Considering we had pretty advanced mathematics for thousands of years why do you think it took so long for us to...

people always knew traits are hereditary and can change over time, there were some, granted mostly sort of primitive, theories, some more like stories and legends, that pretty much hinted at the idea of it all being the result of something that could be described as a process of change in time

these questions were often rather laden, what with all sorts of authorities having reasons for this or that particular story to be generaly accepted, and these were often based on creation and foundational myths of this or that kind so it wasnt realy a polite matter to discuss publicly

there was that one muslim scolar who posited a theory on how animals keep changing based on enviroment and fighting each other, which came pretty close but didnt cause much attention, and some chinese had a similar idea but that was more esotheric

but people had an idea of it more or less, they grew animals and so on, beliefs about biology were often wild and bizzare any way, just that they didnt realy grasp the scope and extent of it, or realy had anything like modern knowledge of biology, often not even premodern, it would sooner be that someone would have a completely mythical understanding of it as in things developing out of chaos, or magical where occult cosmic forces influece the development of beings, or just silly stuff like how some people are black cause once the sun-chariot came too close so they developed a inherent trait like that

point is people didnt allways believe lifeforms are the same and constant troughout time, all sorts of observations and wild conjectures were thrown around and not everyone took scripture that literaly in the sense that it would be applyed as a total and complete explanation of every aspect of life, thats actualy a later development, coinciding with protestantism, in fact people did that with hermeticism much more, applying it to all and everything, and hermeticism had its own concocted ideas about how things transmutate

>Something we can actually see in a lab
>Proven wrong
Fuck off /retard/

>Considering we had pretty advanced mathematics for thousands of years
thats really not true at all
There is a world of difference between Pythagorian mathematics, Euclidean geometry or archimedean arithmetics to Descartes, Pascal, Fermat and onwards

>in a lab
>natural

Retard.

Lamarck (and lysenko) pls go

you took the bait :^)

Findings, especially when dealing with microbes, are null if contamination is present.

It happens in the wild but other factors can take place. For example, you could have some bacteria growing dandily in a bizarre environment but if a contagion or phage entered then you'd have none of your special bacteria left.

Knowledge builds vertically

I mean, washing one's hands seems intuitive nowadays and seems like it should have been realized millennia ago, but no one did so.

This is because we needed shit like Germ theory, which took many intelligent people leading to it to figure out.

>Something isn't natural if you can study it indoors.
Are you pretending to be a stupid christfag?

>a 1000 years of trying to justify God hasn't effected the mind of europeans

Please cunt. Biology, medicine and agricultural science is probably the one thing that the "Dark Ages"did certainly better, than Rome.

there is no "the" scientific method, and by anyone's estimates there was no mathematical method until the early 20th century; whether there is "a" mathematical method even now is debatable.

That is not the most important part of the scientific method.

The most important part is the belief in a rational universe governed by understandable rational laws. The second most important part is the concept of scientific theory, and the idea of constantly questioning it.

1. Evolution is not science. You cannot observe, test and repeat the ever-changing ideas that are little more than wild speculation.

2. It devalues real science. Chemistry, physics and biology don't have the same problems of legitimacy because they are real sciences, not philosophical wannabes trying to appear legit.

3. Complex engineering. Do you ever drive past a skyscraper and think to yourself 'Gee, I guess billions of years of random chance could have just as easily assembled all of that glass, steel and concrete as well as a team of engineers, architects, construction workers working from blueprints? Of course not! But that's what evolutionists would have you believe in when it comes to living organisms.

4. Genetics. The programming code of life, according to evolutionists, is just a series of biochemical accidents and mutations. If you believe this, I have a bridge in New York that's for sale. The infinitely complex engineering of this code means that it did not come about via 'natural selection,' aka random chance.

5. Mathematically Impossible. Basic probability tells you that the odds of a blob of primordial ooze morphing into a man, regardless of how much time has passed, are so remote that mathematicians regard it as impossible. Emile Borel and Fred Hoyle are just two mathematicians who reject evolution on statistical grounds.

6. Evolution is a religion. Yes, evolution is the faith of atheism because it replaces God with man. When you've conned yourself into believing that some kind of ancient slime morphed into progressively complex and directional life forms, you are in the realm of faith, not science.

7. Darwin's theory gave rise to Marxism, Socialism, Racism and the excuse for genocide and massacres. It's not a coincidence that the 2 most destructive wars in human history happened after Europe turned atheist.

