How do we fix Creationists?

>the bible is the infallible word of God
>I know because it says so in the bible!

Attached: B^U.jpg (186x213, 7K)

People who are not immunized to smallpox and die in the thousands to it's ravages created the greatest civilization the world has ever known and made the most important discoveries and advancements in the history of mankind, and you created a Spongebob meme. People who are not immunized to smallpox and die in the thousands to it's ravages don't need fixing, they're doing just fine.

Sincere question, but who gives a shit what people believe? They could think our planet is balanced on the back of a huge space turtle--so what? If it's all a giant cosmic accident, then we'll all forget about it when we die. None of this matters. If it was God, then it was God.

Earth will die. We need to band together as a species and spread our influence throughout the universe.

>you should believe what this book says because the book says you're a fool if you don't!
How retarded would you have to be to fall for this?

Would you believe in Scientology if Dianetics said that L. Ron Hubbard thinks you're a fool if you don't believe him?

Not only is your justification for believing in creationism retarded, it's not even correct. The catholic church officially supports evolution as part of its doctrine. Saint Augustine in the 5th century AD wrote that the Earth was not literally created in seven days and that the book of Genesis is metaphorical.

Creationism:
>God created everything
Evolution:
>Life came from non-life
Seems like a pretty easy choice to me. Would you mind offering arguments against creationism?

Why? If earth dies and there's no afterlife, who gives a fuck about the universe?

I'm going to take the bait. How does evolution disprove god(creationism) exactly?

Quit being small minded cucks. Science will never be able to disprove god. The only way you will find the answer to that is through death. Now im not saying 100% for you that god is real. To me I believe. Why? Because it makes more sense then some random number generator bullshit. If there is no god we should all just simultaneously drink the koolaid and end this pain train.

Attached: 1521219216846.jpg (1000x1293, 221K)

You have to enjoy life for what it is to understand I guess, if all you care about is some cushy afterlife that gives you everything you want then you were never cut out for life.

My body is merely a vessel for the information contained in my genes.

Evolution and abiogenesis are completely different topics.

Do you think its possible that you don't believe in evolution because you don't understand what evolution is?

>Evolution:
>Life came from non-life

That isn't remotely what evolution states. Evolutionary Theory deals with nothing before self-replicating organisms exist.

Yeah i mean you have to enjoy that some people get to live good. And other people get born into a life of getting fucked by their adoptive dads. Life it totally awesome :D. Just ignore everything that is not immediately in front of you! You can even have heaven on earth!

Attached: 1520987102469.jpg (584x530, 216K)

Probably, most people who disbelieve evolution take that meme image of the ape transitioning into a man as an accurate account of what evolution is believed to be in the 21st century when in reality it's totally discredited at this point.

Do you think its possible that you've been manipulated into believing in an afterlife so that you will accept a shittier life here on Earth?

Life is what it is. There are winners and losers, and sometimes it is luck of the draw.

>I'm going to take the bait. How does evolution disprove god(creationism) exactly?
No one ever said science disproves God. It disproves creationism, they're two separate concepts.

>Quit being small minded cucks. Science will never be able to disprove god.
It's impossible to neither confirm nor deny the existence of God. However, what can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. And since there is no evidence for God's existence, there is no point in believing in him.

No my life is awesome. Im just saying if there is no god life fucking sucks for some people and it always will. Why? Because im a realist. You can't stop all the pedophiles. Everyone on the planet knows how to make babies. You can't stop all the murderers. Some people just wanna destroy shit.

You will never appease everyone so this reality is broken. Doesn't mean give up. It means realizing the truth. You can't stop every bad thing from happening. So if there really was no god. If I didn't feel in my gut with 100% faith. Id say the smart thing to do would be to just end the simulation.

Attached: 1517921882644.jpg (500x573, 77K)

>Yeah i mean you have to enjoy that some people get to live good. And other people get born into a life of getting fucked by their adoptive dads.
Life doesn't deal you a bad hand, your ancestors (and their genes) do. I don't believe shit happens randomly, I just don't believe it's gods plan, just genetic determinism for the most part.
I've always assumed that was a big part of it honestly. Frankly I believe when we die it's a lot like being asleep without dreaming, your consciousness just fades, not that I think this is bad or good.

Where, then, did life originate? Evolution stipulates that life has become increasingly complex, implying that it started from a single cell. Evolution cannot hold water if it deviates from this. If the first life was more complex than some life that we have observed, why did it devolve? Under what conditions could life have possibly started?

This is a great example of jewish pilpul tricks brainwashing people.

