My ancestors :)

My ancestors 🙂

Homeless People Are Sexy Shirt $21.68

The Kind of Tired That Sleep Won’t Fix Shirt $21.68

Homeless People Are Sexy Shirt $21.68

  1. 9 months ago
    Anonymous

    My favorite part is how birds spend milli9ns of years with hollow bones and deformed claws that couldn't be used for grabbing anymore or flying yet and somehow didn't go extinct.

    • 9 months ago
      Anonymous

      They had really good mouths and the hollow bones are actually pretty strong

      The strongest structures we can create are hollow lol

    • 9 months ago
      Anonymous

      Dinosaurs had hollow bones before birds were a thing and the non bird theropods that became birds could likely already fly at least short distances

  2. 9 months ago
    Anonymous

    What is the average rate of evolution?

  3. 9 months ago
    Anonymous

    >Someone pointed out Evolution is mathematically impossible woth a 13 billion year old universe.
    >In response, scientists now say it's 28 billion years old.
    Is this the furthest anyone's ever moved goal posts?

    • 9 months ago
      Anonymous

      Things that never happened lol

      You keep using radiometric evidence as evidence for your dates. But I've already said that radiometric dating has been proven to be inaccurate, and I don't accept it as evidence. They've performed multiple studies on newly formed rock from 10 - 50 years old, and tested them using multiple radioisotope dating techniques. They sent multiple samples to multiple laboratories without disclosing the samples origins, and were given dates that ranged from 100,000 years to 3.2 million years of age.
      And how convenient to avoid the carbon 14 found in many samples that should be dating several million years old that I keep mentioning.

      >But I've already said that radiometric dating has been proven to be inaccurate,
      It hasn't
      >and I don't accept it as evidence
      Because you're stupid (or else you would believe a dead homosexual on a stick was magical)
      >They've performed multiple studies on newly formed rock from 10 - 50 years old, and tested them using multiple radioisotope dating techniques. They sent multiple samples to multiple laboratories without disclosing the samples origins, and were given dates that ranged from 100,000 years to 3.2 million years of age.
      What is newly formed rock made out of? That's right. Older rocks.

      Every creationist argument has been so thoroughly debunked that if there is an actual god I think he hates you by now. It's like arguing with flat earthers.

      Oh, hey, look at that. American churches, home to the young earth creationists, literally can not stop being struck by lightning.

      • 9 months ago
        Anonymous

        Tell me how I know you don't understand radiometric dating without telling me directly that you don't know how it works.
        Molten rock as it's being formed picks up different chemicals and gasses d such as nitrogen14. They calculate the decay rate of Nitrogen 14 and then measure how much nitrogen is left in the stone. And they imagine they can date it. When the rock is melted down under the earth's crust the counter resets because new elements such as nitrogen 14 or uranium 238 is then added back into the newly formed material.

        • 9 months ago
          Anonymous

          >rocks are perfectly homogenous
          >the entire world is wrong and it's a conspiracy because uhhhh

          • 9 months ago
            Anonymous

            No one was saying the rocks were homogenous. They were pointing out how rocks that were 10-50 years old, straight out of a volcano were showing dates of millions of years. Clearly the system of testing is inaccurate.

            • 9 months ago
              Anonymous

              You keep using radiometric evidence as evidence for your dates. But I've already said that radiometric dating has been proven to be inaccurate, and I don't accept it as evidence. They've performed multiple studies on newly formed rock from 10 - 50 years old, and tested them using multiple radioisotope dating techniques. They sent multiple samples to multiple laboratories without disclosing the samples origins, and were given dates that ranged from 100,000 years to 3.2 million years of age.
              And how convenient to avoid the carbon 14 found in many samples that should be dating several million years old that I keep mentioning.

              >without disclosing sample origins
              What a crock of shit. That returns nonsensical data.
              Dating techniques are specific for the type of samples and require distinct preparation of the sample to get useful ages. In rocks you have to analyze specific minerals like zircon, for carbonates you need to use either Srtrontium isotopes or thorium desequilibrium. Misleading labs to use inappropriate techniques is just malicious lying.

              • 9 months ago
                Anonymous

                >Nooooo
                >You can't test like that
                >You might get different answers based on different assumptions
                Real scientific moron.

              • 9 months ago
                Anonymous

                They disclosed the type of material, just not it's location of origin or its date. If you have to have a presumed date in order to find out which test to use that will give you an answer close to your assumption, otherwise you end up with an answer far removed from the estimate, then that method is as scientific as a rain dance. In the case of the Mt. St. Helen's test, they were told the samples origins, and they still came up with a date of millions of years.

              • 9 months ago
                Anonymous

                >In the case of the Mt. St. Helen's test, they were told the samples origins, and they still came up with a date of millions of years.
                Which sorts of dating methods were used for this?

              • 9 months ago
                Anonymous

                Potassium - Argon, it was tested at the Geocron laboratory in Cambridge.

              • 9 months ago
                Anonymous

                >Potassium - Argon
                I think I see the issue here. That method is not effective at measuring things that formed recently as it has a long half-life of over 1 billion. Unless the lab had fancy equipment, measuring even thousands of years would be difficult with this method, so you get results in the low millions instead.

              • 9 months ago
                Anonymous

                I know, but it puts a kink in the method and raises cause for doubt. The fact any argon-40 had appeared in the sample at all shows that samples can be formed with the presence of argon gas, which means all samples previously examined needs to be re-examined in that context. And add to that the tests at Mt Ngauruhoe, and the Grand Canyon test. There was a volcano in the north rim whose flow spilled over and down into the canyon. And when they ran radiometric dating tests on the flow, it showed older dates than had occurred in the bottom sedimentary layers at the bottom.
                It is an unreliable, and completely UNPROVEN method of dating that must rely and a large number of assumptions.

              • 9 months ago
                Anonymous

                >The fact any argon-40 had appeared in the sample at all shows that samples can be formed with the presence of argon gas
                Argon-40 will appear in small, insignificant amounts that are not able to be measured accurately. It's like using a standard ruler to measure viruses and bacteria. The lowest measurement would be a millimeter but the germs are much less than that which yields a high margin of error. So, unless you can find or make equipment that can read such small amounts of argon, you're going to get high results like that.
                >it showed older dates than had occurred in the bottom sedimentary layers at the bottom.
                Is this from St.Helen as well or the other ones?

              • 9 months ago
                Anonymous

                No, this was in the Grand Canyon. A lava flow spilling down into the canyon dated older than the sediments in the bottom.

              • 9 months ago
                Anonymous

                Do you have a link? I'm not familiar with this one.

