52aae9 No.670570
Here you can post everything about Evolution, Creation, interpretation of Genesis and so on. I figured that it would be better to have this contamination thread, instead of dozens of similar threads clogging and polluting this board.
Also, please sticky it, mods.
>but AAAAAAAANON, why is it called /creation general/, doesn't it gives support to one side?
No, every Christian, both evolutionist and creationist, believes that God made everything…unless you dont believe in that…wait, what are you doing here?
2167f1 No.670572
8db200 No.670594
>>670570
Reminder: God used evolution as a tool to create human life. (((Creationists))) are zog shills.
2167f1 No.670597
>>670594
Instead of painting everyone with an different view as Jew puppets, why not simply present your reasoning for your views? As opposed to presenting your idea of someone else's reasoning for someone else's views. Maybe people can learn something in this thread.
cea8bf No.670598
526572 No.670600
I used to believe in trans-species evolution but then I've actually read Humani generis, heard about genetic entropy, and real embryology, and tests on supposedly millions years of old bones etc etc so I don't anymore.
a8551c No.670603
>>670600
maybe you could elaborate and provide some links
983383 No.670615
>>670600
>trans-species
This isn't a new thing pushed by the liberals is it?
52aae9 No.670618
>>670615
He means emergence of new species from old ones due to evolution
526572 No.670636
>>670603
http://kolbecenter.org/
>>670615
What he >>670618 said
It is good thing for me that I see prefix "trans" as a latin thing not liberal, right?
423f09 No.670706
If the creation story and everything pre-tower if babel is justva metaphor then why in the hindreds of times it's mentioned it never comes off as a metaphor? Like in Habrews 11 he talks about Abel, Enoch, and Noah as if they're real people then talks about other prophets
4 By faith Abel offered unto God a more excellent sacrifice than Cain, by which he obtained witness that he was righteous, God testifying of his gifts: and by it he being dead yet speaketh.
5 By faith Enoch was translated that he should not see death; and was not found, because God had translated him: for before his translation he had this testimony, that he pleased God.
6 But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.
7 By faith Noah, being warned of God of things not seen as yet, moved with fear, prepared an ark to the saving of his house; by the which he condemned the world, and became heir of the righteousness which is by faith.
423f09 No.670709
>>670706
sorry about all the spelling errors. That's what I get for being a phoneposter
add745 No.670749
Reminder that the concept of a deathless creation is from a man's interpretation, not Genesis itself.
526572 No.670752
>>670749
"But by the envy of the devil, death came into the world"
52aae9 No.670755
>>670752
1)This is from Wisdom of Solomon, a deuterocanonical Book
2)Death came to the world refers to humans, who, alongside angels (demons included) are only immortal beings in creation.
526572 No.670765
>>670755
>1)This is from Wisdom of Solomon, a deuterocanonical Book
So it's part of the Bible.
>2)Death came to the world refers to humans, who, alongside angels (demons included) are only immortal beings in creation.
Except it was used by Catholics since ever in broader context. For exemple Catechism states: "God did not make death, and he does not delight in the death of the living. . . It was through the devil's envy that death entered the world" (Wis 1:13; 2:24).
And Wisdom 1:13 is quite clear that it means death in universal sense.
add745 No.670780
I'm still quite curious to see YEC explanations for some creatures, such as the baleen whales who feed on krill (animal life) in order to survive yet must have eaten vegetation of some sort, insects resembling thorns despite such characteristics making no sense in a world without thorns, or flightless birds when concerning which they were created and what sorts of adaptations were already present depending on the day.
5f5107 No.670783
Reminder: Creationism was what was believed for thousands of years by many people including Church leaders. Evolution is a very recently created scam that is now the "politically correct" way to think.
add745 No.670788
>>670786
>crossing the narratives
Smh
921b73 No.670789
>>670788
sorry bud i posted them out of order my b
161cc4 No.670790
Reminder: YEC does not imply flood geology or its many modern-day adherents
add745 No.670794
>>670789
No it's fine, it's just if we're going off the first chapter, God made humans as male and female, not one and then the other.
>So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. - Gen 1:27 (KJV)
c932c6 No.670804
>>670780
So, ima try not to mess this up, and i might be doing a disservice here, to the orthodox faith. But my understanding is that Prior to the fall of man, Animals, and plant life was not always working in this parasitic, or harmful way, so for instance Mosquitoes were not always functioning like a parasite. And that the idea of weeds, or thorns, and thistles came after the fall. Is basically what i've gotten so far, and that the entire universe was under different metaphysical rules and properties. Just a layman, not a Thd on this, and fairly new to the faith. But that seems to be the idea behind it. Also i remember that from the orthodox prespective, when Adam names the animals, it isn't like oh ok i'll name you deer, lion, etc. No the orthodox say that adam, because he was in full connection with God, spiritually, metaphysically etc, he saw their metaphysical properties and knew them for what they were as i've been told. So that answered one of my personal questions i've had since middle school. Cause i always assumed the text meant like, Oh adams names the animals like we give names to identify the object just by Name and, to call and identify, so that helped me. But i would ask an orthodox priest personally who has an understanding of the text. Was my lesson i learned anyway.
8bad77 No.670806
>>670570
I really like this series on youtube by Walter Veith on creation. It's definitely worth the watch. Can't embed the playlist but here's a link
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1YMMKSx_R6c&list=PL13eE2x3qhPmDJCPm9F2cjckCUdUSubU1
c0b6dd No.670807
>>670780
The Biblical definition is animals upon the Earth (ground) and flying animals, with "the breath of life" (lungs) as having plants for food. The sea would have been pretty much the same as it is today. Air-breathing non-aquatic vertebrates would have been strictly herbivorous, although that quickly changed after the fall.
As for flightless birds, how is it a problem? Feathers are for more than just flight.
add745 No.670819
>>670804
>he saw their metaphysical properties and knew them for what they were
So in other words Adam saw the function they'd serve (insectivore, predator, prey, etc)?
>>670807
>The sea would have been pretty much the same as it is today.
So various forms of marine life were eating other marine life? That'd mean animal death existed before the fall, right?
>As for flightless birds, how is it a problem?
Day 5 has birds (flying creatures) and fish, while day 6 has land animals and man. That'd mean either birds like the kiwi and elephant bird were originally flying creatures and went through a drastic shift in their appearance since the fall (only a few millennia if YEC), or were flightless land animals that merely resemble birds. And that's not even discussing penguins ans bats.
add745 No.670823
>>670819
Also cetaceans, pinnipeds and sirenians, but those are kind of a given in this case I guess.
c932c6 No.670825
>>670819
>So in other words Adam saw the function they'd serve (insectivore, predator, prey, etc)?
Well, again im just a layman, still quite new, but he didn't see them in oh look prey predator, cause prior to the fall, there was no such a thing. As in the whole animal kingdom functioned differently. When i say what Adam saw what they were, the orthodox say that he saw them for what they were in relation to god, and Divine purpose. There's still many questions i have, but that's just what i've come across researching this, and it's hard to find an orthodox perspective cause protestants have done a bang up job, on this subject. And then there's the flood im still wondering about and how that relates to what is we now know as the animal kingdom etc.
add745 No.670826
>>670825
>the orthodox say that he saw them for what they were in relation to god, and Divine purpose
Odd and a bit vague, but ok I get it.
>protestants have done a bang up job, on this subject
I'd be wary with protties when it comes to this, for a number of reasons.
52aae9 No.670827
>>670804
>And that the idea of weeds, or thorns, and thistles came after the fall.
Not really. I think its just because we had incorruptible bodies and thus could not feel parasites, pain and so on, nor could the body take damage.
>Prior to the fall of man, Animals, and plant life was not always working in this parasitic, or harmful way, so for instance Mosquitoes were not always functioning like a parasite.
no creature is a parasite in reality, they all serve certain purpose.
I think we should always differentiate between animals and humans and discuss them in different context.
