Why don't americans believe in evolution

Cause if we evolved from monkeys then why we still got niggers?

Attached: 1521247814955.png (187x166, 4K)

Isn't that 'banana is atheists nightmare' guy an aussie?

I wouldn't know because I don't know who you are referring to.

youtube.com/watch?v=Y4yBvvGi_2A

have you seen americans? they look like the missing link themselves, no one wants to admit that

kek what a guy.

missing link
but not that missing desu

WTF. I've been eating bananas wrong my whole life. Where was your god to stop me?

If human was monkey, why there are still monkeys right now?
Check mate atheist

>lies
news.gallup.com/poll/210956/belief-creationist-view-humans-new-low.aspx
38% say God created man in present form, lowest in 35 years
>38%
>lowest in 35 years
FUCKING 38%
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

What happened 35 years ago that shook their belief? Or is it that something inspired more belief?

I’ve been on this board long enough to know that I can’t trust this bullshit

Attached: 0FD8ED56-D8EE-46B8-963C-FCD2053AA172.png (400x389, 48K)

I don't understand why god couldn't create an evolution.

Because you don't need god in that scheme. It works perfectly fine without him.

There's some pseudo-creationist faggots who agree with science on every front but believe that god caused the big bang.

thats the stance of the catholic church

No, dumb angl*s open them from the wrong side.

>Because you don't need god in that scheme
How so?

>I've been on this board long enough to not trust polls made by reliable american companies
Which is strangely similar to what a creationist would say
>I've read the bible long enough to not trust scientifc facts and proofs about evolution

But God told him to do it that way. Are you arguing with God?
Or maybe it was a little pink-haired troll who cause it. How would you know?

> It works perfectly fine without him.

>Are you arguing with God?
How does one defferenciate a mad man from one who truly has spoken to god?

If a pink-haired troll caused it then he would be their god. Have a second shot at some banter.

Catholics believe in evolution?

That's not an argument.
Things don't come out of the nothing.

t. Retard

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_and_the_Catholic_Church

It's up to you.

The catholic chuch accepts evolution as a fact, according to the pope the process of evolution itself was provoked by god.

Because the first one is on psychiatric drugs, the latter is a priest
*tips fedora*

Attached: CDibRRwWgAA83Yt.jpg (479x720, 40K)

If he opens his banana wrong, he's a madman.

Has been happening for centuries. Whenever a scientist says "we just don't know the origin of this thing yet, we're still working on it" there's someone that can and will attribute it to God. Probably the longest lived example of goal moving

But what caused the troll? You don't know that.
You can't. So you have to believe every single one of them if you don't want to accidentally go to hell.
>That's not an argument.
But that is. It's called Occam's Razor.
>Things don't come out of the nothing.
Who said the opposite?

Huh, never knew. Thanks.

>You don't know that

I wasn't saying I knew, mate. I said that it's what some other people believe.

They've never seen much of a contradiction of it to begin with.

White Americans are less intelligent and generally inferior to white Europeans.

There's no Europeans who don't 'believe' in evolution or global warming, there's no Europeans who shoot up schools, there's no Europeans who resist universal healthcare, and there's no European equivalent to rednecks.

Americans are lesser.

Attached: Screenshot_20180219-100953.png (480x854, 156K)

Will you now continue spouting thoughts of people that can never be proven and will always be only real as long as you believe them real because you grew up with a negative view of god?

There is actually zero evidence by real sience that global warming is caused by human.

>the Catholic Church is more accepting of scientific research than the Protestants

>real sience

Attached: 1517476728845.jpg (504x459, 66K)

>thoughts of people that can never be proven
Are you talking about God and shit now?
> you grew up with a negative view of god
But that's just wrong. I believed in God when I was a kid.

there is nothing as "protestants" actually.
I think all the proddies here in Europe are way more forward on those stuff than catholics (actually most of them are just atheists) and in the united states every dumbfuck can have a proddie church so you have 30.000 protestants of which 12098 don't accept evolution and the rest does and so on.

About all the typical atheist spouting.
It's nice for you.
But all the marxist anti-god stuff is old and simply annoying.

Why are christians so stupid

Attached: IMG_0379.jpg (1500x1639, 193K)

Because you say so.

idk my man, ask the spirit of keikaku or some other deity

t. ipper

I've been wondering this myself. The lovecraftian Amerimutt deities that run rampant in the US are apathetic to humanity, while the Judeo-Christian God supposedly cares very deeply about humanity. Jesus died to save humanity, according to Christians, which is antithetical to La Luz Extinguido's cosmicism. It makes sense that they wouldn't believe in the creation myth.

