[ / / / / / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / random / erp / fast / hydrus / kind / lewd / mai / pdfs / tech ]

/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
Name
Email
Subject
Comment *
File
Password (Randomized for file and post deletion; you may also set your own.)
Archive
* = required field[▶ Show post options & limits]
Confused? See the FAQ.
Flag
Embed
(replaces files and can be used instead)
Voice recorder Show voice recorder

(the Stop button will be clickable 5 seconds after you press Record)
Options

Allowed file types:jpg, jpeg, gif, png, webm, mp4, pdf, pdf
Max filesize is 16 MB.
Max image dimensions are 15000 x 15000.
You may upload 5 per post.


| Rules | Log | Tor | Wiki | Bunker |

File: 31685efc7c28ba0⋯.jpg (12.88 KB, 300x300, 1:1, charles-darwin-9266433-1-4….jpg)

3d6568  No.787095[Last 50 Posts]

Greetings, brothers, and sisters in Christ. I was wondering if we could have a general thread for debunking evolution. I'm still not completely sold on it just yet.

____________________________
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

efc1c9  No.787126

>>787095

Well humans adapting and natural selection in itself isn’t against teaching in the Bible. However, saying that we used to be monkeys or fish is.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

eb5db4  No.787128

>>787095

What is believed or thought of without it? I am unsure, I myself am agnostic on evolution, but I also can't be a creationist as knowing the cosmology of their world (for instance the sky being basically a metal sheet spread out over the face of a flat earth that has literal "foundations") is inaccurate, and is in the very same story as the one creationist love much. I don't equate the big bang to Gen 1:1 either as it's stupid to do so, but as this thread is for debunking, I'd like to see alternate theories posited also.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

104839  No.787132

>>787095

Go watch Jay Dyer's series on this on YouTube, I would just be reiterating his points.

Evolution as a grand narrative relies on subjective interpretation of fossils and whatnot. The evangelizing materialist fedoras would like us to believe its rocksolid when its not.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

65daa8  No.787139

File: f08d4a7e34d1d52⋯.png (209.79 KB, 640x354, 320:177, 2019_02_08_054538.png)

>>787135

*tips fedora*

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

104839  No.787140

File: 971f740c4ea9b90⋯.jpg (17.17 KB, 404x303, 4:3, wat-if-i-told-you-wat.jpg)

>>787135

Just like everything exploded out of nothing? Ok sure fedora. You're needed on /pol/, not here.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

5f9e02  No.787153

>>787095

Evolution is based on a model of the universe that claims that all things that exist are mutable, progressive, and prefectible, and that the present is only possible through a long chain of antedent survivors that somehow become complex enough on their own that they were able build consciousness on their own, without intervention outside this process. This model does not account for the reality of emergence, which are factors of complexity that arise out of the void during it's development (sum is greater than parts), or the fact that we have never witnessed, even a single time, a single strand of DNA of one animal become a single strand of DNA of another. DNA can only work with what it inherited. DNA cannot create new proteins that it has no prior code for. These are just a few criticisms of evolution that I've seen.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

1cce44  No.787155

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

74d81d  No.787158

File: 2ca1de6dcfd89f2⋯.jpg (344.75 KB, 842x2000, 421:1000, trunks_glare.jpg)

I think it's best to remember that science is a methodology, not an ideology. You'll have ledditors that say they believe in "science" as if they took that as their belief system, but can't realize that science is not a belief system. They believe in the evolutionary history, and take the paradigm of methodological naturalism (MN) as their God.

I have a textbook that I got for around ~$50 titled "Faith, Reason, and Earth History (3rd Edition)" and it goes over the 5 points that enabled the successful expansion of the sciences, and a 6th tacked onto it.

"1. Living things and physical phenomena are like machines in the sense that they are mechanisms that can be studied and understood.

2. On a day-to-day basis, natural processes are not dependent on the capricious whims of the spirits or the operation of magic.

3. the processes of nature follow predictable laws. By experimentation and observation, we can learn what these laws are.

4. Scientific hypotheses must be testable using only criteria accessible to our five sense.

5. Change has occurred in organisms and in the physical universe - neither are static. New species of animals and plants have arisen, and geological structures change with time.

6. Science does not consider the possibility of any intervention in the history or functioning of the universe by any higher power (naturalism)"

The first is an intrinsic assumption that is crucial for science, the second and third build off the first, and the four is an operational assumption. The fifth is an empirical observation, and the recognition of this concept was an important insight that opened up large vistas for research.

The sixth, however, does not follow based on the predecessors. For example, "A car operates according to natural laws, and it can be interesting to study the chemical and physical processes that make it travel down the road. It is not necessary to assume a naturalistic origin for the car in order to successfully understand its operation. This is also true in the study of life and its origins."

An interventionist scientist who follows these five concepts can and will work and think like a naturalistic scientist with a sole exception: he/she does not rule out that an intelligent God has, on rare occasions, intervened in biological or geological history, particularly in connection with the origin of life forms. Within this interventionist paradigm, the experimental study of ongoing processes remains unchanged and their differences coming from the acceptance of the creation of main groups of organisms and change within those created groups through time.

I highly recommend the book by the way.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

2610d0  No.787169

File: 163960b9ef6ed26⋯.jpg (46.93 KB, 418x630, 209:315, 9781940363806_p0_v2_s1200x….jpg)

>>787095

read pic related OP

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

1ddfec  No.787223

Waste of time tbh. Keep to what your catechesis taught you. Agreeing or disagreeing with scientists is not a matter of salvation, keeping to the faith you have been transmitted is.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

17a2d4  No.787224

>>787213

I agree with you, but now this thread is going to turn into a flame war. A fair warning, I’ve seen rule 2 ignored by the mods when words like “filth” have been directed at me for arguing in favor of a more literal interpretation of Genesis.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

127bf2  No.787230

Epigenetics and Primate/human """""convergent evolution"""""

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

fe8f95  No.787251

>>787132

Vox Day has a few posts and videos on this topic as well. Evolution by natural selection literally doesn't exist.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

bbedbc  No.787252

YouTube embed. Click thumbnail to play.

>>787095

Kent Hovind made a career of debunking evolution and proving why it's the worst "theory" out there, you should watch some of his stuff, he has a Youtube channel in which he takes questions and gives explanations.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

1cdda1  No.787253

I think evolution is probably a real thing. I don't see how it disproves God or Scripture at all. That said, I dislike how some "pro-evolution" Christians will fight tooth and nail to defend the concept like it's a holy dogma or something. It isn't. It's just one possible explanation for how God's Word shaped the world we live in today.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

17a2d4  No.787258

>>787252

Avoid Hovind, he’s a meme.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

a75e9a  No.787261

>>787126

It is pretty much against the Bible. This requires that God created all life out of suffering and death, cancer, birth defects, sexually transmitted diseases and all sorts of other disgustingness, which we were told entered into the world through sin. This means that God retroactively used the sin of man that happened billions of years afterwards in order to create all of his creation. If man didn't sin, God would have never created things this way, since it requires death and disease which are all a subject of death.

There is a perfect parallel between Jesus' first miracle, which is turning water into wine, and the creation in Genesis. 6 jars of water for the 6 days of creation, spirit hovering over the water, God creating something that seems old (wine seems aged) but is new.

If Jesus were to say, Tree appear, a Tree would appear. Would you then cut down this tree and look at its rings and say AHA! It wasn't created, Jesus clearly planted this tree and waited for 125 years! Clearly not. Jesus created fish out of nowhere, and so on. God creates ex-nihilo.