8ea625 No.670829
c932c6 No.670830
>>670826
Honestly i think i might personally get father rose's book on genesis, and early creation and man. Cause he's the only orthodox theologian i know that takes that perspective. So, im right now just barley even novice about this section of theology. I've been more focusing on Materialism, naturalism etc. Just cause that's so dyed into our current culture. And yea i know about the protestant, they usually end up making fools of themselves on this subject. Which was why i was so hesitant to tackle this subject. And there's Jay dyer which i know gets shilled here. But he critiques Darwinism, and evolution from a Philosophical, Metaphysical point of view which is what got me back into this topic, cause for the longest time i just thought i would be agnostic on these issues. Not much else i can help with friend hopefully a more Erudite Orthodox layman can help you out with this, cause im still on the unknown mostly about this.
c932c6 No.670831
YouTube embed. Click thumbnail to play.
Here's Mr. Dyers take on this subject. I actually liked this cause it compared all the different religions outlook on the creation of the world. Outlook of Death, etc. Hopefully this helps someone in the orthodox faith.
add745 No.670832
>>670827
>I think we should always differentiate between animals and humans and discuss them in different context
But at the same time, we have a responsibility unto them. We are to rule the earth, but also maintain it. The choices we make affect the world around us, in more ways than one.
>>670829
<Hovind
add745 No.670836
>>670831
People like him always came off as extremely standoffish, and that kinda rubs me the wrong way. I always thought civility was the best strategy, this "actively challenge them" seems less like a tactic of debate, and more of a show to put on for followers.
add745 No.670887
>>670885
A true missing link, even in his own cause.
b30d8d No.670888
Matthew 24:37
But as the days of Noah were, jk boi there was no days of Noah, just a metaphor bro.
1e4781 No.670905
Evolution is retarded, it's totally improbable that random mutations stack up positively (99% of mutations are defective/neutral not positive) and are filtered by some undefined, unquantifiable, unobservable "natural selection" speciation process.
Imagine someone randomly inserted code into thousands of Windows 10 operating systems trying to run a difficult program; the majority of the new random code will be useless or will crash the systems. We are supposed to believe that over time this random insertion of code will change some Windows 10 systems to become not only improved (better at running a difficult program) but will also eventually change into Linux.
add745 No.670923
>>670905
>implying natural selection doesn't occur, and therefore it's only mutation
You realize even contemporary creationists accept the concept of natural selection right?
>comparing inorganic coding of man made machines set to do a certain task to organic autonomous lifeforms that can reproduce on their own, leading to reshuffling and even mutation of certain genes
I suppose you think comparative anatomy is equivocal to comparing various artificial structures as well?
>Windows 10 to Linux
<implying it's one form turning into another existing form
1e4781 No.670930
>>670923
>You realize even contemporary creationists accept the concept of natural selection right?
Species will carry both positive and negative heritable traits, there's no "natural selection" process that filters hereditary changes from merely phenotypic changes, and it doesn't even filter positive from negative traits, it's a blind and undefined process there's no "selection" happening. There's nothing quantifiable or observable about it.
>I suppose you think comparative anatomy is equivocal to comparing various artificial structures as well?
It's an analogy involving complex programs operating in an environment, of of course life is far more complex than an OS, so it's even more absurd that random code inserted into our dna would magically stack up to confer not only benefits over time, but drastically change our species into another species. Absurd.
add745 No.670963
>>670930
>phenotypic changes, and it doesn't even filter positive from negative traits
I'm curious as to how you came to the conclusion that any of the traits being selected for are positive, negative, or phenotypical in natute.
>there's no "selection" happening
As long as there is no selective pressures (such as a changing environment or new predators) being put upon a population, those that have variations/mutations will most likely not be selected for, and thus the status quo is maintained.
>random code inserted into our dna
That's the thing, it isn't. Existing code is either shuffled or slightly tweaked. However there are cases in which an outside force, such as a virus, can insert its code into ours, though this doesn't lead to very noticeable differences.
Also you implying this concept of rigidity, that if you were to change the slightest thing, the creature couldn't function. Organic systems have more plasticity, and are often able to cope with slight variations.
>but drastically change our species into another species
What is your definition of "drastic," and does this supposed absurdity extend to the animals as well?
Do you believe diversification doesn't occur, that life hasn't changed nor spread out since the creation, and that all creatures were created separately?
What of the giant ground sloths and armadillos? Do they merely resemble their modern counterparts due to a similar creator, or are they related via a common ancestor? Same extends to the ceratopsians and hominids, and pretty much anything else.
1e4781 No.671006
>>670963
>I'm curious as to how you came to the conclusion that any of the traits being selected for are positive, negative, or phenotypical in natute.
At most natural selection is nothing more than gene frequencies shifting back and forth, within one created kind, in light of some external pressure…. like the peppered moth story in the UK, but even that has many holes in it and doesn't involve "new" traits appearing and being selected for, but already existing traits having a slight advantage over another. And when the pollution cleared up the population of the whiter moths increased…
Small variations like this are fine. That's observable and makes sense. That's the extent of "natural selection".
>That's the thing, it isn't. Existing code is either shuffled or slightly tweaked. However there are cases in which an outside force, such as a virus, can insert its code into ours, though this doesn't lead to very noticeable differences.
There are no known examples of the types of purely random mutations necessary for large-scale evolutionary processes. Sure small scale adaptability (or negative adaption) can occur from a random process, but there is no evidence of large scale species to species mutations going on. And appealing to the "gigantic time horizon" to stack tiny, minute changes is not empirical.
>Also you implying this concept of rigidity, that if you were to change the slightest thing, the creature couldn't function. Organic systems have more plasticity, and are often able to cope with slight variations.
The only rigidity I hold to is the rigidity of Kind/Specie, since there is no evidence of a mutagenic mechanism that can alter a species into another species.
>Do you believe diversification doesn't occur,
Of course, within a narrow range of possibilities. Adaptions can be gained or lost, some populations can become better at breeding than others within a species. A tiger with bigger teeth is going to adapt better to his environment than one with weak and brittle teeth. And he'll pass on his "big teeth" genes at a higher rate than the brittle toothed tigers, sure. That's empirical and sensible. But if you say this implies that after thousands and thousands of years these small changes can turn a Dinosaur into a Bird then I'm going to reject that hypothesis because there's no evidence of it, it's not even empirical as far as I can tell…there's no mechanism to explain such a drastic transformation.
>What of the giant ground sloths and armadillos? Do they merely resemble their modern counterparts due to a similar creator, or are they related via a common ancestor?
I'm not familiar with them, tell me what you think happened and the evidence for it. The giant sloths went extinct a long time ago, could they interbreed with armadillos?
add745 No.671046
>>671006
>created kind
That term has broadened quite a bit nowadays. Are you referring to the classic approach or the modern take?
>And appealing to the "gigantic time horizon" to stack tiny, minute changes is not empirical
And why not? Because the geologic record and molecular clocks of various animals sink your point? Or are you going to claim that those are made up or don't matter?
>species into another species
Well what do you mean by that? Is the basis mainly interbreeding, or is it something different for you?
>Dinosaur into a Bird
>no evidence of it
>drastic transformation
Again, depends on what you mean by "drastic." We do find creatures within the fossil record that many creationists cannot readily assign as a bird or dinosaur. Take Zhenyuanlong for instance, the creature resembles a dromaeosaurid ("raptors"), yet has the impressions of wings and feathers. Due to the presence of feathers, AiG classified it as a bird, despite its many anatomical affinities towards the raptors. The point it: they can't tell where one ends or begins.
>The giant sloths went extinct a long time ago, could they interbreed with armadillos?
Well I could the ask the same about ground sloths mating with tree sloths, but that's another can of worms.
You're actually in the ball park about armadillos and sloths. Despite being unable to breed (I highly doubt they can even interbreed with others in their own families/orders), they still bear a very distinct set of characteristics, most notably their spinal joint articulation. In other words, despite their differences, these three major groups have traits that link them together.
1e4781 No.671058
>>671046
>And why not? just put a lot of time and a ton of tiny changes and a fish will turn to a walrus
Because it's not empirical. It's not observable, reproducible or even falsifiable. There's no actual mechanism to test that explains what's going it, simply saying "mutation + time + selection = new species" is void, that's barely a hypothesis.
Imagine Newton tried to explain the rotation of the moon around the earth by saying "a pulling force - a pushing force + time = rotation" he wouldn't be saying anything, barely a hypothesis, that's not quantifiable or empirical, but since he proposed the inverse-square law we have something empirical and quantifiable to measure and test.
> Because the geologic record and molecular clocks of various animals sink your point?
