>people still believe this
Why?
People still believe this
Henry Miller
Other urls found in this thread:
youtu.be
newgeology.us
trueorigin.org
trueorigin.org
evidentcreation.com
darwins-god.blogspot.nl
bible.ca
youtube.com
youtube.com
youtube.com
youtube.com
youtube.com
youtube.com
youtube.com
youtube.com
youtube.com
youtube.com
genesispark.com
youtube.com
en.wikipedia.org
darwinismrefuted.com
talkorigins.org
trueorigin.org
trueorigin.org
bibliotecapleyades.net
soundchristian.com
genesispark.com
genesispark.com
genesispark.com
youtube.com
twitter.com
Angel Ward
[tipping of the fedora intensifies]
Thomas Martinez
[euphoria intensifies]
Christian James
Evolution as a concept is flawed.
Elijah Myers
>um...like...dinosaurs dude...like....they'd have to be...um...like...MILLIONS of years old to be buried so deep! lmao
Grayson Green
...
Liam Foster
Care to explain why?
I'm genuinely curious, I'm not being rhetorical.
Bentley Price
There are humans around.
There are monkeys still around.
Does anything more need be said?
James Rogers
the concept itself is not flawd
Robert Fisher
Just admit it, There's no evidence that 'creationism by jejus and shit' is true even if evolution was flawed.
Christopher Cox
Evolution can literally never be proven
John Gray
If you don't believe in god you're literally autistic
Science, for all its flaws, has actually proven this
Ethan Gonzalez
>what is fossil
Cooper Cox
At least I will never believe in christian god
Christian are all autistic
Bentley Powell
Because there is undeniable proof you fedora autist
Jaxson Campbell
>animal dies
>bones in ground
>"DUDE FOSSILS 'N DINOSAURS 'N WE WUZ MONKEYS 'N SHIIIEEEEEEET"
Leo Wood
>will never understand what scientific method is
Joshua Brown
Why are so triggered by OP's post? And Evolution is already proven mate.
Camden Russell
>And Evolution is already proven mate
How so?
Ryan Adams
>Finnish autism
Brandon Williams
No, one of the reasons the fossil record proves evolution is because it shows that the simplest fossils will be found in the oldest rocks, and it can also show a smooth and gradual transition from one form of life to another.
Matthew Cruz
Give me 65 examples of this
Eli White
>Evolution is already proven
what?
post proofs then
Easton Sanders
Here's another example.
Humans, dogs, snakes, fish, monkeys, eels (and many more life forms) are all considered "chordates". One of the features of chordates, as embryos, all these life forms have gill slits, tails, and specific anatomical structures involving the spine. For humans (and other non-fish) the gill slits reform into the bones of the ear and jaw at a later stage in development. But, initially, all chordate embryos strongly resemble each other. These common characteristics could only be possible if all members of the Chordates are descended from a common ancestor.
Christopher Diaz
Samuel Jackson
The earth is approximately 6000 years old and God exists.
>Evolution Debunked
newgeology.us
trueorigin.org
trueorigin.org
>Errors in Evolutionary Thinking
evidentcreation.com
>Darwin's god
darwins-god.blogspot.nl
>Archeological evidence for the Bible
bible.ca
>Evolutionism: The Greatest Deception of All Time
youtube.com
>Refuting Evolution and Bill Nye
youtube.com
>Kent Hovind destroys Evolution
youtube.com
>Evolution is a myth
youtube.com
>The Greatest Lie Ever Told
youtube.com
>Dr. Jonathan Sarfati (chess master) blows Evolutionism out of the water
youtube.com
>The Terror of Evolutionism
youtube.com
>The Pagan Roots of Evolutionism (Darwinism is a religious cult)
youtube.com
>Tracing Genesis Through Ancient Culture
youtube.com
>Overwhelming Evidence for a Global Flood
youtube.com
>Dinosaurs are not "millions" of years old
genesispark.com
youtube.com
I'm going to get banned (because fedora mods) so make sure to copy and save this post.
Truth does not fear investigation.
Nicholas Parker
It provides a structure by which to live your life.
Levi Lewis
How often have you heard evolutionists say: "There's really no disagreement among reputable scientists when it comes to evolution." Or: "Evolution is settled science." Creation Moments has heard such statements fall from the lips of Richard Dawkins, PZ Myers, Eugenie Scott and many others, too numerous to mention.
