How old were you guys when you realized evolution couldn't possibly be true?

Uh ... science is wrong here because people fail to properly understand the limitations of science.

Describing how the universe works does not all of the sudden mean you know how it was created. Which I believe is OP's point. Science has been invoked as a replacement belief system for religion when it was never intended to be such .

Attached: 1524103755831.jpg (250x250, 63K)

It's funny how god creates all these animals that look like they evolved when you arrange them by date, but doesnt want us to believe in evolution. Was god trying to confuse us by creating small birdlike dinosaurs with feathers?

Attached: 64f55e8ef8cdda6baf9685edd7563455.png (566x746, 58K)

>Big bang
More proper to say that everything exploded, it still doesn't come close to explaining it but closer then saying nothing exploded
>Deep time
millions of billions of earth* years, time is affected by gravity and to some extend speed, beyond earth millions and billions could be gazillions and gorillions or tens and hundreds
>Abiogenesis
It was an accumilation of complex changes over a long loooong period of time, rocks didnt just start talking overnight
>Evolution
See abiogenesis
>Reasoning
Apes DNA is the most common to ours, but considering we also share like 20% DNA with fucking plants its more likely to say we evolved from apes rather then from plants because their DNA is closest too us and Ape Social behaviour is like rough human Social behaviour
>Scientism
Doesnt exist, anyone who trusts science knows any theory that cannot be tested or implied with tests is worth nothing, through what we do know evolution and abiogenesis can atleast be implied
>Faith
complete opposite of what science stands for, which is blind belief

Religion is nothing more of a projection of the subconcious' symbolism unto myths and stories and serve the need for the humans psyche for spirit, the religions content doesn't matter, as long as the psyche is able to do something with it

>The kingdom of heaven is within you
Is literal and implies synchronisity between the concious and unconcious parts of our psyche

Why did god want us to think birds evolved from dinosaurs? Was it a test? did he just want to make sure enough of us go to hell?

Attached: l_034_01_l.jpg (500x462, 55K)

atheism is bad and stupid
what else is there to discuss holy shit

Evolution can literally be observed
>T-they won't listen to us!!!
Because we aren't getting anywhere debating the color of the sky.

Another question, creationists. Are you literally saying that all the documented life we've found, past and present, all lived at the same time? Like giant flesh eating dinosaurs competing with wolves and jungle cats?? How did that work???? How did we survive, do you even know how many different types of Tryannosaurids there were? There wans't just T.Rex, and that's just one family among many others over time.

Attached: tyrannosaurs-poster.jpg (864x576, 659K)

It's non falsifiable(which is a huge load of problems according to the philosophy of scientific principles, but that's another issue). If I showed you a T-rex fossil eating a human fossil in its mouth it would not mean evolution is false, it would just be tweaked and you'd be forced to pretend T-rexs actually lived way longer than you originally pretended. It wouldn't change a thing. "Evolution" cannot be proven true or false, it is therefore a religion. It can be shown to be absolutely absurd though, like thinking that literally a single tooth counts as a "transitional fossil" that magically links modern day species with separate species that went extinct "so many bajillionmillions of years ago" and totally teaching abiogensis as fact despite absolutely no proof whatsoever. Even Dawkins said panspermia might be why we're here, we don't have a clue. Yet my textbooks states, as if it were fact, we came out of the primordial ooze "somehow." It's all just a vast circlejerk of appealing to authority.

I genuinely don't know which side is which with how you described it. It could go either way depending on which side you're on.

>it would not mean evolution is false
Who says that?
>tweaked
To what?

Where did everything come from? The issue is FIRST cause. You can move the chain back as far as you want but unless you have a beginning of some kind you're still standing on thin air.

>Ape Social behaviour is like rough human Social behaviour
The lengths people will go to to make our existence seem insignificant are endless. We speak. nothing else speaks and nothing else probably ever will speak. We've been trying to get apes to sign at us and setting up the most fool-proof exchanges with parrots to try and convince ourselves otherwise but we simply have something they don't.

