Creationism vs Evolution

I bet you're globecucks too

>then we should expect to find much diversity among different human populations
From a superficial standpoint. Genetically, humans have little diversity. We must have been reduced to a very small genepool sometime in the past, because genetic studies show we are more inbred than our closest relatives (species-wise).

Why would geographers weigh in on this anthropological/ biological find you fucking dunce

Still, if we were all descended from like five people four thousand years ago I think we should expect even less shouldn't we?

We'd probably have been wiped out pretty soon since we'd all pretty much have the same resistances/vulnerabilities to the same infectious agents. We'd have a ridiculously small range of immunity as a group.

I read somewhere that during some ice age the were only like 4 families on earth, so we're all descendants of them. wouldn't we be instinct if the resistance thing is such a big deal?
[spoiler]actually I heard it from someone who read it so I might be saying utter shit[/spoiler]

It's a joke. Creationists rely on the observations made by people who have nothing to do with that field. Good example is David Menton, a biochemist who can somehow tell me what a fossil is or isn't. He tried to say that Lucy was nothing more than a chimpanzee, and that the "evilutionist" community had doctored the pelvis to suit their worldview.
Just watch a portion of "Lucy--She's no Lady" and you'll know what I'm talking about.

youtube.com/watch?v=p6RfIEVO6YQ

Jesus narrative is ancient story for us today ok?
For king David - Moses was ancient narrative.
For Moses the Genesis was ancient narrative.
You have to look into the context of that - the authors of Bible, what was the cultural context and what was the message sent by that - was it meant even then in their cultural context where the ancient stories were about gods creating the world usually out of watery chaos, Kings living for thousands of years, floods purging life of humans because of their sins.. it's all ancient traditions - from Canaanite, Egyptians and so on that authors of bible used, started to work from.
Gen 1 order of events is different from Gen 2 order of events - so it clues us that the author is doing something other than just giving you the perspective from a camera of what happened weeks after creation - ( also creation in the cultural sense and in the Hebrew meaning it's not ex-nihilo out of nothing - rather God uses chaos to make order)
A second possibility is that the author was not smart enough to realize that he was telling the same events with time schemes / scales that don't fit together.
Also Gen 2 looks more like poetry a painting in words - God is anthropomorphic has hands, makes man out of dirt - breaths life into his nostrils - it's a story that just any other culture had about creation.
While Genesis 1 is more like - although unscientific a glorious progressive creation, chaos > order > earth and stars > plants and life in water > birds and then land animals > and then humans.
Undoubtedly evolution in our world is a fact - but even knowing that don't look at genesis or creation stories from far ancient times trough the key of our understanding today - look at them in the context of their culture and most important understand what the author wanted to transmit? He wanted to shape you an exact image of creation - I gave you two points why he didn't do that - or there is something else, he is using the story to tell a message.

Why? If we're created Negros stay dumb forever.

If we evolved - Negros have hope and with care they can become better humans from this life now - and we have all the reasons to take care of them.

+ the climate, the social pressure, the mixture of genesis will normalize everyone and everything.

Bump

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

Humans and chimps evolved from another type of primate which is now extinct. But it took a long long time.

>this damn copypasta again.
Gonna take the bait anyway. Both humans and chimps are descended from a semi-bipedal arboreal ancestor who didn't knuckle walk. The creature in question, given the location of the fossils of early hominins, most likely lived in an open woodland. When the climate started to shift, one group became more adapted for the thick jungles where upper arm strength was a must, while others moved out onto the grasslands and perfected the bipedal walking of its ancestors. Think something like this, but much less robust.

>If humans and chimps don't have features of both, then how could the common ancestor have features of both?
I refuse to believe someone can be this wildly retarded

creationism is consistent with anti-racism
you can't believe in equality and evolution.

>one implies that certain races are cursed to a life of servitude by a drunkard
>the other implies that environmental pressures make us look different
Yep, "anti-racism."

Simple. Evolution. It rests on the faulty assumption that negroes are descended from chimpanzees.

so you believe in skin-deep evolution aka equalitarianism? Evolution presuppose human biodiversity or what you would understand as racist wrongthink,

Ain't my fault the Libtards don't understand or want to understand how genetics work. We haven't been separated for long enough to be considered separate species or subspecies. The only reason why some people groups look so different is due to interdreeding with Neanderthals and Denisovans.

