Thoughts on pic related?

...

The Biblical Christian worldview.

I think that they see Pilate as merely an instrument of God's will. He didn't even really want Jesus to be killed.

not that guy you were talking to, but the contradictions in the bible is more than enough to prove it false

read the rest of my post, the think he let jesus go

>MUH SHROUD!!!

What contradiction?

Name one.

>i have seen the face of god
>no one has seen the face of god

>Mark 10:18 basically defeats the whole purpose of trinity

And archeological discoveries.
And genetic discoveries.
And discoveries in quantum physics.
It goes on and on..

In academia, people are losing faith in Darwinism. The theory of evolution has been exposed for what it is, a farce, lie, myth.

Each year that passes and there are more "intelligent design" scientists. We are at a point where IT scientists are censored and even fired from their jobs from daring to question the atheist draconian worldview.

Feels good that the global flood is a scientific, historical fact.

Shroud has been debunked by radiocarbon dating.

plus most christians believe god created the world in 6 literal days or 6,000 yearrs (which is wrong)

Okay honey.

>Feels good that the global flood is a scientific, historical fact.

Feels good that people denying evolution also deny modern medicine. So they either die off or end up as hypocrites.

>(which is wrong)
How is it wrong?

And all dating methods are extremely flawed and inaccurate.
trueorigin.org/dating.php

The Flood is real, check the hydroplate theory.

All of the world's geology and layers can be explained with a global flood. It is infact more reasonable and logical to do so given the huge amounts of evidence.

>Feels good that the global flood is a scientific, historical fact.
please give a source

Evolution did nothing for medicine, retard.
That's like saying beer contributed to sports.

Evolution is a cult/religion, and is separate from science. It is something you believe in.

>kent hovind screenshot
wanna know how i know you're baiting?

not him but this video helped me change my mind, its full of proof: youtube.com/watch?v=lktmmd7YnD8

its not a coincidence that all ancient cultures all over the world talked about a global flood. the chinese even mention 8 people surviving it.

>ad hominem

Wanna know how I know you have no argument?

>How is it wrong?
Dinosaur bones say "fuck you"

>And all dating methods are extremely flawed and inaccurate.
if they were inaccurate the first Quran and the dead sea scrolls wouldn't have been dated accurately

needless to say if they were as you claim we'd already have a better alternative. (which we don't)

Not true.

The Bible we read today is pretty much the exact same bible as the first ever bible.

it wasn't an ad hominem. i was just pointing out that you are literally using one of the most thoroughly debunked apologists on the planet to further your ludicrous point.

OP is actually right though, the bible was actually molested by the king james

Dinosaur flesh says "Fuck you" to """millions of years"""

Oh, and thousands of dragon stories all over the world that eerily resemble what we call dinosaurs.

Or pots/cylinders depicting men riding on dinosaurs, made by people that lived a couple thousand years ago.

But let's just ignore all that, huh?

Also fun fact: evolutionists believe dinosaurs turned into birds, LOL. fucking hilarious.

Show me the "debunking".

Because all I've seen is personal insults and attempts at ridicule.

Address his arguments, show me he's wrong.

>OP is actually right though

No. Being wrong on the singular vs plural makes the entire thing a joke, and therefore OP is wrong.

>It's another 'atheists getting BTFO' episode

ill just leave this here

Way to sidestep the scientific point there and follow up with anecdotal evidence about pots with people riding dragons on them. Those crazy evolutionists!

You still have no proof for evolution.

How does it feel being on the wrong side of history? You're gonna look real stupid on the day of judgment.

letterstocreationists.wordpress.com/dinosaur-soft-tissue/

skip to "Assessment of Evidence That Soft Tissue Can Persist for 70 Million Years"

man these cartoons and youtube documentaries are incredibly solid evidence

genesispark.com/exhibits/evidence/historical/ancient/dinosaur/

Good luck explaining all of this.

I'm not the guy you were replying to, but if you want to be a petty reductionist, you can't prove God's existence either. Funny how that works, guess they're both equal. For what it's worth, I hope you enjoy being a retard in an extremely flamboyant way with these comics and stuff. Excellent material for convincing people you're right

You mean like those cartoon depictions of supposed hairy primitive cavemen?