Like most topics, evolution conflates some things that are self evident (species can change over time) with some things that are impossible to scientifically verify. So now if I have an issue with some aspects of evolution, I get attacked as someone who refuses to see basic reality. Conflating topics and ambiguity are excellent tools for mass manipulation. What's funny is that the cartoon is explaining something that people knew BEFORE Darwin's theory even came along. Most of the things science nut huggers like to use as proof of evolution are facts that humanity has known since the dawn of animal husbandry.

Go ahead and turn this into an animal. That’s right you can’t atheists.

Attached: 9134EEDF-88B5-48A4-AF20-B047B3EDF616.png (1244x714, 1.1M)

>How does evolution disprove god(creationism) exactly?
Because it very explicitly invalidates genesis?

You're welcome to believe in whatever god you want, I suppose. But the one that created earth in 7 days is a faggot who is wrong.

>What's funny is that the cartoon is explaining something that people knew BEFORE Darwin's theory even came along.
And yet it's something that people still deny.

Based

People like you who strawman and try not to understand only help the case of evolution.

> If the first life was more complex than some life that we have observed, why did it devolve?
You're going to have to explain yourself, user.
Under what pretense should anyone assume that the first organism was more complex than its progeny?

>Where, then, did life originate?

This is abiogenesis and not evolutionary theory.

>Evolution stipulates that life has become increasingly complex

This isn't correct. Some organisms have become more complex, but gaining and losing abilities deals with things such as biological expense and selection pressure. Bacteria and Archaea are believed to be pretty similar to their origins.

>implying that it started from a single cell.

Evolution would start prior to cellular level complexity. Currently research is looking into self-folding proteins, RNA, etc. to suss out potential originators.

>Evolution cannot hold water if it deviates from this.

Evolution can been shown without knowing the very first organisms. Dr. Richard Lenski did a really interesting experiment over something like 30 years showing that E. Coli bacteria could evolve the ability to digest citrate while maintaining 30 years of bacteria in cold-storage so researchers could examine the genetic evolution from Day 1 to Year 30.

>If the first life was more complex than some life that we have observed, why did it devolve?

Devolve isn't really a coherent concept. Abilities can be lost if they are expensive for the organism to maintain without bringing much benefit.

>Under what conditions could life have possibly started?

Well, predicted early Earth conditions allow for the free formation of amino acids which are the building blocks of protein. Similarly, amino acids exist on meteors.

>gentile science is now "jewish pilpul" because your brain isn't able to understand what anyone right of the bell curve does.

>having the faith to have the faith that there is no reason to have faith

I'm one of those Christians that believes in evolution but that God created the universe and that he made evolution a thing.

>Do you agree that women shouldn't be routinely tortured to death?
Yes, obviously
>Do you agree that women should have the right to own private property?
Of course
>Do you agree that women are not literally the physical possessions of their fathers and husbands?
Well, sure...
>That's feminism!!1!

>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tholin
>If you shoot cosmic rays (i.e. from the sun) at certain molecules that happen spontaneously on comets (which have a habit of slamming into bigger things, i.e. earth), they sometimes form the same compounds as are found on life.
Not hard to see how life could have formed from non-life. Certain kinds of molecules even form "bubbles" of themselves when in large enough numbers, so you end up with a self-contained sac of highly reactive soup.
>uh, but you didn't list out the exact chemical formula, and give the exact date and times when it happened!
Is what you are going to say next, and it doesn't fucking work

I'll admit I oversimplified evolutionary theory. My point is that it doesn't make sense that life could spontaneously appear, and subsequently evolve. I realize that evolutionary theory does not implicitly involve (a)biogenesis, but the two are inseparable. If evolution is true, there must still be an explanation for life. Similarly, if the Big Bang is true, there must still be an explanation for the origin of the universe.
>e.coli evolution
Is evolution of asexually-reproducing species the same as evolution of sexually-reproducing species? For example, would dog breeding be considered evolution? If not, what are some examples of evolution in sexually-reproducing species? How could evolution occur in such a way that members of a 'new' species could reproduce sexually viable offspring with each other, but not with their predecessors?
>amino acids found on asteroids
Were they the same ones found in genetic code?

Doubting the source of everything would lack the ability to create the earth in 6 days. Genesis is not the book that made me faithfully believe in Jesus Christ. You can't start out at the hardest to believe part of the bible(genesis.) Maybe for terms of a beginning to end story sure but if you are genuinely curious about the faith you read about our savior Jesus Christ. You start at like book of Mathew or Peter. Shit you may even just wanna start with the prophecies and see how many of them have come true in 2018. Think about all the shit he says about the jews. This is why Jow Forums is christian.

