/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

No it doesn't, the Bible actually supports it.

>Genesis 1:11-12

>[11]And he said: let the earth bring forth green herb, and such as may seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after its kind, which may have seed in itself upon the earth. And it was so done.

>[12]And the earth brought forth the green herb, and such as yieldeth seed according to its kind, and the tree that beareth fruit, having seed each one according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.

Also genologies don't prove the age of the world as there can be Gaps between genologies which was proven in the Bible.

Yes. Evolution is the naturalist answer to the question of how we came to be. However, "theistic evolution" is an attempt to apply the foundations of evolution to the Biblical answer to that question. Therefore, in that way, evolution is hijacked and not contradictory.

Evolution is ridiculous, though. There's too much wishful thinking, too much "well if you wave X many years at it, the problem goes away!". I don't understand why people want to hijack it towards theistic evolution.

>>632878

Because evolution is logical and has been proved

>>632879

>logical

Lmao.

Evolution is a secular idea. That is the purpose of evolution, to offer an answer to the question that Christianity had already answered. Any attempt to add or remove elements from secular evolution is to derive from its intended purpose. With that in mind…

Evolution makes the following assertions:

>Life made itself from non-life with all of what life is biologically made of, including a complex set of code known as DNA and the primary requirements of life

>single cell organisms autonomously decided to band together to form fully functional multi cellular organisms capable of acting as a unified organism

>eventually, these newly formed organisms came to form even more complex organisms with infinitely complex organs and appendices

>from then on, the organisms formed further and even more complex organisms

>literally crabs turn into humans within X million years

Evolution has not been proven, it's not a repeatable process and therefore can't be applied to the scientific process. People literally just derive it based genetic similarity and the magic of waving away problems with hypothetical passage of time.

>>632874

No, I come from a Catholic family with a mother and father who both have post graduate degrees in a field of science (I'm currently in college getting an undergrad) and we all believe in evolution.

>>632880

How do you explain the many fossils found that show the earth is more than ~6000 years old anon?

>>632882

That has nothing to do with evolution

>>632883

How?

>>632887

>>632882

>>632887

How is the age of the earth related to evolution?

Yes, the Bubke says animals only bring forth after their kind, so a german shepherd and a lab could be related since they're the same kind but a dog and a lizard won't ever happen. Also it says God created man from the dust of the earth and describes God making animals. It doesn't say that he created a single bacteria that reproduced for billions of years that made man.

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.

22 And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth.

23 And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.

24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.

7 And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

>>632890

If the earth is only about 6,000 years old macroevolution is impossible

>>632890

I mean, evolution needs time to actually happen (if we are to believe evolution is a plausible process). Using the fossils found, we can see that the earth is really old. If the earth was around ~6000 years as the YEC believe, then evolution cannot take place. However, and I repeat, since we have found fossils, that proves the earth is greater than 6000 years old, and thus evolution can take place (again, if we think it is plausible).

>>632882

There arent any.

>>632894

I really find that hard to believe. Do you think it's possible that all the dinosaur bones excavated in sites were faked?

>>632892

Nobody is saying that it is impossible because of the required time. People say it is absurd because it is pretty much a bunch of statistically impossible guesses.

>>632898

forgot to attach source

http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20170517-we-have-still-not-found-the-missing-link-between-us-and-apes

>>632882

The age of the Earth has 0 to do with evolution. The Earth could be a trillion years old or a week old, it still wouldn't prove evolution.

>>632896

More likely we're wrong about the process that creates fossils and the process of straitfication of the Earth.

Possibly all fossils were created in a large extinction event and stratification of the Earth happens much more quickly from large events than we suppose.

An informational series about the not so spoken Cambrian Era

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL-0zpu2toenaQGYII8jywp6kxADlXMFpC

>>632900

See >>632893

If the earth was a million years old, that would disprove the YEC theory.

>>632898

>>632899

That's the thing, I don't know what to believe. If that link you posted regarding the missing link between us and apes is accepted in the scientific community, then I'm even more confused now than I was before.

>>632901

I don't know, anon.

>>632896

Dinosaurs are in the Bible you dingus

Job 40:15 Behold now behemoth, which I made with thee; he eateth grass as an ox.

>>632906

For me personally yes it does. Cause on the one hand if you read the bible it says that, God created the world and originally man was in full spiritual and physical contact with god but then broke off him. On the other with evolution. Somehow man through just naturally looking through the world has found the idea of origins, of humanity.

They're two completely different view points Vid related, is an interesting topic on the case. I can understand wanting to be a christian and mixing in theistic evolution, because going against the grain, is never always fun. But there just two completely different ideas down to the core. One teaches that man was divinely created by god; the other as man as just a mere accident.

>>632905

>If the earth was a million years old, that would disprove the YEC theory.

That's true, it would mean the Earth isn't x thousand years. But it wouldn't profe evolution even in theory. Evolution is dependent on an old Earth, but an old Earth does not assume evolution.

>>632874

Only if you're Baptist.

>>632912

What defines truth is, precisely, the fact that it is not subjectivve, nor someone's personal fantasy.

>>632905

>If the earth was a million years old, that would disprove the YEC theory.

The real question is not "how long has the earth existed" but rather "when did the earth start to decay, and why?"

>>632912

Truth is objective,

>everything we hear is an opinion

that is false, we can confirm what is claimed.

>Everything we see is a perspective, no truth

Just because our minds can show us illusions it doesn't mean we can't confirm what we know. We can't see air, yet we can confirm it's there.

what about eyes, bro?

>>632898

Death existed before the fall, Adam and Eve ate and so did the animals. Human death didn't exist before the fall not all death

>>632934

The abiogenesis theory isn't the only conceivable explanation for the origin of life. I don't actually subscribe to it myself and there are a slowly growing number of scientists who are once again starting to openly question it since it was never an empirically proven theory to begin with. Regardless I don't throw away my faith the first time I encounter a mystery that I don't have an immediate answer to.

>>632959

The Bible doesn't regard plants as alive it doesn't say they died it says they withered

Joel 1:17 The seed is rotten under their clods, the garners are laid desolate, the barns are broken down; for the corn is withered.

What if God created evolution and other natural processes so that the Earth could grow to be teeming with life? Do God and evolution have to be mutually exclusive concepts?

