Creationists BTFO

Some chimpanzees show genetic mutation for white sclera in the eye, frighteningly similar to human eyes.

Other urls found in this thread:

tertullian.org/fathers/jerome_chronicle_03_part2.htm
newadvent.org/fathers/0614.htm
ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf03.iv.iii.xxi.html
eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/SEsearch/SEsearch.php.
academia.edu/6108262/Quake_Article
youtube.com/watch?v=jqQPTxo_voo
bombaxo.com/trypho.html,
earlychristianwritings.com/text/tertullian03.html)
genome.ucsc.edu/cgi-bin/hgTracks?position=chr2:114360507-114360538&db=hg19&ss=../trash/hgSs/hgSs_genome_4ac5_cc50.pslx ../trash/hgSs/hgSs_genome_4ac5_cc50.fa&hgsid=312102787.
genetics.org/content/156/1/297.full
ghr.nlm.nih.gov/chromosome/2].
newadvent.org/fathers/0859.htm
youtu.be/mv0mL9J2nqU
youtu.be/IFACrIx5SZ0
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

Bump

For me, I believe in God and I do believe in the Bible. I'm not a religious person, but I will celebrate holidays and go pray on important holidays.

Also, I do believe in evolution. There is so much evidence backing it up. I don't believe that the world is only 7,000 years old, something like that, I know that's what creationists believe.

There are also so many interesting theories and scientific evidence proving that some things from the Bible did happen.

I'd like to hear people's beliefs and please back it up with some type of source or evidence. I'm just interested in what people have to say. Also, correct me if I'm wrong about anything.

I believe in God too.
Evolution is just a path of how we got here.

I dont believe a god exists.

But you who do, will you please convince me that there is one?

Please use real evidence and not just stories where you felt presence.

>yfw you see primates evolving into niggas in your life time.

Let me help you see it how a Creationist does.

The color in eyes comes from pigment, correct? And white comes from a lack of pigment.

So, when you see a mutation that makes the eyes white, you know that it what it has done is deactivated the "put pigment in the eye gene".

That would be a loss of genetic information, would it not?

Ultimately, when you look at what's going on under the hood, all mutations are like that. Proteins are biological machines that're too complex for random change to improve.

And as far as the superficial similarity of how they look goes, a Creationist sees similarity among the different kinds of life and sees that as pointing to them all having a common designer. An evolutionist sees the similarities and sees them as pointing to them all having a common ancestor.

So since we'd see similarities under either theory, they don't support either over the other.

Evolution and creation are not mutually exclusive. I don't think any (reasonable) creationist thinks that God sat down and drew out blueprints detailing the positioning of ever molecule for every creature. On top of that, science has not shown how short-chain amino acids were able to self-replicate or how chained nucleic acids were able to code for amino acid chains. There are many holes in our knowledge. A common misconception is that those who think that God created life must also be afraid to test that hypothesis and subject it to scientific inquiry. This is simply not the case. In fact, the bible says to test everything until you find the truth in it. Reasonable people won't deny evolution as a means for the diversification of species, regardless if they are creationists or not; everyone has seen poodles, wolves, and dachshunds. But you'd have to be pretty unreasonable to think that science has "proved" how life began in the first place. Sure, there are plenty of scientists who believe (on faith) that one day we will figure out those pesky steps between amino acid chains to DNA --> RNA --> Protein (the "central dogma of biology" as it's called), but as of now there's not even a guess as to the mechanism for this giant leap.

Devolving you mean.

This. Evolution is the how, not the why.

>steps between amino acid chains to DNA --> RNA --> Protein (the "central dogma of biology" as it's called)
Not to mention the problem of cell biology!

Sure! the historical evidence that proves Christianity is extremely strong.