>THEORY of Evolution vs FACT of Creation
youtube.com/watch?v=7xBWPiJLnFw

>Evolution Debunked
newgeology.us/presentation32.html

>Evolution is pseudo-science
youtube.com/watch?v=jMr278CMAIA

>Evolution completely torn apart (18-hour creation seminar)
youtube.com/watch?v=shyI-aQaXD0

>Hovind destroys an atheist critic
youtube.com/watch?v=9wAxPG4WpN8

>Evolution is a modern fairy tale
youtube.com/watch?v=Gjvuwne0RrE

>The Greatest Lie Ever Told
youtube.com/watch?v=c1ufK04tjOI

>Overwhelming Evidence of a Global Flood
youtube.com/watch?v=lktmmd7YnD8

>Dinosaurs are not "millions" of years old
youtube.com/watch?v=niDCq3TbvOo

>Pagan/Occult Satanism (Illuminati, Freemasons, Jesuits, etc)
youtube.com/watch?v=o__D464kGyY

>AGE OF DECEIT
youtube.com/watch?v=wjmFm8PIz8M

>Zeitgeist Debunked
youtube.com/watch?v=JFI6m6Icav4

Kent pls go

Nobody needed chemistry for anything until mass produced fabrics.

"Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator" Romans 1:25

"The fool has said in his heart, there is no God." Psalm 14:1

"Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools" Romans 1:22

"And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie" 2 Thessalonians 2:11

"Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts" 2 Peter 3:3

Since 1963, in the US:
>Divorce Rates
>Breakup of family units
>Acceptance of homosexuality
>Teen-age Pregnancies
>Murder of inconvenient babies
>Crime Rates
Have all escalated and increased.

What happened that year? The Bible got outlawed from schools.

When you take God away from people's lives, they start acting like savage animals.

The Earth cannot possibly be millions or billions of years old.

1. Population: The rate of population growth has been steady for the time that we have records. The present six billion is the right number of people to have multiplied from the eight survivors of the universal flood about 4400 years ago. If man had been around for millions of years, the same growth rate would have produced 150,000 people per square inch of land surface.

2. The planets are losing heat. If they had been formed millions of years ago, they would have no internal heat left given the present rate of heat loss. If a hot cup of coffee were left standing for 400 years, it would have no internal heat left.

3. The planet Saturn is losing its rings. They are slowly moving away. If the planet were millions of years old, the material in the rings would have dissipated long ago.

4. The moon: Space dust accumulates on the surface of the moon at the rate of about one inch for every ten thousand years. Astronauts found an average of one-half inch, just about what you would expect in six thousand years. Also, the moon is very slowly moving away from the earth. If it were millions of years old, it would have had to start very close to the earth, causing ocean tides so severe it would have drowned every thing on land twice a day.

5. Comets: As comets travel through space they continually shed some of their material. Any comet more than 10,000 years old would have long since disintegrated into nothing.

6. Earth's magnetic field is getting weaker. At the rate of deterioration, no such field would exist if the earth were as old as evolutionists believe.

7. Earth's rotation is slowing at the rate of one thousandth of a second per day. At this rate a billion years ago it would have been spinning so fast that centrifugal force would have caused it to fly apart.

8. Petroleum in the ground is under tremendous pressure. The rocks that contain it are porous. If the oil had been there for millions of years the pressure would have dissipated long ago.

9. The oldest living plants, the bristlecone pine tree and the coral reefs only go back about 4500 years. If earth had existed for millions of years, why aren't there older plants still alive?

10. Ocean salt: Now at 3.8 percent, the salinity of the oceans would have been much greater. The present rate of increase points back to a beginning about six thousand years ago.

11. Evolutionists point to stalactites in caves as proof of an old earth, but there are stalactites in the basement of the Lincoln Memorial several feet long that have grown in less than 100 years.

The evidence continues to accumulate, exposing the evolutionist's erroneous assumptions. Yet, in blind faith, they cling to their absurd theories rather than accept the Biblical record of creation.

>actually typing all that out.

Kek

I guess this is now daily

talkorigins.org/indexcc/

We did not come from monkeys. We are not animals.

We are Man created in the image of God.

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)

The theory of evolution is a satanic attack on the Bible.

In order for the devil to introduce the Antichrist, he first needs to brainwash people into rejecting God and the Scriptures. He's doing a good job considering how many people actually believe in the monkey myths and Flintstone cavemen theories.