Also evolution requires to to believe that Adam's parents were literal animals, and that Adam and Eve's children had sex with animals. Did Adam honor his mother and father? Or did he treat them like pets. Did he have Dominion over his mother, since she was just an animal? None of it makes sense.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

17a2d4  No.787269

>>787260

He uses an awful lot of questionable evidence, like the Acamboro figures.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

74d81d  No.787270

I'd also like to point out a great resource on literal creationism.

http://kabane52.tumblr.com

inb4 >tumblr

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

169694  No.787272

>>787095

Tell me this, does God just decide he wants whales to breath air and not water just for willy nillies? Or has God created a system wherein the ancestors of whales breathed air and they still do to this day?

I don’t believe in the God of willy nillies. When will you grasp spiritual things?

Genesis is Sprit and it is Truth.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

8b2f68  No.787315

i don't see the point in debunking or proving anything, if you believe in evolution good, if you don't good, that's why God gave us free will to our choosing. as Christians you need to learn about science and the way it works with the world. knowledge is the key to wisdom and wisdom opens doors to other places. if your beliefs are strong it wont change your heart. so learn it .you aren't better than evolutionist, and vise versa. we live in this world as we all are human and have our ideals. if people don't want to listen its their choice, don't shove it in someones face or force your ideals. that's how you make enemies.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

81194b  No.787352

we only know how creation came to be from what we read in genesis.

God tells Adam "the day you eat of the fruit of the tree of knowledge, you will die" and in the same book, we hear that Adam lived for 900 years.

this in itself should debunk the idea that Genesis should be taken literally.

ultimately, don't worry about it. live by what Jesus taught us.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

efc1c9  No.787362

>>787261

You could be right on that, you make a good case. Now this is just a theory, but God could have made more humans other than Adam and Eve (well He had to or humanity wouldn’t exist at all) but he made them into Neanderthals, and then another type of human, and so forth. Idk it’s just a theory and I don’t think that it necessarily contradicts the Bible more of the general interpretation of it, and it does support what science seems to say.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

a75e9a  No.787390

File: fb40b9874650a18⋯.png (753.82 KB, 1000x750, 4:3, christchan-deus-vult.png)

>>787362

Why would God have to have additional humans? Oh also another thing is that if you're Catholic or anyone who believes in original sin, then you have to believe that Adam and Eve were immaculate conceptions, that they were conceived without original sin.

I mean, you are trying to tell me the all powerful and mighty God creates his masterpiece, the Human being, being born out of an animal? So Adam was sucking on the breasts of an animal? Rampant bestiality since day 1? I mean incest is bad (between siblings) mostly because of genetic defects - but the whole idea about sin is that it causes genetic degradation. Birth defects and all these things started to happen because of sin. That's why Adam and the rest lived way longer as well. The more sin, the shorter people lived, their bodies didn't hold up as long, their DNA degraded. You know technically there is no reason why we can't live forever, our cells could just keep replenishing - just like certain animals that can potentially live forever (if they aren't killed).

God creates beauty and so called evolution is the absolute grossest way to ever do something really. God should start up the world like a person starting up a VM. Or coding it. Create it, boom, not like running a random number generator and like waiting for it to produce a working program. Evolution is a masonic satanic scam, in my opinion. Not to mention the Bible from page 1 becomes the most misleading and idiotic book ever to be honest. God writes a book knowing that for 95% of the Churches life, we are going to think he really meant 6 days (or shorter, St. Augustine was an extreme YEC holding it to be like instanteously like booting up a VM, and this is due to a bad latin translation he was using). He says sin entered into the world and now we are cursed for this and that… but nah he didn't really mean that either. He says that he gave dominion over animals to Adam, but yeah Adam and Eve's parents were animals, and probably their sons and daughters in laws were all animals. Did they like put leashes on them and take them out for walks? And then yeah oh those ages in the Bible, yeah… those are just made up, no one really knows what they mean, and no one will ever know what they mean, but one thing we know is that they aren't actually ages. Because that isn't believable. But you know what is believable? Parting the Red Sea, talking donkeys, people walking on water, bringing people back to life. Yeah we should believe those things, but not someone living long, cause, that's too unbelievable and goes against science.

Oh wait, also now Noah didn't exist and there was no flood. There's no (((archaeological))) evidence for even a local flood. The local flood idea makes no sense anyways. If it's a local flood, just literally move to Egypt or somewhere instead of building a Boat for a whole year, you can easily move. And yeah God makes a promise with Noah never to have a local flood again? Except.. there have been many extremely severe local floods and Tsunamis - was God just lying? Oh well we don't know, gotta follow (((science))). Oh and now (((historians))) tell us that Abraham wasn't a real person or Moses either, and that the Jews were never in Egypt. Oh well yeah Moses is just a metaphor. Oh Jesus and Peter et. al claimed to have seen Moses? That was just metaphorical once again.

My point being is that if you actually follow through with these peoples theories nothing makes sense. They are so into this world and are so blind to (((what's going on))) that they just desperately say uh yeah there is no conflict we are totally on board with (((science))). They don't realize that all these so called fields are a total sham now. Jesus said if you do not believe the words of Moses (which is Genesis) how will you believe His words?

Faith is above reason and guides us to the truth. Only a few are saved. I'm not saying it definitively but I think people with true faith are more likely to believe Creationism. Lots of other people believe (((science))) first. That is DOGMA for them.

We always say that the old testament is revealed in the new and the new is concealed in the old. Tell me what is the parallel of Jesus' first miracle then? It's literally creation, and Wine, it was perfectly aged wine.

When I heard that personally that's what set it all off for me. I always was like I guess an evolutionist, I was sold the lie that there is no conflict, but I never really thought about it much, and always thought it was weird. After that set it off in my head it made me realize that evolution makes no sense.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

a75e9a  No.787391

File: 460058431db19a6⋯.png (1.3 MB, 1440x1080, 4:3, stares-in-latin.png)

>>787390

Oh also I believe YEC (not like hard believe but I think it's more likely) mostly because I think we are entering end times - I think we are seeing the great apostasy ( I mean c'mon it's clear most have left the faith, either in reality or they are just in name only, this is a massive dropoff compared to earlier). We are killing babies on an industrial scale that is nowhere near what the Aztecs or Pagans or Romans did, and there's no sign of it stopping, it's ramping up, and few other signs.

This might be strange, but for example, we had civilization for like 3000-4000 years or so at least. Since the vinyl record, which was pretty recently, we went to CDs, and that's it - thats the maximum technology that we can use for listening to music. That's all our ears can hear. There's no where left to go. We're basically at that point with TV - actually we were pretty good even in the 30s and so, but I mean we are fast approaching the limits of our senses. Sure there is VR and stuff but there is basically no where to go for audio. I know this is a big tangent but there are loads of signs to me that we're reaching the end of what really can be done. We have technology for the first time that can actually wipe out all life on earth very easily, we never had stuff like that before. The internet and travel has allowed the Gospel to be preached to all over the world. I don't think there is that much left to do. You know TV shows only go that far. So yeah anyways, if YEC by going by the Bible is right, we're around, that's right, 6000 years. Perfect mirror of creation. 1 day is a thousand years to God. God uses numbers and loves beauty in it. It all makes sense that way.

God creates the world like an author writes a book. You think this guy is gonna write like 200,000 pages of total nonsense and filler or like almost like nothing going and then boom all of a sudden things happen for like 5 pages?

In comparison to eternity, if the world lasted for 200,000 years or 6000 years or 60 billion years it's all the same. They are all nothing compared to infinity. In such a short period of time we have already maxed out many things that can be done. Music is limited, there aren't really any new great chord progressions that haven't been discovered. If you want to be "super innovative" it's all trash atonal garbage noise, it's not music anymore. But if you look at music history, there were throughout the ages many chord progressions and harmony and stuff that had never been reached - actually the pinnacle of this was in Europe - most other cultures music was extremely basic and monophonic and never reached the height of harmony as it did in Europe. But the issue is we're also basically maxed out on that. Many signs point to us being at the end.

