/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.22302386]

this has genuinely never been refuted.

[Anonymous No.22302388]

>>22302386
You can't refute inconsistent dogma

[Anonymous No.22302400]

>>22302386
it's self refuting lmao

[Anonymous No.22302469]

>>22302386
It’s not open to refutation. It’s scripture, I.e. revelatory doctrine taken on faith. The events it depicts are not well established enough to be confirmed or denied.

[Anonymous No.22302470]

>>22302386
*Blocks your path*

[Anonymous No.22302596]

>>22302386
Unironically this

[Anonymous No.22302604]

There has never been a book that's been refuted more than bible

[Anonymous No.22302613]

>>22302469
Except we know that the 6 gorillion never existed... As usual

[Anonymous No.22302897]

>>22302386
It even has built-in error-correcting code; behold:
https://youtu.be/QTN9I0AKHwI
...and furthermore, one of my favorite bible passages tells the reader that, although satan has misguided men to miscribe errors into the various versions, the bible (particularly the King James Bible) has more truth than errors in it, and the reader -- after shrewdly reading it in it's entirety, consulting the Greek & Hebrew scripture from which it was translated, reading related works, and contemplating upon this sum of wisdom -- is able to discern the good from the bad, and synthesize the true Word of God within the Temple that is their mind.

https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Matthew-13-24_13-30/

Matthew Chapter 13

24 Another parable put he forth unto them, saying, The kingdom of heaven is likened unto a man which sowed good seed in his field:

25 But while men slept, his enemy came and sowed tares among the wheat, and went his way.

26 But when the blade was sprung up, and brought forth fruit, then appeared the tares also.

27 So the servants of the householder came and said unto him, Sir, didst not thou sow good seed in thy field? from whence then hath it tares?

28 He said unto them, An enemy hath done this. The servants said unto him, Wilt thou then that we go and gather them up?

29 But he said, Nay; lest while ye gather up the tares, ye root up also the wheat with them.

30 Let both grow together until the harvest: and in the time of harvest I will say to the reapers, Gather ye together first the tares, and bind them in bundles to burn them: but gather the wheat into my barn.

[Anonymous No.22302940]

>>22302386
wrong
I will refute it

[Anonymous No.22303029]

>>22302386
False.
Dozens of times. Steamrolled to dust that christcucks snort back up blindly

[Anonymous No.22303849]

>>22302469
>The events it depicts are not well established enough
Nah, you're just willingly ignorant.

They've found so much evidence of the history in the Bible, you just refuse to see or look for it. I bet you think the global flood didn't happen, despite evidence all over the earth. It's because you're willingly ignorant, like the rest of the scoffers, and that's because you want to wander after your lusts.

[Anonymous No.22303853]

>>22303029
>believes on blind faith that variations within a kind can produce life from nonlife, and this original form of life is the common ancestor of all and this can account for all life on earth
>believes on blind faith that God doesn't exist outside of his knowledge
>believes on blind faith that nothing created everything
Also, pic related

[Anonymous No.22303894]

Why are there so many schizo Christtards on this board?

[Anonymous No.22303905]

>>22303849
You believe this happened?

[Anonymous No.22303915]

>>22303849
What we see in the world confirms evolution.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oXfDF5Ew3Gc

[Anonymous No.22303923]

>>22302386
ENTER

[Anonymous No.22303927]

>>22303853
>pic related
You do this with Christianity too... after all Jesus came to save the sinner... or are you merely posturing for culture war purposes?

[Anonymous No.22303934]

>>22303853
>blind faith

No, it's been proven with DNA evidence. You know, the kind used to win court cases. See >>22303915

[Anonymous No.22303940]

>>22302469
The Bible literally proves the Earth is flat.

[Anonymous No.22303954]

>>22303853
We are not so different after all.

[Anonymous No.22303960]

The Anvil of God's Word
by John Clifford

Last eve I passed beside a blacksmith's door,
And heard the anvil ring the vesper chime;
Then, looking in, I saw upon the floor
Old hammers, worn with beating years of time.

"How many anvils have you had," said I,
"To wear and batter all these hammers so?"
"Just one," said he, and then, with twinkling eye,
"The anvil wears the hammers out, you know."

And so, thought I, the anvil of God's Word,
For ages skeptic blows have beat upon;
Yet, though the noise of falling blows was heard,
The anvil is unharmed — the hammers gone.

[Anonymous No.22304173]

How many times does Judas die?

[Anonymous No.22304183]

>>22302897
>demoralized atheists will ignore this post even though it is the best post in this entire thread
>bad faith satanists will attack this post because it is the best post in this entire thread
https://youtu.be/QTN9I0AKHwI
https://youtu.be/yS78mFJcvhQ
https://youtu.be/db2DzHLUfwc
https://youtu.be/OMBQwGzn_TE

[Anonymous No.22304201]

>>22303905
Practically every culture with prehistoric or ancient oral traditions has tales of a Great Flood which drowned the world except for a handful of specimens & people carried over the waters in a boat. Archaeological evidence corroborates that many parts of the world -- if not practically the entire planet -- was submerged in a great deluge. The Baltic, Mediterranean, Black & Caspian Seas were enormous valleys into which seawater decanted aeons ago.

The Deluge is not strictly unique to the Bible. It -- or something very much like it -- certainly happened in our species' distant past.

[Anonymous No.22304211]

>>22303927
His silence confirms the perfidious purpose of his words, and he shall never be a woman.

It's always good to see a fellow Christian standing strong against Globohomo & Judeo-Bolschevism.

JESUS CHRIST IS LORD!

[Anonymous No.22304215]

[Anonymous No.22304228]

>>22302386

[Anonymous No.22304233]

>>22302470
this, basically.

[Anonymous No.22304239]

>>22303954
How to find this, and the original thread in archives?

[Anonymous No.22304537]

>>22303849
>>22303853
Controlled opposition meant to make Christians look stupid. Le “Within a kind” argument is fooling no one with an IQ above the number of hours in a day.

[Anonymous No.22304576]

>>22303905
You're dishonest. The scripture plainly shows its dimensions.

Besides, science confirms the story.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=82j1IqwA6P0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UM82qxxskZE

>>22304201
See above and pic related. There is worldwide evidence of the flood.

>>22303915
>>22303934
Wax figures don't prove your ancestors were anything other than human. Similarities in DNA doesn't prove common ancestry, it proves common designer. There's no mechanism in the DNA to make one kind bring forth a new kind, which you claim happened millions of times for millions of years (then magically stopped once cameras were invented).

Just "have faith" that given enough time slight variations within a kind can account for all life on earth from a common ancestor. That's faith. Everything in that video is a misdirection. I can call a "cow" a "dog" or a "dog" a "cow", that doesn't mean they're biologically related with a common ancestor or that evolution occurred.

>>22303927
You say nothing.

>>22303934
You see variations within a kind then take a leap of blind faith to claim that accounts for all life. That's blind faith. You claim everything can be explained through purely physical processes. That's blind faith.

Evolution is stupid.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tEIWwfEq2-U

>>22303954
Profanity is the strongest language of a weak mind. I didn't even read that wall of gibberish and babbling.

>>22304215
Already refuted, it's mathematically impossible. Evolutionism is just an atheist creation fairy tale. Darwin lost faith in his own beliefs at the end of his life, since they never found the transitional fossils he predicted, and we still haven't, all they do is pass off frauds (deliberate frauds sometimes) or they lie and call an ape like Lucy a man or link.

There's not just one missing link, there's missing links between all creatures.

>>22304537
You have no arguments, you're a child on a playground sticking your thumbs in your ears, and sticking your tongue out, and shouting "yerrr stooopid!!1!"

Evolutionists always get angry when they can't prove their blind faith religion.

[Anonymous No.22304601]

Evolutionists would think a Honda evolved from a Chevy simply because they had similar designs.