Take the darkness and earthquake that took place while Jesus Christ was on the cross, for example:

>"And the sixth hour having come, darkness came over the whole land until the ninth hour"
- Mark 15:33

>"And the earth shook and the rocks were split"
- Matthew 27:51

Non-Christian ancient historians reported this darkness and earthquake, though they tried to explain it as an eclipse:

>in the fourth year of the 202nd Olympiad, an eclipse of the sun happened, greater and more excellent than any that had happened before it; at the sixth hour, day turned into dark night, so that the stars were seen in the sky, and an earthquake in Bithynia toppled many buildings of the city of Nicaea

- Non-Christian Roman historian Phlegon reporting the darkness as an eclipse. Read it here: tertullian.org/fathers/jerome_chronicle_03_part2.htm

>This darkness Thallus, in the third book of his History, calls...an eclipse of the sun

- Summary of the non-Christian Roman historian Thallus reporting the darkness as an eclipse. Read it here: newadvent.org/fathers/0614.htm

>In the same hour, too, the light of day was withdrawn...Those who were not aware that this had been predicted about Christ thought it an eclipse. You yourselves have the account of this portent still in your archives.

- Tertullian telling us that this event was recorded in the Roman archives. This can be read here: ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf03.iv.iii.xxi.html

But there were no eclipses at this time. Look at all the total eclipses in the world from 30-40 AD here: eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/SEsearch/SEsearch.php. There were 5: one in Polynesia, one near Chile, one south of Africa, one in Indonesia, and one in North America. None even near Rome or Judea.

So it is impossible for this darkness to have been an eclipse. Not to mention eclipses don't cause and have no association with earthquakes.

For some additional evidence, the paper at academia.edu/6108262/Quake_Article reports that, by examining sediments from the Dead Sea, that an "early first-century seismic event has been tentatively assigned a date of 31 AD with an accuracy of ± 5 years" was identified. So we have geological proof that this earthquake really did take place at this time.

>chimps are ready to evolve

fuck yes, I've been waiting.

Let' make them butlers and send niggers back to the jungle

>yfw you see slavs evolving into chimps

Ok, i believe in god now. Surely there couldnt have been another explanation than an almight god turning everything dark.

Praise Jesus!

>Creationists BTFO

t. internet atheist in 2008

Can you think of any alternate naturalistic explanation for these events?

There's nothing that causes the sun to go dark in the middle of the day (aside from the eclipse explanation the Romans went with, but modern astronomical data allows us the rule that out), and especially nothing that would also cause an earthquake to take place at the same time.

And surely, even if you figure that it must have been some freak one in a billion event, it would stretch any credibility to say that that just happened to take place exactly while Jesus Christ was on the cross.

a giant alien spaceship covered the sun

bumping, very interested to see if the atheists have any reply

they are evolving into niggers

youtube.com/watch?v=jqQPTxo_voo

lol actually believe it or not the data even lets us rule that one out! something like that wouldn't cause an earthquake only in the area around Judea

And there's still the fact that, if you ask me, "it would stretch any credibility to say that that just happened to take place exactly while Jesus Christ was on the cross".

Plus not to mention the fact that his tomb came up empty after this crucifixion, which a spaceship passing by would not have done.

And we can know that's the case too, since the ancient critics of Christianity were accusing the disciples of stealing the body. That’s reported in several ancient sources, such as by Justin Martyr in his Dialogue with Trypho, which is a transcript of his debate with a Jew. One of the arguments was that "his disciples stole him by night from the tomb, where he was laid when unfastened from the cross".

This can be read here: bombaxo.com/trypho.html, chapter 108

And in De Spectaculis chapter 30, Tertullian said that upon Christ’s return to judge the world, he would mock Christianity’s critics by saying:

>This’, I shall say,’this is…He whom His disciples secretly stole away, that it might be said He had risen again, or the gardener abstracted, that his lettuces might come to no harm from the crowds of visitants!"

Clearly, they wouldn't be accusing the disciples of this if the body had still been in its tomb. Its like telling the teacher that the dog ate your homework: if you had it then you wouldn't be needing an excuse!

>Plus not to mention the fact that his tomb came up empty after this crucifixion, which a spaceship passing by would not have done.

the aliens obviously obducted him

(Sorry, forgot link for the second citation, you can read that text here earlychristianwritings.com/text/tertullian03.html)

>Some chimpanzees
Some chimpanzees have learned how to type; and are now posting here.

>ITT: retards, the posts

What has that to do with creationism? So God gave some apes white eyes. So what.

