Man's Opinion

"Since my dick is huge, it's in your mouth."

is your pattern of logic.

Less vulgarly:
"Since 2+2=4, 6/3=2."

You don't get buy-one-get-one free deals with being factually correct, even if both statements are true.

2+2 = 4 is true unto itself, not BECAUSE 6/3 = 2

That its man's opinion or that their book was written by God?

Biology =/= Theory of evolution

That's like saying beer is part of sports.

Kinda but it's presented in a dishonest way. Science isn't about what's true it's about what we know and what we know changes. Sometimes what we knew turns out to be wrong but that doesn't mean what we knew was based on unreasonable facts.

Evolution is apart of biology.

& Humanities

Evolution is the very foundation of biology.

Miasma is the very foundation of medicine.

Delusion is the very foundation of religion

euphoric

*aspie mode engage*

I wouldn't even go so far as to talk about what we *know* desu. More accurately science is just an inference to the best explanation, where the best explanation is constantly changing in the light of new information.

Unless by referring to the corprus of what we know you're referring to the body of under-interpreted empirical data which is changing 'cause it keeps getting bigger....

Gid created humans separetly from apes and apes and humans do NOT share a common ancestor you satanfag!

No? It's a political cartoon by some idiot Creationist, of course it's not true.

Just because it's propaganda doesn't mean it's not true

It can't even be "true" in the strict sense since it represents a subjective opinion.
I guess the fact that it's propaganda means it's less likely to be "accurate" if that's a better word.

Considering I have some less than desirable people in my immediate family, the relation doesn't seem too farfetched.

protestants are the missing link

This.

Samefag

talkorigins.org/faqs/ce/3/part12.html

>talkorigins
www.trueorigins.org

That's not how you spell Tanakh, goy.

Tanakh is just the Old Testament.

>those bible quotes
>pic related
What did they mean by this?

>implying it's not still going

>306 different versions

>Then we will no longer be infants, tossed about by the waves and carried around by every wind of teaching and by the clever cunning of men in their deceitful scheming.

youtube.com/watch?v=KHcf3E8qOqA

The KJV is the final,preserved Word of God in the English language.

If you don't have a KJV, you don't have a Bible.

But KJV is not the original bible.

KJV literally means "King James VERSION". The exact same fucking problem as OP pic.

When will Christian hypocrisy end?

*Facepalm*

Are you retarded? Do you not know how manuscripts and scrolls are copied throughout the ages? Do you not know how translations and lexicons work?

The KJV was diligently made in a span of 7 years by scholars fluent in Greek and Hebrew.

KJV is just what we name it to distance itself from all the modern perVersions.

When it came out, it was just called the Authorized Version. KJV is a modern term.

>it's okay for me to do it.

...

To do what?

>Authorized Version

You understand the problem lies exactly with the term version, hence why I capitalized it.

Are you a literal retard?

>a particular form of something differing in certain respects from an earlier form or other forms of the same type of thing.

>an account of a matter from a particular person's point of view.

Those are what the word "version" means. They are literally, not gods words, in the most LITERAL, technical sense of the english language.

I mean, you are swaying with the wind senpai, if the bible was written in latin, why are we not all speaking latin and reading the literal most exact translation of the bible there is like god's teachings say we have to?

You have to understand
>because we can't speak latin today
Is literally not an argument, since it's legal status christiantiy has been absolutely massive, if the bible were to still be actually read in latin and not translated out therefor then we would still have a very good understanding of the latin language and people would still be reading the bible in latin, but the fact that the bible was translated out of latin is explicitly the exact same problem, you sway with translations, I can feed you verse after verse of bible passages telling you to be violent, telling you to do things which you do not do. Even in the KJV.

See pic in
For future reference, I am

>first reply
Does not prove the green text wrong. Naturalism is a philosophical belief, not science. Science observes things in nature yes, but that does not mean that nature is all that exists (which is naturalism).
>separate science from science
lol! What a blatant dishonest lie. Evolution is a metaphysical meta-narrative, a religion almost. It's not science. It has been debunked many times, it has turned into a modern myth. The reason evolutionists pretend that they are on the side of science and creation is on the side of religion is to discredit creation, it is dishonest and no real scientist would behave like that.

The reality is that the theory of evolution and creationism are both WORLDVIEWS. These 2 conflicting worldviews use science in order to prove their claims. Evolutionists view science as something to dominate and silence opposition, whereas creationists actually use the scientific method in the way it is intended to be used.

>second reply
He goes on lying and denying again. The many claims of evolution are not scientific. They belong in the realm of speculation and fantasy. You can not repeat, observe or test these things. Evolution has like 6 meanings, and only 1 is a scientific fact (variation within kinds). The idea that a fish crawled out of a soup and slowly turned into different animals is not science. It's a belief, in this case a religion considering how dogmatically evolutionists believe this nonsense.

that pic is spot on.

life and the world is obviously designed. our dna is genetic code and works like software on a computer does. atheists deny the obvious and pretend this is all by accident.

