Non Overlapping Magisteria

0/10 poor bait.

Darwinian evolution has never been observed.

>troll calling someone else a troll

please give me a testable, observable and repeatable evidence of a dog turning into a cow

Not even trying
Yes it has been on microscopic scales.

...

Why can't atheists come up with real arguments and real evidence?

For some reason they only shitpost.

What is it that you seek?

Just ignore them.

newgeology.us/presentation32.html
trueorigin.org/spetner1.php
trueorigin.org/creatheory.php
evidentcreation.com/TRM-Logerr.html
youtube.com/watch?v=Gjvuwne0RrE

The best way to fight ignorance is to post facts.

Anyone on the sidelines will see that the evolutionist side are irrational and incapable of debate.

I actually find it terrifying that people like you can write in an articulate manner. Because usually I can more or less identify the idiots by their inability to make complete sentences. comments like this indicate that it's harder to filter out the idiots than i thought.

There is nothing in the theory of evolution that states "a dog will turn into a cow". Evolution being true is not contingent on dogs turning into cows. A dog has never turned into a cow, and that's fucking irrelevant to the theory of evolution. Do I need to word that differently?

I can show you evidence of a wolf turning into a dog. and yes, can test it repeatedly if given enough time.

You're being trolled.

Wolf/dogs are of the same kind: canines.
Variations within a kind is not evolution.

Genepool has a limit.

A dog will never turn into a whale or bird, because it doesn't have the genetic code to do so.

The idea that we slowly "evolved" is pure fantasy and does not belong in the realm of science. It's something you believe, have faith in. You can't see it happen nor do you know if it did.

HERE'S THE STATE OF EVOLUTION TODAY: "Evolutionary theory itself is already in a state of flux… all the central assumptions of the Modern Synthesis (often also called Neo-Darwinism) have been disproven" -Professor Denis Noble, Evolutionist, Physiologist and Biologist, May 2013

1. Abiogenesis. They have given up on it and now say it's not part of evolution theory.
2. They are now admitting that they have no explanation for diversity. So now it's not evolution either.
3. They have given up on the fossil record since it looks like creation. So now they say they don't need the fossils.
4. Gould and associates say there is no gradualism (no transitionals). Stasis is the underlying factor in the fossils so it's not evolution either.
5. Random mutations and natural selection produce nothing so that's out too and they are rejecting it as evolution.
6. All they have left is the common ancestor monkey. The inability for "kinds" to interbreed destroys that one so it's not long for this world.
7. PE is now a failure so it's out as evolution as well. 8. The “tree of life” has also been rejected.

The theory of evolution is nothing but a religious cult.

>canis
Why not include vulpines on that list. Hell, just include all of canidae while you're at it. Your definition of a kind changes as it needs to. For one it is an order, for another it is a family, and another, an entire kingdom. It is nothing more than goalpost shifting.

>20 replies
>7 posters

> Wolf/dogs are of the same kind
the word "kind" doesn't really mean anything in biology. if you can't construe a definition for the word, then i am free to ignore every conclusion you're trying to draw from it.

>A dog will never turn into a whale or bird, because it doesn't have the genetic code to do so.

genetic code changes

> You can't see it happen

yes you can.

yes, weak troll. when, in any scientific paper, study, ir joirnal has evolution been proven 'wrong'. please source or gtfo

He's just gonna post a bunch of "Badger's Law"-tier websites and ramble.

If you can create offspring, you're part of the same kind.

Lions, tigers and cheetahs are the same kind.
Dogs, wolves, foxes, hyenas are the same kind.
Horses, zebras and donkeys are the same kind.

It's really simple. A 5 year old can tell the difference between animal kinds.

"Species" is extremely vague.

Evolution makes the huge jump from variations within a kind (also known as "micro-evolution") and then assumes we all have a common ancestor.

One is real, scientific and observable.
The other is completely imaginary (monkey turning into a human).

newgeology.us/presentation32.html

>"Species" is extremely vague.
but 'kind' is specific....
Is english not your first language?

>common ancestor
>monkey turning into a human
This is how you can tell he's an ebin trole. He understands evolution until it's time to rustle your jimjams.