So yeah it makes sense for God to make his story beautiful and concise, no filler, no nonsense, no idiotic bang your head against the wall type creation, beautiful, sweet, to the point. Oh another thing that made me realize that YEC is far more likely. The resurrection is a historical event that we have to believe in, and we believe in it because of testimony. Can you imagine if God expects us to believe in an event we heard happened 2,600,450 years ago? Like people will be like yes, 2 million years ago our savior came and died… like what… I mean it just doesn't make any sense. You want people to believe in a specific event 2 million years later? We can't even phathom that, and no one in their right mind would think that information can be extremely reliable 2 million years into the future. 2000 years it's already a bit dicey at times. So clearly it stands to reason humanity will end something way before that. But does it make sense for the world (and humans) to be around for like billions of years and humans for hundreds of thousands of years, and then 2 thousands years and then bang we're done? Christ game just for that short period as a proportion? Doesn't make sense. The Church Fathers said there are 6 ages of the world, like one is from Adam to Noah and so and this is the final age. They are sort of proportional, not always 1 thousand but nowhere near like saying 2-6 million years ago (That's what science says) and like a couple thousand at best after Christ.

Anyways just felt like ranting, feel free to disregard :)

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

24ce52  No.787397

>>787261

God created evil lol. Do you somehow think God DIDNT design the whole world? PHYSICAL death included?

>Yeah bro I’m going to make a lion which is perfectly adapted to killing and eating other living animals but lol it totally ate veggies before Adam and Eve sinned -God Retarded, unspiritual, unbiblical.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

a75e9a  No.787413

>>787397

Are you a protestant (seriously asking). God did not create evil, you cannot create evil.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

24ce52  No.787415

>>787413

>I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things.

Isaiah 45:7

What, are you implying that God didn't know Lucifer would rebel? That God didn't know he would be creating evil?

I believe God is the creator of all things. I've come to terms with it.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

488f31  No.787420

>>787128

>(for instance the sky being basically a metal sheet spread out over the face of a flat earth that has literal "foundations") is inaccurate, and is in the very same story as the one creationist love much.

No it's not. Genesis says that the birds were flying in the open firmament because the firmament is the atmosphere. It is not a metal sheet. You can't fly in a metal sheet. The foundations of the earth are in the center, obviously.

Job 26:7

He stretcheth out the north over the empty place, and hangeth the earth upon nothing.

>>787253

>It's just one possible explanation for how God's Word shaped the world we live in today.

In Exodus 20:11 we are told this all happened in six literal days, as the sabbath day is a day. Also Jesus said in Matthew 19:4 that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female. How is that evolution of the species?

>>787315

>if people don't want to listen its their choice, don't shove it in someones face

Stop me from going and doing it right now.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

874503  No.787428

>>787415

God is the Creator, but what you're saying is that God is the author of sin, which is false. Actually he is the one keeping us away from that and only by not acting and protecting will we be allowed to fall. Why? Because by him all things consist.

Zechariah 11:9

Then said I, I will not feed you: that that dieth, let it die; and that that is to be cut off, let it be cut off; and let the rest eat every one the flesh of another.

Colossians 1:17

And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.

James 1:17-18

Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and cometh down from the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning.

Of his own will begat he us with the word of truth, that we should be a kind of firstfruits of his creatures.

1 John 1:5

This then is the message which we have heard of him, and declare unto you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

eb5db4  No.787435

>>787420

Job 37, also look up the meaning of firmament, and in the scriptures the Hebrew words for the same, and their connotation. Then read Second Temple literature, and the hymn of the three youths in Daniel, and you'll see what I mean when I say irrespective of what it is, the Hebrews did not think of the firmament as an atmosphere, and the foundations of the earth weren't inside of it to them. What you're doing is forcing a modern perspective onto ancient text, when you know good and well no ancient cosmology matches yours, even of the some who thought the earth was round (not hebrews).

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

24ce52  No.787436

>>787428

By him all things consist. Yes, we're certainly in agreement. I just don't accept the philosophical premise that if God allows/made evil, he must therefore be evil.

Remember, where sin abounds, grace abounds much more. Without evil, there is no good.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

4b2506  No.787437

File: 7d35db261232a53⋯.jpg (27.2 KB, 320x240, 4:3, BibleKJV.jpg)

>>787436

>Yes, we're certainly in agreement.

Do you agree about Exodus 20:11.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

1cce44  No.787441

>>787390

Good post except that Adam and Eve were not conceived or born.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

24ce52  No.787460

>>787437

In six days God made all things.

Also food for thought: a thousand years is like a day to God. God is spirit and he is truth.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

f3d0e9  No.787480

>>787095

irreducible complexity

>>787158

Science is a method, yes, but many people treat it as an entity through the use of a definite article before it. Anyway, nowadays science is used as an ideology by scientificists. They defend darwinism because it supports their atheism. I live in a scientific enviroment and everything in it revolves around ideologies.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

70f98a  No.787545

>>787460

So you don't agree with Exodus 20:11. Ok then. You could've just said so.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

286c2d  No.787553

YouTube embed. Click thumbnail to play.

>>787095

DR. EMJ talk about it extensively.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

286c2d  No.787555

YouTube embed. Click thumbnail to play.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

286c2d  No.787556

YouTube embed. Click thumbnail to play.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

286c2d  No.787557

YouTube embed. Click thumbnail to play.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

286c2d  No.787558

YouTube embed. Click thumbnail to play.

You have many hours of EMJ now to debunk Evolution.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

24ce52  No.787568

>>787545

Do you think bread and wine literally become Jesus?

It’s not a matter of physical or spiritual; one or the other.

I am a Creationist, and I believe in Intelligent Design. I just don’t subscribe to the anti-common-sense doctrines most creationists subscribe to, which, can be theologically refuted anyways.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

fdae06  No.787573

Just curious, what is your education background?

I can't believe anyone who was able to graduate thinks the earth was created in 6 days and that we all come from Adam and Eve.

Regardless, what's so hard to understand with:

>mutations

>survival of the fittest

Also, is it common among americans to be creationist?

I live in Europe and I've never in my life met one.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

286c2d  No.787576

>>787573

>I live in Europe and I've never in my life met one.

I live in Europe. Darwinism is stupid and evolution is stupid. See the videos I linked above to disabuse yourself from this atheist heresy.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

fdae06  No.787583

>>787576

>Just watch my two hours long vid on the subject bro

Can't you summarize some arguments here?

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

286c2d  No.787605

>>787583

* Five videos.

I can summarize but you would not understand immediately and you will ask questions.

Just watch one video per day and you'll see the incoherence of Darwinism and evolution.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

a75e9a  No.787644

>>787441

According to evolution or theistic evolutionists then yes they were conceived and born.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

a75e9a  No.787645

>>787640

The flood is an extremely stupid story if it wasn't a global flood that actually killed all human life. I think the only actual approach according to modern archaeology is that the flood didn't happen. Talking about liberals. I heard people think it's permitted to take that as an allegory as well. If Adam and Eve being literal people weren't dogma, I guarantee you majority of Catholics would say they were just metaphors too and celebrate how scientific they are.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

fdae06  No.787646

File: 815222910e1a5ab⋯.png (452.99 KB, 1024x875, 1024:875, ClipboardImage.png)

>>787640

>There's not really any transitional fossils in the fossil record

That is completely wrong. We do know how species evolved and differentiated from each other, and there are fossil evidences for it.

>2 of the canine kind, 2 of the feline kind, 2 of the bovine kind, 2 of the equine kind, etc.

