derefore earth is 6000

>>2389556
>ancestors talking about killing dinosaurs
>ancestors talking about riding dinosaurs
>ancestors talking about encountering dinosaurs
>ancestors drawing dinosaurs on cave walls
>ancestors drawing dinosaurs on pots
>ancestors making clay dinosaurs
>ancient historians describing how dinosaurs looked and behaved

>not enough evidence

>>2389533
They knowingly deny it.
See
>>2389553

>>2389567
Not an argument.

>>2389573
I've already addressed this>>2389347

We also draw and describe dinosaurs while making models because we've found their fossils, not because they share the world with us.

>>2389549
shove a bible up your ass.

>>2389567
waaaaah why dont you fit into my ideological mould
>>2389583
I didn't realize ancients were finding entire fossilized skeletons, arranging them in order, and recording their findings via art and literature.

>>2389549
>science
>relevant

>>2389592
Yeah bud turns out a lot of times it's just like finding a dead animal skeleton where you can tell what it looked like without re-arranging it.

>>2389556
>It is not a statement of faith
Yes it is.

One hasty generalization is when micro-evolution (adaptation within a species) is used to support macro-evolution (the change of one species into a different one.) The first is merely normal. The second never occurs. Yet evolutionists say that because some bacteria are resistant to antibiotics, this difference within the species proves that species change into creatures that are not of their own kind. That's a hasty generalization for you.

Evolutionists are constantly begging the question. They base their extrapolations on assumptions. A good example of this is the rock record. Evolutionists say that slow, steady rate erosion created rock layers that were obviously caused in a cataclysm. Evolutionists ignore the real world of sudden disasters that dramatically and suddenly change the landscape, since that ruins their theory of slow, predictable change over millions of years.

The theory of evolution is often referred to as a tested and proven scientific fact, when evidence overwhelmingly is against it. In fact, the theory of evolution is based on conjecture, and from there assumptions are made that contradict observable fact. Evolutionary arguments cannot withstand objective, in-depth criticism because they are nothing but hot air.

File: tmp_2249-1487329827853-772374555.jpg (326KB, 779x777px) Image search: [Google]

326KB, 779x777px

>this thread

>>2389597
I didn't realize a skeleton was a fossilized skeleton.

Do you not know how archaeology works?

>>2389347
>dinosaurs models and pictures

Yeah but what about the stories of encountering, describing and killing them?

Marco Polo even mentioned seeing dinosaurs in China being used to carry chariots.

>>2389599
evolution is a fact
there is just various theories describing it that are controversial

>>2389604
>I didn't realize a skeleton was a fossilized skeleton.

A fossilized skeleton is a dead animal skeleton that ends up being fossilized, yes. Some of them are found intact, at least enough to determine where the legs, head and body were.

It's Paleontology by the way you fucking mongoloid. I knew that distinction when I was literally 5 years old.

>>2389599
The only distinction in macroevolution is reproductive isolation. That's it. That happens when these populations have been separate for so long that their gametes no longer match up. It's not faith because we have a plethora of evidence, most obvious being that everything on the planet is literally related as you are to your cousins.

>>2389619
It's not controversial, no aspect of it is controversial. We can control it and manipulate it at will. It's as real as gravity.

>>2389619
"Evolution" has like 6 different meanings.

1. Cosmic evolution: the origin of time, space, and matter from nothing in the “big bang”
2. Chemical evolution: all elements “evolved” from hydrogen
3. Stellar evolution: stars and planets formed from gas clouds
4. Organic evolution: life begins from inanimate matter
5. Macro-evolution: animals and plants change from one type into another
6. Micro-evolution: variations from within the “kind”

The first 5 is purely religious and based on speculations and imaginations.
Only the last one is a scientific fact, nobody denies that.

Evolutionism is more of a metaphysical narrative meant to replace the Biblical Christian worldview. Atheists believe in all 6 steps, not realizing they are taking a huge leap of faith.

But 6k is not even in the bible, why do proddies even believe it?

>>2389580
Not possible to argue with you boys.

>>2389640
apparently if you add all of the years mentioned in the bible it is about 6k

>>2389637
Just like the medieval peasants that you're agreeing with, you're looking at something you don't understand and chocking it up to magic.

I'm not trying to be insulting, I'm just describing what I see, christian understanding of biological evolution is genuinely so basic that I am starting to believe that you people are genuinely not equipped to understand the concept.