Evolutionism is false. Incorrect. Lie. Hoax. Fraud. Scam.
It is a bankrupt theory only kept afloat through government funding.

The Bible is Truth and Factual.

It is way too early to go full fundie bait. Although it's not really bait when it's this obvious I still replied so good work I guess.

newgeology.us/presentation32.html

Evolution is a myth.

It's imaginary. It only happens in your head.

Atheism is a cancerous poison.

/thread

1 yes it is sience and yes it is tested and observed

2 those sciences have there own parts that have the problem with legitimacy and also the main reason it has problems with it legitimacy is because it goes against religion and religious people don't like that

3 bullshit argument

4 these so called accidental mutations are just a organism adapting to his surroundings aka if you have camouflage on your skin/fur the better camouflage survives and gives his genes to the next generation

5 pure math does not factor in the environment and some other factors and when we look at no matter how many time passed if the time taken is infinity than anything can happen

6 as said by 1 and 2 it is science because it is tested and observed

7 that those wars were the most destructive could be because it was fought with weapons that could kill 1000 within seconds instead of a sword and shield

>World war 1 and 2
>Most desctructive
I would say none of those beat the thirty years war, the Mongolian and Timmurian expansions as well as a bunch of Civil wars in China.

the two sons of adam and eve
cain and abel

so either kinky incest sex with eve or magic new babies where born from two gay brothers

>creationist shitposting
Pretty sure this is stretching the rules regarding religious discussion just a little bit.

I am not in the creatonist camp, but Adam and eve did actually get several Children.

>magic new babies

What are you, some sort of pleb, the angels flew down to earth and fucked some people, which lead to Goliath and giants amongst other more significant aspects of early humans genetic legacy.

There is no proof for evolution.

There is mountains of evidence pointing towards the Bible being correct.

Should moods really bann those threads at sight?
I mean, they are really touching science more than they are philosophy or theology,

The Earth is about 6000 years old.
Man was created by God.

The idea that the Earth is "billions of years old" and that man came from a primordial ooze, is not only wrong, but also laughably retarded.

It takes alot of faith to believe you came from a rock.

I could never have that much faith.

Common designer, not common ancestor.

Giant human skeletons have been found.

It doesn't fit the satanic evolution theory, so that's why they don't like to talk about it.

Who the fuck told Kent Hovind about Veeky Forums?

Everything in the Bible literally happened.

It's the most important history book.

>le boogeyman meme

>Swaggart
>Found in the Company of a prostitue
Nice moral highground there.

Whatever you say Kent. Have you done your tax returns on time this year? You wouldn't want to get into trouble with the IRS again, would you?

There's nothing wrong with paying for sex. There is however something wrong with fucking around on your wife when you are claiming to be some great moralizer or some shit.

Evolution is a scientifically impossible fairy tale.

It is pseudo-science, forced into the mainstream.

There is no evidence for it, just:
>assumptions
>circular reasoning
>hoaxes (Haeckel, missing links, etc)

If you need lies to uphold your theory, get a new one.

Whatever you say Darwin.

Evolutionism might just be the most retarded religion in the world.

This is what they believe:

>we are monkeys!
>good and evil don't exist!
>a rock magically created life

I can't take evolutiontards seriously.
They believe in a myth.

Hitler, Stalin and Mao all believed in evolution.

If there is no God, then genocides and massacres are completely OK. There is no right or wrong, simply relativism and subjectivism.

The 18th century "enlightenment" was a mistake. A depressing, nihilist, cuckold ideology.

There's also a problem with paying for sex when you yourself that's a moral problem with that,

Wow, the league of christ-posting autists is going all out today.

Sure, obviously if you yourself are of the opinion that paying for sex is wrong and then you go and do it you are being a hypocrite.

"In the beginning, God created the heaven and the earth."

not

"In the beginning, dirt"

Evolutionism is a cult of death.

I am pretty sure most of it is shitposting.

Don't many Evangelists hold the belief that a true beliver won't sinn like this as well becasuse Jesus stops him?

