/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

all humans share the same heritage

If science goes against a holy book, it is science, and not God, that is wrong. Adam was a man like you or me, created in God's image at the end of God's six days of creation.

I have a feel we had this thread already.

>>530181

So where do these guys fit?

>>530182

>Adam was a man like you or me, created in God's image at the end of God's six days of creation.

Vid related.

>>530184

No one really answers my question and the thread gets deleted.

>>530186

>No one really answers my question and the thread gets deleted.

Maybe that should have told you something.

>believing in evolution

>despite the mathematical magic that it needs

>despite the fact that whenever it's proven wrong, the evolutionist clergy defends through dogma by making up bs to justify the inconsistencies

>>530179

Those so-called ancestors are actually the descendant nephilim of time travelling fallen angels.

>>530235

>math formulas based on conjecture

>>530232

>despite the mathematical magic that it needs

That argument doesn't work against theistic evolutionists, since they believe God is behind evolution

>>530246

What >>530258 said

Also, I still have yet to hear your opinion on these fossils. What are they?

>>530268

Which fossils? The OP? Animal fossils, deformed human fossils, etc.

My first issue with evolution is that it's not observable, hence it's not actually science. Most of it is based completely on conjecture: [x] animals has [y] feature (this is observable), and it evolved that feature in order to [reason] (this is conjecture). Not to mention that the big holes in their theories are literally swept away by the magic of time.

My second issue is how dogmatic it's become. Have you heard about soft tissue found on dinosaur fossils? This is impossible if this is hundreds of millions of years old. And what happened when this was put out into the evolutionist community? Did they admit there was a fault in their theory and set out to investigate it? No, they claimed that soft tissue will last millions of years, rather than fathom that their dogma might not be completely correct. It's ludicrous.

There's also internal inconsistencies, like the time it takes for a mutation to propagate itself into the full population. You'll find that one will take millions of years, while others will take thousands. This is not reasonable range.

I'm not even going to consider that the skulls are proto human when the foundation to that theory is laced with such crap. It's like a Muslim asking how Islam can be false if the Koran is so great.

>>530258

I don't believe this issue is important in that it does not hamper salvation, but I think Christian evolution is unironically a theory of God of the gaps. It first assumes that the opposing naturalist side is correct in its pseudo science, and then tries to make an apologetic for the Christian faith within the parameters of that worldview. In even beginning the argument, you've lost the debate because you have conceded the rules to the opponent. Suppose a conservative is debating a liberal. The liberal resorts to initiate the debate with emotional arguments, saying that the conservative hates children. The conservative, obviously, does not, but rather than negating this as ridiculous, he concedes that he hates children, and then begins to promote his platform. In conceding a faux framework, he already lost the debate.

>>530314

The context of the picture is the absurdity of the fallacy that there is no problems with racemixing with blacks simply because the gospel regarding "no Jew or Greek" makes them believe that God promotes racemixing. The argument "we are all pink inside" is often use to dismiss biological differences.

Also Jews and Greeks are both white. God never mentioned blacks/dogs or "Africans".

What if Neanderthal fossils are the skeletons of men destroyed in the flood, and what atheist scientists consider modern Humans are simply the descendents of Noah?

>>530341

>What if Neanderthal fossils are the skeletons of men destroyed in the flood, and what atheist scientists consider modern Humans are simply the descendants of Noah?

Why would Noah's children be black, white, Asian, Indian and Arab? The bible says that Noah was perfect in his generations, i.e. not corrupted in ethnicity.

God said the flood destroyed all life on the Earth (not sea). So Noah's sons all looked like Noah (and Adam). Why would they be allowed to take weird hybrid wives on to the ark?

There were giants in the Earth in those days, AND AFTER THAT.

So, while I agree that these skeletons/fossils are the remains of hybrid things created through angels raping women, it doesn't completely explain what happened after the flood.

If you compare a negroid skull to those beast skulls they are pretty similar.

>>530314

You're ignoring what I said. Assuming that these skeletons are proto human is not the first step in accepting evolution, you first have to accept other things that are foundational to that worldview. Again, this is like a Muslim claiming that Islam cannot be false because of how beautifully written the Koran is. Before you start talking about literary devices and poetry, you first need to go through the more foundational concepts of Islam like the legitimacy of Mohammed.

I don't believe in the legitimacy of evolution, as I already stated, therefore it follows that these skeletons are not proto human, but rather something else. Whether these be a great ape, an extinct animal, or a deformed man.

>>530358

Again, this conclusion is only available if you have already accepted ab evolutionist worldview.

>>530395

Then why isn't there uniformity amongst them, considering they all take the same full ape/human stance as you?

>>530400

Amongst whom? The fossils? I keep repeating myself: the fossils are irrelevant in the face of the inconsistencies of evolution because the theory regarding the fossils falls back on the foundational theories of evolution itself. You require an acceptance of evolution to look at those fossils and come to the conclusion that they're species that mutated to eventually make modern man.