This is just anecdotes and haphazard pattern recognition.
>Species into another species
>Well what do you mean by that?
Speciation. The whole point of evolution is to explain the emergence of diverse species, instead it simply it states that species that are better at reproducing are better at reproducing, and mutations sometimes affect reproduction. Yes, ok. That's it. Where's the evidence of speciation?
>(I highly doubt they can even interbreed with others in their own families/orders), they still bear a very distinct set of characteristics, most notably their spinal joint articulation. In other words, despite their differences, these three major groups have traits that link them together.
Ok so the issue is vague. Why are you raising it?
add745 No.671088
YouTube embed. Click thumbnail to play.
>>671058
<starts with a oversimplified strawman
Oh this should be good. Listen, if we were to go over every little in and out of evolutionary biology, we'd be here all day. If you wish to debate someone on this, actually learn and research what you're trying to debunk, don't just act as though thrashing an extremely simplified version of a theory or hypothesis means you've won and it's unscientific.
>This is just anecdotes and haphazard pattern recognition
So you have nothing to back up your claim and act as though I have no foundation
>Where's the evidence of speciation?
Again, geographic distribution comes into play, as the terrain in which these animals live may change as time goes on. In addition the creatures in question may become isolated, meaning as more time passes, the genetic distance between them will grow. Good examples would be creatures like the okapi and the giraffe, though closely related, are the last remnants of a much larger group, with each having adapted for a different terrain and diet. As time went on, the environment shifted and the food sources of these extinct giraffids began to die off, leaving only the giraffe and the okapi.
>Ok so the issue is vague
The issue isn't vague. You seem to claim either some animals are so close that one could practically a breed of another, or are so different they must have been a creature unique into itself. These creatures, by contrast, have many anatomical characteristics in common and yet have a very diverse set of traits within. They'd seem to be in a state of flux.
Also have this vid going over the various phylogenetic relationships between various forms of animal life.
1e4781 No.671099
YouTube embed. Click thumbnail to play.
>>671088
Evolution is not empirically verifiable given the impossible time-horizon required involving imperceptible changes.
Adaption and selection occur, sure, but speciation does not.
Fossil record only demonstrates pre-existing diversity.
There has never been evidence that random mutations can accumulate to such a degree to change the DNA of a species into the DNA of another species. DNA changes within its own parameters (kind/specie).
>Good examples would be creatures like the okapi and the giraffe, though closely related, are the last remnants of a much larger group, with each having adapted for a different terrain and diet.
Hybrid appearances don't prove anything, if you want to presuppose a common ancestor thats your belief, it's not empirical
c06fd8 No.671112
Evolution is dumb trash almost on the level of calvinism, how can anyone believe this stuff?
add745 No.671114
>>671099
<using Dembski (philosopher)
Should've known this was a lost cause.
>Adaption and selection occur, sure, but speciation does not
You're splitting hairs at that point.
>Fossil record only demonstrates pre-existing diversity
So birds are a form of maniraptoran dinosaurs, giant ground sloths are related to tree sloths, and humans are form of ape? Ok then, because that's what we find.
>DNA changes within its own parameters
So evolution occurs, but only when you want it to.
>Hybrid appearances
Did you just look up a picture of an okapi and assume it's some chimaera? Compare its skeletal structure to that of the giraffe and their close relatives, and judge for yourself. I'm done trying to reason with you.
1e4781 No.671116
>>671114
>You're splitting hairs at that point.
>a fish adapting sharper teeth
>a fish transforming into a walrus
>"splitting hairs"
LOL
This is nonsense. Good luck with your non-biblical and also non-scientific hypothesis.
1e4781 No.671119
>>671114
>DNA changes within its own parameters
>So evolution occurs, but only when you want it to.
That's not evolution. That's mutation/adaption/genetic variation. If you think mutation is univocal to speciation you're absolutely confused. This is hilarious.
We already know DNA changes within its own parameters (species), sections get lost, sections get added, but it never goes from one species' genome into the genome of another species. This has never been observed.
add745 No.671126
>>671116
>mocks someone for studying evolution via gross oversimplification
<makes no effort to understand how one could come to that conclusion
>>671119
>If you think mutation is univocal to speciation
Speciation is a combination of factors, one of which is mutation. Also I believe you meant "synonymous with"
>one species to another
<implying it's a one-step process
<still acting like it's one form of animal turning into an existing form of animal
550ec2 No.671227
I'm a YEC, but science isn't really an interest of mine. I just follow the Bible, I don't really care what the World says.
634972 No.671228
>>671227
I was a hardcore atheist very into science. Moved to agnosticism. Then into theistic evolution. now theistic creationism.
Regarding the age of the earth I'm still doing research as well as the global flood.
But I'm very confident evolution is poor science, weak, and doesn't have an empirical foundation besides anecdotes and weak patterns.
526572 No.671243
>>670780
>I'm still quite curious to see YEC explanations for some creatures,
Fall was cosmic catastrophe that was felt at all planes of existence. Earth before fall cannot be deducted from post-fall earth. But we can guess.
>such as the baleen whales who feed on krill (animal life) in order to survive yet must have eaten vegetation of some sort
They probably eaten algas of some sort.
>insects resembling thorns despite such characteristics making no sense in a world without thorns
Post-fall development, never questioned by CYEC.
>or flightless birds when concerning which they were created and what sorts of adaptations were already present depending on the day.
Bible and Catholic systemisation does not go by genetic similarity but by condition of being of given genus. According to such classification fowls are winged creatures, fishes are esentialy swimers, beastes are walkers, and crawling creatures are the rest such as lizards, snakes or insects. Bats are fowls, crocodiles are fish. Emus are birds but pinguins are fishes. Just like beavers.
634972 No.671249
>>671246
that's just an intro, it doesn't actually engage the topic.
65f436 No.671255
>>671249
Unfortunately 8chan won't let me upload the full length. Oh well
b22b21 No.671266
>>671228
Read "In the Beginning" by Walt Brown. A bit outdated, but there's good articles on his stuff in a lot of Christian scientific journals. My main problem with him is that he hasn't gotten it peer-reviewed yet, even by other creation scientists. But he provides a more solid model for Flood geology than many other YECs.
add745 No.671411
>>671243
>Earth before fall cannot be deducted from post-fall earth
So you don't know, nor could you come to the conclusion that such a place existed going off of the evidence.
>They probably eaten algas of some sort
Considering the size of these animals, the entire ocean would have to be coated in it. That's not including other filter feeders either.
>Post-fall development, never questioned by CYEC
So speciation can occur? Thornbugs are part of a larger diverse group known as the treehoppers, each with a unique carapace shape.
>Bible and Catholic systemisation does not go by genetic similarity but by condition of being of given genus
<bats are fowl
<ratites are birds yet also beasts
<whales, crocs, penguins and beavers are fish
I'm glad Linnaeus sought to fix this issue, this would be madness otherwise. Of course, much has been learned since that time.
Though he did come to at least one interesting conclusion: he considered man (homo) and other forms of primate (simia) synonymous with one another. Couldn't find a "generic difference" between them.
2779e4 No.671608
>>670570
Humans and apes are examples of analogous convergent evolution.
8d113d No.671610
This book is required reading for this subject. Sadly, it's pretty expensive and only the first three chapters have been uploaded here http://www.creatio.orthodoxy.ru/english/rose_genesis/index.html
65f436 No.671624
Here is Jeff Durbin interviewing a chemistry professor on the problems with materialism, the intractable problems with the Darwinian model, and general scientific arguments for creation.
https://vocaroo.com/i/s1pJQJ9i6hVN
I tried to embed this but 8chan doesn't allow clips of this size (about 1 hour long).
add745 No.671633
>>671624
<Darwinian model
Well congrats, that was discarded almost a century ago.
>harps on about atheism, seeming to insinuate that only godless heathens would dare not use YEC
Anyone have that one Christian scientists chart with the little communist idiot at the bottom? I think this applies
>professor from Grand Canyon University
<Grand Canyon University is a private, non-profit, Christian university in Phoenix, Arizon
Ah, a place where people still misuse our faith to pedal pseudoscience.
Overall this comes off more as a "pat-on-the-back" sermon than a discussion or interview on yhe subject.
65f436 No.671677
>>671633
>Well congrats, that was discarded almost a century ago.
