You're despicable

>these are the kind of people that voted trump
>trump supporters will unironically defend this

>communists

>never been tried

...

There is a line of reasoning known as a "reductio ad absurdum" ("reducing to absurdity"). Evolutionists like to do this all the time. They try to show that belief in a Creator is false because it is absurd. "We cannot see the Creator, we cannot hear the Creator, and we cannot touch him," they say. "So we're supposed to believe this tripe?"

Meanwhile, we cannot see species turning into another species, but they expect us to believe that they do.

1. Evolutionist makes an article titled: "Misconceptions About Evolution".
talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html

2. Creationist makes a lenghty rebuttal, proving the evolutionist wrong.
trueorigin.org/isakrbtl.php

3. Evolutionist makes a complete fool of himself.
trueorigin.org/ca_tw_02.php

Evolution is a religion. Yes, evolution is the faith of atheism because it replaces God with man. When you've conned yourself into believing that some kind of ancient slime morphed into progressively complex and directional life forms, you are in the realm of faith, not science.

You cannot observe, test and repeat the ever-changing ideas that are little more than wild speculation.

Darwinism is like a cult, and atheists staunchly defend their cult no matter how un-scientific it is and how much it gets debunked over the years. Their entire worldview and life-style hinges on the idea that man evolved from ape after a cosmic accident. A cult of plastic monkey worshippers that believe nothing magically exploded.

Kissing a frog won't turn it into a prince, but maybe if you add millions or billions of years it will!

yeah? what's the problem? get rekt, shillaryshit. your atheism didn't get the president you wanted, but our god did.

>retards

>Atheists

I was taught evolution in a catholic school. Almost all world religions accept or at least have no problem with evolution

>there is no evidence supporting the theory that species produce offspring that are not of their species
The very idea of species is a man-made distinction in and of itself retard

>For example, evolutionists like to claim that evidence of people dwelling in caves in former times means humans came from a more primitive species.
that is not at all what it means to believe in evolution

>For example, evolutionists state that theists are retarding science.
that still isn't what it means to believe in evolution

> An example is "All educated people know evolution is a fact."
That isn't used to prove evolution, it just happens to be a fairly accurate statement which persuades the incorrigible to keep their views secluded to anonymous imageboards.

>This fallacy says that the evidence is ancient, so it can't be verified by observation.
But evolutionary theory is reliant on fossil records, etc, and is known to suggest that the earth is far older than muh six-thousand years as claimed by judeo-christians. Why would you claim the other side is the one using that fallacy? Because you heard some teenager say "the bible is an old book written by dumb old people" or something? You're clearly just searching for the least capable opponents you possibly can as a means of avoiding difficult predicaments.

>You cannot observe, test and repeat the ever-changing ideas that are little more than wild speculation.
>"Haha can't see it so it isn't there"
>"By the way I believe in god"
You're actually retarded

That's because Catholicism is a false man-made religion that never believed the bible in the first place

Is ken ham one of the worlds preeminent historians?

>literally proving his points

>most likely protestant
>protestants came from catholics
>protestantism is "man-made"

Unless the people in the country actually own the means of production, it's not true socialism. I'd love to see an example of a place where citizens owned more capital per capita and it still failed.

>accept
You mean believe. Accept implies that it is correct.

>catholic
Who cares what a known crypto-pagan religion that hates the Bible believes? It's well established that the Vatican is a corrupt hellhole.

>no problem with evolution
You have no problem with lies? You think brainwashing children with lies is OK? I'd have to agree with OP and say: Despicable.

...

that's not an argument

>socialism =/= communism

protestantism came from jesus

>>protestants came from catholics
No protestants came from the bible

...

>protestantism came from Luther
FTFY

Believing in God is more logical and reasonable than believing in nothing.

That's how we feel about you.

Science is on our side.
Philosophy is on our side.
Theology is on our side.

Yet you still desperately cling to your monkey mythology in 2016.

