How can anyone doubt evolution after looking at the historical evidence?!

The same way they doubt human races.

Because the normal man is more alienated in these places, the more delusional and afraid arrive. Creationism is just the start, soon you will have genuine David Icke followers within the next few years. This is the fate of all hysterical places with no strict moderation

We only have evidence of micro-evolution, macro-evolution is still inconclusive as a scientific theory, although it obviously has some merit.

See

Icke is much more reasonable than the average creationist. Shit, have you actually READ his books? It's full of the same anti-semitic canards, gnostic thought and chaoskampf that have existed for millennia, but with a cool modern twist.
Meanwhile, Creationism is outright denying logic, reason, meaningful associations between datapoints and abnegating historical observation of any kind in favor of an extremely myopic worldview that appeals to a tiny sliver of American protestantism. Icke reaches out through history to support his theory, crackpot as it is, while Creationists actively look away from everything beyond their bibles. I blame Sola Fide for this.

Whales didn't evolve into the animal on the right though.
The inverse supposedly happened.

Alright we have this so called microevolution.
We can observe the impact of mutation (various spontaneous changes to the genetic code), selection (selection of favored individuals) and gene drift (Random selection that occurs in every finite population).
Mutation can generate new traits through random alterations, either positive, negative or neutral.
Selection has a decent chance to sort out the negative traits and keep the positive traits.
Drift is responsible for which neutral traits remain and can influence all traits as well.

But there is no limiting factor to this microevolution. If populations split then two new species can eventually emerge if there is both no interbreeding between the two populations and if either the selection factors for both populations change or the populations are small enough to be significantly affected by gene drift.

And there is definite evidence of various homologies and genetic similarities between species that can in various cases be used to prove their descent. There are also observable cases of the consequences of these population splits in various states of progress towards speciation.
This is essentially macroevolution. Just microevolution over longer time periods.

In response to that whale comic, the guy is so biased it isn't even funny. Just look at this shit. He believes that any explanation given for similar creatures having similar structures is a cop-out fairy tale.

>someone was autistic enough to make a reply to a jack chick tract

I've been surrounded by YEC's all my life. They can be good people, but it's really quite astounding how much mental gymnastics they go through. The amount of people with such willful ignorance combined with the cognitive dissonance and stubbornness is truly remarkable to me.

Most YEC’s and a lot of people generally think that Darwin came up with the idea of evolution. He didn’t. By the time he wrote “On the Origin” the idea of evolution was already common place within the scientific community. That’s why his book was called “On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection. It was the “Natural Selection” part that was new and revolutionary. As opposed for example to evolution by means of passing on acquired traits (Lamarckism)

I remember having this one history and geography teacher who knew Lucy was a biped, but he believed the whole "everything is made for man to use" stuff. At least he's better than my science teacher, who believed everything that Ken Ham says. At least he didn't take Comfort or Hovind seriously.

He tried to use this presentation to convince me.

Because its not evidence its delusion a monkey can never become a man just like a dog can never be a cat or a bird a fish

Why was YEC successful in america?

That's because all three of your statements are true even under the theory of evolution.
A modern species can not become an entirely different modern species that exists at the same time.

However:

The population of a common ancestor of a monkey species and a human species will eventually give rise to a population of that monkey species and a population of that human species.

The population of a common ancestor of a dog species and a cat species will eventually give rise to a population of that dog species and a population of that cat species.

The population of a common ancestor of a bird species and a fish species will eventually give rise to a population of that bird species and a population of that fish species.

Well leftcuck race denialists deny evolution even to this day

>responding to bait

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creationism

Just go to the countries/regions portion and you'll see the U.S.'s history with it.

its not bait
just because everything was created from the same material doesn't me we evolved from one thing to another its silly

>40% of all americans

jesus christ

Exactly.
m.youtube.com/watch?v=UJKBCIWh6XA

Why do scientists think evolution is true?

>Common traits
When we look at the animals and plants that are alive today we clearly see a lot of similarities. When we group species together based on the number and kind of similarities we get groups like “vertebrates”, “crustaceans”, fungi”, “trees”, “mammals”, etc.
We can pretty accurately establish how closely related curtain species are based on these shared characteristics.
This alone suggest common ancestry just like you can group people together by the same principle. You probably share more characteristics with close kin than with random strangers.

>The fossil record
The fossil record is far from complete and it will never be complete. Not in the sense that there will be a complete fossil for every (small or large) evolutionary step. This is simply due to the fact that fossils are the exception. Most things that die degrade without leaving a trace, let alone a fossil. So we should be grateful for every fossil that we discover.
The fossils that we do find, fit very well with the groups (clades) we made when looking at what is alive today. The animals and plants of the past share a lot of similarities with the animals and plants of today. And, again just like with humans, it makes sense that “more similarities” means “more closely related”. By lining the fossils up next to each other we can see changes over time, as in necks getting longer or tails getting shorter, etc.

