Theistic Evolution

File: 1488945890219.jpg (427KB, 1543x1360px) Image search: [Google]

427KB, 1543x1360px

Theistic Evolution cant work because theres no god.

It can easily work. it's a given our consciousness and souls came from God.

How can you reconcile the fact that you're supposed to believe something that directly contradicts what's written in your holy book? I think cognitive dissonance is the term for this?

>>2569247
t. Charles Darwin
>>2569231
Prove it.
>>2569252
>my fundamentalist interpretation which is against mainstream interpretation and numerous theological doctrine is the only true interpretation
I believe there's a term for this. Delusional?

>>2569444
please explain how the historical inaccuracies of the bible can be "interpreted" as anything other than wrong and at odds with reason?

>>2569228

you play games? Just listen to this for 3 hours and you'll understand

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GVBxIC4caHI

>>2569228
Why wouldn't it work? its the official stance of the roman catholic church. Evolution happens according to them and is simply part of gods design.

>>2569228
>>2571064
its funny how religion changes its "official stance" after scientific discoveries

>>2569228
One reason I can think of right off the top of my head would be the story of the Flood. 2 of each animal? Where do we even begin?

>>2571124
>its funny how religion changes its "official stance" after scientific discoveries
How is that funny? It'd be more weird if they didn't. Scientific scholarship does the same thing, because thats how scientific progress works.
We have a theory, and it works to explain visible phenomena, we find out new shit that contrdicts it, then we revise our stance and adopt the modified one. repeat.

>>2569228
If by this, you mean God "guiding" the process, then no. Evolution is a completely natural phenomenon with no outside intervention necessary. There js no end goal, it's simply based in environment.

Now, if you mean a more deistic approach like the idea that God simply pushed the start button when the universe was created, then yes that's possible.

Check this out, this by far is he best explanation of where I stand:

>https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=qxOEz9aPZNY

There is no reason whatsoever why theism and evolution should be considered exclusive to each other.

>>2571141
If its stance changes after every scientific discovery, the bible, which claims it already has the truth about everything, just clearly wrong. It makes no efforts to make progress.

>>2571175
>which claims it already has the truth about everything
No it doesn't. You're confusing it with the Quran. The bible makes no such claim.

>>2571183
Biblical inerrancy is dogma in all Orthodox branches of Christianity, that is Eastern Orthodoxy, Catholicism, and most of Protestantism. They just get around it by saying they were interpreting it wrong.

>>2571200
Thats things people say about the bible, not something that the bible claims.

>>2569453
>A didactic poem, written by a semitic tribe in 5 b.C should become the only scientific belief of my religion
>he doesn't understand allegory

>>2571242
Where does that concept begin and end?

File: specialization.png (49KB, 1021x760px) Image search: [Google]

49KB, 1021x760px

>>2569228
There's no reason it can't work, it's literally just "God exists, and there was evolution". That's it. There's no reason it would be incompatible.

According to the bible, the earth is only 10,000 years old.

>>2569228
It introduces an unnecessary entity to the explanation without really giving it any extra explanatory or predictive power. Also the two ideas (evolution and theism) emerged thousands of years apart, if evolution was so central to god's creation it mysteriously wasn't mentioned in scripture, so it seems like an obvious retcon in response to one explanation displacing the other. Most religions clearly mention men as created separate from animals and evolution destroys that assertion.

Generally evolution holds that the emergence of humanity was a long series of accidents and chance that lead to our development; go back and change even a few externals in history and we may've never existed or went extinct a long time ago.

Theistic evolution is generally a middle ground held by Christians saying that God guided the processes of evolution, specifically that of humanity. Since the general theology is Jesus has always existed in corporeal form, humanity was destined by God's will to appear and be formed at exactly the way it was, so Jesus could just slide right into the world 2000 years ago. This tends to ignore the vast amount of death and suffering that so much of life on this planet has went through over millions of years; that was apparently all unnecessary since Jesus was going to be a human anyway.

>>2571284
>Generally evolution holds that the emergence of humanity was a long series of accidents
That couldn't be possibly further from the truth, there is nothing even remotly "accidental" about the progress of evolution from a scientific perspective.

>>2571372
Explain your position.

>>2571377
There are only certain traits and mutations that allow an organism to survive or thrive in its specific environment. It's no accident that the organisms that survive are the ones that have those traits.

>>2571377
Evolution is the survival of certain combination of traits in a specific enviroment over a long time. They survive because they are suited to survival in said enviroment, this is not accidental. They don't 'happen' to have these combination of traits, they have them because of prolonged enviromental pressure killing everything less well adapted.

>>2571401
Obviously, but these traits emerge through random mutations.

Also having those traits are no guarantee of survival, just as not having those traits are no guarantee of doom. Several species of birds on a series of islands may have different sized beaks; one good for dry seasons, the other good for wet. The second series of birds dominates the island in looking for seeds to eat until a dry season happens that is several years long. Now the tables have turned in the food scarce environment, and due to this change, the first series of birds pushes the second to the point of extinction.