Suppose I give you a picture of a bunch of different old pictures, and I ask you to make sense of them. I have accepted the theory that ink does not entirely dry, and will denegrade and melt as time goes by. So, because I have accepted this theory, I conclude that the pictures I've given you are all actually the same picture, but distorted and changed because of the aging ink. If you think that theory is lacking, or haven't heard of it at all, then you're not going to come to that conclusion, because it's preposterous.

What the fossils are is irrelevant. I'm not an archeologist nor a biologist, I don't keep track of animals. However, I can you that those animals are no proto humans, because the theory that suggests they are is a faux.

Why are they so different? I've already answered this. Common sense would dictate that they are either different animals - this includes animals that have died out - or humans with a deformity.

I'm not going to keep repeating myself. That these fossils are proto humans because the theory of evolution suggests so is circular reasoning that has nothing to do with the scientific method. It's a layman theory at best.

>>530389

Someone do an expanding brain meme with this.

>>530179

>Epigenetics explains 80% structural changes of adaptations to the environment.

<Epigenetics also prove that animals don't 'evolve' into different families no matter how long there's environmental pressures, since the genetic 'output' can become rearranged without external material, but still limit to their own data

>Darwinists are still trying to wank off over mutations for an unrealistic, atheistic narrative for the origins of the species

This is why the YECs and IDs laugh at you.

>>530418

*limited

>>530429

>Implying mutation, the destruction of genetic material, can add new genes to animals

>>530179

>Or rather, what was he exactly, and which species would be considered part of the "Adamic" heritage?

One of the stupidest things i've ever read. Adam and Eve is an allegorical story,.

>>535383

o-ok what are those alien-like skulls now?

>>535383

The elongated Skulls belong to various tribes of Melonhead and there is a rough classification for them that has emerged inside Edenism. The one you present in your brain expansion meme is Snake-melon. The flatter ones with the wide faces are owl ones. The Edenist classifications are also centered around Europe, North Africa and Asia minor. I may misrepresent it, because I haven't read all the material available about melonheads. Some of it is already gone from the Internet.

>>530237

I really hate this whole idea that "Big Bang theory" is some atheist crap.

For fuck sake, it was made by Belgian Priest who said "Hey, Genesis 1:1 is true, here have a mathematical model of God creating heaven and earth". The very name Big Bang came from atheist scientists who wanted to ridicule him.

>>535417

>Oh noes! Non mainstream theories about the Stone age

>I—-can't—wrap…my hea….

>RRRRRREEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!

Don't freak out over the skulls of your long gone overlawds.

Adam was a Neanderthal ubermensch, obviously.

He was a human you heretic

>>535410

besides that then contradicts Genesis 1:1. Big bang says Earth was created 10 billion years later when God actually created it the firstt day

>>535642

Careful, it says he created it before the first day.

You don't get days until Genesis 1:4-5.

>>535687

Seems a bit flip-flappy to me. Why wouldn't God say what He meant?

>>535642

Genesis 1 is a song through. Written for half-wild tribes of Hebrews on the desert of Middle East by a man that took his education from pharaoh.

>>536637

But he does. We just don't get it.

>>536672

Not a YEC, but even that seems like a cop-out.

>Genesis 1 is a song though.

How so? As in a poetic narrative, or something else.

>Written for half-wild tribes of Hebrews on the desert of Middle East by a man that took his education from pharaoh.

But who imparted thos information unto this man and people? God, of course. Because of that, most people will take whatever is stated as law, and go no further. Vid very related (yes it's serious).

>But he does. We just don't get it.

Was that before or after the 4,000+ years we've interpreted them as actual days?

>>530236

>however evolution is nothing but a theory

You mean in the scientific sense or the "its not real" sense?

Has anyone ever concluded that the bible acts from a higher truth than the material world, and the material world may have even been corrupted by Satan?

Otherwise most scientific theories that go against scripture are still applicable, even not as true as the word of the lord.

>>537061

That's actually a good point. If everything that edenists have posted about melon heads is actually true, it is very strong evidence for that . You can't find more corrupt people than notorious slavers with a tendency to lie a lot and found pedo blood sacrifice snek cults who have genocided a entire race by engineering a slave race by crossing monkeys with people.

>>535381

Luke 3:23-38

>>538923

Well that's true, but not the whole story.

>that rehashed Chick chart

Kek.

>>536679

>How so? As in a poetic narrative, or something else.

As literary style. It can be even sing, but it's generally lost in translation. That does not mean it's false.

>But who imparted thos information unto this man and people? God, of course. Because of that, most people will take whatever is stated as law, and go no further. Vid very related (yes it's serious).

I am not saying that God is not author. We say it on every mass in creed ("We believe in Holy Spirit…who spoke by the prophets"). I am saying who audience and mediator of those truths were. For if Moses said to Hebrews on Sinai "And he created ball of heated hydrogen and helium that is 109 times bigger than whole world, who you dont even know half of, that gives light in day and ball of rock, that is fourth of size of world and that mirrors light of sun in night- day four" he would not only himself don't understund what he had just written nor would Hebrews understund world and probably say that Moses got stroke at Sinai.