I mean, with the universe repeating itself indefinitely in a cycle of the crunching of matter and the expanding and creation of a new universe, the very fact we are here could be astronomically unlikely happenstance.

That's not to say religion doesn't have merit as well.

Think of religion as this.

[x] (god) [y] (religion that talks about god) [z] (science implemented inside the universe)

Disproving y doesn't disprove x. Hell, studying z doesn't even remotely refute the idea of creation.

Here are your two choices.

>literally no reason created the universe, chance and an infinite amount of 'time'.
(what do we have in our universe which even suggests this? cause and effect is a law)

>something created the universe for reasons unknown to us, could still be "simply because he could" (no reason).

I know which one makes an infinite amount of sense, when you take us into account, how far we have come technologically, it's really not that far fetched that in 10,000 years we have our own created universe, we don't even know what technology in 100 years holds.

>that pic
I never did get this argument. Comparing an inorganic structure to an organism is like comparing a rock to an apple. Also, shouldn't it be saying "created?"

>naturalism
Talking about methodological or philosophical here? Methodological naturalism is the idea that nature is all that can be actively studied, but remains neutral on the matter of the supernatural.

>What a blatant dishonest lie. Evolution is a metaphysical meta-narrative, a religion almost. It's not science. It has been debunked many times, it has turned into a modern myth. The reason evolutionists pretend that they are on the side of science and creation is on the side of religion is to discredit creation, it is dishonest and no real scientist would behave like that.
This may help you: youtube.com/playlist?list=PL2vrmieg9tO3fSAhvbAsirT2VbeRQbLk7

>Evolution has like 6 meanings, and only 1 is a scientific fact (variation within kinds).
evolutionwiki.org/wiki/Biologists_say_there_are_six_basic_concepts_of_evolution

>The idea that a fish crawled out of a soup and slowly turned into different animals is not science. It's a belief, in this case a religion considering how dogmatically evolutionists believe this nonsense.
And man being sculpted from dirt/mud/dust/clay is?

Considering how broad this topic is, let's focus on one of the most controversial topics: hominin fossils.

Methodological naturalism has shown to be outstandingly effective in understanding the world in science. The success of methodological naturalism and the failure of supernaturalism to demonstrate the existence of anything supernatural gives empirical support to metaphysical naturalism and is evidence against supernaturalism.

>But you can't prove a negative.

Let's say that I claim there is a McDonald's restaurant on the moon. After an exhaustive search by satellite imaging no restaurant is found. The more exhaustive the search, the higher degree of confidence I can say "There is no McDonald's on Mars." Except a McDonald's on Mars is much more probable than anything supernatural because a McDonald's restaurant demonstrably exists, whereas nothing supernatural has ever been shown to exist.

Gods and religions are useless except for one thing: controlling people.

Putting things that look similar next to eachother proves nothing.

Evolutionists look at bones and *assume* (key word here) things are related because of their priori presuppositions and worldview. They have already committed to a naturalistic, godless universe that came about through chance. They interpret evidence according to this mindset.

It's especially laughable how they then concoct cartoons and paintings of how these ancient monkey-men supposedly looked like, without any evidence. They find a little bone and then create an entire supposed "missing link" from their imagination.

Hairy, stupid, primitive and dumb - contradicting the Bible which says that ancient man was extremely fit, strong, smart and lived to be hundreds of years old.

The best example is the "Neanderthal" skull. They have refined eyebrow ridges and unusually strong jaw bones. A fun fact is that the older you get, the more refined your eyebrow ridge (which is why elderly men tend to look like that) and the more you eat the stronger your jaws get. Here you have skulls that showcase extremely strong jaws and a very refined eyebrow ridge. This shows that these people lived very long lives, exactly as the Bible says. We are not looking at hairy Flintstone characters, we are looking at the pre-flood Adamic generations.

I remember when I was an edgy 15 year old atheist rebelling against my parents.

I'm 25 and was raised in a secular household. I was never mindcucked. I'm sorry that you had Christian parents.

Not hard to remember a week ago, even if you're retarded, user.

I didn't have Christian parents either. :^)
Raised Muslim, became a militant atheist and later found the actual truth and purpose of life.

>"Often a non-christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other parts of the world, about the motions and orbits of the stars and even their sizes and distances, ... and this knowledge he holds with certainty from reason and experience. It is thus offensive and disgraceful for an unbeliever to hear a Christian talk nonsense about such things, claiming that what he is saying is based in Scripture. We should do all we can to avoid such an embarrassing situation, which people see as ignorance in the Christian and laugh to scorn.