>change means conversion from "potential" to "actual"
No. And furthermore, by drawing epistemic conclusions based on linguistic descriptions, and saying the words used to describe reality determine reality, you're saying "The way I linguistically define something literally IS what that thing is rather than the other way around", which is actual sophism, a belief system under which anything can be proven.

>obviously if you have premises that are wrong, you'll have a conclusion that is wrong
That's completely wrong. Take an intro to formal logic class please, or just look up the truth table of the if statement.

>Evolution Debunked
newgeology.us/presentation32.html
trueorigin.org/spetner1.php
trueorigin.org/creatheory.php

>Errors in Evolutionary Thinking
evidentcreation.com/TRM-Logerr.html

>Darwin's god
darwins-god.blogspot.nl/

>Archeological evidence for the Bible
bible.ca/archeology/bible-archeology.htm

>Evolutionism: The Greatest Deception of All Time
youtube.com/watch?v=jMr278CMAIA

>Refuting Evolution and Bill Nye the Clown Guy
youtube.com/watch?v=FvzMIJla28g

>Kent Hovind debunks Evolution (18hr life-changing seminars)
youtube.com/watch?v=shyI-aQaXD0

>Evolution is a myth
youtube.com/watch?v=Gjvuwne0RrE

>Dr. Jonathan Sarfati (chess master and biochemist) destroys Evolution
youtube.com/watch?v=TJ-3fP4H8Ss

>The Greatest Lie Ever Told
youtube.com/watch?v=c1ufK04tjOI

>The Terror of Evolutionism
youtube.com/watch?v=0WE57wllfIc

>The Pagan Roots of Evolutionism
youtube.com/watch?v=rovovsBCQWQ

>Tracing Genesis Through Ancient Culture
youtube.com/watch?v=gFgohPpu0rE

>Overwhelming Evidence for a Global Flood
youtube.com/watch?v=lktmmd7YnD8

>Overwhelming Evidence that Dinosaurs lived with Man
genesispark.com/exhibits/evidence/historical/dragons/
youtube.com/watch?v=niDCq3TbvOo
youtube.com/watch?v=W6M1b36KbHs

Feels good being right.

Aristotelian metaphysics and physics for that matter, as the two are interrelated (if you have ever read his metaphysics you know he points physics in it all the time. metaphysical ideas in his writing are not separate from physical reality ) are so full of holes that basing your argument on his ideas like Thomas does is folly.

...

>.html
>.php
>youtube
I'm sure the fact that your belief system is defended solely by internet memes must feel great.

>The very idea of species is a man-made distinction in and of itself retard
This assumes evolution, because it assumes a common ancestor by which all species are related and that therefore species distionctions are man-made
>that is not at all what it means to believe in evolution
This strawmans creationism, because it assumes ignorance of evolutionary theory on part of the creationist, and therefore anything the creationist says must misrepresent evolution
>That isn't used to prove evolution, it just happens to be a fairly accurate statement which persuades the incorrigible to keep their views secluded to anonymous imageboards.
This assumes evolution, because it assumes that evolutionary theorists are educated and creation theorists are ignorant and therefore it is valid to claim "All educated people know evolution is a fact"
>But evolutionary theory is reliant on fossil records, etc, and is known to suggest that the earth is far older than muh six-thousand years as claimed by judeo-christians.
This assumes evolution, because it assumes the underlying claims of evolutionary theory and therefore all evidence can only point towards evolution
>Why would you claim the other side is the one using that fallacy?
As i have just demonstrated, it is.

Its just a coincidence then that scientists all over the world, not just American atheists disagree with you?

hint: if the only scientists who support your position belong to the same or similar church its probably not very sound science

Besides all the scientists that don't believe in it right? But yeah let's just ignore those because you want to paint creationists in a negative light.

Whatever makes you sleep at night.

>mt st helens
>fibonacci spirals

???