>Was that before or after the 4,000+ years we've interpreted them as actual days?

There were never wide consensus on it though. There were some like Augustine that believed that he created it one day and six days are just explanation/completion of it. There were also some like Orgien who took day-milenium principle and said that it took 6000 years.

But as Paul says, it's pointless really. It's void and null divigations that will not lead you closer to God but at best and at worst will alien you from him.

>>530179

Adam looked just like Jesus. He was made in God's image, and was the "perfect man".

>>530179

There is only one anon: Homo Sapiens Sapiens. Our species alone is what you and I would call human. What anthropologists call 'human' however (ie, neanderthal and other bi-pedal primates) are beasts, not human beings.

We are the only natural lifeforms imbued with the spiritual component that defines us apart from all other natural creatures.

>>530179

Adam was the first 'animal'/homonid/whatever which had a rational soul (all living things have souls).

>>539373

>mastered fire

Impressive, but not essentially human. Back kites (a type of small australian hawk) can use fire as a hunting technique.

>had advanced stone tool use

Not that impressive https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tool_use_by_animals

>most likely had some form of clothing

Because it was cold back in the day. Not because they felt shame. Plus, animals do use clothes be it as shelteror to increase chance of mating

>cared for elderly individuals

So do chimpanzee or other monkeys.

>"beasts"

You can get Gorilla to learn and understand dead language. But when asked what happens to dead Gorillas they will answer - "They go into hole in ground"

>>539530

>>539530

>However, they have not learned how to harness nor create it.

Because they are birds. Modern primates are close to that level of instinct but Neanderthals were much smarter

>The top pic are tools made by Kanzi and Panbanisha, two captive bonobos. Bottom pic is a sample of Mousterian tools, primarily crafted by Neanderthals. I see a stark contrast in their design and sophistication.

Difference in matter of time and practice really.

>Has to start somewhere. When everyone wears clothing, it becomes taboo to do otherwise.

It started when naked ape got into glacial Europe and thought "fuck, it's cold, oh look dead animal, they are warm skin, I am gonna use that skin"

>Most animals have natural plumage for mating, and build nests for themselves. Never heard of clothing in animals.

Clothing as "stick random thing to myself to look prettier"

>If they cannot fend for themselves, they will be left behind. That's why the elderly erectus skull found at Dmanisi was so odd for its time.

Hominids were league above primates but you can see glimpses of it in them.

>So would an animistic/atheistic person, yet we regard them as people.

>implying

Humans are naturally religious. Atheism have to be taught in.

http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2011/05/12/religious-belief-is-human-nature-huge-new-study-claims/

>>539330

1. For over 100 years, Neanderthal skulls have been deliberately reconstructed with a pronounced fraud, always making sure the brow comes out and the chin sits back. The resulting skull has been found to be repeatedly modified with putty to cover the seams. The traditional model of the Neanderthal skull is a colossal hoax built out of bone chips. The facts were altered to fit the evolutionary school that had already portrayed the ascent of man. People got away with this for more than a century before they got caught. In some cases they simply presented skulls of Australopithecus and labeled them Neanderthal.

2. Neanderthal "skeleton" models have been constructed from big crates of fossil bones as a hodgepodge of assorted parts which in many cases contained bones of apes and orangutangs to assure the skeleton they created were of the right heighth and appearance. Where necessary, short leg bones were inserted from gorillas to make certain the Neanderthals came out shorter than modern humans. This was done not just once but at several dozen museums all over the world and "peer review" never caught it until very recently. Even then, not widely publicized. The skeletons of Neanderthals were until the past decade or so, three-quarters hoax to support a certain agenda. Piltdown man was not an isolated exception. Piltdown man was simply an instance where the people involved got caught.

3. Despite Neanderthal digs producing evidence of textiles, jewelry, fishing tackle, complex edged weapons, richly colored paints, rope, clothing, animal harnesses, the wheel, bow and arrows, canoes and kites since the earliest digs in the Neander Valley, they've been telling you this creature was not even human for over a century. You've been buying it, too. "Peer review" only caught it very recently and only then because instead of "experts," some "amateurs" looked into the matter.

4. Despite Neanderthal villages showing evidence of extremely elaborate funerals, burial rites, folk art, dancing and beautiful perspective artwork on cave walls and floors at least 100,000 years ago … they told you this creature was a cannibal brute who did not even possess the power of speech. You been buying that for over a century. Homo Sapiens calls it edjumafacashun.

5. Knowing full well that Neanderthal brains were 40% larger than those of modern people and that their frontal lobes in particular (often called the "seat of civilization") were extremely well developed and larger than those of modern humans, they told you these cannibal ape men did not have real societies and no language for communication. More of your edjumafacashun.