Yeah, that's some solid proof for evolution!

here's an entire video series that dismantles, point by point, the very seminar that screenshot was taken from.
youtube.com/watch?v=uUEusDsR61k&list=PLSr63zLFV8-E1pKStl54Ujdj2MBCUPETX&index=1
have fun, faggot.

also, just for funsies, i should point out that this picture is wrong and dumb as well. "lucy" is definitivley an australopithecine. chimpanzees as we know them didn't exist when she would have lived (3.2 million years ago). literally a cursory glance at wikipedia shows that this picture stumbles at the starting gun.
i could continue. for instance, i could point out how we have more evidence for heidelberg man than just a jawbone, and piltdown man has been acknowledged as a forgery by the scientific community since 1953, but ai sincerely doubt there's any chance i will provide you with any evidence to change your mind on this topic.

It is illogical to not believe in God.

Atheists are irrational yet pretend to be the rational ones.

Seems like yet another Biblical prophecy fulfilled, fools who claim to be wise.

>it's a "user replies with a wall of text that he hasn't even read" episode

don't come back to me until you've read the link i've gave you

>It is illogical to not believe in a supernatural entity who's existence is unprovable, save for these very specific religious texts.
ok

post more funny cartoons, they're a hoot and a holler

You don't need to read, just look at the images.
A baby can do it, so it shouldn't be too hard for you.

If you want a real wall of text, here is one that completely tears apart the fantasy of evolution: newgeology.us/presentation32.html

Does he not realize that we have ancient manuscripts...? There is more and better textual evidence for the New Testament than any other ancient text by several orders of magnitude.

I like how these comics attempt to discredit evolution by presenting it as a religion.
Since you believe evolution is wrong because you believe in.. Religion.

It is illogical to not believe in God (t. me)

No see, most people without developmental disorders don't look at the hair as proof of evolution, because that's fucking insane.

No, I believe evolution is wrong because it doesn't have any proof, while the Biblical narrative has.

It's called using reason. God gave you a brain, use it.

>"No one can know how life originated!"
>this is evidence that God definitively originated life
>thinking evolution is a theory of how life originated

like i said, read my sources or gtfo

People without developmental disorders don't believe they came from a rock.

You have to be seriously insane to believe your grandparents were monkeys.

stop replying to him you fucking mongs

>religion and mythology were used to explain natural phenomenon
>all ancient civilizations lived near great rivers

I wonder why they all have stories about great floods.

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.

Evolution is a myth.

I was hoping you weren't a troll, but even Ken Ham would have gotten right that it's apes and not monkeys that we're supposed to have a common ancestor with- which btw, does not mean we came from apes.

>they were wrong, cuz i say so

Great argument.

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.

You literally follow a religion that pushes faith as a virtue.
If you refuse to look at facts it doesn't mean they don't exist.

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.

read and reply to 's link or stop posting you mong

...

>it's a retard uses their own lack of understanding of a subject to prove it's wrong.

Atheists have way more faith in evolution than Christians have in the Bible.

I could never have as much faith as evolutionists. Blindly believing in something that has been debunked & destroyed? That requires extreme faith.

Of course we both know the real reason why atheists continue to believe in evolution even when it has been proven wrong. Their *desire* and *will* is for there to be no God. Admitting to the existence of God means their lifestyle is threatened.

A Christ killer wants the evidence of his crime dissmised so he can do it again

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 scientific 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.

Evolution cannot be put to a test, since it supposedly happened millions of years ago and we certainly never see it happening now. It can never be proved—either true or false. It has always been on speculation alone.

Because there is no actual evidence to support evolution, proponents resort to logical fallacies. Evolution puts forth a tautology, which is the circular argument that the fittest survive, and therefore those who survive are the fittest. See how one statement is used as proof of a repetition of the same argument. The fittest—those who leave the most offspring, evolutionists say— leave the most offspring. A hamster spinning in its cage could hardly go in more circles!

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.

Even if it has been debunked and destroyed (it hasn't) that doesn't prove christianity in any way.
Luckily though, this kind of religious dogma is eroding in the western world as people become more educated.