              • 9 months ago
                Anonymous

                Steven A. Austin, PH.D., "Excessively Old 'Ages' For Grand Canyon Lava Flows"

              • 9 months ago
                Anonymous

                The methodology for this one is flawed. The samples used in the study were not from a single lava flow but from multiple. With this form of dating, using multiple sites yields the age of the source of the flows as opposed to the age of a single flow itself.
                This means that the guy doing the research accidentally came up with the minimum age of the source of the lava flow in the mantle as opposed to the flows themselves.

                https://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/gsa/geosphere/article/11/5/1305/132253/A-new-model-for-Quaternary-lava-dams-in-Grand
                Here's another more recent report. Even here, they keep finding anomalies and inconsistency with the radiometric dates.

                This doesn't refute radiometric dating but uses it to build an updated model of an ancient Grand Canyon.

              • 9 months ago
                Anonymous

                That claim is incorrect. It was made by Talk Origins in an attempt to discredit the findings, however it has been refuted by Austin and he has provided proof that the samples taken were homogenous. And sort of. It does make mention that some of the samples were dating much older than anticipated. Showing the methodology encounters enough hiccups to be worth mentioning.

              • 9 months ago
                Anonymous

                What proof did he provide?

              • 9 months ago
                Anonymous

                The tests themselves. The agreement between the Rs-Br isochron show that the isochron is not a result of non-cogenetic samples, they're too similar. The results would've varied to a far greater degree if he had sourced the samples from different locations.

              • 9 months ago
                Anonymous

                >Be scientist
                >Invent machine to date things
                >Throws in ham sandwich, dates it to 3 million years
                No, you can't do that, it has to be older.
                >Throws in great great great grandma's spitoon, dates it to 10 million years
                No, no, it has to be even older.
                >Throws in Roman earthenware vessel, dates it to 16 million years
                Even older, otherwise it doesn't work.
                >Throws in caveman dick, dates it to 7 million years
                Just let me do it.
                >Throws in 50 year old lava rock from Mt. Ngauruhoe, dates it to 3 million years
                Omg, look! It's so accurate! The earth is so ancient! This proves how old the rocks are!

                People are actually this gullible.

              • 9 months ago
                Anonymous

                I know you shouldn't feed soijak posters but honestly this was so stupid you deserve your free (You).

              • 9 months ago
                Anonymous

                No, you're right. You should trust the tests that only work for things that can't be verified. You should also believe that I turn invisible when no one is looking.

              • 9 months ago
                Anonymous

                Of course anon! Just like you should always believe a book made by two delirious morons lost in a desert 🙂

              • 9 months ago
                Anonymous

                Do you have the article or whatever where he put out this statement? The initial source (

                Steven A. Austin, PH.D., "Excessively Old 'Ages' For Grand Canyon Lava Flows"

                ) uses multiple lava flows for a single chart.

              • 9 months ago
                Anonymous

                https://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/gsa/geosphere/article/11/5/1305/132253/A-new-model-for-Quaternary-lava-dams-in-Grand
                Here's another more recent report. Even here, they keep finding anomalies and inconsistency with the radiometric dates.

              • 9 months ago
                Anonymous

                You clearly have no idea how to read scientific publications that are not creationism drivel of you think this research is saying that the sediments are younger than the lava flows

              • 9 months ago
                Anonymous

                That's not the conclusion I came to with that report, no...

      • 9 months ago
        Anonymous

        https://phys.org/news/2023-07-age-universe-billion-years-previously.html

  4. 9 months ago
    Anonymous

    realest homies know that we blacks are god's chosen people and whitey's an unnatural gorilla hybrid made by yakub

    • 9 months ago
      Anonymous

      https://i.imgur.com/U66df3Y.png

      >evolution just be a theory mudda fukkka *hits holy meth pipe*

      I was wondering when the derailing glow Black folk would show up.

  5. 9 months ago
    Anonymous

    >evolution just be a theory mudda fukkka *hits holy meth pipe*

  6. 9 months ago
    Anonymous

    The ocean is terrifying, the lad who first escaped it was a good lad

  7. 9 months ago
    Anonymous

    Thank you for ensuring the creationist continues his hilarity OP, good bait thread

    • 9 months ago
      Anonymous

      It takes more faith to believe that life evolved from shit and rocks than all being created by a higher power

      • 9 months ago
        Anonymous

        no it doesn’t. The theory of evolution doesn’t need to constantly justify itself. Meanwhile, creationism does, and needs to tell people that they will suffer for eternity if they don’t go to church/cut off their foreskin/not touch their penis

      • 9 months ago
        Chud Anon

        >we do t know the exact starting point of life
        >this means that a israelite in the sky put humans in a magic garden they later got kicked out of and then populated the world by practicing incest

        • 9 months ago
          Anonymous

          So why do they find carbon 14 in diamonds?

          • 9 months ago
            Chud Anon

            Because skyisraelite put it there 🙂

            • 9 months ago
              Anonymous

              It's a simple question.

              • 9 months ago
                Chud Anon

                And the answer is simple: baby Jesus willed it before he grew up and sacrificed himself to himself to save us from himself

              • 9 months ago
                Anonymous

                If scientist find a cluster of molecules which deteriorate to undetectability at about 100,000 years, then it is rational to conclude that the object is younger than that.

          • 9 months ago
            Anonymous

            The C14 is most likely not from the diamond itself but more recent contamination from its surroundings. It's essentially background noise and there have been diamonds fossils etc without readable C14 levels.
            That's why C14 isn't used to determine the age of things that are too old.

            • 9 months ago
              Anonymous

              Contamination was tested for and ruled out. It was an eight year study.

              • 9 months ago
                Anonymous

                Which study is it?

              • 9 months ago
                Anonymous

                http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/rate-critique.html also at http://www.asa3.org/ASA/education/origins/carbon-kb.htm
                J. Baumgardner, “14C Evidence for a Recent Global Flood and a Young Earth,” ch. 8 in Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth, vol. II, by L. Vardiman et al (Institute for Creation Research, 2005),
                J. Baumgardner, D.R. Humphreys, A.A. Snelling, and S.A. Austin, “Measurable 14C in Fossilized Organic Materials: Confirming the Young-Earth Creation-Flood Model,” in Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Creationism, ed. R.L. Ivey, Jr. (Pittsburgh, PA: Creation Science Fellowship, 2003), 127-142. (Everything in [1] except the diamond data is contained in this earlier paper.)
                >And bear in mind that discarding the evidence merely because of the source also allots me to be able to discard any source shown based on the authors beliefs and biases as well.

              • 9 months ago
                Anonymous

                >http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/rate-critique.html also at http://www.asa3.org/ASA/education/origins/carbon-kb.htm
                These links just criticize the study.

              • 9 months ago
                Anonymous

                I'm not sure how you got that out of those links unless you didn't read the whole reports, but whatever. Have another.
                https://www.icr.org/i/pdf/technical/Carbon-14-Evidence-for-a-Recent-Global-Flood-and-a-Young-Earth.pdf

              • 9 months ago
                Anonymous

                I see. The first two links are critique, I forgot to add the link to the response of the accusations of those articles.