>The shame is not so much that an ignorant person is laughed at, but rather that people outside the faith believe that we hold such opinions, and thus our teachings are rejected as ignorant and unlearned. If they find a Christian mistaken in a subject that they know well and hear him maintining his foolish opinions as based on our teachings, how are they going to believe these teachings in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think these teachings are filled with fallacies about facts which they have learnt from experience and reason.

>Reckless and presumptous expounders of Scripture bring about much harm when they are caught in their mischievous false opinions by those not bound by our sacred texts. And even more so when they then try to defend their rash and obviously untrue statements by quoting a shower of words from Scripture and even recite from memory passages they think will support their case 'without understanting either what they are saying or what they assert with such assurance.' (1 Timothy 1:7)"

St. Augustine of Hippo, "De Genesi ad litteram"

>Putting things that look similar next to eachother proves nothing.
It is when said "things" are the remnants of lifeforms that were part of a population, and most likely gave rise to a successive generation of creatures.

>It's especially laughable how they then concoct cartoons and paintings of how these ancient monkey-men supposedly looked like, without any evidence. They find a little bone and then create an entire supposed "missing link" from their imagination.
>a little bone
You mean like pic related? Also, the sculptors and artists in question have studied the anatomy of countless animals in order to make their reconstructions accurate: hominoids are no exception.
youtu.be/eatqu7hWw5g

>Hairy, stupid, primitive and dumb - contradicting the Bible which says that ancient man was extremely fit, strong, smart and lived to be hundreds of years old.
No possible exaggerations there.

>The best example is the "Neanderthal" skull. They have refined eyebrow ridges and unusually strong jaw bones. A fun fact is that the older you get, the more refined your eyebrow ridge (which is why elderly men tend to look like that) and the more you eat the stronger your jaws get. Here you have skulls that showcase extremely strong jaws and a very refined eyebrow ridge. This shows that these people lived very long lives, exactly as the Bible says. We are not looking at hairy Flintstone characters, we are looking at the pre-flood Adamic generations
You are most likely referring to the La Chapelle "Old Man" skull. While this was an elderly individual, other members have been found (adults, children, and newborns) with these same characteristics.
youtu.be/JoNd30WUcVM

No wonder you are so obnoxious about your shitty religion, converts are always more extreme than lifers.
Unless this is some one else piping up to troll, I wouldn't be surprised.

When I first met Madoka Kyouno in the anime Lagrange: The Flower of Rin-ne I was captivated by her cheerful personality and spunky go-getter attitude. The more I learned about her the more affection I felt for her. Eventually it grew so much that I thought that she wasn't just a character, she must be real. I took a leap of faith and said out loud: "Madoka Kyouno, you are real! I will love you forever." I instantly fell into deep love, and we got married in a church in my mind. We have been happy every since.

My relationship with Madoka Kyouno is very similar to you with your God I think, only instead of romance it is like a parent to you. t

>lifers
Oh look, it's a baby killer. Have had enough of getting BTFO by science and facts?

youtube.com/watch?v=RDmwPGrZkYs

Abortion is murder.

If you kill it before brain birth it's not murder.

If you kill it afterwards, it is.

ez pz

Nope.

lol wut

darwins-god.blogspot.be/

What is your point exactly? There is no conclusive proof that man "evolved" from non-man. All you are doing is putting bones next to each other and imagining how they might have been related. I don't see science here, but plenty of fantasy.

As for the "Old Man" skull, it would make sense that children have the same features because these people lived a long time, and thus childhood, puberty and adulthood all take much longer. Today a man in his 20 is considered an adult. Back then 20 would still mean a kid. Today our growth is accelerated. We grow faster and die sooner, whereas the Adamic man grew at a snail's pace but lived for much longer, being able to get extremely smart and strong over time. This is all just theorizing of course, but my point is that evidence can be interpreted in multiple ways. In this case, the evolutionists filter the evidence through their worldview. The "Neanderthal" skull shows signs of long life, so if you actually used logic and reason you would conclude that this is evidence for biblical creation, not evolution.

This is just one example of many. One major topic is geology and the global flood, which has the same issue. The world shows that it went through a catastrophical flood at one point, but evolutionists believe in uniformitarianism, things gradually changing over time in the span of millions of years.

>I don't see science here, but plenty of fantasy.
followed immediately by
>Today a man in his 20 is considered an adult. Back then 20 would still mean a kid. Today our growth is accelerated. We grow faster and die sooner, whereas the Adamic man grew at a snail's pace but lived for much longer, being able to get extremely smart and strong over time. This is all just theorizing of course

maximum kek

>This is all just theorizing of course
looks like you ignored that part.

That's the punchline, dude, pay attention lol

My belief is based on actual evidence. Ancient skulls showcase signs of long life, so I can safely say this is proof for Genesis lifespans.