Chomsky's book is probably the most recent attempt at seriously addressing the issue and he struggled quite hard and could only really hypothesize: newscientist.com/article/2078294-why-only-us-the-language-paradox/
If there's any truth to evolution I'm inclined to think that Lamarck actually had the right of it before Darwin, but his ideas were shoved into the corner because they couldn't be used to justify English power-politics.

there is nothing more un-scientific than the evolution THEORY and atheism,they are literally blind-eyed to evidence all over the world,humans didn't come from this world

youtube.com/watch?v=aDGD2VmxzLY

>Describing how the universe works does not all of the sudden mean you know how it was created.
No one claims to "know" how it was created. That's the colloquial misunderstanding and missuse of words like "theory" and "science". The difference is scientists are able to test a working hypothesis while the religious draw their ideas from the same human-era text and then have the arrogance to say science is acting like a religion.

Science isn't knowing, it's a means of testing. You can't test religion.

I haven't reached that level of brain damage yet.

Evolution can be falsified by finding an animal with features that could not fit into a sequence over time, like a cheetah with bird wings growing out of it's back. There is no precedent for thinking such an animal could exist in the current evolutionary model.

>1 post by this ID

Attached: 1519985006001.jpg (280x202, 52K)

>It's non falsifiable
That doesn't mean what you think it means.

If God doesn't have to come from somewhere, then you are admitting that not everything has to come from a god.

The last gasp of evolution for me was that there are no signs of erosion in the sedimentary layers.
It doesn't mean there's a God, (I believe there is)
It just means that evolution couldn't have possibly happened the way they are saying it did.

Do you have a list of papers or articles that say there are? I want to read what you're reading to know what you're disagreeing with.

according to whom? Some guy who already disbelieves evolution?

Have you ever heard of a Russian man named Anatoly Fomenko? I don't believe the things he says but I always try to keep him in mind.

That's pretty true, but as a rule Catholic Apologists are well-versed in natural science. How many leading figures in the atheist community have recognized credentials in theology? Father Ripperger, a man who claims to exercise literal demons from people on behalf of the Church, studied psychology when he went to university. The theology and philosophy only came later.

Also keep in mind that the term 'science' as we understand it is a new creation. Now it more or less means 'secular inquisition' but it used to more or less just mean knowledge, and it was taken for granted that theology was a science. We didn't learn anything to disprove most of it, we just decided we liked another non-falsifiable or almost non-falsifiable belief system better.

1 day old. This is how it feels to live in a muslim country

You forgot the part where we have no free will
And that we might be in a simulation...
But not a simulation thats run by someone 'cause that couldnt happen

science is all about tweaking the hypothesis based on research results. That's what makes it verbose enough to deal with lurking variables. If an observed phenomenon in physics contradicts the underlying foundations of it, doesn't mean that physicists start from scratch and re-define the underlying understanding of the universe. Science isn't something that defines truth as much as it tries to approximate its self as close as possible to it. Its not gonna be perfect but its sure as hell a lot closer than pre-supposing the nature of reality based on anecdotal evidence and personal experiences.

Attached: 1501469309157.jpg (600x559, 25K)

Why do creationists have such a problem understanding the fossil record?
You can date rocks, those rocks have fossils in them, the older rocks have gradually different forms of life.
Find a fossil, rock > 300 million years old, huh no mammals.
Find a fossil, rock is 400 million years old, its just shellfish.

>Who says that?
So if we do find a paradoxical fossil that cannot be explained with the "accepted" timeline we're just going to torch all biology textbooks because they're wrong? Are you insane? It's a religion, they will keep thinking evolution is true no matter what.

>To what?

Mostly irrelevant stuff like why didn't T-rexs "evolve" into birds and a few other Jew lies. You realize Jews believe in evolution right?

You seem to be making a couple of mistakes here. First the bible isn't the source of Christianity. It's taken to be perfectly true but the Bible grew out of the Church, not vice-versa. The religious don't all draw their ideas on the origin of the universe from the Bible. Aquinas spent his life verifying his Christian beliefs against Aristotelian thought. Even today most apologists try to use strict logic. For example

Whatever begins to exist has a cause;
The universe began to exist;

Therefore:

The universe has a cause

or

Without God objective moral values cannot exist;

Objective moral values do exist;

therefore God exists

Might not be perfect but it's not just throwing faith into ink on paper. Disprove these things if you disagree. But don't refer to your own words on paper, think and explain. That's how Christians do it.

I was this on people.
Do most people evolve?
No. They get fat, degenerate, dumb.

