Is C.S. Lewis the greatest philosopher of the 20th century?

File: lopeep.jpg (55KB, 258x360px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 258x360px

>>2433343
>He debunked Nietzsche

>word games and circular logic
>literally renown for not being able to argue in public

Should have stuck to fiction. But I know this is a bait thread and you're ready to spam a million anti-science posts and claim "evolution has been debunked! Religion IS science!".

But hey, I couldn't help myself.

I wouldn't say greatest but he's up there.

I've only read "Mere Christianity" so I'm aware of the arguments for objective morality. I like this channel which summarizes his points: https://www.youtube.com/user/CSLewisDoodle/videos

Kierkegaard's "Existential Problem" and "Religious Solution" also great watchings.

>>2433356
>anti-science
You mean anti-evolution, which is an unscientific myth. I love science, which is why I reject evolutionism.

>>2433343
I'm pretty sure his answer to the "most embarrassing verse in the bible" is considered heretical by every branch of Christianity alive today.

>>2433364
You never fail me, friend. You truly are a living, breathing cliche!

proves theres an objective moral law.

moral relativists / nihilists hate him because he shows there is a God by the very reason of our conscience, great man and very humble aswell

>>2433369
Thanks buddy, you also never cease to amaze me with your cognitive dissonance.

ITT: Ælian has another Æutistic fit of Nietzsche

>>2433371
His argument is literally "I have a consciousness and I can't explain why so obviously God game it to me!"

Not very impressive logic.

>>2433361
>https://www.youtube.com/user/CSLewisDoodle/videos

Pretty good introduction to Lewis, saved.

Stop baiting people with this shit. You've been doing it for days now.

>>2433378
>Nietzsche's argument is literally: hurr i dont believe in god, therefore he's dead!

see, i can strawman too.

File: IMG_0202.jpg (162KB, 828x960px) Image search: [Google]

162KB, 828x960px

>>2433343
He's completely irrelevant in the academia. Should have stuck with writing children's books t.b.h.

Yes but Albert Mohler is better imo when it comes to the subject of post-modernism and post-christian society.

>>2433387
I think I may have accidentally given him the idea by mocking him for using C. S. Lewis as a proponent of natural law over someone like Cicero.

>>2433354
>>2433356
>>2433376
>>2433378
>>2433387
>>2433391
spot the pissed off atheists.

look how fast they come out of the woodworks when their precious prophet nietzsche is proven wrong

>>2433392
Mohler is alright, but Lewis was way ahead of his time. He wrote during the climate of WW2 and destroyed the illusions that early atheists held on.

>>2433399
I'm not even atheist, you baiting clown.
>>2433397
You've created a monster. He's in every single thread that involves Christianity or will at some point bring up Christianity. No person on 4chan is going to be a filthy creationist so why others can't see through his bait is mind boggling.

A top contender for sure. Mere Christianity is a must read.

>>2433399

Ælian, people on here don't hate you because you're a Christian, they hate you because you're an autistic faggot who doesn't know the first thing about social interaction.

And I don't hate you at all, I just feel sorry for you. To be permanently on /his/, spouting pop-theology that people on here either don't read at all or laugh at you for, to be constantly obsessed over nonbelievers and trying to "win" "debates" with them, to be obsessed with how people perceive you and your posts to the point where you seem to constantly monitor /his/ in order to immediately respond to set the records straight if someone criticizes you, to do all of this shows to me just a desperate, pathetic and incapable of normal social interaction you are, and how you leave doubt that you have some several disorder when it comes to social interaction and the ability to empathize with people who disagree with you

>>2433423
>filthy creationist
That's ironic, because creationists tend to look clean, shaven and optimistic whereas evolutionists tend to look hairy, depressing and suicidal.

2/10 for making me reply to your bait

>>2433343
Reminder that there is no credible source Heisenberg ever said that.

