EVOLUTION IS A FARCE ! ! !

youtube.com/watch?v=vYLy7CCgqDk

youtube.com/watch?v=JiMqzN_YSXU

youtube.com/user/mhfm1/search?query=evolution


TRADITIONAL CATHOLICISM IS THE ONE TRUE FAITH ! ! !

Other urls found in this thread:

youtu.be/LQebfHvXnwM
youtube.com/watch?v=V9o9LlCykn8
youtube.com/watch?v=GxQV5OQcVJk
youtube.com/watch?v=P7ZcKEZh_6U
biblehub.com/matthew/7-21.htm
mostholyfamilymonastery.com/catholicchurch/catholic-baptism-steps-to-convert/
biblehub.com/2_thessalonians/2-15.htm
mostholyfamilymonastery.com/catholicchurch/st-peter-acts-15-bible-papacy/
forums.catholic.com/t/veneration-of-mary-and-luke-11-27-28/127864
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

...

You can observe evolution happen in real time, it's not up for debate and doesn't contend with the existence of God.

The video covers that; microevolution is not proof of macroevolution

youtu.be/LQebfHvXnwM

>posts youtube videos of literal nobodies
OMG IM CONVINCED YOUVE CONVINCED ME 150+ YEARS OF EVOLUTIONARY THEORY HAS BEEN DISPROVEN IN A FEW SHITTY VIDEOS WHY ARENT SCIENTISTS WATCHING THESE?

150+ years of "theory" vs. actual miracles of the Catholic faith for two thousands years

wow u convinced me

>doesnt know gravity is a theory
Let me know next time you fly up into space for no reason.

Evolution isn't a farce, there is evolution (limited). What is a farce is Darwinist/materialist theories about Origin of Life.

And Catholicism is a heresy among others.

We're talking about macroevolution, notgravity

youtube.com/watch?v=V9o9LlCykn8

"Michael takes the bad man away
"

Explain the miracles of Saints then

New species are discovered every day in places previously explored. Animals mutate, they get different colors, might attract mates, get children, species die out.

Physical mutations are about as common as anything else. The more animals deviate from one another, the bigger the differences eventually become. So one mutated animal is able to walk on land and chew on grass undisturbed it'll inevitably be able to make babies and prosper. This is bound to happen if you've got fucking 1 billion years of time

inb4 "why haven't we seen fishes that can walk on land in our 200 years of recorded history"

Saints ? Who ?

+ Satan is an angel of light
+ fake news

>New species are discovered every day in places previously explored. Animals mutate, they get different colors, might attract mates, get children, species die out.
>
>Physical mutations are about as common as anything else. The more animals deviate from one another, the bigger the differences eventually become.

The only thing this proves is how all modern animals did indeed come about within the last 6000 years through fast microevolution. :youtube.com/watch?v=GxQV5OQcVJk

>Saints ? Who ?

The first video in the OP...It shows hundreds of miracles done by Catholic Saints

No time for videos. Miracles can be faked.

What is the difference between macro and micro evolution and why are they not connected?

>No time for videos. Miracles can be faked.
Sad that you don't have time for your own salvation; fine, just watch two minutes at least: 24-26

Microevolution is small mutations in traits; macroevolution is singe-cell to multi-cell, or fish to mammal, or monkey to human.

For why this is impossible, watch the vids

another good one: youtube.com/watch?v=P7ZcKEZh_6U

What of transitional fossils and things like the precursors to DNA?

There are no transitional fossils, and if evolution were true we'd have billions of fossils to choose from and there would be no such thing as a missing link

and precursors to DNA don't explain the problem in the vid above your post, which is that proteins require DNA to be formed, but proteins are also essential to all animal life

So does that mean the discovery of a transitional fossil would prove evolutoin as being correct?

My salvation isn't linked to a video, it's linked to my faith in God and in our Lord and Savior Jesus.

'Miracle' are irrelevant and pushing for them is often proof of a shallow faith.
Mat 7:22

In enough number/rate for every animals, good luck

A piece of the greatest pester often overlooked by the modern heart, "Thy will be done."

