Jesus BTFO by SCIENCE

Then riddle me this:
>The basic thesis of evolution theory postulates that humans came from apes, apes from insects/reptiles or some shit, then that from plants, then plants from bacteria, and bacteria from amino acids.
All those are living materials, correct?
Now we get to the difficult part.
>The theory of evolution would postulate that the living materials came from nonliving materials
I ask this: what caused nonliving materials to become living?
>Where did the 'spark of life' come from?
>How did it happen?
>Why?
Let's also tackle the Big Bang Theory.
>Big Bang Theory states that the universe started with a big bang, and before that, there was a superdense supertiny red ball that spontaneously exploded.
Why did it explode when it could just stay inert? Better yet, where did it come from?
Before you say it was a previous universe, let's take that train all the way to the very beginning.
Let's assume that there were universes before this one.
>What started the first one?
If you say that the prime universe started with the red ball that began the big bang, then where did said red ball come from?
>Did it just come into existence on its own?
>if so, why?
When you think about this, existence by itself cannot possibly happen on its own because it's literally the prime mover argument.
>Something came from something.
>What was the first something?
>Where did it come from?
>Why did the first something come into existence to begin with?
>Why do we even exist at all?

File: image.jpg (22KB, 275x183px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 275x183px

>>137823693
Cuckolicks are heretics who burn in hell so it doesn't suprise me they believe that.

And evolution is a lie and the earth is 6,251 years old.

>>137824627
This is correct

>>137823693
>I literally watched a video called "Can Christianity be debunked by a single question?" And wanted to make a thread about it.

Neck yourself Anon.

File: image.gif (1MB, 252x481px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 252x481px

>>137824708
What's the question? Or was that question the question?

>>137824985
The question was the question.

>>137823693
Christians wouldn't have this problem if they simply paid attention to Marcion and put the whole Old Testament in the trash.

File: image.jpg (152KB, 1024x819px) Image search: [Google]

152KB, 1024x819px

>>137825479
>throwing away all the history and prophecy

>>137825479
>put God's word in the trash
Nice try JIDF

>>137825775
>history and prophecy
>a bunch of Jewish fairy tales

File: David_Silverman.jpg (207KB, 871x1306px) Image search: [Google]

207KB, 871x1306px

>>137827357
t. jidf

File: 2017.08.16.10.02.50.jpg (23KB, 479x140px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 479x140px

>>137827357
You're almost as dumb as pic related.

File: image.png (5KB, 274x290px) Image search: [Google]

5KB, 274x290px

>>137827357

>>137823693
Evolution is disproved by entropy and thermodynamics. Things that follow a random order (heat, diffusion, gene mutations) always go towards maximum entropy. They cannot be built up or increase in order. Natural selection does not save evolution because the vast majority of mutations (200 per generation) have no noticeable effect, so the 'natural selection removes the bad and keeps the good' doesn't work.

Instead, lions, cheetahs, tigers, ect. descend from one pair of cats brought on the ark. But that one pair would have had all the information required to produce the different kinds of species (speciation) we have today; it was not the result of random, blind mutations.

More disproof of evolution:
>http://creation.com/the-evolution-trains-a-comin

File: 1494012705576.png (685KB, 750x1334px) Image search: [Google]

685KB, 750x1334px

>>137823693
Evolution came from a racist man who called his book 'preservation of favored races.' Take yo raycisss evolushunn back to yo rayciss Nazi NASA.

>>137828533
>the 'natural selection removes the bad and keeps the good' doesn't work

You don't understand either natural selection or evolution.

Don't assume that evolution is a straight line.
Don't assume that evolution is a synonym for "better" or “good”.
Don't assume that evolution means more creative, or intelligent, or athletic.

Evolution at best means adaptation to the environment.

If strength gives a better chance for survival than intelligence, for example, that will be what survives.

This is the difference between African niggers and most of the rest of the world.

In Sub-Saharan Africa, knocking up as many women as possible, as fast as possible is the best way to pass on your genes. As a woman, having a dozen babies, fathered by a dozen men is the best way to pass on your genes.

Why? Disease is the biggest threat. Not climate, or predators.
Being able to plan for the future doesn’t mean shit when a mutated disease can wipe out your entire tribe, including you and your children, in a single month.