Point?

So you believe that it was done by a powerful being in the heavens that wanted to show the world that it endorsed Jesus' teachings?

What would most people call that powerful being in the heavens that brought Jesus back to life?

>(reasonable)
>creationist
??????

Fell for the Darwin fairy tale creation myth

Horses have white sclera
theoryfags btfo

>For me

Isn't god just dog backwards?

I never even noticed that their scleras weren't white.

For the Big Bang to have happened, according to the simple cause and effect principle, something outside of our single point highly dense unborn universe had to have set it into motion. This unknown force does not have to abide by our laws of physics, time, or any other set law that exists within our universe, because it existed outside of our universe. I believe this "unknown force" to be have been God.

On macro evolution, the arrangement of our universe, and the complexity of our laws of physics and position in our galaxy that allows life to thrive, it is all so perfectly fine tuned that it is mathematically impossible to have happened by chance. To say that life developed complex systems that respond to different types of stimuli that previously couldn't even be detected by the organism just by random evolution over time is almost asinine. Genetic coding in our DNA is so impressive that there is no way that we developed organs that pick up light such as our eyes and organ systems that work together such as the nervous or digestive systems simply by chance. That's like slamming on your keyboard billions of times until eventually you get a working operating

DNA is a genetic code that builds a working and living organism.

Open up a command shell on your computer, type in a bunch of random commands in a line and hit enter. No syntax error? Unlikely, but if not save that line of code. Now do the same thing repeatedly and when you receive a syntax error, go back one line and try random commands again. Do this billions of times and come back to me when you have an operating system with a full web browser and Team Fortress 2 with a full AI

isn't your id just a cry for goodboy points?

Nice post.

/thread

REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE WE ARE NOT MONKEYS, WE WERE CREATED IN GOD'S IMAGE

REEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

some dindus have opposable thumbs, that doesn't make them human.

>tfw the first African superpower is chimpanzees

Proto kangz

>primate eye
>looks scared but determined as fuck

>human eye
>looks schizophrenic, all wobbly

Careful - when you look, the chromosome fusion suggestion winds up shooting evolution in the foot.

If two ape chromosomes had fused to form our chromosome, then we would see in that chromosome's genetic sequence the remains of an extra centromere and telomeres.

But if you actually look at the fusion site's sequence, there isn't even the slightest hint of such a thing.

Which means this is actually evidence against evolution: if we descended so recently from apes, we would have had to have undergone a chromosome fusion. But no chromosome DNA sequences show any sign of a vestigial centromere or telomeres.

I honestly don't think that atheists can even attempt to form a coherent argument against all this without appealing to wild things about aliens or worldwide conspiracies. Secularists BTFO

Fusion sites shown

We need to take them to an environment similar to Europe so they evolve into something better than niggers.

Evolution is how humans got here, it's possible that it was part of God's plan

Supposedly - but guess what? They never actually checked the supposed fusion site for any vestigial telomere sequences or the rest of it for a vestigal chromosome.

You can see the claimed site of the fusion here if the link works: genome.ucsc.edu/cgi-bin/hgTracks?position=chr2:114360507-114360538&db=hg19&ss=../trash/hgSs/hgSs_genome_4ac5_cc50.pslx ../trash/hgSs/hgSs_genome_4ac5_cc50.fa&hgsid=312102787. The second and third A’s are where the fusion site supposedly is.

Now, telomeres are the sequence CCCTAA (and its compliment, TTAGGG) repeated thousands of times. So to the right of the fusion site, we should see CCCTAA repeated over and over again. To the left, we should see TTAGGG repeated in the same way.

But we don’t. If you keep scrolling to the right, within 500 bases CCCTAA is never repeated more than twice in a row. And if you search within 64,000 bases (which is way longer than a telomere), its only there 136 times at all. Plus, unlike telomeres, the two sequences are jumbled together. You’ve got about 20 TTAGGG’s to the right of the fusion site, and about 20 CCTAAA’s to the left of it. So we don’t see anything at all like a telomere there.

And there's nothing like a centromere sequence to be found.

>white sclera in the eye

all mammals have that. most have eye lids covering it.