>Similarity is evidence for ancestral relationships

When used as evidence for evolution it becomes circular reasoning. Similarities can have two origins, design or ancestry. If the relationship is ancestral then similarities would be due to common ancestry, but if similarities are from a designer using the same or similar structures, then similarity is evidence of a common designer. Another problem is that similarities don't explain the differences. Evolution is about the differences, the change. If evolution did it, explain how the differences can and will occur. There are many features that can prove that similarity is not the result of common ancestry. Evolutionists have even given these evidences a name, convergent and parallel evolution.
Convergent evolution is due, according to evolutionists, to similar behaviors or environments producing similar structures. How does the DNA know what mutations it needs to turn an arm into a wing or leg into a fin, or a fin into a leg? The fascinating thing about convergent evolution is that is showing up all over the place, right down to the mechanisms in the cell.

So, similarity indicates ancestral relationships, except when it doesn't. And when it doesn't that should be an indicator of intelligent design. The better explanation is that the similar structures were designed for similar needs. That makes a lot of sense, but it's anti-evolutionary.

Parallel evolution occurs when similar features develop without any particular connection to behavior or to the environment. How does that happen? Just coincidence? But it does provide even more evidence that similarity doesn't mean common ancestry.

Have you heard the popular myth spread by evolutionists that chimps and humans are genetically 98% to 99% identical? After examining the DNA sequences in more detail over the years scientists have now dropped the number to 94%. And the examination is not done yet. The 98% is the result of stacking the deck and selecting genes they already thought to be similar and then comparing only 1% of the genomes of both species. Wait for the gap to grow farther still. Even so, evolution needs to explain the vast differences, not the similarities.

>Natural selection is a creative force

Natural selection only "chooses" from available information, it does not create any. It does not act on the genotype of an organism. Yet, evolutionists often give natural selection creative and goal seeking powers, and credit it with solving many of life's problems. Features are said to have evolved because they gave the organism a "selective advantage." But in actuality a selective advantage only helps to maintain the current genetic makeup, rather than forcing it in any way to become better. Natural selection is not creative. It does not change genetic information. It is not a force and it puts no pressure on any organism to modify its genes. See the true role of natural selection.

If you have a job in a car factory to seperate the good parts from the bad parts, how long will it take for the cars to turn into an airplane?

Natural selection is in favor of CREATION, not evolution.

>Appeals to future evidence

The scientific method (evolution style)
1. Determine the answer.
2. Come up with a hypothesis.
3. Because it sounds good in theory, conclude your answer was correct
4. Gear all future experiments to fine tune the details of the answer from step 1.

Is this science? First, you determine the answer. Secondly you devise experiments that will prove you're answer. If you are unsuccessful you try again because you already know the answer. You believe the answer while you search to find the evidence to support it. One of the most common phrases in evolutionary literature goes something like this, "there is still plenty of testing that needs to be done." This is after they've presented their conclusions and told you their facts. Right now, scientists do not know how the first macromolecules needed for life would form. They do not know how the first information bearing molecule would form. They do not know why all the body plans suddenly appeared, how the moon formed, how the planets formed, how legs turned into wings, fins turned into legs or legs turned into fins. They have no sure solution for any other evolutionary event in the history of the universe. Yet they claim it's an established fact, one of the most robust in science!
Evolutionary literature is filled with "mights", "maybes" and "probablies." For every "answer" they present there is a potential question lurking in the background that will derail that very answer.

When the problem comes to light, the "fact of evolution" is never questioned. Their belief tells them evolution must be correct. They continue to believe in spite of the fact that science has shown them to be wrong time and time again. They use imagination to fill in the gaps and by faith they believe that science will ultimately prove them right. They insist we believe it now and trust them. But, when you can't believe what the science is showing you right now, before your very eyes, and must defer to a future discovery, that's faith. It's how you keep a theory alive for 150 years without having validation.

>Complex coordinated information can arise spontaneously
Life is built on information. The DNA molecule holds volumes of information, instructions on how to build, maintain and reproduce an organism. Not only that, it holds instructions on how to interact with the outside world, the brains of all animals come loaded with a fully functional operating system. Evolutionists believe that this information was put together by many accumulated errors in DNA.

Experiments that claim to show evolution of information or learning all start with intelligently designed equipment, equations and programming. In the end these experiments only support the idea that information does not arise spontaneously. Very rarely do they test using molecules used by life, because those molecules are not capable of combining to create information bearing molecules without the aid of intelligence. In spite of the obvious, evolutionists still cling to the idea that the volumes of information contained in life could have arisen by chance.

>Don't many Evangelists hold the belief that a true beliver won't sinn like this as well becasuse Jesus stops him?
Yes, but that belief is wrong, like most of the things evangelicals believe.