>Lions, tigers, and cheetahs
Why not housecats and servals as well?
>Dogs, wolves, foxes, hyenas
Hyenas are closer to felines, though.
>Horses, zebras and donkeys
What about all the other fossil horses, from mercyhippus to hyracotherium?

buttblasted atheists mad they lost

some have a harder time comprehending billion year time spans than others. it's not their fault, really. ignorance is hard to break free of if your family, community, church are so entrenched

Except cheetahs and lions can't create offspring user.

There is no evidence that the world is "billions of years old".

Wild speculation is not science

Filtered.

>Hyenas are closer to felines, though.
Source?

>If you can create offspring, you're part of the same kind.
So, you mean "species".
>It's really simple. A 5 year old can tell the difference between animal kinds.
5 year olds are fucking morons
>"Species" is extremely vague.
well, it's technically defined the exact same way you define "kinds"
>Evolution makes the huge jump from variations within a kind
If you accept that micro-evolution is possible, the natural conclusion from that is that macro-evolution is possible. enough changes in a phenotype will inevitably change a species.
many small changes = a big change. you don't have to be a genius to figure that out.
>using the words "monkey turning into a human"

I'll have you know I am a Bible-believing Christian, just not a fire-snortin' baptist like my family.

more disappointed in humankind than mad. and religion is losing, year after year. I take solace in that maybe not during my lifetime but eventually we will break free

I'm not up for some escalating bullshit with a knucklehead like you. believe what you will

evolutionists still haven't refuted any of these articles arguments.
the ball is in their court

creationism has won until the darwinists can actually prove their retarded monkey myth is true

Hyena
Kingdom: Animalia
Phylum: Chordata
Class: Mammalia
Order: Carnivora
Suborder: Feliformia (all creatures pictured here)
Family: Hyaenidae

So I won't see you in any more occult threads? Fuck yes!

So, you have no evidence? Got it.

You're free to believe in billions of years, but don't call it science and stop brainwashing children into your cult.

Logical Fallacies of Evolution 101

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.

Evolutionists have to rely on logical fallacies, because there is no evidence supporting the theory that species produce offspring that are not of their species. Only by using logic errors can evolutionists generate a belief in something that has not occurred and is not occurring.

Begging the Question: This is circular logic. An assumption is used to validate a premise. Evolution is assumed to be factual; therefore, evolutionists dismiss outright fraud as being acceptable because it illustrates a true point. One popular form of this is, "Although it is mathematically impossible for life to have occurred by chance, we're here, so that proves it happened."

Hasty Generalization: A small sampling of data is used to “prove” a large conclusion. For example, evolutionists like to claim that evidence of people dwelling in caves in former times means humans came from a more primitive species. This is overgeneralizing at its extreme. In fact, humans are still dwelling in caves, and not because they are a primitive species.

Hypothesis Contrary to Fact: This tries to prove a point by creating a hypothesis that has already been disproved. For example, evolutionists state that theists are retarding science. This is contrary to fact. Many scientific advances were made and are being made by people who believe in God. Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo, Newton, and Mendel, for example, all believed in God.

Misuse of Authority: A group of “experts” is used to prove a conclusion, even if that group does not actually agree with it. An example is "All educated people know evolution is a fact."

Chronological Snobbery: This fallacy says that the evidence is ancient, so it can't be verified by observation. Thus we have the "millions" of years timetable for evolutionists.

You will find that every argument in favor of evolution hinges on a logical fallacy. All the evidence clearly points to design, not accident, as the source of life.

To see the fallacy Hypothesis Contrary to Fact in full force merely read the literature of any evolutionist and note that the literature will have references such as:
>may or may have, must or must have, possibly, could or could have, should or should have, might or might be, etc.
Then note that their conclusion demands to be recognized as scientific fact. Apparently evolutionists did not get instruction concerning scientific axioms and principles that demand that any conclusion that rests on these kinds of phrases can never be considered a valid theory or fact.

One hasty generalization is when micro-evolution (adaptation within a species) is used to support macro-evolution (the change of one species into a different one.) The first is merely normal. The second never occurs. Yet evolutionists say that because some bacteria are resistant to antibiotics, this difference within the species proves that species change into creatures that are not of their own kind. That's a hasty generalization for you.

