Creationism

...

Here's the last one I'm gonna post.
And yes, he did use this as an argument.

lmao creationists actually believe that's how it's done

How do people actually believe something that they willingly lie to support?

>my wifes 6 year old son

Fear is a powerful thing, user.

Answers in Genesis (and by extension, Ken Ham) is funded by the Institute for Religion and Democracy.

The institute is promoting neither of those things.

Someone that afraid to die must be ... full of candy.

I had one tell me that they "studied evolution", but he thought that evolution was literally one animal just turning into another.

Somehow he thought I wouldn't realize he had no clue what he was talking about.

It's not exactly the opposite of that. If CP biology isn't enough to make someone understand then it's hopeless for that person.

When ai posted a link to talk.origins, he told me,
>evolutionist article using evolutionist terminology and cladistics

*I

But I don't know if fear is really the motivation.

I mean, you'll see anti-GMO and anti-vaccine people do the same shit where they will lie to support a position they hold regarding something they don't even understand the science behind.

I just don't understand why people don't try to understand something before they form an opinion about it.

They've been taught from birth that if you do that, you run the risk of becoming the dreaded atheist.

>not calling your wife's son your son as well
why can't you accept him and love him as your own?

The truth is the truth.

People don't cling to the truth.

People cling to lies to avoid having to deal with the truth.

Bro considering i'm banned could you ask Peter why he thinks /christian/ is reddit?

So much of creationism is based off a fundamental misunderstanding of evolution.
Evolution has no end goal, and mutations that happen in population aren't usually benevolent, which is how we get genetic disorders. Survival of the fittest just means the fittest to their environment-not necessarily the smartest. Fish are the fittest to live underwater because they can extract oxygen via their gills vs humans and whales who have to surface to breathe air. someone who is smarter isn't "more evolved" than someone who is not as smart, as there is no end goal.

It is.

It's funny. The answers all of you people mocking Creationists have boil down to "I don't know, but some day Science will answer everything!"

Pathetic.

You don't, if you don't realize that's the entire theory.

Fucking ignorance in this thread is astonishing.

talkorigins is a joke. It's babby tier nonsense. "Well if God made the universe, who made God? Checkmate, theists!"

Literally babby tier.

Because he's a loveless godless faggot, that's why.

Bullshit.

Creationism is based off of knowing that the bible is God's eyewitness account of how He made the universe.

I mean, theology is interesting to think about. But it's a problem when it gets in the way of science and leads to unfair treatment of individuals.

When it comes to Creationism, you can't even begin to fully account for all of it ever. Only God can do that.

What is recorded in all creation legends is only a small piece. Every early civilization had one. What we see is only a small piece.

Like scientific and religious ideas go together they really aren't that outrageously far off from eachother.

what

This can only be possible if you think science has jurisdiction over absolutely everything, including the unknown, the supernatural, the paranormal, the unobservable, etc., etc., etc.

Cognitive dissonance, I can understand their position at the very least, imagine having to face the truth that your entire being, the entire core of you ideology, is formed around a cult ideology instilled in you by your parents/friends/pastor etc. from birth

The circular reasoning between the geologists and the paleontologists is world renowned logical fallacies at play.

"This rock is 10,000,000 years old, because we found a 10,000,000 year old trilobite in it!"

"This trilobite is 10,000,000 years old, because we found it in a 10,000,000 year old rock strata!"

Literally how it was done.

You have no idea who the truth is.

You're just a number in a mob that all believes the same way, and that way can change at the drop of a hat.

>muh radiometric dating
>muh Miller-Urey experiement
>muh finch beaks

Because it's what the Bible says. It's not complicated. A harder question is how you claim to be faithful but disregard all the parts that are inconvenient.

>inb4 it's just a metaphor

>That can change at the drop of a hat
That's the point user, it's not a negative connotation that opinions will change if prior theories are invalidated. The refusal to accept opposing opinions and selectively pick information to fit your own constructed argument is characteristic of creationists.
You can't selectively pick aspects of the bible (Creationism especially), and then ignore other aspects which are empirically proven to be incorrect.

The problem with anti-vaccination people and anti-GMO people is that I can find some sense behind that stuff.

More rational anti-GMO people raise actually decent reasons. Like companies(I'll give you a hint of one - they sprayed toxin over Vietnam and said it wasn't carcinogenic, it was, now they also make GMO) can modify the plants to die without fertilisers made by them or to release what-would-be toxin for any plant that isn't modified by the company that made them into the soil(as in bounds the farmer to use let's say GM wheat from only one company).

You're also reducing bio-diversity of the species you use which disadvantages aren't as visible with plants although they are still relevant - but when you look at animals, you can easily see it. There are some breeds of let's say - sheep - that are more resistant to some parasites and various viruses/bacteria they've carried but are less resistant to others which may mean that if you'll replace all sheep by breed Y because for instance in its own environment it grows bigger than other sheep's breeds, they may grow weaker than previous breeds in different environments. Same can apply to some plants.

There are also other reasons for it and not all are "if you eat them your DNA will be modified" tier.

For vaccines it's mostly financial stuff - like there's no point in using vaccines against ordinary flu because it mutates fast enough to make them worthless waste of money yet people keep using them for no reason.

Now the problem with creationists is that they at times point out some analysis done wrong here and such but they don't have any argument reaching 10% of coherency and sense the ones above reach.

>Now the problem with creationists is that they at times point out some analysis done wrong here and such but they don't have any argument reaching 10% of coherency and sense the ones above reach.
This is the core of the problem, any inconsistency within an empirically backed study from the 1930s or the 1940s is latched onto as an attempt to discredit quite literally every aspect of the scientific body.
There is not attempt to create valid criticisms of the scientific method, but rather to simply find attempted illogical scenarios and say "haha i knew you were wrong I showed you there!!!"

>Implying these things exist
>Implying that anything else has any jurisdiction over them instead
Aside from the unobservable of course since actual scientific hypotheses can make properly falsifiable predictions for things as of yet unobserved.

Both creationism "science" and explaination of life especially human with evolution trough natural selection and the history of development of matter trough big bang and all conjunctures.

People need to separate scientific fact from conjuncture.

Science just analyzes in purely objective way.

There's a huge difference between scientific laws and a meme made by some guys that became a story to be told in college classrooms.

It's better and simple to admit - we don't know how human came to be - we have not gathered enough information and discovered enough laws to start making correct assumptions.

You can still use scientific laws we have discovered and the scientific facts in various fields - to help and achieve tangible goods - but wasting your time inventing stories then trying to back them up with random information you think it's compatible - it's both time consuming and useless.

As Christians we know trough faith that God created the universe and earth - not trough scientific method we know that.

Yes, it is.

The truth never changes.

Science is always wrong.

If you can't see the obvious choice among the above, you're hopeless.

What possible reason would anyone have to invent these elaborate schemes to attack biology and geology?
It stems from childish clinging to a literal text from some arbitrary story book.
I feel sorry for anyone who is compelled under a religious obligation to stubbornly refuse to learn.

I wish I could put it in a less emotional personal attack, but that's what I feel about the issue.

Thankfully I don't deal with Christians in my day to day, the real victims are their own children who they are indoctrinating into helpless stupidity.

>and then ignore other aspects which are empirically proven to be incorrect.

Nothing needs to be ignored in the bible, because nothing in the bible has ever been "empirically proven to be incorrect."

I get that you idiots don't know you're dealing with something holy.

Better learn quick.

It's not the the vaccines are a problem.

It's that the population has become unthinking in receiving vaccines, which can vector literally anything into an entire population within a week.

The scientific method requires observation.

How do you do that when you're talking about the creation of the world, again?

Oh, yeah, that's right. You ask God, Who was there.

Then science cannot opine on the creation of the universe.

All it has is models.

Zero observation.

You will find to your horror that you are not an evolved amoeba on a random rock spinning in a self-made universe quickly enough.

Correct. You don't know.

God does.

Science is a tool - scientific laws can't be true or wrong, but trough scientific means - the laws can be tested again and again in many places of the universe and have same or simmiar results.
This for ordinary people means that trough scientific methods and defined science the material world can be controlled to some extent benefiting others - if the results are different the scientific tools are mostly capable of telling what interfered.

Science always proves science is wrong. Sometimes it takes a generation or two, but it always happens.

Because science is always wrong.

Man what's up with insane christians in this site

Everything about science is wrong.

The sooner you learn that, the better.

Are you by chance a protestant?

I know, right? Christians who believe the bible is true? Who ever heard of anything that bizarre!

I'm a born again Christian. I have never met a "protestant" in my life. I suspect neither have you.

Monsanto's Roundup is objectively a cancer in the farming industry, but the real reason why is the legal system. If Monsanto soybeans are found in a non-Monsanto soybean field, they can sue you for theft, which is fucked up. Oh, and farmers can't save seeds. That is why it's so shitty.

Genetic modification in other areas of agriculture is usually just shortcutting the decades it would take to breed those crops to produce desired strains.

GMO opposition is usually just ignorant and have no idea how broad the "o" in GMO reaches. I've met a diabetic who was staunchly opposed to GMO's until she realized where her insulin comes from.

There is literally nothing wrong with gene editing.

Yes and Science is simply an attempt to accurately define the truth. Considering the fact that there is quite literally no consensus among Christian demagogues on interpretations of various aspects of scripture, it's fairly hypocritical to claim that constant redefinition of theory is a negative aspect of science. Science is quite literally a constant process of elimination

You are a christian not a Christian - you just have a title and no spiritual appurtenance to Church of God.

You can only be a Christian if you're baptized in Orthodox Church and have an active life in Church.

It's actually pretty bizarre to me, how people get extremely defensive over this stuff

No, it is not. Science is not a tool to determine truth.

It is a tool to hypothesize ideas that may or may not be proven false.

Huge difference.

For copyright infringement. Sorry. Edited that a little.

Sorry you believe that. You'll find out how asinine that is one day.

Next thing you know Buddhists will be swearing that Buddha existed!

>I get that you idiots don't know you're dealing with something holy.
Arbitrarily claiming holiness doesn't place your rhetorical position any higher my friend. If you genuinely mean to tell me that stories such as Noah's ark stand up under empirical scrutiny, you're seriously misguided.

They are ridiculous Time Cube tier cranks, apparently.

Equally weird and apparently your god blessed you with quads. Must be a sign

Except the "creation" of the world aka the formation of Earth is already a scientifically accepted hypothesis. If you're talking about the formation of the universe, it ends in conjecture and hypothesis, but we fully understand how the Earth was formed.

Jesus is lucky that it took only around 2000 years for your cult to show up and be finally right.

It's understandable that you're terrified of the concept of our own inevitability and irrelevance but that's simply a concept every adult has to understand at a certain point in life.

And why do you believe that God knows that?

>God's eyewitness account
As far as we can understand through the fog of countless editing and mistranslations

Except within the realm of positivism the true end goal is to define the universe's physics, which is a pretty abstract concept. I personally see that as an attempt to derive the truth, but at the same time other people may disagree with that.

God made sure that every translation, the exact memes and engrams were transcoded directly into the magical letters to ensure 100% data fidelity.

Are you referring to King James's bible? Or to the multiple prior edits which were universally accepted within Europe and Russia.

So are you Catholic or Orthodox?

Then that must mean that the scripture was incorrect from the beginning?

I bet you know next to nothing about either subject

you're reflecting talking points shoved down your throat by demagogues.

Well, they can't all be right can they?

Proofs?

No they are all WRONG except for mine!
Only I am rightous and Holy, no one else, NO NOT ONE, Thus sayeth the Lord and me.

>who the truth is
A predicate is not a person.

Where is eastern orthodox represented in this? As simply orthodox? I was under the assumption that Byzantine orthodox was separate from Russian orthodox.

It's not arbitrary at all. The bible tells the story of the earth from beginning to end, and is about 30% prophecy. That prophecy comes true 100% of the time.

Only God does that.

Don't avoid the question. Which denomination is right.

That you think the collective wisdom of mankind is a match for the God Who spoke the universe into existence should demonstrate to you just how idiotic you actually are, and how desperate you are for man's approval.

>That prophecy comes true 100% of the time.
Please give me examples of these prophecies, represented within the bible, which have come true.

I date back to 32 AD.

When did your cult church splinter off of the Roman cult church again?

As an adult, with children who are adults, with children of their own, your assumptions about me are as correct as your assumptions about God.

Are you suggesting there is something God does not know?

You can get it directly from Him, if you have the balls for it. He likes showing off His work. And He likes people with balls.

>My wife's son
L e l

Idk. This is just a small part of the evolutionary tree of Christianity.

I don't care what the goals of your useless philosophy are.

You were born dead, are dead, and if you don't get resurrected, you're going to suffer the second death.