How often have you heard evolutionists say: "There's really no disagreement among reputable scientists when it comes to evolution." Or: "Evolution is settled science." Creation Moments has heard such statements fall from the lips of Richard Dawkins, PZ Myers, Eugenie Scott and many others, too numerous to mention.

Clearly these evolutionists are all working off the same page in their playbook. They're also showing that they aren't thinking clearly. Why? Because they are writing books, making films and giving speeches tearing down scientists who disagree with them. But wait - didn't they just say that there's no disagreement among reputable scientists and we're dealing with settled science?

By saying things like this, evolutionists believe that people can be easily fooled by one of the oldest logical fallacies in the book - the argumentum ad populum. As used by evolutionists, this fallacy can be stated like this: "Since all scientists believe in evolution, evolution must be scientifically correct."

Even if the first part of this assertion were true - which it isn't - the second part does not logically follow. It's like the child who tries to justify some undesirable behavior by saying, "It must be okay because all the kids are doing it." Besides, if scientific truth is determined by majority vote or by what most scientists believe at a certain point in time, then Darwinism itself would have been rejected when it was first proposed.

The argumentum ad populum is an illogical way for evolutionists to sway people to their position. Watch out for it whenever it's used by others ... and avoid using it yourself as you seek to defend biblical truth.

>judging a book by its cover

how about you address the arguments? atheists always use personal insults, the other guy actually posted a wealth of information

It's just a coincedence then that scientists all over the world, not just English miasmatists disagree with you, Mr. Snow?

Really expected Nebraska Man, but still pleased.

peer review is not argumetum ad populum or an appeal to authority, both of which are only informal fallacies meaning their only fallacious if used in the wrong context.

Which you would know if you studied philosophy which you claim is on your side but I doubt you have ever taken a formal class in.

I dont get the Snow reference

To be fair, when Gould punted, he said he thought "punctuated evolution", i.e. the sudden and massive transition from one thing to a completely different thing, was the answer.

Of course, that's also wrong, but it's less wrong than gradual evolution. It's actually correct if you consider the case where there is nothing, and then the entire planet is suddenly punctuated with fully formed living beings at once.

>This assumes evolution
No it doesn't

If I've got a sheet of paper with a red half and a blue half, and I say "this paper can be conceptually divided into two distinct halves," that's a man made distinction

>This strawmans creationism
No it doesn't, it makes the point that the specific person which I'm speaking too is wasting his breath

>This assumes evolution
My claim that it's "a fairly accurate statement" also doesn't assume evolution; I said the "educated" believe in it, not necessarily "correct" and thus that claim doesn't rely on evolution being true. On top of that, I went out of my way to say "fairly accurate" rather than "absolutely true" given that there are plenty of people of religious education.

>This assumes evolution
No, it doesn't. It assumes there is a theory of evolution which uses certain premises as supporting claims, be it in a successful or unsuccessful manner. It does not assume the correctness of such a theory to make the point.

>As i have just demonstrated, it is.
>"Haha gotcha"
>"Zzzzing!"
Downright typical.

You've spoken plenty about your phantom "evolutionists" and said almost nil about evolution itself. Trying to debunk evolution by pointing out that edgy fedora wearing teenagers sometimes make insubstantial arguments on reddit is like trying to debunk liberalism/conservatism by pointing out that people who happen to be liberals/conservatives do dumb things. That's just completely besides the point, it's ad hom. That's why you'll never move out of the "gotcha" phase and form an actual argument.

fucking saved

Correct. Catholics are just as lost as evolutionists.

>atheists always use personal insults

Because you dont understand the science, or at least reject it on principle. So there is no use arguing with you using logic

The Soviet Union had a peer review system.
Nazi Germany had a peer review system.

Peer reviews don't mean shit when there's a clear agenda going on. Certain things get buried, scoffed, dismissed or ignored. Take for example the giant human skeletons that have been excavated. No peep in the media nor show-cased in museums, but instead thrown in the Smithsonian basements because it doesn't fit the Darwinian narrative.

