Creationism Part 2: the Baptists Strike Back

Probably because half the stuff was traced over, though some say Chick himself was used as a model for the expressions on each of their faces.
Plus, the creatures on the chart used in actually came from the book "Early Man" which was published a few years earlier.

...

Fix't

That monkey will rip his fucking arm off and beat him to death with it.

Just a reminder that these guys represent a tiny minority among all Christians.

Looks like an older John Oliver

Reminder that they have power in the U.S.

Just a reminder some of us live in the bible belt where they are not.

>Tennessee and Mississippi
>among the poorest and blackest states in the union
k...

>Mississippi

>tiny minority

Something like 40% of Americans believe this stuff.

Louisiana*
still, considering they have the demographics of Liberia I wouldn't say theyre representative of US anti-intellectualism at all

Can't tell if we're supposed to identify with the kid on the right. If so, they did a horrible job.

...

Blame Martin Luther, Henry VIII and above of all Jean Calvin for that.

It happened again.

They're the only consistent Christians, whihc tells you something that most Christians reject this literalist crap.

Americans are a global minority, most Christians live in Africa and Latin America and they don't tend to be fundies.

And again.

Hmmm... Interesting point. Reminds me of something I discovered recently related to evolution: The main story people want us to believe is that 4-6 million years ago, humans didn't exist, and that we had a common ancestor with a chimpanzee. They say that this "wan't a chimp" but that it also "wasn't a human." So that means it would have to have features of both. The problem is, chimpanzees don't have features of both, and humans don't have features of both. If humans and chimps don't have features of both, then how could the common ancestor have features of both? That means either humans evoluved from chimps, or chimps evolved from humans. Obviously since humans are more advanced than chimps, the humans must have "evolved" from chimps. However, if chimps evolted into humans, then how are there still chimps? According to evolution, birds evolved from dinosaurs, therefore there are no dinosaurs left. If humans evolved from chimps, then IT MAKES NOT SENSE FOR THERE TO BE ANY CHIMPS

>The problem is, chimpanzees don't have features of both, and humans don't have features of both. If humans and chimps don't have features of both, then how could the common ancestor have features of both?

Are you retarded? Why should we have features of chimps,and they of us, just because we share an ancestor? Does it blow your mind that we don't have gills, even tho our ancestors did?

>this copypasta is still going.

This has to beg the question, why do so many scientists believe in evolution? Even though many scientists do NOT believe in it, there is still a significant percent that does. If you think about it, the darwinists have the same evidence as us, but we can come to different conclusions because we don't have the bias of darwinism. Darwinism is the biased assumption that Richard Darwin had all the correct ideas about life science, based on the fact that he was a leading scientist of the time (the 19th century). Actually, Darwin wasn't even a real scientist, he just drew pictures and made stuff up on a boat, but the darwinists don't want to hear that. The bias of darwinism makes many people deluded into thinking that the evidence always points in favor of THEIR view, even though to an unbiased person that would not be the case. But the delusional/biased people aren't the only ones that make up believers in evolution. Since evolutionists have a monopoly on the media and on education, they are able to brainwash (for lack of a better word) aspiring students. That is how some people can continue to be deluded. However, science teachers also dismiss any evidence against evolution a priori, and even refuse to discuss it at all. Many students end up thinking that the only evidence out there is evidence IN FAVOR of evolution, and they're just ignorant of the facts that go against the mainstream theory.

>This has to beg the question, why do so many scientists believe in evolution?

They don't, they have been persuaded by the evidence. No "belief" needed.

And though I walk through the valley of the shadow of bait, I shall fear no hook.