          • 9 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Diamonds formed later than expected
            >THIS MEANS MY SPECIFIC MIDDLE EASTERN DEATH CULT IS REAL!
            >However, older materials still exist
            >SHUT UUUUUUP
            Christards, everyone.

            • 9 months ago
              Anonymous

              The mind of the religion drone is limited in scope and incapable of thinking too many thoughts at once or in sequence
              https://www.usgs.gov/centers/astrogeology-science-center/news/happy-old-rock-day

              They are, quite literally, drones. That's why they were so successful, they just do what smarter people tell them to as the smarter people sneak their agendas into the scripture.

            • 9 months ago
              Anonymous

              I wouldn't expect a man who thinks his ancestors were fish to see the scientific significance of this find.

              The mind of the religion drone is limited in scope and incapable of thinking too many thoughts at once or in sequence
              https://www.usgs.gov/centers/astrogeology-science-center/news/happy-old-rock-day

              They are, quite literally, drones. That's why they were so successful, they just do what smarter people tell them to as the smarter people sneak their agendas into the scripture.

              Radiometric dating has also been proven to be inaccurate. Look at the studies done on samples taken from Mt. Ngauruhoe.

              • 9 months ago
                Anonymous

                >Radiometric dating has also been proven to be inaccurate. Look at the studies done on samples taken from Mt. Ngauruhoe.
                okay show me a human fossil below the dinosaur substrata layer. Earth is 6000 years old right? You know people don't use radio carbon dating for things older than a few ten thousand years right?

              • 9 months ago
                Anonymous

                I'm aware. Hence why find carbon 14 in diamonds, as well as dinosaur fossils is so significant.
                http://newgeology.us/presentation48.html

              • 9 months ago
                Anonymous

                >Man didn't live with dinosaurs, they're a gatrazillion years old!

              • 9 months ago
                Anonymous

                >A gatrazillion! Those paintings are horses!

              • 9 months ago
                Anonymous

                https://i.imgur.com/AaRBWtK.png

                >Man didn't live with dinosaurs, they're a gatrazillion years old!

                And other images you ONY find on creationist websites

                That is not the original, you see. The photograph is heavily altered
                https://outofbabel.com/2019/12/13/on-my-complete-failure-to-find-the-kachina-bridge-dinosaur/

                No one was saying the rocks were homogenous. They were pointing out how rocks that were 10-50 years old, straight out of a volcano were showing dates of millions of years. Clearly the system of testing is inaccurate.

                That never happened

                If you're finding carbon 14 while dating rock samples pulled up in strata with dinosaurs in it, (which they do), then it means things are younger than assumed. But in the study I mentioned, they used nitrogen dating, uranium dating, and argon dating as well.
                [...]
                At one time the civilized world thought diseases were caused by bad air, and leeches were a legitimate medical treatment. If you think the whole world can't be wrong, I recommend a look at history. Look at how the world reacted to a disease with a lower mortality rate than the flu.

                Nor did that

                He who believes in some disinfo (your bible is a tome of shit and lies) is likely to believe in even more.
                >nooo you cant trust the experts -chuds
                >trust me preferred experts -also chuds

              • 9 months ago
                Anonymous

                Yep very heavily altered photograph
                Paper: https://palaeo-electronica.org/2011_1/236/index.html
                Summary: https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/debunking-the-dinosaurs-of-kachina-bridge-96018102/

                Besides the logical invalidity (did we walk among dinosaurs because we have drawings of them?) they also fabricate evidence. If these wackos had a leg to stand on, the vatican, which is the only church on earth that has authority rooted in directly in its own scripture, would have been all over but they're interested in converting people so they can't tell too many lies. Especially not ones that are easily proven wrong.

                The creationist like the flat earther can not survive if someone understands why their claims are wrong.

              • 9 months ago
                Anonymous

                http://newgeology.us/presentation48.html
                >It never happened, it just didn't! No I won't give any credible refutation!
                You know what, I'll give the top one to ya. I won't say it was sanded away or anything, you can have that. Now do the other one.

              • 9 months ago
                Anonymous

                >no credible refutation
                Paper: https://palaeo-electronica.org/2011_1/236/index.html
                Summary: https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/debunking-the-dinosaurs-of-kachina-bridge-96018102/
                >source: random wackjob website, data misrepresentation and fabrication
                >only appears on politically sympathetic pages
                Holy replication crisis. In other news, god isn't real and you're half pig. Source: random wackjob website.
                https://www.macroevolution.net/human-origins.html

                Why isn't the vatican, the only church given authority by god according the only religion to support young earth creationism, all over this dinosaur drawing thing?

                And even if it were real, isn't this drawing proof we're hanging out with deinonychus right now? All we did was find some funny bones while digging around for building materials.

              • 9 months ago
                Anonymous

                Can you not read? I said I'd go along with the kachina bridge debunking. That's fine. I'm not catholic by the way. Now do me a favor, and examine the link that I provided.

              • 9 months ago
                Anonymous

                the moronic schizophrenic you call christ died begging for his mother and shit himself in front of a crowd following a roman spear doing a little pokey pokey just thought I’d put that out there
                your entire religion since then has been in cope mode

                so much for divinity

              • 9 months ago
                Anonymous

                So I assume you have no rebuttal if you've reverted to insults. And yet you'll still stomp your feet no doubt.

              • 9 months ago
                Anonymous

                >please argue against my disinfo website
                t. flat earther
                Don’t talk to me you weird pig human hybrid

                What is the average rate of evolution?

                https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rate_of_evolution
                Read

              • 9 months ago
                Anonymous

                Ah ha ha ha ha ha.
                >I don't like that extremely scientific paper, I'm not reading it
                Predictable.

              • 9 months ago
                Anonymous

                >Radiometric dating has also been proven to be inaccurate.
                It hasn't proven to be billions of years inaccurate lmfao

                Sorry your specific middle eastern death cult is as invalid as its predecessors and successors all claim

                Even your own church who claims might and right, the ONLY valid christian church, has rejected young earth creationism

                http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/rate-critique.html also at http://www.asa3.org/ASA/education/origins/carbon-kb.htm
                J. Baumgardner, “14C Evidence for a Recent Global Flood and a Young Earth,” ch. 8 in Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth, vol. II, by L. Vardiman et al (Institute for Creation Research, 2005),
                J. Baumgardner, D.R. Humphreys, A.A. Snelling, and S.A. Austin, “Measurable 14C in Fossilized Organic Materials: Confirming the Young-Earth Creation-Flood Model,” in Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Creationism, ed. R.L. Ivey, Jr. (Pittsburgh, PA: Creation Science Fellowship, 2003), 127-142. (Everything in [1] except the diamond data is contained in this earlier paper.)
                >And bear in mind that discarding the evidence merely because of the source also allots me to be able to discard any source shown based on the authors beliefs and biases as well.