Just "have faith" it'll happen if you give them enough time. But time is not a magic wand.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=db2DzHLUfwc

[Anonymous No.22304616]

>>22304576
>kind
>kind
>KIND
>KIND KIND KIND
You’re making a distinction that nature doesn’t.

There is no hard line. When one species comes from another, it’s gradual—there is no one generation you can point to, since the generations immediately on the two different sides of the line would be able to mate and produce viable offspring. You should also really explain how evolution is “mathematically impossible”—probably something to do with entropy, I’m guessing.

[Anonymous No.22304619]

>>22302388
>>22302400
>>22302596
>>22303029

[Anonymous No.22304630]

>>22302388
>>22302400
>>22302470
>>22302596
>>22302604
>>22303029
>>22303894
>>22303905
>>22303915
>>22304215
>>22304233
>atheists are titans of intellect
>[but expect you to be impressed they don't believe in Santa]
>atheists stand for free-thinking
>[but demand you adhere to Scientism]
>atheists are champions of reason
>[but have strong opinions about things of which they're uneducated]
>atheists are anti-dogmatic
>[but insist you interpret scripture only according to their ideas of it]
Atheism is an intelligence LARP that retards indoctrinate themselves into. Being an atheist is ridiculously easy; their main weakpoint is their unearned pride and if you poke at their (entirely self-perceived) intelligence they become reactive and break down. Reminder that the legacy of New Atheism is pic-related: homosexual rape/cuck furry fetish cartoons.

[Anonymous No.22304639]

>>22302386
>refuted!
/thread

[Anonymous No.22304680]

>>22304630
who said anything about athiesm? all i'm saying is the Bible contradicts itself repeatedly because it's a hodgepodge of inherited desert stories. It's wisdom but it's not the word of God.

[Anonymous No.22304730]

>>22304201
>Archaeological evidence corroborates that many parts of the world -- if not practically the entire planet -- was submerged in a great deluge
>certainly happened in our species' distant past
source?

[Anonymous No.22304731]

>>22304630
You're proving the schizophrenia thing
Please go outside.

[Anonymous No.22304738]

>>22304576
>You say nothing.
I will take that as a compliment from an internet christian apologist

[Anonymous No.22304743]

>>22304730
nta and not going to do your homework for you but yeah the earth is mostly water and it's not impossible to think people wandering around in the desert remember living near water and it ruined them so they moved inland

[Anonymous No.22304746]

>>22304738
These people haven't changed there dog shit rhetoric in over 15 year years
It's embarrassing.

[Anonymous No.22304753]

>>22304601
Ok but you think they come from a sky wizard who makes something out of nothing, while it is actually true that newer designs are based on earlier car designs without which they would have never been brought to market. And in terms of theology this is where the non-Abrahamists really have you cornered since they affirm cosmological cycles of creation and destruction, i.e. no creation ex nihilo, which as a doctrine is an insult to any intelligence which observes causality.

[Anonymous No.22304765]

>>22304239
search for keywords or use one of the replies' post ID on warosu

[Anonymous No.22304934]

>>22304680
>tips fedora
Cool hot take.
>>22304731
>delusions projecting schizophrenia
No you.

[Anonymous No.22304959]

>>22304934
>Cool hot take.
are you disputing large portions of the old testament were cribbed from older Mesopotamian myth? Or maybe you're ignorant of the theologically-arbitrary canonization of the new testament?

[Anonymous No.22305033]

>>22304616
How is "species" or "family" or "genus" any different? They're just terms in the English language that men use to classify things. You're just complaining about the term "kind" because the only thing we see are variations within one created kind.

And all observational science supports the Bible that states creatures will bring forth after their kind. Everything we observe and repeat and test supports the Bible account: cats only make cats, people only make people, dogs only make dogs; yet you want to say that proves the Bible is false, no it proves the Bible is true. You want to say "have faith" that dogs making dogs will eventually make some non-dogs (just 2 more millennia trust the plan).

>Genesis 1:21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that [it was] good.
>Genesis 1:25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that [it was] good.
>Genesis 6:20 Of fowls after their kind, and of cattle after their kind, of every creeping thing of the earth after his kind, two of every [sort] shall come unto thee, to keep [them] alive.
>Genesis 7:14 They, and every beast after his kind, and all the cattle after their kind, and every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind, and every fowl after his kind, every bird of every sort.

Further, there are some bird "species" that are barely different variations, they can all still breed with each other, but different "species", how is that evolution? It's not, it's just an adaptation that someone decided to name as a new "species". Those different "species" of birds are closer and more similar to each other than the different races of the same human species.

I'd get to the math, but you've yet to wrap your head around simple terminology. Chances are you'd just complain about the math and its terms as well since you don't understand plain English. You don't even reply to anything I've said, almost like it all went over your head.

[Anonymous No.22305039]

>>22304738
>>22304746
Your post was just complaining about "culture war" and you couldn't refute the book. You can leave the thread in shame or try to refute the OP.

[Anonymous No.22305054]

>>22305039
Well can you explain why God limits people's ages to 120 as stated to moses just before the flood yet Abraham and his wife lived to 175 and 127 respectively.

[Anonymous No.22305070]

>>22304753
>Ok but you
You were so close to admitting evolution is taken on faith, but instead of admitting it, you have to turn it on me to prevent yourself from thinking.

>Ok but you think they come from a sky wizard who makes something out of nothing
God isn't a wizard, God is God. You seem not to understand the very basic fundamental idea of an eternal and almighty God. Until you can, you're going to have a hard time understanding anything if your idea is some cartoon Family Guy or other cartoon/media misrepresentation and blasphemy of God.

If God was just a wizard, why do you think would I worship Him? If God were evil, why would I worship Him? If God wasn't truthful or didn't keep His promises, why would I worship Him?

>And in terms of theology this is where the non-Abrahamists
In terms of education, people who use the term "abrahamists" are ignorant as hell.

>since they affirm cosmological cycles of creation and destruction
You have to suspend laws of science for that. Which isn't scientific, it's a religion.

>while it is actually true that newer designs are based on earlier car designs without which they would have never been brought to market.
In the case of cars, there's an intelligent mind making all of that happen.

>no creation ex nihilo, which as a doctrine is an insult to any intelligence which observes causality.
Laws of science require the universe to have a beginning. Take thermodynamics and energy and entropy, combine that with an infinite past, an eternal timeline; you could go to any point on that timeline and all the energy and heat would've ran down in the unvierse infinite years ago as any point on an eternal timeline has an infinite past, making life not possible by the laws of science.

The only answer is to suspend the laws fo science and create "pockets" where miracles can occur but deny that they're miracles so they can continue to profess a naturalistic world view.

[Anonymous No.22305104]

>>22303923
Freud is not pre-fedora he is the og fedora. And i say that as someone who likes him

[Anonymous No.22305112]

>>22305033
> How is "species" or "family" or "genus" any different?
That’s what I’m talking about. These are abstractions.
> They're just terms in the English language that men use to classify things.
That’s what I’m saying.
> And all observational science supports the Bible that states creatures will bring forth after their kind.
I’m not trying to disprove the Bible. I love it.
> Everything we observe and repeat and test supports the Bible account: cats only make cats, people only make people, dogs only make dogs;
>You want to say "have faith" that dogs making dogs will eventually make some non-dogs (just 2 more millennia trust the plan).
Individual organisms make individual organisms like themselves. “Species” is a term used to generalize. Humans bred wolves to eventually look like pugs, and if they kept going and wanted to breed them for stranger and stranger traits, we’d eventually get something so far from the original wolves that they’d be unable to breed with wolves. The point is that “dog” is just a word humans invented to describe line of organisms.
> Further, there are some bird "species" that are barely different variations, they can all still breed with each other, but different "species", how is that evolution?
If the different species can’t produce viable offspring together they’re considered different species. They’re two separate lines that can’t mix.