Who decided that these were "kinds"? Is it in the Bible? Adaptation can cause species to evolve, but only to some extent, only within a """"kind"""? Why? It doesn't make sense.

>>787605

I've dealt with anons like you before you know. You hide behind hours of youtube videos, because you're not smart enough to make an actual argument here. If I wanted to research on the subject I would do it, but the purpose of a board like this is to talk with anons and debate. You can keep dodging the subject if you like but you're not convincing anyone.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

286c2d  No.787647

>>787646

>I've dealt with anons like you before you know. You hide behind hours of youtube videos, because you're not smart enough to make an actual argument here. If I wanted to research on the subject I would do it, but the purpose of a board like this is to talk with anons and debate. You can keep dodging the subject if you like but you're not convincing anyone.

I refer to christian scholars who have debunked Darwinism and evolution in a way that I couldn't do. The truth is there, you can watch the videos or stay in your evolutionist heresy.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

4ebb32  No.787669

>>787568

Nothing against you but day-age theory does extreme violence to the clear passage in Exodus 20:11. If you want to say those weren't cosmological days in the same way that a sabbath day is a cosmological day then there's nothing stopping you from redefining all words at random to fit your personal interpretation. It is to say that the words given here are outright false.

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.

>I just don’t subscribe to the anti-common-sense doctrines most creationists subscribe to

You mean televangelists and junk like that? Flood geologists? Of course you shouldn't subscribe to that. They're doing tremendous damage to sincere believers by rejecting ruin-reconstruction.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

8dc9bc  No.787694

>>787573

Indeed. I also can't believe anyone thinks Jesus rose from the dead. I mean come on, that's so unscientific. Get an education.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

9acee3  No.787697

>>787605

>I can summarize but you would not understand immediately and you will ask questions.

If you don't understand your own arguments, you shouldn't be making them.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

da1a58  No.787706

Nobody can sanely call themselves Christian and believe in evolution. They are LARPing fedoras that go to church for the social benefits and in hopes to get a gf. A bunch of faggots that need to be weeded out and silenced.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

3b7b45  No.787707

>>787706

Glad to know that the Ecumenical Councils have defined that evolution is a lie.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

81194b  No.787708

>>787694

dude, screw you. there's an honest question about the specifics of creation, something nobody completely understands, and you're going to call his faith into question?

screw you.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

da1a58  No.787709

>>787707

Not everyone is a Catholic that doubts obvious clear words in the Bible, and needs a heretical "father" to tell them what to believe.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

65daa8  No.787712

>>787709

>t. Calls his dad "father" and doesn't get hyperbole

Jesus said "call no man father" as in God the Father, silly turboprot.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

46d9aa  No.787723

>>787712

Actually in Matthew 23:9 he says call no man YOUR father. Quote the Bible right.

"Your" is a plural form and refers to the crowd being spoken to. So to say that someone (who isn't God) has the title of father, that the crowd must address as such, is in violation.

It has nothing to do with the relationship of father between certain people. It has to do with the title being given to a specific person above all others. Which the self-proclaimed pope and others are in violation of. Glad you finally understand this.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

e6b7a8  No.787726

>>787723

Ah, glad to see that all the earliest Christians and apostles were wrong until pastor Jim created actual Christianity

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

0e0192  No.787730

File: 22a7acafc525178⋯.jpg (118.55 KB, 800x600, 4:3, webRNS-LESBIAN-PASTORSh-03….jpg)

>>787726

But thats just, like, your personal interpretation, man. Everyone knows it wasn't REAL Christianity until Pastor Jimantha and her lesbian lovers started preaching it.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

a2f6c0  No.787732

>>787726

No, you're both wrong though and you follow a revisionist history as well as teaching people to violate scripture.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

24ce52  No.787743

>>787669

I'm not a day-age theorist. God is timeless. Genesis 1 illustrates the timelessness of God. Surely you would agree things are not in "literal" or "physical" order as they are created?

There cannot be literal light before light-giving objects are created. But God is light. See how it's not necessarily "purely" literal?

To explain what I mean…

God LITERALLY CREATED and INTELLIGENTLY DESIGNED everything in existence supernaturally, yet not six literal days, just like bread and wine is not literally Jesus.

There was a LITERAL Adam and Eve (and tree of life and tree of knowledge of good and evil), yet this does not preclude non-human ancestors. The Jews were the literal seed of Abraham, but not spiritually. Can it not be said we are literal seed of certain creatures, but not the spiritual seed? Did the physical offspring of Hagar and Abraham inherit any spiritual blessings? Physical descent is not always important to God.

There was a a LITERAL Noah and World Flood, with new climatalogical evidence of a worldwide flood roughly 14,000 years ago. This, however, does not mean there was a flood which covered Mount Everest. NOR was there just a "local" flood. It was truly worldwide.

And so on and so forth is the Word of God SPIRIT and TRUTH.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

f3d0e9  No.787755

>>787555

>>787556

>>787557

>>787558

didnt know him. thanks

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

15c031  No.787763

>>787743

>ITS A VAGUE KIND OF FEEL

Nah, that's not the truth I'm talking about.

If you just keep on denying Exodus 20:11 then we'll all stay over here with the one truth, in agreement with it instead of you.

>just like bread and wine is not literally Jesus.

I seriously have no idea what you're talking about or referring to now.

>Physical descent is not always important to God.

Congrats on reading Galatians 3 and 4, but this has nothing to do with denying the statements of Genesis chapter 1.

>I'm not a day-age theorist.

You sound identical to one in every single way.

I feel bad for people who feel trapped between day-age and flood geology theories. This is what it's driven you to and it ain't a pretty sight.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

24ce52  No.787765

>>787763

Catholics make a big deal about Jesus saying you must eat his flesh and drink his blood to be saved.

Have you really never heard of that?

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

3546fe  No.787766

>>787765

Oh you mean John 6? There was no table, bread or wine there. The Lord's Supper was about seven chapters later.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

24ce52  No.787768

>>787766

In John 6, Jesus was speaking bluntly, flatly. The same way Exodus 20:11 is spoken.

That is all I'm trying to say.

I think it is a mistake to read the Bible as "purely" literal. I think, and with other Biblical examples of metaphor, that Genesis 1 is an "Impure" metaphor.

This takes big brains here… but just try to understand that not everything true has to be literal.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

65aca3  No.787770

>>787768

>In John 6, Jesus was speaking bluntly, flatly.

Yeah, but what does John 6 have to do with the Lord's supper? You mentioned bread and wine but that's not mentioned there. Those are two separate passages of scripture.

>I think it is a mistake to read the Bible as "purely" literal.

So far you don't have any real examples. Can you bring an example? Until then I don't really know what you're talking about.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

24ce52  No.787772

>>787770

Okay, do you think people have to literally eat Jesus' flesh and literally drink his blood to be saved?

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

a7863c  No.787776

>>787772

If we're going by John 6:53 then yes absolutely. And you have to remember what the rest of the passage says to clarify this, for instance reading the next ten verses where he explains this to his disciples. The bottom line is according to John 6:63 his flesh is literally his words.

It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life. — John 6:63

Its similar to how in Galatians 3 and 4 we learn how the relationship via the spirit is more literally real than via the flesh. John 1:12-13. But of course the Jews being carnal rejected this. Any questions about the truth of John 6?

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

a75e9a  No.787819

>>787707

Actually they have.