Yes, they talk about that. However the discussion is far broader than that, making a strong case for intelligent design.
>poisoning the well
I wonder if you can express your disagreement with the content, rather than deploying fallacies like an absolute retard?
e3d458 No.671700
this is what evolutionists actually believe
52aae9 No.671702
>>671700
>Year of our LORD 2018
>Dinos still dont have feathers in these films
add745 No.671810
>>671677
<intelligent design
Cheap tactic used to reintroduce pseudoscience into the classroom, and if taken on its own merits (not in tandem with our theology) it does so poorly in many ways.
<poisoning the well
In what way? I'm merely voicing my opinion that their presentation seems less like discourse, and more like reassurance.
526572 No.671863
>>671411
>So you don't know, nor could you come to the conclusion that such a place existed going off of the evidence.
I could not deduct the state of pre-fall earth. I could deduct that such place existed out of Benevolence of God and Free Will of Man. And I know that such place exist because God told me so in both public and private revelations.
>Considering the size of these animals, the entire ocean would have to be coated in it. That's not including other filter feeders either.
Entire ocean is not covered in krill yet Great Whales are huge.
>So speciation can occur? Thornbugs are part of a larger diverse group known as the treehoppers, each with a unique carapace shape.
If they can mix they are the same kind (genus). Universe is inherently ordered (by God) anyway.
>I'm glad Linnaeus sought to fix this issue, this would be madness otherwise.
Not really.
>Of course, much has been learned since that time.
And forget even more.
add745 No.671900
>>671863
>public and private revelations
<God Himself told you the earth was young
Careful with that, you need to know who's talking first.
>Entire ocean is not covered in krill yet Great Whales are huge
Krill eat algae as well, it's a part of a larger ecosystem. If you were to have whales and other filter-feeding marine life join other algae eaters, you'd run out eventually. Not even including all the toothed marine animals that'd have to compete to eat kelp and seaweed all their lives.
However, the Bible does say that God provides food for His animals, including predators with their prey.
<The young lions roar after their prey, and seek their meat from God. - Psalm 104:21
<Who provideth for the raven his food? when his young ones cry unto God, they wander for lack of meat. - Job 38:41
There are other ones too.
>If they can mix they are the same kind (genus). Universe is inherently ordered (by God) anyway
Is that meaning under normal circumstances or does that include artificial means? And would this take the fertility and survival of the hybrid forms into account? Not to mention the complications a drastic difference in size would create.
>Not really
So mammals being called birds and birds being called fish is just fine? Sounds like a confusing and arbitrary world to live in.
>And forget even more
Yes, like concepts created by writers (deathless Eden) and Roman philosophers (great chain if being) that somehow became intertwined with the Word of God.
65f436 No.671964
>>671810
<poisoning the well
>In what way?
You're trying to smear the institution the speaker comes from rather than address any of his points. The entire presentation is quite solid, no wonder you have to resort to such tactics. You are of your father, the devil.
526572 No.671979
>>671900
>Careful with that, you need to know who's talking first.
Holy Spirit through Moses. Deny that and we will end here.
>Krill eat algae as well, it's a part of a larger ecosystem. If you were to have whales and other filter-feeding marine life join other algae eaters, you'd run out eventually.
There were fewer whales since God created genus of Whale, not all of its subspecies.
>Not even including all the toothed marine animals that'd have to compete to eat kelp and seaweed all their lives.
That's implying that they would have to compete.
>However, the Bible does say that God provides food for His animals, including predators with their prey.
Post fall that is.
>Is that meaning under normal circumstances or does that include artificial means? And would this take the fertility and survival of the hybrid forms into account? Not to mention the complications a drastic difference in size would create.
I mean that God created pre-whale and he developed according to his genus.
>So mammals being called birds and birds being called fish is just fine? Sounds like a confusing and arbitrary world to live in.
Birds are artificial classification in the first place. To classify animals by their habitat is easy.
>Yes, like concepts created by writers (deathless Eden)
<Holy Spirt lied
>) and Roman philosophers (great chain if being)
What.
> that somehow became intertwined with the Word of God.
If you were you would not be evolutionist. http://kolbecenter.org/
add745 No.672002
>>671964
<smear the institution the speaker comes from rather than address any of his points
Points I have heard time and time again from creationists of all forms. It all boils down to how much plasticity of an organism's form you can allow for.
>You are of your father, the devil
<lets wolves in sheeps' clothing lead people astray
I pray for you and your people.
>>671979
>Holy Spirit through Moses. Deny that and we will end here.
I said to be careful as people such as Smith and Ellen White believed they were spoken to and received visions from on high. But we know that not to be the case.
>There were fewer whales since God created genus of Whale, not all of its subspecies.
Toothed and non-toothed, or are are all cetaceans a singular kind?
>That's implying that they would have to compete.
Why bother with consumption at all then?
>Post fall that is
Your only evidence for this is a verse that refers to the spiritual death (separation from God) in humanity.
>I mean that God created pre-whale and he developed according to his genus.
<pre-whale
How "pre" are we talking here?
>Birds are artificial classification in the first place. To classify animals by their habitat is easy.
Where on earth did you get that? Their relation to one another is based upon both anatomical and genetic similarity, as are all other forms of life. Hence why creatures bats and dolphins are known to be mammals.
<<Holy Spirt lied
>implying
Didn't know the Holy Spirit read Paradise Lost
>What
The Great Chain of Being was a supposed divine hierarchy of nature used in the Middle Ages, which itself is derived from Roman philosophers. To a certain extent, people use this when looking at the world today, though it is rather incorrect to view it in a linear fashion.
>If you were you would not be evolutionist
If I were what?
>http://kolbecenter.org/
Already seen his article on the human fossil record. Fails miserably in his assessment, falling into the same pit Jonathan Wells did before him: implying it's a linear sequence and that all must match neatly in a straught line. However, nature does not work in a linear fashion, but rather in a branching pattern like a family tree.
526572 No.672192
>>672002
>I said to be careful as people such as Smith and Ellen White believed they were spoken to and received visions from on high. But we know that not to be the case.
<Equaling Holy Writ to those charlatans.
…And blocked.
add745 No.672195
>>672192
>Holy Writ
<equating your own account to that of the Holy Writings
65f436 No.672216
>>672002
>still not addressing any points
Filtered.
add745 No.672288
>>672216
Is there somewhere I can just read his points? I'd rather not have to sit through all this hooplah the host is going over. Maybe a transcript?
add745 No.673882
>>673859
>>673860
>>673863
<we don't understand the earth or the forms that inhabit it and have an oversimplified and biased view of what evolution must be so it must be false because these animals exist somehow
Like a bad made-for-TV movie, it's great if you wanna switch off your brain.
9cabdb No.673893
>>673882
>for millions of years they all died
No buddy. For most of the animals in there(especially the bombardier beetle) you need ebvery oart to work perfectly and come all at the same time. If it evolved only part then it would die, the only way it can exist is if it were created
add745 No.673903
YouTube embed. Click thumbnail to play.
>>673893
<If it evolved only (one) part
>evolution adds organs
Welp it's clear you don't understand then. Evolution doesn't add systems or organs, rather it tweaks what is already there. More importantly, such chemicals are already present within the average beetle to some extent.
add745 No.673907
>>673893
Also I'm curious to see your theological view for why an animal with such a devastating defense mechanism existed in a world which supposedly had no sin or physical death, er-go no predation so there would be no need for it.
9cabdb No.673976
>>673903
>Evolution doesn't add systems or organs
So how do you get from a bacteria to a human without adding organs? Evolietion teaches every living thing grandpa was a bacteria
9cabdb No.673977
>>673907
>God is bad at planning
9cabdb No.673980
>>673977
>>673907
Also all animals will be vegetarian again in the millennial kingdom. Is the millennial kingdom just a metaphor?
add745 No.673990
>>673976
>grandpa was a bacteria
<implying we're descended from bacteria
Ok it's clear you don't wanna understand nor listen, and that's fine. Also, don't go changing the subject.
>>673977
<God set us up to fail
Bad route to go down, just warning ya.
>>673980
>"And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea." - Revelation 21:1 (KJV)
Seems as though it's a separate creation from the original, meaning different rules apply, as opposed to a restorative effort.