Don't the fact human diversity is the largest in Africa blow any theory humans orginated in modern Armenia to pieces though?

Perhaps it only means the Eurasian and American races.

>or what you would understand as racist wrongthink
Not him, but you sure love projecting

More thinking about others who may use it as such an argument.

Well I can't speak for them, but I can put this here. Just for laughs.

Next time, don't use a shopped image.

>I read somewhere that during some ice age the were only like 4 families on earth

Yeah, no. That's probably a reference to the Ice Age refuges, which are the locations ancestral European and Asian people occupied during the last glacial maximum. There would have been way more than a single family at each refuge, tho.

This. The Bible literally says that niggers exist only to be the slaves of non-niggers.

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.

>Richard Darwin

>Actually, Darwin wasn't even a real scientist, he just drew pictures and made stuff up on a boat,

8/10 I laughed.

>

>I have never taken even a cursory glance at the Bible

Both he and Charles Dawkins are Satan incarnate. Repent of your ways if you desire salvation.

I agree with this.

Evolution has been disproven. The idea a tree just changes into a whale was created by Lucifer and his winged demons.

Bump

Anyone?

Potentially, I'm gonna say evolution would be more likely.

However, in practice, the exact opposite has happened.

The exact opposite?
The Nazis justified the Holocaust with a misunderstanding of Darwinism

Do Americans ACTUALLY believe in young earth creationism?

And some southern antebellum Christians tried to justify slavery and racism with a perversion of God's Word. Goes both ways m8.

You mean as opposed to the manifest destiny? or how about the klan who based a heavy amount of their own existence into christianity?

or your mean as opposed to the current (rather unsuccessful but still) attempts of DAESH to install a caliphate?

i don't even think i need to mention the conflicts in africa, especially w/ abyssinians and ethiopians.

Who cares? Racism is good, niggers suck.

meant to say abyssinians and ottoman**

Neither. Anyone can use a belief system to justify racism.

hahah very funny you commies how do chimps still exist if humans evolved from then???? answer that asshole

Genetics does certanly not make it impossible for humans to evolve during the course of 60000 years.If you kill of all the non ginger people you could basically turn an entire population red-headed in a generation. evolution works fast when the selection pressure is strong.

Bump

There are a lot of challenges to evolution. In order for it to be the case that it was in fact true that evolution did happen in the past, then it would be duly nesessary for one or two of several key pointers to be also true as well. However, this can be like trying to explain colors to a blind-man- you're just wasting your time sometimes. Anyway, back to the facts. The point of the matter which is under discussion is the fact that, in order for frogs to have evolved from fish, then it would be required that 1) the fish became able to breathe air 2) the fish became able to walk on land. In order for a fish to evlove into a FROG isn't it necessary that absolutely both 1 and 2 have to occur simultaneously? It is so improbable that both of those "beneficial" mutations would occur at one time that one might be willing to admit confidently that they are less than one in a million. Therefore, you also have to consider the fact that EVEN if both the 1 in a 10^6% chance of both 1 and 2 happening, how would the frogs even know what to do with the legs and the air? If you think about them, these aren't too beneficial in the first place anyways.

In other words, evolution is disproven because in order for a frog to evolve from a fish, it has to evolve lungs and legs at the same time. if it only gets legs, it will suffocate on land. if it only gets lungs, it will down in the ocean. therefore it is duly necessary that both are evolved simultaneously, which is unlikely to happen, it seems.

Additionally, evolution has difficulty predicting the correct number of appendages, specifically legs, present in ancestral forms of certain species. First, consider an example in which "evoltion" is capable of the predictsion of one correct estimation of leg count. For example, pigs and humans common ancestors. The evaluation criterion for whether the predictsion of the estimation is viable has to be within the definition of the leg domain. This is possible because a leg is defined as a discrete unit; you can't have half a leg and still be a leg. Therefore, if the number of legs predicted does not represent a discrete number of legs, then the prediction is invalid. Therefore, because frogs have 4 legs and humans have 2 legs, the nubmer of legs predicted is valid. (4+2)/2=3. However, what about humans and tripod fish? This ancestor would have had to have had 2.5 legs, which is invalid. This does not even bring up the issue of extrapolation to common ancestors of common ancestors (what about the common ancestor of humans/mammals and insects?), or the issue of ill-defined leg sets, like those of the "vestigial pelvic" bones of whales, and purpotedly also in serpentine creatures.