Many species also have useless appendages that would hinder them by your interpretation; snakes and whales have hip-bones, some lizards have eyes that can't be used, etc. Yet they still persist.

Accidents in nature and random change are both pivotal parts of evolution.

>>2571426
>>2571435

>>2571401
>>2571426
I should also explain that in my analogy, the first series of birds may push the second to extinction; yet once the dry season ends, their beaks are less suited for the wet environment.

Despite having inferior traits that can only serve to hinder, the dry season by chance allowed the superior competition to be pushed out.

>>2571435
So whats your point? The random mutations still are not accidents, nature is creating random mutations in an attempt to increase its chance of survival.

>>2571435
>Obviously, but these traits emerge through random mutations.
Mutation isn't actually random. It appears random to us because its a extremly complex topic where a lot of factors play a role, but its not by pure accident that a certain mutation happens, it happens because certain enviromental factors affect the genome in a certain fashion.
Technically speaking nothing is "random" due to cause and effect, but evolution isn't about the emergence of mutations, which can be called random in a very lax interpretation of facts, but evolution is about the emergence of species from these mutations and that process isn't random, which is my point.
Mutations themselves might be, but how a species delevops is not.

>>2569228
God created what he wanted to, then left thing alone to develop. He came back a billion years later and saw these fucking smartass apes, and poofed them into modern humans. Maybe.

>>2571458
Kek, nature isn't creating anything for any purpose. It's not consciously trying to better adapt its species for survival; nor are the species adapting themselves for improvement.

All that it means is that species change through accidental genetic mutation, that may by external pressures, drive a species one way or another.

Species that are better suited to a particular environment may survive where others fail, but this isn't always the case due a host of changing factors.

>>2571466
Sure, but I never said species development was purely random, just that chance and external pressures played a large role. That was the strawman you set up at the beginning, most likely to help out theistic evolution.

>>2571124
>implying scientific consensus doesn't do he same thing constantly
Why are scienticismtards so retarded?

>>2571466
Certain environmental factors may strengthen or weaken the survival of certain mutations being passed on. And though mating or natural selection may determine such factors, I'm skeptical about the claim the genome is being changed in a "certain fashion" due to environmental factors, when so many species have traits that only serve to hinder, and yet have survived.

>>2571484
>but I never said species development was purely random
I don't understand your point? We were talking about evolution, which is the emergence and development of species. Which isn't any single given mutation that happens in every single individual, but the propagation and spread of these mutations among the population of the species and how this alters the species as a whole. This is evolution, and its not random because its the product of adaption to enviromental factors, adaption to circumstances isn't random, its very directed.

>just that chance and external pressures played a large role
As I alread ysaid, there is no actual chance involved in mutations, and external pressure isn't a factor of randomization, random implies the lack of a reason but the evolutionary pressure IS the reason. If something happens for a reason, its by definition not random. The emergence of mutations isn't evolution, you don't "evolve" just because one of the bilions of cells in your body have a off genetic sequence in their DNA.
Only when you have passed on a trait coded by this sequence and your descendants have passed it on so much that it has become a notable feature of the population do we talk of "evolution" having happened.

>>2571484
>That was the strawman you set up at the beginning, most likely to help out theistic evolution.
I neither made a strawman nor helping out theistic evolution, I'm not a religious person in the first place and my emphasis on causality and enviromental pressure would be rather contrdictionary to a theory of theistic evolution.

>>2571513
I have a feeling that guy is just arguing for arguments sake. I still don't understand his point either, I'm pretty sure he's not even theist.

>>2571508
>I'm skeptical about the claim the genome is being changed in a "certain fashion" due to environmental factors
How are you skeptical about that? Why do you think mutations happen? Chemical intake, raditation and similar are the primary reasons for genetic mutations, these are enviromental factors. Sure, many mutations also happen due to errors in the replication process but even those errors occur due to specific circumstances within the body.

>>2571508
>when so many species have traits that only serve to hinder, and yet have survived
What traits became common despite being hindering is a rather complex topic since they might have been advantagous at the time of their emergence (and mostly are, actually) and just became outdated over time. Additionally something seemingly useless may actually have a advantage we only haven't considered yet. Like the appendix, which was long considered a useless remnant of our herbivory ancestors, but we later realised actually serves to repopulate your intestines with important bacteria after sickness, which means it actually did aid continued survival and adaption despite that, likely, not being the primary advantage that led to its spread among the population.