>About all the typical atheist spouting.
How's Occam's Razor an atheist spouting? The guy was a monk.

So the theory that bascically says there are infinte possibilities just take the simple one is suppossed to say what?

>it's real science if it fits my agenda

please provide your real science then.

evolution is a theory

You said that "no real science" proves it, you made the claim, the burden of proof is yours, post your sources

You shouldn't put more entities in your theory than needed to explain something. Evolution works perfectly fine to explain the diversity of species without God in it.

Attached: 1521342814865.jpg (900x599, 207K)

Then how did god come?

It's not me the one who claims it's caused by people.
Those that claim this have to bring the proof and they don't.

What with all those sea rising due to smelting ice in the poles that should have already eradicated the netherlands and denmark.

Are numerous other claims that never came true.

Reason to doubt is clearly given in specially since over all that debate no evidence but populism.

>just take the simple one
It's actually to take the one that makes the fewest assumptions.

The concept of god is above logic, science and any rational thought to begin with.

I had lectures about this topic. Basicaly extensive farming consumes almost all of the CO2 emissions created by human kind. We are responsible for only about 10% of CO2 concentration in atmosphere.

If god is real why won't thoughts and prayers stop school shootings?

No one says people caused it you moron but that we attribute to it enough to cause damage.

>wtf countries aren't underwater already? Clearly fake.

End yourself.

>above logic, science and any rational thought
I'm pretty sure that's the definition of word "bullshit".

Because God needs more kids in heaven. Local pedophiles got bored.

Because they are heretics

Explain ocean acidification and how humans are not responsible for it.

You can't be a real sceptic without knowing the only truth to possible to know of a human and this truth is to know nothing.

As long as you argue against this you are and will always be just a believer. And in this regard Christ is the best option one has to believe in.

does this cause global warming?

Plants actually grow better the higher the CO2 concentration is in the air (obviously they built themselves from it) and this caused the theory of global warming. They say that since the 80s an area as big as the United States on Greenland added to the biosphere.

>the only truth to possible to know of a human and this truth is to know nothing
That's a nice sophism you got there.

>and this caused the theory of global warming
Theory of *Global Greening sorry.

Why is believing in something a necessity, leaving that your only choice? What's wrong with just believing nothing besides what you've experience first hand?

>Plants actually grow better the higher the CO2 concentration is in the air
Yes true but we cut them down far faster and in far greater number than they could benefit from the increase in CO2.

>What's wrong with just believing nothing besides what you've experience first hand?
I'm not here to argue right or wrong.
If this is enough for you then it's right for you.

>Yes true but we cut them down far faster and in far greater number than they could benefit from the increase in CO2.
I'm not so sure about this.
nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2016/carbon-dioxide-fertilization-greening-earth

It doesn't cause it but it's a clear symptom of it

God created the evolution

Ok Billybob

Attached: 1508632347507.png (657x483, 39K)

The entire theory works on these premises:
Methane, CO2, H2O, NO2, and most molecules with more than 3 atoms have a greenhouse effect that actually requires some particle physics to explain in depth, but the dumbed down explanation is "they retain heat"
youtube.com/watch?v=kwtt51gvaJQ
A straightforward proof, no need for fancy equipment that only the top 1% researchers can afford.
And humanity produces those gasses in great quantities, introducing far more to the atmosphere than we're taking out. If you go by the rule of conservation of matter, the several million tons of coal and oil extracted each month to produce energy should be solidifying at the same rate, or else it gets stuck in the atmosphere or the oceans.
Nature does take a bunch of it, but it's actually quite shitty at doing that, especially since nature also contributes a lot. Most of the coal and oil reserves we have today accumulated during a time period in which insects literally could not process plant life as efficiently as they do today, so the carbon those trees literally pulled from thin air got buried instead of digested and reintroduced as methane like modern insects do.
One of the points they use to corroborate all this is that CO2 concentration in water is already rising almost everywhere. That wouldn't happen unless a weirdly huge source of CO2 was introducing carbon on the atmosphere.
One way to disprove that mankind is the culprit would be to switch from fossil fuels to biofuels. You still get to burn carbon, but you're not actually introducing anything new into the atmosphere, the carbon you burn was already part of it no so long ago.

Attached: Carbon_Cycle.gif (400x222, 12K)

it's more complicated. In the coldest places in antarctica there is dry ice traped between regular ice. When temperature rises that traped dry ice sublimates back to CO2 and accelerates global warming process. And there are massive amounts of the dry ice in Antarctica. Once this process has started, cannot be stopped. Interglacial cannot be deleyed anymore.