Genesis is a hard pill to swallow but God is our father. A father likes to teach his son does he not? Genesis has lessons. Do you think god created the earth before man without man in mind from the beginning? He could've created it all instantly and claims such multiple times throughout the bible. God can do anything and yet he chooses to teach. Interesting shit ma man.

If you wanna believe in an impartial God who does not care about his creation go ahead. Personally I see Jesus for what he is. The savior of mankind. He makes all good things possible. The old gods who claimed to have made everything just wanted your childrens blood. How about a god who promises only good things? Who doesn't require sacrifice. All he wants is you to believe in him and listen to your father. Is that not something every father would want?

Attached: 1521358135118.jpg (720x757, 51K)

>>amino acids found on asteroids
>Were they the same ones found in genetic code?
>I don't know the difference between nucleic acids and amino acids
>Yet I feel qualified to comment on the plausibility of evolutionary theory

>would dog breeding be considered evolution
Yes. Remember that humans have been doing this only for 10's of thousands of years, and we have both chihuahuas and great danes. Imagine if the process continued for 10's of millions of years.

tl;dr

But for real though, your entire post is just an appeal to emotion. There is zero logical foundation to it, and it is extremely difficult for me to take it seriously considering you just posted it with a bait image attached.

Point is, cut the word salad. Get straight to the point.

> If evolution is true, there must still be an explanation for life.

I understand your point, but the origin is too far removed to really know. Even well preserved dinosaurs don't often have viable DNA due to the age. The best we can do is model early conditions.

>would dog breeding be considered evolution

In a way. It is a good example of artificial selection, and you can see how traits can be very quickly changed and adapted based on selective breeding. Obviously, evolution in the wild isn't so specific, but more oriented to survival not optimization.

>How could evolution occur in such a way that members of a 'new' species could reproduce sexually viable offspring with each other, but not with their predecessors?

Speciation events don't occur over a single generation, but usually take a large number of generations to create enough genetic variance to cause reproductive isolation between groups. In the real world two of the same species could become geographically isolated then develop differences over time including preventing the ability to interbreed.

An example of a sort of intermediate/partial speciation is a mule, in which a horse + donkey still have the capacity to breed, but the hybrid mule is sterile.

Generation times make it difficult to show extent changes as it can take multiple human lifetimes for such things to occur in mammals, though microorganism generations can be minutes long, making such stark changes easier to discern.

Attached: macroevolution.jpg (875x402, 247K)

Attached: Lollolcuck.jpg (1016x792, 187K)

Oh no, another pepe and wojack image. How I look the fool.

People who lived without electricity invented the greatest civilization the world has ever nown and made the most important discoveries and advancements in the history of mankind.

Who needs electricity?

>You can't stop all the pedophiles
God could with a snap of his fingers

>implying that it started from a single cell
rudimentary RNA more likely

But he won't because of a little something called free will. Its covered in that bible you never read. Would you rather be a robot?

Attached: 1516406428908s.jpg (250x235, 7K)

This

How could carbon ever turn into an organic molecule? Its impossible!

>muh outdated ideology is da reason for our success

stfu, pure creationism is cancerous. Evolution makes far more sense/is way more predictive and was fostered out of that previously established intellectual tradition you just fellatio'd so much.

Attached: timetoconquer.jpg (595x720, 52K)

it really doesn't matter

do you feel free, user?

be honest

That's micro evolution not macro evolution or even Darwinism.
Micro evolution: small changes over a short period of time
Macro evolution: big changes over a long period
Darwinism: short changes over a long period.

Everyone agrees in micro evolution, or adaptation or degeneration. Modern science has debunked Darwinism but they are quiet about it and pretend that macro evolution and Darwinism are the same thing too avoid their precious monkeyman religion being undermined. Evolutionist scientists admit they don't know the mechanism or have any evidence. They admit that they have no evidence of an animal transitioning from one species to another. All the creatures that are in the ancient geological column that still exist today are completely unchanged from their ancestors.

Evolution is literally a Jewish communist religion to make people think they are degenerate apes. And it worked. Evolution was THE number one propaganda that spread from the USSR, with Lenin and Stalin being devout evolutionists.

Also you are literally delusional if you believe you are uncreated and that you came into existence without a first cause. Something can not come from nothing : logic 101

It doesn't disprove shit, because you can't really prove or disprove creationism. The question becomes why you would assert the belief that a creator exists when you have no evidence for that claim. You are shifting the burden of proof. You make an assertion, you ought to provide evidence for that assertion.

>How do we fix Creationists?

remove the jews from their religious hierarchies.

the entire purpose of "Creationism" is to hide the germline warfare procedure that jews are using against us, in order to dumb us down.

