Origin of everything

shameful self-bump

come on faggots, this is an interesting topic.
bump

File: putka.jpg (227KB, 1600x900px) Image search: [Google]

227KB, 1600x900px

well fuck you, /pol

Go fuck yourself

Evolution is almost certainly pretty much how scientists say it is, and is not inconsistent with the bible

The origin of life is not really a question.
The origin of intelligent life...

>>135938262
>and is not inconsistent with the bible
Pardon me if I misunderstood your post but
evolution takes millions of years while the bible says everythings not older than 6k or so years.
It is inconsistent as fuck.
>>135938620
ok

>>135938262

>evolution
>not inconsistent with the bible

Nigga what?

>>135938907
Evolution doesnt needs millions of years.Evolution can happen from one generation to another.What drives evolution is not time,but so called evolutionary pressure that favors adaptation.

File: image.png (219KB, 1703x802px) Image search: [Google]

219KB, 1703x802px

>>135935684
They aren't that old and existed with humans fir a while.

Genesis 1
24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.
25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good

also
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ezXcxbfr76k

>>135939033
It may be small differences in the 6,251 years but not animals completely changing

>>135939498
Im not arguing for the 6k meme,we have evidence of intelligent life older than 6k years,but i dont think we can surely say that.Modern man did not witness evolutionary pressure,there is no evidence that animals cant change drastically within 1 generation.

>>135938972
>>135938907
Genesis is often taken to be poetic or narrative in order to reconcile it with modern scientific understanding. It's not a wholly unsound way of interpreting the Bible (especially the parts of it that cover pre-history).

>>135935684
I personally don't think macro-evolution is possible. As for fossils, I don't know. Possible explanations include:
>false-positives (thinking they are one thing when they are not)
>past extinct species that lived simultaneously with everything else we know (we take similar forms to imply ancestry, but we take that as axiomatic and therefore it might not be the case)

As for the Bible, it's not an answered question. The form of the opening chapters of Genesis implies a poem, or a narrative (it uses poetic techniques). Problem is, loads of the bible uses this format to make it easier to remember in order to be passed down in oral history. The book also lists a genealogy, listing real people and who bore who right down to Noah, and then from Noah down to Abraham, Abraham to David, and finally David to the modern era. What to make of this, I'm not sure.

I have no answer for how things came to be. It's one of those things we can only ever postulate about; at least until we come up with a more robust meta-physics that better describes the universe than secular materialism does right now.

>>135938907
>>135938972
Interpret it a little more loosely. The creation in genesis doesn't have to have taken place in 7 literal earth spinning days, in fact that doesn't even make any logical sense. It may not even really be correct to translate the words used as a literal "day" in that sense (I don't know about this myself)

>>135940083
Then you don't follow the Bible

>>135935684

Wrong. If you interpret the bible in an incorrect way, you end up thinking that the earth is 6000 years old, but that's stupid.

You can be a practising Catholic and believe in evolution.

>>135940486
How could i follow the bible if nobody has the chance to read it?
Nobody read the bible ever because the original is behind 7 vaults under the vatican and you get pure brainwashing with the title bible.
Bibles change so much through history its not even funny anymore.My grandmas gothic font bible has like 150 pages more than any modern bible you can get your hands on.

>>135940186

as far as I understand, the idea of evolution is based on ADAPTABILITY of an organism. I think the human ability to adapt to certain physical surroundings is a pretty strong argument for evolution, because it just makes quite a lot of sense.
I cannot make myself believe any other story of genesis, even though evolution theory does not provide all the answers (which is also understandable since we're not that much advanced technologically to know everything for sure).

File: 1499973447935.png (456KB, 513x586px) Image search: [Google]

456KB, 513x586px

>>135940813
>practising Catholic
There's your mistake.

Evolution is a lie. Degeneration is the truth.

evolution/capitalism/newtonian physics are all British Black Magic based on the work of Famous Wizard Dee