[Anonymous No.22305121]

>>22304601
Why are Christtards still so tarded about evolution? It's over you lost the debate a century or more ago. Natural selection can easily be observed at work. For example in industrial age England smog darkened the sky killing colorful butterflies who in this darker environment more easily stood out. Within a few generations butterflies were found to be darker color for the simple reason that those with a gene survived.

[Anonymous No.22305130]

>>22305121
Only certain weird American Christians seethe over evolution. Anyway, you’ve gotta understand that your argument won’t convince him (though it’s true) because he simply says “kinds” and doesn’t understand that it’s an arbitrary line.

[Anonymous No.22305148]

>>22305112
>> How is "species" or "family" or "genus" any different?
>That’s what I’m talking about. These are abstractions.
>> They're just terms in the English language that men use to classify things.
>That’s what I’m saying.
Weird how they're just "abstractions" when it's a term or used how you don't like, but later in your post you don't adhere to this sort of view.

>Humans bred wolves to eventually look like pugs, and if they kept going and wanted to breed them for stranger and stranger traits, we’d eventually get something so far from the original wolves that they’d be unable to breed with wolves.
And you don't see the leap of faith you're taking there from canines making canines to canines making non-canines? At some point it no longer remains a canine, but you just "have faith" that it will happen in 2 more weeks.

>> Further, there are some bird "species" that are barely different variations, they can all still breed with each other, but different "species", how is that evolution?
>If the different species can’t produce viable offspring together they’re considered different species. They’re two separate lines that can’t mix.
Not all fields of science classify animals the same. There are plenty of different species that can interbreed within their kind. Members of the Panthera genus can interbreed.


>>22305121
>Natural selection can easily be observed at work.
Natural selection can only select from what information is already there. It explains the survival of the fit/fittest, but not the arrival of it. If you magically create life from nonlife (scientifically impossible), and magically it can reproduce and find food and survive; you can still only select from what information is already there.

Killing off the population of a kind that is less likely to survive the conditions isn't new information being added to the genome, it's information being lost. When finches with small beaks died out in the Galapagos, that left finches with larger beaks; they already had that genetic information and they did not create any new kind of creature.

You and evolutionists will take that and claim finches producing finches means man came from fish. It's absurd. It's a huge leap of faith. Then you go further and claim all life came from the same common ancestor that magically came to life from nonlife by magic. And that's where you violate laws of information, because that too needs an intelligent mind to appear, information doesn't spontaneously generate from nothing, it's a law of science, a law of information, that information requires an intelligent mind to create it. DNA is much more complex than a textbook, and textbooks don't just write themselves over millions of years by purely physical processes.

>>22305130
Why is it "arbitrary" when it's a term I use but not when you say "species" in your last remark >>22305112

Hypocrite.

[Anonymous No.22305160]

>>22305148
> And you don't see the leap of faith you're taking there from canines making canines to canines making non-canines? At some point it no longer remains a canine, but you just "have faith" that it will happen in 2 more weeks.
Canine is an abstraction.
>Why is it "arbitrary" when it's a term I use but not when you say "species" in your last remark
It’s still just a term men came up with to describe a group of animals that can interbreed.

[Anonymous No.22305168]

>>22305160
Adding on to this. let’s think about all this.
We start breeding wolves. Soon they look like regular dog breeds (german shepherds and Rottweilers, etc), then like weird ones eventually (pugs and chihuahuas). If you kept going eventually they’d be so far from the original wolf that breeding them together to produce viable, fertile offspring would be impossible.

[Anonymous No.22305173]

>>22305054
He never even responded to this blatant contradiction
Typical

[Anonymous No.22305178]

>>22304959
>are you...
I'm mocking you for being a pseud (i.e. sperging the obvious as if it were hidden in service of a shallow take we've all heard 1000 times).

[Anonymous No.22305192]

>>22305148
>abiogenesis can't occur
>the jewish volcano demon can just poof himself out of nothing for no reason
huh?

[Anonymous No.22305194]

>>22305178
>I don't have to be consistent, I can just make up whatever I want when I'm LARPing!
We know, that's why we're making fun of you for it.

[Anonymous No.22305195]

>>22305054
NTA but the lifespans were like 800-900+ years before that; Abraham/Sarah are blessed and carrying out a covenant. I'd have to look it up but the 120 year lifespan echos in type when it comes to Moses dying before he can enter the Promised Land

[Anonymous No.22305196]

>>22302386
Not true

[Anonymous No.22305199]

>>22305194
>ACKTULLY, IM MAKING FUN OF YOU!
Whatever you say, pseud.

[Anonymous No.22305202]

>>22305195
>>22305173
>>22305054
Some Christians say the 120 years was how many years men would have before the flood.

[Anonymous No.22305208]

>>22305195
There is nothing In the old testament that would indicate them being blessed by God would allow then to live past 120
God states quite clearly that he would not allow man kind to live pass 120 as a punishment for mankinds wickedness. Terah also lives passed 200 according to Jewish tradition.

[Anonymous No.22305214]

>>22305202
I'd have to read more but that seems like something literalists would argue. Also, the other anon(s?) to whom you responded seem to confuse Exodus as coming before the Babel story in Genisis (that's why I mentioned the type).

[Anonymous No.22305216]

>>22305202
Sounds like a cop out desu

[Anonymous No.22305222]

>>22305208
>There is nothing In the old testament that would indicate them being blessed by God would allow then to live past 120
You're being pedantic. They're carrying out a covenant and their lifespans are much closer to 120 than those presented before the Babel story.

[Anonymous No.22305225]

>>22305178
>2+2 = what and don't say 4 because we've all heard that 1000 times
lmfao someone call a priest and deliver this faggot his last rites

[Anonymous No.22305227]

>>22305214
What does the tower of babel have to do with this
I didn't mention exodus at all in regards to contributions in genesis

[Anonymous No.22305232]

>>22305227
>What does the tower of babel have to do with this
That's the part of Genesis that precedes the 120 year lifespan thing.
>I didn't mention exodus at all
The original post mentioned Moses so I used it as an opportunity to educate on how the Bible is structured (i.e. types).

[Anonymous No.22305240]

>>22305214
I’m not a literalist and think it makes some sense—I don’t believe there was literally a flood. It kinda made me wonder if it’s about both the human lifespan and the flood: Men live up to 120 years before nature (the water) rises up to kill them, and only the righteous live on by being saved from nature into Heaven. Aside from that, I think we have to remember that periods of time in English Bibles often don’t mean the literal amount of time: “days” mean years, typically, but even then (feel free to fact-check me, as it’s been a while since I read about this) the 7 days of creation don’t actually necessarily mean days—the Hebrew word, I think “yom,” can be any time.

[Anonymous No.22305244]

>>22305232
Oh shit no I meant noah, God states to him that he will limit man kinds age to 120 right before telling him about the flood, Abraham is his descendent

[Anonymous No.22305279]

>>22305244
Yeah, I got something wrong too. I had to look, I thought the 120 years was closer to the Babel story (the former is chapter 6 and the later is 11). They're thematically linked in the sense of restricting the abilities of mankind though.

The obvious answer would be the blending of narratives that forms that part of Genesis and perhaps editors making it conform to the lifespan of Moses (creating a type). Besides, the descrepancy can be explained by Abraham/Sarah carrying out a covenant that's foundational for the rest of the Pentateuch.

[Anonymous No.22305297]

>>22305225
>The pseud is immunized against all dangers: one may call him a retard, moron, idiot, pretentious, it all runs off him like water off a raincoat. But call him a pseud and you will be astonished at how he recoils, how injured he is, how he suddenly shrinks back: “I’ve been found out.”
For any lurking chuds.

[Anonymous No.22305304]

>>22305297
nta but it's just sad at this point. you've been baiting this board for almost a week now and you've only exposed that you're not even smart enough to do so.