>>2571513
>Which isn't any single given mutation that happens in every single individual, but the propagation and spread of these mutations among the population of the species and how this alters the species as a whole. This is evolution, and its not random because its the product of adaption to enviromental factors, adaption to circumstances isn't random, its very directed.
I already said this, but I wouldn't use the word "directed".
>As I already said, there is no actual chance involved in mutations, and external pressure isn't a factor of randomization, random implies the lack of a reason but the evolutionary pressure IS the reason. If something happens for a reason, its by definition not random. The emergence of mutations isn't evolution, you don't "evolve" just because one of the bilions of cells in your body have a off genetic sequence in their DNA.Only when you have passed on a trait coded by this sequence and your descendants have passed it on so much that it has become a notable feature of the population do we talk of "evolution" having happened.
I've already said all of this as well, although most would agree with my terminology and not your semantics. The emergence of mutations is random, with a debatable degree of external influence on them. Their survival and spread are based on external pressures.
>>2571525
Kys, you started this semantics circle-jerk

>>2571534
>with a debatable degree of external influence on them
There is nothing debatable about this. Mutations don't happen just because. They happen because your DNA is altered in some way either directly, through radiation or other "damages" or during the replication process and even errors in the replication process, especially the specific error, don't happen "just because" there are reasons for them happening. This may be as simple as a certain nutritional deficit leading to a lack of protein building material or similar, but that, too, is a enviromental factor.

>>2571534
>Their survival and spread are based on external pressures.
And since survival and spread is evolution and external factors aren't random, this means evolution is not random.
By your logic engineering would be random because the exact properties of a given material deposit is "random".

>>2571526
>Chemical intake, raditation and similar are the primary reasons for genetic mutations, these are enviromental factors. Sure, many mutations also happen due to errors in the replication process but even those errors occur due to specific circumstances within the body.
The second happens more, the vast majority of the time.
>What traits became common despite being hindering is a rather complex topic since they might have been advantagous at the time of their emergence (and mostly are, actually) and just became outdated over time. Additionally something seemingly useless may actually have a advantage we only haven't considered yet.
Sure

>>2571549
Fine. Whatever. You out debated me and we're back to the first thing I intended with my first post.

And we're now further from theistic evolution than before.

>>2571557
>The second happens more, the vast majority of the time.
I'd be curious about the statistics you base this claim on, there is no study of relevant sample size on the topic to my knowledge and the exceedingly demanding data gathering necessary to find out which is more common makes me skeptical of this claim being funded on knowledge rather than speculation.

>>2571571
>Fine. Whatever. You out debated me and we're back to the first thing I intended with my first post.
Not really, your first post, or the one I commented on first, was the claim that "Generally evolution holds that the emergence of humanity was a long series of accidents" this, as I explained at length, is utterly untrue.
This is not a generally held belief, because its patently false.

>>2571572
Jesus fucking Christ. Traits such as a slightly wider beak, longer arms, more aggressive personality, etc.

These can all be based on errors in the copying and passing of DNA to the next generation. They can also be based on radiation and other external factors that may cause errors, but errors happen nontheless.

I'm convinced you're just a fucking pseud if you didn't know this basic point.

>>2571581
This has nothing to do with theism in evolution, the point of this thread you fucking pseud.

>>2571588
You claimed this is the more common reason for mutations, but there is no actual evidence its actually more common. Your listing of mutations sometimes caused by replication errors proves nothing about how much more common these are than enviromental based ones. Presumably to distract from the fact you have no actual such statistics and are just talking out of your ass.

>>2571435
>these traits emerge through random mutations.
and NON-random selection. Which is the essential part of the theory.

File: Ramm_with_words-416x291.jpg (24KB, 416x291px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 416x291px

>“It has been incorrectly asserted that the fossil remains of man are few and fragmentary. It is argued that from a small basketful of enigmatical bones an entire evolutionary history of humanity is constructed. This might have been the case a half-century ago but it is no longer a valid objection. There are fifteen skulls or fragments of Sinanthropus Pekinensis, and of other prehistoric men there are as many as forty skeletons. For one Piltdown skull which must be given up there are one or two dozen to take its place. Dr. Broom has scurried around South Africa with great zeal, turning up numerous skulls. If a hundred Dr. Brooms were to work as diligently in all the world we might well fill a museum up with prehistoric human fossils. Evangelicals must seriously reckon with this as a real possibility and be prepared for it. The anthropologist cannot be discounted any longer on the ground that all he has to work with is a basketful of controversial bones.” (Ramm B.L., “The Christian View of Science and Scripture,” [1955], Paternoster: Exeter, Devon UK, 1967, reprint, p.216)
>Bernard Ramm was a Baptist/Evangelical theologian

File: Anton_Chekhov_with_bow-tie_sepia_image.jpg (17KB, 220x311px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 220x311px

>>2569228
The Cambrian Explosion.

>>2571242
>he doesn't understand that the standard for what is and isn't an allegory isn't whether it's convenient

>>2572325
http://biologos.org/common-questions/scientific-evidence/cambrian-explosion

No amount of theories of the natural world are going to change anyone's mind about spiritual matters, if they didn't use naturalistic principles to reach their understanding of God.

