Is nihilism a disease or a rite of passage?

Camus had it right.

Just make up your own purpose, you don't need the universe to give you one.

What is purpose?
I mean, purpose is inevitable.

Making your own purpose is nihilism

Nihilistic thoughts are really depressing, how can one really be ok with the fact that were all just data that will expire and become nothingness, the idea that you die and eventually will never be remembered or cared about, that nothing lasts forever, sometimes even asking why even bother doing things if in the end they will have no purpose or meaning.

For some reason reading about rome and other historical people/art/literature really put those thoughts at ease, maybe one day i'll be good enough with my own artistic skill to give something from me to others maybe adopt Stoicism.

It's honestly the endgame conclusion if you observe nature. You can't really refute it.
As for purpose, people give think things are "purposeful" or "meaningful" if they find utility in them- this is the human's psyche way of ranking the utility it'll derive from finite scarce resources. Purpose of existence has never been observed in nature so it's illogical to search for it.

>happy life without purpose
Again, nothing in our surrounding environment implies things have purpose. You're just falling for a flawed framework of thought where your subjective purpose you place on an object is its defining characteristic, whereas there is inherently none.

>purpose is inevitable
How so?

You sound like an underage girl, user.
Everything you leave, no matter how good, will eventually decay, so you're not actually exempt. On a positive note, you'll always be a definite energy ripple in the q-fields that is in part "responsible" for and influences all future states of the universe.

I'm 20 now, have been going through existential crisis pretty hardcore since I was 15 or so. It has gone on and off but it's still here. I'm still testing things out, and reading. I think I've "settled down for good" every few weeks or so but I never do. I always come back to Christianity then wind up dropping it again after reading Nietzsche again, or something else.

I don't fucking know what's going on in all actuality.

>above average
>christianity and muh nee~chi
oh nonononono
You're the meme that keeps on memeing.

This seems really obvious, I don't see how more people don't come to this conclusion themselves. Nihilism (which is the only logical view) doesn't have to be depressing, it can in fact be liberating.

You troglodytes need to listen to U. G. Krishnamurti.

Yeah you can make your own purpose, that's the point. Honestly I do believe that all people do have tribal purpose to be a part of a group. I don't even think that's debatable, it's one of your strongest impulses.

>Nihilism (the only logical view)

No. It's not. You're reifying nothingness. You're looking out at the world and saying "all this = nothing", what you're doing is reducing actuality to a word. You're right, the world is nothing, but it is so radically nothing even "nothing" ceases to have any meaning. Breathe. Nihilism is for the soulless, and is more a reflection of mental and physical health than any real truth.

Neutral nihilism is neutral (radical, I know). Antagonistic nihilism - the insistence that since there is no purpose then life must be void of meaning or good or optimism - is pseudo-intellectualism of the highest order.

Thinking that accepting modern thought on moral structures or belief foundations is some kind of rite of passage is raw stupidity.

the passage leads nowhere but it is one we all must take

t. nietzsche

Nihilism is, in all honesty, Science's fault.

It completely destroyed any metaphysics, but people haven't realized it yet. They exchanged their religious beliefs for political beliefs and ideologies, and yet they are no different than religion.(From a scientific perspective).

How is a belief in egalitarianism, or even the superiority of one race over another, any different from believing that Christ is God? They are both anti-scientific beliefs, and sooner or later people are going to wake up and realize it and become true nihilists.

>They are both anti-scientific beliefs, and sooner or later people are going to wake up and realize it and become true nihilists.

The logical conclusion that fits into science is that you are a tribal ape and you should act like one in order to be fulfilled. Follow your instincts within the parameters of what modern society permits. It's really not that complicated.

I hope that's just you explaining that and not actually advising it

Why what's wrong with it? I think I've got something good here.

>dude you're just a monkey follow your instincts lmao

no. rise and overcome. get outta here with this last man """philosophy"""

>dude you're just a monkey follow your instincts lmao

It's the highest truth. Anything else is missing the mark, not seeing what's right in front of your nose.

You want fulfillment in life spiritual or otherwise? You need to realize you are programmed to achieve fulfillment when you meet instinctual needs.

You are a dog pretending he's above fetch and running around in the park.

>within the parameters of what modern society permits.

Why? Everything about society is socially constructed and as such at odds with science.

Everything from property relations to what kind of clothes people wear has a purely fictional basis, and isn't "true" in the scientific sense, so what value does it actually have?

Well from a practical perspective, not following societies rules hinders the ability of you and your group to expand their wealth, happiness and fulfillment. You do have to play by the rules of your society to some real extent.

It's a truth, and not the highest. Man is a spiritual being.