COUNCIL OF TRENT

<Furthermore, in order to restrain petulant spirits, It decrees, that no one, relying on his own skill, shall,–in matters of faith, and of morals pertaining to the edification of Christian doctrine, –wresting the sacred Scripture to his own senses, presume to interpret the said sacred Scripture contrary to that sense which holy mother Church,–whose it is to judge of the true sense and interpretation of the holy Scriptures,–hath held and doth hold; or even contrary to the unanimous consent of the Fathers; even though such interpretations were never (intended) to be at any time published. Contraveners shall be made known by their Ordinaries, and be punished with the penalties by law established.

Unanimous consent of the Fathers is that the universe was created in no more than 6 days. Roma Locuta, Causa Finita

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

a9e4dc  No.791156

>Doesn't think evolution is convincing

>Thinks that a few thousand years ago a 400 year old guy got every single species of animal on earth including emus from Australia, bison from America, polar bears from the arctic, etc to travel on foot to the middle east to cram themselves into a boat that could totally fit their size and weight without sinking or running out of supplies for 40 days while the all loving God was busy killing everything on earth. They then got off the boat and went home on foot to inbreed like crazy for thousands of years to somehow extensively repopulate the earth makes total sense.

Please. Read a book on evolution like 'Why Evolution is True' or even 'The Blind Watchmaker' It's basic pop science that anyone can grasp.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

a75e9a  No.791180

>>791156

Could you explain now Noah's Ark is a credible story at all then? What was the point of the Ark if it was just a local flood? Why did God promise never to flood the earth again, if it was just a local flood, and many local floods and Typhoons/Tsunamis and terrible things have happened since? Why didn't Noah just travel to Egypt or somewhere else instead of building a boat for a year. What's your explanation for Noah's Ark then - it's totally fiction and an allegory only?

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

1be3c0  No.791187

>>791180

The tragedy of the flood was God killing every person besides Noah and his family, which is still compatible with a local flood view.

Not that this guy is taking such a position, he's rejecting the flood as an event at all.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

a75e9a  No.791221

>>791187

Still doesn't make any sense as to why Noah had to build such a big Ark and get animals, when he could have easily just travelled somewhere else. In addition there have been several massive floods since then, so God's promise doesn't seem to make sense. Also I don't believe that there is even good archaeological to suggest a local flood - anywhere like what is described in the Bible. DNA evidence also doesn't seem to line up with everyone descending first from only two people, and then again from one family.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

fd3b6e  No.791259

I do find it funny when people idolize Darwin. Even when you accept the general idea of evolution, Darwin's specific theory of evolution - that every change is beneficial in it's own generation - is flat out wrong.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

e217a3  No.791278

>>787397

Metropolitan Isaiah of the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of North America (of which I am not a member) has some interesting thoughts on this:

>When God created all things and finally man, He created all things to have life within themselves, not death. It was man in the persons of our progenitors who brought death into the world. We realize that death was a stranger to Christ when He stood before the tomb of Lazarus, His friend. He wept! He had come face to face with the stench of death and He wept, even though He knew that He would bring Lazarus back to life. Even in the face of this joyful expectation, Jesus wept upon facing the reality of death because He did not create death; man did, through his disobedience.

I don't think this is meant to be a dogmatic theological stance and I'm not trying to convince you of anything, but your post made me think of it. I found it thought-provoking so I thought maybe you'd find it interesting as well.

God bless you friend.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

605eb0  No.791298

>>791221

I'm not him but there's a number of things here. First of all, Noah was obedient to God and there's no reason to think he knew what was going to happen exactly but he definitely did what God told him to despite that.

Secondly, it's possible this flood was on a scale where travelling elsewhere would not have been possible if he even did this which I don't believe he would have. Additionally there has never since been a flood that wiped out all humanity (except them), which is the precise wording found in the Bible.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

a75e9a  No.791306

>>791298

There's no archaeological evidence at all that there was such a flood like that - in fact all evidence points to the contrary. There were humans on Africa during this time, they couldn't have been killed by a local flood.

>First of all, Noah was obedient to God and there's no reason to think he knew what was going to happen exactly but he definitely did what God told him to despite that.

The point is that the story is illogical. It makes sense if the total world was flooded, but not some 'local flood'.

If you care about exact wording, well God says "everything that is on the earth shall die." - but that wasn't true apparently. Also

<"And all flesh died that moved upon the earth, birds, cattle, beasts, all swarming creatures that swarm upon the earth, and every man;" - But this wasn't true either. God didn't just say that all Humans were killed but all animals on earth too. So your theory doesn't hold up that it means all humans on earth only. Otherwise God is saying all Humans and just some animals?

Also the exact wording of God is "; neither will I ever again destroy every living creature as I have done." - not every single human, but every living creature. Now again local flood also means God didn't kill every living creature on the earth.

Also:

<I will remember my covenant which is between me and you and every living creature of all flesh; and the waters shall never again become a flood to destroy all flesh. 16 When the bow is in the clouds, I will look upon it and remember the everlasting covenant between God and every living creature of all flesh that is upon the earth.” 17 God said to Noah, “This is the sign of the covenant which I have established between me and all flesh that is upon the earth.”

So it's for all creatures. Local flood doesn't work, if all creatures on earth were not killed. Basically to me it doesn't seem that a Local Flood (also not supported at all by Archaeology) fits the Genesis narrative at all.

If God truly meant a local flood with only a few animals dying and so on, I can only imagine what else we totally misunderstand in the Bible. I would also come to think that God is a poor communicator really. It's just so misleading. And has surely mislead so many people.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

81f9ee  No.791310

>>791306

>Also the exact wording of God is "; neither will I ever again destroy every living creature as I have done." - not every single human, but every living creature.

The Tradition says the story is a broad metaphor, looking at God's exact wording isn't exactly profitable in the sense you are looking at it, since God did not slay every living creature; many were in the Ark per His own instructions.

>Basically to me it doesn't seem that a Local Flood (also not supported at all by Archaeology) fits the Genesis narrative at all.

Agreed.

>>787819

>Unanimous consent of the Fathers is that the universe was created in no more than 6 days.

No, it has not. St. Augustine is a notable dissenter, debating that the sense of a day may have referred to the Creation as in the sense of stages, seeing as day and night were created during one of the Days of Creation.

And no, the Church has never actually infallibly declared when the Earth was created, I'd like you to substantiate on this, if you can.

>I would also come to think that God is a poor communicator really.

Or, He was not speaking in a manner that was meant to be literal, and moreover, the Scriptures weren't really meant to be read outloud to everyone without the instruction of a Rabbi or a Priest for most of the history of the Scriptures; remember, the printing press was not extant until the 16th century, and the idea of people being able to own and privately read scripture, especially without the consent of any Church or Synagogue authority isn't really that big of a deal. There are instances of secular authority being able to have their own copies, however, but even the Eunuch in the New Testament admitted he could not understand it without a teacher.

>So it's for all creatures. Local flood doesn't work, if all creatures on earth were not killed. Basically to me it doesn't seem that a Local Flood (also not supported at all by Archaeology) fits the Genesis narrative at all.

A global flood not fitting into the 6,000 year Creationist claim is an issue for Creationists, if the scriptures do not actually give a specific time-span of Earth like St. Augustine pointed out, then this isn't so much of a glaring scientific issue.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

81f9ee  No.791311

>>791310

>especially without the consent of any Church or Synagogue authority isn't really that big of a deal.

An exception to the rule, I mean.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

81f9ee  No.791313

>>787645

> I guarantee you majority of Catholics would say they were just metaphors too and celebrate how scientific they are.

Close, but no cigar. Again, the issue of a global or local flood is an issue for creationists, if scripture was not meant to actually have a specific chronology to it, then it could all be safely tucked away into pre-history.