File: hall2.jpg (598KB, 2547x1680px) Image search: [Google]

598KB, 2547x1680px

>>2572314
>If a hundred Dr. Brooms were to work as diligently in all the world we might well fill a museum up with prehistoric human fossils.
Certainly came pretty close.

>>2571200
Being inerrant does not mean the Bible is true in a literalist sense, the Bible is not a scientific textbook.

>>2569228
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_razor
>Possible explanations can become needlessly complex. It is coherent, for instance, to add the involvement of leprechauns to any explanation, but Occam's razor would prevent such additions unless they were necessary.
Does that answer your question?

>>2572971
ive been there. great place, I brought my family and the kids loved it.

>>2576244
Actually gonna be headed up there in a few months. Good to know.

>>2571124
It never changed though, he is wrong. There was never any "official stance" to begin with - since Antiquity theologians had been arguing whether Genesis should be taken literally or not, without consensus emerging. Technically speaking, no affirmation or denial of evolution has been promulgated either - the consensus now is that both creationism and evolution are compatible theologically with Catholicism, and it's up to empirical science to decide which one is true.

Do some of you morons actually fucking believe in creationism?

>>2576513
Wew lad. With a question like that, you clearly don't understand evolution nor creationism.

>>2576513
They're trolling you.

>>2576518
Please explain how creationism fits into evolution.

>>2576526
This is my first post desu. I've seen other threads where people are sincerely discussing how they don't understand evolution and choose a biblical explanation instead.

File: gen-lev-mutations.jpg (33KB, 550x330px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 550x330px

>there are people who genuinely believe this

File: VyvojCloveka.Jaroslava.Lukesova(1920-2007).jpg (49KB, 700x600px) Image search: [Google]

49KB, 700x600px

Bump

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

23KB, 300x237px

>>2576513
>Are there really people who believe in facts??

The answer is yes.

File: page 1 of 3.png (2MB, 1020x5611px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1020x5611px

>>2579531
Cult brainwashing lol

File: Cult.jpg (100KB, 364x348px) Image search: [Google]

100KB, 364x348px

>>2579550
I agree, lol

evolutionists have alot of faith in their religion, I could never have that much faith

>>2569228
It doesn't work because they are 2 separate conflicting worldviews.
You can't mix two contradictory things together.

Evolution is a lie.
Creation is a scientific fact.

Really simple.

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

>Evolution: The Greatest Deception of All Time
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jMr278CMAIA

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

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

http://www.creation.com/
http://www.icr.org/
https://www.trueorigin.org/
https://www.answersingenesis.org/
http://www.creationwiki.org/Main_Page
http://www.evidentcreation.com/TRM-Logerr.html
http://www.davelivingston.com/tableofcontents.htm
http://www.bible.ca/archeology/bible-archeology.htm
http://www.newgeology.us/presentation32.html

File: ooo.png (470KB, 1020x1686px) Image search: [Google]

470KB, 1020x1686px

>>2579553
Yeah having faith in religion is for fucking retards.

File: 1490034501742.png (155KB, 364x348px) Image search: [Google]

155KB, 364x348px

>>2579553

File: maxresdefault (21).jpg (109KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

109KB, 1280x720px

>>2579569
>gish galloping now counts as evidence
You're no better than the libtards you chastise.

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

644KB, 613x472px

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 is a religion. Yes, evolution is the faith of atheism because it replaces God with man. When you've conned yourself into believing that some kind of ancient slime morphed into progressively complex and directional life forms, you are in the realm of faith, not science.

File: Complete Agreement.jpg (29KB, 600x238px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 600x238px

Logical Fallacies of Evolution 101

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.

File: Cup of Coffee.jpg (52KB, 492x596px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 492x596px

Evolutionists have to rely on logical fallacies, because there is no evidence supporting the theory that species produce offspring that are not of their species. Only by using logic errors can evolutionists generate a belief in something that has not occurred and is not occurring.

Begging the Question: This is circular logic. An assumption is used to validate a premise. Evolution is assumed to be factual; therefore, evolutionists dismiss outright fraud as being acceptable because it illustrates a true point. One popular form of this is, "Although it is mathematically impossible for life to have occurred by chance, we're here, so that proves it happened."

Hasty Generalization: A small sampling of data is used to “prove” a large conclusion. For example, evolutionists like to claim that evidence of people dwelling in caves in former times means humans came from a more primitive species. This is overgeneralizing at its extreme. In fact, humans are still dwelling in caves, and not because they are a primitive species.

Hypothesis Contrary to Fact: This tries to prove a point by creating a hypothesis that has already been disproved. For example, evolutionists state that theists are retarding science. This is contrary to fact. Many scientific advances were made and are being made by people who believe in God. Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo, Newton, and Mendel, for example, all believed in God.

