| Home | RSS Feeds |
| Funny Pictures | Funny Videos |
| Funny GIFs | YouTube Videos |
| Text/Links | Comic Editor |
| User Rankings | Channels |
| Copyright Removal Request | |
| |
Earth is 6,000 years old
He opens with "Two timelines, one which the bible is saying and one which evolution is saying"
No. Geography. Also the bible has no more say on the age of the earth than any other book. Cold hard data is what you need.
He then goes on to explain those timelines. His analysis of the literal biblical timeline is fine, then he gets to the big bang theory and is much less so. He say's it was 20 billion years ago then drastically downplays everything from then til now, as well as completely misrepresenting abiogenesis and how life works. Life forms didn't just "appear", it's a complicated and multi stepped process. Life doesn't have an "interest" in reproducing itself, it was reproducing long before it could be called life. We're less than two minutes in and he's already either lying or demonstrating gross ignorance as to the topic he's arguing against.
Again, his biblical argument is fine. When he gets back to talking about geography though, he talks about the idea that older rocks are under younger rocks (Principal of something or other, I forget) as if it were a law. It's not. It's a principal. A guidline. It doesn't always hold true. Scientists are aware of this, it's not a problem for them.
Oh god no. Oh, GOD no. Fuck this. I'm 6 minutes and 20 seconds in and he's talking about taxonomy. Worms, fish, frogs, cats, chimpanzee, human is how he says it is. This is much closer, but not even halfway, to how it really is. upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/11/Tree_of_life_SVG.svg/600px-Tree_of_life_SVG.svg.png
He opens with "Two timelines, one which the bible is saying and one which evolution is saying"
No. Geography. Also the bible has no more say on the age of the earth than any other book. Cold hard data is what you need.
He then goes on to explain those timelines. His analysis of the literal biblical timeline is fine, then he gets to the big bang theory and is much less so. He say's it was 20 billion years ago then drastically downplays everything from then til now, as well as completely misrepresenting abiogenesis and how life works. Life forms didn't just "appear", it's a complicated and multi stepped process. Life doesn't have an "interest" in reproducing itself, it was reproducing long before it could be called life. We're less than two minutes in and he's already either lying or demonstrating gross ignorance as to the topic he's arguing against.
Again, his biblical argument is fine. When he gets back to talking about geography though, he talks about the idea that older rocks are under younger rocks (Principal of something or other, I forget) as if it were a law. It's not. It's a principal. A guidline. It doesn't always hold true. Scientists are aware of this, it's not a problem for them.
Oh god no. Oh, GOD no. Fuck this. I'm 6 minutes and 20 seconds in and he's talking about taxonomy. Worms, fish, frogs, cats, chimpanzee, human is how he says it is. This is much closer, but not even halfway, to how it really is. upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/11/Tree_of_life_SVG.svg/600px-Tree_of_life_SVG.svg.png
We have more more proof of evolution than we do of gravity. I'm sure all the evidence was manufactured just to fool us for some strange reason.
Just watched a lot of the first video, and it's so full of bullshit it's funny.
Just watched a lot of the first video, and it's so full of bullshit it's funny.
If you're going to post evidence against evolution, can you please post it in a form other than long videos on youtube? I don't deal with long videos well, my attention span fades in and out. If you've got something textual, I'd be happy to respond to it. As for the videos, I'll do my best, so brb.
#49 to #6
-
mostmodest ONLINE (01/07/2013) [-]
Okay, christfag here. I'm been a christfag all my life, and whenever anybody asks me about evolution, I disregard the theory (much to our school's antichrist's chagrin). Not because of superiority of the Bible, but because there is limited knowledge about the Earth's origins. Also, it is just a theory, I don't see how ignorant people can accept a (still unproven) theory as fact. And sleep confuses me about evolution...
TL;DR: I don't believe in evolution because it doesn't have overwhelming evidence, it's still an unproven theory and sleep.
>Gif related, it''s FJ's reaction.
TL;DR: I don't believe in evolution because it doesn't have overwhelming evidence, it's still an unproven theory and sleep.
