2017AD

I'll give you one post to refute evolution.
>inb4 LINKS
In your own words please.

Why is a sin to use the brain god made you with?

Meant for

I never understood exactly why christians are so threatened by evolution. Its not your fault, you were tricked by certain inaccurate entries in the bible. You simply need to rewrite and update it so that it more sensibly describes the world you live in.

>retconning the word of God
t. Protestant """"""""""""Christian""""""""""""

You shouldn't lump Christians in with this retarded fundamentalist minority. To my knowledge, most Christians accept evolution, and is even the official position of the Papacy.

As transcribed and perceived by humans.

>we evolved from monkeys
>monkeys still exist
What now, fedora?

Ironic shitposting is still shitposting.

...

Not an argument

So why make the Chinese whispers even worse?

Second response was meant for

Shit you got me

>I don't understand evolution and I must post: the user
The monkeys we evolved from do not exist anymore, the monkeys we do see are our cousins, not ancestors

>God lies to Adam and Eve
>the snake doesn't
>t-this fruit kills
>naw, it makes you know good from evil
*munches fruit*
>hey I know good from evil nao
>and I didn't die
*kicks them away from the tree that gives eternal life*
>y-you will eventually die

this lord of yours sure is a suspicious character

OT God was the original troll.

that's the beauty of it, no one knows.

You won't find many on other boards. Even on /pol/ they're a vast minority.

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 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.

"Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools" Romans 1:22

>I don't want to be saved: the lost soul
Jesus loves you, you just need to accept him into your heart.

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.

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 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.

creation.com/
icr.org/
trueorigin.org/
answersingenesis.org/
creationwiki.org/Main_Page
evidentcreation.com/TRM-Logerr.html
davelivingston.com/tableofcontents.htm
bible.ca/archeology/bible-archeology.htm
newgeology.us/presentation32.html

Evolution is an unscientific myth. It's only real in the minds of atheists and God-haters.
Pure imagination and wild fantasies.

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

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

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

>Darwinism's Downfall
youtube.com/watch?v=7IHO-QkmomY

because people finally understood that religion is a pilar of society and atherism only leads to social decay, low fertility and being conquered by other people who are still religious
people saw what atheism had to offer, give it a chance and saw the shit that it is
believing in god has nothing to do with it btw

evidentcreation.com/TRM-Logerr.html

Creation is a scientific fact. All the evidence and data points to it.

Evolutionism is a dead, debunked theory. You're an idiot if you believe your grandpa was a poop-throwing monkey.

>2017
>still no religion containment board

>2017
>still no atheist containment board

>Worst Objection to Theism: Who Created God?
youtube.com/watch?v=kKKIvmcO5LQ

>Digital Physics Argument for God's Existence
youtube.com/watch?v=v2Xsp4FRgas

>The Leibnizian Cosmological Argument
youtube.com/watch?v=s2ULF5WixMM

>Quantum Physics Debunks Materialism
youtube.com/watch?v=4C5pq7W5yRM

>The Introspective Argument
youtube.com/watch?v=4l1lQMCOguw

>The Teleological Argument
youtube.com/watch?v=3Yt7hvgFuNg

>What Atheists Confuse
Part 1 youtube.com/watch?v=XbLJtxn_OCo
Part 2 youtube.com/watch?v=bj0lekx-NiQ

>Is Atheism a Delusion?
Part 1 youtube.com/watch?v=_Ii-bsrHB0o
Part 2 youtube.com/watch?v=xnBTJDje5xk

>Atheists Don't Exist
youtube.com/watch?v=qDX6F_O5XB0

strangenotions.com/gods-philosophers/
reasons.org/articles/articles/fulfilled-prophecy-evidence-for-the-reliability-of-the-bible
crisismagazine.com/2015/atheists-dont-exist
letusreason.org/apolo7.htm

itt: evolutionists getting OBLITERATED

You are on it right now

If you speak to God you're religious. If God speaks to you you're psychotic.

>scientists
>>>>scientists
>argumentum ad populum
Not the public though. The scientists. Appeal to Ethos isn't a fallacy.

>there is no evidence supporting the theory that species produce offspring that are not of their species.
Mules

>... For life to have occured by chance
As opposed to a beligerent, omnipotent creator, which is much more mathematically consistent.

>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.
No one has ever used this as an argument.

>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.
Modern scientists are not christians, because that way of thought is antiquated. They were, because back then, science and religion weren't mutually exclusive.