It's not a celebration of how "scientific" we are, it's a celebration of logic.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

c5d2ef  No.791318

One of the biggest things that has lured me away from evolution over the years is the way its treated as a dogma. It's not a theory, it's an irrefutable fact. Did something prove a part of it wrong? Then the researcher did something wrong. The peak of this stupidity is 100% how people get theories of behavior from evolution. People will say that dogs like to circle around before sitting because X ancestors did Y thousands of years ago! This is especially true when it comes to humans, it's ridiculous. My YouTube auto played Coach Sociopathpill while I was listening in the background (despite explicitly telling jewtube I'm not interested), and he mentioned that men kill their cheating spouses because of evolution. Men kill the bearer of their children - women who cheat and potentially carry someone else's genes if they have birthed a child - because of evolution, that's supposed to be traits that are passed down genetically. Kind of hard to do that when your kid's not your actual kid and your wife is dead. I'm aware it's some deluded boomer but I see this as absolutely commonplace everywhere and people just accept it without applying even an ounce of logic, maybe wondering if this conjecture is perhaps wild speculation based on nothing but the human imagination. I used to be one of those people. We truly are a lost generation and a lost peoples.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

e1be9c  No.792033

>>787095

Micro-evolution is real, there is just too much variety in life too deny it. It's impossible that all varieties of animals were on Noah's ark, which means that the varieties developed after the flood.

That being said, I do have a few problems with accepting Macro-evolution:

#1 - Where does the information come from?

Assume for a moment that Darwin was completely right, and imagine a time where not a single life-form had eyes yet. How did it's genes know that seeing is at all possible? And where did it's genes get the information from to form the eyes?

#2 - Evolution has it's limits

Dogs are a great example of this, because they've been bred by humans like no other animal, and for various characteristics. It seems that the farther away a dog gets from the original design (the wolf) the more health/mental problems it has. Pugs are a common example of this, they often go through life with breathing and eye problems. There are various other dog breeds which go through life with major health problems.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

846f62  No.792148

>>791306

>There's no archaeological evidence at all that there was such a flood like that

Like what exactly?

>There were humans on Africa during this time,

In the scientific sense or the descended from Adam sense?

>It makes sense if the total world was flooded, but not some 'local flood'.

Please explain further.

>If you care about exact wording, well God says "everything that is on the earth shall die." - but that wasn't true apparently.

It also said in Genesis 4:14 that Cain claimed to be "driven from the face of the earth", in Genesis 41:57 that all countries came to Egypt to buy supplies because there was a famine in "all lands" and in Exodus 10:15 it said that the locusts covered the face of the whole earth, and it even explains in the same verse that this means the whole land of Egypt.

It also says in Numbers 22:11 that a people which came out of Egypt "covered the face of the earth."

So in the same sense as all these, the flood must have covered the face of the whole earth and killed everything on the face of the whole earth. I don't see the contradiction except when you get into modern day flood geology.

>I would also come to think that God is a poor communicator really.

Not really, the flood really did eliminate all the descendants of Adam, and it really did kill all the living things that were on the face of the earth, apart from those aboard.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

a75e9a  No.792425

>>792148

>It also said in Genesis 4:14 that Cain claimed to be "driven from the face of the earth", in Genesis 41:57 that all countries came to Egypt to buy supplies because there was a famine in "all lands" and in Exodus 10:15 it said that the locusts covered the face of the whole earth, and it even explains in the same verse that this means the whole land of Egypt.

This is pointless because God tells Noah to make an Ark with animals. First of all you start saying 'oh the exact wording is all Men' but it doesn't say that at all, then you have an issue with the wording. Why not just say that in the first place. You're advocating for mass beastiality and this is part of God's plan, for Men to have sex with animals. No theologian has ever said that God ever permitted sex with animals. Also some bizarre theory that somehow you can have sex with an animal and the offspring will be a human. When God outlawed beastiality with Moses, were those only farm animals? Are some 'Humans' from uncontacted tribes, are they actually real Men or are they animals who haven't come from Adam yet. How do we know? This becomes a totally absurd case then.

>Not really, the flood really did eliminate all the descendants of Adam, and it really did kill all the living things that were on the face of the earth, apart from those aboard.

Okay are we talking past each other. I believe in the regular flood account. I can't tell what position you are holding. I'm trying to say I find it absurd to rectify 'local flood theories', evolution and the biblical account.

Granted I haven't really looked too much into the issues with Carbon dating, and the so called lack of archaeological evidence for a world wide flood.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

605eb0  No.792469

>>792425

>You're advocating for mass beastiality and this is part of God's plan

What post? You might be referring to someone else's post. I absolutely abhor that just like you.

>Are some 'Humans' from uncontacted tribes, are they actually real Men or are they animals who haven't come from Adam yet. How do we know? This becomes a totally absurd case then.

This is all peripheral.

>First of all you start saying 'oh the exact wording is all Men'

Ok, I can't speak for whoever you're quoting, but I can answer this. 1 Peter 3:20 clearly says that exactly eight souls were saved, also the narrative in Genesis 9 makes it very clear that there were no other men anymore at that point.

>I believe in the regular flood account. I can't tell what position you are holding.

Like I said, when Exodus 10:15 and Numbers 22:11 talk about the whole face of the earth being covered it's in the same sense. I'm comparing scripture with scripture on this point. Meanwhile, you have modern flood geologists who bring up all this weird stuff that is unrelated.

The reason I replied to you just now is because you were questioning how these things work. I showed how the exact wording is used elsewhere in scripture to further clarify the scripture's position.

You thought there was a contradiction when there wasn't. But I'm glad you gave me the chance to point this out and show more specifically why flood geologists make no sense.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

605eb0  No.792471

>>792425

Also I should say that I'm on a proxy right now, so you can't correlate other persons' posts to me if they disagree with you but have poor reasons.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

a75e9a  No.792487

>>792469

I don't know what you mean by flood geologists. I believe the flood actually covered the whole earth and I do not believe evolution. I don't think there is any contradiction obviously with that and scripture. In my posts I was merely trying to show the amount of bizarre gymnastics you have to do to believe in the Bible and also believe in whatever 'geology' or 'archeology' tells you.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

577e18  No.792496

>>792487

>I don't know what you mean by flood geologists.

People who teach flood geology. They think it's the only way you can be if you believe in YEC and the Biblical account as given. So they get real arrogant if you start to ask why these surprisingly talmudic ideas they teach aren't in the Bible.

They just start accusing you of being an evolutionist out of nowhere.

>I was merely trying to show the amount of bizarre gymnastics you have to do to believe in the Bible and also believe in whatever 'geology' or 'archeology' tells you.

Well looking back at your post

>>791306 and the amount of Biblical evidence I brought in response, you didn't do a very good job at whatever you were trying to do. But that's okay as I said already.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

a75e9a  No.792504

>>792496

What on earth do you believe in - I have literally no idea. At this point I don't even want to know, yikes.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

a75e9a  No.792505

>>792496

Haha biblical evidence, you literally make no sense. Just because something is used in a completely different context, you think it can be applied to everything. Very very poor exegesis.

>And the amount of Biblical evidence I brought in response

Hahahahah

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

605eb0  No.792509

>>792504

>What on earth do you believe in - I have literally no idea.

I just said in that post young earth creationism and the Biblical account. You should have been able to tell already just by the fact that's what I've been quoting to correct your unbiblical posts.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

acc4f6  No.792512

>>787435

>also look up the meaning of firmament

8 And God called the firmament Heaven.

I don't see the problem. Stop getting your beliefs from non-biblical sources

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

577e18  No.792513

File: 6002f7020d6d534⋯.png (132.7 KB, 320x240, 4:3, BibleKJV.PNG)

>>792512

Based anon.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

acc4f6  No.792514

File: b1d0ece20496331⋯.png (1.4 MB, 1440x786, 240:131, 125B0827-E53F-414E-9483-67….png)

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

726f28  No.792537

>>792509

>that's what I've been quoting to correct your unbiblical posts.