To make something better you need will and a plan.

Attached: 10230255.jpg (640x640, 110K)

*I saw

At least we're standing up for our beliefs and traditions instead of whining like a little bitch. What are you doing to help?

No I'm not.

But can we?

>Objective moral values do exist

No they don't, why do humans all over the world have different cultures with different morals? Morals can only have meaning withing the subjective experience of humans. We experience suffering, and we crave morality to reduce suffering.

Evolution is painfully obvious. All Darwin did was sit on a fucking rock and document different subspecies in different regions. It's not even a religious question. If anything, in Darwin's mind, evolution was proof that God existed.

Evolution is a theory on the origin of species. Not life itself.

Attached: 1487788602061.png (1020x1366, 1.16M)

Why is evolution and creationism exclusive? You could argue that God created life on Earth but then it evolved to what we see now

If god exists, then why are there niggers?
Checkmate judaism!!!!1!

>nuh-uh

That's all you have. You do believe that eventually something has to have been there all along. You believe it's god, I believe it's the observable universe, and yes, the universe is infinite outside of linear time, which is merely an artifact of how we perceive time. The big bang merely describes the point where time becomes observable.

wat?
evolution is falsifiable.
if i put bacteria in agar with antibiotics i can absolutely predict that bacteria which can tolerate the antibiotics will breed and further mutate. this is repeatable and has been done many times.
vid related
youtube.com/watch?v=plVk4NVIUh8

I think you'll find that most societies end up finding more or less the same morals independently, and have the same standards of decency and decadence. For example despite what revisionists will tell you virtually the entire planet despised sodomy for most of human history. Have you ever heard of a society where murder was considered virtuous?
>we crave morality to reduce suffering
Could you place a positive definition of morality in here or do you just define it as a lack of suffering?

Because our scripture was written down without error under the guidance of the Holy Spirit you backslider.

Have you ever met a Darwinist who was a theist? And I mean real deal, not a cultural Christian/Muslim/whatever who just vaguely believes in an afterlife but does whatever they want.

Just because something has a cause doesn't mean that the cause is divine or profound. It can be anything from God to an accident you don't know.

Are you sure that Objective morals exist because of God or is more likely that they are just a reflection of the universal laws that guide nature?

>Where did everything come from? The issue is FIRST cause.
As in what created the state of the universe before the big bang? We havent found it yet

Who knows, maybe science will find god at the end of that question

The idea that science and god are adverseries tho

God is why
Science is how

Science could reveal how god did it just as much as it could reveal god doesnt exist at this point

Science is gnostic and not atheistic because god cannot be disproven, wether that is a permanent truth or a limitation of our measuring devices has yet to be found out, but the idea that science is atheïst is religious is silly, it will only become atheïst the moment it can disprove god with a repeatable experiment with consistent results

Evolution could be falsified by a fossil of a modern cat appearing in the same rock as the fossil of a trilobite.

Yes, it's really fucking easy.
Radioactive minerals decay at certain rates, the proportion of a given isotope in a sample gives it's age. You can do zirconium dating at home with an off the shelf giger counter.

>It's a religion
Yeah, if you're working on this false premise of course you will say they will react as religionists.
>irrelevant stuff
No, it would shatter many ideas and observations.
>Joos
If a Jew believes shit smells, are you going to pick it up and get a good sniff and still defy the stench? The purpose of a Jew in academia is to convert teachers into cultural marxists and those teachers recruit footsoldiers within low tier science fields like sociology, anthropology, etc. If you see any Jew trying to tamper with evidence in harder sciences, it is becomes so easy to spot like Gould who refuse to believe there is racial component to genetics and behavior.

>>Evolution is a theory on the origin of species. Not life itself.
>Have you ever met a Darwinist who was a theist? And I mean real deal, not a cultural Christian/Muslim/whatever who just vaguely believes in an afterlife but does whatever they want.

I've made more than one post ITT. Let's try this seriously then.

>If God doesn't have to come from somewhere, then you are admitting that not everything has to come from a god.
Explain step by step how this makes any sense.

It's wrong to say that 'God doesn't have to come from somewhere'. If he came from anywhere, or didn't exist at any point he wouldn't be god. He Is Who Is. He was the first thing and he always was. Nothing can come from anything but him because there was once only god, and then there were more things. The things he created begot more things but he's the ultimate source.