Clearly these evolutionists are all working off the same page in their playbook. They're also showing that they aren't thinking clearly. Why? Because they are writing books, making films and giving speeches tearing down scientists who disagree with them. But wait - didn't they just say that there's no disagreement among reputable scientists and we're dealing with settled science?
By saying things like this, evolutionists believe that people can be easily fooled by one of the oldest logical fallacies in the book - the argumentum ad populum. As used by evolutionists, this fallacy can be stated like this: "Since all scientists believe in evolution, evolution must be scientifically correct."
Even if the first part of this assertion were true - which it isn't - the second part does not logically follow. It's like the child who tries to justify some undesirable behavior by saying, "It must be okay because all the kids are doing it." Besides, if scientific truth is determined by majority vote or by what most scientists believe at a certain point in time, then Darwinism itself would have been rejected when it was first proposed.
The argumentum ad populum is an illogical way for evolutionists to sway people to their position. Watch out for it whenever it's used by others ... and avoid using it yourself as you seek to defend biblical truth.
Kayden Nguyen
nice drawing, did one of your monkey ancestors draw it?
Samuel Jenkins
Dr. Jonathan Sarfati in his talk about Nye has shown that evolutionists/atheists are anything BUT logical.
The majority of the claims that evolutionists make are based on faith or imagination, not actual science.
What would we expect to observe if everything was Created by God less than 10,000 years ago, and there was a literal worldwide flood?
We would expect to find thousands of feet of sedimentary rock all over the earth. Check, that is what we find, sedimentary layers averaging a mile deep.
We would expect to find billions of dead things, quickly fossilized, in the layers of sedimentary rock. Check, that is what we find.
We would expect to find a vast array of animals each created for their own niche, that cannot change outside of their kind. Check, that is what we find.
We should be able to find large coal deposits, made up of huge rafts of floating plants torn loose in a flood, all over the earth. Check, that is what we find.
We should be able to carbon date, which is only good to about 60,000 years, coal, oil and diamonds. Check, that is what we find.
Anthony Hughes
We should be able to date the earth using observable, testable and repeatable tests, at an age much less than the 4.5 billion years claimed by evolutionists. That is exactly what we observe.
We should be able to find evidence that supposedly very old, extinct animals, like dinosaurs, are not very old at all. Check, that is what we find.
We shouldn't be surprised to find soft tissue in supposed 65 million year old fossils. Check, we are not surprised.
We should be able to see evidence in the heavens that the universe is not billions of years old, like comets and the lack of super nova remnants. Check, that is what we find.
We should find complex biological molecules that could not possibly happen by chance, like DNA. Check, that is what we find.
We should see evidence of an intelligent designer, like the massive amounts of coded information in DNA, and micro molecular machines, in the cell. Check, that is what we find.
We would not expect to see a gradual change from one kind of animal to another kind in the fossil record. Check, that is what we observe.
We should find life on Earth that at the cellular level is so complex we supposed intelligent humans cannot even fathom how life began. Check, we see amazingly complex life all around us.
And yet, with all the observable, testable and repeatable evidence we have showing a Creator God and a literal worldwide flood, there are still students being taught that the universe came about when nothing exploded and that life arose from non-life by time and chance. If evolution was true there should be some observable, testable and repeatable evidence showing it to be true. Where is it?
Justin Ramirez
HERE'S THE STATE OF EVOLUTION TODAY: "Evolutionary theory itself is already in a state of flux… all the central assumptions of the Modern Synthesis (often also called Neo-Darwinism) have been disproven"
Professor Denis Noble, Evolutionist, Physiologist and Biologist, May 2013
1. Abiogenesis. They have given up on it and now say it's not part of evolution theory.
2. They are now admitting that they have no explanation for diversity. So now it's not evolution either.
3. They have given up on the fossil record since it looks like creation. So now they say they don't need the fossils.
4. Gould and associates say there is no gradualism (no transitionals). Stasis is the underlying factor in the fossils so it's not evolution either.
5. Random mutations and natural selection produce nothing so that's out too and they are rejecting it as evolution.
6. All they have left is the common ancestor monkey. The inability for "kinds" to interbreed destroys that one so it's not long for this world.