[-cont]

[-cont]

>Radiometric dating
There are a lot of way to determine how old something is. Depending on what it is you can use different methods of measuring. These methods are not perfect. Each has its own accuracy and each has its own range over time. C14 is only useful for things that once were alive (not suitable for “dead rocks”) and is only reliable for samples up to about 40,000 years old. Other methods can accurately go back millions and even billions of years.
Note that the methods of dating have been developed independently of evolutionary scientists.
It is a very technical subject. Read the wiki’s for more info (…/wiki/Radiocarbon_dating and …/wiki/Radiometric_dating)

>DNA
This really is the crown jewel. DNA analyses gives unprecedented insights into relationships and ancestry between different species. It proves, without a doubt(!) the common descent of all living things. See pic related. It is such an accurate tool that the same techniques are used as evidence in court, as tools for fighting disease and developing drugs, as tools for engineering ne crops and many more.

All these (and more) points reaffirm the validity of the theory of evolution. The fact that evolution hasn’t been falsified doesn’t mean it cannot be falsified. Any of the above subjects could generate evidence that contradicts evolution. But it hasn’t.

[-epilogue]
And even if we were at the beginning of our quest to understand our world and we had no evidence at all(!), we could still reasonably deduce that an “evolution-like” process was happening. All you have to accept for that is (a) traits are passed on to the next generation and (b) this passing on does not have 100% copying fidelity. I.e. changes will accumulate over time.

Thank you, user. You're doing the Lord's work.

I would argue that it doesn't conclusively prove the common descent of all living things.
Eukaryotes are most certainly all descended from one common ancestor since the introduction of mitochondria was a singular event etc.

But the wide display of horizontal gene transfer among bacteria and possibly among precursors to bacteria through transduction (Genes transfered through bacteriophages), transformation (Genes transfered through the absorption of ambient DNA) and conjunction (transfer of genes through F-Plasmids etc) casts some doubt on the idea of total common descent as far as I can tell.

Without the full knowledge of how life first formed and when to properly define the autocatalytic processes that would give rise life as life I think it could be a possibility that there were multiple origins of early life that became indistinguishable from one another through various mechanisms of horizontal gene transfer (Not necessarily identical to the ones I just mentioned) or some other mechanism.

Good point. It could be that we find out that there are two or three independent trees of life. But even that wouldn’t disprove evolution or common descent. It would only prove that these are (even) more common processes than we thus far thought.

Meh, I believe in socio economic factors, evolution and the holocaust, but I'm also told that I'm a liberal cuck and then presented with outdated information and conspiracy theories.

So id give a shit, but people can believe whatever delusions they want.

What happens when those who don't accept these ideas teach the next generation? Will we start to go backwards in terms of technological progress?

Anyone wanna check this out?
www-personal.umich.edu/~feliks/debunking-evolutionary-propaganda-prt4/

Evolution isn't some political issue, it's just science. It's only a big political issue according to creationists, in America.

Even in Muslim countries they teach evolution.

wtf is this shit even supposed to mean?

As Dave Rubin says: the way society should progress is that all ideas must be given light, and the more ideas that are displayed, the better ideas that are based on logic and fact will succeed.

So long as free speech is given a voice, and ideas are given light, there is hope.

Most people aren't creationist nowadays.

But look at it like this:

Martin Luther King- a reverend- said;

“Science investigates; religion interprets. Science gives man knowledge which is power; religion gives man wisdom which is control. Science deals mainly with facts; religion deals mainly with values.

The two are not rivals. They are complementary.

Science keeps religion from sinking into the valley of crippling irrationalism and paralyzing obscurantism. Religion prevents science from falling into the marsh of obsolete materialism and moral nihilism.”

Basically saying that any explanation is automatically a magical cop-out. Remember, these people are deluded.

Fair enough. And besides, Ken Ham seems to be doing a good job of showing the problems with creationism. I just hope they remain strong in Christ.

Fuck it m8, I'm Christian but the faith has gone under reform to better suit the needs of the modern era.

Christ is based tho.

Amen to that.

I don't know how you did it, but you did. Hit the nail right on the head.
And the delusional are most comfortable shouting and screaming and yelling and using faulty logic and feels more than anything else. Normies just get out because they don't want to deal with this shit. And in the end, every board where discussion is to be had ends being a shitshow of freaks, weirdos, crazies or shitposters who just use it as a platform to fling shit at each other and at reason itself.

>I just hope they remain strong in Christ.
Thta's the fear, isn't it?
That if you accept evolution, you are one step closer to renouncing your faith.