>We need to take them to an environment similar to Europe so they evolve into something better than niggers.

eskimos have lived in the ice for thousands of years. your evolution is shit.

white people were thrown out of eden because they are albinos. why do you think most medication is tested on albino rats? its because they are similar to you.

To ancient stories conveyed by unreliable historians?

We don't see anything practical happening in the present, prayers don't work as claimed, and skepticism is superior against deception.

So yeah, just no reason to be religious when the alternative is better, safer, and more ethical.

And if evolution is true, it isn't like these sequences would be hardly recognizable. They should be almost intact.

Let’s assume the fusion occurred six million years ago. According to genetics.org/content/156/1/297.full the human mutation rate is estimated to be “175 mutations per genome per generation” (their methods to reach that assume evolution is true so in reality that’s a bit inaccurate, but we’ll grant it for the purpose of illustration). That would mean, if we assume an average time from parent to offspring of 15 years, there have been 400,000 mutations during that time.

Now, Chromosome 2 contains about 8% of the DNA in our cells, according to ghr.nlm.nih.gov/chromosome/2]. Assuming each base pair had a roughly equal chance of mutating, that would mean in that time span there have been 32,000 mutations on Chromosome 2.

The 64,000 base pair area that was searched for telomere remains is about 0.0003% of the base pairs on Chromosome 2. 0.0003% of 32,000 is 0.096.

So under the evolutionary model, in the past six million years that area is unlikely to have experienced even a single mutation. It has about a 1/10 chance of having one mutation in that time.

That, of course, isn’t anywhere near what you’d need to have in order to go from a telomere to what we see today.

This characteristic is not that common in apes. They usually show black.

Many agreences senpai

>To ancient stories conveyed by unreliable historians?

We can confirm that these reports are reliable - remember the geological evidence that showed that the earthquake truly did take place?

And keep in mind that these are non-Christian historians, so if bias was influencing their reports then it would be away from the Christian explanation. Yet Phlegon of Tralles there reported that this "eclipse" took place even at the exact same hours as the Gospels report.

dogs have it too.

its the eye folds that cover it.

evolution theory is trash.

Made me Kek well done

they look like monsters

Well you see, your club honestly just doesn't stand up to doubt. And I certainly don't trust sources in land controlled by said club for centuries.

So if maybe you could produce some non-'historical' evidence of magical powers or 'divine might', that would be nice.

genetic code is an infinite series

every creature is an attempt at pi - or god.

Further, we also have an account that wasn't written by a historian, but a ruler:

>During the time that they were crucifying him, the sun was darkened, the earth was moved, shaken…
- Letter from Abgar, king of Osroene, to Emperor Tiberius. It can be read online here: newadvent.org/fathers/0859.htm

This letter would have been written not long after the events, since both Abgar and Tiberius died before 40 AD. So this is an almost contemporary account.

> I certainly don't trust sources in land controlled by said club for centuries

If Christians had altered or invented these texts, why are they having them report that it was a natural eclipse?

That's one among a huge myriad of problems for a conspiracy theory here.

Also, don't forget: we can prove today that these accounts are accurate. As we saw, there is geologic proof that that earthquake took place right when they said that it did.

>So if maybe you could produce some non-'historical' evidence

I've presented what I've presented. The other evidence would take too much text to go over; Sup Forums's character limit would prevent any real discussion. But historical texts can be quickly presented, so its what we're restricted to here.

Also, I did present some present geological evidence to support the claims!

Hello, Pablo, here again with your albino theories?

also called it: had to resort to a conspiracy theory

so more of "hey X looks like us therefor we evolved from X!"

>>/x/ is that way bruh

I knew you were a faux-intellectual. I could tell by your writing style.

>txGxUluf
>unironically using exclamation points
Kill yourself

>for a conspiracy theory here
Well man, I don't put anything past a fanatical cult gripping power over most of the world for millennia.
I also don't see how natural phenomena prove anything to you unless you already believe in a supernatural explanation.

I mean, you know prayers don't work like they claim? And how they didn't seem to know basic stuff like the earth orbiting the sun?