Now you go
>inb4 nu-huh lol I was just kidding wow you took the time to actually write get trold

Did Jesus use a meme flag in the early days?
Did he faggot?

Attached: jesus_20dick_203-500x375.jpg (600x450, 29K)

>First the bible isn't the source of Christianity
Who said anything about the Bible?

>it's not just throwing faith into ink on paper
At the end of the day, it is. You're talking about philosophy, which has it's place and can draw from the scientific method, but Christianity hits a wall in what it can program without assuming things that can't be tested.

I wouldn't waste much time with these people. You can't have a serious conversation with anyone who believes in magic.

>Muh morality
>Muh perfect, unassailable saviour!

Sage goes where again?

It doesn't matter who believes in evolution. It has a theory of why there are species on earth, nothing more or less. What those scientists choose to imply from that theory is not relevant to the argument of evolutions validity. Evolution is not an attempt to character assassinate the church.

Cont'd
Evolution works roughly like this: your children get what you need

Conciousness therefor can only have come from a necessity of conciousness, we probably became the top of the food chain before we gained conciousness and started going at eachother, some new humans had a more developped concious then others and they won the mating and survival game

It is according to this highly likely that we didn't start developping so quickly until we turned on eachother as competition because our adverseries were no longer lions and wolves but other cognitive capable people which caused a genetic evolutionary arms race

>Why just us
Not just us unless you are willing to imply blacks and whites or others have shared ancestory after humanhood is achieved (i.e. you believe every person has african heritage)

Does the universe have a cause or did it explode itself into existence from nothing? Nobody ever answers this.

>Are you sure that Objective morals exist because of God or is more likely that they are just a reflection of the universal laws that guide nature?
Go on the Wikipedia page for 'Natural Law' and check out whose picture is at the top. Here's a hint if you don't recognize him, he's not Charles Darwin.

Do you consider philosophy a science? Because many philosophers reached the conclusion that one God was the first cause of everything. Their arguments are conspicuously absent from this discussion and most others like it.

>god is why science is how
This is true, but most modern scientists take offense at the idea of a 'why' because it means they can't have guilt-free buttsex so they bullied the planet into rejecting god on false grounds

Have you ever observed this process yourself and verified it? Have you verified it against the bones of dinosaurs? You probably put more faith in a white coat than I do a cassock.

>And I mean real deal, not a cultural Christian/Muslim/whatever who just vaguely believes in an afterlife but does whatever they want.

Christian scientists were the founding members of evolution theory being formulated and the Big Bang was proposed by a Catholic scholar. On top of the associations of Christian religions aside from braindead evangelicals in actually coming up with the theory among other things which make the bible not literal we have a lot of evidence for evolution, from direct observation of bacterium populations changing over time to develop multiple resistances to having been able to prove that organic molecules that can be building blocks of life can come from inorganic sources to dating techniques which show a change in the earths biological makeup over billions of years, including an absolutely massive period before mammals even showed up let alone humans.

So your implying God cant not exist at any point in time? How is that all powerful?

Attached: suspicous_simpson.png (441x411, 76K)

>human-era text
Were you referring to The Illiad?
>Christianity hits a wall in what it can program without assuming things that can't be tested.
I disagree. I think that disciplined thought has solved most of our problems.

My non-meme your personal headcanon response to your earlier point that evolution is observable
>Change of phenotype representation or speciation?
Answer pls

>What those scientists choose to imply from that theory is not relevant to the argument of evolutions validity
Yes it is. It's perfectly sensible to suspect any conclusion somebody reaches which supports their ulterior motives.
>Evolution is not an attempt to character assassinate the Church
Imagine being this naive

>Evolution can be falsified by finding an animal with features that could not fit into a sequence over time

Wow amateur hour. The platypus 100% fits this description already and evolutionists simply ignore it. The only "transitional fossils" over the past "100million years" are a tooth and a jawbone on the wrong continent. Those are different "transitional" species according to them. And even beofore those discoveries nobody said anything, they just said "welp it makes no sense but we'll believe evolution can still somehow explain this animal that has features that don't fit into the sequence." Also the trochlea in the human eye is two organs that interact with a simple pully/simple machine. That's a evolution falsifying concept because its developmental sequence is illogical (similar concept to what you asked for) yet it's universally ignored just as much. I think even dawkins, or some famous athiest, said the trochlea doesn't make sense but so what.