Here's a revelation that might shock you: scientists are also human and they are prone to error and bias just like us.

It's about the proof, evidence, content itself. Not who or how many people believe in it. Cultures change and what people believe changes constantly.

And insulting them is like beating the dead.

If you were rational, you wouldn't waste your time doing either. But you, like me, are bored with nothing to do but post on Veeky Forums.

Mt. St. Helen's suddenly and violently created stratified cliffs that otherwise would have been assumed to have been the accumulated accretions of the earth's surface over millions of years.

Mt. St. Helen's igneous rocks were dated to be 3,000,000 years old, via argon testing, when they were in fact created in the 1980's.

Mt. St. Helen's also produced denuded and shorn off trees much like the polystrate fossil trees penetrating many layers of the geological column (a model that finds itself nowhere in nature).

Scientists, real scientists, are starting to realize that they are a faith based false religion.

yes, a wealth of information
which you clearly just read through in the past minute
because you wouldn't ever label something as a wealth of information prior to reading it now would you? Unless you were convinced it supported your beliefs. I could post a pornhub link with the claim "scientists literally BTFO" written above it and I'd have dozens of crusaders telling me I did a great job and that the naysayers were simply unwilling to look at what I'd posted.

>Y-you just don't understand it!

Creationists understand the theory of evolution more than you do.

The more you understand it, the more you realize it is ridiculous.

You need some serious faith to believe that some ancient soup magically came alive.

The hoaxes were welcomed by scientists, and rejected by Christians.

Rewriting history does not change the past.

newgeology.us/presentation32.html

start with this one then. prove it wrong.

>that's a man made distinction
But if God made the distinction
>it makes the point that the specific person which I'm speaking too is wasting his breath
You proved my point
>I said the "educated" believe in it, not necessarily "correct"
Which is why that's how i described it. The point stands
>there are plenty of people of religious education.
And many of scientific education.
>It assumes there is a theory of evolution
You made an evidential clame, that the earth is "far older than muh six-thousand years". The point stands.
>You've spoken plenty about your phantom "evolutionists"
I said nothing of "phantom evolutionists". Are you paranoid?
>Trying to debunk evolution by pointing out that edgy fedora wearing teenagers sometimes make insubstantial arguments on reddit
Not sure why you would describe yourself that way

and both those countries produced a lot of valid work outside of their state enforced political doctrines.

There is no state locking you up for publishing studies that disprove evolution. This is not nazi Germany. If your ideas never catch on in a scientific field (as opposed to social sciences which there is hard data that they have a lot of problems). Its not because they hate your religious beliefs.

Its not that peer review is perfect, its just that so many stuff has been published supporting evolution and debunking your position that your not worth taking seriously. Your like a flat earther

>you dont understand science because i say so!

Science n. 1 the state or fact of knowledge 2 systematized knowledge derived from observation, study and experimentation carried on in order to determine the nature or principles of what is being studied.

Unlike atheists who believe science means "magic", we know the definition of science and what it entails.

the earth is flat
fucking fedoras

>newgeology.us/presentation32.html
>"prove me wrong you literally can't"

>"there are strict limits to variation that are never crossed"
>"look guys I drew a line in the sand at a whim"
>"prove me wrong you literally can't"

>"whenever variation is pushed to extremes by selective breeding (to get the most milk from cows, sugar from beets, bristles on fruit flies, or any other characteristic), the line becomes sterile and dies out"
Counterexample: GMO's. Even manually we can push traits to abhorrent extremes without species dying out.
Also, [citation needed]

This is why I read actual literature and journal articles instead of memes when I want information.

>You need some serious faith to believe that some ancient soup magically came alive.

Thats abiogenisis, not evolution. I could believe God put bacteria in the ocean and I would still be an evolutionist.

And I just proved my point. You dont even know what evolution properly is. You lump it together with every other theory that does not conform you your beliefs.

But please, post everything you think you know about evolution so we can show you more

>evolutionists attempting to false flag
Pathetic.