>only the top 1% researchers can afford.

>have a greenhouse like many people here have in their gardens
>measure the CO2 there needed to retain warmth extraordinary to the enviroment
>1% of the top scientists

meh studying physics is what I did. Unironically many of my compatriots think like you. Not even studying the physics makes you a smart person anymore.

>have a greenhouse like many people here have in their gardens
>measure the CO2 there needed to retain warmth extraordinary to the enviroment
>1% of the top scientists
wat
I'm saying this is an extremely simple and cheap experiment. And "measuring the CO2 needed to retain warmth" implies you already have a proof for CO2 retaining heat. That's not a scientific experiment. The one on the video with thermometers, a control sample, gas concentration measuring equipment, and repeatability is.

forgot to reply

I know this experiment.
To apply it on earth you need to look how much co2 is in the bottle as %of volumina compared to earth.

...no
the experiment is just to prove the GH effect is there
and it is
and CO2 is being produced daily non stop by people and nature, but nature can keep up with itself, not so much with the added human output
is there anything here you disagree with?

If you put the exact concentration of CO2 in the bottle and measure it, you're already assuming all of the stuff written above are true and are now testing what effects will they have, not if it exists. If you do the test you're talking about, you're implying global warming is real and you just jumped into evaluating its effects.

It's actually easy.
The concentration of CO2 in the bottle is easily over 100 times higher than in the atmosphere,

From my view. Greenhouse emission contributed to 0,2°C increase of the 2-3°C increase that happened over the last 50 years.

It's simply not the dangerous main cause.

I wonder the serious argument.
There are many people believing in God of Abraham here.

Attached: bakabana.png (400x300, 54K)

The only serious argument I have is the one from a Christian view.

God loves all people and want them to be loving to each other. To believe in god is to believe in the good of the person and the good of the world and of course that the good in form of love always wins of the evil.

>The concentration of CO2 in the bottle is easily over 100 times higher than in the atmosphere,
Yes. And that's intentional. To prove the hypothesis of CO2 being a GHG. The experiment is not based around making a perfect model of the atmosphere. In fact that's stupidly easy and nonsensical. The point of the experiment is to isolate variables.
Also, care to share your computer models and statistical studies with observational data to back the >contributed to 0,2°C increase of the 2-3°C increase
Not that not only should you prove GHG didn't contribute that much, but you should find the actual culprit then to explain that 1,8-2,8ºC now that you're discarding GHG as the main cause.
>inb4 the sun

I am just a material pysicist in a german company this is not my field.
I just apply a very simple model ala this much greenhouse gas causes so much warming in the bottle so this much will also cause so much warming on earth. I don't believe that the difference will be that high on an actual real simulation. Because what greenhouse effect would be able to cause such abig difference inside this phenomenon?

Greenhouse based global warming is in my view a hoax, I stated my argumentaion why I think so.

I do agree that this is an overly simplistic model, real world would also have an increase in water evaporation that is also a GHG, but there's the albedo phenomenon that could increase with more clouds, but that scientists have had trouble modelling. Some models hypothesize droughts due to warmer air retaining more vapor and rain being rarer, other hypothesis say that plants on higher CO2 concentration use a bit less water, actually meaning that ground water would start accumulating, etc. The effects of the theory being true are hard to predict unless you go for the low hanging fruit, but the premises the theory follows are really solid. Most outcomes however, agree that this could change radically how climate works. Life will go on, but some regions of the world will thrive while others go to shit. I think the demographical and migration side of the Global Warming theory is far more interesting than the predicted physical effects.

>I stated my argumentaion why I think so.
I still want to see how GHG contributes less than 10% to temperatures increase. I'd unironically love to send it to my congressmen so we can open 10 new coal power plants and have dirt cheap power

>I'd unironically love to send it to my congressmen so we can open 10 new coal power plants
Germany runs on coal and the prices are still high.
Once the price rises it never falls back.
Oil price dropped to 1/3 and yet gas only dropped by a few cents if even.

Meh all your considerations and prediction accounted to global warming are not scientific at all. They are part of trying to push the meme and hide the real cause. Land in Africa becomes arid because they overused it and dried it out through too much irrigation suddenly is the cause of global warmin etc.

Way to much interpretation with way to little facts. That this kind of nonsense reached political scale is the actual danger to the world.

Reading christians talk about "god" is so fucking cringe. Go back to get molested by your local priest you nerds.