7. PE is now a failure so it's out as evolution as well.
8. The “tree of life” has also been rejected.
Asher Parker
Antibiotic resistance is another example of evolution and it's happening right before our eyes.
Bacteria colonies can only build up a resistance to antibiotics through evolution. This is because of the random nature of mutations.
When an antibiotic is applied to bacteria, the initial inoculation will kill most of the bacteria most of the time, but sometimes it will leave behind few cells which happen to have random mutations necessary to resist the antibiotics. In subsequent generations, the resistant bacteria reproduce, forming a new colony where every member is resistant to the antibiotic. This is natural selection in action. The antibiotic is "selecting" for organisms which are resistant, and killing any that are not.
Evan King
Evolutionists have to rely on logical fallacies, because there is no evidence supporting the theory that species produce offspring that are not of their species. Only by using logic errors can evolutionists generate a belief in something that has not occurred and is not occurring.
Begging the Question: This is circular logic. An assumption is used to validate a premise. Evolution is assumed to be factual; therefore, evolutionists dismiss outright fraud as being acceptable because it illustrates a true point. One popular form of this is, "Although it is mathematically impossible for life to have occurred by chance, we're here, so that proves it happened."
Hasty Generalization: A small sampling of data is used to “prove” a large conclusion. For example, evolutionists like to claim that evidence of people dwelling in caves in former times means humans came from a more primitive species. This is overgeneralizing at its extreme. In fact, humans are still dwelling in caves, and not because they are a primitive species.
Hypothesis Contrary to Fact: This tries to prove a point by creating a hypothesis that has already been disproved. For example, evolutionists state that theists are retarding science. This is contrary to fact. Many scientific advances were made and are being made by people who believe in God. Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo, Newton, and Mendel, for example, all believed in God.
Misuse of Authority: A group of “experts” is used to prove a conclusion, even if that group does not actually agree with it. An example is "All educated people know evolution is a fact."
Robert Wilson
Chronological Snobbery: This fallacy says that the evidence is ancient, so it can't be verified by observation. Thus we have the "millions" of years timetable for evolutionists.
You will find that every argument in favor of evolution hinges on a logical fallacy. All the evidence clearly points to design, not accident, as the source of life.
To see the fallacy Hypothesis Contrary to Fact in full force merely read the literature of any evolutionist and note that the literature will have references such as: may or may have, must or must have, possibly,could or could have, should or should have, might or might be, etc.Then note that their conclusion demands to be recognized as scientific fact. Apparently evolutionists did not get instruction concerning scientific axioms and principles that demand that any conclusion that rests on these kinds of phrases can never be considered a valid theory or fact.
One hasty generalization is when micro-evolution (adaptation within a species) is used to support macro-evolution (the change of one species into a different one.) The first is merely normal. The second never occurs. Yet evolutionists say that because some bacteria are resistant to antibiotics, this difference within the species proves that species change into creatures that are not of their own kind. That's a hasty generalization for you. One is scientific, the other is pure fantasy. They use equivocation bait-and-switch to constantly change the definition of evolution.
Evolutionists are constantly begging the question. They base their extrapolations on assumptions. A good example of this is the rock record. Evolutionists say that slow, steady rate erosion created rock layers that were obviously caused in a cataclysm. Evolutionists ignore the real world of sudden disasters that dramatically and suddenly change the landscape, since that ruins their theory of slow, predictable change over millions of years.
Owen Anderson
"This is true of all thirty-two orders of mammals ... The earliest and most primitive known members of every order [of mammals] already have the basic ordinal characters, and in no case is an approximately continuous sequence from one order to another known. In most cases the break is so sharp and the gap so large that the origin of the order is speculative and much disputed ... This regular absence of transitional forms is not confined to mammals, but is an almost universal phenomenon, as has long been noted by paleontologists. It is true of almost all classes of animals, both vertebrate and invertebrate...it is true of the classes, and of the major animal phyla, and it is apparently also true of analogous categories of plants."