                >And bear in mind that discarding the evidence merely because of the source also allots me to be able to discard any source shown based on the authors beliefs and biases as well.
                Actually your source is discarded due to the lack of reproduction

                Samples of the Acasta Gneiss rock have been dated on the record multiple times using multiple methods. All confirmed it was at least 4 billion years old. The variation was within 0.5 billion years, impressive for something so old. All you have is one schizos pro-HERESY (yes, heresy, you refute a position your only actual church considers valid) .org website.

                The only debate about the gneiss rock? Whether the rock itself is that old or if it's just composed from the remains of an even older rock.

              • 9 months ago
                Anonymous

                You keep using radiometric evidence as evidence for your dates. But I've already said that radiometric dating has been proven to be inaccurate, and I don't accept it as evidence. They've performed multiple studies on newly formed rock from 10 - 50 years old, and tested them using multiple radioisotope dating techniques. They sent multiple samples to multiple laboratories without disclosing the samples origins, and were given dates that ranged from 100,000 years to 3.2 million years of age.
                And how convenient to avoid the carbon 14 found in many samples that should be dating several million years old that I keep mentioning.

              • 9 months ago
                Anonymous

                Which techniques did they use? Different elements are used to establish an age range of the rocks tested. You'll get different results depending on how much the element has decayed over time. Carbon-14 is used to make more accurate measurements of more recent things while others such as potassium-argon is used to measure extremely old things.
                Using carbon to measure something that's millions of years old is like trying to measure the empire state building with a 12-inch ruler while being locked in a cage. Using potassium to measure something recent is like using a meter stick to measure a microbe.

              • 9 months ago
                Anonymous

                If you're finding carbon 14 while dating rock samples pulled up in strata with dinosaurs in it, (which they do), then it means things are younger than assumed. But in the study I mentioned, they used nitrogen dating, uranium dating, and argon dating as well.

                >rocks are perfectly homogenous
                >the entire world is wrong and it's a conspiracy because uhhhh

                At one time the civilized world thought diseases were caused by bad air, and leeches were a legitimate medical treatment. If you think the whole world can't be wrong, I recommend a look at history. Look at how the world reacted to a disease with a lower mortality rate than the flu.

              • 9 months ago
                Anonymous

                >If you're finding carbon 14 while dating rock samples pulled up in strata with dinosaurs in it, (which they do), then it means things are younger than assumed.
                Do you have any examples of these? Carbon can be found in fossils due to contamination (or if it wasn't even a dinosaur bone in the first place). That was the case for some of the examples that I am familiar with, where the shellac used to cover fossils ended up contaminating them.
                >But in the study I mentioned, they used nitrogen dating, uranium dating, and argon dating as well.
                Can you post the study about this?

              • 9 months ago
                Anonymous

                https://www.icr.org/i/pdf/imp/imp-307.pdf
                And see http://newgeology.us/presentation48.html

              • 9 months ago
                Anonymous

                Do you have anything peer reviewed outside of a community of literal heretics who conflict with the only church that is valid according to its own scriptures

              • 9 months ago
                Anonymous

                There's more. There was a similar test done on Mt. St. Helens after it's eruption, and in the Grand Canyon where there were inconstancies in dating a lava flow which had entered the Grand Canyon.

              • 9 months ago
                Anonymous

                If you really want to find it, you can. I'm headed out though, so good luck.

      • 9 months ago
        Anonymous

        the theory of evolution has nothing to do with abiogenesis, we could be made from rocks, self assemblying chemicals, a beareded semite man who watches you jerk off, ancient aliens. WE could be made from jesus taking a shit and we really are clay people. Doesn't change the mountains and mountains of evidence Evolution has to be the best hteory to explain life on earth. WE have so much data corroborating evolution, yet not a single shred of evidence for a bearded semite man standing in the clouds watching you jack off . In fact we can infer most of the bible is bullshit. Nobody lives to be a thousand like Methuselah, snakes don't talk, can't put two of every animal on a boat, there are no virgin births or resurrections, no single shred of evidence for a soul or after life.

        Then theists will look at a chimp skeleton next to a human skeleton and then say evolution is moronic in the same breath while they espouse their beliefs with talking snakes, world wide floods and women made of guys rid. That's why it's so funny evolution is debunked because we don't know how the primordial soup formed. But after hundreds of years knowing the bible is a fictional story they still grasp to ancient outdated bronze age belief system.

  8. 9 months ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    This is blatantly false. Augustine of Hippo and Origen objected to a literal reading of the bible in general and Genesis specifically 1600 and 1700 years ago respectively. That's before the Christian New Testament was codified. The israeli precedent is of course older. On the contrary biblical literalism is an entirely modern phenomena largely endemic to the US and its Evangelical sects.

    • 9 months ago
      Anonymous

      Here, read for yourself:

      https://historyforatheists.com/2021/03/the-great-myths-11-biblical-literalism/

    • 9 months ago
      Anonymous

      There were in fact, people who thought that scripture was merely allegorical all throughout it's existence, yes. But Jesus talks about, in scripture, that those men were wrong for doing so. The pharisees and sadducees were well known for believing that what happened to Moses and the Israelites were mere allegories. And Jesus condemns them for it. It's why he said to the pharisees that if they had believed in Moses, they would believe in him, and yet since they thought Moses' account was just metaphorical they did not believe in Jesus. Some people did think it was metaphor, but if you actually read even the basics, you'd understand people have always taken scripture literally, way back 2,000 years ago, and according to Jesus, that's the way it should be.

      • 9 months ago
        Anonymous

        Show me 1 (one) example of Jesus or anyone else in the entire bible stipulating that what is written in scripture is to be read literally, dumbass.

        • 9 months ago
          Anonymous

          I just...told you?
          John 5: 46-47 "46 For if you believed Moses, you would believe me; for he wrote of me. 47 But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe my words?”

          • 9 months ago
            Anonymous

            And you're extrapolating from this that the issue Jesus had was not with the priests being hypocrites and all that but not taking the Genesis account(s) of creation literally? Isn't it convenient for you that you get to interpret which parts of the bible however you want but everything else has to be taken as is.

            And hey this would probably be a good place to mention that Moses didn't actually write the Torah either. It would have been a lot more consistent if there was one author. Literally from the first page there are separate accounts being edited together, like Genesis 1 and 2 as I've mentioned.

            • 9 months ago
              Chud Anon

              Oh no the Old Testament was stitched together from a number of different fables, some of which sound straight up pagan and out of place in Biblical Canon like the sadistic Book of Lot

            • 9 months ago
              Anonymous

              I don't care what you believe dude. It says what it says. It's obvious what he meant, especially given the context.