Having 20 children with different fathers gives a greater chance of one of them having a mutation that lets them survive that new disease. Having 100 different baby mommas does the same thing, only better.

>>137823693
There is no point trying to argue with the religious, they will keep believing in their God regardless of any proof/disproof you show them.
They are this way not because they lack information, they are this way because they are mentally ill. Stupid. Nonsensical. Only shock therapy can cure their madness.
Someday.

>>137830889
No one denies adaptive evolution.
What we deny is coming from apes.

File: B8ecmLtCQAI0UeN.jpg (94KB, 600x600px) Image search: [Google]

94KB, 600x600px

>>137823693
Reminder that christ cucks and mud mamas are the biggest enemy of the white race. They are semites spiritually.

>>137827357
t. goytheist

>>137831167
>There is no point trying to argue with the religious, they will keep believing in their God regardless of any proof/disproof you show them.
True.

>They are this way not because they lack information, they are this way because they are mentally ill.
Nope.

They're that way because of, wait for it...
Evolution.

The capacity for belief was (and likely still is) a beneficial evolutionary trait, and so it survived and was passed on.

File: 1483769886793.jpg (1010KB, 2853x1506px) Image search: [Google]

1010KB, 2853x1506px

>>137830089
>>Recovery

File: LsmlFTm.jpg (67KB, 600x600px) Image search: [Google]

67KB, 600x600px

>>137831507

>>137824087
Let's review. Sage goes in all fields, by the way.
>Evolution postulates that living things came from nonliving thinga
Incorrect. Evolution is about the changes that life went about to become what it is today, through mutation, natural selection and adaptation. It makes no claims to what happened before life existed. That's Abiogenesis,something completely different and not as straightforward as evolution.
>Big Bang Theory states that the universe started with a big bang, and before that
No, there is no "and before that. The universe started with a big bang, which is a poor term for it attached by Christians and perpetuated by infamy. It wasn't an explosion, it was an expansion, and it describes nothing about what came before it. In fact, most scientific theories (note I say theories, not hypotheses) exist about what happened before the big bang. Nobody knows.
>When you think about this, existence by itself cannot possibly happen on its own because it's literally the prime mover argument.
Not really. Not knowing what came before isn't the same as there not being a before. The term "before itself is meaningless, because it refers to a point in time, and Time itself didn't exist as we know it before the big bang. The rest of your comment is philosophical, not scientific, and no one has the answer, but you could hazard a guess at nothing really.

>>137823693
Catholic church has been pro evolution for many years. Been that way since before I studied cosmology over a decade ago

>>137831372
>no one denies adaptive evolution, but we deny a thing that comes from adaptive evolution

File: IMG_20170222_014812.jpg (238KB, 1582x1246px) Image search: [Google]

238KB, 1582x1246px

>>137827357
Bad goy! You need Jesus.

File: 15029394735803.jpg (535KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

535KB, 1920x1080px

>>137823693

Question:

What happened to these beings in between?

>>137831372
>What we deny is coming from apes.
That's a silly strawman, only used by people who either don't have the faculties to understand evolution, or who have never bothered to learn anything about it.

We don't "come" from apes. Humans and apes have a remote common ancestor. Farther back, all mammals have a common ancestor. More recently, Humans, Neanderthals, and Denisovans had a common ancestor.
Even more recently, niggers, gooks, and White people had a common ancestor.

>>137823693
There's been arguments for a long time about the translation of days from hebrew to latin. 1. God doesn't work in days 2. How can he work in days if that concept doesn't exist till like 4 days in.

>>137832612
Why did Neanderthals have larger brains and much more powerful bodies? Doesn't that go against natural selection and evolution?

They had much longer adolescence than we do which implies longer life as well.

>>137832580
>Question:
>What happened to these beings in between?

From left to right: niggers, wops, micks.

>>137833111

kek

>>137832580
They died?

>>137833478

>They died

Na, that makes no sense.

Why would the original, unevolved primate still be around, yet the more advanced species be extinct?

>>137832580
They died out or evolved into the next one in that picture survival of the fittest, the ones who were like those circled ones died and the ones who lived spread their genes, ever wonder how giraffes have such long necks. The ones with longer necks could grab more leaves so during famines and things they got more food.