It just seems like if there really was a benevolent deity, why wouldn't it talk to us on the regular? Why is the only thing we hear about it from a cult? And one that doesn't like questions like that?

So you see, it's far safer to stay far away from religion and study regular ethics. I highly recommend.

>had to resort
Well I mean, I don't have to resort to anything. I just don't believe people until they prove things.

And since you don't seem to have any present evidence, that's no proof.
But you're pretty naive if you don't believe people can conspire to hold power over you.

Some people will look at this picture, admit that its not shopped, and still refuse to believe that Kranky Kong is real. Fucking depressing

> I don't put anything past a fanatical cult

Has there ever been a group that went back and put arguments against themselves into texts?

Plus we have texts from before Christianity had power in Rome where people cite these texts. Did Christians launch a concerted campaign at some point to sneak all these references to an obscure bit of evidence into old texts that somehow didn't leave a single trace?

>I also don't see how natural phenomena prove anything to you

That's precisely the issue: as we saw, modern astronomical data allows us to rule out that this was an eclipse. And there is no other naturalistic event that makes the sun go dark and turns day to night.

Not to mention that this is taking place right while Jesus Christ himself is on the cross.

>It just seems like if there really was a benevolent deity, why wouldn't it talk to us on the regular?

Well think: God, if he exists, would be the best possible being, right?

And by definition the best possible being must, for anything it does, do it to the best extent of its ability.

So if it were to directly improve the world, it would have to do so to the best extent of its ability.

Yet, God would be omnipotent, right? So that means that if he were to directly improve the world, he'd have to do so infinitely

But the problem is that actual infinites cannot exist. They're like having a married bachelor or a square with 5 sides: logical impossibilities. So that isn't a logically possible option.

Instead, God acts with the goal of ensuring good can grow. That's the best possible criteria for his taking action, since it ensures good will always be increasing, and doesn't run into the infinite improvement problem.

So when his direct action is required for further improvement to take place, he acts and ensures that it does. But when it isn’t, he doesn't act.

My source is pic related, get it for like $1 on Amazon for more in-depth about that since I'm at character limit

yeah man just like the Illuminati and the Reptilians. That's why I take my Super Male Vitality no one can hold power over me then

You can make a conspiracy theory to explain away literally anything you dislike, and the fact that you've come up with one doesn't in any way affect the value of the evidencr. Unless you can provide some actual evidence for it I could just as easily say that we'd have 8 contemporary sources for this but the extra sources "disappeared" during the Enlightenment since the Deists didn't like them.

Do you think that's false? Well better prove it! I don't believe people until they prove things.

>Has there ever been a group that went back and put arguments against themselves into texts?
Yeah actually. It's called disinformation. Most successful conspiracies fabricate arguments against themselves that they use later as talking points and plausible deniability.

>And there is no other naturalistic event that makes the sun go dark and turns day to night.
Volcanic eruptions do, due to the ash.

>would be omnipotent
Like above, your 'explanations' just don't hold up to doubt.

At the end of the day, nothing you do or believe makes anything happen. It doesn't summon water for the thirsty.
So really, the evidence that it's all a "donate to me" scheme is pretty high.
You may as well be Scientologists telling us it's all evidence for aliens.

You can't even say "omnipotent but doesn't do things if I don't believe it should". It's silly.
A far more likely explanation is that such a creature just doesn't exist, and we don't know how the universe works yet.
That's been the answer for just about everything else in the past too. Like "demons cause illness".

So why not just, you know, not believe? Much safer and healthier I've seen. Then you can actually be curious and find the truth.

Dna is code.

youtu.be/mv0mL9J2nqU

youtu.be/IFACrIx5SZ0

>Yeah actually

Can you provide a historical example that you think is a parallel to what the Christians managed to pull here?

>Volcanic eruptions do, due to the ash

That doesn't work here. Phelgon of Tralles reported that it was so dark during the day that "the stars were seen in the sky". Obviously, that wouldn't be possible if it were volcanic ash blocking the sky.

And, why would all these sources be calling it an eclipse if ash had completely blocked the sky?

>Like above, your 'explanations' just don't hold up to doubt.

Is there an error in the reasoning?