>>632976

No, tell me if this is what evolietion teaches

Genesis 1

1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.

5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

6 And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.

7 And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.

8 And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.

9 And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.

10 And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.

11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.

12 And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

13 And the evening and the morning were the third day.

14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:

15 And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.

16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.

17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,

18 And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.

19 And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.

20 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.

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.

22 And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth.

23 And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.

24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.

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.

26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.

29 And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.

30 And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so.

31 And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.

>>632982

>No

I probably should have put "yes"

>>632880

>>Life made itself from non-life with all of what life is biologically made of, including a complex set of code known as DNA and the primary requirements of life

You have no idea what evolution is.

If there wasn't a first Adam, how could there be a Last Adam?

>>633016

This is actually the biggest problem with the liberal interpretation of Genesis, since it causes problems less with ontology and more with eschatology. If Adam was just a "symbol" then so was Christ, and our salvation is in vain.

>>632874

>Really interested in hearing opinions about this. I'm inclined to be skeptical to the idea that we evolved from apes but more open to the otherwise view.

The Bible and science provides us with two different ways of looking at the same thing.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ACD4PaZfvE&t=7m15s

No. God created a mature Earth.

Adam was created a grown man indistinguishable from us today. The creation seems natural to the scientific eye, because it is. Nothing is more in nature than God's creation.

Hence the minerals, fauna and flora that seem to have to be matured on their own. Because God meant it so.

>>632876

Underrated post

Also it seems many in this thread didn't pay attention in biology

Final post im making here. Just another vid for anyone that's got an hour and is interested in this topic; i personally though like this stuff and i find it interesting and for the longest time i never had the concept of fallen nature, but when i finally listened and came to the terms of what fallen nature was. As to how it's described in genesis,i knew that the reason men how so many problems even down to me is fallen nature. And that nature, tree, snow, rain. The natural world is truly beautiful. Because it was divinely created and is naturally good. And it helps that i live in the Appalachian Mountains. I finally got what people were saying for so long in natural beauty.

evolution explains the how not the why

>>632874

I've always found it funny that evolution was never thought of until it is discovered by an atheist in the 1800s. It then becomes the main attack and biggest threat to Christianity to this day and held as truth by 99% of atheists and divider of Christians. That's alone should raise a red flag for everything it teaches is the opposite of Creation.

>>633202

Evolution isn't new it is a part of nearly every pagan religion.

>>633205

How? I don't remeber pagan fairytales saying we come from fish(and the steps in between)

>>633211

In most Pagan mythologies man originates as a sort of abortion or side effect from natural processes. In the Orphic myth, Zeus casts a lighting bolt into the Titans and man is born out of the resulting mud as an accident.

>>632880

Yet cartoon characters are demons because some book says so while also saying its the word of Good and the only proof of it being that same book itself?

>>633273

How are cartoons not satanic, if satan and his jews control the mass media?

>1 John 2:15 Do not love the world or anything in the world. If anyone loves the world, love for the Father is not in them.

>1 John 5:19 We know that we are children of God, and that the whole world is under the control of the evil one.

Stop thinking evolution is like pokemon guys…

>>632874

I accept evolution and various things like it, I see no problem with it. Especially since man was assigned the image of God rather than being "made" literally with the image of God in their substance (look up what "make man" means in Hebrew and read books about this doctrine, it appears that it was assignment, not creation in the English sense). As far as I'm concerned it's only Christians who doubt God who really care what they hot theories are, like when people hated heliocentrism (they still do), or a round Earth, or any of the things people make a big deal out of.

Our God the Father, Our Lord the Son, and the Holy Spirit exist no matter what, it's been proven a million times over with arguments from cosmology, ontology, quantum physics surprisingly, history, various philosophical methods to come to the conclusion, etc. No need to make a massive problem over these things with science and hinder the Gospel by making our selves look foolish (even if you believe/"know" Evolution is not true, this is not a good method of winning believers for the Kingdom).

Also Christians seem to have lost the fact that this whole Universe is going to be destroyed, and there will be a new Heaven and a new Earth. It literally does not matter how anything happened here, look forward to the Kingdom only, and do not act or consider yourself as "owning" things. Rejoice in everything, pray without ceasing, and live a sinless and pure life as your duty to God.

>>633351

You don't have to be a Jew to make a satanic cartoon, basically anything you "create" that contradicts the Bible is.

For example, a group of kids discover a portal to an insect world and insect people give them armors with insect powers and they have to stop lord hornet for taking over both worlds.

There, I made God angry as winnie the pooh.

Another: one kid is strolling in the fields near his rural home when he stumbles on a hole that was some sort of Indian burial shit or temple and gains magical powers and now can see the past and future of someone by touching them, but he is moving to the big city!

There another satanic toon.

Basically the only toons that would not be satanic would be recreations of Bible passages or like the ones JWS use as preaching/indoctrination.

>>633372

Sabrina the teenage witch, My little pony, winx club, harry potter, pokemon, digimon, all the mons, the entire super hero genre etc.

>>633264

Man emerging from the mingled blood of the olympians and titans is not any more evolutionary than Pegasus emerging from Medusa's spurting neck.

>>632891

>animals only bring forth after their kind

Let's say two animals bring forth another one of their kind, but it has a genetic mutation (which we know to happen). The new animal is still "of its kind" even if different. These differences add up over hundreds of millions of years.

Evolution is fake

>>635337

stop embarrassing yourself.

>>632934

You literally have not even taken a high school biology course. The first proteins were synthesized in nature.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4187153/

>>632912

>then the word of God must be more truer

First off, evolution is correct and we follow Christianity because we believe in the teachings of Jesus. God has given us evidence of evolution. Secondly,

>"then the word of God"

The bible was translated from Hebrew to vulgate to English and oftentimes from English to the languages of third worlders. I assume you read English and not latin or hebrew. It is silly to base everything off a translation of a translation yet assume God's evidence of evolution which you are a living example of, is somehow false.

>>635437

*top of the skull

>>632905

>If the earth was a million years old, that would disprove the YEC theory.

No it wouldn't (not that they have any accurate means to prove it anyway beyond theoretical guesswork based on the limited evidence that they understand), seeing as how God didn't create an empty world that started forming 6000 years ago, He created a mature world, with already mature plant life, and the soil, rocks, and layers of the Earth's crust already aged and fully in place. You have an empty headed understanding of the earth's creation.