6. Being aware that Neanderthals and Homo Sapiens had overlapped at least for six thousand years on roughly the same territorial land mass in Europe, they told you that the two races did not interbreed and if they did it approached bestiality … after all, the Neanderthals were a short, brutish race of apes without chins.

>>539330

Primitive gorilla people accidentally discovered advanced medicine at least 50,000 years earlier than mankind, when mankind was a spear chucking life support system for a pair of testicles.

They probably discovered it in their 8 stage compression ovens when they were making fast-drying bitumen compounds into ergonomic grips on their weapons. Those gorillas got lucky more than once …. with their 3D perspective etchings and floor mosaics. Someday soon the orthodoxy is going to break down altogether and then the floodgates are going to open, you better believe it. The first order of business is to reassign credit for domestication of all animals followed by giving them props for every single major work of cave art in Europe starting with La Croix, which everybody knows is Neanderthal work by now anyhow.

These "primitive creatures"…

Built 6 step compression ovens to forge malleable pitch into ergonomic grips

Created complex artwork with perspective and abstract idealized representations

Had a jewelry drill that could bore perfect circles in emeralds, jade and other precious stones

Showed evidence of having constructed compound bows

Had complex funerals with religious artefacts, symbolic travel tokens and gifts for the afterlife

Wore makeup and manufactured rings, necklaces and armbands

Supported cradle-to-grave intensive nursing for the critically injured for the duration of their lives

Had a hyoid bone in their throats to produce ultrasound speech that carried on plains of snow

Had 4 extra genes connected with the muscles of the throat for hyper articulate speech

Domesticated all known species of useful animals including horses, dogs and cattle

… and now apparently built firewalls and windbreaks deep inside caverns that used central pit fires exhausted through natural chimneys to survive Ice Age temperatures.

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2016/may/25/neanderthals-built-mysterious-cave-structures-175000-years-ago

https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2016/05/the-astonishing-age-of-a-neanderthal-cave-construction-site/484070/

>>539567

>intelligent

So are dolphins

>capable of reason

No proof for that

>empathy/altruism

So do wolfs

>still not a man I still don't get it. What makes them so different?

A litte thing called immortal soul.

>>539608

And who or what is included in your definition of mankind?

>>539613

Every descendant of Adam who was created from the dust by God as well as Eve, who was formed from Adam's rib, as stated clearly in the first chapters of the Pentateuch.

>>539621

I don't care. I know that the Bible is infallible and unchanging while humans can err and their scientific theories are constantly changing and developing. In our fallen nature, we will never be able to fully understand the divine mystery of Creation. However, saying that God used evolution has severe theological implications which you should consider, namely God being the author of death which completely contradicts the principle of Christus Victor. I wouldn't support it.

>>539623

Epigenetics would very simply explain the extreme diversity of life. It would also explain why new species seem to "pop-up" rather than evolve.

>>539623

Even from a protestant fundamentalist point of view, I don't really get this. I know the KJV rewrites the "Logos" definition of God in the gospel of St. John, but humanity blessed with Logos, aka divine reason being free from death is logical, whilst animals/plants being subject of cycles to life and death is not illogical, why would they be?

The fact that humanity alone has Logos means we were gifted with eternal life in God, after the fall, we can only have eternal life through Christ, whom is the messiah, given unto the passion for our sins.

I assume it is because KJV-ists lose that distinction of Christ as divine reason; for instance, can animals sin? No. So if death is the wages of sin, it's because of the fall that we are stained with death like animals.

From what I can see, many of the most black sins are animal-like too, see incest, bestiality, homosexuality, etc.

>>530179

A lot of these oogga booga skulls are blatant forgeries. The skull of an ape, the teeth of a pig, the jawbone of a man.. wala, "new species of hominid" is announced. When its exposed as a forgery it quietly disappears from scientific literature but is retained in the minds of you plebs

For example the first pieces of "neanderthals" that they found were just bones of an arthritic old man from the middle ages.

>>540702

Yea there are basically two types of "ancient hominid" fossils

1.) Bones from human beings.

2.) Bones from apes, pigs, etc mixed with bones from human beings.

The differences in phenotype that you see in some ancient "species" actually have about the same phenotypic variability that you see between extant races of humans, ie blacks, whites, asians, all of which are easily distinguishable by appearance. So basically they're just human beings of different races.

>>540754

That fellow on the left sure does look happy.

Adam was a man. Of what sort, I haven't a clue.

>>541748

A manly man.

>>530236

The Big Bang theory isn't just a theory. It's also a TV show.

>>542846

>So, Cain's wife? Proto-human. So, Seth's wife? Proto-human. Their children? Thoroughly human.

So your answer is bestiality then? A man reproducing with what is essentially an animal that looks like a person. Good job.

>>542958

>inbreeding is ok because I don't know how genetics works

At least the other guy tried to take everything else into account.

>>542963

Nice copypasta, m8.

>that second video

Oh my fuck, that's priceless. That's actually the beginning of a video debunking said claims.