>Macro evolution: big changes over a long period
several small changes over an immensely long period

You sound like you lack the capacity to really appreciate how long a billion years really is.

No it doesn't. The Catholic Church has made no statement on evolution however, evolutionary theory contradicts metaphysics and denies God was the primary cause, and is completely incompatible with Catholicism. It contradicts so many dogmas that you cannot be a darwinist and be Catholic.

Also St Augustine was the only Church Father who did not teach a literal 7 day creation. He also did not know Greek or Hebrew though to understand scripture as well. Every single other Church father said that it was a literal 7 day creation. Ephraim the Syrian who knew Hebrew by race and culture said it was unequivicolly a 7 day creation. Pre Christ Hebrew tradition also always asserted that.

>In the beginning there was nothing. Then it exploded.
Who isn't a creationist these days?

Attached: NPC Adam.jpg (500x500, 149K)

>evolutionary theory contradicts metaphysics and denies God was the primary cause
No it doesn't.

Do you think it's possible that you don't believe in evolution because you don't understand what evolution is?

Wow, yes the power of the modern man: porn addiction and continual child sacrifice

The geological column and homologous anatomy hasn't been the key determinant for understanding evolution in decades. Genetic sequencing allows for a far more accurate assessment of cladistics.

Look up endogenous retroviruses. We share well over a dozen retrovirus markers in our genomes with Chimpanzees, less with Bonobos, and less down the line of the Great Apes and other primates. These viruses wrote themselves into common ancestors which is why you can find them on the same arms of the same chromosomes in the same locations in humans and other apes.

Also, even bigger picture stuff like our own mitochondria. Our mitochondria have their own bacterial DNA because they were originally free living bacteria which were "eaten" but ended up being symbiotic with pre-eukaryotic cells. What would the non-evolutionary explanation be for mitochondria having bacterial plasmids?

Attached: luck mittens.jpg (500x649, 64K)

Small changes become big ones when selective pressures begin to reinforce the success of beneficial mutations. That you even talk about micro/macro evolution puts you as a probable retard.

>yeah it's just a religion too lol, no just trust me
Never gets old.

Hominids are pig/ape hybrids

macroevolution.net/human-origins.html

Attached: Amy Schumer.jpg (950x534, 86K)

>Everyone agrees in micro evolution, or adaptation or degeneration. Modern science has debunked Darwinism but they are quiet about it and pretend that macro evolution and Darwinism are the same thing too avoid their precious monkeyman religion being undermined. Evolutionist scientists admit they don't know the mechanism or have any evidence. They admit that they have no evidence of an animal transitioning from one species to another.
We have plenty of instances of organisms evolving from one species into another in as short as a single generation, and the mechanisms for it are well understood.

You're just talking out of your ass.

God's existence can be known by reason. You exist, therefore you were caused by sonething, which eventually leads back to the first cause who by nature must be uncreated and timeless which humans call God.

You literally have to engage in delusion to deny this. Science has even done studies on it: brainscans show athiests' brains are the same as the brains of delusional people

by ceasing to believe in the most retarded theory of evolution

i dont think we can lad

>species are colours

This is retarded even by spongebob meme standards

You can't be this dumb. It's impossible.

Attached: OP.jpg (389x413, 82K)

everything is circular reasoning, leaf

No, macro evolution is big changes over a long period. Please go an study evolution before you argue for it. Evolution scientists disagree with you and say small changes over a long period does not exist in the geological column or any evidence or tests

It actually is a good example of how small transitions between generations can lead to a level of change that would be considered to change the entire nature of the result. Each generation could breed and interact with the one directly before and after it, but at a certain point those who are genetically removed (the colors) would have obtained to much differentiation to be able to maintain the same lineage.

Hey. Baguette nigger.
How do you feel about big changes in a short period?
Does that count as macroevolution? Because you seem awfully hung up on the period of time.

>he doesn't know that 21 out of the ~500 known amino acids appear in genetic code
>is condescending
>uncertainty
What I'm getting at is that science will never be able to tell us about the nature of existence--it is merely a tool. Science cannot be wrong, but scientists have been wrong on countless occasions. If we approach learning from an atheistic perspective, we will never get anywhere. If God is real (I say 'if' for the sake of argument), then education that is separate from Him is no education at all. Science works best with observable data, and even then it is not 100% useful (I cannot even say with 100% certainty that the sun will come up tomorrow). The issue with 'believing' in science is that it can only describe WHAT happens, but not WHY. If I say that gravity is a relationship between objects based on their masses and the whole 9 yards, I still cannot (and will not be able to) explain why it is so without God.