Like I said, evolution cannot be falsified, only tweaked. You're dead wrong about the idea physicists don't start from scratch if the underlying foundations are proven wrong though. That's retarded. If rainbow gravity theory (look it up) is proven correct we would throw out the idea of the big bang. IE it would be universally acknowledged the big bang never happened because all supporting math would fall apart. So you can see, real science allows the possibility to throw out the foundation given new evidence, evolution doesn't.
>evolution is falsifiable.
>gives example that proves microevolution (natural selection common sense) occasionally happens

What was your point here? You gave absolutely no explanation as to how evolution can be falsifiable, you just said it is.

>god always was and there's no way he couldn't be
>theres no possible way the universe could just exist i mean that's ridiculous !!!

Attached: 1520024276839.png (1079x720, 387K)

Nobody ever answers it because nobody knows. That's like asking what happens in a black hole as. The science isn't there yet.

And to repeat charles darwin was trying to understand the origin of species. Not how the universe worked. Saying that a christian scholar creating natural law implies the reality of a God because he was a smart boy who believed in one is a non sequitur "proof".

We're all descendants of Adam.

>your children get what you need
Lamarck would approve. Darwin would not. I personally don't 100% have faith in this idea but find it somewhat plausible. The issue is how can an atheist ascribe intention to what is meant to be a random process? Is evolution an intelligent force? I've heard atheists confidently say this before without realizing that it's the kind of thing that needs explaining.

Yes, God can't not exist. Are you so straight that you can't let a man fuck you in the ass?

Non-existence isn't an state or an act. The concept of non-existence only exists to contextualize existence.

Attached: 927577294712896393.jpg (612x857, 243K)

Just because someone uses a gun to kill children in schools doesn't mean that gun owners buy them to kill children in schools. There are many uses for it. A gun is a tool nothing more nothing less. Same way with evolution. If people use it for sinister purposes its not "evolution's" problem. Implying that a tool is not good because not good people use them is grug tier logic.

Attached: 1491360451418.png (256x256, 56K)

>Wow amateur hour. The platypus 100% fits this description
>I can't prove it so it disproves all of evolution

Exactly. I'm glad someone was able to get it so quickly. If anybody else sees a contradiction here please point it out.

A Christian Scholar didn't create natural law. Aquinas didn't reach into every human heart that ever existed and place a conscience there. He merely observed it and attempted to rationalize its existence. That's what he did and why he's now Saint Thomas. It's not a proof, it's just a counter to the claim that natural overrules the idea of god writing morality on the human heart. And Darwin's system mightn't have been explicitly about the universe, but ever since it was accepted as fact it has been. He wrote about a world that runs on chaos and power and that was a very pleasing idea to the powers of his day.

>Yes, God can't not exist.
This fag and the platypus fag are shitting up what could be an ok thread.

Speciation is a fancy term for significant collection of changes in phenotype presentation.
Think about the changes that can reasonably happen over the course of a few generations.
Now expand that over the course of
Millions
And millions
And millions
And millions of years.

Redpill: It was Satan/Loki/Trickster that created them, God just created an empty universe to play Minecraft in and left when he got bored.

>No, it would shatter many ideas and observations.

ROFL ok how is evolution wrong if we find a Trex fossil that's eating a human. This should be good.

>joos

They don't tamper with race realism evidence, they just ignore all contrary evidence. EXACTLY the same as most of evolutionary biology. Like the fact the eye is irreducibly complex, they just say nah, here's 5 or 6 unrelated species that have minuscule similarities to the human eye but are only half way to being just like the human eye because that's what best suits their environment. That proves the eye can magically develop by itself, right? RIGHT? All thought that descends away from evolution is crushed, just like with race realism. You're just being duped like the idiot sociologists.

>"transitional fossils"

Its a spectrum, not Pokemon upgrades. You don't have "transitional species", and the idea of a species is just for ease of classification.

It's not Darwin's problem, but it's a problem. The reason Darwin's ideas went mainstream isn't how sensible they were taken to be as most people assume, it's how liberating they were. The problem with his writings is their questionable but non-falsifiable nature.

