AiG vs Evoanth

I have no citation, it's an anecdote.

In the words of other great American HS instructors:
>you can believe what you want

Fair enough. I'll take their word for it on the notion that we come from apes and are therfore still apes, while you believe that man came from the dirt and the first woman came from a rib.

>you believe that man came from the dirt and the first woman came from a rib.
Um...what? I was expressing solidarity against the abysmal state of the US education system, not advocating YEC.

Sorry, I have a hard time telling the two apart at this point. They're very close to one another.

But wait, if not evolution, then what?

Yes, we have 17 elements in common with dirt, and when we die, we decompose into dirt.

You ignorant twatwaffle.

You need to work on that reading comprehension brah

You know damn well what I meant.

>twatwaffle

Oh, ok I see it now. You just corrected the teacher and they were an asshole about it.

Daily Reminder that "Lucy's" bones were found miles apart and 60 feet deeper in spots.

Daily Reminder that most of you are mindless drones.

The person telling you to work on comprehension wasn't me, but yeah, that's what's up.

I cannot for the life of me understand how we can consider this sort of behavior acceptable from instructors.

Evolution is junk science, and has actually damaged the field of science for decades to come. It's sheer utter nonsense concocted by a man with a degree in theology who thought the human cell was "simple" and "like a bag of salt".

You talking about the knee joint, the one you clearly don't see in the picture?

Nope.

Im not him, but yeah

I agree wholeheartedly.

Ok.

From the wikipedia article.
"In November 1971, near the end of the first field season, Johanson noticed a fossil of the upper end of a shinbone, which had been sliced slightly at the front. The lower end of a femur was found near it, and when he fitted them together, the angle of the knee joint clearly showed that this fossil, reference AL 129-1, was an upright walking hominin. This fossil was later dated at more than three million years old – much older than other hominin fossils known at the time. The site lay about 2.5 kilometres (1.6 mi) from the site where "Lucy" subsequently was found, in a rock stratum 200 feet (61 m) deeper than that in which the Lucy fragments were found."

Seems to match your claim.

Why are creationists so invested in lying about the facts? Don't their scriptures say something about bearing false witness?

I said nothing about the knee, dipshit. I know this guy posts this copy pasta every time someone brings up the knee.

"Lucy" is not a full skeleton, and most of the bones are from different creatures. It's just another in a long line of hoaxes about a "missing link" that never existed.

The pelvis. Not the knee. The pelvis.

And both sides saying that these bones were scattered over miles, and at different depths, proves my point.

Doesn't matter, they want to be martyrs for a cause, no matter how stupid it may be.

The bones weren't spread over several miles, they were found in the same place.

Also, what other animals? What other animals could possibly look like a damn ape-man?

[citation needed]

...

But sharing like 99% of our DNA whith primates isnt proof for evolution?

...

...

Hello, reddit.

Almost everything we know about evolution has been gathered after Darwin.

Creationists focus on Darwin and 19th century racism because an up to date understanding is neither desirable nor easy for them. Anaximander proposed evolution in ancient Greece. He thought pic related happened.

Obviously he was wrong on many levels.

Democritus in ancient believed in atoms, but was wrong about how they worked.

The aspects of the beliefs of those two men that we have confirmed thousands of years into the future scarcely resemble the original beliefs. That's because hypotheses are either refined or destroyed through experimentation. Evolution exists, but it happens in a manner much more complicated than Anaximander or for that matter Darwin, envisioned.

Likewise chemistry and physics happen, but in a manner much more complicated than Democritus envisioned.

>FEMANON HERE
>USA isn't first world

"First World" literally means the United States and countries politically aligned with the United States with market capitalism and high development.

But remember, it's [current year], user.

>implying I implied I was a woman
You'd think for a history board folks would have more reading comprehension.

...

>
"First World" literally means the United States and countries politically aligned with the United States with market capitalism and high development.
Not anymore, it doesn't. At least, not in casual speech.