>Lungs
The initial purpose of lungs is to survive longer when washed up and is not dependant on legs.
Lungs are much like the swim bladder of bone fish (probably homologous as well) and if that air filled sack provides a means of oxygen exchange it is beneficial.
A frog doesn't even have all the advanced mechanics of lungs. Its lungs are smooth and they need to gulp air.

>Legs
Get it out of your head shitposter. Use limbs instead.
If a set of boned limbs homologous to our own aids in navigating from land to water it is a benefit. This does not need to coincide with good lungs.

And both lungs and limbs can be further developed when actually living on land more and more becomes a benefit.

Common ancestors don't just have the averaged features of their descendants. Stop adding to this shit copypasta.
On top of this consider that the word "legs" you are using in this context is wrong. Front legs in a frog are homologous to human hands. And because hox genes basically force symmetry you shouldn't be comparing them in sets even if your logic were in any way valid.

Not how evolution works

If you assume negroids are less intelligent and for some reason want to increase it, with evolution you have to kill off the stupid ones

what a creative addressation of the mere fact of the matter. in fact, new kinds of species do not define all the new species about which they have developed into. the common ancestor will be expected to contain the overall average of the descendants's feature's. exemplificationally, take the case in point of the crabs. Assume for the sake of argument that crabs are descended from a number of species "related" to the crab ancestral line of descendancy. However, NB that there is not a mention in the slightest of a purificational mother ancestor which is encompassing, theoretically, all frogs and say, ants, or other insects. In order to deduce the fallacy of such a claim, it is necessary to perform some mathematical operations which are actually capable of disproving the "truth" of evolution. (leg calculations aside, which actually lead to infinity as the number of predicted legs for the common ancestor of all life creatures) consider the statistical likelihood that such a creature would have existed. assign a probability x of a certain set of features U existing in a species at one point in evolutionary history. If we have another set of features V which is assigned to another extant species, it will have a probability of y. In order to determine the probability of the most recent common ancestor of these two species (polytomies aside), take the probability z of the union of U and V. so z=x*y. you can see that the probability of a common ancestor for all species will be the product of all probabilities of all extant and extinct species, hypothetical or otherwise. Therefore, for this reason, it is highly untenable to assert with a certain degree of likelihood the statement that the descendants of a species will always be defined by that species.

Earth is flat btw

earth is not flat, and that is revealed by the falseness of evolution. if evolution were true, then perhaps there would be cause to argue for a flat earth. implicationally, a ROUND earth accellerates forward through the atmosphere, therefore if evolution were true, and the earth were BILLIONES of years old, then we would expect the earth to be speeding on and accelleration at a massive rate by now, which would cause all humans to be thrown from the surface. With a flat earth, it has to accellerate UPWARDS in order to keep all humans finned to the surface, AKA gravity. HOWEVER, the fact that the earth is not millions proves thtat the earth is ROUND and not FLAT, because if the earth was flat at that rate, it would not have the speed necessary to keep all humans pinned to the surface.

>the common ancestor will be expected to contain the overall average of the descendants's feature's.
>leg calculations aside, which actually lead to infinity as the number of predicted legs for the common ancestor of all life creatures
>A round earth accellerates forward through the atmosphere
> if evolution were true, and the earth were BILLIONES of years old, then we would expect the earth to be speeding on and accelleration at a massive rate by now
> With a flat earth, it has to accellerate UPWARDS in order to keep all humans finned to the surface, AKA gravity.

What are you even talking about? Are you just trying to sound smart? That isn't how anything works, you've literally just made half of this stupid shit up. What does evolution have to do with gravity, anyway?

Top Shitpost btw

Is there anyone here who has actually been swayed by an evolutionist to believe in evolution?
Im curious, because all we ever seem to see here is entrenchment in views.

I was taught creationism in school and they pretty much lied about what evolution was. What changed my mind was finding out that the goofy version of evolution they presented wasn't really what people believed. Then I started to accept that little parts of creationism were wrong. These posts (, ) kind of point out different creationist arguments that can be pretty easily dismantled.