>Evolution is not based on chance!

In the "God Delusion Debate" Richard Dawkins, frustrated over comments by scientist John Lennox, said of evolution "It's not chance, natural selection is the opposite of chance!" This exemplifies the problem. Evolution is not just natural selection. It is natural selection, variation and mutation. The factor that would generate new code is mutation. Mutation is by definition, an error, and it occurs randomly. Mutations may follow certain patterns, but they are not planned, they are random. Evolution relies on blind luck for the material that natural selection can act on. No wonder evolutionists attempt to keep the focus on natural selection.

Life coming from inorganic materials is a myth.
It is scientifically and mathematically impossible.

>Evolution proceeds by using trial and error
This is another concept often found in evolutionary literature. Adaptations are often said to have developed through a series of trials and errors. This however is backwards. Since mutation is the supposed source of the adaptation, then the error precedes the trial. An error has to create a new functional adaptation before it can be put to the test.

Then we have another term in evolutionary literature, "pre-adaptation," this means that an adaptation evolved before it was needed, and therefore could not have been tested. This means that evolution proceeds through trial and error, except when it doesn't.

But, since each system in life must have arisen before it was tested and could not confer a selective advantage until after it became part of the phenotype, then every feature in life must be the result of a "pre-adaptation." Which means that pre-adaptation is just a way to avoid examining the question of why a feature would develop in the first place. Pre-adaptation is another way of saying "that's fortunate."

>>Teen-age Pregnancies
This is an outright lie, and "breakup of family units" has been increasing since industrialization started atomizing the labor unit in the eighteenth century.

Oh come the fuck on, put some fucking effort into this shit you faggot.

>Consensus is proof for evolution
Do all reputable biologists agree that evolution is a fact or does believing that evolution is a fact make a biologist reputable? How many names on a petition does it take to prove a scientific theory? One of the problems with "consensus" on evolution is that it doesn't involve everyone, those who disagree are excluded. Religious people come up with the same kind of reasoning. For instance, how could a million Hindu's named Steve be wrong?
This implies that number of believers proves the belief system. How many Buddhists, Muslims, Christians, or Evolutionists does it take to make something true? What is odd, is that supposedly rational, intelligent, critically thinking scientists don't recognize this, but that is because their belief system is not based on science. Science isn't built on consensus; it is built on the scientific method, observation and experimentation, which should not allow for a hypothesis to pass for a fact.

Another point: evolution has never had consensus. For evolutionists however, evolution has been a "fact" for over a century, and wouldn't you know it, all evolutionists agree it's a fact. It doesn't matter that there are many scientists who for scientific reasons, don't agree that evolution is an established fact. Consensus on evolution is imaginary.

By this logic, Communism is true because it was widely believed by the USSR.

National Socialism is true because it was widely believed by Germany.

Ad populum logical fallacy, appeal to authority, etc.

If an idea makes evolutionary sense and doesn't violate the evolutionary paradigm it passes peer review. How many bad ideas, mistakes and deceptions make it through the evolutionary peer review screen? Evolutionists would like you to believe that the peer review filters out evolutionary bad ideas, but if the peers are chosen based on their adherence to a belief system, then peer review would not filter out ideas based on that belief. This can be seen most clearly in evolutionary stories about ancestry and evolutionary development that pass through peer review seemingly without question or examination. Adherence to evolution does however filter out good ideas if they suggest that evolution might not be true or intelligent design is an acceptable alternative. That is, if your ideas don't fit the predetermined template, they will be rejected.

This has forced many scientists to create their own peer reviewed publications, which attempt to critically examine all that science is currently showing us, rather than attempt to force it into a predetermined template. Evolutionists view these as illegitimate. Creationists, who have their own template, welcome these ideas, because they demonstrate that the scientific facts agree with the Creation template far better than the one presented by Evolution. The facts need to be force fitted into the Evolutionary template, where they seem to fall naturally into the Creationist one. This is why evolutionary peer review is failing science.

What the hell does any of this have to do with religion, history or philosophy?
Go to Veeky Forums with this if you actually want to argue with people that are well read on evolution.