You aren't saved because you aren't a Catholic because you believe that faith is enough to save you. But even the devil has faith.

biblehub.com/matthew/7-21.htm

21 Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of My Father in heaven.

"ONLY HE WHO DOES THE WILL OF MY FATHER

I know about that. Faith and works. What about you?

genetics and evolution are whig science

Have you been baptized in a valid way? If so, and if you repent often, then it is possible that you will be saved.

But I still don't recommend rebelling against the traditional Catholic faith, only the Satanic Vatican II

Full immersion.

And it's not "rebellion". It's just knowing that Catholic faith is wrong, corrupted from the beginning.

mostholyfamilymonastery.com/catholicchurch/catholic-baptism-steps-to-convert/

Catholic faith is not corrupt, but the true faith and tradition as passed down from Jesus to the Apostles and Peter

If you continue to speak against the true faith you will have to answer for it on that special day, just warning you (although you probably already secretly know this)

Burgers every time lmfao

yeah this is only one of the points where you creeps jumped the shark. The whole no marriage thing and the pope being infallible. You know Orthodoxy wasn't down with those Italian fruitcake modifications. The pope banishes us to hell as if we came up with all your heretical ideas

>If you continue to speak against the true faith you will have to answer for it on that special day, just warning you (although you probably already secretly know this)

Everyone will be judged.

But yes, catholic faith is corrupted. They added pagan tradition and philosophy to God's message. Preventing people to draw close to God.

Math 23:13

Wouldnt you only need one to prove macro evolution?

Nope. Because people make mistakes.

Something that might interest you both

>John said to him, “Teacher, we saw a man casting out demons in your name,[f] and we forbade him, because he was not following us.” 39 But Jesus said, “Do not forbid him; for no one who does a mighty work in my name will be able soon after to speak evil of me. 40 For he that is not against us is for us. 41 For truly, I say to you, whoever gives you a cup of water to drink because you bear the name of Christ, will by no means lose his reward.

According to evolution all fossils are transitional, we would need to find thousands of fossils of the same species over millennia.

That's why I won't prevent him from doing what he does. In the end, it's a good occasion to speak about God and Christ.

>we would need to find thousands of fossils of the same species over millennia.
Why thousands? Do you need to have a complete chain or is inference impossible?

That still doesn't change the fact that Jesus appointed Peter t specifically to settle the disputes of the Apostles by making his faith unwavering; yes we shouldn't rebuke those who cast out demons in Jesus's name, but that still doesn't mean we shouldn't correct their promotion of heretical beliefs.

In short, learn you church history

>Math 23:13
that is speaking against Pharisees who were keeping the Law but did not have good hearts; similar to Protestants actually who think mere faith is enough.

nope. can't pay for forgiveness, catholick cuck. protestant reformation saved christianity. repent, catholics.

>that is speaking against Pharisees who were keeping the Law but did not have good hearts; similar to Protestants actually who think mere faith is enough.

Catholics are like these Pharisees. That's the point.
Protestants are wrong about the sola fide because Luther did not like James letter and was too focused on criticizing Cathos traditions for the sake of it.

Anyway, there were good christians back in the day... Waldo, Newton, Servetus...

>hat still doesn't change the fact that Jesus appointed Peter t specifically to settle the disputes of the Apostles by making his faith unwavering; yes we shouldn't rebuke those who cast out demons in Jesus's name, but that still doesn't mean we shouldn't correct their promotion of heretical beliefs.

Are there any points in church history prior to the schism of the Pope/Bishop of Rome overruling the other Bishops?

>That still doesn't change the fact that Jesus appointed Peter t specifically to settle the disputes of the Apostles by making his faith unwavering;

That is incorrect. Jesus appointed Peter to take care of his sheep and open the way to a broader predication of the Gospel (for Jews, at the pentecost, then Samaritans, then Gentiles (Cornelius).
His faith wasn't unwavering, he even got corrected by Paul.

here's an off-topic redpill for Catholics

The Tridentine mass was abolished in 1965 at the Second Vatican Council by the socialist pope and his (((advisors))), John XXIII

It put an end to the nearly 400 years of tradition in the Catholic Church

really makes you think, doesn't it? look up sedevacantism. The last true pope was Pius XII

>Catholics are like these Pharisees. That's the point.