"The occurrence of genetic monstrosities by mutation … is well substantiated, but they are such evident freaks that these monsters can be designated only as 'hopeless'. They are so utterly unbalanced that they would not have the slightest chance of escaping elimination through stabilizing selection … the more drastically a mutation affects the phenotype, the more likely it is to reduce fitness. To believe that such a drastic mutation would produce a viable new type, capable of occupying a new adaptive zone, is equivalent to believing in miracles … "
"Take some matter, heat while stirring and wait. That is the modern version of Genesis. The 'fundamental' forces of gravity, electromagnetism and the strong and weak nuclear forces are presumed to have done the rest... But how much of this neat tale is firmly established, and how much remains hopeful speculation? In truth, the mechanism of almost every major step, from chemical precursors up to the first recognizable cells, is the subject of either controversy or complete bewilderment."
Anthony Edwards
By true scientific standards, evolution is not even a theory. A scientific theory is confirmed by observations and is falsifiable. There will be proof whether it is right or wrong.
Evolution cannot be put to a test, since it supposedly happened millions of years ago and we certainly never see it happening now. It can never be proved—either true or false. It has always been on speculation alone.
Because there is no actual evidence to support evolution, proponents resort to logical fallacies. Evolution puts forth a tautology, which is the circular argument that the fittest survive, and therefore those who survive are the fittest. See how one statement is used as proof of a repetition of the same argument. The fittest—those who leave the most offspring, evolutionists say— leave the most offspring. A hamster spinning in its cage could hardly go in more circles!
There is a line of reasoning known as a "reductio ad absurdum" ("reducing to absurdity"). Evolutionists like to do this all the time. They try to show that belief in a Creator is false because it is absurd. "We cannot see the Creator, we cannot hear the Creator, and we cannot touch him," they say. "So we're supposed to believe this tripe?"
Meanwhile, we cannot see species turning into another species, but they expect us to believe that they do.
Joseph Ortiz
1. Evolutionist makes an article titled: "Misconceptions About Evolution", regurgitating the same old evolutionist dogma talkorigins.org
2. Creationist makes a lenghty rebuttal, proving the evolutionist wrong.
trueorigin.org
3. Evolutionist in full damage control, resorts to fallacies
trueorigin.org
Atheists are illogical and unreasonable.
Evolutionism is nothing smoke and mirrors. They can indoctrinate the average reader, but if you do the research, you'll look straight through the bullshit and realize there is nothing scientific about it at all.
Darwinism is effectively dead. It is only upheld by government funding (gotta brainwash those kids to hate the Bible).
Aaron Howard
...
Isaiah Taylor
>being this triggered
Why are Chr*stians autistic?
Jackson Lewis
A major reason why evolutionist arguments can sound so persuasive is because they often combine assertive dogma with intimidating, dismissive ridicule towards anyone who dares to disagree with them. Evolutionists wrongly believe that their views are validated by persuasive presentations invoking scientific terminology and allusions to a presumed monopoly of scientific knowledge and understanding on their part. But they haven’t come close to demonstrating evolutionism to be more than an ever-changing theory with a highly questionable and unscientific basis. (The situation isn’t helped by poor science education generally. Even advanced college biology students often understand little more than the dogma of evolutionary theory, and few have the time [or the guts] to question its scientific validity.)
Ayden Gonzalez
There are plenty of really dumb cunts around and really dumb cunts tend to hold really dumb beliefs.
Landon Stewart
Wayne Duck, an evolutionist, gets demolished by Tim Wallace.
>some excerpts
Wayne Duck: “Wallace defines evolution as ‘the introduction of completely new genetically-defined traits.’”
The Truth: The “definition” Duck cites here refers specifically to “macro-evolution”—the exact word appears earlier in the same sentence from which Mr. Duck is quoting. But he deliberately uses the general term “evolution” so as to more easily blur the distinction between the micro- and macro- varieties, which he promptly does in his own next paragraph.
Wayne Duck: “The Theory of Evolution is not concerned with where variability comes from or whether it is ‘new.’”
The Truth: This is false. Evolution is very concerned with where variability comes from. According to the creation paradigm there was a great deal of variability in the original populations, whereas the evolution camp counters with the claim that all variability is and has been mutation induced. Evolution is also concerned with whether any variability is “new” or not—whether all information and potential for variation existed from the beginning or was added later. Duck is here pretending that the source of new genetic information (required for macro-evolution) is of no concern, and his claim is belied by his own words in the next sentence.