      • 9 months ago
        Anonymous

        If you ever tell a christian that their scripture says one thing that wrecks their whole argument, a catholic will say BUT THE MAGISTERIUM SAID DIVINE INSPIRATION WE KNOW GOD BETTER THAN YOU THE BOOK WE CANONIZED TECHNICALLY SAYS WE RULE OK and a protestant will just shut down and shriek about their own personally convenient interpretation. We are unironically two weeks from some church somewhere in wyoming making exceptions for bestiality because "a horse is not a mere beast, and the writers didn't mean all animals only the really ugly ones like goats and cows". In fact, islam already did something like that.

        Because it has hind legs like a seal?
        >Oh wow, totally btfo'd
        Meanwhile in reality.
        https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/microscopy-today/article/preservation-of-triceratops-horridus-tissue-cells-from-the-hell-creek-formation-mt/11CD094ED1312B6C618E098C12FCC324
        Still no explanation from an evolutionist, other than, so?

        Because its legs were degenerating into flippers? Yes. That does BTFO creationism.
        >god just created individual successively more whale-like creatures because... le test of faith.
        Most mutations are honestly dogshit but they do happen, quite a lot, and eventually one persists because it is not injurious or may even be beneficial in the animals situation
        >inb4 generate new body parts tho?
        This happens all the time. l2hox genes. Did you know, your jaws are gills? Your voicebox is gills? Your thyroid gland is gills? And all of their precursor tissues could, through a genetic mistake, be duplicated, and not acted upon by the correct regulators, and turn into a shitty gill? No idea what good that would do you but maybe you'd still reproduce despite that, opening up the door for eventually developing a functional gill again.

        • 9 months ago
          Anonymous

          A duplicate voicebox would be more likely to survive if people could go for someone that sounded like dio all the time
          >WRYYYYYYYYYYYYY

  9. 9 months ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    Angels who came to earth and had relations with monkeys. Similar to the Hun's origins.

  10. 9 months ago
    Anonymous

    How unproven, untestable bullshit like macroevolution can become ubiquitously accepted almost definitely proves that university is about indoctrination, not education. Also reminder that your pic rel happened in less than 15 million years. Find me an animal on the modern Earth who has a mutation rate high enough to completely overhaul its entire physiology in that amount of time. Evolutionists are cultists LARPing as scientists.

    • 9 months ago
      Anonymous

      >unproven, untestable bullshit like macroevolution
      As opposed to white beard robe wearing sky daddy snapping his fingers and poofing everything into existence exactly as it exists now? Lol. Lmao even.

      • 9 months ago
        Anonymous

        It’s a cool idea

    • 9 months ago
      Anonymous

      Makes sense if you understand hox genes and the reproductive rate of these things making it possible to have a lot of useless mutations without a purpose

      Evolution never has a purpose, it's just entropy making it look like that. Evolution does not seek to fill a niche or anything. Most mutations are bad and result in death, or clearly bad but not bad enough to matter.

    • 9 months ago
      Anonymous

      m8, it ain't the 2000s anymore. Get new b8.

    • 9 months ago
      Anonymous

      literally me

    • 9 months ago
      Anonymous

      But fossil remains clearly prove macroevolution..

    • 9 months ago
      Anonymous

      Whales were able to return to the sea in half that time

      • 9 months ago
        Anonymous

        Right. Like the Rodhocetus, that was an ancestor of the whale that had flippers and a fluked tail, except wait, oh, no, nevermind. The long held ancestor of the whale as it turns out, never had tail fins or flippers and scientists fabricated the whole thing. Evolutionary science is so settled that they have to fake evidence just to try to explain it.
        http://thegrandexperiment.com/whale-evolution.html

        • 9 months ago
          Anonymous

          >posting this again
          You already got btfo’d on that. Picrel kills the creationist

          • 9 months ago
            Anonymous

            God just made it like that. To trick us.

            • 9 months ago
              Anonymous

              Are you calling God a liar?

            • 9 months ago
              Anonymous

              Sneaky fricker

          • 9 months ago
            Anonymous

            Because it has hind legs like a seal?
            >Oh wow, totally btfo'd
            Meanwhile in reality.
            https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/microscopy-today/article/preservation-of-triceratops-horridus-tissue-cells-from-the-hell-creek-formation-mt/11CD094ED1312B6C618E098C12FCC324
            Still no explanation from an evolutionist, other than, so?

            • 9 months ago
              Anonymous

              >it has hind legs like a seal
              Seals use their hind limbs to propel themselves. Basilosaurus couldn't do that.

              • 9 months ago
                Anonymous

                Prove it.

              • 9 months ago
                Anonymous

                They're too small for that.

            • 9 months ago
              Anonymous

              Any christian arguing is already self BTFO by choosing to follow any latter day prophet nonsense. Their religion is the fusion of several prehistoric cults, including the curiously absent cult of agni/yahvah in vedic faiths. And whenever this is pointed out they said "yeah but the prophet said all of that was wrong!" but when another prophet comes along and says they are wrong they say "uhhh he's in league with the devil" which is also what that new prophet says about them denying him. Shocker.

              And when they are asked why their god has not reached down lately like they claim he used to all the fricking time? Two more weeks.

              Meanwhile evolution is nothing more than the logical conclusion reached by observing the history of life.

              >Still no explanation from an evolutionist, other than, so?
              Iron rich blood decays into iron free radicals which preserve soft tissue by misfolding the proteins and arresting natural decay. Misfolded proteins that don't decay is nothing new. One of them causes mad cow disease.

              • 9 months ago
                Anonymous

                The iron preservation theory is just that. Theoretical. The tests were conducted in a laboratory setting which sustained no extreme fluctuation like it would in Montana, it was sanitary and kept free from any contaminating microbes, and the tests were far too short to even come close to compare it with tissue that survived for millions of years. Not too mention the samples were immersed completely in the hemoglobin molocule, which if there were only that particular protein flowing in an animals veins, it'd be dead.

                https://i.imgur.com/ZhXQFzX.jpg

                They're too small for that.

                Because your picture is inaccurate. If we're still talking about the rhodocetus, then your picture has too many vertebrae, is lacking the hip bone, and the legs are too small.
                >Inb4 it's a different animal and we're assuming that the hip bone is a residual part of an animal, and it serves no function like tonsils were believed until we discovered their necessity
                Pictured is the assumed correct proportion of the rhodocetus.

              • 9 months ago
                Anonymous

                *temperature fluctuation

              • 9 months ago
                Anonymous

                That's Basilosaurus (and smaller one underneath is its relative Dorudon).
                It's another archaic whale like Rodhocetus but its hindlimbs are recessed as they were not used for swimming.

              • 9 months ago
                Anonymous

                Right. So I'm to believe that fish crawled out of the ocean, turned into land mammals, and then turned into marine mammals, and this beast lost it's hip bones before its feet? All the while things like coelocanths, army ants, dragonflies, nautilus, remain unchanged longer than the span it took for these animals to evolve? I just don't buy it.