>>2389624
Dr. Jonathan Sarfati, a biochemist and chess master disagrees with you.

Gene pool has a limit, you cannot breed a dog with wings or sonar. Why don't you start learning about DNA?

>everything on the planet is literally related
No we are not.

>>2389637
>The first 5 is purely religious and based on speculations and imaginations
well that's not true e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_microwave_background

>>2389637
Also, "organic evolution" is actually chemical evolution. What you call chemical evolution is not actually called that.

>>2389653
>one scientist disagrees
>he must be right and all the rest are wrong

Holy shit

My understanding of DNA is exactly why I know all things are related.

>>2389653
>you cannot breed a dog with wings or sonar.

Yes you could, it would just take millions of years.

I'm starting to understand the idea of putting religious people in concentration camps

File: evolution myth.jpg (66KB, 960x720px) Image search: [Google]

66KB, 960x720px

>>2389666
>one
Many scientists don't believe in evolution.

Infact, darwinism is considered a dead theory in academia. It's only held up by government funding and draconian atheism. The "intelligent design" movement is increasing within the scientific community.

>My understand of DNA is exactly why I know all things are related.
No, you do not understand DNA or genetics because you a dog can turn into a whale (given enough time).

Gene pool is not an infinite thing. Breeding is mixing up genes or losing them.

You cannot "add" genes. Dogs can only fuck other dogs, animals only reproduce after their own kind.

Evolutionists rely on mutations, and that makes your case even harder because "beneficial mutations" has been debunked hard.

File: statism.jpg (99KB, 769x671px) Image search: [Google]

99KB, 769x671px

>>2389679
>Shit, he proved my beliefs wrong
>Silence him!

Atheists, a beacon of reason and logic.

>>2389684
>Many scientists don't believe in evolution
such as?

>>2389706
http://creation.com/creation-scientists

>>2389684
Literally every single sentence in this post is wrong.

I'll give you the effort of debunking our main argument here, that mutations don't add information.

Frameshift mutations, insertion mutations, missense mutations are 3 off the top of my head that create entirely new genes.

>>2389694
It's that you are brainwashed and completely incapable of understanding why. I've presented the facts that disprove your assertions and it just does not compute. That's extremely dangerous.

http://www.newgeology.us/presentation32.html

Evolution is an unscientific myth.

>>2389736
Evolution is the reason why your dog is not still a wolf and why your corn is out of place in a field of wheat. It's real fuckass.

>>2389714
that looks like, what, a 100 scientists?
and some of them (half?) are in fields not connected to the topic

>>2389744
God is the reason why you exist.

File: a4d6418c42c03d36db3952c4cbdbd381.jpg (116KB, 915x540px) Image search: [Google]

116KB, 915x540px

>>2389106
WE WUZ DINOSAURS AND SHIET!

File: Consensus-Field.jpg (354KB, 799x666px) Image search: [Google]

354KB, 799x666px

>>2389746

>>2389753
At least you admit evolution is real.

File: myth.jpg (23KB, 300x237px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 300x237px

>>2389765
The only things that evolve are Pokémon.

>>2389328
>atheists reject science and archeology when it proves the bible
If science and archeology proved the bible there wouldn't be athiests in the first place, retard.
Remember your own history, christard. Christianity was the dominant power until sheer lack of evidence caused it's followers to wane in power.
If there was scientific evidence for Christianity, why would Christianity lose the following it already had in the first place?

File: feelsgood.jpg (18KB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 480x360px

>yfw the Bible is literally true and atheists get BTFO

Feels good being on the right side of history

>>2389777
>777

Christian trips confirm.

>>2389770
Have you ever seen a dog before? Have you ever eaten corn? Why do you think it's bad to over-prescribe anti-biotics?

>this thread
4chan sure has changed a lot over the years

>>2389770
fake quote is fake

>still no proof for evolution
>all atheists can do is shitpost

File: image.jpg (356KB, 1024x1457px) Image search: [Google]

356KB, 1024x1457px

>>2389106
>These reports come down from credible historians
[ciatation needed]
>The evidence is so compelling that darwinists have resorted to speculations about primitive paleontologists in antiquity
[citation needed]

>a citation should be a scholarly PEER- REVIEWED paper or article.
>YouTube and the Daily Mail ARE don't cut it.