Kevin Torres
Wayne Duck: “Processes are known that allow for introduction of ‘new’ genetic information into a population...”
The Truth: Another falsehood. Having claimed that the origin of new genetic information is something which evolutionary theory is “not concerned with,” he now nevertheless sees a need to attribute the generation of ‘new’ genetic information to a list of genetic phenomena. Biologically, information has to have meaning that is coded, decodable, and followed in regard to cellular processes. It has to have start and stop codes on either end of it; it has to integrate into the DNA without much cost of replacement if any at all, and the new form or function it introduces must also integrate with the functioning of the rest of the organism so as to produce selective advantage. To lend some credibility to his claim concerning the “introduction of ‘new’ genetic information” Duck really needs to show where the processes he has cited have produced a net gain in this kind of biological information—but he does not.
Wayne Duck: “Evolution has no direction: evolution is not a goal seeking process. It is not looking to make more complex things or even create species.”
The Truth: Mr. Duck is blowing smoke. Nobody asked him initially to defend evolution as a “goal seeking process”—but if we are to believe that it can indeed “make more complex things or even create species” (whether it is “looking to” do so or not), a detailed explanation is in order. Duck is side-stepping his responsibility as an evolutionist to clarify exactly how this happens. Instead he resorts to the prose of scientism to iterate the doctrine of the directionless, purposeless nature of evolution. He states (correctly), “Wallace is trying to tie the process of evolution directly to the introduction of ‘new’ information.” And likewise, Duck is changing the subject from the net gain in genetic information to evolution’s purposeless nature.
Oliver Cooper
You're not some mutant animal that crawled out of a soup.
Man is made in the image of God.
All races/ethnicities can be traced back to Noah's 3 sons:
A. Four Sons of Ham:
1. Mizraim (Egypt)
2. Cush (Sudan, Ethiopia)
3. Put (Lybia)
4. Canaan (Hivites, Jebusites, Arvadites, Girgashites, Amorites, Arkites, Sinites, Hittites,
Sidonians, Perizzites, Zemarites)
B. Five Sons of Shem:
1. Elam (Arabia)
2. Asshur (Assyria)
3. Lud (Lydians)
4. Aram (Aramaic, Armenia, Mesopotamia, Syria)
5. Arphaxad (From which Abraham descended)
C. Japheth's Descendants (14 Nations came out of Japheth):
The immediate descendants of Japheth were seven in number, and are represented by the nations designated Gomer, Magog, Madai, Javan, Tubal, Mesech, and Tiras; or, roughly, the Armenians, Lydians, Medes, Greeks, Tibarenians, and Moschians, the last, Tiras, remaining still obscure. The sons of Gomer (Ashkenaz, Riphath and Togarmah) were all settled in the West Asian tract; while the sons of Javan (Elisah, Tarshish, Kittim and Dodanim or Rodanim) occupied the Mediterranean coast and the adjacent islands.
Seven Sons of Japheth
1. Javan (Greece, Romans, Romance -- French, Italians, Spanish, Portuguese)
2. Magog (Scythians, Slavs, Russians, Bulgarians, Bohemians, Poles, Slovaks, Croatians)
3. Madai (Indians & Iranic: Medes, Persians, Afghans, Kurds)
4. Tubal (South of Black Sea)
5. Tiras (Thracians, Teutons, Germans, Scandinavian, Anglo-Saxon, Jutes)
6. Meshech (Russia)
7. Gomer (Celtic)
bibliotecapleyades.net
soundchristian.com
Julian Young
Fuck off Ray Comfort.
Gabriel Russell
The autism is really high ITT
Nathaniel Ross
Man lived with dinosaurs. It's not a coincidence that almost every culture or civilization spoke of dragons, serpents or giant lizards.
genesispark.com
genesispark.com
genesispark.com
History is filled with humans encountering dinosaurs.
genesispark.com
Combine this with the fact that fresh dinosaur tissue has been discovered, it completely destroys the idea that dinosaurs lived "millions" of years ago.