>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."
Appeal to authority isn't used to prove evolution. It's used to decry it, aka, people that have no authority on that subject think they're hot shit on it.

>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.
Take a look at Gregor Mendel or selective breeding instead.

No one has time to sit through this much shit. Present the arguments in writing, please.

Yes. Underrated Post. Shit tier evangelicals tar everybody with their minging brush.

It's a good job Jesus loves you. Everyone else thinks you're a cunt.

Humanities was a mistake.r

REEEEEEEE this is not how you play chess.

Or ya know, the more reasonable non-meme explanation would be that the original demographic of weaboos and asocial spergs got displaced because /b/ and /pol/ brought mainstream attention to the site.

that's a consecuence not the cause

>"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." -Carl Linnaeus

scienceandcreation.blogspot.com/2014/07/biologos-ken-ham-and-david-menton.html?m=0

youtube.com/playlist?list=PL2vrmieg9tO3fSAhvbAsirT2VbeRQbLk7

evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/misconceptions_faq.php

Wisdom teeth.

nobody, NOBODY is going to read your copypasted drivel baptistanon, back to >>>>/twg/
Also protip: when the sheer infodump causes the arguments in it to have little to no context in the current discussion then overwhelming with infodump becomes the main strategy and your arguments are null.
there's a reason why debate clubs combat this kind of behaviour, it has no place there.
Use this info as background knowledge in an argument not as a textwall dump with barely any context.

>can't even spell consequence

I'm not sure I'm exactly following you, but are you seriously implying that the reason for Veeky Forums's ever increasing popularity is because of some supposed re-ignition of religious fervor in the west?

Guys guys guys guys

Why can't it be that god steered evolution, thus creating the human, a sentient being?

It's no use discussing evolution with people who aren't even honest (or knowledgeable) about what the theory of evolution and its supporting data sets propose. You are more content with the notion that scientists are engaged in global conspiracy to discredit the tenets of your faith.

Because that's not the word of God as stated in the Koran.

Your ideas rely on a man who relied on false theories to formulate his reasoning and philosophy. The theory of evolution is chaotic in the first place, get over yourself. You are on a Humanities board, most people have read The Origin of Species.

Malthus was wrong, Darwin was wrong.

not an argument

>This thing is bullshit guise I swear
>The world was repopulated multiple times by close incest though for real and eden totally was not a metaphor its 4real, and if you're a good boy, my canaanite war deity will let you live with him forever after you die

I'm baffled honestly. Are fundies like poor OP here legit? Is it an elaborate troll, or was he brought up this way? Was he created in the recent conservative culture shift, or is his fear of death so strong he actually believes that shite?

>baptistposter
>didn't even bother reading the fucking text
Hey fuck you man.

Protestantism was a mistake

Look around, moron. The evidence of God is obvious. What is happening today is clear evidence of it indeed.

God damnit that guy(or some guy who saved his pasta) spams threads like these to oblivion so I don't even bother to read the text anymore when I post my response pasta, still, infodumps are never an argument but nobody cares it's almost a ritual now

I mean, you may see it, but I don't.
Lmao
>Open your eyes moron! The evidence is everwhere!
Kek

If you wish to remain a devout Christian that is fine with me. I do not see why you cannot retain your belief in Christ as your savior while also reconciling your salvation with the proposed physical mechanisms with which life forms, that is, if you like, the mechanisms with which your God generates life through matter and energy. These are not mutually exclusive beliefs and there no doubt countless Christians who have come before you and have been able to reconcile their salvation with a worldly understanding of physical mechanisms. The slow changes of evolution would no doubt be the batting of an eyelash to the Abrahamic deity.

Let's cut to the heart of the matter.

the theory of evolution is not a cult of personality centered around Charles Darwin. Charles Darwin published his work before Friar Mendel's work on the recessive and dominant traits of pea plants. Friar Mendel's work, which is said by some to establish the science of genetics, came nearly a century before Watson and Crick discovered DNA.

It seems to me unlikely that the science of evolution is a conspiracy is a conspiracy to discredit your faith (I'm not saying this is your contention, though OP's monkey image hints at this) considering the supporting evidence came from countless Scientists (many of whom were religious) from different communities, all over the world, over the course of multiple centuries.

As far as some of Charles Darwin's ideas have been revealed as inaccurate or incomplete or downright incorrect (there are instances of all three) the same is true of every scientist who ever lived. Science is not a religious or a political ideology. It is not a dogma except in the sense that it preaches that you continue experimenting and observing and correcting the flaws in your own ideas.