Ah, the arraignment of baitedness. such a petty soliliquous development in the life and times of this incrementational existance. Dissolocutionally, such an accusation is widespread amongst those denizens of such a forum as this. Such an interlocution inevitariably leads one to assert a number of logical "fallacies," the likes of which include the impossibility of one such that he is of the disposition most true to the ideology in question, simply put, thusforth such a fallacy has been known in the present day and age as a "strawman" or a "slippery slope" fallacious argumentation. one of the concerns with such an argument as "bait" is a supplemenation of one "murphies law," a statute which holds that one extreme argument may be so similar to that of a comedic appropriatation of such as to be indistinguisable from it. this concern though, as far as can be determined by an unbiased and logically unfallacious mind such as have considered the issue, is nevertheless wrought by one slight issue, which is that one can never "prove" the truth value of the stipulation of murphies law using a proof-theoretic analysis, which imbues a degree of uncertainness into the "law." one solution thusly would almost certainly be to accept the non-baitedness of such a claim, taking such a stance as the "null hypothesis" of the claimant, who should be required to prove his own stance as an impressionist of extremism before a communal forum shall take his own thoughts as bait or such as.

Creationism is a meme even in Christianity. Only backwards southern US states believe in it.

The closest you can get is the more popular intelligent design theory (which is funny because Darwin got flak mostly because of his arguments against it. Said counter-argument was just the usual counter-argument for the teleological argument).

I still don't get why people will happily take the piss out of creationists but tip their fedora at you if you make fun of other religious beliefs. Is there just that much more proof that creationism is nonsense?
I know you can't disprove religion entirely, but surely there are many more common beliefs that seem just as ridiculous, really.

Like, how do people reconcile that stuff about how snakes were cursed to crawl on the ground as a punishment with evolutionary explanations of how they came to be that way?
I don't really know a lot about Christianity, so sorry if I'm referencing a story that isn't actually in the Bible or something.

that story is part of creationism

The snake thing is more of folklore than core belief
Like how Winter happened because the ruler of the underworld kidnapped a goddess's daughter.

And quite frankly it would be a screwed up story if the snake caused all that shit and didn't get punished for it yet everyone else did.

He and his kin were cursed to crawl on their bellies for all time. Basically "How the Snake Lost Its Legs."

Evolution predicts that humans and spiders can have a common ancestor that shares both the features of a spider and a human. However, that common acnestor would also have to have the features of all the other mammals, because the spider-human ancestor would also be the acnestor of all mammals. That gets to be pretty complex.
if you think about it, the common ancestor between humans and spiders actually isn't physically possible. Just think about the number of legs it would have had. Spiders have eight legs, humans have two, so you might think the common ancestor should have had 5 legs. However, the human-spider ancestor would have t o have had the features of the common ancestor of MAMMALs, not just humans. Since humans have 2, and other mammals have 4, then the number for the mammal ancestor would be 3. The spider-human ancestor would be (8+3)/2, which is 5.5. The human-spider ancestor would have to have had 5.5 legs, which is not a possible number of legs. If you have half a leg, it's not really a leg. You can have 5 legs, you can have 6 legs, but you can't have 5.5 legs. I think this means humans and spider would not have had a common ancestor, so they are from separate lineages in a family tree. Spiders might be the brother-in-law, and humans would be the brothers

Snake thing refers only to the devil, Satan used to be more powerful but after he tempted man into corruption God took away his legs (or to use a modern idiom "clipped his wings")

The more important question to be asked is whether or not the assumption can be made that you actually confused Murphy's law with Poe's law.
Or whether or not you've riddled your post with spelling mistakes on purpose.

I'm not sure you know what evolution actually is.
This is advanced shitposting.
This goes beyond.

We represent a tiny fraction of the world population.

We represent most actual honest and believing born again Christians.

The problem is you can't tell the difference between a Christian and a person who says he's a Christian.

This is truly a fantastic post. Not your bullshit "And again", but the fantastic jpg.

The devil is no legend.

You don't know what evolution is either.

It's the most vague and ill defined term in our lexicon.

Ah, the "No True Scotsman" argument. Classy.

Reminder that this shit is partially funded by a Republican Think Tank called the Institute for Religion and Democracy, and literally promote NEITHER.

African and LatAm Christians are even more rabidly fundie. Or were those catholics? I can't tell the difference.

not even really the devil

just a story of "why snakes crawl" "why women have shitty childbirthing while all other animals are alright" and "why the world sucks" with the third one being a question that tends to be at the core of a lot of religions.

very underrated

You don't even understand your own accusations.

No true Scotsman is about behavior, not belief, and not transformation.

Real honest to God Christians take the bible far more seriously than any other group on earth. That fact should not be a surprise to anyone who can reason.

The person who thinks that a common ancestor has to have the averaged features of all of its descendants wants to tell me that I don't know what evolution is.

youre not really a 4chaner, a person that post in Veeky Forums has to be a basement dweller neckbeard, therefore your opinions are not valid in any way

What are your thoughts on American foreign policy in the Mideast?

I feel bad for the americans and christians that are associated with retards like you
If I believed in god I'd feel even worse for him

>this is what they think scientific consensus is.

Those polls put Young Earth Creationists, Intelligent Design Creationists, and all the rest in the same camp.

This thread is absolutely and hilariously sad.

...

The persecution complex on this shit is ridic.
I grew up in Florida and I had a biology teacher who wore a crucifix and taught evolution anyway, without any sort of antagonism.

My girlfriend had one who laughed whenever he brought up evolution and made it perfectly clear that he didn't believe in it but taught it as a theory anyway.

Daily reminder that these states correlate with lower IQ and poverty.

Daily reminder that Christianity is a faith based on Jewish peasant insurrection in Rome.

Um... No? I haven't.

I noticed that they are occasionally slower, but that they also hunt mammoths to extinction, and build primitive shelter out of the bodies of other animals. How is this less intelligent?

All those responses are retarded. Please cite evidence of someone being fired for "mentioning God" alone.

>Surely, the fucking Jews were correct in selecting and worshiping the "true" god....among all the different cultures and gods created by men throughout history....

Religious idiots should all be gassed for having the gullibility gene that has plagued humanity for thousands of years....

This shit is impossible to read you stupid fuck

You're confused. I never said that. I said the missing link is missing for a reason; it doesn't exist. And all the candidates for missing links are proven frauds.

Correct, but then you contradict yourself as I am no 4channer, and only the opinions of 4channers are useless.

Bless Israel, be blessed. Curse Israel, be cursed. See the Caliphate rising? See it surround Israel?

Now read Ezekiel 38.

We're fine, thanks for your fake concern and bitter worldview.

kek

As is your life.

There is no "missing link," that's a leftover from the Great Chain of Being. What they find are relatives, not direct ancestors.

Also, proven by whom? Biochemists? Engineers?

Yes. Scientists prove that last generation's scientists were wrong, every single generation.

Because science is always wrong.

They have clothing, religion, tools, language, etc ,etc. These people are so deep in denial they're half way through the Earth's crust.

They're so retarded. They're the people that complain that blacks in the USA have a victim complext but they themselves are claiming there's a "war on christmas" and that atheists are opressing them. So fucking retarded. I love seeing conservative Americans visiting London, it's hilarious seeing their shock upon seeing how secular our society is.

I find it incredibly odd that although there is no seperation between Church and state in England we can still be so much more sane than you guys.

Are you more/less/as retarded as the people who think Earth is 6,000 years old?

My point is that that these people aren't qualified for this field. It's like a chemist trying to tell a technician he's wrong about something pertaining to his field.

Dr. David Menton, specialises in biochemistry. Criticizes paleontologists, individuals qualified for the job, on their classification of hominid fossils.

preferable to being """""always right"""""

>I find it incredibly odd that although there is no seperation between Church and state in England we can still be so much more sane than you guys
not really. it kinda evens out when you factor in all of your SJW's

>I don't know what interdisciplinary studies and methodology are please rape my face

/Thread

There are SO MANY misconception about the modern day evolution theory
But anti-evolutionists love to exploit these misunderstandings and imprecisions

what the fuck. The main criticism of the creation hypothesis, at least that of Ken Ham's, is that there for it to be true organisms would be going extinct literally within hours of coming to being. There belief is illogical and relies on a huge amount of faith whereas evolution by natural selection relies upon evidence.

Creationists are in denial. They're pretty much extinct in Europe and are only still a powerful body in America. How does it feel knowing that in 20 years your voice will be even tinier than it is now?

Why do you think we're saying different things?

Science is always wrong, and it always takes a generation or so for the new scientists to figure out how the prior scientists were wrong.

It's been this way for literally thousands of years, ever since scientists thought the earth was balanced on an infinite column of turtles and there were 1,017 stars in the sky.

And literally every generation of scientists say that the prior were wrong, but this time, well, this time, we're right!

He claimed that scientists sawed the actual Lucy fossil's pelvis in half and put it back together. In reality, it was a replica of the fossils. He was trying to bring them down to his level: a hack who tries to use his PhD to make people listen to him.

No, it is not preferable to be wrong, always, in any endeavor.

Because it's junk science.

Those bones are not from one animal.

It's just another hoax.

Creationists sometimes aren't even stupid, they're just so far in denial they refuse to acknowledge evidence as evidence.

>Junk science
There is no junk science, there is science and not-science

That's not it at all. The evidence is the evidence.

Every person looks at the same evidence with a different worldview. You look at the Grand Canyon with a thousand rock layers and think that those thousand rock layers were laid down slowly over time, maybe millions of years, by a little bitty river running through it.

I see the exact same evidence and see that the entire Grand Canyon was shaped by a massive and catastrophic amount of water suddenly being released just upstream after the Flood, and that each of those mud layers were laid down horizontally, whereupon they dried into sedimentary rock about 4600 years ago, by the bible's reckoning.

Same exact evidence. Seen drastically differently by two drastically different worldviews.

The evolution, specifically macro-evilution, is not science.

Especially as it is not observed. Ever. Not once.

Misspelling intentional.

The mistake here is that you assume that you can be indefinitely right while at the mercy of the unknown unknown.

The scientific community has the faith in itself to be effectively right about something, but only transitionally; because we understand what I've said above. In introductory classes, and classes on methodology, this is constantly stressed: That we have been wrong in the past, and that we can be wrong in the future, and that this is in no way something to be afraid of.

If you are somebody who's only ever interested in being "right" you will never learn a thing in your life. You have to isolate an answer from what is wrong to have something with verisimilitude. Otherwise you'll just believe anything you're told. So no. It's better to be able to be wrong, and willing to correct yourself.

Got the math on that, friend?

holy shit you're one of the serious cases. Let me just ask, do you honestly and truly believe Earth is 6,000 yars old?

That's kind of a pointless question

No need for macro and micro evolution
Just evolution
Species change, it's easy to observe in artificial selection made by humans (crops, cattle, dogs)
And they're just few example

If I come across a crime scene with another guy and there is a bullet riddled course, I am going to assume that a guy with a gun did it.

if the other guy looks at the same evidence as says it was probably done by fairies using magic, that does not make his view equally valid

Give or take about 75 years, yes.

>
corpse*

Anything observable is micro.

Anything that says micro turns animals into different kinds of animals is macro.

And evolution only means "change".

Yeah. No shit. Things change. That's why we have words like natural selection, adaptation, breeding, and mutations.

Why do we need "evolution" again?

oh, that's right, to convince you that you're just a random accident in a meaningless universe.

Species are not kinds; dobermans and dachshunds are still dogs; dogs and wolves are still canines.

Canines don't "evolve" into fish. Or birds. Or equines.

And when I point out that the other guy is also a cop, and responded faster than you, your assumption is equally false.

Science is not philosophy or art; it's not subjective and there is only one right answer. Regardless of whether or not you can bare to believe it, the secular, accepted theory of how the grand canyon and similar land forms came to be has a lot more evidence, backing and explanation from experts. The opinion that you desperatly want to be true is extremely lacking in this. I don't feel as though I need to cite anything since none of this evidence is hard to find at all. If you could find this board then you can surely find detailed evidence of how gorges are formed.

I ask you this; if there was conclusive, irrefutable evidence to suggest that nothing in Genesis happened as its said it did, what you stop believing in it? If you could give me irrefutable evidence that Genesis did happen word for word I would become a creationist.