Not even mentioning that homo Sapiens were reduced possibly down to only a 1000 breeding pairs in the entire world
between 50,000 and 100,000 years ago, human populations sharply decreased to 3,000–10,000 surviving individuals. It is supported by genetic evidence suggesting that today's humans are descended from a very small population of between 1,000 and 10,000 breeding pairs that existed about 70,000 years ago.

T

>>137832827
>Why did Neanderthals have larger brains and much more powerful bodies?
Because that was the outcome of their selection pressures.

>Doesn't that go against natural selection and evolution?
No. Again, evolution is not a straight line. There is no "good" or "bad". A mutation that gives an advantage is more likely to survive, but that mutation could also end if the creature born with it fell off a cliff before reproducing.

>They had much longer adolescence than we do which implies longer life as well.
Yep. It also implies that the next generation of warriors takes longer to mature than the children of the invading tribes.
And again, not a straight line.
Put Einstein in a cage fight to the death with Muhammad Ali. Assuming neither had children before the fight, who would live to reproduce?

>>137833720
Wrong that original primate is long dead, it's a common misconception that we came from the Modern Chimp. We came from an entiyl different primate

The modern chimp came has evolved into the Chimpanzee just like we evolved into the Modern Human. All the orignials are dead except for beings who didn't have competition so they didn't have to change as much or died out

ie: Sharks and Crocodiles are relatively unchanged except for size

>>137833720
>Why would the original unevolved primate be around if the more advanced species exists?
They don't share a biome. The whole point of evolution is to better suit your environment. Monkeys live in the jungle, and early man lived in grasslands and caves. Which means all of the homo genus competed for the same space, and did not compete with the monkeys. Eventually, the best one won. Us.

Of course, when I say "died put" I don't mean they all just lay down and died. They crossbreed until the differences are either indistinguishable or so dominant or submissive, gene wise, that they are replaced by another species.

>no fall = no sins

if theres no sin then why do i feel like a dick cheating on my gf when i should rejoice in spreading my genes

>>137823693
technically OP jesus didnt need to die even within the constraints of the biblical account of things

the burnt offering in the bible that the jews do removes sin. its not as simple as just killing a lamb and burning it there is a stone altar and blood from the animal smeared on the eastern facing side of the altar and there is a second lamb that must be released into the wild . so for 2 domesticated animals you remove 100% of sin as there were no mortal sins until later

in some translations it says goat not lamb but its basically the same thing as far as what you do to the 2 animals

jesus dieing for your sins sounds like a joke. even as just the son of god it seems retarded. god in the flesh dying so you dont waste food is insanity

File: 1501098823822.jpg (173KB, 873x1280px) Image search: [Google]

173KB, 873x1280px

>>137835528
Exactly. We are being held back by faggy (((christian))) morals.

>>137835528
>if theres no sin then why do i feel like a dick cheating on my gf

Compassion is a European evolutionary trait.
Just because 'spreading your genes' has become socially acceptable within the past 50 years, doesn't mean that your ancestors selected for that trait and passed it on to you.

(((We're all the SAAAAAME...))) has replaced logical discussion only within the past half century.

>>137832214
morphological change has never come from mutation. Try again.

>>137836318
>morphological change has never come from mutation

Sure it has.
Stop thinking of one giant leap and start thinking of one billion tiny leaps.
Isolation+adaptation=change

>>137823693
>pear earth
That is all.

File: 1501847909343.png (321KB, 384x384px) Image search: [Google]

321KB, 384x384px

>>137823693
>this post
Humanist trash

>>137837107
Wrong. You must be new to the debate. It has never been demonstrated that mutation can cause morphological change.
It's not even that DNA decides what type of organism it creates.
Cortical inheritance handles that, not DNA.

>>137837933
>It has never been demonstrated that mutation can cause morphological change.

Oh, dear. I suppose gender is a social construct as well.

>>137837933
>You must be new to the debate
>According to SCIENCE, men want to wear dresses and piss while sitting down
>It's a feminine penis!!!

More exclamation points make your statements more true. Damn the Neanderthals and their lack of exclamation points!!!