Atheists and Evolution absolutely BTFO

...

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microevolution
youtube.com/watch?v=VqULEE7eY8M
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strong_interaction
youtube.com/watch?v=_oeslAqeTEc
twitter.com/AnonBabble

Seriously, it's actually a good comic.

...

...

...

Hmmm, that's good Chick!

Already 10/10

Digits obviously confirm. Atheists are retards

...

...

...

I remember a version of this commic where someone dismantled all of the religious cucks arguments. Nice try, though. Cuck.

...

...

...

...

...

Wow that comic really showed how evolution and survival of the fittest are just stupid arguments stumped by your book.

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

k

That's all, folks.
As you can see, atheists are the most retarded people to ever roam planet earth. They are atleast as bad as muslims, if not worse.

But atheists will probably just answer like pic related.

Really dank thread you autistic faggot

This is really dumb. You should feel bad for thinking this is worth sharing with others.

to think you wasted all that time posting those images

tldr

I AM SILLY

The whole comic was a strawman. I believe in criticizing ideas but it'd be better to prove them wrong in argument than in a comic where your stance is the only winning one

Nice strawman comic

Holy fuck Ahmed. Islam needs to be obliterated.

Agreed. Along with the atheists that is, who are more annoying and obnoxious than any religious person in the world

I've been saying that humans don't come from Earth SINCE FOREVER. Humans are BILLIONS of years old and are NOT NATIVE to Earth. The notion of billions of years old humans is utterly possible as long as you consider humans as being colonisers of Earth. There's a book by Ellis Silver called 'Humans Are Not From Earth: A Scientific Evaluation Of The Evidence'. He says (among other things) that sunburn, our relatively high chance of experiencing back pain and pain during labour are types of evidence that Earth is not an optimal environment for human beings and that we come from elsewhere.

My theory regarding the origin of humanity is that the human species comes from elsewhere in the Milky Way galaxy and, at some point in the distant past, our earliest ancestors colonised vast swathes of the Milky Way galaxy (and are possibly still doing so) and both Mars and Earth were colonised by them along the way. There are pyramidal structures and a Sphinx-like object in various NASA photos of Mars. I also think that a fiercely destructive interplanetary war caused the destruction of a planet that used to exist between Mars and Jupiter, leaving only the asteroid belt that we know today. This war also sterilised Mars, turning what was once a lush, verdant, Earth-like planet into a cold, lifeless desert.

>you wanna know what REALLY holds atoms together?

>JESUS!

oh wow

The 212MYr skull in question is 1.8MYr and not a "normal" human skull by any means. The figure 212 was produced from testing volcanic rock, not the skull itself.
Well under represents the research and data on neanderthals
>Nearly all experts agree Lucy was just a 3 foot tall chimpanzee
Biased and unfounded. All is just bullshit straight up. The only argument in here is that people don't particularly know how to categorize and correlate these with modern humans.
Ill representing opposition argument and discrediting dating.
Too much to get into on a simple Sup Forums post. Urge everyone to look at the similarities of early developing embryos and don't even bother with the fish gills
You did right to get the teacher to say he's destroying me because otherwise you'd think the student was an idiot
Just gave an argument backing up survival of the fittest. Losing something is not the opposite of evolution.

Huxley?

Humans are BILLIONS of years old and are NOT NATIVE to Earth. Here is merely SOME evidence (though DEFINITELY not ALL of the evidence) suggesting not only a human presence on Earth BILLIONS of years ago, but also suggesting complex human civilisations on Earth BILLIONS of years ago:

* A human skull fragment from Hungary dated between 250,000 and 450,000 years ago
* A human footprint with accompanying paleoliths (stones deliberately chipped into a recognisable tool type), bone tools, hearths and shelters, discovered in France and dated 300,000 to 400,000 years
* Paleoliths in Spain, a partial human skeleton and paleoliths in France; two English skeletons, one with associated paleoliths, ALL at least 300,000 years old
* Skull fragments and paleoliths in Kenya and advanced paleoliths, of modern human manufacture, in the Olduvai Gorge in Tanzania, dated between 400,000 and 700,000 years
* Neoliths (the most advanced stone tools and utensils) in China of a type that indicate full human capacity, dated to 600,000 years
* Hearths, charcoal, human femurs and broken animal bones, all denoting modern humanity, in Java, dated to 830,000 years
* An anatomically modern human skull discovered in Argentina and dated between 1 million and 1.5 million years years (eoliths -chipped pebbles, thought to be the earliest known tools- at Monte Hermoso, also in Argentina, are believed to be between 1 and 2.5 million years old).
* A human tooth from Java yielding a date between 1 and 1.9 million years years
* Incised bones, dated between 1.2 and 2.5 million years, have been found in Italy
* Discoveries of paleoliths, cut and charred bones at Xihoudu in China and eoliths from Diring Yurlakh in Siberia dated to 1.8 million years
* Eoliths in India, paleoliths in England, Belgium, Italy and Argentina, flint blades in Italy, hearths in Argentina, a carved shell, pierced teeth and even two human jaws all bearing a minimum date of 2 million years (end of part 1)

>Isn't losing something the opposite of evolution?

lost

(start of part 2) Curiously enough, several of the very earliest artifact discoveries display a truly extraordinary level of sophistication. In Idaho, for example, a 2-million-year-old clay figurine was unearthed in 1912. But even this discovery does not mark an outer limit. Bones, vertebrae and even complete skeletons have been found in Italy, Argentina and Kenya. Their minimum datings range from 3 million to 4 million years. A human skull, a partial human skeleton and a collection of neoliths discovered in California have been dated in excess of 5 million years. A human skeleton discovered at Midi in France, paleoliths found in Portugal, Burma and Argentina, a carved bone and flint flakes from Turkey all have a minimum age of 5 million years.
How far back can human history be pushed with discoveries like these? The answer seems to be a great deal further than orthodox science currently allows. As if the foregoing discoveries were not enough, we need to take account of:
* Paleoliths from France dated between 7 and 9 million years
* An eolith from India with a minimum dating of 9 million years
* Incised bones from France, Argentina and Kenya no less than 12 million years old
* More paleolith discoveries from France, dated at least 20 million years ago
* Neoliths from California in excess of 23 million years
* Three different kinds of paleoliths from Belgium with a minimum dating of 26 million years
* An anatomically modern human skeleton, neoliths and carved stones found at the Table Mountain, California and dated at least 33 million years ago
But even 33 million years is not the upper limit. A human skeleton found in Switzerland is estimated to be between 38 and 45 million years old. France has yielded up eoliths, paleoliths, cut wood and a chalk ball, the minimum ages of which range from 45 to 50 million years.
There's still more.

>Ellis (((Silver)))

You poor deluded fool.

(start of part 3) In 1960, H. L. Armstrong announced in Nature magazine the discovery of fossil human footprints near the Paluxy River, in Texas. Dinosaur footprints were found in the same strata. In 1983, the Moscow News reported the discovery of a fossilised human footprint next to the fossil footprint of a three-toed dinosaur in the Turkamen Republic. Dinosaurs have been extinct for approximately 65 million years.
In 1983, Professor W. G. Burroughs of Kentucky reported the discovery of three pairs of fossil tracks dated to 300 million years ago. They showed left and right footprints. Each print had five toes and a distinct arch. The toes were spread apart like those of a human used to walking barefoot. The foot curved back like a human foot to what appeared to be a human heel. There was a pair of prints in the series that showed a left and right foot. The distance between them is just what you'd expect in modern human footprints.
In December 1862, The Geologist carried news of a human skeleton found 27.5 m (90 ft) below the surface in a coal seam in Illinois. The seam was dated between 286 and 320 million years. It's true that a few eoliths, skull fragments and fossil footprints, however old, provide no real backing for the idea of advanced prehistoric human civilisations.
But some other discoveries do.
In 1968, an American fossil collector named William J. Meister found a fossilised human shoe print near Antelope Spring, Utah. There were trilobite fossils in the same stone, which means it was at least 245 million years old. Close examination showed that the sole of this shoe differed little, if at all, from those of shoes manufactured today.
In 1897, a carved stone showing multiple faces of an old man was found at a depth of 40 m (130 ft) in a coal mine in Iowa. The coal there was of similar age.