>>542964

And here's the "Haeckel's Embryos" rebuttal.

>>542967

>taking young-earthers seriously

>After that, Wise lost interest in creationist apologetics, especially as he began to realize that many of the creationist evidences from his reading were wrong. “At first I thought it was ignorance.” As he learned more though, he became convinced that the mistakes in creationist literature were willful. … Wise concluded that for many creationists the end justifies the means. For them, “it doesn’t matter if what you say is true. It matters if it brings people to the right conclusion.” (p. 15-16), "The Adam Quest: Eleven Scientists Who Held on to a Strong Faith While Wrestling with the Mystery of Human Origins" (2013)

>Kurt Wise is revered as Dawkin's "honest creationist" in Christian circles

>>542964

>puts on Baptist flag

Sola Scriptura

Do you know what that means? That Scripture is the ultimate and sole infallible rule of authority on the faith. You have the audacity to wear that flag while arguing in favor of an asinine theory that diminishes the very foundation of the faith to mere allegory.

>second video

Because the claims are true, I used it. And no, there's no such thing as "vestigial organs" or "primordial slime" etc. As for the "human embryo into gills" lie:

Human embryos do not have gill slits; they have pharyngeal pouches. In fish, these develop into gills, but in reptiles, mammals, and birds, they develop into other structures and are never even rudimentary gills. Calling them gill slits is reading Darwinian theory into the evidence. - http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB704.html

What's the rebuttal?

>The pharyngeal pouches that appear in embryos technically are not gill slits, but that is irrelevant. The reason they are evidence for evolution is that the same structure, whatever you call it, appears in all vertebrate embryos.

TL;DR "It's not the same thing at all, but the pharyngeal pouches are the same so it it's evidence of Darwinian Evolution."

By that logic we truly are descended from a common ancestor to apes. I mean, look at our hands! They have hands too!

OH! Don't forget that pigs have spines! We also have neural synapses and nervous systems, just like dogs and dolphins! Oh man!

But then again, this is the same reasoning that led people to think the dinosaurs have more and more feathers every other year. Also, you know, the T-Rex totally mutated into a Chicken. It's legit. Just look at the proteins.

>The new finding will be viewed skeptically, admitted one of the researchers involved in the two studies. "It's very, very, very controversial because most people have gone on record saying there's an absolute time limit to anything that's protein or DNA," said Mary Schweitzer, a molecular paleontologist at North Carolina State University https://www.livescience.com/1410-rex-related-chickens.html

>nice copypasta

That's not pasta, but this citation should interest you:

<Here is how the imaginary part is supposed to happen: On rare occasions a mutation in DNA improves a creature's ability to survive, so it is more likely to reproduce (natural selection). That is evolution's only tool for making new creatures. It might even work if it took just one gene to make and control one part. But parts of living creatures are constructed of intricate components with connections that all need to be in place for the thing to work, controlled by many genes that have to act in the proper sequence. Natural selection would not choose parts that did not have all their components existing, in place, connected, and regulated because the parts would not work. Thus all the right mutations (and none of the destructive ones) must happen at the same time by pure chance. That is physically impossible.

>To illustrate just how hopeless it is, imagine this: on the ground are all the materials needed to build a house (nails, boards, shingles, windows, etc.). We tie a hammer to the wagging tail of a dog and let him wander about the work site for as long as you please, even millions of years. The swinging hammer on the dog is as likely to build a house as mutation-natural selection is to make a single new working part in an animal, let alone a new creature.

>inb4 but God directed it so it makes sense

Except there is absolutely nothing in all of Scripture to remotely imply that and the theory itself is broken and indefensible, hence >>542967 (PDF and webm highly recommended) and video related

>>542963

Why are you posting as a mod? Do you think your opinions are any less shit than us plebians or something?

>>542983

Why do you believe the Bible is wrong?

>>542983

Explain to me how mutation can be anything but detrimental to an organism.

>>543058

Who said that I did? I'm merely saying YEC is incorrect.

>>543064

A mutation is a change in your DNA. A change can have a positive, negative, or neutral effect on your overall health. Some people have a mutation for lactose tolerance, but many do not.

>Mutations that keep the lactase gene permanently switched on are common among modern Europeans — but not among their ancestors.

https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/news/070401_lactose

Many people are vulnerable to HIV, but a small majority with a certain mutation don't.

>Many people who are resistant to HIV have a mutation in the CCR5 gene called CCR5-delta32. The CCR5-delta32 mutation results in a smaller protein that isn't on the outside of the cell anymore. Most forms of HIV cannot infect cells if there is no CCR5 on the surface.

http://genetics.thetech.org/original_news/news13

>>543086

>A change can have a positive, negative, or neutral effect

No, any change in the DNA has long lasting effects.

>Mutations that keep the lactase gene permanently switched on are common among modern Europeans — but not among their ancestors.

And this is mutation because…? How could this not be epigenetic adaption? How can you say it's not just adaption through neoteny? Is there any study on this or are you just labeling it "evolution" simply as a knee-jerk reaction?

>>543086

>Who said that I did?

You did, right after you asked this stupid question

<I'm merely saying YEC is incorrect.

>>535410

>mathematical model of God creating heaven and earth

Mixing theology with science and the fetish of reason is why we're here. You damn Catholics and your scholastic nonsense…

>>542983

>Ptoestant

Looks like we both make mistakes

>that pic

It's funny that the theory which speaks of slow, gradual mutation through "natural selection" (while simultaneously making the argument for sudden, rapid mutations to account for the utter lack of supportive fossil records) needs to rely on drawn arrows rather than showing the line of skeletons with mutations.

>inb4 it's brevity

No, showing arrows in man's growth from child to adult is for brevity. We all see what children turn into. Dinosaurs? Not so much.

>make a false premise

What is this relating to? What did I say was false?

>It says they are related, not one being ancestral to the other.

<This finding supports the idea that chickens and T. rex share an evolutionary link and bolsters previous research showing that birds evolved from dinosaurs and that birds are living dinosaurs.

>labeling a debate tactic to seem intellectually superior

Good to see someone graduated from the Youtube school of philosophical debate.

>Such arguments sound good when the audience knows nothing about the subject, but don't be surprised when more learned individuals call you out.

There is at no point a single thing I have said which was hyperbolic in any way, nor anything in my posts (that is, particularly from Dr Greg Bahnsen) which misrepresents the theory of Darwinian evolution.

>Also, your pdf merely tries to account for the natural world, not truly implement it.

What are you talking about? Why would we ever implement Evolutionary nonsense into Scripture? We view the world through Scripture, not Scripture through the world. Anything scientific must first come through the lens of Christ, otherwise it is nothing to be accepted but merely studied - if that.

A good example comes from Kurt Wise yet again, this time tackling whale evolution.

>I was saying CHRISTIANS hold his quote up as a testament to their own credibility. That the guru of atheism actually considered Wise honest, was to many an admittance of defeat on the atheist's part.

Because you already ceded ground by accepting Evolution. That's not "victory" that's him promoting one of the few supposedly Christian men (never heard of Wise) who accept his philosophy even in-part as true. It's self-advertisement more than a loss for his ilk.

Ultimately you as a Protestant have yet to explain

How/Where in Scripture is your adoption og Evolution supported? Where is Evolution in Scripture? How does it not negate the very foundation of the Gospel in ROMANS 5:12-21 and all of Scripture?

>>543104

And this is not epigenetic for what reasons?

>>543052

>Why are you posting as a mod? Do you think your opinions are any less shit than us plebians or something?

Too many anons still proclaim that the mods are Catholics hunting Baptists and Protestants. This is a very good time to show that not all the mdos are Catholics and none of us are colluding against anyone else.

Also, we shouldn't cuss. It's sinful, anon.

>>543110

People have been getting banned for expressing negative opinions about Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox practice.

>>530193

why does CI have so many cool symbols yet are so cringe

>>543128

>Considering they label it a mutation in the pdf, I'd say it isn't epigenetic.

You're having a real problem understanding logic, aren't you.

>>543139

>epigenetics involves a change in genes without actual mutation occuring

>a mutation allowed certain people to digest milk

Is there something I'm not getting?

>>543140

Why is it labeled a mutation rather than a designed adaption.

>>543143

Because it isn't. Something in their DNA sequence changed, thus making it a mutation which is distinct from epigenetic adaptation.

>>543144

You might not have noticed, but nowhere in my post did I say epigenetic.

>>543149

It's a mutation, something that occurred at random, happened to be beneficial, and so proliferated. So unless you're telling me every mutation (beneficial or detrimental) is a result of divine planning/intervention, I would seriously urge you to reconsider your position.

>>543164

Are you really having that much trouble understanding that an omniscient God could create each creature with the capability of adapting to any environmental stress that can be thrown at it?

>>543236

>Christ did not teach it,

Yes He did.

>That the blood of all the prophets, which was shed from the foundation of the world, may be required of this generation;

>From the blood of Abel unto the blood of Zacharias which perished between the altar and the temple: verily I say unto you, It shall be required of this generation.

>>543239

>the capability of adapting to any environmental stress that can be thrown at it?

So He allows evolution to occur, then? Or at least, a version you're comfortable with.

>>543248

He "allows" for what? You're just being willfully ignorant at this point.

>>543251

So God (((MAKES))) evolution happen. That better?

>>543254

No, since evolution by genetic mistakes causes a whole lot of unnecessary problems.

>>543121

I have not seen that in a long while but I keep an eye out for it. I'm also not the only Protestant mod.

>Your entire "embryo" shtick.

Never made a false premise. Explained a myth of Evolution teaching.

>It's a rehashed "Junkyard Tornado" argument.

You saying that doesn't make it any less true. Common Sense trumps your favorite biology teacher's broken presupposition.

>So it's only if you don't see a problem with it, then?