But even the idea that the goal of humans is to "expand their wealth, happiness and fulfillment" is a modern prejudice, and this idea was inculcated into you as a child and a teenager, and actually isn't real in any scientific sense. It's just a figment of your imagination.

I am of course playing devil's advocate here, but if there is nothing substantive about the human being or the human experience that can be argued to transcend even science itself, how are we supposed to stop nihilism?

We can't.

You don't stop nihilism with arguments. You stop it with the quality of your being. Fullness, health, vitality, love. The idea that nihilism has to be argued away, not lived away, is also an idea inculcated into you as a child and a teenager. That you have to ask the void pretty please to believe in your highest thought. Stop doing that.

Your predisposition toward spiritual and abstract thinking is an artifact of your evolution. It is an instinct you can harness.

Yeah user it's not artificial, if people back then had the ability to maximize their security and be well fed, they'd do it. We just use a different approach now that means accumulating money.

An instinct that precisely knows itself as the instinct that it is. I'm the dog that knows I'm a dog and am thereby something more than just a dog.

By this you mean we should follow Hitler, in reality Hitler was a huge threat to the German people.

What
No if Hitler was in charge it would be right to oppose him since he was a threat to the German people.

Yes and yet you still have instincts. It's weird that you know what you are but are blatantly denying what comes with that.

It's nature's most subversive form of population control.

People in this thread thinks Christianity is nihilist by nature, I mean take a look at history, Christians literally paved way to universities, education and science.
Tbh Nihilists are just lacky of thought, majority believe that everything can be rationalized, look at history, it's a slaughter house. Man can never be a piano key and produce the right sound, free will cannot be calculated mathematically or can be viewed with rational perspective.
I've never meet a nihilist in my life who has considered metaphysics or even spend some time on Christianity, they do not understand that morality cannot exist without a God.
I mean cmon how does Nietzsches eternal recurrence be possible? if it is true, where then is justice? wouldn't life be just adventure ?
most nietzsche fan kids take his words out of context, they barely spend time on what he believed and on what belief he built his philosophy.

Part 2:
I'm not anti science, Religion and science must co exist and since the word of God is the ultimate truth, Science can never refute the bible, if it does there's something wrong with the way you observe.

>hurr durr flat earth
No, Bible supports globe earth

>hurr durr evolution
Look up Cambrian era and it's ancestors.

There are multiple good explanations for the Cambrian explosion, zero of them require magic. Evolution is real and is proven fact, we can make it happen in a lab and watch.

Nietzsche was not a nihilist man

Like chicken pox, it's a disease of adolescence.

Not denying anything, I'm acknowledging I am both being a creature of instinct and not, hence the spiritual struggle. Nothing wrong with acknowledging where you came from, but people like you wanna drag us back there

I know, he is not, but his existentialism is borderline nihilistic, one might easily fall for nihilism in times of trouble or tribulation.
Try reading 'Crime and punishment' Raskolnikov wanted to be the 'Übermensch' and commits 2 murder but he ultimately failed and in the end he became a Christian.

Anything you decide on is going to be within the framework of your instincts. You cannot find happiness that does not involve tuning into your instinctual desires. Happiness or contentment is wired into you to be achieved when you meet certain needs. Most notably your need for love and belonging.

I'm just showing you the path.

Nihilism has already been debunked & destroyed so many times.
Just like atheism, socialism and evolutionism.

>The Existential Problem & Religious Solution
Part 1 youtube.com/watch?v=iw36V_iXR2k
Part 2 youtube.com/watch?v=jkh2TXCHpNs

>Man or Rabbit?
youtube.com/watch?v=X9fR1vSxNEQ

>The Laws of Nature
youtube.com/watch?v=_20yiBQAIlk

>Mere Christianity
youtube.com/watch?v=l_VYCqCexow

>The Origin (or 1,2,3,4)
youtube.com/watch?v=tw9biRRv_bM

>‘Right & Wrong’ – A Clue to the Meaning of the Universe
youtube.com/watch?v=QmHXYhpEDfM

>The Reality of the Moral Law
youtube.com/watch?v=LqsAzlFS91A

>What Lies Behind the Moral Law
youtube.com/watch?v=kcRFYGr1zcg

>The Poison of Subjectivism
youtube.com/watch?v=Lgcd6jvsCFs

>The Rival Conceptions of God
youtube.com/watch?v=yaGwF7A79_w

>The Humanitarian Theory of Punishment
youtube.com/watch?v=ZxwnHVr192A

>Why I Am Not a Pacifist
Part 1 youtube.com/watch?v=k2xY2k26HFo
Part 2 youtube.com/watch?v=jreq3mVvDgc

>Bulverism (Foundation of 20th Century Thought)
youtube.com/watch?v=DH53uFBOGbw

>The Necessity of Chivalry
youtube.com/watch?v=GBT9LasyC3E

>The Three Parts of Morality
youtube.com/watch?v=MtTeCyrgjIQ

>Sexual Morality
Part 1 youtube.com/watch?v=-RkZXZx6HCI
Part 2 youtube.com/watch?v=7AXi4-_HPRk

>evolutionism

Do you call the fact that objects in motion stay in motion until acted on by an outside force, Physicism? Moron.