Doesn't have to have anything to do with atheism. Just biology.

>IM SILLY

Evolution can be seen in single celled organisms.

(start of part 4) A piece of coal yielded up an encased iron cup in 1912. Frank J. Kenwood, who made the discovery, was so intrigued he traced the origin of the coal and discovered it came from the Wilburton Mine in Oklahoma. The coal there is about 312 million years old.
In 1844, Scottish physicist Sir David Brewster reported the discovery of a metal nail embedded in a sandstone block from a quarry in the north of England. The head was completely encased, ruling out the possibility that it had been driven in at some recent date. The block from which it came is approximately 360 million years old.
On 22 June 1844, The Times reported that a length of gold thread had been found by workmen embedded in stone close to the River Tweed. This stone too was around 360 million years old.
Astonishing though these dates may appear to anyone familiar with the orthodox theory of human origins, they pale in comparison with the dates of two further discoveries.
According to Scientific American, dated 5 June 1852, blasting activities at Meeting House Hill, in Dorchester, Massachusetts, unearthed a metallic, bell-shaped vessel extensively decorated with silver inlays of flowers and vines. The workmanship was described as 'exquisite'. The vessel was blown out of a bed of Roxbury conglomerate dated somewhat earlier than 600 million years.
In 1993, Michael A. Cremo and Richard L. Thompson reported the discovery 'over the past several decades' of hundreds of metallic spheres in a pyrophyllite mine in South Africa. The spheres are grooved and give the appearance of having been manufactured. If so, the strata in which they were found suggest they were manufactured 2.8 BILLION years ago.

(start of part 5) What are we to make of these perplexing discoveries? They cannot simply be dismissed. If even ONE of these discoveries is TRUE (and I believe that MANY if not ALL of these discoveries are TRUE), then it changes EVERYTHING that modern mainstream anthropologists THOUGHT they knew about the human species. (end)

Its not that all atheists should be destroyed, the post-modernist ones should be. They are the ones responsible for the "MUH CANT REFUTE OR ASK CRITICAL QUESTIONS". Atheists or agnostics, like myself *tips fedora*,who understand how vital religion is to civilization and are not brainwashed talking pieces for other ideologies tend to be more open to critical questions and such.

If it was Silverstein or Silverberg, I'd be convinced. But it ain't, so I ain't. Fuck outta here.

ALSO:
>Daily reminder that pol is a christian board. Muslims AND atheists will hang on the day of the rope.

are you twelve? You know where the stein and berg suffixes come from don't you?

...

So all men are equal and hitler was wrong?

...

Your ramblings is one of the most autistic shitposts I've read so far this year.

I'm saying that if his surname was Silverstein and Silverberg, I wouldn't trust his claims.

It's also been observed in the physical and behavioral traits of maggots. Very simple test
>Bunch of Maggots all characteristacally the same
>Split into two groups - A & B
>Group A has plenty of food
>Group B has limited food
>Continue test using the same Maggots going generation by generation
>Many generations later
>Group A are still the same
>Group B maggots have developed tougher skin, sharper mouth hooks with far more sharp ridges and displayed high levels of cannibalism.

I'll try find the test online. Interesting read.

* Silverstein or Silverberg

>kind
FFS even the Church doesn't believe that shit. Kill yourself retard.