>At the end of the day, nothing you do or believe makes anything happen. It doesn't summon water for the thirsty.

The Bible never says that it will so how is this supposed to be evidence?

>A far more likely explanation is that such a creature just doesn't exist

This is really just circular reasoning when it comes down to it. What seems likely to you depends 100% on what you already believe.

God wouldn't do the things you're saying like instantly make water for the thirsty in response to prayers. That would be direct improvement that'd run into the actual infinite issue.

>That's been the answer for just about everything else in the past too. Like "demons cause illness".

More circular reasoning: you're assuming that there never was a time when demons really were sometimes the source of illness to prove your belief that there never was a time when demons were sometimes a source of illness.

>So why not just, you know, not believe?

Because my opponents can only reply to my reasons for believing with completely baseless conspiracy theories that like based user in showed can just as easily be turned against you.

...

No one says we evolved from chimpanzees you stupid faggot

The reason demons were an explanation for disease is because demons actually used to be around and did sometimes cause medical problems.

Revelation 20:2 states that Satan and the demons were bound around 70 AD, so that's the reason they aren't a cause of disease today.

Be very careful not to make the slip-up of using your beliefs as evidence for themselves, it can be a deceptively easy trap to fall into.

Where are you posting from?

>that'd run into the actual infinite issue
But that's a completely fabricated fictional problem.
If true in the first order, there could be no contact in the first place. And what about the pagan prophecies that came true, like the Libri Sibyllini?
And in the second part, "omnipotent" means "can do anything". There is no limit. There can't be an "infinity limit" since "omnipotent" can just make it not a problem.

There is literally no reason to believe such an obviously fictional creature 'controls everything', and it requires vast leaps of illogic to even argue how you could possibly know that.

>Can you provide a historical example that you think is a parallel to what the Christians managed to pull here?
Sure. Presently a lot of people believe the earth is doomed due to global warming.
People who are part of that doomsday cult make up poor arguments against it which they then later disprove to increase their own credibility.

Humans are really gullible in general. They'll sign petitions to 'ban dihydrogen monoxide' without a second thought.

>you're assuming that there never was a time when demons really were sometimes the source of illness
Nah, I know for a fact that they weren't. And that's why cults like yours kill people. No medical research if you believe in demons causing it.

But hey, the silver bullet is that while you're arguing over fictional characters, rewriting history, and failing to question historical accounts...
You're not using that energy on materially helping humanity.

There's just as much evidence that if your deity did exist, it would be an evil trickster like Loki consuming your suffering, lives, and spirits. Prove it isn't.

>Nah, I know for a fact that they weren't


citation needed

>But that's a completely fabricated fictional problem. If true in the first order, there could be no contact in the first place.

Not so - remember the end? "Instead, God acts with the goal of ensuring good can grow. That's the best possible criteria for his taking action, since it ensures good will always be increasing, and doesn't run into the infinite improvement problem.

So when his direct action is required for further improvement to take place, he acts and ensures that it does. But when it isn’t, he doesn't act."

To look at, as you said, "the first place", think about when God created reality for example. There can’t be any improvement if all there is is nothing, so he took action and created. He did that to the best possible extent of his ability, making a perfect literally Edenic world, and then, as it says, "he rested". (JFTR the word used there just means "ceased to work" and doesn't imply tiredness)

The God of the Bible is not one that is constantly directly active doing things in the world. He sustains it but only intervenes rarely for very specific reasons.

>And what about the pagan prophecies that came true, like the Libri Sibyllini?

There's no evidence that those were written before the events took place.

>And in the second part, "omnipotent" means "can do anything". There is no limit. There can't be an "infinity limit" since "omnipotent" can just make it not a problem.

Not so - omnipotence is the ability to do anything that's logically possible. It isn't logically possible to do something like make 1+1=3 or to make someone a married bachelor.

And it isn't logically possible for actual infinites to exist.

>People who are part of that cult make up poor arguments against it which they then later disprove to increase their own credibility.

Strawman arguments are nothing new. What I'm talking about is your proposal that they want back and had a massive fraud where they edited all sorts of texts and inserted these references

>citation needed
Same citation as all the other myths in history, I guess. How do you know you're not a doll for Eris' amusement?