>zero of them require magic
See, here's where you're lacky of thought.
Don't you realize that the mere concept of big bang itself is magic? To have faith on big bang is to believe in magic and even Richard Dawkins thinks there is something behind the big bang.

>video related
youtube.com/watch?v=b6H9XirkhZY

I'm talking about the Cambrian explosion, not the big bang. Don't deflect.

Sorry for deflecting, I'm not aware of any fossilized ancestors of Cambrian Era species, if you do know please post them.

>You cannot find happiness that does not involve tuning into your instinctual desires

Your definition of instinctual desires at this point is so loose as to be practically meaningless

Evolution is a myth.

as for the ''We can make it happen in a lab and watch''

Dr Hall has developed a method of so-called “in vitro evolution” that allows E. coli bacteria to mimic “natural evolutionary processes.” In the recent study, he observed how his experimental bacteria “developed” resistance to a variety of antibiotics. Then he compared the resistance of these bacteria to the resistance found in naturally occurring bacteria.
The resistance are coded in our genes, it's not evolution for instance in human once when one is infected to some disease, he's gets immune to it. The disease, bacteria or whatever it is, just triggers the pre coded resistance in our genes. Trust me my friend, you must question everything, don't believe the crowd, the crowd lies.

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 atheist in most cases will assert that he has no belief and that his atheism is all about a ‘LACK of BELIEF’. They really love to stress this, and I can see why, because such a claim has a smuggled-in superiority that they are the rational ones who build their lives solely on reason and evidence opposed to the believer’s position of faith. But what they don’t tell you and what they refuse to mention is that they do have a positive BELIEF which forms their worldview and that is the belief in philosophical NATURALISM Philosophical naturalism is the doctrine that the natural world is all there is). Every person runs their life on presuppositions - assumptions about life and the universe. No one is without them; even a position of skepticism implies a whole lot of knowledge and opinions about the nature of reality. In short nobody lives in a philosophical black hole – nobody is neutral. The fact is many atheists don’t want their own position scrutinised; they have their beliefs/opinions in regard to the bigger questions of life. When I asked one particular atheist what is your worldview, and what is the evidence for it? What is your philosophical position and what is the evidence that it's true, and truly reflective of ultimate reality? He just retorted back that he had no beliefs. I then asked him to just tell me what he doesn't believe so that I could establish what he believes by default, I got no reply. It was clear to me that this particular person – and I have met many others like him – did not want to shift the ground to discussing his positive beliefs as such a move would invariably lead into his belief of philosophical naturalism – much better for him to just assert atheism and its single one-eyed view of lack of belief.

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.

They're mostly sponges and micro-organisms, but there are fossils out there, mostly bacteria. You can't honestly be telling you that you've settled on this conclusion you have without googling fossils before the cambrian era, right?

No user, evolution can be demonstrated in a lab with anti-biotics killing populations, then some survive and pass on their resistance. This is done all the time. You simply don't understand the biology involved.
It means emotional drives that are either active or latent to be activated. You feeling happy when you are laughing with a group of people is an instinctual program for example.

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
genesispark.com/exhibits/evidence/historical/dragons/

>Lengthy article completely debunking evolutionism
newgeology.us/presentation32.html

God and evolution are not mutually exclusive.

>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.

This is literally all false.

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.

>Archeological Discoveries that Prove the Bible is true
youtube.com/watch?v=FxHYh3QZbTI

>Why Evolutionists Lie About The Fossils
youtube.com/watch?v=AC6ggG4SbZc

>ATHEISTS ARE LIVING IN THE STONE AGE | The Theory Of Evolution is Officially DEBUNKED In 2017
>youtube.com/watch?v=4wCxkBnm3ow

>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

>"You don't understand evolution!"
youtube.com/watch?v=9V2eXu8RY20

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

>1 - The Truth About Dinosaurs - Does The Bible Mention Dinosaurs?
youtube.com/watch?v=Vr5A0um9-Fg
>2 - The Truth About Dinosaurs - Did Man Co-Exist With Dinosaurs?
youtube.com/watch?v=D-rGvX3NLf8
>3 - The Truth About Dinosaurs - Did A Flood Destroy The Dinosaurs?
youtube.com/watch?v=SWZmaMpdKqM
>4 - The Truth About Dinosaurs - Did Dinosaurs Get On and Off The Ark?
youtube.com/watch?v=_jxEYBJnYHc
>5 - The Truth About Dinosaurs - Are Dragons Really Dinosaurs?
youtube.com/watch?v=sfU3QhpxChI
>6 - The Truth About Dinosaurs - Do Dinosaurs Still Live Today?
youtube.com/watch?v=tqP55kM7MfI
>7 - The Truth About Dinosaurs - Do We Have Conclusive Evidence of Dinosaurs?
youtube.com/watch?v=3hx5aYqM89A

>No user, evolution can be demonstrated in a lab with anti-biotics killing populations, then some survive and pass on their resistance. This is done all the time. You simply don't understand the biology involved.