Misuse of Authority: A group of “experts” is used to prove a conclusion, even if that group does not actually agree with it. An example is "All educated people know evolution is a fact."

Chronological Snobbery: This fallacy says that the evidence is ancient, so it can't be verified by observation. Thus we have the "millions" of years timetable for evolutionists.

You will find that every argument in favor of evolution hinges on a logical fallacy. All the evidence clearly points to design, not accident, as the source of life.

File: Mousetrap.jpg (19KB, 342x286px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 342x286px

To see the fallacy Hypothesis Contrary to Fact in full force merely read the literature of any evolutionist and note that the literature will have references such as: may or may have, must or must have, possibly,could or could have, should or should have, might or might be, etc.Then note that their conclusion demands to be recognized as scientific fact. Apparently evolutionists did not get instruction concerning scientific axioms and principles that demand that any conclusion that rests on these kinds of phrases can never be considered a valid theory or fact.

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

63KB, 495x474px

By true scientific standards, evolution is not even a theory. A scientific theory is confirmed by observations and is falsifiable. There will be proof whether it is right or wrong.

Evolution cannot be put to a test, since it supposedly happened millions of years ago and we certainly never see it happening now. It can never be proved—either true or false. It has always been on speculation alone.

Because there is no actual evidence to support evolution, proponents resort to logical fallacies. Evolution puts forth a tautology, which is the circular argument that the fittest survive, and therefore those who survive are the fittest. See how one statement is used as proof of a repetition of the same argument. The fittest—those who leave the most offspring, evolutionists say— leave the most offspring. A hamster spinning in its cage could hardly go in more circles!

There is a line of reasoning known as a "reductio ad absurdum" ("reducing to absurdity"). Evolutionists like to do this all the time. They try to show that belief in a Creator is false because it is absurd. "We cannot see the Creator, we cannot hear the Creator, and we cannot touch him," they say. "So we're supposed to believe this tripe?"

Meanwhile, we cannot see species turning into another species, but they expect us to believe that they do.

File: 1490028945746.png (138KB, 600x238px) Image search: [Google]

138KB, 600x238px

>>2579600
And the galloping continues.

File: 1489177062010.png (122KB, 342x286px) Image search: [Google]

122KB, 342x286px

>>2579605

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

86KB, 800x600px

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

A detailed scientific article that completely destroys the fantasy that atheists hold dearly.

>Evolutionist gets destroyed by Creationist
https://www.trueorigin.org/isakrbtl.php

The reason why evolutionists don't want to debate today is because they always lose.
Science and data is on the creation side.

Evolutionists can only brainwash children and the clueless.

>List of errors and flaws in the evolution myth
http://www.evidentcreation.com/TRM-Logerr.html

A dead, debunked, retarded religion that has nothing to stand on.

>>2576456
Of course there were allegorical interpretations, but for centuries every historian or chronologist began their history of the world with Genesis, which they dated around 6000 years ago. Suggesting that there might have been humans before Adam got Isaac La Peyrère censured until he recanted.

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

67KB, 316x247px

Now that we know evolution is a dead unproved theory, why do so many people still believe in it?

Because admitting creation is true means believing in God, and that is the central issue. Atheists do *not* want to believe in God, which is why they believe in evolution in the first place.

>Why Leftists Believe Weird and Immoral Things
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oETivbBtlAE

>Worst Objection to Theism: Who Created God?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kKKIvmcO5LQ

>Digital Physics Argument for God's Existence
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v2Xsp4FRgas

>The Leibnizian Cosmological Argument
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s2ULF5WixMM

>Quantum Physics Debunks Materialism
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4C5pq7W5yRM

>The Introspective Argument
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4l1lQMCOguw

>The Teleological Argument
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Yt7hvgFuNg

>What Atheists Confuse
Part 1 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XbLJtxn_OCo
Part 2 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bj0lekx-NiQ

>Is Atheism a Delusion?
Part 1 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Ii-bsrHB0o
Part 2 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xnBTJDje5xk

>Atheists Don't Exist

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

They want to believe in a myth, so God lets them believe in a myth.

>>2579608
>>2579605
>>2579603
>>2579600
It's cute to watch a Christian learn some buzzwords and take them for a test drive to justify their ideology.

It gets annoying after seeing it the 50th time./

File: hoaxes.jpg (166KB, 712x664px) Image search: [Google]

166KB, 712x664px

>>2579648
My ideology is supported by facts, science and evidence.

How about yours?

File: WhoDaddy.png (785KB, 500x1027px) Image search: [Google]

785KB, 500x1027px

>>2579657

File: Expert.jpg (153KB, 763x306px) Image search: [Google]

153KB, 763x306px

>>2579657
>uhh w-well.. the school textbooks say its true so it must be!! da gubbermint wouldnt lie...

darwinism has been drilled into their heads since as a child, so the cognitive dissonance is strong in them.

once you attack evolution, their automatic defense mechanism kicks in.

they are brainwashed and incapable of thinking for themselves.

most creationists were ex-evolutionists. they used to seriously believe in evolution until they did scientific research and realized it was all bs.

but you rarely see creationists become evolutionists.