Evolutionists are constantly begging the question. They base their extrapolations on assumptions. A good example of this is the rock record. Evolutionists say that slow, steady rate erosion created rock layers that were obviously caused in a cataclysm. Evolutionists ignore the real world of sudden disasters that dramatically and suddenly change the landscape, since that ruins their theory of slow, predictable change over millions of years.

The theory of evolution is often referred to as a tested and proven scientific fact, when evidence overwhelmingly is against it. In fact, the theory of evolution is based on conjecture, and from there assumptions are made that contradict observable fact. Evolutionary arguments cannot withstand objective, in-depth criticism because they are nothing but hot air.

By true standards, evolution is not even a theory. A scientific theory is confirmed by observations and is falsifiable. There will be proof whether it is right or wrong.

If science has refuted evolution why aren't you taking this to the people who should know better, the Veeky Forumsence board?

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", pretending evolution is a fact.
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, gets BTFO.
trueorigin.org/ca_tw_02.php

Evolutionists are irrational and illogical. They push their religious/philosophical beliefs (atheistic naturalism) and call it science. The only ones that fall for this are uneducated people and children.

Because we need to root out the atheist trolls on Veeky Forums that believe in Flintstone mythologies.

1. It's not science. You cannot observe, test and repeat the ever-changing ideas that are little more than wild speculation.

2. It devalues real science. Chemistry, physics and biology don't have the same problems of legitimacy because they are real sciences, not philosophical wannabes trying to appear legit.

3. Complex engineering. Do you ever drive past a skyscraper and think to yourself 'Gee, I guess billions of years of random chance could have just as easily assembled all of that glass, steel and concrete as well as a team of engineers, architects, construction workers working from blueprints? Of course not! But that's what evolutionists would have you believe in when it comes to living organisms.

4. Genetics. The programming code of life, according to evolutionists, is just a series of biochemical accidents and mutations. If you believe this, I have a bridge in New York that's for sale. The infinitely complex engineering of this code means that it did not come about via 'natural selection,' aka random chance.

5. Mathematically Impossible. Basic probability tells you that the odds of a blob of primordial ooze morphing into a man, regardless of how much time has passed, are so remote that mathematicians regard it as impossible. Emile Borel and Fred Hoyle are just two mathematicians who reject evolution on statistical grounds.

6. 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.

>ITT: atheists getting destroyed

using a logical fallacy doesn't make your belief wrong. it just makes your argument for your belief wrong.
stop linking those crap comics. no one would consider banning support for religion, only fucking state-funded support for religion.
if you don't have great knowledge in a technical field, you're a layman. if your'e a layman, it's arrogant for you to think you have the skill make a sound argument one way or the other. so you have no choice but to defer to the analysis of experts.
feel free to TRY to make an argument. but if you do, just be sure you do not debate other laymen. you must seek out and debate experts.

>you need to be atheist to believe in evolution
Kek

>ITT: Gish gallops somehow count as BTFO

It's just one or two troll samefagging, don't answer, report them and let the thread die.

Saying your belief is right doesn't make it right either.

There's this thing called evidence and proof, and I don't see any evolutionist posting any.

>carnivores

t. buttblasted atheist without any arguments

>simple taxonomic classification
>lolololllololol trex was vegan lmao
You still haven't told me what a kind is. Many creationists have moved away from interbreeding being evidence, because that would mean cats and lions are separate.

See

>You cannot observe, test and repeat

newscientist.com/article/dn14094-bacteria-make-major-evolutionary-shift-in-the-lab/

Also, if humans were engineered then why are there so many vestigial characteristics leftover from evolution eg fluid in eyeballs, muscles in the ears, wisdom teeth, appendix, tailbone

>vestigial traits
"The EVILutionists believe these body parts serve no purpose whatsoever, but will show you that they do! The ear muscles hold the ear in place, tailbone is an anchor for leg muscles, and the appendix still filters toxins."

>muh vestigial limbs!

i remember when evolutionists thought whales had "leftover legs" until it turned out that they were used for stability during mating.

kent hovind debunked that shit

...

>whale fossils with legs have been found

[citation needed]

The source is literally in the pic

evolutionevidence.org/evidence/progressions/

>merely better adapted for your current environment

Sometimes not even that.

kent hovind literally believes an ice sheet covered the sky, then melted and caused the flood

...