9cabdb No.674040
>>673990
><implying we're descended from bacteria
Well according to evolietion we came from something non-human. And if you back far enough some organs didn't exist like, eyes, heart, brain(evolutionists haven't evolved this one yet though).
>Bad route to go down, just warning ya.
Well he knows the future
>Seems as though it's a separate creation from the original, meaning different rules apply, as opposed to a restorative effort.
Millenial kingdom is on this earth bud. New Earth comes after the millennial and judgement day
cc5998 No.674321
>>670794
That doesn't say he made them at the same time, just that they were both made.
0ad2c7 No.674468
What are some good sources on the Biblical timeline? I got brainwashed into accepting secular science and want to know the true history of the Earth now that I know it can't be billions of years old
d18f09 No.674488
>>670570
>Creation
>ctrl+f flat
>0 matches
Incoming crazy talk..
What if God created reality flat and everything wasn't actually 100% physical? After all, we only perceive physicality after our brains interpret the senses we receive. With God, isn't everything spiritual in nature at its core though?
https://youtu.be/dDBFhM_ViqM?list=PLmiAycMDMUDPGSb40Ry8kKmTWUh4DCfwf&t=47
So God created heaven and earth. We're on earth, right? Can humans make it to heaven on their own? No. But we're taught that we're in outer space so wouldn't that put us floating in heaven technically? Giving us the way to travel there.
Think to the tower of babylon story as a metaphor.. man wanting to ascend to the heavens.. that's what the notion of outer space is meant to mentally instill in us. That man is already there on some level. The video below elaborates
https://youtu.be/N6DR9k3rPZQ?t=572
If you can tolerate heavy crazy talk & have an open mind.. or at least want a neat mental exercise and want to hear how the theory of a flat earth would actually work.. I recommend starting here:
https://youtu.be/zssD9UILTfw?list=PLmiAycMDMUDPGSb40Ry8kKmTWUh4DCfwf&t=1043
526572 No.674491
>>674488
>flat earth
And blocked
add745 No.674545
>>674321
Could've said "male then female He created them" but it doesn't. It implies they were made at the same time.
b61eb7 No.674549
>>674545
Didn't he make woman from the rib of man? How could he make them at the same time?
5044ed No.674551
>>674549
The word translated as "rib" literally just means "side", and is in the context of Adam falling into a visionary trance.
So one possible interpretation is that Adam saw a vision of God cutting him in half, making a woman from one of his sides, and when he woke up God brought Eve (who existed before his vision) to him to be his companion.
add745 No.674554
>>674549
Different accounts of the same event. What exactly it'd mean for a literal interpretation, I wouldn't know.
>>674551
Reminds me of the old Greek idea of a soulmate.
5044ed No.674570
>>674554
>Reminds me of the old Greek idea of a soulmate.
Probably a case of borrowed anthropology on the part of the Greeks.
d99fc9 No.677918
Please watch this 8 minute video:
12-Year-Old Girl Disproves Evolution
https://youtu.be/EB0mN0ZaN5U
add745 No.677938
>>677918
<Hovind
Immediately dropped.
6c074c No.677940
>>677938
The atheist fears Kent Hovind
dbb92c No.678025
can someone make a meme like this where it's the pope looking at a tomato plant and thinks "my cousin"
dbb92c No.678026
>>678025
>thinks "my cousin"
of course with the smiley face :)
9c52fc No.678029
>>674488
My God, that 2nd pic, no understanding of weather.
The equator isn't the hottest spot, for reasons of terrain, rain, etc. But- even that, it's average heat. The equator still has seasons, they're just very mild because, in rotation, the equator is never that far from the hottest point.
Does that s#$t really fool people? Can they not conceptualize the tilt as the Earth makes it's full revolution around the sun (different spots are tilted based on season, equator is just closest on average) and why that creates the seasons? If the 2nd image of untilted Earth were true, life would be almost impossible on the equator (too hot)
e5b9b4 No.678064
>>674545
That's because the KJV is written in an older form of English. Modern English Bibles do say
> So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.
Genesis 1:27 ESV
This is why people who speak modern English should read modern English Bibles.
dbb92c No.678070
YouTube embed. Click thumbnail to play.
>>678064
>Extra Satanic Version
ec8bd1 No.678091
I wish the "Catholic Church supports human evolution" meme would die or at least be represented in a less misleading way. While the Church doesn't deny the possibility of the human body to alter in response to the environment and to time, Humani Generis very vehemently denies that we came from anything else other than the two individuals known as Adam and Eve who personally sinned, so it basically rules out common descent applied to humans.
add745 No.678095
>>678064
Still says the same thing as the original. Implies the same time (and), not a sequence (then).
>>678091
<vehemently denies that we came from anything else other than the two individuals known as Adam and Eve who personally sinned
How far back does that Adam and Eve go, and by extent what would be considered kin to man?
ec8bd1 No.678097
>>678095
>How far back does that Adam and Eve go, and by extent what would be considered kin to man?
The church has never established anything in this respect, to my knowledge. So maybe Adam and Eve could have been early hominids. But I think that it completely rules out the idea that we have common ancestors with apes, because otherwise we have to admit either that humans produced soulless offspring or that some or all modern apes actually have souls and we have been treating them horribly wrong all this time.
add745 No.678102
>>678097
>Adam and Eve could have been early hominids
<completely rules out the idea that we have common ancestors with apes
Now ain't that the conundrum of the century, because depending on how far back you go, it gets harder to discern man from ape.
http://bio.sunyorange.edu/updated2/comparative_anatomy/anat_3/p_hominids.htm
>humans produced soulless offspring
But would they be human at that point? And I mean in the philosophical sense, not the taxonomic.
>and we have been treating them horribly wrong all this time
Wouldn't be the first time we theologically winnie the pooh'd up that badly. Just look at the lengths some people went to to justify slavery biblically.
161cc4 No.678104
>>678064
>That's because the KJV is written in an older form of English.
First off it says the same thing there. Secondly, the KJV is in modern English. What you're speaking is contemporary English, which is just a slightly less precise form. And third, the ESV removes entire verses from the Bible, such as Acts 8:37 and Matthew 18:11. It's a terrible translation and those verses are missing.
>>678102
>the fossilposter
Why are you still here when I already got you to admit that not 100% of fossils can be accurately identified? I thought we went over this.
add745 No.678107
>>678104
This is a different matter than a young-earther's, and can be taken on its own merits. I'd rather see what he says.
a8ff58 No.678133
>>678104
Both of those verses are still in the ESV, just as a footnote.
a8ff58 No.678134
>>678095
You said that if it said
> male and female he created them
Instead of
> male and female created he them
It would imply they were at the same time.
add745 No.678135
>>678134
No, I clearly said "male then female He created them." You put the emphasis on the wrong wording.
d99fc9 No.678136
>>678064
Please refrain from absolute heresy. The King James was the product of a collaboration between 54 of Europe's best scholars. (If memory serves me right all: these details) They split up into 7 groups, and over a period of 7 years, translated and proofread each line, and passed it to the next group for approval, to the next group, etc. We don't know too much about the scholars themselves, but we do know some:
-Lancelot Andrews spoke 21 languages fluently, 5 being dead.
-Another claimed to have read EVERY word of Greek penned down in the known world.
-And the other 52 were comprised of Hebrew scholars, Greek scholars, English scholars, etc and not all are mutually exclusive.(i.e. many were multilingual)
Not to mention the gunpowder plot with Guy Fawkes in which (((someone))) tried to kill them all (and naturally it was blamed on catholics). Considering all that, you have modern translations like Scolfield, 1 man comissioned by 10 kikes, or the ESV, produced by a mom-and-pop publisher who thought using the Septuagint was a good idea.
>NOTE: During the time of (((St. Augustine of Hippo))) is when the Septuagint appeared. Don't believe my ((()))? Look up "Augustine and the Jews" by Paula Frederickson of Yale. He doomed the church at Rome.
161cc4 No.678143
>>678137
>Acts 8:37
>the only time in the entire Bible
It's still implicitly found in Acts 2:41-42. Only those that gladly received the word were baptized. The real travesty is the fact that removing Acts 8:37 implies that Philip asked nothing of the eunuch, and simply baptized him without saying anything.
>>678133
>Both of those verses are still in the ESV, just as a footnote.