Have you ever been to Veeky Forums? They exist.

>There is no state locking you up for publishing studies that disprove evolution.

Kent Hovind.

>Thats abiogenisis, not evolution.
Which is a part of evolutionary theory.
>And I just proved my point. You dont even know what evolution properly is.
And you just proved our point. We know more about it than you. Biological evolution isn't the only aspect of evolutionary theory.

>I said nothing of "phantom evolutionists". Are you paranoid?
You clearly didn't understand what I meant; that was an accusation of strawmanning. Attempting to take the fact that I accused you of fearing some strawman you'd invented and turn it abound by saying "no you're the paranoid one" and "I know what you are but what am I?" isn't an argument

>Not sure why you would describe yourself that way
Not an argument.

>Everything above the point in your post where I started greentexting.
More ad hom and critique of "evolutionists" rather than of "evolution".

>promptly types "science" in google
>"I now understand this"

>This is why I read actual literature and journal articles instead of memes when I want information.

Translation: "I only read what confirms my beliefs and anything that challenges that belief I will outright dismiss"

Cognitive dissonance.

kek. that was for tax evasion. now he's back and selling cyanide as a phony cancer cure

That's not an argument, it's a critique of the opponent, who responded to the paper he was presented with and immediately pointed out a fault.

>"""the paper"""
that's a generous description of that webpage

Abiogenisis assumes evolution is true but it is a theory that stands on its own. If it were disproved tomorrow scientists would still consider evolution true.

Even if God created the first life as most American's whoa accept evolution believe, it would still be evolution.

that's basically all wrong but it's okay.

So in this thread
>evolutionists say creation has no evidence
>creationists provide evidence
>evolutionists dismiss it
Is this how the scientists do it? Unbelievable.

Wrong. He was charged with "structuring", a law that does not even apply to him.

They recently came out and ADMITTED the charges made against him were incorrect.

So now it's clear that Kent was jailed for 9 years because he damaged evolutionism so hard.

Atheists are also intellectually dishonest, they have a tyrannical grip on Hovind's wikipedia page and put out false information and libel.

>Abiogenisis assumes evolution is true but it is a theory that stands on its own.
No, it assumes biological evolution is true. Both are aspects of evolutionary theory.
>If it were disproved tomorrow scientists would still consider evolution true.
That is because of cognitive dissonance
>Even if God created the first life as most American's whoa accept evolution believe, it would still be evolution.
God created life as it now is.

The evidence presented for creationism here as been addressed in other places and often here in the past if you care to dig through the archives.

presenting old and discredited evidence over and over in hopes a new audience will buy into it is not the same thing as presenting new or valid evidence

Take it to Veeky Forums you retards.

>They recently came out and ADMITTED the charges made against him were incorrect
you got a source for that?

...

It's actually from trueorigin.org/creatheory.php

A creationist website.

So, how about some proof instead of dancing around and avoiding the subject?

biological evolution is the only part of evolutionary theory.

>>Even if God created the first life as most American's whoa accept evolution believe, it would still be evolution.
God created life as it now is.

Did you miss my point or just ignore it?

sci is fedora infested

So how old is the earth, then?

>More ad hom and critique of "evolutionists" rather than of "evolution".
It was all critique of your "arguments".

6000 years

>evolutionists say creation has no evidence
>creationists produce only bad evidence based on poorly done science or seriously outdated papers
>evolutionists dismiss it
Yeah, that's how scientists do it. With your mother.

>The evidence presented for creationism here as been addressed in other places
Post it then
>presenting old and discredited evidence
"Scientific facts = old and discredited evidence"

It's like 2 months old info, it's on Kent's official yt channel.

Another guy also did a bunch of research and uncovered that the government broke many laws to arrest Kent.

Around 6000, take or add a few.

>b-but muh dating methods!
trueorigin.org/dating.php

>biological evolution is the only part of evolutionary theory.
Again you prove your ignorance.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_Evolution

post a link