Only if you bothered to actually read in depth about the shroud instead of relying on reddit and wikipedia you'd see it has an accuracy that would take a time traveler to fake

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.

newgeology.us/presentation32.html
trueorigin.org/spetner1.php
trueorigin.org/creatheory.php
trueorigin.org/isakrbtl.php
evidentcreation.com/TRM-Logerr.html

>Archeological Evidence supporting the Bible
bible.ca/archeology/bible-archeology.htm

>Dr. Jonathan Sarfati, biochemist and chess master says evolution is false
youtube.com/watch?v=TJ-3fP4H8Ss

>Sarfati refutes Bill Nye the Clown Guy
youtube.com/watch?v=FvzMIJla28g

>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

>Zeitgeist Debunked
youtube.com/watch?v=JFI6m6Icav4

>Kent Hovind debunks Evolution
youtube.com/watch?v=shyI-aQaXD0

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

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

Feels good being on the side of FACTS and EVIDENCE.
Feels good knowing the Bible is literally true.

haha fuck you

hey buddy, you are a gay man

>the great intellectual arguments of atheists

you suck a lot of dick my friend

>spout blatant retardation and ignore anything that threatens your worldview.
>expect a real conversation.

>scientific facts are retarded

Whatever you say, God-hating commie.

Evolution is impossible because a creature can't change it's categorical form. A bird can't become something other than a bird, but it can become a different kind of bird. Likewise a human can only be a human. The incarnation is dependent upon human being confined to the human form, otherwise the union of divine and man is senseless, as "man" is just a name for a current state of some particular matter.

No, it's not at all. This guy is a crackpot and is disregarded by the evo bio community. He's not even primarily an evolutionary biologist, rather a physiologist.

He's not even against evolution, he just thinks it happened differently (which is heavily disputed by his peers)

But you wouldn't look for that, would you? You see a science man who "debunked" evolution.

/thread

Don't respond to the atheist shitposters, they already lost the debate.

wabawu really makes my brain toodle-la doo

"Science facts"

All this is old "science", speculation and cherrypicking. I have a feeling you've never sat down and actually researched evolution yourself, as you present it as much different than most people would. In the real world, evolution is accepted because the science makes sense (and is demonstrably true) as opposed to places like "new geology" and other creationist sites with no qualification or peer review and can be written by literally anyone. If you step out of your bubble, you'll see you're the crazy one.

>Evolution cannot be put to a test, since it supposedly happened millions of years ago and we certainly never see it happening now.

you don't know shit about evolution

>God-hating commie !

Creationists in a nutshell, right there.

Compare the agony in the garden in Matthew and John, they're completely different.

>Creationists in this thread
Provide links, articles, proof, evidence, data.

>Evolutionists in this thread
Nothing but shitposting and personal attacks

Looks like Christianity wins again.

You say you can't see it now since it happened so long ago and you believe in a patchwork book from a 2000 years ago with no further developments since then? What??? Why does this make any logical sense?

Just because someone writes something on their website doesn't make it true brainlet.

Lemme summarize that
"*tips fedora*"

it's more like written, maybe edited a bit, canon debated, translated a couple of times,the whole KJV stuff can be deleted, since it's anglo specific., and the early christians werent illiterate, the couple of decades thing is really short for ancient historical texts.

All from known creationists and IRL shitposters. No one can actually trust a site called "New geology".

Besides, there are a couple links, but you havent bothered to watch them. You could also just google "evolution" and all your weird questions could be answered.

Anyway, you know that you have all these posts copy and pasted and ready to go, as you're eager to spread these lies. We, on the other hand, are "unprepared" because most of the world knows you're stupid. You just have all this stuff ready because you know that here your bait will be taken and this is the only place you'll be listened to.

Otherwise, you'd be out in public being revered as true! New Geology would be taught in schools! You'd be right! Oh wait... it was, and now people realize it's dumb and pay it no heed. So, blame the jews for trying to push evolution or whatever but no one will believe you or your silly "evidence".

Even in modern times China has suffered floods that killed millions. Catastrophic floods happen somewhere in the world almost every year. Of course there are going to be myths and stories of floods in ancient cultures.

More importantly, it's impossible to name a year in history where every ancient culture was whelmed at once.

>...the union of divine and man is senseless, as "man" is just a name for a current state of some particular matter.

There you go. You thought it through and got there in the end. Kudos.

>Ad hominem
>Appeal to Ridicule
>Ad Populum

I spot 3 logical fallacies in your post, and not a single actual argument. Nothing of substance.

Into the trash it goes.

I'm pretty sure only Kent Hovind would uniornically cite Kent Hovind and Jack Chick comics a source at this point.

Hi Kent! When did you get out of jail for all that tax evasion and mail fraud?

evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/misconceptions_faq.php

/bread