People continue to build on these ideas in a way meant to transcend misunderstanding and mistranslation. I trust you will educate yourself further.

Hey I've got a question for you fundies
IIf Noah and his sons had to repopulate the world by fucking and impregnating his daughters, where did black people come from? I mean surely Noah was a pure aryan master race dude, right? Could it be that black people came to be over time through exposure to hotter places, almost like an evolushun? No that can't be right.

That's right. Or even telepathically... one person...

These threads are ironic, right? I can never tell

What are the failures in the American education system that produces these kind of people?

That comic is a straw man
I question evolution every time I engage in public discourse with people who insist it is a religion.

And I come out, still, knowing nothing for certain, but content with the notion that the proposed mechanisms of evolution make sense insofar as I am able to observe.

It is pure projection to insist that people who, quite literally, unironically, and -- for reasons other than community, charity & goodwill -- embrace the dogmatic tenets of an established world religion, are somehow LESS Dogmatic than those who through education and discussion came to the stunning conclusion that genetics and biology have valuable information about life and the ways it forms here on Earth.

And again, Christ can be easily reconciled with a belief in evolution. This isn't just Pope Francis' kool aid, either. There is nothing wrong with believing that God set forth a world in which man arose from Beast, but also sent Christ to save the species.

My dear Darwinian cultists, black people are descended from Ham

No one is asserting that evolution is a conspiracy, but your longwinded word salad just helped establish the fact that science is more dogmatic than religion. The ages have passed down religious belief through the Bible. And now you exist to push scientific dogma on the heads of the believers and you think the theory developed and refined less than 200 years ago will hold any ground over what was the ultimate Creator's truth over a wide period of time.

For instance, think about the amount of time the Geocentric universe theory held true, as opposed to the heliocentric one. Evolution is the fairy tale here. You're doing two things, you're denying ultimate creation, and you're also denying the creation of the world by God. In this theory, you look at your surroundings and not only say you can deduce what happened thousands of years ago, which is just as preposterous, but say you can create an idea of what the universe was like hundreds of thousands of years ago.

Hmm.. Like they changed... Over time... Hmm... Yes....

Hey can I roleplay as Noah or other biblical heroes and breed with my close family members?

Only if you're as close to God as they were.

You aren't.

>You used a lot of words to defend your argument so you're crazier than I am
Top jej

There's a difference between using a lot of words, and a word salad. You could have a one paragraph post and it be a word salad.

it's not religious fervor, but a rejection to liberal atheism

>No one is asserting that evolution is a conspiracy, but your longwinded word salad

"Word salad."
An insult so soon? My discourse was word salad. Well I suppose there's no hope that you'll respond to my points...

>just helped establish the fact that science is more dogmatic than religion

How exactly did I establish this? I do not suggest any lasting consequences for you not embracing evolution. I do not suggest that you will burn in hell for not having the same understanding of things as me. So in what way am I being more dogmatic? Please don't ignore this question, if you can help it. It is sincere.

Let's read the rest of your post. Maybe you'll explain.

>The ages have passed down religious belief through the Bible.

Okay.

> And now you exist to push scientific dogma on the heads of the believers

You claim to know the reason I exist, where I have claimed no such knowledge about you.

In fact, I suggested, multiple times, that you can reconcile your belief with an UNDERSTANDING (not faith, understanding) of the discoveries of the past two centuries. How you regard this as hostile and "pushing scientific dogma" onto "the heads of believers" is beyond me. If you are talking about unpleasant experiences you have had with other people who are perhaps less patient, please remember that I am not them.

I am not hear to be aggressive or call you names. I do not suggest your beliefs are wrong. As far as my beliefs are concerned, I don't have any. I have an understanding built out of observations. I know my understanding might be wrong, which is why I engage in discourse.

Some observations I have found more helpful than others. But I don't approach anything with the confidence and certainty of faith. You might regard this as bad, and that is fine, but I do not.

cont...

cont...

>and you think the theory developed and refined less than 200 years ago will hold any ground over what was the ultimate Creator's truth over a wide period of time.

Did I say that? Oh dear. Let's scroll up... you are making this conversation rather difficult to keep a track of... no I didn't. It appears I did not say that. In fact. It appears I suggested no supremacy of your information over mine. In fact, it appears I suggested that the two sets of information can be reconciled in one mind. That there is nothing about evolution that contradicts salvation through Christ. I have yet to hear you refute this. You continue to smack the olive branch out of my hand without even acknowledging its existence. It is through the pure gesture of your rhetoric that you smack it out of my hand.