What the fossil record indicates to us is quite creepy.
Plants first appear in the fossil record about 450 million years ago. There is no indication of them having developed out of any earlier form. They simply appear. What's more, every major form of plant arrives together. This can only be explained in orthodox evolutionary terms if none of the millions of intermediate stages which led to this dramatic development ever fossilised. The chances against this are ASTRONOMICAL.
The first flowering plants also appear in the fossil record fully formed. Although we have an abundance of fossils of the earlier, non-flowering species, not a single one of these can be described as an intermediate form on the evolutionary path to flowers. At one point, there were no flowering plants. At another, flowering plants were all over the place.
You find exactly the same bizarre pattern in the animal kingdom.
The earliest fish with spines and brains appeared some 450 million years ago. In all the many curious lifeforms discovered in the sea, they had no apparent evolutionary ancestors. According to orthodox doctrine, the cartilaginous skeleton found in the certain fish - like the ray - gradually evolved into a bony skeleton. The fossil record shows cartilaginous fish appeared (without apparent ancestors) 75 million years AFTER bony fish.
Orthodox doctrine also insists fish with jaws gradually evolved from jawless varieties. The fossil record shows nothing of that sort. Fish with jaws suddenly appeared, with no discernible ancestry. Furthermore, these jawed fish somehow evolved into one jawless species - the lamprey - despite the fact that jawlessness is supposed to be a characteristic destined to be selected out of the life stream. (end of part 1)

(start of part 2) Darwinian theory suggests that lung-fish, capable of breathing both on land and underwater, eventually evolved primitive legs out of their gills and crawled onto a beach to become the first amphibians. Amphibians certainly exist. What isn't known to currently exist is a single intermediate fossil tracing the famous lung-fish gills-to-legs evolutionary sequence. Some 320 million years ago, fossils of fully a dozen orders of amphibians began to be laid down. All had well-developed limbs, shoulders and pelvic girdles. None showed the slightest sign of having evolved from fish or even from anything else that evolved from fish.
Fish species themselves show no signs of evolution. The shark who terrifies swimmers today is the same beast he was 150 million years ago. Oysters and mussels have been around unchanged for even longer - they appeared in their present form and were arguably just as delicious 400 million years ago.
Mammals appeared suddenly as well. The orthodox theory suggests that they evolved from a single, tree-dwelling, shrew-like creature that expanded into the niche left when the dinosaurs perished. There was indeed such a creature, but the fossil record gives no indication whatsoever that it evolved into anything. Instead, 10 million years after the dinosaurs disappeared, a dozen or so separate and distinct mammalian species turn up without warning in the fossil record... in areas as distinct as South America, Africa and Asia. There are no intermediate fossils showing a connection between these mammals and the earlier shrew. There are no fossils showing any inter-species evolution either. Among the fossil mammals that appeared so abruptly at that time are lions, bats and bears that you would recognise IMMEDIATELY if you were chased by them today. What's going on here? (end)

They are common German surnames

>staffenberg
>manstein

you're right, but that's what the comic said. micro-evolution. that part's actually right

Dr. Peter Gariaev is a Russian scientist who took eggs that were laid by a frog and then zapped those eggs with a laser light that had gone through eggs laid by a salamander. When the 'frog' eggs hatched, salamanders emerged from them - not frogs. The only thing that is necessary to rewrite DNA is wave information, which means that evolution can occur not through millions of years but instantaneously.

The agricultural division of the Ciba-Geigy corporation (now Sygenta) discovered that existing plant seeds could be transformed into extinct varieties, simply by zapping them with a weak electrostatic current. This process generated stronger and faster-growing wheat, extinct fern species, and tulips with thorns. Italian scientist Pier Luigi Ighina energetically transformed a living apricot tree into an apple tree, actually causing the fruits on the branches to metamorphose from apricots into apples in only sixteen days. Ighina also zapped a rat with DNA-wave information from a cat, and this caused the rat to grow a cat-like tail in four days.

Lol this shit makes me laugh

Young Earth Creationism is a cult, along with KJV-Onlyism.
It isn't Christianity.

There is no "micro-evolution" and "macro-evolution". There is only evolution.

Macro-evolution is just a pathetic attempt for creationists to divide and conquer (since their other even cringier attempt, the divine guidance or whatever, failed miserably)

Evolution is a scientific fact. It's not up to discussion. We have seen it countless of times and everyone can replicate it.

There's no such thing as "macro and micro evolution". It's just evolution. Evolution doesn't occur within one organism, it occurs when they reproduce.

So are other primates on our planet with DNA extremely similar to ours of otherworldly origin in your opinion?

What did god mean by this?

...

>Evolution is real
>white genocide is real

Pick one and only one desu.

and in saying what does the stein or berg have to do with it, do you know where stein and berg suffixes come from?