File: 1459898780060.png (3MB, 500x5655px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 500x5655px

>>2579657

File: Questions.jpg (223KB, 926x338px) Image search: [Google]

223KB, 926x338px

>>2579648
I think it's cute you think you're grandpa was a shit-eating monkey that crawled out of a slime pit.

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

80KB, 574x574px

>>2579673
Yep.

Atheists suffer from heavy cognitive dissonance.

"Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator" Romans 1:25
"The fool has said in his heart, there is no God." Psalm 14:1
"Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools" Romans 1:22

The bible predicted that people in the end times would deny the 4 biggest events in history:
>Creation
>Flood
>Tower of Babel
>Resurrection

atheists fulfilling yet another prophecy and proving the bible's inerrancy

File: 1489172445746.png (413KB, 1665x338px) Image search: [Google]

413KB, 1665x338px

>>2579677

File: 1489170603015.png (396KB, 763x419px) Image search: [Google]

396KB, 763x419px

>>2579673

File: dinosaur tissue.jpg (60KB, 520x386px) Image search: [Google]

60KB, 520x386px

A. Four Sons of Ham:
1. Mizraim (Egypt)
2. Cush (Sudan, Ethiopia)
3. Put (Lybia)
4. Canaan (Hivites, Jebusites, Arvadites, Girgashites, Amorites, Arkites, Sinites, Hittites,
Sidonians, Perizzites, Zemarites)

B. Five Sons of Shem:
1. Elam (Arabia)
2. Asshur (Assyria)
3. Lud (Lydians)
4. Aram (Aramaic, Armenia, Mesopotamia, Syria)
5. Arphaxad (From which Abraham descended)

C. Japheth's Descendants (14 Nations came out of Japheth):
The immediate descendants of Japheth were seven in number, and are represented by the nations designated Gomer, Magog, Madai, Javan, Tubal, Mesech, and Tiras; or, roughly, the Armenians, Lydians, Medes, Greeks, Tibarenians, and Moschians, the last, Tiras, remaining still obscure. The sons of Gomer (Ashkenaz, Riphath and Togarmah) were all settled in the West Asian tract; while the sons of Javan (Elisah, Tarshish, Kittim and Dodanim or Rodanim) occupied the Mediterranean coast and the adjacent islands.

Seven Sons of Japheth
1. Javan (Greece, Romans, Romance -- French, Italians, Spanish, Portuguese)
2. Magog (Scythians, Slavs, Russians, Bulgarians, Bohemians, Poles, Slovaks, Croatians)
3. Madai (Indians & Iranic: Medes, Persians, Afghans, Kurds)
4. Tubal (South of Black Sea)
5. Tiras (Thracians, Teutons, Germans, Scandinavian, Anglo-Saxon, Jutes)
6. Meshech (Russia)
7. Gomer (Celtic)

>>2579691
It recently turned out that dinosaurs did not live millions of years ago.
That got the evolutionists in damage control. They still trying to bury it today.

Man it feels good being on the right side of history.

File: LinnaeusFossils.jpg (513KB, 1440x1387px) Image search: [Google]

513KB, 1440x1387px

>>2579691
>"Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator" Romans 1:25
So astronomers worship space when they study the many stars and planets that dwell in it?
>"Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools" Romans 1:22
This could also apply to those who make a mockery of our beliefs, such as Hovind, Ham, Gish, and others.

>atheists fulfilling yet another prophecy and proving the bible's inerrancy
Literalism=/=inerrancy

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

90KB, 197x277px

>Bible
>Things are getting worse over time

>Science
>Things are getting worse over time

>Religion of Evolution
>Things are getting better over time!

Satan likes to flip the truth upside down.

File: 1490001921372.jpg (111KB, 691x600px) Image search: [Google]

111KB, 691x600px

>>2579716
Your belief deserves to be mocked because

1. It is false, not grounded in reality.
2. It is ridiculous. Just think a moment about what you believe.

>>2579716
i find it creepy how evolutionists are so obsessed with dead things

>>2579718
Evolution doesn't hold that, and while life forms light be more developed in some ways, the universe itself continues to slowly decay

File: Screen Shot 2017-03-27 at 12.12.56 PM.png (783KB, 1059x1600px) Image search: [Google]

783KB, 1059x1600px

>>2579725
Certainly seems to be a better alternative to this madness.

File: age graph.gif (34KB, 1000x476px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 1000x476px

>>2579731
Yes it does.

>a bubbling ooze turned into sophisticated life
>primitive club-wielding cavemen became smart humans

It is directly opposite to what the Bible says.