>Victory in the court equals victory in the lab
Quite often evolutionists will cite court battles as evidence that evolution should be the only view presented by the education system. Winning a court battle, is however not the same as demonstrating a scientific fact through observation and experiment. Legal decisions are based on the law, not on science. The law in the United States and in many other countries will not allow for government to support a religion. That is where evolutionists get their victories. Creationism and intelligent design both point to a creator. Therefore any ideas that are seen to support them are "religious" and the government is forced to reject or ignore those ideas on legal grounds. Evolution, even though it is faith based, is technically not "religious" since it does not recognize the existence of a supernatural being. So evolution wins in the courts because is not religious, rather than because science can be rigorously used to support it. Why do evolutionists go to the lawyers and judges to win their science battles?

Let the battle occur in the science labs and classrooms, where it should be taking place. Contrary to what the evolutionists claim, its not creation or intelligent design that's loosing in the courtroom, it's schools that are being sued. After all, it's the school boards, parents and the kids in public schools who want the alternatives to be taught and the problems with evolution to be exposed. They are the ones who are getting defeated by the evolutionists. They want to control the education of your kids so they can indoctrinate them with their materialistic philosophy. And they believe that you're just too stupid to know evolution is a fact.

Evolution is not only wrong, it's also dangerous.

The holocaust and communism are two detrimental effects that come to mind immediately. How many millions have to die before you realize that there might be a problem? Actually evolution makes no judgment calls on these types of events since survival of the fittest is an axiom. When one person kills another or when one race destroys another, that's survival of the fittest. Belief in evolution cannot object to any action because there is no moral standard.

Evolutionists sometimes point out that the church is not guiltless. They point out events such as the inquisition and the crusades and religion's very violent and immoral history. Today we have suicide bombers, genocide in the Sudan and terrorism world wide in the name of Allah. So, they point out that religion not only produces similar results, but that religious people do it in the name of a god or religion and believe this justifies their actions. Religion, they claim, must be worse, because people believe that they are doing the will of God. Yet they forget that people who commit such atrocities without invoking God can also believe they are justified.

Your goddidit claim to invalidate homologous elements stumbles when confronted with analogous elements.

Your design argument also suffers from vagueness and cherrypicking.
Consider that beans (an example in your picture) can be toxic if not prepared correctly.
Any number of things you have mentioned could apply to different plants with adverse or lacking effects.
Grapes also don't look like red blood cells.

Definitely. I expect a higher quality of bait.

>How does the DNA know
It doesn't. DNA has blueprints to the body such as Hox genes but DNA itself does not know anything.
Mutation, selection and drift are processes that make evolution possible.

>similarity indicates ancestral relationships, except when it doesn't
Look up what criteria for homology are.

There are numerous simple experiments that can be done with natural selection that prove effects on genotypes.
Shit, I've done them.
Antibiotic gradient agar plates are easy methods to show that this happens.

>Body plans
Hox genes are a pretty good answer for a beginner to look up when he isn't copypasting bullshit.

This view is incorrect. The reason for all the ills, wrongs and evils in this world is due to sin. The Bible, not evolution, defines sin. Those who reject God and accept evolution don't have a moral standard or definition of good and bad that extends beyond their cultural beliefs. Why is something bad, wrong or evil? The evolutionary answer is "Because I don't like it." or "Everyone agrees its wrong." They often attempt to justify moral actions by their evolutionary expediency. Hence, the holocaust, communism, abortion, euthanasia, eugenics etc. The excuse given is that these things come from something inside the individual, not from a religious book, or a belief in God. Therefore they claim that these things are not connected with evolution or atheism, but they say that the atrocities in the name of religion or God have a direct connection with the Bible.

But the fact is that, God's Word condemns these actions, no matter who is doing them. The holocaust, communism, the crusades and the inquisition all stem from human nature, i.e. something inside ourselves. And that "something inside ourselves" comes from? Evolution does not define morality as anything more than a chemical reaction. The Bible does define morality. We know that all those things are wrong because God's Word tells us they are wrong. None of those things happened because God commanded it or His Word demanded it, but through the rejection of his Word or making his Word secondary to an earthly authority. This leaves the door wide open.

Some people say, "I prefer to define my own morality." That is a standard belief within evolutionary thought. However this is also a problem. Morality can't come from within the individual. It has to be a standard that exists separate from the individual. Otherwise morality becomes nothing more than an individual choice and allows each person to justify whatever "evil" or "good" they desire. Relegating morality to society only causes good and evil to be defined by the ones in power. Rejection of God's Word is what allows a leader to starve a million people, send them to a holy war, or for a scientist to accept human cloning and eugenics, or even for a sniper to kill an abortion doctor. Morality is not a smorgasbord, you don't pick what you like and ignore what elements you dislike. The evils of the church come from rejecting God's Word and the atrocities connected with atheism and evolution also come from a rejection of Gods Word.