Ok let me expand on this. For instance when you said

<he could have easily just travelled somewhere else

I then said that first of all Noah would not have disobeyed God's command and secondly even if he did, how do you know that this was possible.

When you said

<In addition there have been several massive floods since then, so God's promise doesn't seem to make sense

I then said that there has never been another flood that wiped out all of humanity, so yes that has never happened again.

When you said

<There's no archaeological evidence at all that there was such a flood like that

I asked what exactly you mean. You never answered.

When you said

<If you care about exact wording, well God says "everything that is on the earth shall die." - but that wasn't true apparently.

I explained that what it said is exactly what happened. I said >>792148 "in the same sense as all these, the flood must have covered the face of the whole earth and killed everything on the face of the whole earth." Which means it was true. So apparently it really did happen!

When you said

<I would also come to think that God is a poor communicator really.

I then said

>Not really, the flood really did eliminate all the descendants of Adam, and it really did kill all the living things that were on the face of the earth, apart from those aboard.

All I have to say is you should stop objecting to what the word of God says and admit you were wrong in thinking there was a contradiction between the word of God and the truth or trying to put a barrier between them to say one isn't the same as the other.

There is no evidence that points to it being untrue.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

a75e9a  No.792538

>>792537

I've already addressed those points, you're the one with the unbiblical nonsense. Waste of a time to speak with you it seems. You should really try and understand things a bit better or re-read posts, that's my suggestion. Yikes.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

d8d25c  No.792542

>>792538

You don't even deny that you are claiming there's a contradiction between the word of God and the truth. That certainly speaks volumes in itself.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

a75e9a  No.792549

>>792542

There is no contradiction between the bible and the truth, rather you are asserting this with your nonsense statements, and total horrible exegesis.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

a75e9a  No.792550

>>792542

You also clearly say that God commands illogical commands, for no good reason, and you repeatedly misquote the Bible. This is a waste of time, I want to have nothing to do with this convo with you see ya.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

94d978  No.797986

>>787415

Evil does have any ontological existence though, and so cannot be 'created.' It's a negation of the default, which is the good, that is God. The fact you've come to terms with God creating evil is completely warped and you need to rub this out from your understanding. The scripture you quote is a poor translation and is more accurately (and elsewhere) translated as calamity, to mean natural 'evil'/suffering that results from natural disasters etc. i.e. its clearly seeking to make the point that God is sovereign over creation and everything that happens in it. God literally 'creating' (moral) evil (sin) is antithetical to everything you should understand of God.

>>787436

>I just don't accept the philosophical premise that if God allows/made evil

See you've made a distinction here, God allows (moral) evil but does not create/make it himself

>Without evil, there is no good.

Talking only of God, this is wholly incorrect, by definition of God. Talking of our potential relationship to him, I'd be inclined to agree.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

4c61b9  No.797993

There is nothing to debunk. Biological evolution is fact.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

926a10  No.797996

>>787128

>a flat earth that has literal "foundations"

You think the Bible would lie? Everyone word in the Bible is to be interpreted literally. Non-literalism has lead us to where we are today where sinners pick and choose what to follow

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

d06b89  No.797997

>>787352

>this in itself should debunk the idea that Genesis should be taken literally.

The absolute state of /christian/

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

966a7a  No.797998

>>797997

What absolute state? The absolute state of the fact that not everyone is an American proteshart with its Disney tier """theology"""?

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

d06b89  No.798001

>>797998

Nothing in the Bible is metaphorical or non-literal. It is the word of God, full stop. I honestly believe and have faith in the word of the Bible that this Earth, as created by God, is flat, has pillars, etc. If one does not believe this and even is audacious enough to doubt it, there is no place for them but in Hell with the wicked. You’re coming closer to atheism than you may think.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

4c61b9  No.798082

>>798001

>Nothing in the Bible is metaphorical or non-literal.

Not even the parables Jesus says are non-literal? Not even Psalms, a book of song lyrics and poetry?

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

b8af38  No.798108

File: b4ea39d7e71a404⋯.jpg (55.01 KB, 871x653, 871:653, 1528697419861.jpg)

>>798082

He's a shill. We get such retards from time to time as part of the raids. Just ignore him.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

203a25  No.798247

>>787646

Images like this follow the same logic the ancients used to play connect-the-dots with stars, thinking that because they could imagine a shape in a constellation, that was what said pattern of stars had to be.

>We do know how species evolved and differentiated from each other

Not like the "tree of life" keeps being rewritten or anything.

>species

Literally doesn't exist, look up "species nominalism". As if the existence of "ring species" and intergeneric hybrids weren't enough to prove that.

>Adaptation can cause species to evolve, but only to some extent, only within a """"kind"""? Why?

Presumably for the same reason organisms haven't been able to evolve senescence away despite all the "selective pressures" to do so.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

203a25  No.798262

Darwinism is just biological nominalism, denying there is any real purpose or meaning to the human form. Teleology is erased and replaced with teleonomy. You can't oppose transgenderism if you accept Darwinism, new genders might "evolve" all the time. A Darwinist can't even be sure if his own children are human, they might have speciated. But then there isn't a real distinction between human and non-human in Darwinism. In Darwinian history there's just an unbroken spectrum of ancestors and descendents, from prokaryotes up through fish to apes to men, with nowhere objective to draw a line separating man from beast, or indeed one kind of beast from another. Every organism is just a biological machine whose form derives from what best aided its ancestors in survival and reproduction. As circumstances change, even "humans" can evolve into something else. All morality and psychology can evolve as well. We are just living in a seemingly stable snapshot amid a much wider sea of long term flux, and the flux, the chaos, is all there really is, and sometimes chemicals take the shape of organisms for a while if the conditions happen to be right.

The problem with this is we know it's false. No parents holding their newborn child in their arms cry "at last I have fulfilled the imperative of the selfish gene to reproduce". That's not the meaning of the experience at all. Everyone knows his kids are humans, that humans are different from beasts. That man comes from man, and that the sons of men can never become anything different. That's what it means to be human. But Darwinism is about convincing people their own knowledge and experience is inferior to the imaginations of scientists. Promoting nihilism to own the Christians. And own the Christians is exactly what happened, as all the countries where Darwinism is accepted have secularized. They're also nihilist and full of transgenderism. Funny how that works.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

e48bb6  No.798309

>>798262

/thread

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

1a4dc6  No.798372

>>797986

>Evil does have any ontological existence though

Obviously meant doesn't have any ontological existence

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

fecd86  No.798427

File: 372a1e8f9d6c8b8⋯.gif (909.38 KB, 260x199, 260:199, 1555755072314.gif)

>>787095

Evolution is more than just Darwinian evolution. Evolution is generally the idea that the earth is old, and that there have been various forms of animals in the past that no longer exist, and that these forms appear to come from or at least, be very similar as though they were built out of prior forms.

Darwinian style evolution is the idea that these new forms originated by chance mutations (in this case, errors in reproducing genetic code). In other words, eventually after making enough errors, one of those errors will accidentally turn out to be beneficial. The process would be gradual step by steps up "mount improbable", rather than a big jump done all in one.

However contrary to darwinian evolution, historically, new biological forms do not appear gradually at all, but suddenly in jumps of form, this is especially true of the Cambrian explosion, but is also true everywhere else new form is discovered. That old excuse of an incomplete fossil record is revealing of how big a problem this is - they are essentially saying "all those things really did happen gradually, we just don't have all of the flosses". Clearly, seeing as we've been doing this for like 200 years, that excuse is running thin.