But like, based upon, you know, scientific evidence... there's just more reason to believe it was regular disease all along. Since humans didn't know about those and all.

There's also the thing about humans believing torpor fish were magical, but it was electricity.

>Nah, I know for a fact that they weren't

From what evidence?

>No medical research if you believe in demons causing it.

That's pure revisionist history. Luke himself, who wrote about Jesus' interactions with demons was a physician!

People knew some things were caused by demons and some weren't.

>You're not using that energy on materially helping humanity.

I donate every penny I can spare. I live in a cheap apartment, drive the cheapest car I can, and eat cheaply so that I have more that I can donate, and I aim for the most efficient charities (which seems to be Water is Basic, they provide water infrastructure to 1/10th of a country's population for less than $1,000,000).

I only do this because of Christ's teachings. I don't enjoy it, it gives me anguish. But he taught me to serve the greater good first, and so I do

>There's just as much evidence that if your deity did exist, it would be an evil trickster like Loki consuming your suffering, lives, and spirits.

An evil trickster's plan was to teach me that I should sacrifice all I can spare to help the poor and serve the greater good?

> Prove it isn't.

Have you disproved based user's theory in yet?

>what's a deletion?

>with the goal of ensuring good can grow
Can't I just make the argument that your deity acts with the intent to cause evil to grow, and cite all the bad things?

Why is there this "infinite improvement" limit? That's something you made up. There's no actual reason for it. The most expedient way to help "good to grow" is to 'intervene' more often.

Wouldn't most of the conflicts on earth be solved by a simple conversation?
Occam's Razor says all this is just made up by human imagination, like every other myth.
That's the best explanation for all the evidence, since every other explanation requires significantly more explaining and assumption.

>There's no evidence that those were written before the events took place.
There is actually, but it's fine if you want to selectively disregard all the other cultures on earth with deities and prophecies.

>omnipotence is the ability to do anything that's logically possible
No it isn't. According to your religion, your deity created logic. You assert the creature created the entire universe, including math.

Which means it could in fact have made 1+1=3. If it can't, it's not "omnipotent", and could not have created the universe. Since it would be bound to obey the laws of a pre-existing universe.

The most sensible thing to do is not to believe in myths, and work toward material human betterment. Myths are a waste of energy.

Also I'm not just blowing hot air, here was today's donation - I'm being real with you!

>An evil trickster's plan was to teach me that I should sacrifice all I can spare to help the poor and serve the greater good?
What better way to trick you?
Have you abandon science to impoverish yourself in permanent cycles of suffering and death?

Occam's Razor says however that all this was just made up by people who wanted you to act a certain way. Which is another thing you can't prove otherwise.

You know what beats conspiracy theories? Material evidence. Science can prove steam engines aren't a fictional conspiracy, because you test one in your own home!

The beauty of science is that, unlike religion, its miracles are for everyone.

Donald Trump did this!

So there was a deletion that just conveniently happened to remove all the evidence for the fusion?

That's thousands and thousands of base pairs, with lots in between where the vestigial telomere would be and the vestigial centromere. (Since the telomere is at the end of a chromosome, while the centromere is in the center). That would not only make the chromosome significantly shorter than it is, an organism with that wouldn't even survive.

stop making a fool out of your self and stop using occam''s razor at every turn , its been used to defend christianity


>William of Ockham (/ˈɒkəm/; also Occam, from Latin: Gulielmus Occamus;[1][2] c. 1287 – 1347) was an English Franciscan friar and scholastic philosopher and theologian, who is believed to have been born in Ockham, a small village in Surrey.[3] He is considered to be one of the major figures of medieval thought and was at the centre of the major intellectual and political controversies of the fourteenth century. He is commonly known for Occam's razor, the methodological principle that bears his name, and also produced significant works on logic, physics, and theology. In the Church of England, his day of commemoration is 10 April.[4]


> and theology. In the Church of England,

>its been used to defend christianity
But cannot be in the present, due to the newly revealed truth of science.

The simplest explanation is in fact human imagination. The same as you can imagine anything else.