                >It's just a theory
                Your entire religion is not just a theory, it is blatantly made up, by a church saying what is and isn't holy only to fit their agenda. Essentially "covid science" operated like christianity, for something you probably already understand. Therefore every single claim you have made regarding creationism rests on a foundation of dust and air and is invalid from the start because truth can not be sourced from lies except by elimination.

                I'll take "just a theory" of a likely preservation mechanism over your caveman superstition bullshit. Dinosaurs had extremely iron rich blood and the interiors of their bones were bathed in it. A rapid burial would give their blood enough time to preserve a small amount of soft tissue. Later disruption would not reverse the preservation, because the proteins would already be "cooked". To reverse it would be to turn scrambled eggs back into runny whites.

                If it were a handful of inconsistencies I'd be more willing to believe. But there's so many. Bear footprints found in strata dated to the Permian period. Ink sacks from squid dated to "150,000,000" years ago, where they were able to rehydrate the ink which is mostly made of amino acids. Flexible skin discovered from Ichthyosaurs which supposedly lived in the jurassic period. Too many preserved samples of things which should have been long decayed.

              • 9 months ago
                Anonymous

                >So I'm to believe that fish crawled out of the ocean, turned into land mammals, and then turned into marine mammals,
                You're missing a lot of steps. Whales filled in opened niches which were previously occupied by reptiles before the Cretaceous extinction.
                >and this beast lost it's hip bones before its feet?
                The hip bones are still there but like the feet they are recessed. Modern whales are a similar case but even more simplified. These are used for reproduction instead of swimming which was probably also the case for Basilosaurus.
                >All the while things like coelocanths, army ants, dragonflies, nautilus, remain unchanged longer than the span it took for these animals to evolve?
                Those did not need to change as they are already well adapted to the niches they inhabit. Whales on the other hand actually benefited from becoming more aquatic.
                Proto-whales and hoofed carnivores don't exist anymore which means that they were poorly adapted to the changing environment and were selected against. Modern aquatic whales on the other hand were selected for which is why they still exist.

              • 9 months ago
                Anonymous

                I was just summarizing, not sure why you believe adding more steps makes it more probable, but ok. I'm also not sure what your next point means either, does something have to fill that niche? Doesn't that mean roles are preprescribed? And it doesn't really add up that half formed appendages mid transition would be used in a necessary function for survival. That's like if the animals to first develop eyes would be disadvantaged if those half formed eyes were damaged. And yeah, these bastards are so fit and well adjusted that no change is needed. Lol. Lmao.

              • 9 months ago
                Anonymous

                >Doesn't that mean roles are preprescribed?
                Not even remotely
                >And it doesn't really add up that half formed appendages mid transition would be used in a necessary function for survival
                Who says that they would be half formed as the final product and not just simpler forms becoming progressively more complex?
                >That's like if the animals to first develop eyes would be disadvantaged if those half formed eyes were damaged
                Any animal would be disadvantaged with damaged eyes regardless of complexity. Also there’s no such thing as “half formed” eyes. The evolution of the eye is so well understood because there are species possessing all stages of eye development alive today, from simple photosensitive spots in single celled organisms to the eyes of vertebrates

              • 9 months ago
                Anonymous

                Oh buddy. As a biologist, if you think the evolution of the eye is well understood then you're the moron in this conversation.

              • 9 months ago
                Anonymous

                It is pretty well understood, what makes you think it’s not?

              • 9 months ago
                Anonymous

                You horrendously misunderstand life if you think half formed eyes would matter that much

                If animals started being born with half formed eyes, but the new disabling feature was a protective layer and they were constantly being bashed around, they might frick more often because a fish doesn't need great visual acuity anyways

              • 9 months ago
                Anonymous

                >not sure why you believe adding more steps makes it more probable
                The extra steps include the millions of years that early mammals lived away from the ocean in a different environment.
                >does something have to fill that niche
                No, certain animals will enter a niche if they have the opportunity and capability to do so. Specialization towards that niche comes afterwards through pressures from that environment.
                It's somewhat similar to how new industries take advantage of markets that other businesses haven't thought of targeting.

              • 9 months ago
                Anonymous

                >All the while things like coelocanths, army ants, dragonflies, nautilus, remain unchanged longer than the span it took for these animals to evolve? I just don't buy it.
                They aren’t unchanged, they just didn’t change as much. The coelacanths and dragonflies around today are not the same species as the ones that were present back then, they just have the same general body plan. That’s also ignoring how groups like coelacanths used to be far more diverse in niche, size and shape

              • 9 months ago
                Anonymous

                >Right. So I'm to believe that fish crawled out of the ocean, turned into land mammals, and then turned into marine mammals, and this beast lost it's hip bones before its feet? All the while things like coelocanths, army ants, dragonflies, nautilus, remain unchanged longer than the span it took for these animals to evolve?
                Yes. All animals mutate, the ones that did simply left to go live somewhere else. The ones that did not mutate so much stayed in place.

                Makes more sense than your series of prophets that needed wars to justify themselves
                >I KILLED YOU SO LE HIGHER POWER MUST BE ON MY SIDE
                This is unironically the justification for islam btw

                If I kill the pope and say god is a giant parrot is he now? According to israelitestian tradition, yes! And then evolution becomes holy truth because my book says so. My book says people used to disagree but it was parrot god's will that they would agree, so they did, so don't say shit about how people used to be israelite on a stick worshipers. my book also predicted you would disagree and not to trust you. Therefore go away, you will burn in hell for not worshipping the great parrot.

                Flawless logic.

              • 9 months ago
                Anonymous

                its also the justification for the holy roman church existing and much of european christianity
                >i killed everyone else who wanted to be chief so god is on my side and he is real ok
                prior to that it was one of many judaism-based cults. it just so happened to be the one some fricko who drank wine out of a cup of lead had a delirious fantasy about.

              • 9 months ago
                Anonymous

                What are you talking about?
                Anyway, if you actually subscribe to survival of the fittest, you unironically believe those things. Might is right in the law of the jungle.

              • 9 months ago
                Anonymous

                I do believe that ideas are subject to natural selection, and as the population grows and humanity progresses, selective pressures change. As competitors make contact, pressures change. Different things will die, even those though strong, things formerly thought crippled will do better, it is the standard process.

                Note that the most successful and powerful nation on earth is atheist by majority, vaguely spiritual at the most, and follows an entirely pragmatic form of morality. The least powerful and most impoverished nations on earth are strongly religious and only succeed when they strike gold with natural resources. Their wealth dwindles with their resource reserves. All they are good at is frantically fricking and then having 8 starving kids.

                Unfortunately for them, the atheist nation has more resources, and there seems to be some universal ill will to the common natural resource of the religious nations (oil): using it destroys the planet. If there is a god on their side he must be the one below who they say deceives them. Or perhaps they are just moronic. The resources atheists have struck have a better prognosis.