Second, there are severe mathematical problems for the idea that mutations can produce functional useful body parts. As you all know from every day experience, things tend to deteriorate over time, not generate spontaneous impressive order. In fact its even in the 2nd law of thermodynamics - entropy always on average increases in a closed system; order turns to disorder. Now there is a mathematical reason why things tend to deteriorate, instead of generate; it's because there are so many more ways you can deteriorate something, and so few and fine the ways that you would need to move something in order for it to increase in order, that given the limited time of the universe, it is unreasonable to expect that any significant order will originate by chance, let alone all of life itself. Mathematicians are often quite puzzled by the Darwinian mutation mechanism, as it wouldn't even come close to adding up; that is why intelligent design has such a strong argument. It's literally just math.

Here's an analogy to hit this home, picture you had a car, and this car also had a factory inside of it capable of making other cars. And the cars that it made were car-factories like itself. If we were to let this machine run for 1000 years without any human intervention, what do you think would actually happen? You wouldn't even need to run the experiment, we know exactly what would happen. The machine would break down eventually, and that would be that; and this is a very realistic thing to suppose. A darwinian evolutionist would say that because of copying errors in the factories copying code, it would produce new species of car factories; when of course, if we're being real here, it at best would only produce new crippled variants of cars missing functions, the kind you get when things deteriorate, until the whole thing stopped working. By their own admissions their bodies are just machines, and if they are just machines, then you cannot help but see it that way. Proteins literally are just tiny machines, and that's not an analogy.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

fecd86  No.798428

>>798427

I do believe in evolution, but I believe in intelligent evolution. Heres another analogy; evolution is like the version history and development of a ordinary humans computer program that makes videos. In version 1.0, you see the program originate suddenly, then in 1.7 you get the ability to add text, and certain aspects are fine tuned. Then in version 2 you now have the ability to speed up video and sound together. If you were looking this program through a darwinian evolutionists lense, you would have to say it was several random mutations in computer code that produced various functional versions of photoshop gradually over time, which would confuse you, because clearly it seems looking at the actual history as though many of these new features come out of no where, all of a sudden.

Another proof against Darwinian evolution is the existence of convergence in form. Similar to the version history analogy, when a new technology comes out for humans, you can see many of their programs adapting this new feature simultaneously. There is convergence towards these new features, even though "evolutionarily" speaking, these are completely different programs with different "genetic" histories. The reason why convergence is a proof for intelligent design, is because mathematically speaking, the odds of 2 separate species independently developing the same set of features is rare - it is the opposite of what you would expect to see if Darwinian evolution is true. This is a problem for evolution, because we see separate species developing the same traits all over the world, all the time.

The evidence for intelligent design is incredibly strong. In fact, there is quite good public evidence for the existence of God in general, be it studying the historical evidence for the Resurrection, many various logical evidences for the existence of God, scientific evidence for design in the universe, biology, and order in general, scientific evidence for the existence of a transcendent foundation of the universe/ defeat of the idea that the universe is fundamentally material (quantum physics shows it is fundamentally information, which isn't made of anything material). It's a pretty good time evidence wise to be a Christian if you're willing to look.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

fecd86  No.798433

Imagine a tornado struck a few houses and destroyed the whole area.

Now imagine a second tornado struck the rubble, and it put the houses back together, turning rubble into a neighborhood.

The first tornado is realistic and easy to imagine, the second tornado is what Darwinian evolution says is possible. I used to think people who made these kinds of arguments just didn't understand evolution, now I realize they are far more well informed.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

e48bb6  No.798443

>>798427

>>798428

I agree with all of that, but there's something that really bothers me and it's how microbes can acquire resistance and other mutations. How can bacteria resist medicine and become superbacteria or develop the ability to eat nylon?

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

fecd86  No.798445

>>798443

epigenetics. Genes that activate based on environmental factors. In other words, they have built into them the ability to adapt new resistances, or eat nylon, just like how a bird's children will adapt a larger beak during times of drought. It's all epigenetic, built in. Although i'm admittedly not absolutely 100% on that, i'm pretty sure that's the answer.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

e48bb6  No.798447

>>798445

If epigenetics can explain that couldn't it explain the evolution theory?

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

fecd86  No.798452

>>798447

yes, exactly, that's the whole point. Under the mutation model, DNA could at least potentially come about by chance, but if there is no mutations creating genes, then that means that all this epigenetic potential didn't come about by chance mutations either. It must have been designed, as that's the only reasonable inference left.

Where does epigenetics come from, if it didn't come from chance interactions? When looking at the origin of new forms, be it the first form or whatever, it follows the same patterns of design, like that of the version history of a program. If it follows the same pattern as ordered things brought about by conscious agents, then it is not unreasonable to suppose that all of life was brought about by a conscious agent. This is a legitimate argument, because it couldn't reasonably have happened by chance in the amount of time available given it's odds, not even close, and that instead it much better matches the pattern of something designed by a conscious agent.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

fecd86  No.798457

>>798447

one of the reasons it is better that generally every day new forms that even we can see come from epigenetics and not mutations, is it points out that that things can only do what they are designed to do, and that they cannot develop new functions by chance.

It brings attention to the problem that, well if this is the case, how could anything come about by purely naturalistic means, if it can't reasonably be expected develop new functions by chance? Nothing would ever develop in the first place. It means that darwinian style evolutionary explanations wont ever work, because they are all fundamentally inept, so long as things cannot come to do things that they aren't designed to do by chance.

As the naturalistic argument wanes, the design argument waxes.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

fecd86  No.798459

>>798457

sorry correction, BENEFICIAL new forms are the result of epigenetics, and not mutations. Mutations only deteriate forms, like how one would expect a mutation to, but that is still a new form.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

e48bb6  No.798466

>>798457

>>798452

>>798459

Thanks. I need to study the subject more. What you say makes sense, but there are some few holes that remain to be filled. After a life of justifying everything by it, I can say now that I don't believe in evolution and the reason is because I see the philosophical consequences of it like explicited in this post >>798262. I want to be able to disprove it properly.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

094fca  No.801811

>>787315

>I don't see the point in correcting error

WEW

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

094fca  No.801813

>>787583

>Wtf why don't you believe in evolution?

>Can you please like spoonfeed me the refutation? Make it short, though, I don't want to spend too much time considering the origin of man.

Priceless

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

6134e0  No.815066

YouTube embed. Click thumbnail to play.

>>787095

Evolution and Logical Fallacies - Dr. Jason Lisle

This video doesn't seem to be archived but it should. Watch it before debating evolutionists and share it.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

7634a6  No.823997

>>787397

"And to every beast of the earth and to every bird of the heavens and to everything that creeps on the earth, everything that has the breath of life, I have given every green plant for food." And it was so."

Maybe read the bible, and then make your unfounded claims

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

fd58e0  No.823999

File: ea389a83bb83eeb⋯.jpg (474.8 KB, 683x1024, 683:1024, Little_Red_Flying_Foxes.jpg)

>>823997

Ah yes, such a lovely little flock of birds.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

ae8344  No.824001

YouTube embed. Click thumbnail to play.

Enjoy

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

4afd3e  No.824002

>>824001

<Minnesota Iceman

<main proprietor of the "starchild" finding

<held at some UFO enthusiast meetup

Yeah this reeks of falliciousness. I've seen this before, and I'm not very impressed by his little demonstration.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

3284fb  No.824061

>>787391

you know I feel like there were some inconsistencies in logic but you honestly convinced me greatly about the YEC option (as opposed to my current/previous standing of "not going to think about it right now")

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.



[Return][Go to top][Catalog][Nerve Center][Random][Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[]
[ / / / / / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / random / erp / fast / hydrus / kind / lewd / mai / pdfs / tech ]