[Anonymous No.22305338]

>>22305304
Atheism is an intelligence LARP and pointing that out makes fedora tippers seethe. As you yourself just demonstrated the instant reflex is to fixate on a presupposed intellectual superiority and unwittingly prove the point that upset you. It's not put forward as bait, it's just the truth, yet you make it such by behaving predictably.

[Anonymous No.22305356]

>>22305338
you are the only one talking about intellect

[Anonymous No.22305366]

>>22305192
God is not a volcano demon or jewish or white or black, God is God.

You still do not understand the concept of an Eternal existence, especially that of Almighty God.

You imagine an eternal timeline, which is scientifically impossible by current laws of science through a naturalistic world view.

[Anonymous No.22305380]

>>22305168
>Adding on to this. let’s think about all this.
>We start breeding wolves. Soon they look like regular dog breeds (german shepherds and Rottweilers, etc), then like weird ones eventually (pugs and chihuahuas). If you kept going eventually they’d be so far from the original wolf that breeding them together to produce viable, fertile offspring would be impossible.
You don't see the leap of faith you're taking when you say "If you kept going eventually", just "have faith" that enough time will magically make dogs produce non-dogs. At some point they become non-dogs if evolution is true, yet you're just taking it on faith that it will happen eventually.

Then you refuse to think logically or consistently. >>22305160

[Anonymous No.22305421]

>>22305356
>you're not even smart enough
>you are the only one talking about intellect
Kek, retard.

[Anonymous No.22305440]

>>22302386
You've merely dismissed all of the refutations out of hand, or are ignorant of them.

[Anonymous No.22305444]

>>22305104
But obviously you know "fedoras" as the smarmy, turn of the 21st century, anglo, pop-sci writers dunking on creationists, right?

[Anonymous No.22305447]

>>22305440
I was raised being taught them as "settled science™ fact" in tax-funded schools.

You've merely dismissed all of the refutations out of hand, or are ignorant of them. ;-)

[Anonymous No.22305452]

>>22305039
>Your post was just complaining about "culture war"
No, I was responding to the screenshot of the redditor claiming he could jack off all day without feeling guilty because he is an atheist, which was supposed to be indicative of the moral character of atheism. Christianity promises the forgiveness of sins, why are you not ministering to this sinful redditor? His soul is in need of rescue from the hell you believe in, not from the hell he doesn't believe in. You are a garbage excuse for a Christian, you are a larper, and your citation of "reddit" as evidence against "atheism" indicates your priorities.

[Anonymous No.22305454]

>>22303853
>variations within a kind can produce life from nonlife
This is a much less radical and unrealistic inference from our current understanding of chemistry and genetics than “uhhh i give up, it must’ve been magic.”
Of course you wouldn’t think that if you’ve been mindraped by theist dogma (and actually raped by the priesthood) from infancy.

[Anonymous No.22305455]

>>22305380
We can observe offspring differing from parents, and science has confirmed the phenomenon of mutation. There is no faith required for this. Again, “dog” is a word humans came up with. Each organism makes organisms similar to it.

[Anonymous No.22305460]

>>22304576
>There's no mechanism in the DNA to make one kind bring forth a new kind, which you claim happened millions of times for millions of years (then magically stopped once cameras were invented).
One of the most profoundly retarded posts I have ever witnessed on lit. Congratulations.

[Anonymous No.22305467]

>>22305070
>You were so close to admitting evolution is taken on faith, but instead of admitting it, you have to turn it on me to prevent yourself from thinking.
Ok retard tell yourself that

[Anonymous No.22305474]

>>22305033
>You want to say "have faith" that dogs making dogs will eventually make some non-dogs (just 2 more millennia trust the plan).
Earlier in this thread you dismissed Darwin when it’s clear that not only have you not read On the Origin of Species, but you have not read any evolutionary text for that matter and are just pontificating on things you don’t understand. You are making a very elementary mistake of hypostatizing genera. You lack a very basic understanding of gene science and you should stop embarrassing yourself. Pic related.

[Anonymous No.22305478]

>>22305452
>all day without feeling guilty because he is an atheist, which was supposed to be indicative of the moral character of atheism
It is. He is sinning every day and doesn't feel any guilt, he doesn't realize the weight of his evil works in the sight of a Holy God.

Atheists will deny God and God's morals and God's law and even objective truth and morals. Every atheist sins every day by not following God's moral law, the ten commandments, by not loving God supremely and (most days) by not loving their neighbor as themselves upon which hang all the law and prophets.

>Christianity promises the forgiveness of sins
It's not automatic. Jesus Christ didn't give a license to sin. You need repentance for the remission of sins. That means no more porn and lusting after women, which Christ equated to adultery in your heart, which is breaking one of the Ten Commandments.

>why are you not ministering to this sinful redditor?
I don't use reddit. Are you implying reddit isn't full of loving Christians like me? I've never used reddit, so maybe you can tell me all about it.

>You are a garbage excuse for a Christian, you are a larper, and your citation of "reddit" as evidence against "atheism" indicates your priorities.
So I can't quote atheists if it makes atheism look bad? That's silly.

[Anonymous No.22305486]

>>22305455
You have faith in mutations, despite the law of entropy and that we only ever see harmful mutations. You have faith that mutations will account for all life on earth, even though we can't see it doing anything close to accounting for all life from a common ancestor. If Dawkins said that eyes can evolve at the drop of a hat, then why can't we see good mutations in nature bringing new kinds of creatures? Darwin predicted changes of kind, why can't we see any?

>>22305460
>>22305467
>>22305474
You use time as a magic wand and have faith that given enough time adaptations will account for all life from a common ancestor. Darwin predicted changes of kind, why can't we see any?

[Anonymous No.22305488]

>>22305460
You misunderstand. He doesn't believe in the principle of heredity, there's nothing connecting one generation to the next as the Jewish tribal deity creates every soul as a unique entity at the moment of conception. "Kinds" are not determined by anything to do with the animal but rather the ritual dietary classifications of the Talmud. This is why bats are birds and dolphins are fish, because Rabbis classify them as such for the purposes of Jewish consumption. Because every organism is unique with no connections to any other, there can be no meaningful classification of life outside of Jewish law. There's nothing in DNA to make the Rabbis say that dolphins aren't fish, ergo biologists are wrong for going against Judaism by saying that dolphins are not in fact fish.

[Anonymous No.22305493]

>>22305380
It’s not a leap of faith if one doesn’t subscribe to the retarded pseudo-platonist view you have about species. There is no completely objective non-arbitrary moment where a canine crosses over to a non-canine. We currently define species in relation to certain observational criteria (gamete compatibility, physical similarities, etc.), but these are mutually conditioned ideas. The actual discrete changes taking place in an organism after EVERY GENERATION (not just after a significant amount of time) can be readily shown and is itself the basis of adaptation and evolution, not some retarded pseudo-problem you’ve made up about a species being able to change but quite literally inexplicably stopping as soon as it gets to the borders of “canine hood.” The mental gymnastics are truly astounding.

[Anonymous No.22305496]

>>22305486
>despite the law of entropy and that we only ever see harmful mutations.
But this isn't true.

>You have faith in mutations, despite the law of entropy and that we only ever see harmful mutations. You have faith that mutations will account for all life on earth, even though we can't see it doing anything close to accounting for all life from a common ancestor.
But we can.

>If Dawkins said that eyes can evolve at the drop of a hat
But he didn't say this.

>why can't we see good mutations in nature bringing new kinds of creatures?
We can.

>Darwin predicted changes of kind, why can't we see any?
"Kind" is meaningless outside of Judaism, but ignoring that we can actually see this.

>why can't we see any?
See the previous point.

[Anonymous No.22305497]

>>22305488
Why do you try to jump into a conversation to put words in my mouth? You are dishonest and a liar.

[Anonymous No.22305501]

>>22305496
>>If Dawkins said that eyes can evolve at the drop of a hat
>But he didn't say this.
He did.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=db2DzHLUfwc

At 8:30 since you have no patience to learn anything out of your pride.