You see, the information does not get added rather it triggers the information which pre-exist in them, here's a good read.

answersingenesis.org/natural-selection/antibiotic-resistance/biologists-mimic-evolution-in-the-lab/

>>Don't you realize that the mere concept of big bang itself is magic?
No it isn't. You are confusing us not knowing precisely how things worked before the big bang happened with your god existing. Magic isn't real and neither is your faith.

>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.

It is straightforward and we understand the whole process. You don't understand the process.

Did you watch the video related?

>Why Leftists Believe Weird and Immoral Things
youtube.com/watch?v=oETivbBtlAE

>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

Evolution is an un-scientific myth.

Creation is a scientific, proven fact.

Hey I like you, do you happen to use telegram messenger? there's a nice Christian chatroom over there :)

>You see, the information does not get added

That's false, frameshift mutations, insertion mutations, duplication mutations off the top of my head and several more create new genetic information.

You seem to be a tolerant atheist, not the militant one. Would you spend a minute reading this ? :)

answersingenesis.org/genetics/mutations/a-creationist-perspective-of-beneficial-mutations-in-bacteria/

>trueorigin.org
oh man, i remember all the shit flinging between trueorigin and talkorigin in the late 90s.

evolutionists were getting completely destroyed by the creationists so they had to resort to silencing, omitting or strawman attacks.

the most sad part is that kids today are still being brainwashed in school by this nonsense. indoctrinating children and telling them they're just animals and dinosaurs lived millions of years ago. cramming as much falsehoods and lies before the kid can even read or write. it's disgusting.

believing in evolution means rejecting logic and reason

user, you don't know what a deletion mutation is. A deletion mutation is still forming new genetic information in the same way that taking out the letter y from the word busy is still creating a new word.

You fundamentally don't understand genetics.

I'm sorry, we were talking about the fossils for the ancestors of cambrian era species, I'm afraid we have ignored it.

Not him but how does that make any sense?
Removing the letter y from busy is deleting information, not adding anything new.

Bus being a new word is irrelevant. There is a reason why breeding animals for specific traits makes them weaker in the wild, more fragile or prone to certain diseases. No match for the original wolf/canine that stepped out of the ark.

The answer has to do with how exactly genetic code is read by RNA and used to create amino acids. I'm dropping wikipedia articles here because i'm too lazy to get direct sources but if you are at all skeptical you can crack open your own biology textbook or look into the wikipedia sources.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_code
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exon

To generalize further than it should, dna is read in three gene parts called codons. These codons make up larger sequences called exons & introns. When a single gene is deleted from this sequence, that codon which had the deleted gene isn't just removed, the WHOLE sequence is read differently, which created wildly different amino acids from what was originally intended.

>christfag anti-evolution derailing of a nihilism thread

Like clockwork.

They're mostly bacteria and microscopic organisms, there are plenty out there. Whoever told you there are no fossils before the Cambrian was a moron, and so are you for not taking a 2 second google search to disprove it.

Thanks for the support bud, I had to go out and do some shit.

camus was retarded and a high schooler could come up with a better philosophy
>bro nothing matters so just do whatever you want

Refute him right now.

He is unable to think the Kierkegaardian leap of faith.

Leaps of faith are not truth, you just make them up yourself, exactly as he admits to doing.

He makes the leap he just recognizes it as inherently absurd so he leaps in another direction

Why is the leap of faith necisary or why is it correct?

>No, Bible supports globe earth
Proofs?

A leap in the face of impossibility is kind of the point.

Kierkegaard describes Abraham as believing that he will regain Isaac again precisely by virtue of the absurd, hence that is what makes it faith.

>What is the leap of faith

That despite man being the creature that craves for meaning in a meaningless universe, he can still have a confidence in the eternal validity of the meaning denied him, because it is non-existent. Hence, faith.

I agree with this. The fact that nihilism dwindles out a lot in the mid to later 20s is not indicative of it being facile or childish, but rather that most people won't go on living for a whole lifetime with that mindset. Typically they will either try to cope (escapism, vices), find a meaning, or become an hero.