>>635343

>The first proteins were synthesized in nature.

Nature didn't do that, God did

Evolution in nature is not inconsistent with the notion of creation.

God created beings and allowed them to develop according to the internal laws that he gave to each one, so that they were able to develop and to arrive at their fullness of being. He gave autonomy to the beings of the universe at the same time at which he assured them of his continuous presence, giving being to every reality. And so creation continued for centuries and centuries, millennia and millennia, until it became what we know today, precisely because God is not a demiurge or a magician, but the creator who gives being to all things. …The Big Bang, which nowadays is posited as the origin of the world, does not contradict the divine act of creating, but rather requires it. The evolution of nature does not contrast with the notion of creation, as evolution presupposes the creation of beings that evolve.

We cannot say: creation or evolution, inasmuch as these two things respond to two different realities. The story of the dust of the earth and the breath of God, which we just heard, does not in fact explain how human persons come to be but rather what they are. It explains their inmost origin and casts light on the project that they are. And, vice versa, the theory of evolution seeks to understand and describe biological developments. But in so doing it cannot explain where the 'project' of human persons comes from, nor their inner origin, nor their particular nature. To that extent we are faced here with two complementary—rather than mutually exclusive—realities.

>>632888

a fake christian vs a fake scientist…

>>635344

>God has given us evidence of evolution.

2 Thessalonians 2:9-12

The coming of the lawless one will be accompanied by the working of Satan, with every kind of power, sign, and false wonder, and with every wicked deception directed against those who are perishing, because they refused the love of the truth that would have saved them. For this reason, God will send them a powerful delusion so that they will believe the lie, in order that judgment will come upon all who have disbelieved the truth and delighted in wickedness.

Your statement reminded me of this passage.

>>632874

>Does Evolution contradict Christianity?

Yahweh himself could come down and say that it was all a scam and it really was just a paint over paganry and that still wouldn't contradict Christianity because you go to heaven.

Because Christians go to heaven nothing can contradict Christianity.

Not even Christianity matters to Christians, heaven does.

No Christian would be a Christian without the reward of Heaven at the end.

So.

No.

Nothing contradicts Christianity because of Heaven.

>>636330

This. Too many Christians are afeaid of going against evolution because they fear the masses. Contrast this with all of the Christian martyrs who suffered real abuse for their views. Soft modern men living in a pampered tech filled luxury world while LARPing as Christians… Depressing.

>>635434

Why did my post get deleted? It was totally innocent.

>>632874

whtted.

isn't this in the pinned thread? it should be

>>636258

That's literally what evolutionfags believe though

>>632874

I know OP is probably never going to see this but evolution never says humans evolved from apes. Just that there was a common ancestor millions of years ago where the homo genus split from other primates. Common miscommunication but it was bugging me.

The Bible gives a creation story and nowhere does it say we evolved from rocks. The evolution myth violates a basic low of biology: biogenesis.

>>647071

>low

law*

>>632881

>No, I come from a Catholic family

Every Catholic I've ever met believes we evolved from monkeys, it's crazy.

>>632894

Underrated post. /thread

>>632896

I didn't say the fossils are fake, I said they aren't millions of years old

>>632874

It depends.

The belief that life sprung up randomly and by chance: No.

The belief that "life finds a way" as in be flexible enough to change due to enviromental causes: yes.

The belief that extreme jumping from species to species is true and that life directs itself: no.

The belief that all environmental and species changes can or are controlled by God: yes

Genesis is myth, allegory and metaphor inseperably mixed into a beautiful piece of art. If it conradicts reality, then assume it's metaphor.

yes

>>653554

Been wondering the same thing for years, but no one seems to give a good answer

>>653556

So what. There is nothing a priori in viewing these skulls that says that these must have evolved from or into each other. Evolutionists view the evidence and the similarities in the natural constitutions of different species with the presuppositions that these forms MUST have evolved, and that these changes MUST have taken millions of years to be achieved. Similarly with natural rock formations - these MUST have taken millions of years to have taken effect, when there is no empirical evidence to suggest that this is the case.

There is as much basis for the claim that God is the author of such appearances as there is for evolution as the cause. It falls either way. So pointing out similarities is a pointless exercise.

The theory of evolution, contrary to popular belief, is not a matter of empirical evidence and science, but is the product of one's biases about how the world was formed.

>>653561

>The theory of evolution

The religion of evolutionism*

>>653561

Ok then, you've established your worldview, now try to understand what these are or were in your view and see how it fits.

>>653561

>>653556

Why is a priori reasoning your god? Do you not realize that it is not entirely by that method that relationships between the fossils are deduced? Careful study of the effects that muscles have on bones, as well as reconstructing fossils to observe how the joints may have operated are what leads to connecting fossil A to fossil B.

If all knowledge was gained simply by looking at things, we wouldn't have to send any one to school for anything. Techniques that have been developed over CENTURIES are put to use when a scientist studies a fossil.

>>653564

Exactly. Evolution is purely suppositional, and masquerades itself as the side with all the scientific evidence.

>>653567

You falsely assume that I am an empiricist.

One who rejects Darwinism (myself), and the scientist who studies the genetic similarities between fossils, would be in agreeance over their genetic similarities.

My point is this: genetic similarity is not evidence for a process of evolution as having occured. It is as easily plausible (and I personally believe to be far more likely) that God is the reason for the likeness. However, as I have already stated, this is a fact that cannot be used to support or confirm the reality of evolution or of god.

>>653567

I've already studied such relationships between these biological systems, however I assume the other party doesn't have such knowledge on standby. I am attempting to show him in a way that a layman would understand.

>>653575

Would this apply for living beings as well, such as different groups of humanity?

>>653567

>Careful study of the effects that muscles have on bones, as well as reconstructing fossils to observe how the joints may have operated are what leads to connecting fossil A to fossil B

>not empirical

This uses the accumulation of scientific (empirical) evidence to make such progress. btw, because I use the 'E' word does not make me an empiricist.

>>653579

Well, yes, if I am correct in my belief.

I presume you're getting at the differences between races? Again, there is as much plausibility for these differences as being according to God's creation, rather than the millions of years, even the supposedly eons long (how the followers of scientism come up with these figures is beyond me) process of evolution.