I'm glad someone finally posted it.

r u retarded

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microevolution

...

Sciecne has already proven God exists, but it's not what most people think.

youtube.com/watch?v=VqULEE7eY8M

yeah this seems kinda metaphorical- at least go with the quote but offer a bit better argument than "and that's just the way it is" Humans are naturally curious and just saying that with no follow up kinda undoes the buildup of the rest of it. It's good info for the most part. Maybe if the author had been more willing to explore other controversial theories such as the universe as a living mind or being we might have seen something more interesting.

It's not an argument of atheism. It's an argument of biology. Stop combining the two.

Explain the difference to me then.

I found this the other day on public transport. 'Big daddy?' Sounds like a weird name for it.
As the other user said, it's a huge straw man, but it was a good read and a chuckle for 40 mins.

>There's no such thing as "macro and micro evolution".

one is larger scale and the other is smaller scale

one has been observed the other hasn't

both are evolution

This is some cringy shit

>there is a wiki article about it
>then it means it's true

From your source
>Macroevolution and microevolution describe fundamentally identical processes on different time scales.
In other words, it's the same shit

Mine confirm that leftists are dumb and transparent:

The simulation theory is a blue pill. The red pill is that 'reality' is LIKE a simulation - that it's not 'reality' that's like a computer, but that a computer is like 'reality'. Technology mirrors 'reality' and technology imitates biology (and this is completely intentional).
The base state of all things is energetic wave-form information, which has been confirmed by quantum physics. This is why everything can be perceived in an infinite number of different ways, because nothing can exist without being perceived and to be perceived, there must be a perceiver. When you see a rose as being red, a bee sees that same rose in shades of ultra-violet and a bat perceives that same rose as vibrations of sound. It all depends on the way that the information is 'read' (so to speak). We not only decode/re-decode information with our senses into what we call 'people', 'places' and 'things', but we can also ENCODE/RE-ENCODE information with our senses into what we call 'people', 'places' and 'things' - this is the basis of meme magic. We're encoding 'people', 'places' and 'things' with different information to what was there before, we're altering its informational substrate. The base state of EVERYTHING in the universe is ENERGETIC WAVE-FORM INFORMATION. EVERYTHING. We are literally information decoding information. Energy flows where attention goes. Things like 'mental illnesses'/depression/anxiety are basically ROGUE INFORMATION. Think of those things as being like a computer virus.

"If the doors of perception were cleansed, everything would appear to man as it is - infinite." - William Blake

no intelligent person would use such silly language.

you instantly disqualify yourself.

>Professor goes into an autistic fit of rage then seems highly insecure
>Christian proceeds to refute most of the evidence based on obscure counter theories without any difficulty since the professor doesn't go beyond muh DNA and muh Carbon 14 and actually explaining it and how it supports evolution
>that atom part
>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strong_interaction
>and his theory is based on pure belief with no other "evidence" than the Bible but is valid because whatever right

All this effort at an actual rational attempt to disprove evolution just to say afterwards that whatever he was believing in the first place is true.

THREAD THEME: youtube.com/watch?v=_oeslAqeTEc

>one has been observed the other hasn't

Yeah, because we weren't here as a species then. It's the exact same process.

How retarded do you have to be to believe in a man in the sky? Really.. Really.. Really retarded

That quote is by Huxley from his book doors of perception

>tfw catholic
>tfw can easily reconcile believing in God and evolution

have fun becoming an atheist when you realize how retarded creationism is. Alternatively, come to the One True Church

Skeptical because "Russian Scientist" - is there any proof of the experiment? There are similar studies about creating super-sized creatures that seem to have a lot of hype but the results aren't visible to us. I'd really like to see this.

Indeed it is, my Indian friend.

I think Christianity is stupid, though. One can be open to the possibility of a god or higher power without believing in such obvious bullshit that was designed merely to cuck the masses for the benefit of the few.

The original has better pacing and delivery, it keeps you engaged with a cohesive narrative so now I don't believe in evolution anymore.

>i am fucking retarded, please kill me

also

>In other words, it's the same shit

never said it wasn't only that half of it is observable. you're the one that said it's make-believe