File: F2.large (6).jpg (177KB, 1280x1003px) Image search: [Google]

177KB, 1280x1003px

>>2579718
As said in the case of history: there is no true "progress," change is change. Merely a winding line, not a simple "up and down" scenario.
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/mutations_01

>>2579736
No it doesn't.

Evolution has failed. It's only 200 years old and has already been debunked and dismissed.

The Biblical worldview still holds strong. Do you think nobody has tried to refute it? It has survived tons of hammer blows and still cannot be proven wrong, because it's true.

Not only are you calling God a liar, you're also calling all our ancestors liars (pagan cultures and civilizations) that all spoke about a creation and subsequent global flood. Heck, the Babylonians and Chinese even mentioned Noah.

File: 110615_bb_sabertooth_inlineNEW_free.png (72KB, 730x303px) Image search: [Google]

72KB, 730x303px

>>2579739
>a bubbling ooze turned into sophisticated life
If you call a single-celled organism sophisticated.

>primitive club-wielding cavemen became smart humans
You mean spears and stone tools, yes? Such a notion as a club-weilder was more of the media taking an antiquated idea and running with it.

>>2579745
>a bunch of monkey and human skulls

Do you think you're proving something here..? Because you're not. I can go to the kitchen and photograph knives, spoons and forks. That would prove nothing.

>Berkeley
lol
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ED32UZT06sc

>>2579730
Evolutionism is a cult of death, that's why.

Christ is about Life.

I used to believe in evolution but once you study the problems with it it all falls down like a house of cards.

File: 1486250266211.jpg (50KB, 549x515px) Image search: [Google]

50KB, 549x515px

Wait, there are people who unironically believe in the theory of evolution?

I thought it was settled that Creation is a fact.

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

48KB, 405x564px

>>2579777
It's just a vocal minority of edgy fedoras.
also nice trips.

>>2569444
http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2014/12/knowing-ape-from-adam.html

File: dee.jpg (100KB, 468x895px) Image search: [Google]

100KB, 468x895px

>>2579751
>Evolution has failed. It's only 200 years old and has already been debunked and dismissed.
The notion of man being a part of creation as opposed to above it has existed for around 250 years, the theory of evolution via natural selection has been around for 150, the modern synthesis has been around for about 100, and the extended synthesis has been around for about 50.

>The Biblical worldview still holds strong. Do you think nobody has tried to refute it? It has survived tons of hammer blows and still cannot be proven wrong, because it's true.
The Bible as history is correct, but it isn't a science textbook.

>Not only are you calling God a liar, you're also calling all our ancestors liars (pagan cultures and civilizations) that all spoke about a creation and subsequent global flood. Heck, the Babylonians and Chinese even mentioned Noah.
So you chastise me and then tell me a lie. You mean Utnapishtim?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utnapishtim
And for the Chinese
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Hanzi_of_Genesis

>>2579777
>Wait, there are people who unironically believe in the theory of evolution?
>I thought it was settled that Creation is a fact.
That's what happens when you never leave your cult indoctrination pamphlets, you lose touch with reality.

>>2569228
I always thought that it was something like the neural networks that you can find on youtube. There's a god who just made the outline and sat back to see that happened

>>2579787
What are you talking about?

Evolution is taught in school. Everyone is brainwashed into it as a child.

It takes independent thinking and doing looking at both sides of the controversy to come to your own conclusion.

You're incapable of critical thinking. I am.
That is the difference between you and me.

File: Is Evolution Good For Science.jpg (63KB, 654x354px) Image search: [Google]

63KB, 654x354px

>>2579803
>expecting atheists to be rational and logical

Will never happen anon.
They are deadset on their monkey delusion

File: ledi-geraru-compared.png (876KB, 1316x1107px) Image search: [Google]

876KB, 1316x1107px

>>2579763
>a bunch of monkey and human skulls
Aaand which is which, exactly?

>Do you think you're proving something here..? Because you're not. I can go to the kitchen and photograph knives, spoons and forks. That would prove nothing.
Did they ever reproduce and have offspring that looked different from them?

>Kent Hovind
It's easy to "win" when you don't obey the rules and instead Gish Gallop and preach. His debate with Hugh Ross is a prime example of this.

>Evolutionism is a cult of death, that's why.
And new life springs forth from the loins of the old.
>Christ is about Life.
Exactly

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

/thread

until evolution cultists can refute this, they are on the losing side.

>>2579803
>both sides of the controversy
Are you sure you're not a Christian who was handed the appropriate Christian-approved version of a "worldly" thing?

It's just a coincidence that you champion the same ideology that conforms to your religiously-obligated axiom?

Also seriously why do you spam these images so much? You must realize this isn't an effective way to get your point across, right? Even if you were right it seems hilariously cultish.