>For instance, think about the amount of time the Geocentric universe theory held true, as opposed to the heliocentric one.

Thinking about it. Okay.

>Evolution is the fairy tale here
Could you convince me further? Repetition of claims alone is not enough to convince.

>You're doing two things
You seem quite confident that you know what I'm doing. I wonder if confidence correlates with being correct?

>you're denying ultimate creation
Where did I do this? Keep in mind I have exclusively responded to you with long posts. I am not the "JEJ" guy. I am the piccolo grinch guy, and the guy who posted the image with the long line of people.

>and you're also denying the creation of the world by God.
The Genesis account, is believed by many Christians to be allegorical. A stepping stone to a relationship with God. The only universal claim of all branches of Christianity is salvation through Christ. This can be reconciled with an understanding (not a belief, an understanding) of evolution and the data sets which seem to me , upon inspection, to support it.

cont...

How can you type so many words but not say anything?

cont.

>In this theory, you look at your surroundings and not only say you can deduce what happened thousands of years ago
I never said this. If I did, please redirect me to where I did. I sure hope you do. Because otherwise I am beginning to suspect you don't want to engage in honest discourse. I could be wrong though. I hope you prove me wrong. Then I will have learned something.

Furthermore I don't think modern professionals aided by advanced technology, aided by industrialism and government grants, aided by hundreds of years of cumulative research, standing on the shoulders of giants, is the same as someone looking around, shrugging, and saying "yep, guess we came from critters." which is what admittedly some philosophers (like Anaximander) did.

> but say you can create an idea of what the universe was like hundreds of thousands of years ago.

I never said that I, by myself, could do this.

If I am saying anything at all, it is this:

I am saying that I remain unconvinced that your beliefs cannot be reconciled with an understanding (not a belief, an understanding) of evolution.

Because I am not here to allege things about your character or refute your beliefs.

>As far as my beliefs are concerned, I don't have any. I have an understanding built out of observations.
>(not a belief, an understanding)
An "understanding" is literally just a true belief, possibly even with a claim of knowledge, in which case it is even a stronger claim than just a belief.

Contrarianism. Veeky Forums prides itself on being different and dissenting, and not just in the way popular movements dissent.

When becoming a superficially edgy, egalitarian, militant atheist become the norm across the internet, channers picked up as far from the opposite as they could find just to throw it back at whoever latched on to seem trendy and hip.

Over the course of these three replies there were numerous questions. None of them have been answered by the person I was talking to, who alleges, after all my best effort, that I have said nothing, while also alleging that I have said multiple things that i have not in fact said.

My opponent alleges that I have been hostile towards his faith in multiple ways, while also alleging that I have said nothing. I hope my opponent is able to reconcile these beliefs more easily than he is able to reconcile faith in Christ and an understanding of evolution.

This is both sad and frustrating. If the goal was to sadden or frustrate me, then my opponent may consider himself a successful and clever rake of man.

I will now refer to my original reply.
I will now accept a 20 fedora salute in my honor.

We're all close to God. God is omnipresent. We're all as closest as possible to God.

You are quite selective in what words you choose to reply to.

Tell me, are you ever going to pay attention to the numerous questions I asked?

No, because I'm someone else, as you can see with the unique IP counter, and don't care about creationism, which I find to be thoroughly debunked.

>No, because I'm someone else, as you can see with the unique IP counter, and don't care about creationism, which I find to be thoroughly debunked.

Very well.

Maybe I'm doing it wrong, but I don't look at the unique IP counter every time someone posts.

This appears to be how you operate, so perhaps it is a good idea.

I don't do it either. I only look at it if a post really looks out of place from the string of the discussion so far. Before assuming that the interlocutor isn't consistent, I test whether he's someone totally new to the thread by looking at the IP counter.

so that means at some point you must've known the previous IP counter to be able to compare it to the current one, which means at some points you checked the IP counter "unprovoked"
that sounds a bit autistic desu

I meant creationwise. You have to understand, those men around Noah were closer to Adam, and therefore God's image, than any of us are.

Yes, I write down the unique IP counter of every thread I'm in in 13-minute intervals, and match new IPs to new posts by screenshotting them and shopping the IP counter in.

Or, I just use Veeky Forums X, which displays it next to the name, as long as you've lurked.

I really wish this was just history board.

...

>Veeky Forums X displays IP
well on my defense the settings page has like 50 different options

Fake news