>Gif related, it''s FJ's reaction.
What anon said. Do you seriously not know the difference between a scientific theory and a theory in the way the general public uses? Theorys are close enough to facts that they are very unlikely to change. If you say it cant be tested/observed in a laboratory it very much can.
i have a suspicion you're trolling..
this has been covered in previous comments..
A scientific theory is a body of knowledge based on facts that describes their interaction in the simplest possible way. It is subject to change as the body of known fact changes, but always describes the body of fact as accurately as possible. There may be gaps in a theory, but the body of facts must support any tentative conclusions that are drawn.
this has been covered in previous comments..
A scientific theory is a body of knowledge based on facts that describes their interaction in the simplest possible way. It is subject to change as the body of known fact changes, but always describes the body of fact as accurately as possible. There may be gaps in a theory, but the body of facts must support any tentative conclusions that are drawn.
Yet you believe in a god that cannot be studied like evolution can?
Evolutions is a theory on adaptations to live. We adapt to survive. Animals adapt to survive. Even single celled organisms that cannot think, adapt to survive.
So tell me how you can believe in a god that has no physical proof of existence yet do not believe in a theory that has very strong evidence to support it.
Evolutions is a theory on adaptations to live. We adapt to survive. Animals adapt to survive. Even single celled organisms that cannot think, adapt to survive.
So tell me how you can believe in a god that has no physical proof of existence yet do not believe in a theory that has very strong evidence to support it.
Well your beliefs are ignorant and biased for no reason.
If you state your beliefs you should be ready to back them up and fight for them. You have that right. Here is a tip. No one will take you seriously if you tuck tail and run away when someone provides a good argument to what you believe.
For me, I will fight for my beliefs, until I am proven to be right/wrong or we come to a common agreement of sorts. I will always have a decent argument to refute someone else that does not agree. Do I always win? No, but I never just state my case and walk away when someone else disagrees.
If you state your beliefs you should be ready to back them up and fight for them. You have that right. Here is a tip. No one will take you seriously if you tuck tail and run away when someone provides a good argument to what you believe.
For me, I will fight for my beliefs, until I am proven to be right/wrong or we come to a common agreement of sorts. I will always have a decent argument to refute someone else that does not agree. Do I always win? No, but I never just state my case and walk away when someone else disagrees.
#38 to #6
-
N. Korean citizen (01/07/2013) [-]
As arkfire said and was negative thumbed for, that's simply not true. There is an incredibly distinct difference between saying that Christianity accepts the theory of evolution (which is does not) and stating that it's not directly in conflict with many of Christianity's teachings.
i wish the people at my school would at least read or study a little bit about evolution before dismissing it, but instead they listen to a teacher, who claims a lot of bullshit like, "i prayed to a person with Spina bifida, and amazingly before my eyes it bent and healed to normal."
Oh here's the way it works, I believe in God, but I believe he made the main roots of all animals. I don't exactly believe in the whole "Adam and Eve" part of the bible, for the bible has been changed a good amount for how long it has been passed on. So basically my theory is that god created Earth but it wasn't just like "BOOM! ANIMALS OUT OF FUCKIN NO WHERE!" It was much more of a soft change
#204 to #203
-
justthisonepost (01/10/2013) [-]
It's pretty ridiculous to think that the original story of the creation of the world was messed up. Even if it was slightly messed up, there isn't much room for evolution. Also, if one part of the bible is messed up, then how do we know if the core beliefs aren't also messed up?
Well thats the thing, we don't. Its scary I know but you have no way of telling whats right and wrong. Hell for all we know we could turn into flying fish people when we die and our god could be a half monkey half hippo monster who eats babies, but we don't know for sure. We can never know until we die.
#206 to #205
-
justthisonepost (01/10/2013) [-]
Right. I figure that Christianity has more evidence for it than other religions, because it wasn't created within one time period. The Bible was created over a very long time, and the fact that it's even coherent is impressive. But evolution has a lot of evidence too, so I don't know.