What I'm trying to say is the line between God and nature is very very vague. If anything God is the anthropomorphism of natures ideals written in our genetic code.

All of science is non-falsifiable by your logic. You don't have a problem with evolution as much as you have a problem with the people that preach it.

Without us this whole thread would be you and two other people jerking each other off.

Speciation is when you get something which can breed with its own kind and produce identical off-spring and can't reproduce with something else.

A dog with sleeker legs and pointier ears isn't an example of speciation. Someone selectively breeding dogs until we got something so genetically unique that it couldn't breed with what we currently accept to be dogs would be speciation. No Christian considers it heresy to acknowledge that the representation of certain phenotypes changes over time. They come and go or vanish altogether, they always have. Show me a new species emerging from an existing one.

In that case we're back to First Cause. You can say 'We don't know', but be honest with yourself and try to think about how many things it could reasonably be. Then imagine being permanently rendered sexually impotent and think about it again, see if this experiment changes your answer.

I've already more or less said several times in this thread that I don't have much of a problem with Lamarck.

Do you really believe this shit? Why not just use Occam's razor? Sure, before we knew about evolution and everything we know to day, it was obvious that a god had to create us, because how the hell else did all of THIS happen.

Now that we know, you seem to have to make up more and more stories and be more obtuse to maintain your beliefs. Where was that in any of the bibles? That Satan tried to blur the line between species so that our total and absolute faith in God would be tested?

>the big bang
The claim with the Big Bang isn't that there was nothing beforehand. The claim is that THIS universe came into being from the Big Bang and that we don't know what came before or what caused it.

>deep time
All memes aside, this is proof of or against nothing and is not an argument.

>abiogenesis
Anyone who believes in God believes in Abiogenesis

>evolution
Because god gave those whales fingers for a reason right? You can track the evolution of the human species and it's ancestors for hundreds of thousands of years.

>reasoning
You can't reason there is no reason without reason, meaning you're using your reasoning to make this claim.

>scientism
No, that is Democracy.

>faith
Nope. The core element of Atheism is to challenge everything as it is a position of accepted ignorance.

Try harder, I didn't even have to go in depth in responding to anything.

Attached: StrawMan.jpg (211x255, 22K)

>Do you really believe this shit?
No, it was tasteful mockery. There is nothing in the mind that isn't in the brain, free will and souls are human inventions so we can organize and work at a large scale, and ultimately we are just meat constructs created by our genes cooperating so they can copy each other more efficiently.

The Big Bang Theory doesn't even start at moment 0. It starts in a world that already has all the matter and energy in it. In fact, it has much more, that is yet to be cancelled by anti-matter.
That is, the proper way for creationists to argue should be "what happened before the big bang to set it up", not all that nonsense they spew.

Laugh at christcucks, they fear the trees.

You'll look less retarded when you can explain why god can simply always exist with no creation or creator, but your retard-rule doesn't apply to matter.

>get this fucken flat earth shit out of Jow Forums

Laugh at atheistcucks, they fear the non-relativity of ideas.

This is a direct download link to Edward Feser's comprehensive book on millennial atheism: libgen.io/book/index.php?md5=BA5738B4C6691B1E7699DDFD15156013

Feel free to use it or not use it. Fuck the police I torrent books and everyone else should too.

Never said it would be "wrong" or falsified. It would dramatically change our current observation that there exists a 65 million year gap between T-Rex and human fossils, and, we would expect, if they coexisted, traces of them in the same time places.

>prove
I don't know why you think science is in the business of proof. Science deals with evidence to explain many things. If this is news to you, I'm not sure how poorly you started this antievolution stance.

I was 11 and asked my 5th grade teacher if we evolved from chimpanzees then why are there still chimpanzees

Evolution is true, and it is so by God's design.

I love when christcucks invoke this argument while being too retarded to see that it's self-defeating, since god also needs to have come from somewhere.

Knowing how the universe works DOES mean we know how it was created, because we can trace back the current expansion of the universe and the cosmic microwave background to a point where the universe was extremely small and dense 13 billion years ago. It's no different from doing ballistics at a crime scene and figuring out where the bullet came from. The only thing we can't know is what, if anything, came before the universe.

>Why are there still other types of dogs when toy poodles exist

>since god also needs to have come from somewhere.
lol