This alone proves you genuinely do not know the severity of Sola Scriptura. vid related

If your presupposition is "Christ Jesus is Lord" then the foundation of your presupposition is the Holy Scripture, a uniquely divinely inspired text. If you are a Protestant then the Solas further solidify the bedrock of your presupposition - that the Scriptures are the sole infallible rule of authority on the faith.

No matter who you are, where you are or when you are, you interpret evidence according to your presupposition. There is no such thing as neutrality and all evidences (and lack thereof) are interpreted by our presupposition, the ultimate authority, what we believe is the irreducible fact of existence. Atheists foolishly try to pretend they have no presupposition. Christians accept that we do since Christ is our cornerstone.

If your presupposition is Protestant Christianity (what we who hold to the 5 Solas believe to be true Christianity), then we interpret all things set before us through the lends of Christ, His Scripture and His view of Scripture - which is detailed in the Scripture.

That's what I'm talking about. That's why I am demanding that you support your assertion of Evolution being comparable with the Scriptures with the Scriptures.

>>543880

Because Genesis 1:2 says the earth was without form and void, so anything that existed before that was wiped out. There is absolutely no way to reconcile the common ancestor theory with the account of the Bible (not just Genesis, the whole Bible).

I don't believe this is an accident.

>>543128

>All this is reconciled by understanding the "death" which was brought in with the sin of Adam (and Eve) to be spiritual death.

Wrong. It's spiritual and physical, immaterial and material.

Ch.5 v.14

>Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those who had not sinned according to the likeness of the transgression of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come.

If "death" meant purely spiritual death then Abraham, Moses, etc. would not have spoken with God intimately. Can you honestly say Moses was spiritually dead?

But better than your opinion or mine is Scripture itself, which testifies to itself. The apostle Paul makes reference in 1 Corinthians 15 to the same argument he made in Romans 5.

But now Christ is risen from the dead, and has become the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep. For since by man came death, by Man also came the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ all shall be made alive. - 1 Cor. 15:20-22

>"The wages of sin are death" (Romans 6:23).

I hate it when people don't cite the whole verse:

>For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.

Firstly, only a fool pastes the term "death" with the same context in every application of the term. Sometimes it means spiritual, sometimes physical and sometimes it's metaphorical. Obviously. However here the term is juxtaposed with "eternal life" (just as "sin" is pitted against "Christ Jesus" and "wages" with "gift", ie what is earned vs what is given).

Do we have merely "spiritual" life in Christ Jesus? Will be be merely "spiritually" resurrected? We will be given new bodies and will have actual, physical life forever.

For we who are in this tent groan, being burdened, not because we want to be unclothed, but further clothed, that mortality may be swallowed up by life. - 2 Corinthians 5:4 (there's many more verses but I just post this for brevity)

What is the first death? What is the second death? Which do we believers experience? Why do we experience death at all? None of these are soundly answered by the asinine notion that "death" merely means "spiritual death".

>Romans 6:1-10 or so clearly implies that in baptism we have a spirtual death and a spiritual rebirth.

WRONG. We have a metaphorical death and metaphorical rebirth in baptism, just as we metaphorically die to our sin. We don't literally die to sin anymore than we are literally a slave of sin or an alcoholic is a slave of alcoholism. Sin does not keep us in metal irons or whip our backs. Our heartbeat doesn't stop to sin. Baptism doesn't give us spiritual rebirth, or "regeneration" - we are saved by FAITH through God's GRACE. It is THAT which literally, spiritually regenerates us. Baptism is a holy ordinance which conveys such a holy, blessed work of Christ in us but it itself does not give us either spiritual death or spiritual life.

Don't ever confuse "spiritual" with "metaphorical". Metaphors and allegory are poetry to convey a concept, but they themselves are not literal, real (I don't literally feel like I ate a house if I'm full). Spiritual/Immaterial is just as real as the Material/Physical. The true believer has Him - the Holy Spirit of God - living within them just as real and literal as they have bones and a beating heart.

>>543880

>Why can't we have an ancient heritage? What is there to lose?

see >>542967

>>543906

Also excellent point

>>539794

As far as I understand it, while the animals are sinless, the whole world was tainted when Adam and Eve ate the fruit because death as a whole entered the world. Incidentally, thorns were said to be another result of Adam disobeying God.

YEC argue death did not exist before Adam disobeyed because a world where animals brutally ate each other would not be considered good in God's eyes. There happens to be modern incidents of carnivorous animals only eating plants (presumably because they could produce the proper amino acids without eating other animals to get them). Theorectically, eating insects and less advanced animal species would be okay since they are considered soulless.

>>544089

I'm not sure why animals even need to have souls besides people being overly attached to dogs and cats.

If anything, animals can be resurrected fairly freely, but only man can be permanently sent away in hell.

>>543926

>Exactly. Christ, not Ham nor Morris nor Price.

So you claim Christ is your cornerstone but disregard His word? Need I remind you that He was in the beginning with God, and that He is God, and that He does not make mistakes in giving us His Word?