Evolution, begins with a rejection of God's Word. Therefore there is nothing to counter the natural tendency we all possess to do wrong and justify doing wrong.

For more information, read "Mere Christianity" by C.S. Lewis

Evolutionists believe in imaginary evidence to avoid falsification

How do evolutionists currently answer the question of how evolution would be falsified? The most common answer seems to be finding a fossil that is out of place, the mystical Cambrian rabbit. Evolution is a biological process, why wouldn't the falsification come from biology? Because fossil evidence requires imagination to interpret, you see it in your mind's eye. All you need is to imagine a natural cause. If you fail to imagine a natural cause or question an imagined cause you could be labeled "incredulous." This explains why it is so important that you fully accept the doctrines of evolution before you begin imagining evidence.

Biological evidence however is something you can observe and conduct experiments on in the present. Do multiple mutations occur together to bring about beneficial changes? No. Does adding random sequences to DNA cause new information to arise? No.

Fossils are then a much better option if you don't want to falsify evolution. Because if something is found out of place you can put it in place using your imagination. When evolutionists find fossils that are out of place they rearrange the timeline to make them fit or they create ghost (imaginary) lineages or they appeal to things like punctuated equilibrium (imaginary changes in the tempo of evolution)

What ever happened to Darwin's test for falsification? "If it can be demonstrated that numerous small and successive changes cannot create new features, my theory would absolutely fall apart." When did this not become a criterion for failure? It actually never was, because Darwin himself resorted immediately to imaginary evidence as proof of evolutionary transition when he proposed a possible path for eye evolution. Considering that Darwin was admittedly profoundly ignorant of the mechanisms responsible for variation, from the very start Darwin had already introduced evidence conjured up from his imagination.

>pretty advanced mathematics for thousands of years
Algebra was developed in the middle Medieval Era and the most basic calculus only a few centuries later. Peoples not from the Greek tradition didn't even know how to accurately find a hypotenuse until Europeans started showing up.

Evolutionary scenarios, all of them, start off with already developed systems. When pressed to give an answer for the most difficult stage in the transition from molecules to man, the origin of life, the answer is "evolution does not address the origin of life." Technically they are right; evolution doesn't start until you have a self replicating organism. But the gap from the basic macro molecules to the simplest working cell is enormous. Grant us the first cell and we can start the story of evolution. The eye is another scenario where they don't start at the beginning. Grant us a light sensitive spot and we'll give you a working camera eye. Of course they need many other grants along the way. Every evolutionary story starts with a feature that supposedly evolved to the stage where they pick up the story. Quite often the granted advances are far more complex than the part of the story they want to tell. Some organisms like bats appear in the fossil record with no way to imagine a direct predecessor, therefore stories of winged flight in mammals with a host of working mechanisms.

Evolutionism is a religion, a worldview, a cult.

Their prophet is Charles Darwin and their holy book is "Origins of Species".

Atheists worship plastic monkeys.

Evolutionism is a myth.

The world is not "billions" of years old.
Man did not "evolve" from animals.

...

So it's settled.

Darwinism is false.

Christianity is true.

/thread

I like how billions is apparently not a real order of magnitude now.

geomaps.wr.usgs.gov/parks/gtime/ageofearth.html

>Do multiple mutations occur together to bring about beneficial changes?
Yes. Look up Lenski's long term E.Coli experiments.

>Does adding random sequences to DNA cause new information to arise?
Define information.
It's new base pairs in the DNA. By that standard it's information.
If it randomly uses a start codon and is placed correctly then it's coding and will create a Protein. By that standard it's information.
If it's placed in a coding sequence then it will alter that coding sequence in some way because of the way indels and reading frames work. By that standard it's information.
Placing DNA in cells creates new information and many biological organisms and the industry benefit from that.

>Eye evolution
We have numerous stages for eye evolution preserved in invertebrates.

Creationists should be fucking banned

>Silence the truth!
>CENSOR HIM!

Atheists in a nutshell.

I have no idea what you are talking about. If you were banned from Veeky Forums then you could still post on your natural home, /x/.

Anyone who crapfloods a thread in order to troll or derail said thread should be banned.

If you actually cared you'd do more than spam copypasta and ignore the people biting your bait.