If there is a god, would he approve of low-quality threads on /his/?
What sort of cruel and angry god would subject us to the likes of OP

File: cognitive dissonance.jpg (80KB, 574x574px) Image search: [Google]

80KB, 574x574px

>>2433428
People hate us because pic related.

That's the real reason, and you know it.

>>2433432
>>2433428
>>2433423
samefag

>>2433429
You're officially my mortal enemy on this site.
What should I call you?

>>2433423
>You've created a monster.

Nah, he's been posting YEC stuff for a while. The Lewis stuff is new, and came after the previously mentioned mocking. So I added a new dimension to the monster, but the monster has always been around.

At least he isn't sperging out about the Shroud of Turin.

File: Big Picture.jpg (167KB, 576x449px) Image search: [Google]

167KB, 576x449px

>>2433440
>>2433436
>I believe in myths

way to discredit yourself

>>2433423
>No person on 4chan is going to be a filthy creationist so why others can't see through his bait is mind boggling.
We have unironic flat-earthers on 4chan. What with all the conspiracy theorists and reactionary Christianity a YEC isn't actually all that farfetched, though yeah this guy is too cliche to not be baiting.

File: books.png (644KB, 613x472px) Image search: [Google]

644KB, 613x472px

>>2433448
>If you post scientific facts, you're cliché

Sorry to burst your bubble but facts don't care about your feelings, Timmy.

>>2433443
I know you're baiting; but there are people out there who believe stuff like this in earnest and it worries me deeply.

>>2433443
I'll name you Melvin after another off-board tumor.
>>2433448
Obviously.
He just called you Timmy which is again, why I don't understand the people who take his bait.

File: 1433112525062.jpg (55KB, 500x385px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 500x385px

>debunking someone who did not believe in objective truth

File: indoctrination.jpg (193KB, 960x329px) Image search: [Google]

193KB, 960x329px

>>2433456
You don't need to worry about me, I believe in actual history.

You need to take care of yourself, you're a victim of brainwashing.

>>2433463
If I call grass purple that doesn't change the fact grass is green.

Nietzsche can spout all he wants, but his arguments were torn apart by C.S. Lewis a few decades later.

>>2433448
how can you NOT be a flat earther after seeing eric dubay's videos? so much evidence

So it's settled.

We have come to a unanimous decision that Lewis is the greatest philosopher of the 20th century, OP we have answered your question.

/thread

>>2433448
>we have unironic flat-earthers
I refuse to believe this and I don't want to. They have to be advanced trolls.

EVEN THE TOOTHLESS PEASANTS DURING THE DARK AGES KNEW THE EARTH WAS ROUND.

>>2433433
>>2433433
>Haha dude say cognitive dissonance twice in the same thread without explaining myself once

>Yeah bro that wins arguments

>But dude, aren'the we the ones with cognitiveach dissonance for being unable to see the holes in the much longer standing Christian faith?

>dude fedora lmao

>>2433467
>Lewis
>tearing apart anything

Guy couldn't even write a decent children's book for fuck's sake.

>>2433343
>He debunked Nietzsche, Stirner
>Stirner

Neat, got any of his quotes or arguments?

File: 1468163396802.png (825KB, 965x930px) Image search: [Google]

825KB, 965x930px

>>2433472
have you even looked at the arguments for flat earth? people have known for thousands of years that the earth is fixed and immovable.

the idea that we live on a spinning globe is only 500 years old.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fk4YqPtvJao
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h5i_iDyUTCg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TFsuOFoolW8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xRr0B-l3gAY
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pnzUgKZ8m2k
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k0xClWgidZU
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pEm91zxBaa4

the flat earth movement is rapidly gaining popularity and is going viral. millions of people are starting to wake up.

i remember when i was a globe head, man did i live in fantasy land..

>>2433489
https://www.youtube.com/user/CSLewisDoodle/videos

>>2433497
This is untrue. The ancient Greeks calculated the circumference of the Earth before the Bible was even made dummy.

>>2433500
wrong.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fk_NzMejP-0

>>2433433

Again, Ælian, you didn't respond to a single word I said. People don't hate the fact that you're a Christian, not even your autistic, literalist interpretation of it, they simply hate you, because you're completely incapable of interacting with people you disagree with.

That's how I recognize you without your tripname. It's your own repetitive behavior that gives it away. You come here on /his/, spout Christian propaganda, and then never engage with people who disagree with you. You always do it in the same fashion, and only change the scripts you use. Just a few weeks ago you had an obsession with spelling Nietzsche as "Neetzsche", and his picture wearing a dumb hat, before that you had an obsession with /pol/ words like 'cuck' and 'cringe', and now your obsession of the month is C.S. Lewis and the term cognitive dissonance.

Stop it, please. You're not fooling anyone, you're not convincing anyone and you certainly aren't successfully hiding your own obvious personal shortcomings in socially interacting with people, which is probably why you're here in the first place. You're probably on here because you do this stuff in real life as well, and people, just like on here, openly wonder what your problem is. You then take your own isolation, and interpret as persecution for your obviously righteous beliefs. Stop it already, you're not helping anyone, but most importantly, you're not helping yourself

>>2433499
Which video in particular?

>>2433500
>Erastothenes lived in 270 BC
>Bible was made by Moses around 1900 BC

>>2433502
He can't be Ælian because he's capable of not sperging out and link-dumping when someone criticizes the Turin shroud.

>>2433502
>spelling Nietzsche as "Neetzsche"
>picture wearing a dumb hat
>words like 'cuck' and 'cringe'

Never did any of that.

You might be paranoid schizophrenic.

>>2433501
Retard.

Go hop on a plane and fly into the sun please.

>>2433504
No that's the Torah dummy

>>2433506

I had nearly forgotten about that one.

Who knew that endlessly posting the same stuff over and over again without ever enaging with anyone doesn't convince people?

>>2433513
so you have no argument?
cant prove the earth is a ball?

>>2433513
I should also mention that you have circumstantial evidence and no facts.

>>2433514
It's still the Bible.

Bible or biblias simply means library. Moses started the Bible, and it was finished when John wrote Revelation around 70 AD.

>>2433516
I have a tremendous amount of arguments. So do all the scientists who don't get laughed at in public. No matter what I tell you you'll just say it's either a hoax or provide some nonsensical """"argument"""" without any physical evidence for your preposterous claims.

>>2433520
It'seems not the bible though. It is one book. Is one book a library? Rather, it is the whole collection.

>>2433512

You did that just a few weeks ago. And it isn't the actual content that gives you away, Ælian, it's the repetive way you post it, and the fact that after you post it, you never engage with people who call you out on your beliefs. Also, you tend to use namecalling whenever you give away your identity, another clear signal on who you really are.

So tell me, Ælian, why did you throw the shroud of Turin and your brilliant NEETzsche memes under the bus? Did you sperg out when it convinced no one?

>>2433521
i just linked a bunch of 2-hour long flat earth documentaries, the burden of proof is on you now.

the earth is flat, scientifically proven after numerous tests. the "moon landing" was done in a hollywood basement directed by kubrick.

have a nice day, retarded globe nut

We literally had an argument about this yesterday where you got destroyed.

File: laughing.jpg (296KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

296KB, 1920x1080px

>>2433529
>C.S. Lewis
>ever being destroyed

Butthurt atheist I see.

>>2433523
If you open up a library, it doesn't matter if it's empty and most books have yet to hit the shelves.

It's still a library. It started some day.

To say that Erastothenes lived before the Bible is retarded, because the entire Old Testament existed centuries before him. The Tanakh is the Jewish Bible.

>>2433526
No, the burden of proof was on the scientists who were brilliant enough to prove all these things. Face it kid, your 2 bit documentaries are eclipsed by the progresses made by modern physicist. You're a monkey smearing shit on the wall and claiming it's a black board outlining physics

"You cram these words into mine ears against the stomach of my sense"

>>2433535
Our interpretations of the bible differ. Either way, the Greeks figured this out a very long time ago.

>>2433524
>Aelian
What is this supposed to mean?

>you never engage with people who call you out on your beliefs
That's because nobody is posting arguments. Evolutionists only shitpost and throw ad hominems around. I've never seen a darwinist on /his/ willing to have an actual debate regarding the origin of mankind.

We're dealing with denial, cognitive dissonance. Atheists dogmatically defending a cult, denying science and archeology when it shows scripture is accurate.

>Shroud of Turin
Never talked about this on /his/ either. Clearly you're mistaking me from someone else.

I know you suffer from delusion. Not everyone who disagrees with you is the same person, my mentally ill friend.

Creationists of /his/, if evolution isn't true why is it that the scientific community largely insists that it is?

>>2433542
>1 man puts a stick in the ground
>"the Greeks figured this out"
pick one.

the video i posted debunked your one (1) precious proof for heliocentric model.

pagans worshipped the Sun, thats why they glorified it and made earth revolve around it.

>>2433482
Hey now. The Lion, The Witch and The Wardrobe was pretty good.

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

354KB, 799x666px

>>2433547
This is why:

"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."

Authority opinion is not evidence for evolution. The majority used to believe the earth is flat. The common consensus among doctors used to be that draining out blood can cure diseases, etc.

Ad populum logical fallacy.

Why is AElian so obsessed with Nietzsche?

Like, seriously, there's innumerable atheist philosophers out there. Why does he zero in on this one in particular?

>>2433531
>Ælian
>Memory longer than that of a goldfish

>>2433556
That's not what I meant. I wasn't making a counter-argument.

I just want to know why you think, if it is abundantly clear that evolution isn't true, then why don't most scientists admit this?

>>2433556
"Most people agree, and they are aware of this majority agreement, and bring it up" is not an argument against those people who agree. It is an observation of the fact that they agree.

>>2433551
Since you think a stick is the only thing that happened you clearly have no grip on reality.

>General relativity
>Constant gravity
>Constellations
>The horizon
>Actual images from space
>You can send a baloon with a Camara higher than the sun according to a flat eat model
>Drains going opposite directions
>Magnetism
>Circumnavigation in straight lines
>Timezones
>Lunar cycles
>The Coreolis Effect
>1915 General Relativity experiment
>Reliance on heliocentrism for any astrophysics model
>Tectonic plates and the necessity of a core of earth
>Modern cartography and map shape

You're a bullshitter, through and through.

File: 1486093393459.png (76KB, 300x250px) Image search: [Google]

76KB, 300x250px

>>2433587
>>General relativity
>Someone actually buys this pseudoscience

File: No Brainer.jpg (141KB, 1179x763px) Image search: [Google]

141KB, 1179x763px

>>2433576
There are several reasons. Scientists are humans, just like you and me. They are not immune to bias, will and desires.

>Evolution is the hot, new, fresh thing
A trend, cultural phase, etc. New things tend to appeal.
>Don't want to believe in God
Creation points to a creator, and atheists don't want that
>Jobs are at stake
There have been occasions when scientists were fired from their job for questioning Darwinism or daring to bring in intelligent design.
>Philosophy of naturalism/materialism
The idea that the physical world is all there is.

So we're dealing with a cultural meta-narrative. Atheism, evolution, naturalism, humanism goes hand in hand. It's the entire package. The atmosphere of today eschews creationism because of cultural reasons.

Creationist scientists are also heavily suppressed or even silenced. Evolutionists like to portray a straw man caricature so that people mock/ridicule creationists, who are honest and legitimate scientists who could no longer reconcile evolution and the evidence that points towards creation.

You know what's missing? The actual arguments. Evolutionists are afraid to debate creationists because they know they would destroyed when talking about actual proof and evidence.

The theory of evolution is nothing but hot air, but I digress.

>>2433591
Nice argument
I have more important shit to do
"To say nothing, to do nothing, to know nothing, and to have nothing, is to be a great part of your title, which is within a very little of nothing"

>>2433597
Okay, why wouldn't atheists want to believe in god?

>>2433391
These kinds of images make slightly sick to be stomach.

>>2433604
>tfw too intelligent for too intelligent memes.

File: why we are losing.jpg (486KB, 768x1008px) Image search: [Google]

486KB, 768x1008px

>>2433602
>Philosophy of Naturalism
>Theory of evolution
These 2 things are the main reason people become atheists.

If you believe in "millions of years" and that people used to stupid primitives, of course it becomes hard to accept the Bible's story of how it all began.

>>2433611
>People believe in evolution because they're atheists
>People are atheists because they believe in evolution.

Doesn't that seem like circular logic?

>>2433618
These things do not take place in a vacuum.

It started with the "enlightenment". People gradually wanted God out of their lives. Darwin made it intellectually fulfilling to be an atheist because now you have a full-fledged alternative worldview.

>>2433618
No, people believe in evolution because there is evidence. Conclusions drawn from evolution drawn from evidence lead people to Atheism

>>2433634
>People gradually wanted God out of their lives
Why though?

>>2433639
That's not what I meant. I meant his thinking seems like circular logic.

>>2433639
Evidence is interpreted, it is not "self-evident".

Evolutionists look at an old human skull and think it's from a primitive caveman. Evidence for evolution.

Creationists look at an old human skull and think it's from the Adamic era when people lived to be hundreds of years old. Evidence for creation.

File: 1487926278501.png (245KB, 1465x1209px) Image search: [Google]

245KB, 1465x1209px

>>2433661
>Creationists look at an old human skull and think it's from the Adamic era when people lived to be hundreds of years old. Evidence for creation.

>>2433611
>naturalism
The belief that that everything arises from natural properties and causes does not exclude an initial spark that started the process, nor does it question worshiping that spark.
>evolution
Its called natural selection, and it doesn't exclude that the first life was created by some supernatural force, only that since life has changed naturally.

Basically naturalism and natural selection (which follows from naturalism) can be used to argue against creationism and intelligent design, not against an unmoved prime mover.
Unless you are the kind of christian who insist the world was created 6000 years ago by a human-like space being, these ideas shouldn't bother you. And if you are, you shouldn't be in the sciences and education.

Protip: catholics have long since accepted and rationalized both natural selection and big bang theory, to name some, with their faith.

>>2433670
Not even creationist but the Catholic church is also hideously corrupt and a terrible example of Christians "doing it right".

>>2433666
Trying to find the argument in your post, can't find it.

>>2433670
Natural Selection is in favor of creationism, not evolutionism.

http://www.evidentcreation.com/DE-Natsel.html

>>2433694
Dude, natural selection IS "evolutionism".

>>2433661
And when your interpretation ignores proven methods of evaluating remains, including methods used every day in crime scene investigation, your "interpretation" becomes laughable

>>2433670
>Unless you are the kind of christian who insist the world was created 6000 years ago
Like literally Christians did for centuries until Darwin came along? Our lord and savior was a young-earth creationist. All the apostles were young-earth creationists. The Israelites and Hebrews were young-earth creationists.

>by a human-like being
God does not look like us.
We look like God.
We are made in His image.

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

25KB, 280x214px

>>2433703
https://www.trueorigin.org/dating.php
http://www.icr.org/creation-radiometric
http://biblicalgeology.net/blog/fatal-flaw-radioactive-dating/

>proven methods
I don't think so.

>>2433714
Any dating method occasionally produces anomalous results, especially when used wrongly.
That's why one study usually isn't trusted until more studies confirm the results.

I assure you those methods have been tested over and over again to see if they are accurate

We use many of the same methods to date artifacts form say the roman empire and get results that say the artifact is from roman times.

>>2433708
>Like literally Christians did for centuries until Darwin came along?
Like christians claimed until they knew better, by having the means to observe reality better.
Similarly to how christians of the past, and Our Lord And Savior (trade marked), didn't use antibiotics, and they do today.

File: Mystery of Mt Rushmore.jpg (63KB, 495x474px) Image search: [Google]

63KB, 495x474px

>>2433767
>they knew better
But evolution is a myth, so how is that "knowing better"? Also God tells us not to compromise with the world.

John 15:19 If you belonged to the world, it would love you as its own. As it is, you do not belong to the world, but I have chosen you out of the world. That is why the world hates you.

1 John 5:19 We know that we are children of God, and that the whole world is under the control of the evil one.

2 Corinthians 6:14 Do not be yoked together with unbelievers. For what do righteousness and wickedness have in common? Or what fellowship can light have with darkness?

Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ. - Colossians 2:8

Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. - Romans 1:25

O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called. - 1 Timothy 6:20

And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie - 2 Thessalonians 2:11

>tradition of men
>worshipping creatures over the creator
>vain babblings
>science falsely so called
>great delusion
Sounds like the theory of evolution to me.

>>2433676
Consider the following: God gave some info. The people he gave it to understood it the way they could, considering who they are, what was the common knowledge of their day, and what was their worldview. Later generations would understand the same info in a different way, because they could observe more, and know more.
Thus what the elders perceived to be the old christian views, is now understood to be the new catholic lore.

Example: the laws forbidding abortion were the way God's word was understood before contraception. In a world with contraception, a man who is aware of its existence and function would understand God's word differently.

Thats the idea behind the church evolving its views. We have limited understanding of God, and as our understanding grows, our views change. We learn more.

>>2433783
You are quoting what people who didn't have modern means of observations observed.
If those same people were brought back from the dead, and shown modern means of observing and understanding the world, they would renounce their old views and change them.

We have more information, so can process the same message in a different, better way.

>come back to this thread
YOU SHITTERS ARE STILL REPLYING TO HIM. WHY DO YOU KEEP ENABLING HIM. IS IT AUTISM OR YOUR NEED TO PRACTICE DEBATE?

>>2433783
Why do you worship John as if he is a god?
Why do you worship Corinthians as if he is a god?
Why do you worship Colossians as if he is a god?
Why do you worship Romans as if he is a god?
Why do you worship Timothy as if he is a god?
Why do you worship Thessalonians as if he is a god?

Men wrote this, it is their understanding of something beyond them.
We understand better now, because we know more. We will understand better still in the future, as we learn further more.

>>2433797
Boredom
o
r
e
d
o
m

>>2433787
I'm already an atheist. I just needed to point that out.

Additionally the kind of YECs on /his/ are generally fundamentalist protestants that hate the Catholic Church.

>>2433797
Feels bad to let a moron think he is correct just because he had the last word.
I really should be beyond that, but I feel the need to at least present a few arguments so that neutral third party readers can see how one side makes more sense than the other.

You are right though, this lasted longer than it should, I won't reply further unless he makes a point.

>>2433797
I get a massive ego-trip out of getting into retarded internet fights.

>>2433798
>Men wrote the Bible
>they were not inspired by God
>Bible is not the ultimate authority

Fake Christian detected.

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

23KB, 300x237px

ITT: Evolutionists lose a debate and resort to ad hominems again

Creation is a scientific fact.

/thread

>>2433837
A man who doesn't understand genetics will, as expected, not write about genetics.
They wrote what they knew. We know better today.
The same inspiration that struck them then, if it struck a man today, would yield different results.

You worship the man, rather than the inspiration. Christian ethics and morality should be applied to facts, whatever these facts are, however they change, to produce the "word of God".
Unless you think what John wrote is more true to God than the very world God created, as we observe it.

>>2433807
He is clearly baiting though. Did you not read the post where he called someone "Timmy"? Or how he's posting YEC crap straight from google?
>>2433815
This is the crisis with 4chan.

File: equivocation.jpg (86KB, 800x600px) Image search: [Google]

86KB, 800x600px

>>2433846
You still haven't posted proof for monkey-to-man evolution. I'm waiting.