              • 9 months ago
                Anonymous

                >Most succesful and powerful nation
                Have you been to China? The place is a shithole. It's a literal third world nation save a handful of spots where the rich live.

              • 9 months ago
                Anonymous

                >everyone has to be rich because...it looks better to me!
                Having a massive underclass is useful because they function as cheap and obedient labor. Especially if you are a homogenous nation, because then the underclass isn't inherently different, just unlucky and uncultured, so they can be drawn on as a source of future members of the upper class, and their numbers make the odds of producing ultra high quality individuals higher.

                This is, coincidentally, how evolution works. A massive population subject to some pressures if they leave their little valley will have a greater chance of producing some mutants that leave for the mountains and some other mutants that go to live in the caves. More individuals = more mutations, and more cause to leave the group to find new resources and environments that make a mutation beneficial or simply less bad.

              • 9 months ago
                Anonymous

                >It's just a theory
                Your entire religion is not just a theory, it is blatantly made up, by a church saying what is and isn't holy only to fit their agenda. Essentially "covid science" operated like christianity, for something you probably already understand. Therefore every single claim you have made regarding creationism rests on a foundation of dust and air and is invalid from the start because truth can not be sourced from lies except by elimination.

                I'll take "just a theory" of a likely preservation mechanism over your caveman superstition bullshit. Dinosaurs had extremely iron rich blood and the interiors of their bones were bathed in it. A rapid burial would give their blood enough time to preserve a small amount of soft tissue. Later disruption would not reverse the preservation, because the proteins would already be "cooked". To reverse it would be to turn scrambled eggs back into runny whites.

              • 9 months ago
                Anonymous

                There are whole lists of this stuff.
                https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1eXtKzjWP2B1FMDVrsJ_992ITFK8H3LXfPFNM1ll-Yiw/edit#gid=0

            • 9 months ago
              Anonymous

              >like a seal
              Please at least look up the animal your arguing about before saying shit. The legs of basilosaurus are closer in size to the spurs on a python than the limbs of a seal

              https://i.imgur.com/AMFlwGL.jpg

              The iron preservation theory is just that. Theoretical. The tests were conducted in a laboratory setting which sustained no extreme fluctuation like it would in Montana, it was sanitary and kept free from any contaminating microbes, and the tests were far too short to even come close to compare it with tissue that survived for millions of years. Not too mention the samples were immersed completely in the hemoglobin molocule, which if there were only that particular protein flowing in an animals veins, it'd be dead.
              [...]
              Because your picture is inaccurate. If we're still talking about the rhodocetus, then your picture has too many vertebrae, is lacking the hip bone, and the legs are too small.
              >Inb4 it's a different animal and we're assuming that the hip bone is a residual part of an animal, and it serves no function like tonsils were believed until we discovered their necessity
              Pictured is the assumed correct proportion of the rhodocetus.

              It specified in the file name and in the reply

              >it has hind legs like a seal
              Seals use their hind limbs to propel themselves. Basilosaurus couldn't do that.

              that it’s basilisaurus moron

    • 9 months ago
      Anonymous

      I bet you don't even understand what "15 million years" even means. That's a long ass fricking time, and a massive number of generations for species that reproduce several times a year - or even worse, several times a month.

    • 9 months ago
      Anonymous

      >animals with traits that let them survive are able to frick and so on ad infinitum
      As shrimple as that.

    • 9 months ago
      Anonymous

      >here's your macro evolution bro
      always bothers me when theists morons use this term. no animals is becoming a snake or a whale or a human after a single generation. These changes take millions of years, open a phylogenetic tree once in awhile

      >theists be like
      >how could hairy slouched primate man became hairless upright primate man in 4 million years? erm macro evolution is just a theory
      b***h look at these bones and tell me this is "macro evolution" and it's totally different from "microevolution" that takes place over tens of millions of years.
      Also let's not forget the retroviral sideways genetic transfer DNA from viral infections in our gametes. that basically show chimps and humans had the same chimp ancestor who got fricked with retroviral dna in their gamete. The exact same retroviral DNA markers in humans chimps and other great apes. That corroborates their morphological similarity. Whenever I see somebody call evolution "just a theory" I know they are a moronic theist troglodyte. A theory is the best thing we have besides a law. You're telling me darwin came up with this model 150 years ago and it has yet to be disprove after thousands of breakthroughs in science like DNA that just support darwinism. IF it's just a theory propose a better model that explain all our observations for the passed 150 years. What else is there really to explain the diversity of life on Earth? A Semitic bearded man in the clouds? The holy bible has been rebuked for hundreds of years as allegorical fiction, Evolution has no flaws in it meanwhile. Theists always sayu "just a theory" as if that's a gotcha.

      >untestable bullshit
      You see that's why its "just a theory" we can't go back in time to see it happen first hand over billions of years. WE can infer it exists through observation of data. That's what a theory is and it's one of the highest tiers of scientific method. No this isn't an untested hypothesis. This has been our one and only model to explain life on earth.

    • 9 months ago
      Anonymous

      15 million years is an absurdly long time though..??

    • 9 months ago
      Anonymous

      How is macroevolution not just microevolution + tons of time? If every cell in your body changed then wouldn't you become a different creature?

      • 9 months ago
        Anonymous

        There's a limit. While there might be a large amount in variety within certain species, spiders for example, no matter how much they change they're still spiders. The greatest observable change to a creatures genetics occur during reproduction. Theoretically, if you wanted to change an organisms species, genus, order, whatever, from one to another, you should be able to do so through breeding, like. If there is no limitation on the genetic code, then you should be able to breed a dog into a fox, but you can't. No matter how many times you try it, no matter the environment. Fruit flies are a great example. They've been breeding fruit flies for almost a hundred years and documenting it, since fruit flies reproduce extraordinarily fast. And yet despite having bred several times more generations of fruit flies than the generations it took for man to go from monkey to homosexual sapien, they remain fruit flies. Some might have small wings, larger eyes, but no matter what they do they can't create a new type of organism. Even by exposing them to different environments, chemicals, even intentionally altering the dna does not yield results. The only way we've observed so far is with hybridization, and most hybrids are infertile. So if men in lab coats and microscopes, and all the devices in the world can't cause evolution, why would random chance be able to?

        • 9 months ago
          Anonymous

          >you should be able to breed a dog into a fox
          No you cannot. You can change it into a dog that resembles a fox but it is impossible to jump across family trees like that.

          • 9 months ago
            Anonymous

            Exactly. That's my point.

            • 9 months ago
              Anonymous

              Evolution is not about jumping across a large pre-existing family tree but expanding a smaller one. Populations change over time which adds new "branches" forming from older ones in a tree.