File: Dmanisi 3.png (1MB, 1200x1600px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1200x1600px

>>2579803
>Evolution is taught in school. Everyone is brainwashed into it as a child.
Last I checked, we barely discussed the subject, so I call strawman until further notice.

>It takes independent thinking and doing looking at both sides of the controversy to come to your own conclusion.
Actually tried this, and came to the exact opposite of your conclusion.

>You're incapable of critical thinking. I am. That is the difference between you and me.
That sounds awfully fedora-tier in terms of smugness.

>>2579827
I don't think they understand the concept of subtlety.

>>2579803
>both sides of the controversy


>The overwhelming majority of the scientific community accepts evolution as the dominant scientific theory of biological diversity.[1][2] Nearly every scientific society, representing hundreds of thousands of scientists, has issued statements rejecting intelligent design[2] and a petition supporting the teaching of evolutionary biology was endorsed by 72 US Nobel Prize winners.[3]

>The vast majority of the scientific community and academia supports evolutionary theory as the only explanation that can fully account for observations in the fields of biology, paleontology, molecular biology, genetics, anthropology, and others.[19][20][21][22][23]

>There are many scientific and scholarly organizations from around the world that have issued statements in support of the theory of evolution.[35][36][37][38] The American Association for the Advancement of Science, the world's largest general scientific society with more than 130,000 members and over 262 affiliated societies and academies of science including over 10 million individuals, has made several statements and issued several press releases in support of evolution.[22] The prestigious United States National Academy of Sciences, which provides science advice to the nation, has published several books supporting evolution and criticising creationism and intelligent design.[39][40]

There is certainly a religious and political controversy. But there is no controversy in the scientific community. Its settled. The same way germ theory is.

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

354KB, 799x666px

>>2579907
Ad populum logical fallacy.

>>2579910
Could it even be considered ad populum, even when said group are actually trained in said field, as opposed to having no formal training whatsoever? I think the same goes for the "appeal to authority."

>>2579910
oh boy, the climate change denial tactics all over again.

File: appealtoauthority.jpg (31KB, 998x226px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 998x226px

>>2579922
>appeal to authority."
appeal to authority can be valid. It certainly is in this case

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

185KB, 1000x1000px

>>2579923
>he actually believes in ""global warming""

Holy shit, (You) are retarded

>>2571549
>Mutations don't happen just because
objectively wrong. every round of transcription and translation going on in every cell of an organism has the potential for errors. Fucking &humanitiesfags need to take a basic science course not found on YouTube and made by some "Christian scientist" for once in your lives.

>>2571617
non-random selection is a result of the random mutation you gigantic queer

>>2579910
That's not how ad pop works you little shit.

ITT: neo-darwinists getting BTFO by science

evolution is a myth.

>>2569228
It's not a very big issue, but according to evolution humans evolved from apes (or something similar to apes). If we're just very advanced animals, is still possible that we're divine beings made in the image of God? I'm not sure if these things are contradictory, but it does give me a little bit of doubt.

Also, another issue to think about is where consciousness and the soul enter into humans. Pope John Paul II said evolution was true, but that God still created the first souls.

There's no obvious contradictions, but evolution and religion coexisting does lead to a lot of questions about our past.

>>2569444
This

File: imout.jpg (9KB, 225x225px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 225x225px

>>2579960
nope. nope. nope. not doing this again.

File: 1490053558978.jpg (155KB, 1024x682px) Image search: [Google]

155KB, 1024x682px

>>2579983

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9V2eXu8RY20

Atheists, please watch this video.
it's for your own good.

File: Gt+150cc+gt+not+extra+where+the+map+is+mirrored+_f4d26438be9439174d82330b801e3945.jpg (32KB, 600x375px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 600x375px

>>2580520
>Nephilimfree
>Atheists, please watch this video. it's for your own good.
Why, to make Christians look even worse?

>>2579972
No. Not a result of. It is a distinct and separate process. One does not affect the other

>>2571259
By the literary format genre of the text? the bible isn't meant to be read with the intelligence of a 4 year old. its a long complicated book and just because you can't understand doesn't mean its not true.

>>2582542
But Jesus refers to Adam in the same way I would refer to Abe Lincoln. Was He, the Son of the God most high, wrong?

>>2581511
The random mutation causes increased survivability. Animals mate more if they live longer, promoting the mutations within the population. Therefore, the random mutation promotes non-random selection.
it's really not that hard

>>2583093
>the random mutation promotes non-random selection
This is wrong.
The non-random selection does determine whether or not the random mutation survives and propagates whithin a population. But the mutation itself does not influence the selection process, save some very rare exceptions.

A mutation for say, a bigger and stronger wing will improve flight capabilities and may even increase survivability. But if females (for whatever reason) prefer big tails over big wings the mutation will not spread through th population.
The mutation did not have an effect on the selection.

File: homo_ergaster_erectus.jpg (67KB, 725x485px) Image search: [Google]

67KB, 725x485px

bump