>pic unrelated
Go Team Venture!

File: Evolutionism.jpg (67KB, 316x247px) Image search: [Google]

67KB, 316x247px

>>2389850
(You)

>>2389794
>>2389794
It's funny. I've been here 10 years. It used to be that the majority were Christian, then you had atheists being edgy and contrarian. Nowadays the majority are atheist or agnostic, and you have edgy contrarian Christians. I'm pretty sure the only reason OP believes any of this bullshit is to react against society.

>>2389860
these comics are so hilarious with how they attack evolution as a religion based on faith while suppporting a religion based on faith

>>2389870
I was going to make the same comment but couldnt think of the words.

How can they mock athiests for praying to science when they pray to a millenia old book god with an easily identifiable lineage from a small storm leading god to yahweh

>>2389870
Because evolution has no evidence whereas the Bible has mountains of evidence supporting it.

File: 1320529223886.jpg (27KB, 363x310px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 363x310px

>>2389886

File: kek.jpg (185KB, 1000x1000px) Image search: [Google]

185KB, 1000x1000px

>>2389892
>he thinks his grandpa was a monkey that crawled out of a slime pit after nothing exploded

atheists are delusional

>Creationists
Provide links, proof, evidence, articles, sources
>Evolutionists
Ad hominem personal attacks

Everytime.

Christians: 1
Atheists: 0

/thread

>>2389912

>Creationists
Everything in the bible is true because it's in the bible

>>2389624
A fossilized skeleton is far below your fucking dead cat's skeleton you idiot.
>It's Paleontology by the way you fucking mongoloid
I'm not referring to bones. I'm referring to the archaeological method which paleontologists also happen to use. That is, the use of stratification. Why do you take so much pride in being illiterate?

Do you think ancient humans were digging to the depths that we are? Their greatest achievements in digging are child's play compared to what can happen today.

In the Enuma Elish, which dates to the Bronze Age, the sea goddess Tiamat is described as taking the form of a dragon to defeat Marduk.

Are you arguing that people from the Bronze Age were discovering fossils, and from that just happened to realize they were giant fucking lizards? If so, why haven't we found any mention of them, or any evidence of them existing (as far as I know) alongside the rest of their civilization?
>>2389637
Science is not fact, science is trash philosophy.

Fact does not exist, fact is an imposition onto existence.
>>2389646
WAAAAAH PEOPLE THAT DISAGREE WITH ME ARE LE DUMB
>>2389727
YOU DONT SUBMIT TO MY IDEOLOGY SO YOUR LE DUMB

Bump for more atheist tears

File: Evolution.jpg (159KB, 875x402px) Image search: [Google]

159KB, 875x402px

> this whole thread

>>2391127
Evolution is false because animals have features that were impossible to evolve. They either have them or die. There is no way for natural selection to occur if without a specific mutated feature an animal simply cannot even live.

File: entropy.jpg (90KB, 197x277px) Image search: [Google]

90KB, 197x277px

>>2391127
Evolution implies mutations can make things better.

In reality, mutations make things worse.

There are stars that are more than 6000 lightyears away that we can see. If the universe was created 6000 years ago, then we wouldn't see them as their light would not have reached us yet

>>2389106
>They found fossils and made art about it

>>2391752
>Implying the universe wasn't created with the light already in transit
You can't outsmart God buddy

File: 1485019650272.jpg (37KB, 337x554px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 337x554px

>>2391225

99% of the time.

1% of the time they provide a huge competitive advantage over all of your rivals.

>>2392499
>implying your mom wasn't created with my dick in transit to her mouth

god is a tranny and rubs her axe wound to babyfuck

>>2389637
/thread

i bet if you calculated the possibility of any one of 1-6 happening you would get exponentially tiny odds, and even more microscopic odds compounding 1-6 happening in succession.

Yet evolutioniists unironically believe that in the short amount of time we've been here, all of these fantastical odds were defied, as if by some divine miracle of some sort, we are able to be alive and talking about it today.

Either evolution is correct and we are the luckiest ("logic" backed by an illogical premise of winning biological craps trillions of times in a row)

or this is a designed biology with a Creator

>>2389706
neils bohr for one
planck

>>2392520
LOL and humans just somehow got that 1% advantage over and over and over until we weren't monkeys anymore even though we are a relatively new species and haven't been around as long as our ancestors...but evolution is real forreal guys