I will pray for you user, and all anons, that God may reveal Himself and His glory to you, and make known to you the mystery of creation.

by bullying them for being retarded and trying not to let their infectious stupidity spread

>Evolution scientists disagree with you and say small changes over a long period does not exist in the geological column or any evidence or tests

Can you provide a source for this? It might just be my own experience, but I have not run into any Ph.D level biologists who have made such statements.

Evolution theory: something greater can come from something lesser.

Metaphysics: you can't give what you don't have: only lesser things can come from the greater.

For God to be the primary cause of a particular creation he must directly create it. If something like man is created by evolution then God is not the primary cause, the monkey that created man is.

I understand evolution. It's the biggest con of the 20th century. And I used to worship evolution as a dogma too

>Metaphysics: you can't give what you don't have: only lesser things can come from the greater.
What in the fuck are you talking about.

>Metaphysics: you can't give what you don't have: only lesser things can come from the greater.
You are a fucking moron

some autistic bullshit pretentious philosophers came up with probably

Can you really think of NO OTHER PROBLEMS to address than the fact that some people think the world is only 5000 years old or whatever? Who exactly is that stupid belief harming?

>random mutations

Nah, nah, the philosophers would think he's a faggot too.

I'm starting to think he's getting confused with the laws of thermodynamics and just has an extremely poor understanding of how or when it applies.

I feel like I could die today and it would not bother me. So if freedom is lack of fear I do feel free. But to be honest. Even if I didn't believe in Jesus Christ id still feel like a rat in a cage. Can you not see the bars of your cage? Whether you believe or not we should all recognize that we are stuck alive and sometimes in pain with seemingly no escape and weirdly enough you are afraid of death.

The truth is the freest man on earth is the one capable of completely denying himself. To want something and to say no is the only act of freedom we get. As a result a lot of people are not free. They are addicted. They have no control. Jesus leads to a live of freedom a life of denying oneself. In a world filled with NPC's why would you give in? Why would you give up?

Attached: sdfsfsdf4e4rf.jpg (720x321, 47K)

Indeed, because scientists realised the geological column does not actually support evolution so invented the "zombie virus DNA" hypothesis. Which is constantly being debunked. All so called zombie virus DNA is actually being discovered to be useful functioning DNA. Also just because we share similar characteristics with something else does not mean we have a common ancestor. Intelligent design would intelligently make created things similar in ways

Your mitochondria theory if anything supports intelligent design as evolution would never be able to produce that and never has done. There is zero evidence for macro evolution.

>hey, here's my answer to your question, got a rebuttal?
>sorry, that rebuttal was too long, I'm not going to even read it, so i win

>What I'm getting at is that science will never be able to tell us about the nature of existence--it is merely a tool.

I don't disagree with you.

>Science cannot be wrong, but scientists have been wrong on countless occasions.

Science is simply a framework for testing. I agree that science as practiced is an iterative process.

>If we approach learning from an atheistic perspective, we will never get anywhere.

What atheistic perspective? Science does not deal with metaphysics.

>If God is real (I say 'if' for the sake of argument), then education that is separate from Him is no education at all.

How do you substantiate this? This seems to be simply asserted as true.

>Science works best with observable data, and even then it is not 100% useful (I cannot even say with 100% certainty that the sun will come up tomorrow). The issue with 'believing' in science is that it can only describe WHAT happens, but not WHY.

I don't disagree with this.

>If I say that gravity is a relationship between objects based on their masses and the whole 9 yards, I still cannot (and will not be able to) explain why it is so without God.

Why posit a God? What is the necessity? Does there have to be a "WHY?" I understand what you are getting at in that while we can learn various facts about reality, the answers provided by a scientific observation are unappealing. They do not give us reasons for being, nor do they provide direction.

A sort of counter question. Why is God a better answer than "I don't know?" I don't know if the Big Bang happened as predicted or what happened with the early cosmos, however, I feel it takes a bit of hubris to simply say that such things had to be the creation of a deity without any sort reasoning not involving special appeals or pleading.

There's literally no evidence of small changes leading to a new species (big change). Evolutionist scientists admit this. Macro evolution is pure conjecture. To believe something without evidence is a religion of the lowest kind for even most religions provide evidence for those to base their faith on. You put your faith in Jewish communists

If the law of causality doesn't apply to God, then it is not a law. If it is not a law, then it cannot be used as proof of God.

It's not just that his rebuttal is long.
It's that it fucking sucks and doesn't actually address anything. It's thoughtless pretense.

Do you have a difficult time with abstract thought?