Hunter Butler
NEAR DEATH EXPERIENCES AND SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH ON THE AFTERLIFE:
Near death experiences prove Christianity! We find testimonies of atheists, Buddhists, Muslims, etc. claiming they died, went to the afterlife and Jesus saved them and gave them another chance. There are countless testimonies just on YouTube alone and the people that ventured into the afterlife describe the Christian concept of life after death. If NDE’s were open to interpretation, we would find testimonies of people saying that when they died, they met Allah or Muhammad or Buddha. But since we only find testimonies of people saying they were saved by Jesus, we have additional evidence that Christianity is the truth. When Muslims die, they don’t hallucinate about Allah and when Hindus die, they don’t hallucinate about reincarnation. What we see is the truth of Christianity being preached by those that died and came back. Besides the countless testimonies we have of near death experiences, we also have scientific research and evidence that verifies the existence of the afterlife. Here is a link to studies and research done by respected doctors: near-death.com/science/evidence.html I encourage you to examine the evidence these doctors present for the afterlife.
Scoffers claim that NDE's are just a chemical reaction in the brain, but this has been proven wrong.
1. It would not make you float above your body and see everything that is happening in the room. Some could even accurately describe what was happening in the next room.
2. It would not make someone who has never heard/cared about Jesus, see Jesus in the afterlife. If a Muslim died, he would expect to see Mohammed or Allah. youtube.com
Austin Gomez
>people still believe this
>people
Lmao.
Pretty much only murrican rednecks believe that.
Charles Garcia
>shitposting - the topic
saged and hidden
Wyatt Murphy
>Argentinian
>Calling somebody else a monkey
Nathan Rogers
As usual, most of the creationists seem to be attempting to prove evolution wrong while completely ignoring what the thread is actually about: validating creationism. They seem to expect that proving evolution wrong will somehow prove creationism right.
Jeremiah Rogers
Why, hello, Mr. Missing link. Your existence alonr is proof enough about evolution.
To the master baiter antipode of this thread, well played.
Xavier Williams
How come? How does knowledge or ingnorance about our past affect your daily life in such a degree?
Alexander Jenkins
>why?
Because is easier to explain to children and adults with mental capabilities of a child
>daddy how did life start?
>God created
>oh yay!
*tips Fedora 5 times*
Oliver Bell
I'm shocked to see all these creationists itt, here people believe evolution despite the fact the we're a very country
Oliver Brooks
*very catholic
Camden Thompson
Do you not know how selective breeding works? Human-guided evolution is still evolution, mate.
Zachary Roberts
You're making a good point. Actually there is no reason to think that if you're religious you must believe in creationism. You can just assume that the genesis is some kind of an interpretation of how the world was created, and nobody would be able to argue with that.
This just proves how dumb creationists are imao.
Tyler Jenkins
wtf i love new zealand now
Jordan Rodriguez
t. Palmerston North
Logan Cox
hurr durr human controled evolution is real so every evolution is real
Robert Cox
Are you implying that just because evolution is real, it doesn't mean that evolution is real?
Asher Campbell
holy shit this thread is still up? thought I shitposted it into oblivion an hour ago 2bh
Kevin Bennett
Most of the creationists here are just against fedora tipping and therefore say anything to distinct themselves from such act of autism, i.e. they are trolling
I hope
Joseph Miller
I think this is the true failure of liberalism.
You teach people that they can be anything for long enough and suddenly they think they are everything without spending effort of it.
You have people playing scientist, quoting statistics and sources, posting infographics. But really, they haven't read any of the theory on the matter or read the methodologies of the experiments, they have none of the background.
They know more than you because they skimmed wikipedia and watched two youtube videos, but they still know fuck all about anything compared to scientists in the field.
Yet they will make bold claims that go against scientific consensus and ask you, a random fuck to debate them.
Fuck off, go to an evolutionary biology forum and try someone who's dedicated their life to this.
You'll get squished like an insect.
Alexander Turner
Pretty sure he's not trolling, I checked the archive and he has posted this on Sup Forums before, and last time I checked /his/ was a very religious board.
Nicholas Bennett
Reminder that believing in Creationism is almost as retarded as being a Flat Earther
Owen Rivera
wtf i hate NZ now??
Jaxson Powell
I'm sure you can find some youtube videos or obscure websites that will tell you Earth is indeed flat
Jace Thompson
Dude if dogs came from wolves than how do wolves still exist LMAO
Jayden Howard
DUDE LOL LMAOOOO
Dominic Richardson
Dude if people came from their grandparents then how do cousins still exist lmao