>>653585

>being according to God's creation

So God could've either (A.) Created some highly genetically variable race from which all others spawned or (B.) God made an Adam for each race?

>how the followers of scientism come up with these figures is beyond me

<had no desire to understand their mental process, but will gladly slander it anyway

>>653590

>the mental process

>literally throwing around large and impressive sounding numbers

By which 'mental process' do you believe they come into the knowledge of what was occurring millions, if not billions of years ago?

helpful tip: it is pure conjecture and unscientific.

You don't belong on this board or deserve to be called Christian if you are constantly placating the godless (and unscientific) proponents of evolution.

>>653590

Anon, read Jay Dyer's article that linked earlier, it will make you understand how irreconcilable the ideas of evolution and God really are.

>>653594

Maybe try learning their various dating techniques, such as the half-life of radioaxtive materials, but as you've demonstrated in your ousting of me for a disagreement, this is not the best place to discuss these matters as it allows people like you to guilt others into submission.

>>653595

>Jay Dyer

>using a philosopher/pundit in a discussion about biological processes

>>653597

Sorry anon if I made you feel bad about yourself, but anyone who gives in to these ideas that seek to remove God from our lives is culpable.

Boo hoo.

>>653600

>seek to remove God from our lives

Ok anon, you got me, I'm so very sorry for my evolutionist behavior, I'll listen to all your little Hovind videos and be a good boy. Now tell me more about how Copernicus and Galileo sought to make man's place in the universe insignificant, or how Linnaeus sought to do the same thing Darwin did.

>>653608

Not a good boy, anon, just be keep being a good goy.

>>653608

Again with the old 'you disagree with evolution, therefore you hate science hurr'

Just quit while you're ahead, mate

>>653629

Ah, so you're a pick-and-choose sort of guy with your denial, gotta get a healthy dose of cognitive dissonance in there too.

>>653630

As I have explained at least twice. I am NOT against or calling into question scientific theory by itself. You failed to portray me as anti-science and anti-scientist. If I were in fact these, that would be foolish of me.

But I am criticizing the theory of evolution that is NOT predicated on empirical evidence, but conjecture and guess-work.

>>653633

>but conjecture and guess-work

So as you've shown again, you only question ideas that you (or your mentors) have deemed damaging to your specific interpretation of Genesis. At this point, you just sound like a variation of Hovind. I'm not in the mood to reach bump limit trying to convince someone who won't listen.

>>653635

You take their analyses on face value, you are the one being willfully ignorant.

see>>653561

where i demonstrate exactly what it is about evolutionary theory that is suppositional i.e. most of it.

Instead of dismissing without reading, I sincerely suggest that you look at Jay Dyer's article, it is eye-opening. I had the same first reaction to these arguments when I came across them, but later realized that it is very difficult to question what has been taught and affirmed normatively throughout one's whole life… and then to find out that it is unscientific and purely theoretical, that was big.

>>653635

Your comparing my arguments to Hovind (and his particular creationism), and declaring that I am against X scientist and all of science is such a laughably childish style of argumentation. Please stop.

>>653638

>I fell into the trap of philosophical word salads that merely preach to the choir and scare you into submission and I suggest you make that same mistake

>I don't have to learn anything, when I can merely rely on my pundits to preach for me

Extremely sad.

>>653640

I don't argue that you're against "all science," you made that leap on your own. I merely say that you are selective in what you choose to understand and/or accept.

Do you hold something like the water cycle, the orbits of the planets, or the speed of light in the same contention as you do evolution, or do you only attack evolution because others believe it's an actual issue?

Evolution better not contradict Christianity or else Christianity will lose too much of it's believability and be seen as something only backwards rednecks believe in. There's too much evidence.

Look at the muslims, they were at the forefront of science and mathematics in the 14th century till their priests abolished scientific theory in favor of "because god wills it" thinking and now they're so far behind in their technological capabilities that their only geopolitical role is to be used as pawns by superpowers.

>>653799

>Evolution better not contradict Christianity

Will it does

>There's too much evidence.

There is 0(zero) evidence for evolutionism

>Look at the muslims, they were at the forefront of science and mathematics in the 14th century

Yes

>till their priests abolished scientific theory in favor of "because god wills it"

That's because there religion is wrong. If you believe Christianity to be real then what God says is true, thou heretic.

>>653813

Are you in the bananas are proof of God's design camp with Kirk Cameron? If so i want to tell you that you're probably a moron.

>>653564

Actually it's the religion of climate change. It all goes together.

>>653739

The theory of evolution of species, and the framework which it is surrounded in, fails to explain how anything exists— and it is not to be conflated with the study of actual genetics, a discipline based on the observable, and of which, much work is yet to be done.

>>653792

>evolutionism

<implying it's one of many other "-isms" you can demonize and berate with no actual understanding

>several types of evolution

<implying anyone other than fundamentalist pastors use these definitions to confuse and scare people

I think you've already shown me what kind of tree you are from these fruits, and it's not a good one.

>>653925

>these two fields of study aren't related because I said so

<genetics

You mean like how we've been able to trace the precursor haplogroup back to Africa, or how Neanderthals and Denisovans are a distinct form of human where one can measure how much of our DNA was passed to them from interbreeding?

>>632874

People have tried really hard to show that it's feasible to fit it in, but it's a little bit of a stretch.

Luckily it's not actually that doctrinally important, so we can have some *nice,* *well supported* *discourse* among *brethren* about the topic.

>>653932

>>implying anyone other than fundamentalist pastors use these definitions to confuse and scare people

>implying the religion of evolitionism doesn't teach those

And with out the previous one you can't have ther latter one

>>653967

Where have you seen any of those (aside from the last two, as most people just lump those together) referenced in any non-creationist literature? And no, ID and other shit doesn't count.

Are you guys the same idiots who buy into the old testament version of the skydome that separates the ocean in the sky and has floodgates as illustrated here:

https://biologos.org/blogs/archive/the-firmament-of-genesis-1-is-solid-but-thats-not-the-point

It's a fruitless endeavor. If the hill that you're wiling to die on is that each word written by the early nomadic shepherds from 1400 B.C. has to be taken 100% literally because the bible is the literal word of god then you're an idiot.