>>22305496
>"Kind" is meaningless outside of Judaism, but ignoring that we can actually see this.
Then show me one change of kind if you're done whinging like a toddler about a simple word even a child can understand.

I've had evolutionist nuts claim wolves and bananas are the same kind, so who knows what you're even talking about as seeing changes of kind.

[Anonymous No.22305502]

>>22305478
>atheists are sinners
so go save them, you're not getting far with me since I think you have brain damage, but try those reddit atheists

[Anonymous No.22305503]

>>22305497
You believe the Earth is 6,000 years old because of the Talmud. That's why you believe this. The dating that you use to arrive at this figure comes from the Talmud. You use this figure instead of any of the myriad of others because it's in the Talmud. You believe the Earth is 6,000 years old as opposed to 10,000, or 100,000 because the Talmud says that those are wrong.

You believe that animals are classified by Jewish ritual dietary laws because that's what the Talmud says. You believe that the soul is created at the moment of conception and is utterly unique because that's what the Talmud says.

If Creationism and the word of the Talmud is so true, why are you ashamed of its origin?

[Anonymous No.22305510]

>>22305493
>It’s not a leap of faith if one doesn’t subscribe to the retarded pseudo-platonist view you have about species.
It is a leap of faith, because you have faith that the changes, the number of changes, and the types of changes we never see happening happened and from a single common ancestor that came to life from nonlife.

[Anonymous No.22305511]

>>22305501
Instead of wallowing in the sin of pride, why don't you watch the video itself instead of what some Rabbi that is trying to mislead you has to say?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2X1iwLqM2t0
Dawkins says that cells that can react to light are easily evolved. Yes, he calls them "eyes" because he says that there's no real difference between a cell (or group of cells) that react to light and a fully functional human eye.

Why are you dishonest? Why are you lying? Why are you ashamed of your beliefs? Why do you wallow in pride and sin against the Holy Spirit?

[Anonymous No.22305514]

>>22305493
It doesn't matter how much you cry about definitions and play these word games, there is no observational science proving evolution. It's all bait and switch, deceptions, and lies.

Even the "experts" you worship can't provide any answers. All you do is whinge about terminology and squirm like a rat.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jeSxIqAYP4M

[Anonymous No.22305515]

>>22305486
>You use time as a magic wand
You believe in magical ex nihilo creation, so what is the difference? Why is it wrong to have faith in a reliable process? For instance, Christian apologetics have deteriorated over time as smarter people have abandoned the religion, drying up the pool of intellectually capable members of your faith. It's evolution in work—the fastest growing forms of Christianity are the faith-healing snake touching, political talk-radio howling pentacostalists. Evolution in action—a far cry from Aquinas.

[Anonymous No.22305517]

>>22305501
Sure, here's an example:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_fish
According to you, this is a bird. It has successfully evolved from the Talmudic classification of "fish" to the Talmudic classification of "bird". As you say, there's nothing in the DNA that determines kind, kind can only be assigned by Halakha.

[Anonymous No.22305520]

>>22305338
lmao, i'll repeat myself, i'm not an athiest. you're just a dumbfuck

[Anonymous No.22305524]

>>22305503
>You believe the Earth is 6,000 years old because of the Talmud. That's why you believe this.
I don't read the Talmud. You don't even know the difference between the Talmud and the Bible. You're such a fool.

The Talmud isn't even part of the Bible at all.

>You believe that the soul is created at the moment of conception and is utterly unique because that's what the Talmud says.
Oh, is that what it is? Is that your sin? Have you murdered your own children in the womb? God hates the hands that shed innocent blood. One of the ten commandments is Thou shalt not kill. Would you really murder your own child?

[Anonymous No.22305525]

>>22305510
Why can Yahweh poof into existence from nowhere for no reason out of nothing, but proteins can't form life? Do you have a preferred Rabbi that I can ask about this? Could you cite a passage of the Talmud so we can know precisely where the line between life and non-life is?

[Anonymous No.22305526]

>>22305486
> You have faith in mutations, despite the law of entropy and that we only ever see harmful mutations.
This is getting even more schizophrenic. Entropy isn’t relevant here, and we certainly don’t “only” see harmful mutations. A lot of traits are also harmful in some environments but helpful in others, like Sickle-Cell. Mutations happen when a codon gets slightly changed, so a different protein might be produced. Then it depends on what trait that leads to.
> why can't we see good mutations in nature bringing new kinds of creatures?
Every creature with genome not identical to a previously existing creature is a new kind of creature, and thus a change in kind. If you mean a new species, well that happens all the time with microorganisms, but takes a lot longer for larger organisms since our environments don’t significantly change as quickly, and our generations last way longer.

[Anonymous No.22305535]

>>22305517
Yeah, keep crying about the "Talmud" you absolute fool. I protest it more than you do, not like you know anything about anything.

[Anonymous No.22305536]

>>22305524
>I don't read the Talmud.
So you're just taking these people at your word. Some Rabbi told you that the Earth was 6,000 years old because it says so in the Talmud, and you just went with it.

>The Talmud isn't even part of the Bible at all.
So not only have you not read the Talmud OR the Bible, but you just go ahead and trust the Talmud over the Bible despite not having read either.

And then you go out and talk about evolution? Your pride is so great that you couldn't even watch Dawkins ramble about eyes for ten minutes before you decided to go out and start talking about the great truth of the Talmud.

If it's so true, why are you embarrassed to follow it?

[Sir Duncan Crumb (His Lordship) No.22305539]

>>22302386
the part where Saul reveals the first converts to christianity are effeminate homosexuals, thieves and extortioners rings particularly true.

[Anonymous No.22305544]

>>22305536
So now you're just bold-faced lying about me, falsely accusing me?

Did you murder your own kids? Is that why you're so angry at me?

[Anonymous No.22305545]

>>22305535
>I protest it more than you do
You cite it for the age of the Earth, anon.

[Anonymous No.22305546]

>>22305514
>It doesn't matter how much you cry about definitions and play these word games
You are the one playing word games about “kinds” when it’s arbitrary.

[Anonymous No.22305549]

>>22305544
You didn't answer the question. If your beliefs are so true, why are you ashamed of their origin?

[Anonymous No.22305561]

>>22305520
No one cares.

[Anonymous No.22305562]

>>22305515
>You believe in magical ex nihilo creation, so what is the difference?
Crying "what's the difference" isn't a defense for your religion being tax-funded in schools and forced on kids as "science fact" when it's taken on faith and not proven by any observational science. You guys can't even be honest your beliefs are religious and taken on faith, you're all so dishonest.

I believe an Almighty and Eternal God created everything. You believe the scientific impossiblity that nothing created everything, that life came from nonlife, and the fantasy creation myth of evolution of kinds that all life shares a common ancestor that came to life magically. It's not like you can observe or repeat the atheist creation myths, but they act like it's "science"

>>22305525
>Why can Yahweh poof into existence from nowhere
See >>22305366
>You still do not understand the concept of an Eternal existence, especially that of Almighty God.
>You imagine an eternal timeline, which is scientifically impossible by current laws of science through a naturalistic world view.

>>22305511
So your argument is just calling the guy "Rabbi". I told you the exact timestamp of the quote and you can't even admit you were wrong. It's not like you watched what I posted, why should I watch yours? All you want to do now, like the other angry sinner is falsely accuse me.

You realize you're just proving the scripture true when you do this, when you behave as you are now. You literally proof OP right and you still deny that you do.

[Sir Duncan Crumb (His Lordship) No.22305563]

>>22305549
>why are you ashamed of their origin?
honestly Thomas this is a particularly stupid line of argument,

>>22305517
>It has successfully evolved from the Talmudic classification of "fish" to the Talmudic classification of "bird". As you say, there's nothing in the DNA that determines kind, kind can only be assigned by Halakha.
Are you for serious, thomas? You are proclaiming that "All Science" is an actual cloak for "the Talmud".

[Anonymous No.22305567]

>>22305545
Why don't you look up what is the talmud, kid. Also look up this site's global rule #2.

[Anonymous No.22305569]

>>22305549
see >>22305567

[Anonymous No.22305572]

>>22305546
This is literally your only defense of evolution, to cry about word games claiming "kind" is arbitrary when plenty of evolutionists do understand the term and aren't deliberately foolish.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jeSxIqAYP4M

[Sir Duncan Crumb (His Lordship) No.22305576]

>>22305567
>global rule #2
>>global rule #2
>>crumping is mandatory upon every odd minute of a timepiece in motion

[Anonymous No.22305578]

>>22305546
This is literally your only defense of evolution, to play word games and project it onto me while claiming "kind" is arbitrary when plenty of evolutionists do understand the term and aren't deliberately foolish.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jeSxIqAYP4M

[Anonymous No.22305584]

>>22305562
>your religion being tax-funded in schools and forced on kids as "science fact"
I don't believe in public education since it leads to people like you trying to opine on topics above them. All evidence suggests "life" has changed over time, good enough for me. You have zero evidence for your dogmatic assertions about another ethnic group's volcano demon being master of the universe and creator of mankind, so it's really just the OG capeshit, and was even written by the ancestors of Stan Lee and Jack Kirby.

[Anonymous No.22305586]

>>22305572
By “kind” you typically mean species, but species is an arbitrary distinction. There isn’t a line where one species ends and another begins. It’s the same as the “missing link” argument: Every individual is a link, as the change is gradual. Additionally, the idea of God required for this is far less transcendent and more like Jove. I frankly think of such belief as a form of paganism.

[Anonymous No.22305588]

>>22305586
Meant for>>22305572

[Anonymous No.22305592]

>>22305588
Ugh, let’s see if it works this time >>22305578

[Anonymous No.22305609]

>>22305586
You said we already see it >>22305496

Why can't you post it instead of still crying about the term "kind"?

[Anonymous No.22305615]

>>22305584
>All evidence suggests "life" has changed over time, good enough for me.
Babies change over time, that doesn't prove their ancestors were ever fish if you go back far enough, that's taken on faith. But you can't even admit this.

[Anonymous No.22305622]

>>22305615
Why do you think not being able to prove something far back enough is a gotcha? You do realize, little christer, you're not merely shot yourself in the foot, you've blown off your fucking leg?

[Anonymous No.22305627]

>>22305609
That post wasn’t me. If you want an example of a new kind of organism, look at yourself: Unless you’re a twin, you’re probably the only organism to exist with that particular genome. I think the recent coronavirus was probably a new species too, seeing as we hadn’t seen that one before.

[Sir Duncan Crumb (His Lordship) No.22305665]

God created you and me
God created dysentry
he gave a billion trillion babes
the dreaded scourge of fucking AIDS
just to 'dorn your ruddy face
with a smile about your days
that you be grateful and such
not to be born with a monkey butt

"thank you god for being so good,
like jerbeezos said you would!"

[Anonymous No.22305671]

>>22305627
And while sexual reproduction is all the rage with us larger organisms, it’s not so for microorganisms. Reproductive isolation isn’t a factor anymore, so the classification of species (or “kind”) is even more arbitrary.

[Anonymous No.22305689]

>>22305510
Not only do we SEE them happening, but calling it “faith” is just a really badly disguised piece of rhetoric. PLAUSIBLE INFERENCE is not FAITH, although I’d imagine the operational philosophies of most scientific pursuits are beyond your cognitive abilities.

[Anonymous No.22305769]

>>22305622
>Why do you think not being able to prove something far back enough is a gotcha?
It means it's taken on faith. It's unscientific and it can't be proven so it shouldn't be taught as "settled science™ fact" in schools when they can't give any evidence for it and it doesn't disprove the Bible.

>You do realize, little christer, you're not merely shot yourself in the foot, you've blown off your fucking leg?
You're brainwashed to think "anything taken on faith is bad" huh? but you don't even recognize your own faith-based beliefs as requiring faith.

Do you think "there is no God"? If yes, then you have to take it on faith that God doesn't exist outside of your knowledge. You could know half of everything, but God could still exist in the half you don't know. It has to be taken on faith for the atheist that God doesn't exist outside of their knowledge.

>>22305689
>PLAUSIBLE INFERENCE is not FAITH,
It's faith and it's not plausible at all by laws of science.

They have to create pockets of time where the laws of science don't apply for any of it to work (and I haven't even really gotten into the big bang myth yet). Miracles with no miracle maker. The Bible has miracles with a miracle maker, much more logical than the naturalists' evolution creation story.

>although I’d imagine the operational philosophies of most scientific pursuits are beyond your cognitive abilities.
That's a lot of words for a petty insult, when you can't even recognize your own beliefs that are faith based are faith based.

You don't see any evidence for it, there is a lack of evidence that man can even come from apes or from fish or from some bacteria or from whatever was the single common ancestor of all life on earth that magically came to life from nonlife. There isn't a single shred of evidence that one kind can bring forth a new kind or that life can come from nonlife.

That's faith because all we see are adaptations and life coming from life. That means it's not something that should be taught as science and it's not something that disproves the Bible as the Bible doesn't say "there will be no adaptations", the Bible says that creatures will bring forth after their kind and that's literally all we see.

We don't see evolution, where creatures bring forth new kinds, they just point to adaptation and say "have faith" that given more time that will account for all life on earth from a common ancestor, but it's not something that can be observed or repeated. Nothing about your sci-fi creation myth disproves the Bible.

[Anonymous No.22305779]

>>22305561
come on, you can do better than that, GPT!

[Anonymous No.22305780]

>>22305627
>That post wasn’t me. If you want an example of a new kind of organism, look at yourself: Unless you’re a twin, you’re probably the only organism to exist with that particular genome.
The genetic information for me came from my mother and father. It didn't come from nothing and I didn't get any extra information that they didn't already have. This doesn't prove man can evolve from monkeys or apes or fish or soup or something that came to life from a rock.

[Anonymous No.22305782]

>>22305769
>They have to create pockets of time where the laws of science don't apply for any of it to work
What are you talking about? I presume it’s entropy.
> There isn't a single shred of evidence that one kind can bring forth a new kind or that life can come from nonlife.
Your mom created you and you aren’t a clone of her so clearly one kind can create another.

[Anonymous No.22305785]

>>22305780
All life’s information is of the same basic stuff though: RNA and DNA. We’ve all got the same 64 codons. Also you’ve got some mutations that your parents don’t have.

[Anonymous No.22305797]

>>22305782
>What are you talking about? I presume it’s entropy.
That's one of them.

There are a few others, but let's hear your argument why the sun means sunburns will evolve animals into higher and more complex forms of life when only plant cells can harness its power through photosynthesis. Why don't you go live in the Sahara desert and expose yourself to the sun as much as possible so your offspring can be "more evolved" and "more human", lol. At least that's what one evolutionist tried to claim would happen, sounds like a comic book, I wonder who gets to wear the superhero cape.

>Your mom created you and you aren’t a clone of her so clearly one kind can create another.
People making people isn't a change of kinds. This is just desperation at this point.

>>22305785
Yeah, and those mutations build up then we die. And offspring gets more mutant than the previous generation through hereditary mutations and eventually the human genome will be too mutant to survive if naturalism is true.

Makes you wonder how anything could "evolve" in the first place. I just don't have enough faith to be an evolutionist.

[Anonymous No.22305801]

>>22302386
i have never seen it confirmed twice?

[Anonymous No.22305811]

>>22305797
> There are a few others, but let's hear your argument why the sun means sunburns will evolve animals into higher and more complex forms of life when only plant cells can harness its power through photosynthesis.
Are you high? We can just eat the plants to get the energy: Crisis averted. Earth isn’t a closed system so entropy’s no issue.
> People making people isn't a change of kinds. This is just desperation at this point.
What is a kind?
>and eventually the human genome will be too mutant to survive if naturalism is true.
How exactly? People who get detrimental mutations will simply have fewer children than those who don’t.

[Anonymous No.22305829]

>>22305769
>You're brainwashed to think "anything taken on faith is bad" huh?
You are arguing evolution is bad "science" because it is faith based, correct? And it should not be taught to children because of this? Then theology is also bad science, and should be kept away from them as well. You're bleeding out pretty bad we should call an ambulance.
Seriously is this the final act of Christian apologetics, to become a nihilist? Was my boy Nietzsche right about you people?

[Anonymous No.22305837]

>>22305811
>We can just eat the plants to get the energy: Crisis averted.
How does digesting food prove your ancestors were fish?

>entropy’s no issue.
Hereditary mutations say otherwise, but whatever laws of science you have to suspend to preserve your fantasy.

>How exactly? People who get detrimental mutations will simply have fewer children than those who don’t.
Keep thinking, anon, I know you can do it. What happens to their offspring? and their offspring? and their offspring? If everyone's more mutant than the last generation, what happens in the end?

>What is a kind?
Evolutionists sometimes refer to the change of kind as "macroevolution". They claim adaptations are "microevolution" and then claim that proves "macroevolution" if you just believe that enough time will account for it, if you just believe, if you just believe time can make it happen, just have belief that enough time will make "microevolution" into "macroevolution" because they both have "evolution" in the name. But I'm sure you'll start complaining about those words too, right? just because they weren't part of your specific indoctrination to believe your ancestors were fish and that you share a common ancestry with maggots and that any of that is based in reality or science.

>>22305829
Your religion is tax funded and taught as "settled science™ fact" in schools, mine is not.

[Anonymous No.22305853]

>>22305769
>Miracles with no miracle maker. The Bible has miracles with a miracle maker, much more logical than the naturalists' evolution creation story.
The notion that everything that exists exists for an exploitable human-centered purpose or meaning is literally destroying our only biosphere. Everything that has ever happened has indeed led to us right now, but who are you to slice it apart into a series of miracles and non-miracles? It's just life and the more you try to separate from it the less sense it will make. Since you insist on an all powerful all knowing creator God now he has to be responsible for all of it or none of it. Amd because you've conjured an impossible explanation how much more impossible must it be for some thing or process which is not-God to have done all of his works. It's a you-problem, replacing thi faith with another so-called faith, not a problem for anyone else.

[Anonymous No.22305858]

>>22305779
Don't need to.

[Anonymous No.22305859]

>>22305837
>Your religion is tax funded and taught as "settled science™ fact" in schools, mine is not.
See here, you are on loop now >>22305584 and as I said, I am in favor of ending public education. Only a third of students can read or do math in them at grade level anyway. Why bother teaching them anything non-vocational at this point, certainly not worth producing more minds like yours

[Anonymous No.22305878]

>>22305837
>How does digesting food prove your ancestors were fish?
It just solves the entropy problem. We indirectly get our energy from the sun.
>Hereditary mutations say otherwise, but whatever laws of science you have to suspend to preserve your fantasy.
You need to actually explain your reasoning. Individuals with detrimental mutations have fewer offspring, and thus die off.
>Keep thinking, anon, I know you can do it. What happens to their offspring? and their offspring? and their offspring? If everyone's more mutant than the last generation, what happens in the end?
The mutation dies off, and the un-mutated members of the species remain. Say that an embryo gets an evolutionarily detrimental mutation its parents didn’t have. Perhaps there’s a miscarriage, or it just dies before reproductive age. Then it doesn’t pass on. If it lives to reproductive age, it’s probably not going to have as many offspring.
>Evolutionists sometimes refer to the change of kind…
But what is a kind?

[Anonymous No.22305888]

>>22305859
It's still your religion and it's still tax funded and forced on kids and falsely called science (as much as you want to pretend like you're bothered by that, you're not) and it doesn't disprove the Bible because it's a blatant lie and anyone who can make a real argument instead of dressing up petty insults like you've done in basically every post of yours can see that. Your post here >>22305829 is just dishonesty and deception, your strawmen are weak and your debate skills are trash.

[Anonymous No.22305903]

>>22305878
*as many offspring as average

[Anonymous No.22305916]

>>22305878
>You need to actually explain your reasoning. Individuals with detrimental mutations have fewer offspring, and thus die off.
Oh, you still think mutations are beneficial, sci-fi comic book movies did a number on you, huh? It's funny how the textbooks can only ever show harmful mutations, or they'll say getting some disease or disorder is a beneficial lol.

>The mutation dies off, and the un-mutated members of the species remain.
Everyone's mutated, everyone gets mutations as they age, it's the reason people die, and they pass them to their children, and then they're more mutant than their parents and they age and pass them on and on and on.

Evolutionist scientists have asked "why aren't we dead many times over" but I guess you only listen to stuff that your priests don't consider "heretical" to their sacred doctrine of man from mud through purely physical processes.

>But what is a kind?
I've given several different ways for you to understand and links to videos that also explain it, you've chosen to remain ignorant, deliberate stupidity is not an argument.

I'll just take this as your concession since you can't argue any content, but just superficial semantics and word games and bait and switch; which is the way you cultists only ever "prove" your retarded religion of evolutionism in the first place (point to slight adaptations, call it evolution, then claim that proves their ancestor was a rock) and demand tax funding and access to indoctrinate kids to think they're just hairless apes and share a common ancestry with earth worms and life is meaningless and there's no need for God's moral law because we're just nature's accident and if it feels good then do it and everything came from nothing on blind faith and you call it science.

You just want to go on sinning and feel justified in it, that's what it ultimately comes down to.

[Anonymous No.22305924]

>>22305888
>it's a blatant lie
How can you make such accusations having already blown off your own limbs with your salvo regarding the invalidity of faith? What else do you have to present as evidence for your beliefs?

[Anonymous No.22305926]

>>22305853
>Since you insist on an all powerful all knowing creator God now he has to be responsible for all of it or none of it.
Yeah, you just don't want to admit responsibility for your actions.

You'd be the robber in a courtroom blaming the judge for sentencing you for breaking the law despite you being on camera and identifying yourself to the camera and the evidence is overwhelming. You'd demand the judge instead be hauled away in your stead.

[Anonymous No.22305956]

>>22305926
>ok guys here's my proof for god
>you ready, i'm gonna hit you hard with this evidence
>since god is all powerful
>god created everything
>oh and atheists are dodging responsibility for their actions by not believing someone else caused their actions

[Anonymous No.22305957]

>>22305916
>Oh, you still think mutations are beneficial
Depends entirely on the mutation.
>they'll say getting some disease or disorder is a beneficial lol.
Sometimes they can be. Sickle-cell, for example, can be beneficial in parts of the world with malaria.
>Everyone's mutated, everyone gets mutations as they age, it's the reason people die, and they pass them to their children, and then they're more mutant than their parents and they age and pass them on and on and on.
If you pass on a detrimental mutation to your kid, their evolutionary success will be lowered. Most of the mutations you get in life won’t be passed on to your offspring anyway: Only mutations in the gametes will be passed on.
>I've given several different ways for you to understand and links to videos that also explain it, you've chosen to remain ignorant, deliberate stupidity is not an argument.
Show me your explanations, because it’s all arbitrary. “Species” has no non-arbitrary line. There’s just chains and chains of individuals.
>superficial semantics and word games and bait and switch
You are the one arguing using arbitrary terms and classifications to argue your point. There is literally no line where one species begins and another starts.

[Anonymous No.22305966]

>>22305924
>>it's a blatant lie
>How can you make such accusations
Because it is a lie.

There's no evidence that any kind of creature can bring forth a new kind, the Bible says they will bring forth after their kind and all observational, repeatable, testable science supports this. Evolutionists say to just believe that given more time that will make all forms of life from a common ancestors and you don't even see how that's not testable, observable, repeatable, it's all taken on faith, it's not science, but you don't mind it being taught as "science fact" and you somehow think your fantasy creation story disproves the Word of God.

>with your salvo regarding the invalidity of faith?
I never did that, that's your brainwashing showing.

And my faith isn't taught as "settled science fact" in schools. Why should the evolution faith, the faith that: given enough time, adaptations and variations within a kind can account for all life on earth from a common ancestor be taught as "settled science fact" Your faith doesn't disprove the science we see that supports the Bible, which is that creatures only bring forth after their kind.

Christians are honest about their beliefs being faith-based and religious, evolutionists lie and deny theirs are faith based and force them on kids in schools despite science supporting the Christian view and not the evolutionist's view.

>>22305956
Why doesn't the robber find the cop nor look for the cop?

[Anonymous No.22305968]

>>22305916
Oh I forgot about the last part.
>You just want to go on sinning and feel justified in it, that's what it ultimately comes down to.
I’m a theist and believe in objective morality so no. Idk about the other guys. Evolution only increases my belief in God and the Bible.

[Anonymous No.22305999]

>>22305957
>Depends entirely on the mutation.
Show me a beneficial mutation in nature.

>>they'll say getting some disease or disorder is a beneficial lol.
>Sometimes they can be. Sickle-cell, for example, can be beneficial in parts of the world with malaria.
Yeah, I knew that'd be mentioned, lol. Get a disease, that's how to evolve. Better move there so your family can be "more human" than everyone else. Expose yourself to all the deadly diseases, maybe one of them will make your great great great great great great grand kids supermen.

>Most of the mutations you get in life won’t be passed on to your offspring anyway: Only mutations in the gametes will be passed on.
Doesn't matter, they still build up. The human genome is decaying. Keep kicking the can down the road, the Christians have been waiting there the whole time.

>Show me your explanations
No, I already did, read the thread, troll.

>You are the one arguing using arbitrary terms and classifications to argue your point. There is literally no line where one species begins and another starts.
You're one of those moral/truth relativist psychopaths, aren't you?

[Anonymous No.22306003]

I wanted to point this out because it’s funny: “ >How exactly? People who get detrimental mutations will simply have fewer children than those who don’t.
Keep thinking, anon, I know you can do it. What happens to their offspring? and their offspring? and their offspring? If everyone's more mutant than the last generation, what happens in the end?”
This guy doesn’t get that individuals with detrimental mutations will simply be outcompeted by those without them. We have entered “I’m infertile because my parents are” territory.

[Anonymous No.22306007]

>>22305966
The bible has no concept of geological time it thinks the earth is 6000 years old. Can you explain where the domestic dog came from, since you are so informed? It couldn't have come from wolves, right?

[Anonymous No.22306012]

>>22305968
>I’m a theist and believe in objective morality so no.
So you believe in a god, just not the God of the Bible and not the God of the Bible's morality then either?

>Evolution only increases my belief in God and the Bible.
Is Jesus a liar, insane, or is he right? (Matthew 19:4; Mark 10:6)

Evolution is a heresy and most of it was invented by men to "disprove" the Bible, especially the historical account of creation, it has almost everything backwards (e.g. God made plants before the sun, man came before death, etc). It's a heresy because man brought death into the world through sin (Romans 5:12). Death didn't bring man into the world. And if death brought man into the world, If death came before man, what was the fall into sin? If Genesis didn't happen, if you're going to deny God created the world as He said he did and as Christ said He did, then why do you believe anything else He said?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UM82qxxskZE

There's no reconciling that fake science and blind faith evolution creation story with the scripture unless you just ignore even what Jesus Christ said and the apostles and what they believed. Even if you're one of those NT-only apostates who think the 10 commandments are done away with, you still can't reconcile it. And it's not like it's supported by any observational science, everything we can observe and test and repeat only supports the Bible account.

>>22306007
Most geology you see is a result of the flood. You claim those rock layers are millions of years apart, but you don't have millions of years of erosion or channeling.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UM82qxxskZE

[Anonymous No.22306020]

>>22305999
>Show me a beneficial mutation in nature.
It's a shame Yeshua ben Yosef had no offspring because immortality is a hell of a mutation. Do you figure he might have been infertile, since according to Christians he was half-man and half-god, or rather both man and god? Wouldn't want to confuse this with the uh oh stinky Greco-Egyptian versions of demigodliness, either, which are not only wrong for not being biblical but also unscientific examples!

[Anonymous No.22306026]

>>22306012
>You claim those rock layers are millions of years apart,
Why did Yahweh dinocaust the Saurian tribes?

[Anonymous No.22306032]

>>22305999
>Show me a beneficial mutation in nature.
Antibiotic-resistance in bacteria.
>Get a disease, that's how to evolve. Better move there so your family can be "more human" than everyone else. Expose yourself to all the deadly diseases, maybe one of them will make your great great great great great great grand kids supermen.
In that part of the world, you have a choice between sickle-cell and malaria: One’s worse than the other.
>Doesn't matter, they still build up. The human genome is decaying. Keep kicking the can down the road, the Christians have been waiting there the whole time.
The detrimental ones just die off.
>No, I already did, read the thread, troll.
Your only explanation talked about micro vs macroevolution, but didn’t actually say what a kind was. Please point me to an explanation. Maybe you explained it to someone else and I didn’t see.
>You're one of those moral/truth relativist psychopaths, aren't you?
I already told you I was a theist and love the Bible, so no. There is still no hard line to where one species ends and another begins.

Due to mutations and selection, each generation is a bit different from the one before it, and thus generation 999,999 is so different from generation 1. So, we break things up into species.

[Anonymous No.22306037]

>>22306032
>I already told you I was a theist and love the Bible, so no. There is still no hard line to where one species ends and another begins.
How does it feel being on the same team as short bus over there with his dinocaust denial?

[Anonymous No.22306060]

>>22306012
>So you believe in a god, just not the God of the Bible and not the God of the Bible's morality then either?
I told you I love the Bible. It reveals the true nature of God where dry philosophy can’t.
>Is Jesus a liar, insane, or is he right? (Matthew 19:4; Mark 10:6)
He’s neither a liar nor insane. Genesis is an allegory.
>It's a heresy because man brought death into the world through sin (Romans 5:12).
I see death as something that exists because of selfishness.
>what was the fall into sin?
By obtaining knowledge of good and evil, Adam and Eve made sin possible (can’t sin if you don’t know what’s right or wrong) but were one step toward Heaven. Remaining in Eden forever would be hedonism: A world of Earthly pleasures, like Islam’s “Heaven.”
>If Genesis didn't happen, if you're going to deny God created the world as He said he did and as Christ said He did, then why do you believe anything else He said?
It’s allegorical for what’s metaphysically true, and thus more true than a story of what literally happened in the physical world.

[Anonymous No.22306069]

>>22306037
I find it likely he’s trolling to make Christianity appear absurd. While I think his reasoning is absurd, I’m not really threatened. It’s like asking if I think Plato is a retard because he believes in the transcendent just like 12 year old girls believe in astrology.

[Anonymous No.22306291]

Why is religion becoming less prevalent over time?

[Anonymous No.22306360]

>>22306291
>His losing sureness of God but increasing sureness of the devil in 2001 - 2006
Chilling

[Anonymous No.22306380]

>>22304934
>>tips fedora
lmaooo, imagine using such an inferior distro.
For me, it's Linux Mint.

[Anonymous No.22306424]

>>22302386
>"God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars."
>the moon isn't a light itself but a reflection of the sun
wowwww just halfway thru Genesis 1 before being limited by the thoughts of sand people 2000 years ago

[Anonymous No.22306428]

>>22306380
https://youtube.com/watch?v=kddqINA1vOA