You can't however tell that these people were hunched back hairy monkey-men just by looking at their skulls. That is imagination.

evolutionists believe in fantasy and claim its fact.

the guy you replied to made an observation and claimed it was just a theory

are you dumb?

>Ancient skulls showcase signs of long life, so I can safely say this is proof for Genesis lifespans.
You would be safely jumping to a preconceived belief based on your religious worldview. Also using the word "proof" wrong.

>don't listen to these men, listen to THESE men- uh I mean "the word of GOD"
>proof? who needs proof when you have FAITH?
>and it's our specific faith, not the thousands of other faiths that have an equal amount of credibility (ie zero)

I should be shocked that there are still people who are this gullible, but I'm not.

>What is your point exactly? There is no conclusive proof that man "evolved" from non-man. All you are doing is putting bones next to each other and imagining how they might have been related. I don't see science here, but plenty of fantasy.
Do you think that canids are related to each other despite the large amount of differences seen among them?

>As for the "Old Man" skull, it would make sense that children have the same features because these people lived a long time, and thus childhood, puberty and adulthood all take much longer. Today a man in his 20 is considered an adult. Back then 20 would still mean a kid. Today our growth is accelerated. We grow faster and die sooner, whereas the Adamic man grew at a snail's pace but lived for much longer, being able to get extremely smart and strong over time. This is all just theorizing of course, but my point is that evidence can be interpreted in multiple ways. In this case, the evolutionists filter the evidence through their worldview. The "Neanderthal" skull shows signs of long life, so if you actually used logic and reason you would conclude that this is evidence for biblical creation, not evolution.
In all my years of study, I have never come across an elderly human skull with the features you described (large brow ridges, and more robust features). Instead, I see the opposite, with features becoming more fragile with age. Also, what you have done is hypothesize, not theorize.

Cromagnon is literally just a normal modern man. A few oddities here and there means nothing. Look at aboriginals or negroids. They're all human, these are nothing but variations within a kind. i.e bird beaks or dog breeds.

As for the old skull thing, I agree that large brow ridges doesn't necessarily indicate long life, nor is it prevalent among all old people. I guess the best example would be Darwin, he had a pretty defined ridge. It's funny how the man that came up with the monkey-to-man mythology looked like a monkey himself. Anyhow there is still the case of unusually strong jaw bones and strong bones in general - suggesting a fit and long life.

>kind

Yes, kind.

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

How scientalogically.

Considering how aboriginals look (more robust features despite the fact that they age like a normal person), couldn't it be inferred that they are a distinct form of human (basically a race) as opposed to an extremely old individual?

In the same way a chihuahua is distinct from a rottweiler? Yes. They're both still dogs, and we are still humans.

How many kinds of bird are there?

I don't know.

So why do you think that these traits are signs of extreme age when they are easily explained as variation?

Are the aboriginal skulls as tough and robust as the "Neanderthal" skulls?

Especially the jaw bones. I'd like a source on that one.

Certainly seem to come closer than any other race.

Are there any scientific tests done that shows that aboriginal skulls are tougher or more durable?

If not - I wouldn't compare it to ancient man (neanderthal) skulls.

No, science's (scientific consensus) objective in this instance is to learn the truth, ofcourse its going to change when the amount of information we have changes,comparing it to a religious text is ridiculous.

jstor.org/stable/40386330?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents
Only thing related that wasn't from AmRen

creation.com/creationism-science-and-peer-review

Yes, the scientific method is unpartial and unbiased. However, scientists are humans and are prone to error, will, desires and personal agendas. It is ignorant to assume that everything that goes on is 100% objective without any intellectual dishonesty. Suppression and silencing of opposing views do happen.

That's what peer review is for.

That shit still happens in peer review, see the link.

1000 years ago scientific consensus in Europe was that the Sun revolved around the Earth. Now its scientific consensus that the earth revolves around the sun. If you think that is damning evidence you must be retarded. The word of god never changes? Well no shit, it was written and edited 1700+ years ago for the soul purpose of never being revised or edited ever again.

He thinks the entire scientific community is in on it. Despite the findings often going into journals anyone can read, as well as having different people with varying views reading it to specifically check for bias and/or do the experiments themselves if they believe them to be invalid.

...

The article even concedes that papers rejected in one journal get published in another one. If you seriously think that there's a giant conspiracy to shut out creationism across every single peer reviewed publication, you need to reevaluate your life.

/k/ommando here. Don't want to create a whole other thread.

When did the Christian/religious/atheist shitposting become a part of Veeky Forums muh board culture? I was here for a very short time after Veeky Forums's creation, but don't recall it. Is it carry over from other boards?

Also
>how could Veeky Forums be created without a God
>protip
>it couldn't

Checkfuckingmate atheists

Never said that were was such a conspiracy.

...

It's a subconscious conspiracy, you dope. Ideological suppression.