At a certain point you have to stop trying to frame the old testament in literal terms, it just wasn't a priority for god to lay out how all the detailed stuff works. Same thing with Jacob breeding spotted sheep from laying spotted branches. These are things that the early Israelite believed in and God didn't bother to correct them because the bible is not supposed to be about explaining relativity or astrophysics to an early Israelite goat shepherd.

>>653979

>trying to cover your ass by posting the actual definitions

Too late, you've shown you're not actually willing to understand, and would rather huddle behind a hack like Hovind. He's been shown time and time again to be incorrect, yet holds to his archaic claims.

>>653985

What?

And I already watched that debate I don't remember them talking about abiogenesis and Hugh Ross also doesn't believe maroevolution

>>653990

That's not the point. The point I'm trying to make is that he's not a reliable source and will often try to skew facts in his favor. Just look how he responds to the speed of light, or even neanderthals.

Try studying a different creationist's interpretation, Hovind's stuff clouds your mind.

>>653984

>the old testament version of the skydome

The firmament is the atmosphere, you dum dum. The waters above it are clouds, the troposphere, that's all there is to say about it.

And as for your article, it gets all points wrong. In most particular, Job 37:18 even proves my point. It's one of the best verse in the Bible to show that the atmosphere acts as a "molten looking glass" which means it refracts light, as if it were a mirror. Also Genesis 1:20 says the birds were "in" the open firmament not "in front" of it as your article erroneously claims. You must be reading some weird Jewish translation to get these things.

Lastly, this doctrine can be further nailed down as true because the Bible actually teaches that there are three heavens. First is the firmament which is the atmosphere, second is the heaven of heavens, and third is where the throne is. See 2 Corinthians 12:2.

I knew a man in Christ above fourteen years ago, (whether in the body, I cannot tell; or whether out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth;) such an one caught up to the third heaven.

>>653994

And lastly on your attack on describing heaven as "rolled up like a scroll" this too is accurately described a second time in 2 Peter 3. It says in verse 10 and 11 that all things will be dissolved, not just the heaven. So the atmosphere that is now spread out over Earth shall be dissolved "with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up." So you see, according to this everything shall be dissolved, it won't stop at just the firmament.

>>653993

>Just look how he responds to the speed of light

What does he say in that, that is wrong. I don't remember if he talks about it in the debate but in vid related he shows how you can't measure stars billions of light years away, the speed of light not constant, and the LORD stretched apart the heavens

>neanderthals

He just says that either their fake because a lot of them have proven to be fake or it's normal people but they look a lot different because they lived to be 900

>>653997

>light isn't constant

Astronomers measure light in a vacuum, a constant considering space is mostly a vacuum. The only time light isn't constant is when it's filtered through a medium of some sort, like the atmosphere. To just say "godiddit, let's move on" siplays one of the many problems with this line of thinking, that we must remain constant, and people shouldn't push boundaries.

>he can't even keep up with the inconsistent claims this man has made

He copied most of these sorts of claims from previous people such as Morris and Gish. Modern creationists rarely use anything directly from them, as much has changed. But Hovind remains constant, and even uses incorrect information after he's been called out on it.

>>653739

>I don't argue you're against all science

>Do you hold something like the water cycle, the orbits of the planets, or the speed of light in the same contention lol

>proceeds to suggest just that

You're an idiot

>>653990

The guy is obsessed with calling everyone Hovind, he's a moron

>>653739

>being selective in what you choose to accept

That's how you form a worldview. Its really not that out there

>>632874

Quite the opposite, it's Christianity that contradicts the lie of evolution.

>>654002

>>654008

Bit defensive, aren't we?

>>654009

>They've been measuring for like a hundred years and it's got slower

>implying instuments for measurement haven't been refined over those hundred years

>implying some haven't been discivered to be inaccurate, and discarded

>So? He is not able to teach the same as ehat ithers did?

That's like teaching any subject using a textbook from like 50 years ago. Even in creationist circles, Hovind's arguments are seen as archaic.

>Such as?

Look through this list and tell me if any of them seem familiar?

https://creation.com/arguments-we-think-creationists-should-not-use

>>653988

>And you're a blasphemous heretic

Who cares? If you're a young earth creationist who takes the old testament completely literally, then you're also probably a poor, dumb and inbred cretin from the south, completely sidelined from regular society. You are irrelevant.

Even the mormons are getting ahead of you types seeing as how they are tremendously successful at business.

I suppose God only wants the backwater types who winnie the pooh their own cousins and thinks fossils were planted in the ground as a divine test.

>Many evangelicals believe in "detailed inerrancy," which means that the Bible, in the words of Francis Schaeffer, is "without error in all that it affirms" and contains "propositional true truth where it touches the cosmos and history."(1) This in all probability was not the position of historical Christianity and many evangelicals themselves reject this position.

>The inerrantists cannot decide which "science" to use to prove that the Bible is without error about cosmological matters. Following the lead of Charles Hodge and B. B. Warfield, writers for the Moody Bible Institute contend that the Bible is completely compatible with current theories about the evolution of the universe over billions of years. (2) On the other hand, we have "fiat creationists," like those from the Institute for Creation Research, who reject cosmic evolution and maintain that the universe is less than 10,000 years old.

>Throwing intelligent light on the question are the evangelical writers of the New Bible Dictionary. An author warns us that the Genesis account "must not be confused or identified with any scientific theory of origins. The purpose of the biblical doctrine, in contrast to that of scientific investigation, is ethical and religious….The whole is poetic and does not yield to close scientific correlations….Genesis neither affirms nor denies the theory of evolution, or any theory for that matter."(3) Evangelical J. J. Davis concurs: "Evangelicals have generally come to adopt the position that the Genesis accounts of creation are primarily concerned with the meaning and purpose of God's creative work and not with precise scientific details of how it was accomplished….We look to the science of genetics to answer the scientific question of when human life begins and to the Bible for revelational answers concerning the value and purpose of human life."(4) Of course these evangelicals are correct in disclaiming any scientific foundation for the cosmology of the Old Testament.