Why are they only a footnote? And why does the ESV change "only begotten Son" to "only God" in John 1:18.
KJV: No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.
ESV: No one has ever seen God; the only God, who is at the Father’s side, he has made him known.
9cbef1 No.678162
>>670594
>evolution as a tool to create human
Then what was the garden of eden?
526572 No.678176
>>678137
>He does not know that guys who wrote KJV baptised babies anyway
They believed that Sacrament of Baptism is actually Sacrament too.
a8ff58 No.678177
>>678136
I don't deny that the KJV is an excellent translation, but for your average modern reader, they need to translate it from the language it uses to modern english (for example we don't use thee and thou anymore, and we also use different sentence structures in some cases). The archaic language of the KJV has caused some misreadings of things as well.
d99fc9 No.678213
>>678143
>>678176
Maybe I need to scrub the bottom half of thay photo. Don't know the book, the author, nothing. Sourced from Google along with 5 other pics illustrating dissimiliarites between versions.
>>678177
Can I interest you in these:
>"Why the King James - Dr. Kent Hovind"
https://youtu.be/L5HY22JBzDU
>NWO Bible Versions - Pastor Steven Anderson
https://youtu.be/kFtI_mVOXbQ
>Bible Translations - Sermon - Pastor Anderson
https://youtu.be/HeK3-XTW1Pc
52aae9 No.678214
>>678213
>Steven Anderson
>Kent Hovind
4f6cf7 No.678453
>>678143
How do you know the ESV is wrong and not the KJV?
7b12fb No.678648
>>678453
john 7:8-10 ESV https://archive.fo/gajqw https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+7&version=ESV
>You go up to the feast. I am not[c] going up to this feast, for my time has not yet fully come.”
>After saying this, he remained in Galilee.
>But after his brothers had gone up to the feast, then he also went up, not publicly but in private.
<not going to feast
<goes to feast anyways in deception and lies
The ESV cannot be true as it would make God a liar if it were true. But God can't lie titus 1:2, so the translators are liars instead and the whole version is bad fruit not of God see matthew 7:15-20 and matthew 12:33 amongst 2 peter 1:20-21, revelation 19:10, 1 peter 1:25, 2 timothy 3:16, and 1 thesselonians 1. The KJV doesn't have this problem because he doesn't yet go up to the feast for His time has not yet fully come in that context. The "time fully come" part being his death on the cross.
526572 No.678876
>>678648
>The ESV cannot be true as it would make God a liar if it were true.
Bullshit.
First of all, yet is in footnote (which is integral part of Bible, as proven by fact that original KJV treat is as such).
Second of all even without yet anyone with two braincells understand it as such:
I go not with you, nor to be there at the first day, nor in that public manner as you desire. But when the feast was half over, about the fourth day, Jesus went thither in a private manner, yet so that when he arrived, he spoke publicly in the temple.
Fact is that KJV onlyism does not hold to formal logic by the sheer fact that it judges another version according to their disagreement with KJV, and it goes even as far as some KJVIdiots do not see that when KJV and any other version disagree it is 100% possible that they both can be wrong.
KJVonlysm should be banable offence.
6b8a15 No.678938
How do people who interpret Genesis literally deal with the fact that people in Genesis, even after the fall, are stated to have lived for hundreds of years while people today rarely make it past 80?
6b8a15 No.678942
>>678876
I'm not convinced that there's anyone who actually believes that the KJV is the only legitimate version of the Bible, period. I think it's just a meme and people like Pastor Steve are just Jewish (((((Deep State))))) plants put in their positions to make Christians look like stupid, violent oafs.
526572 No.678948
f3ed3f No.678949
>>678938
That is because after the fall humanity slowly degenerated from a state of perfection to the fallen state we are in now. We didn't just go from immortal to having an 80 year lifespan overnight, it took time for the corruption of sin to really weigh down our biology.
6b8a15 No.678953
>>678949
What archaeological evidence is there that humans lived longer six to ten thousand years ago than we do now?
f3ed3f No.678956
>>678953
>Needing (((archaeological evidence)))
>Presuming (archaeological evidence))) trumps what the Bible, the infallible word of God, says
Never going to make it to Heaven with unbelief like that
add745 No.678973
>>678948
>>678949
<literalists trying to fit human biology/development into their narrative
And I assume you two think we started out as Homo Sapiens too, yes?
6b8a15 No.678977
>>678956
Never going to win converts by acting like a condescending brainlet.
f3ed3f No.678978
>>678977
>Casting pearls before swine
No thanks.
add745 No.678979
>>678956
I thank the Lord every day that people like you are on the decline. I just pray you don't drag all of Christianity down with you.
6b8a15 No.678982
>>678978
>not even trying to win converts to Christ's church
No thanks.
f3ed3f No.678983
>>678979
Enjoy your LGBT affirming modernist church where you all gather once a week to hear the gospel of social justice and how Jesus was alright but had some problematic views on gender. I'll continue living by the unchanged word of God
add745 No.678986
>>678983
<anyone who disagrees with me is every modernist bogeyman I read about on the Laotian parchment plastering board
f3ed3f No.678987
>>678986
You're the one rejecting parts of the Bible as fiction because you're more afraid of being labelled by modern society rather than following Gods word. It's hardly a boogieman when you're saying that you're ashamed of true Christian believers because you treat your faith like a fashion accessory
add745 No.678991
>>678987
So I assume the parables Jesus taught actually happened?
b0a2e3 No.679051
>>678991
You mind showing me where it says the creation story is a parable?
161cc4 No.679055
>>679051
Good question. Especially considering Jesus specifically spoke of Abel and referenced the creation in Mark 10:6.
add745 No.679066
>>679055
<using a chart from a biased source
Would expect no less
7671c2 No.679336
>>670905
imagine doing it trillions of times per second for 4 billion years though.
161cc4 No.679359
>>679066
The secular source is biased actually.
d99fc9 No.679365
Really jogs the noggin @ some "Bible believers"
161cc4 No.679366
>>679336
Imagine that every time you get a rare success it immediately gets undone by the next failure and that you are required to have an incomprehensibly long chain of unbroken successes each part of which would undo the entire process if it turns out wrong. There are no "checkpoints" here, one death, one minor mistake and then you're back to square one. IN that case, why would the first instance of an incredibly improbable situation end up successfully on the first occurrence? There isn't any reason it would end successfully, if it's all random chance. More often than not, you wouldn't get every thing exactly right, you would get less than that and still end up with nothing.
And we could do the same reasoning again recurrently at every level, for instance an easy example would be this. Abiogenesis proposes that life began from non-life by chance. Let's just assume it's possible, even though the same argument applies to that mere possibility. There's no apparent reason that this single lifeform would survive afterward, if it is all random chance. So as incredibly unlikely an event that it would be, it is less likely still for it to end up reproducing itself, meaning there must have been many failed original lives. But if the rate of original life forms emerging was too low, you have to multiply out that unlikelihood into the model and it quickly becomes impossible for such a thing to ever happen anywhere in the proposed maximum time, and if it was a high rate of life forms emerging, why do we never find any evidence of new lifeforms emerging even of a single instance at any time, why is it that it is so incredibly unlikely that we cannot even induce it to happen a single time in an ideal laboratory setting. And if you want to invoke aliens at this point, that doesn't even add one order of magnitude of time, while adding the requirement that it be able to survive on a meteor or whatever for untold amounts of time before just so happening to land here. But hey you know what, people are capable of a lot of faith, they just often put it in the wrong direction because of a poor grasp of statistics.
6b8a15 No.679368
>>679365
>6000 years ago
>we have archaeological evidence of modern humans as far back as 300,000 years ago
>the Tower of Jericho is 12,000 years old
d99fc9 No.679375
>>679368
>ohwowreally.jpg
Please, explain to me right now how you think we determine the age of anything, dr. Sheckleberg.
d99fc9 No.679378
You know what, reading your posts in this thread and seeing the unbelievable about of hubris you possess is sad. You are wrong, about everything. You clearly haven't put in the time to be an objective researcher about this, yet are willing to condescend and spout Walls of Text off about it.