Until the mudslimes take our homes, women, and children, we are a First-World nation blessed by YHWH and saved by Yeshua. I will fight to my last breath to defend it.

Teacher asks class what a first world second world and third world. I reply first is aligned with us second world is neutral and third world is aligned with soviet Russia. >no user that's wrong first world means rich and third world means wrong
Teacher than asks for an example of a second world country I say Botswana. Teacher proceeds to write India under second world and Botswana under third world. >she doesn't know Botswana has a higher hdi than india.

>Until the mudslimes take our homes, women, and children
Good thing you have the whole Atlantic to protect you from them.

>we are a First-World nation
Debatable.

>blessed by YHWH and saved by Yeshua
[citation needed]

>I will fight to my last breath to defend it.
Discussing race realism on /pol/ isn't fighting, user.

>issued detention for a week for "insubordination"
Land of the Free

Meh, till the get here, I'll leave the fighting to people who actually know how to handle high-class weaponry.

...

you were wrong, second world is Warsaw pact 'n sheet

Perhaps they don't trust sources outside of academia. Also, remember all this SJW crap that's seeping in, they may have seen it as a possible "first step," and then next thing you know, they'll be asking the "white devils" to bow as the black students go by because their new cirriculum was written by black supremacists. Remember, these are strange times, user.

>and Sheol is right beneath our feet.
Well, Sheol means "the grave". So, yeah, it is right beneath our feet.

...

Sheol is often considered the Hebrew underworld. Basically hell before that concept had come around.

No. Hell is about torture, demons, and damnation. Sheol is a gray, bleary, inactive afterlife. Two totally different concepts. Like Tartarus and Hades.

If I'm not mistaken, the concept of Sheol was mentioned first, whereas Hell was a concept introduced later on, about the time of Hades

...

I struggle to comprehend how some people cannot understand this, they think that an idea has to be set in stone and pass this notion into their lives. A world full of people who need it one way or the other, need it to be told by another and cannot form an honest opinion that they can keep to themselves.
>“The only true wisdom is in knowing you know nothing.” - Socrates

They don't care. They are driven by fear. Fear is the mind killer.

>triggered by floofasaurus rex
Stay jelly.

>clearly a Chinese velociraptor relative
>"just a bird folks, nothing to see here!"

Nothing Darwin posited has ever been observed as far as macro-evolution is concerned. Nothing. No transitional fossils have been found to back up his hypothesis. None. Saying all fossils are transitional is saying none are; certainly Darwin did not say all fossils are transitional.

Darwin, a theologist, said the cell was "simple" like a "bag of salt".

This is the person you take your scientific notions from?

Do you also consider DNA to be "simple", like "a bag of salt"?

No, Darwin stunted science; he did not enhance anything. His theory is wrong, and the evidence for his theory being wrong is overwhelming to all but a Darwinian acolyte such as yourself.

> dinosaurs are birds
But that is other way around, the birds are dinosaurs.

Go home Kent, you're drunk.

> what is neo-darwinism
Evolution theory advanced beyond Darwin by modern day, user.

Don't question them, it'll just make 'em angrier.

>simple, like a bag of salt says the theologian

It hasn't, actually. Only the lies have become more sophisticated.

>A T-Rex sprouted wings and turned into a chicken, I swear.

In the mid 19th century. That's like judging an astronomer, who probably had a degree for something else, for not knowing that Mars didn't have canals.

You'd know a lot about that, wouldn't you?

They teach you that in Sunday School? Look kid, you obviously don't know what you're talking about, so why don't you go study the evolution of birds and learn how that is nothing more than a strawman.

> lies have become more sophisticated.
You can literally buy bunch of bacterial culture and see how evolution goes on in your home, user-kun.

...

No, the T. Rex was wiped out. Modern birds come from the small surviving dinosaurs that evolved into birds. Key word here is "small".