>>653994

>The second and most conclusive reason for taking the Hebrew solid heaven literally is that such a view was all over the ancient world of the time. We agree with evangelical Joseph Dillow that we must use the doctrine of "sharable implications," which means that we cannot impute to authors knowledge or experience which they could not possibly have had. Dillow is wise enough to reject violations of this principle like Harold Lindsell's claim that Job 38:35 anticipates wireless telegraphy; but he still believes, and this proves troublesome, that the "Bible does provide a perfectly sound basis for understanding not only religious truth but also physical processes."(9) Contrary to C.S. Lewis' claim (see epigraph), the Hebrew world-view was not a uniquely chosen one; and as the Hebrews were only religious, not scientific innovators, we can assume that they borrowed much from their neighbors.

>The ancient Egyptians thought that the sky was a roof supported by pillars. For the Sumerians tin was the metal of heaven, so we can safely assume that their metal sky-vault was made out of this material.(10) Dillow cites this fact without realizing what this must mean for the Hebrew view and his principle of sharable implications. In Homer the sky is a metal hemisphere covering a round, flat, disc-like earth, surrounded by water. The Odyssey and the Illiad speak alternatively of a bronze or iron sky-vault.(11) For the ancient Greeks Anaximenes and Empedocles, the stars are implanted in a crystalline sky-dome. At Genesis 1:17 the stars are "set in" (as if implanted) in the firmament.

>>654019

>literally calling people who believe the Bible poor, dumb and inbred

Well we'll see judgement day bud

>>654023

This is you in the future. You think God is proud of these parents?

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/oregon-parents-prayer-daughter-dies-arrested-charged-murder-a7777646.html

God probably thinks you're an ignorant loser. The bible is the word of God but it's not literal.

>>654028

I suppose all of Jesus' parables occured at some point in history by this logic, yes? Because nothing in God's word can be metaphorical in any sense, right?

>>654030

Can you show me one time the Bible says "And Jesus spake the parable of Adam and Eve unto them"?

And Jesus says "But as the days of Noah were" if Noah didn't exist then that makes no sense you retard

>>654032

>not using stories as an example so that people in that area would understand

>>654035

>trying to explain evolutionary theory to desert-dwelling nomads

>>654037

So he couldn't have just told them they came from fish by little changes over billions of years?

>>654039

It's a lot more complicated than that. If he were to give an accurate description of the events that unfolded, it'd probably be longer than the rest of the Bible put together.

>>654022

>Evangelical J. J. Davis concurs

Dude you're just cherrypicking quotes from random people and calling them renowned for the sole reason of arguing your agenda. It's sophistry relying completely on argument from authority where you decide who is an authority on what whenever it serves your specific purpose. If that kind of garbage actually works on you, please keep it to yourself in the future. You should return to ribbit.

>At Genesis 1:17 the stars are "set in" (as if implanted)

>"set in" (as if implanted)

Nope, it doesn't say set in as if implanted.

>>654042

So what you're saying is that many things in the Bible aren't accurate, in fact that they are complete falsehoods. At this point, why not just come out and say it straight if that's what you mean to say. Why try to lead people on?

Whatever you think couldn't be true therefore must be inaccurate, added later or whatever. It's something that can be ignored, that's ultimately the sole thing you seek to establish. Doesn't matter how you pull it off. Or in other words, whatever you feel like you want to hand-wave away, you think you have the right to do so. Based on what you feel happened, not on anything actually in the Bible. You'll find whatever runaround way to do it, and the method here doesn't really matter. Let's just be forthright about this.

>>654051

>let me put words in your mouth because I need a strawman to burn

>>654053

>still leading people on

>>654065

>continuing your witch hunt

>>632874

No, evolution does not contradict Christianity. Those that are arguing otherwise are sadly or are just not clear on what evolution is. When you understand evolution you realize how beautiful of a system it is and how only a creative and intelligent being could have designed it. Evolution is not some unproven external force, it is an extension of the fundemental design of life on Earth. If you believe creatures consume other creatures or resources, and that traits are passed from one generation to another, you already "believe" in evolution.

Think of it this way, say you start with a bird. The bird lives in a woodland, it's ancestors fed on a certain type of insect. The ancestors of the insect were originally soft and easy for the birds ancestors to eat. However, all of the soft insects were eaten by the birds and die. Fortunately, some of the insects were born "deformed" or mutated by the standards of their ancestors, but even the deformed have a place in God's kingdom. Their carapace is hard and spiky, too difficult for the bird to eat. These insects do not get eaten by our friend Mr. Bird and go on to reproduce. Some of their spawn will have the traits of the hard shell and live, some will not and die. Mr. Bird cannot eat this species of insects now, and so he runs out of food and starves to death. Luckily for the birds, Mr. Bird has a sister. She was born with the good fortune of having a slightly different mutated digestive system, maybe an enzyme or type of stomach acid that can break down the shell of our insect friend. She is able to eat the insects, and live, and thus reproduce. Some of her children will have her positive traits and live, some will die.

Over time, with many iterations, the birds and insects will not resemble their ancestors in the slightest. Different solutions to their survival problems will emerge, causing an evolutionary fork. One bird might survive because its longer beak can reach bugs that hide in cracks another from the same species might surive because it is a different color and less easy for predators to spot. Evolution is not some magical force that just happens to turn monkeys into people like a pokemon. It is a logical system that follows clear rules, too clear to be coincidental.

>>654051

I'm the poster you are responding to.

Look if you want, go try to convince people that you can get sheep to birth with spots from laying striped bark for the sheep to look at or that you can tell if a woman is unfaithful by making her eat temple dust and seeing if she gets sicks and miscarries from that. Go ahead and tell every unbeliever that unless they believe that the earth is 6,000 years old because your pastor can't read translate well from aramaic texts that they're going to hell. And that you the uptight, smug and self-righteous moron is getting saved while everyone else is damned because you can't into logic or critical thinking.

It's a losing battle and you're making things worse for the rest of us christians who aren't ignoramuses.

The rule is this, the older a book is in the bible the more likely god isn't explaining stuff in a literal sense to a bunch of nomadic sheep/goat herders. The bible is God's promise to a small tribe of herds on how he wants to reconnect with them and later the whole after the original sin, goat herders will not understand physics, evolution, relativity or fluid dynamics so you don't start reconnecting with them by trying to hide all the science that people will discover 5 millienium later in vague quotes. It's. not. literal.

>>653984

Thank you for posting this. I feel it is lacking compassion for the misinformed, but you are correct that they are building their house on shaky ground and are not going to be effective witnesses when they not only misunderstand the purpose of scripture but base their belief around this misunderstanding.