8 minutes. Start here. And if you can't spare 8 minutes, don't larp as someone who is invested in the topic.
https://youtu.be/EB0mN0ZaN5U
6b8a15 No.679379
>>679375
It's based on the natural decay of certain isotopes found in the material. Some have incredibly long half lives, so if we find a certain amount of it in a material, we can determine with a fair amount of accuracy the age of the material. If you'd been paying attention in your tenth grade chemistry class, you'd know this. Unless of course, you're underage b&.
d99fc9 No.679382
>>679379
Wrong. See what I mean? The hubris.
Now take 8 minutes to watch that video, or just leave.
6b8a15 No.679383
>>679376
Some of those, like the one in the top left, have been proven to be bs. And Carbon-14 dating isn't used for things that are truly old. Uranium-lead dating, samarium-neodymium dating, potassium-argon dating, rubidium-strontium dating, and uranium-thorium dating are all much better methods for dating ancient object than Carbon-14 because they have significantly longer half lives, ranging from the tens of thousands of years to the hundreds of millions and even billions of years. C-14 is a meme.
d99fc9 No.679384
>>679383
Leave. Seriously. If you can't watch an 8 minute video calling your entire schtick into question, you are only here to sew discord and cast doubt on God's Word. You've lost touch with the idea of objectivity. Do not larp as an academic or a scientist, regurgitating paragraphs of word salad- with a sprinkle of "the Bible story is wrong".
d99fc9 No.679386
>>679383
You are a meme. You are not educating me.
b676b7 No.679387
>>679383
It's all complete garbage because it's entirely predicated on knowing what proportion of the material was originally in the sample at the date of its creation. It's guess work
6b8a15 No.679388
>>679384
If you're just going to stick your fingers in your ears and scream "la la la la la I can't hear you!" at the top of your lungs any time information is presented that contradicts your unprovable claim, then what are you even doing in this thread?
d99fc9 No.679389
>>679387
It's very concerning running into people like this.
d99fc9 No.679390
>>679388
Nice pilpul, that's exactly what you're doing. You haven't proved us wrong, not once. If you're afraid or unwilling to watch an 8 minute video that disproves you in the first 5 seconds, you are (((subversive))) and need to leave or be marked.
6b8a15 No.679391
>>679387
The absolute state of public, government-funded education. Seriously, you don't appear to understand even the basics of what evolution is, much less the mountains of work and research that have gone into filling in all the gaps.
This is why academia doesn't take YEC seriously. It's like arguing economics with a Communist.
d99fc9 No.679393
>>679391
Listen, kike, I am not an idiot and neither is any other YEC. If you won't watch this video, it's 8 minutes, you are a coward.
https://youtu.be/EB0mN0ZaN5U
6b8a15 No.679395
>>679393
>The layers are from the flood of Noah
…
Are you even trying? Burden of proof is very basic concept that you people don't seem to grasp one bit. You can't just say things. You're doing the same thing this guy says evolutionary scientists do. And that's within the first minute. This does not bode well.
d99fc9 No.679396
b676b7 No.679397
>>679391
I have a Masters in Medical Science, I'm more than likely better educated than you.
add745 No.679400
>>679397
>Masters in Medical Science makes me an authority on dating methods
Just as bad as a dentist acting like he's an authority on evolutionary biology.
6b8a15 No.679401
>>679397
That only qualifies you to talk about medical science, medical technology, and modern human biology. A medical science degree doesn't qualify you to talk about non-human biology, evolution, geology, cosmology, or even theology any more than a Sociology degree would qualify someone to talk about economics.
Congrats, though. That must have been Hell with government loans and tuition prices as they are right now. You've got respect from me there.
d99fc9 No.679402
>>679400
>>679401
Well it certainly demonstrates that he went to college for at least 6 years, with a full curriculum. You tend to touch on all subjects at some point, not to mention having to demonstrate reading comprehension and reasoning at a university level. The bottom line is: he's correct about the topic.
What are your qualifications?
add745 No.679404
>>679402
>I have as much expertise in general biology as the average joe, so you should take me seriously over anyone else
I give him this, at least he actually put in the time and effort to study, unlike clowns such as Hovind.
d99fc9 No.679407
>>679404
You're a clown. It's obvious you've either been too intimidated to actually listen to Hovind, or spent the entire time with blinders on, looking for holes in his presentation. You can't even answer this:
Lyell was the primary guy responsible for inventing what today is known as the ‘geologic column’. How many of you have ever heard of the geologic column before? They divided the earth up into layers and gave them names, you know. Cenozoic, Mesozoic, Paleozoic, Archeozoic, all that kind of stuff. Maybe you saw the movie Jurassic Park, named after the Jurassic layer, ok. Each layer of rock was given a name, and an age, and an index fossil. Now keep in mind all this was done in 1830 before there ever was Carbon dating; Potassium-Argon dating; Rubidium-Strontium dating; Lead 208; Lead 206; Uranium-235; Uranium-238; none of those had even been thought of. So they didn't determine these great ages by any radiometric decay method. They just picked the numbers out of the clear blue sky.
add745 No.679420
YouTube embed. Click thumbnail to play.
>>679407
>implying I'm scared of a comedic huxter
<oh woah guys we didn't have precise dating methods back then, guess it's all bunk
There were clues that something wasn't right with a young earth interpretation. Lyell merely pioneered the idea, and other lines of evidence support it.
Of course you're going to act as though anyone who came to those conclusions is a Godless heathen, so I wonder why you bother.
9ff2cb No.679423
>>679395
>he doesn't know what hydrologic sorting is
00cb39 No.679428
>>674488
For the love of Christ… FEC was a terrible idea…
add745 No.679435
>>679428
Not a very optimal theological position. At all
d99fc9 No.679443
>>679420
You speak just like the kikes who troll Hovind's channel. It's no secret that one truth leads to another, and Hovind's path leads to pic related, which terrifies you kikes. You cannot articulate a response to what I posted, so now you're just gonna fluff and slide this thread until your Hasbara shift is over.
b676b7 No.679444
>>679435
>Implying either of those are wrong
d99fc9 No.679445
>>679435
1. Suprise. St. Augustine of Hippo, the kikes' favorite false saint. Please leave forever.
2. Today's leading astrophysicists advocate for geocentrism. Watch The Principle (Krauss, Okaku, 10 others)
add745 No.679535
>>679443
>>679445
<keeps calling me a Jew
I see you read /pol/'s guide to debates.
d99fc9 No.679591
>>679535
At this point, it is unfathomable to me how or why someone who thinks the Old Testament is fictional would have the confidence to believe the rest of it. You will smugly lean on science falsey so called, while claiming to believe in the supernatural elements of Jesus' ministry and the revelation to come. I think we both know how dark and convoluted a gospel yoy will weave if I asked you for a synopsis. Some things to consider about Your gospel:
>death brought man into the world.
1 Corinthians 15
For since by man came by death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead.
Romans 5:12
Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:
>6 days =/= millions
Exodus 20:11
For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.
>every other contradiction
Pic related.
If you arent a kike, i apologize, but unfortunately: there's a good chance I'm correct. You seem to not understand -objectivity-, which is alarming considering the amount of conviction with which you hold your beliefs. To larp so hard against YEC and never have actually LISTENED to Hovind's argument is disingenuous to SCIENCE and rational discussion at an intellectual level. I suggest you consider what I've said instead of cracking your knuckles and thinking of a witty comeback.
Proverbs 9:9
Give instruction to a wise man, and he will be yet wiser: teach a just man, and he will increase in learning.
526572 No.679633
>>679445
>Calling Augustine, one of few people recognised for thier sanctity by eucmenical council, false saint
>Advocating The Principle, made by Traditional Catholics for Traditional Catholics
d99fc9 No.679658
>>679633
>defend Augustine, know nothing about him, speak condescendingly.
Augustine was in line to marry a 9 year old and reversed 300 years of anti-judaism doctrine, eventually leading to the jewish subversion of the vatican.
>Implying that the scientific testimonials from the world's leading astrophysicists are somehow nullified by the denomination of the director. Implying heliocentrism is explicity a non-catholic doctrine.
>larping like you're anything but a contrarian
526572 No.679676
>>679658
<attacking Augustine, know nothing about him, speak condescendingly.
>Augustine was in line to marry a 9 year old
12 years old, in accordance to Roman Law. He never did anyway.
>and reversed 300 years of anti-judaism doctrine, eventually leading to the jewish subversion of the vatican.