Yes it's possible that 99% of self-professed catholics that were the result of Vatican II are actually heretics

but what you fail to realize is that the early Church fathers are catholics, the people who went on pilgrimages to spread the faith were catholics, the people responsible for compiling the Bible were catholics, the first 30 popes to martyr themselves were catholics, the saints who gave up everything in their lives: family, food, a safe home, were catholics

So stop spitting on the people that through tradition have the true faith of Jesus, as Jesus taught to his apostles: biblehub.com/2_thessalonians/2-15.htm

>novus ordo mass

my bad, it's actually called novus ordo missae in latin.

also during the time of the creation of the novus ordo missae the pope was Paul VI, which himself said

'It is as if from some mysterious crack, no, it is not mysterious, from some crack the smoke of Satan has entered the temple of God.'

Tradition of immortal souls, hellfire, triune godhead... for starters... no thank you, that isn't what Jesus and the apostles taught.

>Are there any points in church history prior to the schism of the Pope/Bishop of Rome overruling the other Bishops?

yes there have been cases where most of the bishops agreed on an issue but the Pope was of the dissenting view, and the deciding view

>That is incorrect. Jesus appointed Peter to take care of his sheep and open the way to a broader predication of the Gospel (for Jews, at the pentecost, then Samaritans, then Gentiles (Cornelius).
>His faith wasn't unwavering, he even got corrected by Paul.

mostholyfamilymonastery.com/catholicchurch/st-peter-acts-15-bible-papacy/

you're crazy; I'll pray for you

>there have been cases where most of the bishops agreed on an issue but the Pope was of the dissenting view, and the deciding view

Can you list/name a few of them?

>mostholyfamilymonastery.com/catholicchurch/st-peter-acts-15-bible-papacy/

I don't watch videos. Can you debate in your own wording?
Acts 15 is concluded by James... Peter is behind. It can be used to prove "papacy". Moreover, the mere concept is heretical.

You gone OP?

Pretty sure Yashua/Jesus chastised a crowd for their veneration of Mary.

Correct, Luke 11:27-28

This is not a discussion.

In Acts 15:6 the chief men of the church debate among each other, and 15:7 shows Peter acting as the supreme authority of the new church, just as in 1st Chronicles 28:4 David acts as the supreme authority to his people

So papal infallibility has roots in the Old Testament (another proof is Isaiah 22:20 as parallel to Matthew 16:18)


Acts 10:3 shows that the first gentile convert was told to seek out Peter

Acts 10:10 show that the decision for old dietary laws not applying anymore was carried out by Peter after receiving a vision from God

Acts 15:14 is another


forums.catholic.com/t/veneration-of-mary-and-luke-11-27-28/127864

No, there was a video or radio clip of someone explaining how papal infallibility was used throughout history that I can't find now; try to find a book on the subject

Common building blocks =/= evolution

~~

I have to go fellas, it's been real

>In Acts 15:6 the chief men of the church debate among each other, and 15:7 shows Peter acting as the supreme authority of the new church, just as in 1st Chronicles 28:4 David acts as the supreme authority to his people

James concluded and so decided for the whole church. This shows there were working as a "body", not only Peter deciding for everything.

Isaiah 22:20 isn't about Peter.
Matt 16:18 = Jesus is the rock, not Peter, as Peter confirmed in his letter (Even Augustine recognized this).

Acts 10 is about Peter opening the door for Gentiles joining the church, that was his priviledge. Nothing more.

Peter is a great guy. But he wasn't the "head of the Church". That's Jesus.
And Jesus is alive for ever, he doesn't need a "vicarius".

>oota booga my invisible man in the sky made everything
MAGIC NIGGA I AIN'T GOTTA EXPLAIN SHIT