              • 9 months ago
                Anonymous

                No. Even incrementally it cannot be done. As mentioned by the fruit fly experiments. Evolution should be able to be done by breeding. Changing environments merely selects for genetic sequences which already exist dormant in the organism. Time has frick all effect at changing genetics, it usually decays it. Therefore the best bet is through breeding. But you don't create new genetic expression through that, you merely select what already exists. But the genetics have limitations, we see this when two people with down syndrome have healthy kids, the genes revert back to a baseline.

              • 9 months ago
                Anonymous

                >Evolution should be able to be done by breeding.
                It is to an extent. You have dogs that look like Guinea pigs now.
                >Changing environments merely selects for genetic sequences which already exist dormant in the organism.
                They don't have to be dormant at all. Overt traits are also selected for or against.
                New genetic expressions are caused by mutations. This relies on changes at the molecular level. Forcing mutations can't be done with breeding alone and require something like CRISPR to do. Even then, an in depth knowledge of the genes are required to understand how they are expressed in relation to certain changes.
                >when two people with down syndrome have healthy kids
                They don't exclusively have healthy kids. There is a chance that they might. Down syndrome is a disorder that duplicates an entire chromosome. There are several genes involved with that and mutations can still affect them differently. For instance, the majority of male downies are infertile but a few are not. There are other sorts of variations like that as well. The return to mean among those with down syndrome involves selection against that sort of phenotype because of how it impedes the species' reproductive capabilities.

              • 9 months ago
                Anonymous

                Nothing you said were things I wasn't already aware of. I disagree with the first part of your second point though.

              • 9 months ago
                Anonymous

                So, what exactly are you arguing for?

              • 9 months ago
                Anonymous

                Nothing you said discredits my points, and you ignored half of them.

              • 9 months ago
                Anonymous

                Which ones were ignored?

              • 9 months ago
                Anonymous

                I dunno, it's hard to say if you're the same anon I was replying to five posts ago or not, so maybe you didn't if you only saw one post.
                My point is, is that there's a fair amount of evidence against evolutionary theory, from carbon-14 in diamonds and dinosaur fossils, soft dinosaur tissue and genetic material being found in fossil samples that were broken and exposed to the elements, issues with the dating methods, fraudulent evidence being used to promote the theory despite it being exposed, etc. etc.
                I don't believe in evolution after examining all of the counter points against it that no one seems to want to address. the entire theory is taped together with presumptions that have never been proven and have countering evidence. The theory is silly.

              • 9 months ago
                Anonymous

                >it's hard to say if you're the same anon I was replying to five posts ago or not, so maybe you didn't if you only saw one post.
                Well, there have been over 30 posters in this thread. That said, it is my mistake for not reading the older posts. I'll try to argue against the stuff you posted here.
                >carbon-14 in diamonds and dinosaur fossils
                I don't know about diamonds but carbon-14 in fossils is caused by contamination from other sources like the plasters they use to cover them. The fossils themselves are made of minerals that replaced the carbon and don't have carbon unless they are young fossils to begin with.
                >soft dinosaur tissue and genetic material being found in fossil samples that were broken and exposed to the elements
                That isn't actual soft tissue but rock that has taken the shape of it through fossilization. It's a rare occurrence but it happens sometimes. That's also how bugs can also preserve.
                The genetic material isn't intact DNA but possibly chemical traces that managed to be preserved (which itself is divisive among scientists).
                >issues with the dating methods
                Many dating methods are used with several samples to refine the results. I don't think scientists stick to a specific type over all others. Mistakes are caused by not following procedures properly or contamination. Both of those happen so refining is important.
                >fraudulent evidence being used to promote the theory despite it being exposed
                Some fraudulent evidence does not refute the whole theory. At times you have someone claiming they found a "missing link" for fame or controversy. The scientists that study evolution still understand these are hoaxes. The conflict here isn't about evolution overall but how it affects certain groups of animals (eg. Did dinosaur family X come from dinosaur family Y or Z). Refuting a small hypothesis doesn't refute the theory as a whole.

              • 9 months ago
                Anonymous

                A quick search of the links previously provided will refute most of your claims.

              • 9 months ago
                Anonymous

                >there's a fair amount of evidence against evolutionary theory, from carbon-14 in diamonds and dinosaur fossils, soft dinosaur tissue and genetic material being found in fossil samples that were broken and exposed to the elements, issues with the dating methods, fraudulent evidence being used to promote the theory despite it being exposed, etc. etc.
                This has nothing to do with evolution. Creationists seem to be unable to distinguish between evolution, abiogenesis and old vs young earth

              • 9 months ago
                Anonymous

                >This has nothing to do with evolution
                The evidence countering the claims of how old dinosaurs are? Yeah, ok moron. The entire theory of evolution starts to fall apart unless you have hundreds of millions of years for it to be accomplished.

              • 9 months ago
                Anonymous

                >dinosaurs = evolution
                Uh huh
                >unless you have hundreds of millions of years for it to be accomplished.
                Your tests you cite that don’t line up with previous tests and are subject to human error don’t suddenly discount all the other evidence of an old earth. Ever heard of continental drift? How about the formation and erosion of islands? That takes more than a few thousand years

              • 9 months ago
                Anonymous

                >But you don't create new genetic expression through that, you merely select what already exists
                Please tell me where the genes for a squashed face in pugs was present in wolves. You are aware of what mutation is right? It doesn’t just select for what already exists

        • 9 months ago
          Anonymous

          >While there might be a large amount in variety within certain species, spiders for example, no matter how much they change they're still spiders
          “Spiders” is an enormous group. The difference between one spider and another may be leagues larger than the difference between a walrus and a cat, but if you watched it happen you’d call it micro evolution be the latter macro evolution because you don’t understand phylogeny. The macro evolution cope is hilarious, you people seem to think macro evolution must mean something along the lines of a fish becoming a lizard when in reality speciation is macro evolution
          >If there is no limitation on the genetic code, then you should be able to breed a dog into a fox, but you can't. No matter how many times you try it, no matter the environment
          The reason you can’t breed a dog into a fox has nothing to do with the limitation you’re thinking of, it has to do with lineage and common ancestry. You could easily breed a dog that looks and acts almost identical to a fox but isn’t because it descends from dogs and not foxes, even if it has become so distant from dogs that it is no longer the same species
          >And yet despite having bred several times more generations of fruit flies than the generations it took for man to go from monkey to homosexual sapien, they remain fruit flies. Some might have small wings, larger eyes, but no matter what they do they can't create a new type of organism
          Most of those continually allow for genetic exchange by recombining colonies and topping up the population though, so they would never get the chance even if the time period was long enough to see major changes
          >most hybrids are infertile
          This is a myth and depends entirely on how closely related the two parent species are. Hybrids from parents of the same genus which are the most common hybrids are usually fertile in at least one sex but usually both

      • 9 months ago
        Anonymous

        That's literally what it is. Also note that monkey to man is technically microevolution in the creationist sense.

  11. 9 months ago
    Anonymous

    Fookin lizard homie

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *