let's assume that theists are correct, and there is some

>Polytheism
There are many gods
>Pantheism
God is a force
>Monotheism
There is one God

Paganism is just the mythologization and legends of ancient fallen angels and nephilim giants. They don't know the real creator God.

So the first debate is Pantheism (Hinduism, Buddhism, New Age, Gnosticism, Theosophy, etc) VS Monotheism (Judaism, Christianity, Islam). Pantheism is Satanic to the core, it adopts all of Lucifer/Satan's teachings. These things is what the elitist occult believes and are strictly anti-Christ.

So the second debate is which monotheistic or "abrahamic" religion is the right one. Talmudic Judaism based on Babylonian mysticism is satanic, so we can write that off. Jews rejected and killed the Son of God. Islam has been thoroughly debunked and proven wrong many times. It has nothing to do with Judeo-Christianity.

So the final debate is what denomination or version of Christendom is correct.
>Roman Catholicism
>Eastern Orthodoxy
>Protestant Reformation
This is a hard subject because you really need to delve into church history to understand who has it right and who has it wrong.

File: for (you).png (10KB, 450x450px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 450x450px

>>2463836
>Paganism is just the mythologization and legends
you could say that to discount literally any religion on the face of the planet. i also find it hilarious that you dismiss pagan relgions as mythology, whilst simultaneously invoking mythological figures from your own religion.
>Pantheism is Satanic to the core
>Talmudic Judaism based on Babylonian mysticism is satanic
i don't find this argument very convincing. in order to demonstrate that your religion is legitimate, you say than pantheism, and talmudic judaism is "satanic," but satanism as a concept is predicated on the legitimacy of judeo-christian doctrine. you have yet to actually demonstrate this legitimacy, instead opting for circular reasoning (pic related).
>Jews rejected and killed the Son of God
once again, simply referencing scripture is not a satisfactory demonstration of legitimacy.
>So the final debate is what denomination or version of Christendom is correct.
i would posit that you've yet to settle the first "debate," much less reached a point of finality in this conversation. christ, the first point you made completley sidesteps the question i originally posed. you didn't show why your god is more worthy of worship than those of a pagan, or a pantheist, or a jew.

File: occult.jpg (68KB, 800x528px) Image search: [Google]

68KB, 800x528px

>>2464000
Check out Bill Cooper's work.

>>2464012
why. what does it have to do with the conversation at hand.

>>2464021
He explains how paganism is all tied together and originated from one place (Babylon) and how Christianity is ultimately correct.

This is books and volumes worth of information, I don't have time to write it all here.

>>2463836
>Pantheism is Satanic to the core, it adopts all of Lucifer/Satan's teachings
and what exactly are you basing this on

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yaGwF7A79_w

this might help OP

>>2464026
clearly his point was a poor one if you can't repeat it without looking like an idiot

>>2464028
Blavatsky, Weishaupt, Crowley, Bailey, etc.

The hippie "New Age" movement and Gnosticism/Pantheism are one in the same.

>>2464034
How am I supposed to repeat books worth of information?

You're an idiot if you can't comprehend how knowledge works.

>>2464041
you don't need to repeat the whole book to make an argument, obviously

>>2464037
I don't understand

>>2464048
Well what exactly do you want to know then?

>>2464051
how is christianity any more "correct" than any other religion, how can it possibly be proven to have a divine origin in a way other religions can not

>>2464041
you were asked why your god is more legitimate than other gods.
you responded with flawed, circular reasoning.
when called out on this, instead of defending your position, you insist that unless your opposition has read the crazed ramblings of a conspiracy theorist, they simply cannot understand the magnificence of your reasoning.

>>2464058
I already answered that question. It's a case of connecting the dots.

Paganism is all the same thing, sun or moon worship. The trio of Semiramis/Baal/Tammuz became known as Isis/Osiris/Horus in Egypt and went by different names in the Greek and Roman pantheons. They are demonic beliefs for the masses.

The mystery schools was for the initiated, the adepts, getting more "sacred knowledge" from Satan the light-bearer.

>>2464062
>crazed ramblings of a conspiracy theorist
Not an argument.

Throwing ad hominems around makes you look desperate.

>>2464029
But life has no purpose and god does not act in any sort of moral way in the bible

>>2464073
how do we know god isn't a demon?

>>2464090
>life has no purpose
>god does not act in moral way in the bible

0/10
I almost thought you were serious.

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

33KB, 650x488px

>>2464090
1. Yes it does. Your actions are held accountable.

2. Yes He does. Without God there is no morality.

>>2464093
Because God is the loving creator of the universe.

Demons are the disembodied spirits of Nephilim giants from the Book of Enoch or Genesis chapter 6.

>>2464103
>Without God there is no morality.
explain to me how a non theist cannot be a moral person

>>2464108
You can, but ultimately morality is just an illusion or facade to an atheist.

You can pretend or LARP to be a "good person" but it wouldn't matter. Hitler becomes just as right as Gandhi. There is no good or evil. Moral relativism is what you conclude if you reject God and an absolute, divine truth and moral standard.

>>2464104
how do we know god is the creator of the universe, or that the universe even had a creator. How do we even know the universe is real and not just an illusion or facade?

>inb4 its in the bible so its true
no its not, the bible was a book written by people no more correct than any other religious text

>>2464080
yeah, it's pretty easy to say "not an argument" when you quote ten percent of a post and ignore the other 90%.
the point i was making is that you are obfuscating from the conversation at hand. i called you out on what is clearly flawed reasoning, and you responded by telling me to read a book. it's only made more ridiculous by the fact that your source believed the kennedy assassination was a grand alien conspiracy. granted, it's irrelevant, but i still find it amusing to mention.

>>2464104
>Demons are the disembodied spirits of Nephilim giants from the Book of Enoch or Genesis chapter 6
gee that doesn't sound like a sun god to me

>>2464123
Because ancient people told us so.

Even religions that don't agree, they still talk about
1. Creation
2. "Golden age"
3. A world-wide Flood
Which confirms what the Bible is saying.

>>2464103
>Your actions are held accountable.
by whom
>Without God there is no morality.
how

>>2464103
Existance is meaningless
God avts like a resentful teenager during the OT, his morality is ultimately flawed

>>2464130
>lots of religions have creation myths, that means its true!
>they said it a long time ago, that means its true!

neither of those mean its true, they just imply that its a common trope. The bible is hardly ancient as well. When the books that were later combined into the torah were written the Egyptian religion was more ancient then than judiaism is today.

>>2464134
By God.
Reason.

>>2464137
Existence has a purpose.

>>2464147
god is not real

>>2464156
In your mind.

>>2464147
God is unreliable or absent and unable to do anything, and he is supposed to be the one thing givinge purpose to our existance.
If we cannot rely on him then we might as well reject him or accept he is absent.
If god does not exist or is absent our existance is meaningless.

>>2464164
>this is what retarded atheists actually think

>>2464130
>Because ancient people told us so.
i find that the ancients disagree on quite a lot. hence why i made this thread.
>1. Creation
just because a group of people in the ancient wilderness of mesopotamia looked around, reasoned that the world had to have a beginning, and then set about making up a story to explain this beginning does not somehow mean they have any idea of what truly created the universe, if anything.
>3. A world-wide Flood
ancient civilizations were almost always based around large bodies of water. large bodies of water sometimes flood.
>Which confirms what the Bible is saying.
no it doesn't. if anything, your point demonstrates the opposite. why should we consider the bible any more true than these other ancient myths you've referenced if they are all so similar? you can use this line of reasoning to justify belief in any deity.

>>2464167
nice argument

>>2464147
>By God.
which god?
>Reason.
what reasoning?

>>2464167

>this is what you believe when you have Æutism

>>2464169
Ancients were smarter than we are today.

The problem is you believe in evolution, which is why you think ancients were "dumb primitives".

The actual discussion that should be taking place here is creation vs evolution. 6000 years vs millions of years.

>>2464174
God of the Bible.
The reasoning of your brain.

>>2464177

And your problem is that you have incurable Æutism

>>2464183
Ad hominem, not an argument.

>>2464167
Post some more C.S. Lewis and prove me wrong.

File: Nietzsche1882.jpg (329KB, 1274x1700px) Image search: [Google]

329KB, 1274x1700px

>>2464103
>Without God there is no morality.
Step it up, willlet.

File: CS Lewis.jpg (65KB, 368x473px) Image search: [Google]

65KB, 368x473px

>>2464190
>Nietzsche

Step it up, Hans.

>>2464188
>The Existential Problem & Religious Solution
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iw36V_iXR2k
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jkh2TXCHpNs

>The Laws of Nature
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_20yiBQAIlk

>Mere Christianity
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l_VYCqCexow

>The Origin (or 1,2,3,4)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tw9biRRv_bM

>‘Right & Wrong’ – A Clue to the Meaning of the Universe
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QmHXYhpEDfM

>The Reality of the Moral Law
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LqsAzlFS91A

>What Lies Behind the Moral Law
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kcRFYGr1zcg

>The Poison of Subjectivism
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lgcd6jvsCFs

>The Rival Conceptions of God
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yaGwF7A79_w

>The Humanitarian Theory of Punishment
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZxwnHVr192A

>Why I Am Not a Pacifist
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k2xY2k26HFo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jreq3mVvDgc

>Bulverism (Foundation of 20th Century Thought)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DH53uFBOGbw

>The Necessity of Chivalry
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GBT9LasyC3E

>The Three Parts of Morality
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MtTeCyrgjIQ

>Sexual Morality
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-RkZXZx6HCI

File: 1481554821048.gif (2MB, 270x270px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 270x270px

>>2463836
>Buddhism Gnosticism is Pantheism
lol whut

>Pantheism is Satanic to the core, it adopts all of Lucifer/Satan's teachings. These things is what the elitist occult believes and are strictly anti-Christ.
Oh one of these posters...

>>2464203
Even with this you still cannot prove that christianity is the true religion

File: 1393216825409.png (728KB, 798x1000px) Image search: [Google]

728KB, 798x1000px

>>2464198
>Willlets

File: 1462607611925.jpg (672KB, 610x773px) Image search: [Google]

672KB, 610x773px

>>2464203

THAT'S RIGHT, HOW DO YOU LIKE THAT, /HIS/?

DIDN'T I JUST LE BLOW THE LE FUXCK OUT WITH MUH LINK DUMP?

by the way, don't respond to it, I might have an autistic fit

>>2464177
>Ancients were smarter than we are today.
cool. even if i grant you that premise, you've done nothing to refute anything i've said.
>The problem is you believe in evolution
what does evolution have to do with literally anything i've written here? are you completley incapable of actually presenting your argument without running away when challenged on your bullshit?
>6000 years vs millions of years.
pic related is a picture of a galaxy that is 13.4 billion light years away that was captured by the hubble telescope.

>>2464236
>pic related is a picture of a galaxy that is 13.4 billion light years away that was captured by the hubble telescope.
God put it there.

Checkmate, gaytheists.

File: image1p1607aw-crop.jpg (3MB, 2874x1992px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 2874x1992px

>>2464236
pic didn't upload for some reason

>>2464236
HERE'S THE STATE OF EVOLUTION TODAY: "Evolutionary theory itself is already in a state of flux… all the central assumptions of the Modern Synthesis (often also called Neo-Darwinism) have been disproven" - Professor Denis Noble, Evolutionist, Physiologist and Biologist, May 2013

1. Abiogenesis. They have given up on it and now say it's not part of evolution theory.
2. They are now admitting that they have no explanation for diversity. So now it's not evolution either.
3. They have given up on the fossil record since it looks like creation. So now they say they don't need the fossils.
4. Gould and associates say there is no gradualism (no transitionals). Stasis is the underlying factor in the fossils so it's not evolution either.
5. Random mutations and natural selection produce nothing so that's out too and they are rejecting it as evolution.
6. All they have left is the common ancestor monkey. The inability for "kinds" to interbreed destroys that one so it's not long for this world.
7. PE is now a failure so it's out as evolution as well.
8. The “tree of life” has also been rejected.

>Evolution Debunked
http://www.newgeology.us/presentation32.html

>Errors in Evolutionary Thinking
http://www.evidentcreation.com/TRM-Logerr.html

>Scientists who accepted Creation
www.trueorigin.org
www.creation.com

>Refuting Evolution and Bill Nye
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FvzMIJla28g

>Kent Hovind debunks Evolution
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=shyI-aQaXD0

>Evolution is a myth
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gjvuwne0RrE

>Dr. Jonathan Sarfati destroys Evolution
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TJ-3fP4H8Ss

>The Greatest Lie Ever Told
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c1ufK04tjOI

>Darwinism's Downfall
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7IHO-QkmomY

>>2464181
>God of the Bible.
i guess that brings us back to the initial question i posed in the OP. why is the god of the bible more legitimate than other deities?
>The reasoning of your brain.
maybe you could humor me for a moment by actually presenting a fucking argument in favor of your assertions.

>>2464252
Because God proves His existence by miracles and supernatural events. See Elijah and the priests of Baal for an example.

Pagan gods are just statues and idols.

>>2464268
>Because God proves His existence by miracles and supernatural events.

He should cure your Æutism and cause you to fuck off from /his/ forever, that would be a real miracle

>>2464268
>Because God proves His existence by miracles and supernatural events.
Yeah but that's what literally every other religion says.

I mean why not convert to Mormonism? Joseph Smith supposedly performed miracles to multiple eye witnesses in the industrial era with much contemporary documentation.

>>2464249
m8, you can literally do a middle schooler biology project with e.coli-bacteria to prove that all the central assumptions of evolutionary theory are true.

You can watch it happen in realtime.

>>2464244
Because God didn't allow it

>>2464249
again, this is all irrelevant, but i guess if you are going to shove a really shitty copypasta in my face, i have nothing better to do than rip it apart. naturally, i'm going to ignore the shit flood of links, because i don't have time to sit through debunked kent hovind seminars.
>HERE'S THE STATE OF EVOLUTION TODAY: "Evolutionary theory itself is already in a state of flux… all the central assumptions of the Modern Synthesis (often also called Neo-Darwinism) have been disproven" - Professor Denis Noble, Evolutionist, Physiologist and Biologist, May 2013
off to a great start with a despicable quote mine. i actually found the paper this quote is from. here's a more honest quotation.
>Evolutionary theory itself is already in a state of flux (Jablonka & Lamb, 2005; Noble, 2006, 2011; Beurton et al. 2008; Pigliucci & Muller, 2010; Gissis & ¨ Jablonka, 2011; Shapiro, 2011). In this article, I will show that all the central assumptions of the Modern Synthesis (often also called Neo-Darwinism) have been disproved. Moreover, they have been disproved in ways that raise the tantalizing prospect of a totally new synthesis; one that would allow a reintegration of physiological science with evolutionary biology.
what noble is saying is that he believes that the "modern synthsis" model of evolution is flawed, and should be replaced. he is not saying that the entire basis for the theory of evolution is wrong, just that the way we've reconciled evolution with mendelian inheritance is flawed, and should be revised, as with any flawed scientific theory.
>1. Abiogenesis. They have given up on it and now say it's not part of evolution theory.
because it literally isn't.
>2. They are now admitting that they have no explanation for diversity.
mutations create genetic variation. genetic variation leads to speciation. speciation=diversity. explain what's wrong with this.

>>2464280
Animal kinds changing into different kinds has never been observed. "Monkey-to-man" evolution is in the realm of fantasy, not science.

>>2464359
If microevolution is true how the fuck could macroevolution not be true?

Are there some parameters hardcoded into everything's DNA that forbid mutation past a certain point?

Not to mention speciation has been observed anyway.

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

86KB, 800x600px

>>2464385
That's an equivocation logical fallacy.

A genepool cannot morph into anything it wants. DNA is genetic code, it has a limit. A dog does not have the genetic code to grow wings, no matter how many years.

Yes, there are many different breeds of dogs, but they are all just scramblings or loss of the genepool, it can't "add" to it. They remain canines and came from the original 2 wolves, not a fish that crawled out of a soup.

>>2464400
>That's an equivocation logical fallacy.
It's not though. They're literally the exact same thing just over different time spans.

>DNA is genetic code, it has a limit.
I hope you also realize that DNA is also subject to change and disruption over generations.

>Yes, there are many different breeds of dogs, but they are all just scramblings or loss of the genepool, it can't "add" to it.
By this logic it doesn't even matter if humans evolved from primitive apes as humans are just a variation of ape-genepool anyway.

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

90KB, 197x277px

>>2464431
No, it IS equivocation.

You see something we observe and then conclude something we never observe or seen. It's a wild leap of faith to assume we all had a common ancestor when all we see is animals reproducing after their own kind.

DNA is subject to change through entropy. Things don't get better, they get worse. Our DNA today is more diluted than our ancestors were (Adam and Eve would have been biological masterpieces).

See the paper copying analogy. Take an original document and copy it. Then copy the copy. Then copy the copy of the copy. Repeat and eventually it becomes harder to read the text, until words just go missing. We are headed towards extinction, not evolution.

>>2464359
Go to literally any biolab that deals with bacteria. They have tens of thousands of samples chock full of bacteria up to generations in the several hundredth's, each having their traits and changes meticulously detailed each generation.
This is nothing special, this is the norm - and as I've said, you could actually do it at home or with children.

Here, a visualization video of rapid evolution of e.coli bacteria:
https://vimeo.com/180908160

The Harvard article for it:
http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2016/09/a-cinematic-approach-to-drug-resistance/

We also have extremely simple bacteria with only a few hundred genes in the starting generation that we evolved into much more complex bacteria that have barely anything to do with the starting generation anymore.

>>2464474
http://creation.com/bacteria-evolving-in-the-lab-lenski-citrate-digesting-e-coli

http://creation.com/does-the-acquisition-of-antibiotic-and-pesticide-resistance-provide-evidence-for-evolution

Does not prove evolution.

>>2464452
>You see something we observe and then conclude something we never observe or seen.
It's not though. It's literally the same thing.
Microevolution over extremely long periods of time naturally result in new species emerging. The process happening is literally the exact same no matter what point along the process you happen to be observing.

>DNA is subject to change through entropy. Things don't get better, they get worse
A few things
a) Evolution makes no verdict on "better" or "worse". It's not as if evolution is a process constantly building up to an objectively ultimate lifeform. What's happening is that the adaptable survive and the rest don't, that's all that evolution "judges".
b) If we're going to approach this from a subjective notion of "better" that's still not true. As for any purpose a human is likely to care about dogs are superior to wolves, hence why we eugenically invented them.

And finally
>Our DNA today is more diluted than our ancestors were
What the fuck does that even mean and how would you know this?

>>2464249
>3. They have given up on the fossil record since it looks like creation. So now they say they don't need the fossils.
this is just patently false. the entire field of paleobiology is dedicated to the study of fossils, and their place in evolutionary history.
>4. Gould and associates say there is no gradualism (no transitionals).
we have a ridiculous amount of transitional fossils. you need only google "transitional fossils" to learn this.
>Stasis is the underlying factor in the fossils so it's not evolution either.
wrong. the fossil record shows very clear evidence in favor of evolution.
>5. Random mutations and natural selection produce nothing
nigger, what the fuck are you even on about.
>6. All they have left is the common ancestor monkey.
actually, we have quite a lot left as i've demonstrated.
>The inability for "kinds" to interbreed destroys that one so it's not long for this world.
oh boy. classic hovindism. firstly, "kind" is a meaningless term. "species," while suffering from vaguery in its own right, is almost certainly the word you're looking for. secondly, no, you have not "destroyed" the concept of a common ancestor between us and monkies by pointing out that we can't fuck an ape to create offspring. at one point we did have a common ancestor. then slowly, over millions of years, we diversified into more distinct spiceis, and eventually lost the ability to interbreed with species that share our ancestory. it's not that fucking complicated.
>7. PE is now a failure so it's out as evolution as well.
i'm not sure what "PE" is supposed to stand for, so excuse me for not having a witty retort to this point.
>8. The “tree of life” has also been rejected.
yes. by the scientific community. because it is no longer consistent with our understanding of evolution. that's how science works.

>>2464496
That's an assumption based on faith/speculation. Not science.

Evolution does not make verdicts sure, but it does imply we are getting 'more sophisticated' over the course of time, when infact we are WORSE than our ancestors were genetically and physically wise. Evolutionists try to downplay this by portraying ancient people as dumb hairy primitive neanderthals, when that is not how they looked or behaved at all.

Evolutionists used to believe in "Junk DNA" until that was proven wrong. It turns out that DNA is extremely complicated code, it's almost like we were CREATED and not a product of random impossible chance.

itt: christians can't justify their beliefs, and derail the thread with bullshit apologism

>>2464526
itt: darwinists can't prove their religion, so they resort to shitposting

>>2464526
t. darwinist cultist that just got btfo'd by truth

Instead of me having to go through praise after reading a book, my God actively seeked me and gifted me heaven, truly worthy of worship.

>>2464523
>That's an assumption based on faith/speculation. Not science.
It's not. This thing is happening, I have no reason to conclude that it's going to stop happening, ergo I would conclude it's going to continue indefinitely.

Where's the flaw in that logic?

>but it does imply we are getting 'more sophisticated' over the course of time
It doesn't.

>when infact we are WORSE than our ancestors were genetically and physically wise.
Okay, how did you find this out?

>>2464484
>This is close to what Michael Behe calls ‘The Edge of Evolution’—the limit of what ‘evolution’ (non-intelligent natural processes) can do. For example, an adaptive change needing one mutation might occur every so often just by chance.
So, what happens after this "one change" (how does he even quantify those)? If it sticks around, the next generation could have another single change, leading to lots of changes after a lot of generations. How exactly does this not constitute evolution?

Also, here's a review about The Edge of Evolution from the American National Center for Science and Education. It nicely deconstructs the work the article you linked is based on.
https://ncse.com/library-resource/review-edge-evolution

File: 046.jpg (56KB, 550x470px) Image search: [Google]

56KB, 550x470px

>>2464523
>That's an assumption based on faith/speculation.
how. we can literally see the mechanisms that cause evolution happening in real time. we have countless examples of transitional fossils that show, step by step, the changes that occurred over millions of years.
>>2464534
>>2464535
you know, i always find it hilarious when christfags assert the evolution is a religion. it's almost as if you guys understand that you've taken an inherently unreasonable position, and just want to project that insecurity onto others.

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

644KB, 613x472px

>>2464544
http://www.newgeology.us/presentation32.html

I see horses producing horses. Our ancestors saw horses producing horses. No one has ever seen a horse produce a non-horse. You see variations within a "kind" of animal and them assume (faith steps in) that they came from different animals.

Science is what you can observe, test and repeat. The idea that man evolved from apes is not science, it's a belief.

Evolution has like 6 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 form within the “kind”

The first 5 are purely religious and based on faith. Nobody knows. Only the last one is a scientific fact.

Nobody denies the small variations that animals (mixing of genepool) but when you claim that everything is related and has a common ancestor that crawled out of a slime pit, that's where the disagreement is.

>>2464562
>place pencil, spoon, fork and knife next to eachother
>see, that proves evolution!
>the pencil slowly evolved into a knife!

Putting things that look similar next to eachother does not prove anything. Those are all likely the same kind of animal. If evolution was true, we would find billions of transitional forms, instead there are zero. There is no missing link, the entire chain is missing.
Darwin himself admitted his theory would be wrong if no transitionals were found.

>>2464594
Microevolution over extremely long periods of time naturally result in new species emerging. The process happening is literally the exact same no matter what point along the process you happen to be observing.

>>2464594
>Science is what you can observe, test and repeat.
A common misconception about science is that experiments always have to be about the future (prospection).

This is not true. There's this thing called "retrospection", and paleontology does exactly that.

>>2464635
DNA and genetics disagree with you.

>>2464647
They don't.

But I see you've given up on arguments and are now down to copypasta and "no u" anyway.

>>2464594
>Putting things that look similar next to eachother does not prove anything.
you're a fucking dolt. do you honestly believe evolutionary scientists just sit around all day haphazardly putting similar looking skeletons together and calling it a record? paleontologists have ways of dating these things, and placing them in chronological order. this particular evolutionary line (that of the horse) is particularly well documented, and consistently used to teach fucking grade schoolers about this kind of thing, so i would suggest you look into it a little instead of spouting of retarded kent hovind talking points because you're a mindless buffoon.
>Those are all likely the same kind of animal.
well golly, i'll be sure to take your expert opinion into account.
>>2464647
>DNA and genetics disagree with you.
you are wrong and dumb. it's painful to see someone to retarded, and yet so utterly convinced they are correct.

>>2464400
>it can't "add" to it
You've literally misunderstood the entire concept of DNA. Holy shit. You've actually based your entire view of the natural world on missing very basic, widely available information.

That must suck. Makes you wonder what else you've fundamentally misunderstood.

>>2464653
>>2464661
>>2464662
not an argument

>>2464653
No, you're simply regurgitating the same shit that has already been refuted.

There is no "macro-evolution" or animal kinds turning into different animal kinds. It is genetically impossible.

The idea that life came from inorganic materials is also mathematically impossible.

>>2464669
>No, you're simply regurgitating the same shit that has already been refuted.
you haven't refuted anything.
>There is no "macro-evolution"
yes there is. it has been explained to you multiple times, and yet each time you've simply responded with "nu-uh!"
>or animal kinds turning into different animal kinds.
this is actually true, mostly because the term "kinds" is retarded.
>It is genetically impossible.
it is not "genetically impossible" for a species to evolve from a radically different ancestor over extreme periods of time. you fundamentally misunderstand how speciation works. once again, evolution is less two apes fucking, and producing a modern human, and more two proto-apes fucking, and producing a slightly different offspring. these slight changes compound for millions of years, and lead to speciation. we see this happening all the time in the fossil record, like i've said multiple times now.
>The idea that life came from inorganic materials is also mathematically impossible.
somehow i don't quite trust you at your word, but even if i did, that is completley irrelevant to whether or not evolution is scientific fact. i'm sure you already no that, and are only bringing this up to further obfuscate from your shitty excuse for an argument, but it's still worth mentioning if only to show how categorically wrong you are.

Science is good
Evolution is not scientific but it's accepted because there's no better explanation, I'm Catholic but going "lol God did it" is incredibly lazy
If good non-scientific explanations can be used, that means that atheists that say that things that cannot be proven by science should stop being dogmatic and trying to deny God with scientific arguments

>>2464874
explain how evolution is not scientific.

>>2464874
>Evolution is not scientific
In what way

Well if god exists and cares about us he'd probably make his religion the most widespread one.

>>2464881
>>2464892
If you believe your grandpa was a monkey that crawled out of a slime pit, you are in the realm of fantasy.

>>2464916
capitalism?

>>2464926
No way this isn't bait.

>most legitimate
Fuck off.

uh muh rasins muh lawwwwwjik abloobloo i dont understand religion at all i have an orientalists love of religion haha lets laugh at those mohammedans and decide which sect is correct
>>2464090
muh fefes define morality because my Burger public schools sed so

>>2464940
No way it ever happened either.

>>2464108
You can't, morality only exists in relation to God. Morality is, in fact, that relationship to God, and nothing more.

Hence, Luciferians, 'Pagans', and atheists are all immoral by default because they reject and even go against that relationship.

A being that simply cannot have a relationship with God, such as a meteor bound to destroy the planet is amoral despite it arguably doing 'far worse' than any Luciferian, 'Pagan', or atheist, or the three put together.
>>2464164
God does everything, you merely do not experience Him and thus appoint another to these events.
>>2464236
>pic related is a picture of a galaxy that is 13.4 billion light years away that was captured by the hubble telescope.
- dating is sketchy
- presupposes a scientific method
- supposes that an 'exterior' actually exists.

>>2464280
>muh obverbabation sez so

>>2464881
>>2464892
Evolution is not proven with the scientific method. This is Philosophy of Biology 101. Same with the concept of species and the debates between gradualism and non-gradualism. Those arguments pertain more to the philosophy field.

>>2463819

How about the one that came down to earth as a human being, was born of a virgin, lived a sinless life, claimed to be the Messiah and the Son of God, performed many wonders and miracles to prove it including raising the dead, and who himself was raised from the dead following his execution?

How about Jesus proved he is God already?

>>2464385
>Are there some parameters hardcoded into everything's DNA that forbid mutation past a certain point?

Yes. Excellent deduction.

>>2464635
Never been observed. Never happened. No evidence in the fossil record for it. Nothing but wishful thinking.

>>2464977
So, your argument is that evolution is not scientific because it makes use of philosophy to define some concepts?

If that were true, then nothing that has to do with empirical observation would be scientific, because it requires a certain understanding of causality.

In fact, nothing at all would be scientific, because philosophy is used in defining what the scientific method, what proof, even what truth is.

>>2463819
Even if there is a deistic force beyond the universe, you still can't figure out anything about it or what it wants without assuming gnostic magic mindgames, so you are back to religion being a cultural meme devoid of truth.

>>2465006
Nothing is scientific, good job realizing that.

>>2464961
> dating is sketchy
not really. either way, i doubt they are off by that much.
>presupposes a scientific method
>supposes that an 'exterior' actually exists.
i'm not even sure what these are meant to say.

>>2465006
>your argument is that evolution is not scientific because it uses some philosophy concepts
You don't fucking get it, do you? Go take any basic fucking course of Philosophy/Biology History. The method through which Darwin elaborated the theory of evolution is inductive in nature and not scientifically provable. Bacteria present fast adaptation but they also push the species concept into almost nothingness and their reproduction/adaptation processes can't be scientifically extrapolated to more complex beings.

>>2465031
So, you think that induction is inherently unscientific?

>people here unironically believe Jesus rose from the dead

Christianity is simply not true

>>2464997
Can you show them to me?

>>2465002
Are you denying even microevolution now?

>>2465006
And in case you don't get it; scientific is something that pertains to the field of science and can be proven by the scientific method. Neither the theory of evolution or the scientific method itself are scientific. Scientific doesn't refer to the methods used by science, otherwise inductive reasoning used to reach the scientific method would be part of science even though it cannot be empirically proven.

>>2465039
Science is inherently unscientific.

>>2464988
>How about the one that came down to earth as a human being
there have been a lot of "gods" that have done this.
>was born of a virgin
according to muh holybook
>claimed to be the Messiah
like any number of random people
>and the Son of God
like any number of random people
>performed many wonders and miracles to prove it
according to muh holy book and also like any number of random people
> including raising the dead
according to muh holy book
>and who himself was raised from the dead following his execution?
according to muh holy book
>How about Jesus proved he is God already?
no he didn't.

do you put this much faith in every religious text you read?

>>2465039
Not relevant. Evolution is not and I already said that it's used because there's no better explanation. You could read a bit about it but I guess that years of brainwashing are hard to shake off. I was also surprised when I understood that the fact that evolution wasn't scientific was something already known by every fucking philosopher.

>>2465053
>scientific is something that pertains to the field of science and can be proven by the scientific method.
Nice circular definitions.

What's science and what's the scientific method?

File: world views.png (27KB, 520x632px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 520x632px

There are Creationist scientists and Evolutionist scientists.

Creation and Evolution are beliefs. They both use the scientific method to prove their beliefs. Evidence is interpreted through their presuppositions.

The difference is that evolutionists are dishonest in their methods, as well as applying logical fallacies. They are also afraid to debate because they always got destroyed by creationists.

>>2465087
>There are Creationist scientists and Evolutionist scientists.
creationists only make up about 2-5% of scientists.
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/02/10/darwin-day/
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA111.html
>Creation and Evolution are beliefs.
the theory of evolution is a rigorously reviewed and constantly changing model of how life changes due to genetic variation and natural selection.
creationism at it's best is a baseless explanation for the origin of life, which evolution doesn't comment on. at worst, it is completley inconsistent with everything we know about the history of life, and the universe.
>They both use the scientific method to prove their beliefs.
no. creationism is not scientific by any means. there is no evidence that suggests that life was just spontaneously created on earth by the judeo-christian god.
>Evidence is interpreted through their presuppositions.
projection. you presuppose god exists.
>They are also afraid to debate because they always got destroyed by creationists.
show me a single place in this thread a creationist even bothered to come back with a semi rational response. the whole reason we are talking about evolution is because a christian wanted to distract from the fact that he had no justification for believing in his god.

>>2465259
>the theory of evolution is a rigorously reviewed and constantly changing model of how life changes due to genetic variation and natural selection.

Because it's always wrong.

Objectively true things are not in a constant state of change.

>>2465259
Actually when you stand before God to give an account for your life, you will stand there without excuse.

The universe is overwhelming proof of God. The only thing you can use to deny the overwhelming proof of God as displayed in the universe is a retreat into your own sovereignty to deny the truth, which again is a God given ability for you to use.

>>2463819
>let's assume that theists are correct,
Let's not.

>>2465291
it changes to get closer to the objective truth. no one claims that the model as we have now is perfect, just that it is fairly accurate

>>2465297
>The universe is overwhelming proof of God.
t. Muhammad

>>2463819
greek gods, coz poseidon is piff my don

>>2465311
Yes, Mohammad liberally plagiarized the bible that pre-existed him by centuries.

>>2465291
>Objectively true things
don't exist.
scientific rigor is the closest we can get to "truth." i would posit that it's more logical to believe an educated guess based on evidence that may turn out to be false than it is to believe "i dunno, god did it."
>>2465297
>Actually when you stand before God to give an account for your life, you will stand there without excuse.
i don't need an excuse. if your god is real, he's a fucking dick.
>The universe is overwhelming proof of God.
no it isn't. that's fucking retarded.
>he only thing you can use to deny the overwhelming proof of God as displayed in the universe is a retreat into your own sovereignty to deny the truth
actually, i can deny it by pointing out that it's a ridiculous non sequitur that makes no sense. no need for the grandiose pretensions.
>which again is a God given ability for you to use.
okay pal.

>>2465325
Like how the romans tacked on their Jesus dude onto the Tanakh when they invented their own religion.

>>2465339
*tips fedora*

>>2465051
muh me-mes
>>2465259
>appeal to majority
lol
>rigor
No such thing exists in science
>no evidence
There is but evidence is irrelevant
>you presuppose God exists
You presuppose far more, including a knowable universe.
>rational response
You also presuppose a popular stance on 'rationality'
>>2465309
>>2465339
>science is troo cuz i sed so
Why? Pragmatic fallacy.

>evidence
Doesn't exist.
>logical
Presupposes objective truth.

>>2465339
>i don't need an excuse. if your god is real, he's a fucking dick.
muh petty mortal morality

File: aut.jpg (2MB, 2874x1992px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2874x1992px

>>2464244

>>2464073
>Baal being related in any way to bro-tier Osiris
This really rustled my jimmies

>>2464073
But Jesus is close to Horus and that japanese car brand