>the way society should progress is that all ideas must be given light

Will never agree to this. Call me whatever the fuck you like, but no.
Some things must be put to rest and outright banned, since they just poison discussion space. i.e. communism, nazism, etc.

I prefer to keep my faith and my facts separate from one another.

Why not? One could bring up nazism/communism, and another tells them why it's bullshit and gives the reasons.

But if you don't counter these ideas with other ideas, what's to say that similar ideas won't eventually rise up?

We learn from histories mistakes and crimes and hope that we don't repeat them.

Communism is hated and so is fascism and nazism. They were tried and they both resulted in misery, and death.

Because they're malicious and dangerous. And because you don't allow them room to sprout, or else they get ballsy and start popping up everywhere.
Did you ever honestly have a discussion with a gommie or a stormfag and he came out a wiser man afterward? Because I don't think anyone did, once you've been indoctrinated in this shit only professional help or yourself can get you out.
Do you think Radical Islamism should be allowed too?

.....good point.

>I prefer to keep my faith and my facts separate from one another.
Excuse me, i didnt mean it as a personal attack or critique. But more as an observation on (hard line) Christians.

A good point.

One of the reasons why it's still being practiced and allowed because political correctness doesn't allow us to criticise us like we can with Christianity, apparently criticising Islam is the equivalent of being racist to Arabs apparently.

No, you don't. The second you see a doctrine is intent on causing harm and nothing else, no discussion is to be done, then or ever again. Because idiots or zealots always show up and you will never ever convince them in a public space that their ideology is false. And if you do give them a platform, they will have room to convince the uninformed or the morons or the alienated of their idiocy and you don't want that. It goes the same way for:
>communists
>nazis
>fascists
>radical islam
>radical zionism
>theocratic christianity
>absolutist monarchism
>racial politics of every kind(including positive racism)
>anarchism
>extrmee forms of libertarianism

Etc.

Ban them outright and the people will forget. Once other ideas pop up(though I doubt they haven't been covered in that shot list), fight them too. And for God's sake, don't give them a place and right to speak, the last thing a world needs is a bunch of extremists with a speaker.

Sorry, I'm just really tired. I need to go to bed, but this is such a good thread.

>/pol/
>Christian board

A board that hates on Jews, wants to deny women rights, impose fascist ideology on others, and demands women don't dress like whores, and get butthurt when they are critiqued...

Are you sure they're not radical jihadists themselves.

Of a sort, yes.

Most Muslims aren't even Arabs. And most Muslims aren't radicalized but a good chunk of them really is.
What's interesting is that, as is the case with everywhere on the planet, the better the living conditions the smaller chance of Sharia seeping into the public sphere. See
>azerbaidjan
>tunisia
>albania

I imagine that a steady increase in living conditions in Islam will eventually deradicalize them, if we avoid major war in the next few generations.

Seriously, anyone?

Well At least you have no double standards.

But should you criticise an idea that's rising, you can extinguish the fire before it burns everything ideas.

As sun Tzu said- The supreme art of war is to subdue the enemy without fighting.

Or introduce Islamic reformists and give them a voice, thus allowing them to practice their faith in a way that isn't detrimental to western culture.

I don't know pal, if a majority of Muslim countries don't support gay rights they seem pretty radical to me.

I don't. And I'd have them hung by their feet until blood starts dripping from their eyes but that's another thing altogether.

Rising ideas should be given the necessary amount of weight until they are proven to be malicious. Because at the end of the day let's stop pretending, democracy and free speech is and will always be under siege, from outside and inside forces and making compromises is the only way for it to survive demagogues and populists preying on the fears of the people. At least for now.
I have no qualms in busting a few heads that would love nothing more than to knock on my door at 4 in the morning and dragging me out screaming for wrongthink.

>sun tzu shit
Agree 100%

I looked at the site but it is unreadable.
Nothing new, just the same endless string of YEC retardation. Not worth my time.

That would be step 2. But banning the extreme voices is absolutely necessary.

A good chunk of Eastern Europe doesn't support gay rights, would you consider them radical?
Not saying I don't agree(I actually do), just putting things in perspective.

you are dangerously close to becoming what you fight against

I don't know pal, you're starting to sound like something you want to hate.

I hate when people just post walls of text instead of maybe putting a link to the page. That happened to me on /christian/. A Baptist kept telling me I was an athiest and would be judged for compromising God's Word. Y'know, fundie stuff.

That's bullshit and you know it.
I'm center-left, atheist. I disagree with libertarians, conservatives, liberals, socialists, ecologists on many many issues, but I would not ban their right to say it or their right to try to implement policies that I don't agree with. In the end, many people might actually do.