Tractatus adversus Judaeos is in perfect accordance with Catholic doctrine which is always the same.
>Implying that the scientific testimonials from the world's leading astrophysicists are somehow nullified by the denomination of the director. Implying heliocentrism is explicity a non-catholic doctrine.
It's just ironic and petty that you want fruits without labour and workers.
>larping like you're anything but a contrarian
Thou shalt not bear false witness
We further declare that we hold fast to the decrees of the four Councils, and in every way follow the holy Fathers (…) Augustine (…) and their writings on the true faith. (Session 1 – Extracts from the Acts: Emperor Justinian’s Letter Read Before the Fathers)
If anyone is larper here it's you, who in OrthoProt fashion hate great saint because his existence alone is both good scapegoat for you, and he points out errors in your theology.
add745 No.679679
>>679676
This guy's not gonna listen, he's prrtty much made up his mind that anyone who thinks contrary to him is against God Himself.
d99fc9 No.679742
>>679676
>Tractatus adversus Judaeos is in perfect accordance with Catholic doctrine which is always the same.
Oh, that's interesting. 1 John 2:23, 2 John 1:9-11, Titus 1:10-14, Titus 3:10, Romans 2:28-29, Philippians 3:3
Did you 2 wanna oust yourselves as kikes any more? Is it possible? As for the rest of your post: not worth reading after this heresy. You will split hell wide open for sewing discord among bretheren and casting doubt on God's Word. Let's recap here: you each fill this thread up with posts calling Genesis a lie. You are vipers and will burn.
d99fc9 No.679744
https://www.trueorthodoxy.org/heretics_roman_catholics_augustine.shtml
Proverbs 26:12 King James Version (KJV)
12 Seest thou a man wise in his own conceit? there is more hope of a fool than of him.
Proverbs 9:9 King James Version (KJV)
9 Give instruction to a wise man, and he will be yet wiser: teach a just man, and he will increase in learning.
526572 No.679758
>>679742
Your own picture uses Augustine, you moron.
>Spam of bible verses
And?
>Did you 2 wanna oust yourselves as kikes any more? Is it possible? As for the rest of your post: not worth reading after this heresy. You will split hell wide open for sewing discord among bretheren and casting doubt on God's Word. Let's recap here: you each fill this thread up with posts calling Genesis a lie. You are vipers and will burn.
You shall not bear false witness.
I was in this thread long before you. I was one of first to defend truth of Genesis >>670600
Also being called heretic by someone who denies Ecumenical Council oh how wonderful.
Also >>679744
>Using KJV against Augustine
>Same KJV which calls him Saint https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Bible_(King_James)/Preface
c093eb No.679789
>>679742
Okay fellas, let's remember rule 2.
d99fc9 No.679869
>>679789
My bad, but
>>679758
There's no difference to me between your defense of the (((catholic church))) and it's false, damnable gospel than being a member of judaism outrighf. Both religion:
-Worship idols.
-Worship the commandments of men.
-Claim that souls can reach heaven WITHOUT believing on Jesus Christ.
-Have a history of violence and loving violence.
-Have a history of pedophilia.
-Are absent of the Holy Spirit.
And as for that "spam of Bible verses" to which you responded "so what?", it directly disproves your pro-judaism comment, regardless of what some long-robe wearing reprobates say.
============================
https://archive.4plebs.org/pol/thread/175692215/
St. Augustine reversed 300 years worth of antisemitic doctrine within the Catholic church.
https://yalebooks.yale.edu/book/9780300166286/augustine-and-jews
>She shows how Augustine’s struggle to read the Bible led him to a new theological vision, one that countered the anti-Judaism not only of his Manichaean opponents but also of his own church. The Christian Empire, Augustine held, was right to ban paganism and to coerce heretics. But the source of ancient Jewish scripture and current Jewish practice, he argued, was the very same as that of the New Testament and of the church—namely, God himself. Accordingly, he urged, Jews were to be left alone.
From Christianity Today:
>As an 18-year-old student at Carthage, Augustine reveled in promiscuity. Sex had become an obsession for him. “From a perverted act of will,” he wrote, “desire had grown, and when desire is given satisfaction, habit is forged; and when habit passes unresisted, a compulsive urge sets in.” After a year of promiscuity in that university city, Augustine settled down with a mistress. ((((Although he never revealed her name, he remained with her for more than a decade. …))))
300 years later, after Jews had been integrated with a previously SEGREGATED society, Islam was created in order to retake the holy land.
https://youtu.be/isskmxLG28k
526572 No.679904
>>679869
>-Worship idols.
http://www.newadvent.org/summa/3094.htm
>-Worship the commandments of men.
"You shall teach all nations"
>-Claim that souls can reach heaven WITHOUT believing on Jesus Christ.
Extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
>-Have a history of violence and loving violence.
Like all men, Christ included.
>-Have a history of pedophilia.
Lowest among Christian denominations
>-Are absent of the Holy Spirit.
With countless miracles, yeah right.
>And as for that "spam of Bible verses" to which you responded "so what?", it directly disproves your pro-judaism comment, regardless of what some long-robe wearing reprobates say.
How was my comment pro-judaism you utter liar.
>Unironically being a /pol/ack
>Useing winnie the pooh google, with winnie the pooh bbc to prove the point, instead of reading actual quotes in actual context
>Paula Fredriksen
>Quoting a Jew
>Bringing up that Augustine pre-conversion was adulterers.
>Judging him post-conversion by this, like idiots who are anti-Pauline
>buying into "Church created Islam meme"
And blocked by utter idiocity.
e3f40d No.679920
>>670570
>No, every Christian, both evolutionist and creationist, believes that God made everything
what I've been saying aaall along …
>unless you dont believe in that…wait, what are you doing here?
BOOMshakalakalaka!!
Good idea for a thread, too, OP.
>>670594
really_kid.jpg
>>670749
respect
d99fc9 No.679928
>>670749
>>679920
Romans 5:12 King James Version (KJV)
Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:
1 Corinthians 15:21
For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead.
d99fc9 No.679930
Exodus 20:11
For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.
3a28e2 No.679942
>>679930
This. Six day creation is literally part of the ten commandments.
1a90d5 No.679954
>>679930
Not arguing in favor of evolution, but posting spurious correlations does little to help your argument. For reference the Hart-Celler population replacement act was passed in 1965, and that actually fits the "turning points" of most of your graphs more closely than 1963 does (not to mention the many other confounding things that happened around that time, i.e. civil rights movements, the start of the continual march of liberalism in every facet of society, etc.). That's a much better explanation of those phenomena than the teaching of devilution encouraging crime and lowering SAT scores.
add745 No.679984
>>679979
So I'm assuming you think the communists anf the Jews are pretty much synonymous, considering they seem to play the same role in your view. Rockwell would be proud, bud
161cc4 No.680021
>>679904
<-Have a history of violence and loving violence.
>Like all men, Christ included.
Wrong.
Psalm 11:5
The LORD trieth the righteous: but the wicked and him that loveth violence his soul hateth.
e3f40d No.680226
>>679928
I suppose you think it's pretty obvious what brilliance your post is in answering mine. But, sorry to disappoint you, I really am not sure what you're replying to.
e3f40d No.680227
>>679869
>>678029
>My God, that 2nd pic, no understanding of weather.
B-b-but it's H-I-L-A-R-I-O-U-S!! It's an attempt to convince about flat earth with science so obviously stupid, the entire movement is exposed for silliness.
Nah, mang, that pic HAS to be a fake, a mockery. No one is going to fall for that, surely?!
e3f40d No.680228
>>680227
whoops, sorry, THIS link >>679869 is meant to be THIS link >>674488
add745 No.680342
>>679995
>>679996
>>679998
Are you some kind of false-flagger? This is just sad, really it is. Any opposition must only be the bogeyman some lunatic whispered about in your ear? I suppose they're the lizards too?
d99fc9 No.680588
>>680342
Not suspicious at all that (((you))) had a mod delete these posts.
add745 No.680596
YouTube embed. Click thumbnail to play.
Found this, I'm sure those who have an appreciation for the world of the immensely small will like it. Certainly showcases art within nature quite well
3e38b8 No.680611
>>680588
Not suspicious, your triple post wreaked of halfchan /pol/ and their famous infographs