...

were you there?

and you believe your grandpa was a monkey that crawled out of a soup after nothing exploded

A Catholic Priest devised the Big Bang Theory REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

lol is baptist user on Veeky Forums now?

not an argument

ITT: Atheists trolling other atheists with mongoloid proddies joining in thinking they're in good company

>somehow galaxies, stars and planets form
hubblesite.org/hubble_discoveries/discovering_planets_beyond/how-do-planets-form
Except we know how stars and planets form.

ITT: delusional atheists getting their belief destroyed with facts

A. Four Sons of Ham:
1. Mizraim (Egypt)
2. Cush (Sudan, Ethiopia)
3. Put (Lybia)
4. Canaan (Hivites, Jebusites, Arvadites, Girgashites, Amorites, Arkites, Sinites, Hittites,
Sidonians, Perizzites, Zemarites)

B. Five Sons of Shem:
1. Elam (Arabia)
2. Asshur (Assyria)
3. Lud (Lydians)
4. Aram (Aramaic, Armenia, Mesopotamia, Syria)
5. Arphaxad (From which Abraham descended)

C. Japheth's Descendants (14 Nations came out of Japheth):
The immediate descendants of Japheth were seven in number, and are represented by the nations designated Gomer, Magog, Madai, Javan, Tubal, Mesech, and Tiras; or, roughly, the Armenians, Lydians, Medes, Greeks, Tibarenians, and Moschians, the last, Tiras, remaining still obscure. The sons of Gomer (Ashkenaz, Riphath and Togarmah) were all settled in the West Asian tract; while the sons of Javan (Elisah, Tarshish, Kittim and Dodanim or Rodanim) occupied the Mediterranean coast and the adjacent islands.

Seven Sons of Japheth
1. Javan (Greece, Romans, Romance -- French, Italians, Spanish, Portuguese)
2. Magog (Scythians, Slavs, Russians, Bulgarians, Bohemians, Poles, Slovaks, Croatians)
3. Madai (Indians & Iranic: Medes, Persians, Afghans, Kurds)
4. Tubal (South of Black Sea)
5. Tiras (Thracians, Teutons, Germans, Scandinavian, Anglo-Saxon, Jutes)
6. Meshech (Russia)
7. Gomer (Celtic)

bibliotecapleyades.net/sitchin/sitchinbooks03_03a.htm

t. buttblasted atheist upset darwin was wrong

Why the fuck ya'll niggas bring up Darwin so much. You act as though no one has done anything for the study of evolution since he died. You're absolutely correct, Darwin was wrong or incomplete in some things. But he wasn't the only person to study the evolutionary process.

Darwin is the prophet of atheism, and "Origin of Species" is their holy book.

>It does not please [you] that I've placed Man among the Anthropomorpha, perhaps because of the term 'with human form', but man learns to know himself. Let's not quibble over words. It will be the same to me whatever name we apply. But I seek from you and from the whole world a generic difference between man and simian that [follows] from the principles of Natural History. I absolutely know of none. If only someone might tell me a single one! If I would have called man a simian or vice versa, I would have brought together all the theologians against me. Perhaps I ought to have by virtue of the law of the discipline.

Another problem

If it is done in favor of one party then the other party will lack and lead to overarching societal problems. The decline of the west can be attributed to the death of moralism in policy, which is why americans although seeming backwards doesnt have the problems europe has with societal decay, it has its own problems to that.

What should be done is that education should talk about science as a study of how things work rather than as the study of truth. Then they should require philosophy courses that are talked about as a study of truth and nature.

America has a huge problem of treating science like dogma as bad as europeans consider political correctness to be dogma.

Science cannot explain truth, they can only explain why things happen and why they work or dont work. It cannot explain the nature of existence.

Philosophy can explain the nature of existence but cannot explain how things work and why.

Religion is dogmatic and philosophical, it should exist as a communal identity used to combat anti-social behavior and the problems with existentialism, providing comfort and security to its people. It should be treated as something rhat can give you truth and not as science beta.

These.

/thread

Ah yes Charles Darwin the CHRISTIAN was the prophet of atheism. Makes sense.

I'm very upset about the implausible claims being made here.

Such as?

He was a confused and vaguely bitter agnostic at the end

Who wouldn't be?

Poor bastard became convinced he caused her death because his wife was his cousin and they were too closely related

Bump

Bump again