>>654082

>And that you the uptight, smug and self-righteous moron is getting saved while everyone else is damned because you can't into logic or critical thinking.

It all follows from the fact that the Son of God resurrected from the dead on the third day and is alive right now.

>It's a losing battle and you're making things worse for the rest of us christians who aren't ignoramuses.

What's the point of being a cultural christian? So what's the point in any of this if Christ be not raised from the dead.

>The bible is God's promise to a small tribe of herds on how he wants to reconnect with them

If it's not the literal actual word of God then why do you make any interest in what it says? If you don't believe in it, why not eat drink and be merry, and just stop pretending to be something you're not which is a believer. All the doubters can be scattered like ashes, they don't make a single thing better or worse for me.

>>654089

> It all follows from the fact that the Son of God resurrected from the dead on the third day and is alive right now.

> So what's the point in any of this if Christ be not raised from the dead.

I didn't say that Chris didn't rise from the dead. Show me where I said that. I said that not all of the stuff in the old testament is to be taken literally.

You are a terrible debater and intellectually dishonest. It's really sad how people are raised to not be able to think critically and just stick in their head in the sand or lie and distort what they can when they sense that they are losing an argument.

I think we're done here.

>>653554

>>>>>>>>>>>>654081

>>654081

>>653554

>>654424

That doesn't answer his question.

>>654578

He didn't have a question, I'm putting to him the question of when exactly in our evolutionary history God bestowed us with souls.

>>654688

1. the poc is clearly a joke

2. Supposedly the evolutionfags say the chicken is the closest realitve to the T-Rex

>>654773

I have to disagree. There are a heap of errors with this. There is no archaeological evidence that can or does demonstrate an alleged biologoical transition/ 'spiritual awakening' of pre-human humanoids. Any such interpretation would firstly be completely suppositional (pre-historic technology is not by itself sufficient evidence at all for any such genetic transformation has having taken place, nor could it be reliably used to accurately or even loosely pinpoint its supposed date) without the necessary evidence of transitionary forms, between apes and human beings. And these are lacking entirely. The modern evidence for 'transitional forms' are either so dubious as to hold unable to considered reliable or have been proven to be frauds (see Piltdown Man and Nebraska Man).

>>632876

>>633085

'The DNA information in any species is never new information, only the switching on or off of existing information in that species. The earthworm at no point, and in no case or example, ever begins to produce whale DNA. A bear swimming over several decades does not begin to produce new duck DNA, as if webbed feet might appear. This admitted fact of DNA across the board is one of the strongest evidential arguments against the “thesis” of Darwinism, given that its theory of transformism necessitates new information in the code… The other consistent dishonesty on this topic is the claim that adaptations, which no one denies, are equivalent to a new species. They are not – an adaptation is an alteration in the existing information, and never a foreign code and never the empirical observation of a new species! The assumption is that the mutation must be the source for the rise of a new species over vast aeons of time because of the assumption of common ancestry! At once the circularity becomes apparent in this theory, as the proof of transformism is based on the unfounded assumption of common ancestry, while common ancestry is in turn based on the assumption of new species arising from long periods of mutations. Neither of these ridiculous and sophistical positions are ever observed and all predicated on an interpretive matrix foisted on the “evidences” (i.e., bones, fossils, DNA, etc.).

- Jay Dyer, Darwinism and its Mongoloid Mutations Refuted

>>654797

>trying to use a philosopher/pundit instead of an actual expert of their field

It's like you're not even trying.

>>654796

When people provide hoaxes as evidence for their theories, people are entitled to respond with suspicion and to question the integrity of the people propagating the theory. Again, the whole idea that similarities between skulls testify to a process of evolution is based upon the presupposition of a common ancestor >>654797, which is hypothesized and not at all scientifically demonstrable.

>>654796

>Much has been found since that time

Instead of pointing to the similarity between fossils as evidence, which we have established are not, please provide confirmed evidence of a transitional form between man with apes. protip: there is no such example

>>654799

>implying he doesn't disprove your bullshit.

read or don't read it, I don't care, people can see that it is valuable to the discussion

>>654799

not an argument

>>654811

>Seems like he doesn't understand how mutations and variations occur, nor how geographic distribution of some groups can lead to diverging forms.

He never denies adaptations by different species. As he points out, adaptations do not equal genetic mutation, the introduction of a new genetic code. Until you demonstrate otherwise, you can screech all you like about Neanderthals, it has no bearing (is not evidence for) the common ancestor theory (we all descend from a sexless amoeba - how would this have 'evolved' to develop sexes?)

>Neanderthals prove evolution

>>654886

>dat pic

Believe me, I knew popsci was cancer before that fiasco

>if I correctly understand what you're defending

Well what do you think I'm defending? I prefer to be on the same page so I don't fudge something up, communication is key.

>puny Human understanding

I get that there are many things we may never understand, but I believe that study of these leads to a greater understanding and a grander view of creation. Science and scripture are not at odds unless someone wishes for conflict.

>>632879

Evolution cannot be proved. To prove it you would have to go the whole ride again - in lab. It would take millions of years you know.

Saying it has been proven is dumb. Sure There are strong points - mutations do occur, animals are under selection for survival. The fittest survives.

Yet there has not been one proof of one animal becoming a different species. That is a weak point of the thesis. You need a long time span to have a slight hint this actually works. You know…mutations are not that fun. Most of the mutations cause serious diseases.

The current claims by atheists that muh Big Bang muh Evolution, muh Random mutations are literally laughable.

>Muh Big Bang

You cannot prove Big Bang happened. You cannot make something out of literally nothing. If 'something' exploded then how come it existed before the 'beginning of everything' - that's a nonsenseion

>Muh random mutation

You being created by completely random mutations is HIGHLY unlikely. More likely each member of your family wins a lottery today without buying a ticket.

>Muh Evolution

Yeah. As I have said. Some points stand, make sense. Some points are weaker and you cannot possibly prove it. You'd need millions of years for that.

Those three things replaced God for atheists. They accepted 'something came out of nothing' just because some big brain nibba said so without proving anything. Also notice how those things are used politically. Notice how much butthurt you cause when you question the validity.

Feel free to prove me wrong. Post a research that proves evolution - that is research that created one kind of species from another by performing mutations.

>>656818

If by "proved" you mean 100% assured then yeah, evolution isn't proved. But if you take "proved" to mean factual, then it would qualify for that definition as it's technically a fact, it being supported by every related scientific field.

>Big Bang

is not a theory explaining things coming from nothing and is not the 'beginning of everything'. It's recognized as the time where we cannot look past. It has nothing to say on whether there was or wasn't time before the big bang, just that our conception of our scientific laws break down at that point.

>You being created by completely random mutations is HIGHLY unlikely.

Care to actually back that up and not just state it? Everything that occurs is mathematically highly unlikely if you point out specific circumstances.

>Evolution

You don't need millions of years to prove evolution, just like you don't need thousands of years to prove the Bible was written over a 2000+ or - year period. Like a crime scene investigator, we can look back through genetics, paleontology, and phylogeny into past events. But I'll provide some evidence.:

The whale's a perfect example. A mammal that has evolved from land dwelling hooved animals, the most genetically similar of which is the hippopotamus. There's a clear lineage, Indohyus, pakicetus, Ambulocetus, Kutchicetus, Rodhocetus, Dorudon, Odetocetes, and Mysticetus that you can look up. What other evidence would you need?

>>656889

Oh geez, that shit. But yeah, honestly never concerned myself with theropods in that regard, but you know something's wrong when they can't seem to agree on this stuff at all.

https://pandasthumb.org/archives/2016/11/creationist-class.html

>>656900

Oh my bad.

Definitely saving this.

Haven't even heard of Little Foot. Time to do some research.

>>656899

>>656900

It's like we didn't just have this argument a week ago, and there you admitted that having bones of something isn't the same as having the live specimen and therefore some things are unidentifiable.

>>654347

Now you're like the eternal Jew bringing the same old lines the next day as if the point was never conceded.

>>656901

>Ica stones

>clearly show 80s dinos

<people continue to believe it

>>656902

Yeah, it's been an interesting uncovering. First bits we had from the cave were a chunk of the foot, and they found an entire body buried down there. Almost 90% complete, save for a hand and the pther portions of the feet. Creationists mocked the initial discovery, saying anything they find will confirm their view. Welp, it finally happened.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Foot

>>656901

People are still bringing the Ica stones up? They were debunked a looong time ago.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WJtIm4jgAFQ

The only thing that looks slightly convincing is the brontosaurus like painting, though even if it looked like the one in the picture (it doesn't, pic related) it could easily be something else that we are trying to find an unrelated pattern in.

>>656915

Papers for it haven't come out yet, though they do have a few on the partial foot that have been out for a while. At least last I checked

>>656907

>>656913

>it's fake trust me goyim

Even if it was there's plenty more of drawings of dinosaurs

>>632903

Underrated post. This fact led Steven Gould (prominent biologist) to present the punctuated equilibrium theory, which seems to my mind to totally undermine natural selection as the mechanism for evolution. (Obviously Gould doesn't think so)

>>656926

That was just the first site I found. Do your own research and you will see the same, being that Uschuya faked the stones and referenced 1980's comic books and textbooks.

Kek, you honestly think wikipedia is my only source for the dino extinction date?

>>656926

>scientific study is ok as long as it doesn't contradict my views

Also Wikipedia has citations one can easily follow. Or y'know, actually looking stuff up.

>>656931

>implying evolutionism is science

>>656919

They finally found Bigfoot!

>>656933

>if I keep repeating the same shit for decades, maybe people will listen to me

His take on the hominid record is laughable at best, and extremely misinformed at worst. As for the other bits and bobs he's covered, I wouldn't put too much stock in them.

>>656935

>literally no argument

>>656937

I'm not arguing, I'm just making a statement that he doesn't seem reliable in the slightest.

>>656938

That's Hovind for you. Rapid-fires too much shit to swallow and NEVER changes his opinions. He preaches the exact same things as he did 25+ years ago.

His starlight debate with crocoduck was horrendous. He couldn't concede on one point.

>>656942

or there isn't only one type of trex. Do you think all dogs are the same?

Seems to say he only said it was(if he even said it all) to avoid prison

>radiometric dating

https://youtu.be/TVuVYnHRuig

>>656952

Nibba we don't know exactly what trexes were like considering they're all dead. Also it may not even be a trex

So freshly killed seals are 1300 years old?

>>656966

My dude, are you saying we can't extrapolate and make educated guesses given the evidence we have?

It may not have been a t-rex, but funny how it looks exactly like the cartoon-ish t-rex's we have in old textbooks. What a coinkeedink.

>1300 year old freshly killed seal

No, if you actually watched the video I gave you you'd see that Hovind ripped that off of a paper explaining the fictitious results you would get if you tried to date living/recently deceased animals with carbon dating.

>>656975

>these people supposedly saw rhese creatures first-hand

<depict it as anything other than the second pic

This is getting sad.

>>656976

Or they didn't mean to draw what the second one is and there was a dino that stood up like a kangaroo

>>656982

Or not all of them were like pic B and some are like pic A. Or they could be wrong or lying again

Your salvation is not dependent on whether or not you believe in it. Don't worry about it too much.

I unironically think dinosaurs are a big con. There's just something ridiculous about it all.

>>656990

All prehistoric animals or just dinos?

>>656992

No they can, but not in a kangaroo like fashion. At least not efficiently or fast enough to catch prey. Especially if they're using their tale as a sort of third leg and weigh 16 tons.

They would have to be horizontal to achieve those speeds.

>>656998

It could eat slower animals or dead ones. Also you don't know how fast it would have been

>>656998

>>657002

Not saying it for sure would because it's just looking at bones but this article says it ain't to fast bud

https://www.express.co.uk/news/science/830629/T-Rex-SLOWER-than-the-average-human

>>657007

This is little foot btw

>>657010

-Except for the feet, which have opposable big toes.

-And hips that are in-between walking human and knuckle walking ape.

>>657012

And the ribs which get longer from neck to hips. Hips do not seem to be particularly well preserved. Much of the outline is missing mahjong it difficult to determine an overall shape.

>>657021

Like I said, human-oid. Not entirely human, but pretty damn close.

>>657006

>having to bend down all the way to eat and drink?

That's what giraffes do