>>544108

>So you claim Christ is your cornerstone but disregard His word?

I never did the latter.

>>544108

>That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

You seem to disregard His word by disparaging Peter's Church.

>>544115

Excuse me?

(I'm still this guy >>543236 )

>>543243

I'll assume by

>Yuh-huh, Christ did so teach YEC

you're referring to these words:

>foundation of the world

Cuz that's the ONLY vague reference to the earth's making, yet you have bolded a bunch of words referring to blood this and blood that which … I don't see how THAT is YEC-relevant

IF SO, then that is the weakest YEC argument I have yet read, because Christ is merely saying "since the beginning of the world" and says literally ((( NOTHING ))) about that "foundation" being precisely this many years ago and in this way.

N - O - T - H - I - N - G

>>544156

He says that Abel existed and was killed and the account of Genesis 4 is accurate.

You also have the exact geneaology of Jesus Christ given in Luke 3, all 75 generations from Joseph to Adam. 77 if you include Jesus and God.

>>545007

>don't identify with Catholics

>don't identify with Orthodox

>don't identify with Protestantism

Guess I'll just remain flagless then.

>I win by "muh presupp," checkmate heathen!

One cannot play a game of chess if the other participant claims his own rules and flips the board. This is also a good example as to why the whole "creation vs evolution" debate doesn't work. Any time I show you something to the contrary, you just play the "you cannot know nuthin" card and strut around like you're the cock of the walk. I showed you the refutation videos your little webm came from, and yet you ignored them. You only validate Wise's point even further.

>>“it doesn’t matter if what you say is true. It matters if it brings people to the right conclusion.”

I hope you have blessings all the day of your life. Good day

>>545007

>Technically "God" should not be included but we could include Jesus since the Son was incarnated in human flesh.

But God is included, anon. Just sayin'.

Luke 3:38

Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God.

>>545019

>don't identify with Catholics

>don't identify with Orthodox

>don't identify with Protestantism

You could still be Baptist

>>543880

We lose the more mythical-legendary aspect of man as well as the spiritual, as in man's origin no longer has angels masquerading as false gods with man himself being made in God's image with all myths having a common origin in mankind's ancient antediluvian past but rather millions of years of hopeless stupidity and mindless animalistic drives being ruled over by the flesh before reaching the divine sparks of intelligence and civilization in mesopotamia.

>>546111

to be honest, false gods are more of dead ancestors, than fallen angels. I mean, if you look at most of the pagan religions, its clearly a mythologized version of power struggles for throne. Most obvious example for this is Egyptian one. Also there was a theory, that Ba'al was Nimrod, as it is written in works of St. Dimitry of Rostov for example.

>>546571

>Sorry, I prefer to deal with physical traits and remains rather than word games.

You mean rather than the Holy Scriptures themselves which are unique inspired by the Holy Spirit of God, who is a higher authority than bones shoved together with arrows.

Besides you are arguing for the inclusion of this concept into the theological framework of Christ.

>>implying that this is the only model used

>can't make a rebuttal

>posts a picture of mostly half-skulls collected together to pretend they lead into one another

Or I assume that's what that is, since your picture is so garbage I can't read the text. What I DO note is that it says "through a slow process of change over millions of years". Not only it that patently false (lumping bones together doesn't make it any truer, just like putting feathers on a T-Rex doesn't make it any more reasonable that it eventually spawned a descendant whose cousin mutated into a chicken) but the very fact that they needed to come up with Punctuated Equilibrium shows the presupposed worldview of Evolution.

>>546571

>muh science!

>anything that isn't science is trash i fucking love science!

Taking science for a strange god isn't very wise, anon

>>546571

>as opposed to actually addressing any of the fossils presented.

The fossils presented are your stale humanist philosyphical ramblings and pseudoscientific wordspeak. Is not Christ risen from the dead? Why not take Luke 11:51 seriously?

Or Luke 3:38, Matthew 24:37, Hebrews 11:3, 2 Peter 3:5, Romans 5:15, 1 Timothy 2:13 and the list goes on.

>>546723

wait is this a real guy or a life-like model?

>>546766

He's Nikolai Valuev: the patron saint of drunken brawlers.

>>546715

>"you ain't saved in my book"

>acting as though he needs the approval from a board volunteer on some niche Christian board

Fucking kek.

>>546733

So no on refuting the physical evidence instead of spouting stuff to make him shut up? Alright then.

>>546828

Depends. Amud Neanderthals are pretty typically 6'+, but Neanderthals are really just humans with an absurd amount of male hormones. With that, I'd assume that Neanderthals would be the physical manifestation of Asperger's/autism.

>>530179

>Who was Adam?

An allegory for the male physique

>>546831

Way to look stupid and utterly miss the point

>>546859

You continue to ignore the physical evidence, and instead insult me so far as to say I am not one of His children. What is there to miss?

>>546901

>using the bibliolater