All those I enumerated above tho? They would like nothing more than to ban everything else and destroy the foundations of our society to shape them into their own purpose. Why would I allow pests like that to exist when everything, but everything they do is try to destroy everything myself and most of those around me cherish and hold dear? Why should I allow a man who was declared himself to be my enemy in principle and in fact to use freedom of speech against me when he wants to destroy me with it and then ban it?
No. End them by law and if necessary by force.

Never thought of it like that.

You've been pretty based throughout the thread lad, I like you.

Well I'm centre to left as well, but I don't think purging all who preach extremism is going to work when you can take the piss out of them and demonise them without a move of political power.

>banning ideas

That's a very dangerous road to take. Just look at any of the societies - current or historical - that practice it. Freedom isn't always nice, but it sure beats the alternatives.

>I believe in socio economic factors
What do you mean by this?

People have taken the piss out of Hitler in the 20's and many others like him. I'd rather have him crushed than laughed at. All it takes is one more economic crash or a war or a few terrorist bombings and people like that, emboldened by the free speech you support and then the fear and panic will win and then they'll start curtailing the same free speech in the name of security. I will not have it.
Democracy has moved too far ahead of humanity in general and in those gaps appear the despots that will use it against you and I and everyone else.

I live in a country where both communism and nazism are banned and that's just the way I liked it. Yeah, we've been through both of them. And there is nothing that can convince me that allowing free speech to those who protest against it is a good idea.

>And there is nothing that can convince me that allowing free speech to those who protest against it is a good idea.

So in other words, you shouldn't be able to argue banning free speech from them, either. Because you're protesting against free speech right now.

You state that you will happily use violence to fight against a (in your eyes) violent doctrine, How is that not a violent doctrine on its own?

Or are you saying that your violence us justified, cos aimed against evil?

Reminder that evolution and free will cannot co-exist.

...

explain or be bullshit.

>violence
I never meant it as "go and beat the shit out of those fags", just as "you are not allowed to say this, and if you keep it up you'll find yourself in jail".
Violence is justified in self defense and I consider fighting for my own rights as self defense. They share the same rights as I do, and yes, I am curtailing theirs. But that is only because if they win I would be left with no rights at all. So no, I don't care if their feelings get hurt.

Let me put this as succinctly as I possibly can: am happy to allow free speech to anyone who doesn't want to ban it.

>Let me put this as succinctly as I possibly can: am happy to allow free speech to anyone who doesn't want to ban it.

Which translates to banning it from certain groups and therefore yourself as well.

Bullshit. You're running in circles and you know it.

Yes but people were racists and were exposed to an idea back then.

They tried it, they failed, and it's now hated. With this modern era, you can now use history as an argument to defy extremism and critique extremist ideologies.

>Which translates to banning it from certain groups and therefore yourself as well.
THIS

Free speech is only truly free if it applies to ALL, without ANY prior restrictions.

...

But you clearly DON'T want free speech if you support banning anyone from saying free speech shouldn't be allowed. You're half a step from supporting totalitarianism yourself, the only difference is the degree to which people should be allowed to disagree with you.

Forgot the pic.

No, you ban it. Because there may be a time when it veers its ugly head again and I don't want that to happen and I don't want them to be allowed to spout that bullshit freely.
Nothing exists in a vacuum and, like it or not, compromises have to be made. If that means a hateful groups of 1-2-3% doesn't have the right to talk so be it.
And I repeat, they would like nothing more than to take your freedoms and everyone else's freedoms. Why should they be allowed a platform for this?

>jesus is the strong force
creationists are really dumb

I've honestly never heard someone use that. That was from the tract itself, which is pretty strawman on its own.

Because if you don't allow them freedoms, YOU'RE ALREADY TAKING AWAY EVERYONE'S. "You're free to do whatever I want you to" is no freedom at all.

I want everyone to be allowed free speech as long as they don't want to ban it. Why would they be allowed a right they hate anyway?
Would you allow radical Islam a platform? Or say, a Eugenics Party on voting ballots?
Principles are fine, but don't let them make you weak. You're too naive tebehe.

these are smaller differences than those between chimp subspecies who live right next to eachother

>already taking away everyone's

Nope. Just a minority that hates that right anyway. You're running in circles.
And you're also very naive. Some ideas are malicious and need to be banned, get used to it or go living in Star Trek because until we reach that point, sorry, things need banning.

>I want everyone to be allowed free speech

No you don't. It's not free if there's "as long as".

How can anyone look at pic related and still believe there's a god?

OK, so I dont want to ban free speech.
I say free speech is allowed as long as you dont insult Jesus or the bible. Why would you want to do that in the first place. you're not really missing anything. So you still have free speech, you can say what you want as long as you don't insult my main man.
Agreed?

Yes you are. Just because you wouldn't want to act in a certain way anyway, doesn't mean you don't lose the right to act like that if doing so is banned.