Evolutionists often commit the fallacy of equivocation on the word evolution. This word has a number of meanings. Evolution can mean “change” in a general sense, but it can also refer to the idea that organisms share a common ancestor. Either meaning is perfectly legitimate, but the two meanings should not be conflated within an argument. Many evolutionists seem to think that by demonstrating evolution in the sense of “change,” that it proves evolution in the sense of “common descent.”

You might hear them say something like, “Creationists are wrong because we can see evolution happening all the time. Organisms are constantly changing and adapting to their environment.” But, of course, the fact that animals change does not demonstrate that they share a common ancestor.

I cannot overstate how common this fallacy is in evolutionary arguments. Bacteria becoming resistant to antibiotics, speciation events, changes in the size and shape of finch beaks, the development of new breeds of dog, and changes in allele frequency are all examples of change, but none of them demonstrate that the basic kinds of organisms share a common ancestor. When you hear evolutionists cite these as examples of “evolution in action,” you need to politely point out that they have committed the fallacy of equivocation.

File: Dr. Sarfati.jpg (65KB, 850x400px) Image search: [Google]

65KB, 850x400px

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

Evolution is a religion, not science.

>>2433868
1. You've not asked me for such proof.
2. Nobody claims such proof, indeed the claim is that "monkeys" and men have the same ancestor, not that men came from "monkeys". Consider how you have the same ancestor as your brother, but you didn't come from your brother. The difference is large, you will notice.
3. I won't respond further, as I agree with the thread consensus that you are only posting nonsense for fun. If this isn't the case, seek help. From a priest or a psychiatrist, as you choose.

File: RPMs.jpg (48KB, 405x564px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 405x564px

>>2433880
Thanks for admitting defeat, I find that noble of you. Most atheists just shitpost and flee, but you actually surrender.

>Bible
eyewitnesses that saw what happened
>Evolutionists
rebellious god-haters that live ages later
*satan pulls strings*

..hmmm who should i trust.. I think ill go with the eyewitnesses who actually lived close to the creation of the universe

Is Lewis a new meme now? Do we just post "C. S. Lewis refuted [topic]" whenever we don't want to engage in actual conversation and signal proselytizing Christians to bombard said threads with nonstop shitposts?

File: C.S. Lewis.jpg (33KB, 650x488px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 650x488px

>>2433913
Yes.

A picture of C.S Lewis with the filename "C.S Lewis" is the batsignal of low-quality Christposting. 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, you will see it all over this board.

>>2433364
>I'm going to go on again about how carbon dating is a meme
>I'm going to base my unit of time off the second though, which is the same principle with a different atom

im starting to really hate the word god

>>2434620
How unfortunate for you to be so bitter.

>>2434620
I the Lord...visit the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and the fourth generation of those who hate me, but showing steadfast love to thousands of those who love me and keep my commandments.” (Exodus 20:5; cf. Numbers 14:18)

>>2434629
it has no meaning on this site
no one will ever seriously discuss it because its so vague

we always go down some other route

>>2433369
The truth never changes.

Macro-evolution has never been observed.

Anything in the past cannot be the subject of scientific inquiry without a time machine.

>>2433591
Oh wow, you've disproved general relativity? When are you going to publish a paper on it?

>>2433343
>C.S. Lewis
>philosopher
pick one

>>2433343
C.S. Lewis is the Christian fedora

>>2433399
>Don't agree with my favorite philosopher? Haha, I guess you're just mad lol.
Whatever you say, kiddo.

File: 1485389923951.gif (2MB, 311x362px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 311x362px

>Kinda like 4chan
>Hate low-quality baitposting.

What's a feller to do? Is there any actual way to stop it?

>>2434660
yeah, can't wrap my head around this.
If microevolution is true, then macroevolution would seem to be true for all possible worlds where microevolution holds. That is, it is a sort of necessary truth about physical systems where certain kinds of replication occur.
It'd be like if silicon based computation exists but for unclear reasons the general theory of computation did not apply to vaccuum tubes.