>Can't I just make the argument that your deity acts with the intent to cause evil to grow, and cite all the bad things?

Isn't evil defined as that which prevents the growth of good or removes it?

So if that were the case then he would have taken the maximally evil action and prevent any good from ever existing: he'd simply not create anything, so there would be no existence.

> The most expedient way to help "good to grow" is to 'intervene' more often.

Precisely. So suppose he decided to make the world twice as good every two minutes. Wouldn't it be even better if he decided to make it three times as good? and wouldn't it be even better if he decided to make it four times as good? and wouldn't it be even better if...

All the way to making the world ∞ more good.

This is why he doesn't act "to help good to grow", he acts to ensure that good CAN grow. When his action is required to guarantee that improvement will continue, he acts. When it isn't, he doesn't.

Someone dying of thirst, while horrible, doesn't mean improvement won't continue.

>Wouldn't most of the conflicts on earth be solved by a simple conversation?

Actually no - there are people determined to stick to their ways to matter what is said to them. I have had people accept all the evidence I gave them for Christianity as true, and yet still not want to be a Christian.

And even look at yourself: haven't there been times where you did something even though you knew it was illogical and evil?

You can't use logic to remove all evil because evil, I'd argue by definition, is not rooted in logic.

>Occam's Razor says all this is just made up by human imagination

You could literally say that about the world and "prove" Solipsism

>There is actually

And that would be what?

>>it's fine if you want to selectively disregard all the other cultures on earth with deities and prophecies

The evidence for virtually every polytheistic religion is solely just oral tradition.

You seem to take the existence of a claim as some sort of evidence. It isn't. Unless you can give an actual reason to think that something is true over the other options, there's no reason to think that its true.

I've talked to actual polytheists and not even they argues that the Sibylline Oracles were actual prophecies.

>According to your religion, your deity created logic

lol where's it say that one in the Bible?

>created the entire universe, including math

All logic, mathematics included, boils down to one thing: "mutual exclusions mutually exclude".

No one had to make a law of the universe that says "someone cannot simultaneously be a bachelor and married", that is true because being a bachelor and being married are mutually exclusive.

Similarly, 1+1=2 doesn't need some law. What that means is that | put with | makes ||. It doesn't make | or |||.

>it would be bound to obey the laws of a pre-existing universe

Mutual exclusions aren't laws, they're simply facts. It is a fact that you exist, so it cannot simultaneously be a fact that you did not ever exist. Even if something erased all the influence you've ever had on anything, nothing could ever make it a fact that you did not ever exist, because you do now.

Picturing it that way might help see what I'm saying - focus on it for a sec, I think it might come together!

>Isn't evil defined as that which prevents the growth of good or removes it?
Well no. Say you wanted to be an evil trickster deity: You can't just kill everyone, or there wouldn't be any more suffering for you to enjoy.

So what you do is you offer people a immediate benefit, like charity, and use it to convince them to destroy things like science, medicine, and philosophy. You say "knowledge is evil", "pleasure is evil", and you keep them in a permanent dark age.
But you make sure they keep breeding, and having food, so you can watch them suffer more.
Knowing they'll never escape, for you have stolen their belief in reality for yourself.

It's very easy to argue that the deity of Judaism is evil. Emperor Julian did quite well before he was killed.

>ways to matter what is said to them
Except if your deity proved himself to exist, it would end all the bloodshed from discussion and conflict over it.
Given that it wouldn't take much to do so for an "omnipotent being", one can conclude it is either evil or nonexistent.

>haven't there been times where you did something even though you knew it was illogical and evil?
I can say honestly that I never have. If I knew something to be evil, I would never deliberately do it, for there would be no benefit to me to do it.

>You could literally say that about the world and "prove" Solipsism
Solipsism is irrelevant and unprovable. If it is true or false does not matter to life.

The contention that myths are a product of human imagination is relevant to life, and by far the most likely explanation the world over.

>And that would be what?
The entire history of the use of the Sibylline Books in Rome.

Do you know the history of every deity and prophecy on this entire earth? If not, you cannot use your ignorance as proof there are no other deities.