Well you kind of back yourself into a corner when you claim your God is infallible, and that his word is absolute, and then go change the book based on his word. lol You either have to believe it's true, or admit that it's just a story.
Gender: Male Location: The Proud Nation of Kekistan
Even Jesus called out some shit, such as:
When a mob dragged that woman in front of him and went "Yo we gotta stone this *****" and he was like "he who has not sinned may cast the first stone"
Or when some people mobbed him like "You were healing people on the Sabbath, REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE" and he was like "My dudes, you circumcise boys on the Sabbath, if your beast falls over you'd pick it up, chill out"
__________________
Shadilay my brothers and sisters. With any luck we will throw off the shackles of normie oppression. We have nothing to lose but our chains! Praise Kek!
THE MOTTO IS "IN KEK WE TRUST"
Gender: Male Location: The Proud Nation of Kekistan
Don't underestimate the kangaroos my dude.
__________________
Shadilay my brothers and sisters. With any luck we will throw off the shackles of normie oppression. We have nothing to lose but our chains! Praise Kek!
THE MOTTO IS "IN KEK WE TRUST"
Bentley is joking, but some people really don't seem to understand it.
We are apes, considering that chimpanzees are closer to us than to Gorillas, and Gorrilas are closer to us than to Orang-Utans
Also Evolution happens to be a fairly complex process that our current knowledge doesn't fully account for, while the concept of Creation is more to be "accepted" than "understood" as far as more people arguing for it goes.
Yes, but that doesn't stop people from interpreting it poorly. In my experience the evidence is clear for most people but the process is very vague (most people are terrible at math).
I'll be the devils advocate (if you pardon the pun) for the creationist position. I believe God did it, I just don't know how, so I guess I'm suitable for this.
Obviously it's harder to dismiss them all as a whole, in combination these points are pretty strong, but individually they are often (not always) easy to dismiss from a creationist standpoint.
1. Vestigial structures are easier to dismiss because they could just be a result of the fall. Also there's still so much about genetics we don't know, perhaps there is a hidden reason on the level of genetics why those structures exist. It could even be a result of "micro evolution".
2. For starlight. We are living in a big universe, and we know that the speed of light can be influenced by any number of factors, all it would take to throw this theory out of the window is to discover something new that makes the universe appear older through influencing the speed of light.
3. The Fossil record is definitely the strongest point. Even for a Christian, the idea of Satan planting fake fossils is far fetched for many. I could perhaps resort to arguing that dating the age of fossils using rock might not be reliable, and would at best show the age of the earth, not the actual creature encased in the earth. What would you say to such an idea?
Also, many creationists would point out that a person could create fake fossils in a lab, and that it would require faith in the system to believe otherwise. You might respond that there is evidence that science is reliable, to which the creationist would respond that there is also evidence that even non-credentialed scientists have successfully created false discoveries before. (Piltdown man for example), how much moreso credentialled ones who would likely have the knowledge and resources to produce a convincing fake?
4. Again, a pretty good point, although if it turns out this specific genetic similarity/difference exists for the benefit of humans, then that alone could explain the similarity.
Not to mention the whole 99% similarity thing is an out of date myth based on incomplete data (You can't just compare a small fragment of DNA and act like it applies to the whole thing). And because our DNA is made literally of the same 4 components (A,C,T,G) as chimps and all other animals, there's bound to be atleast a 25% similarity just because we are made of the same stuff, no common ancestry or evolution required. Another large section of the similarity could be explained purely as things needing to be that way for us to survive, the rest as smaller mutations.
What I'm interested in finding out, but have no idea where to begin to look, is how they know that they "HAR"s (human accelerated regions) are accelerated, rather than simply differences between us and chimps. Or how they know for sure that junk DNA doesn't have some actual use, considering how different we actually are from chimps.
I'm not a scientist, so I certainly don't know everything, but there has been so much discussion on the topic of evolution and yet most of it is out of date to my knowledge.
Last edited by NostalgiaSearch on May 16th, 2020 at 01:41 PM
Yeah, my dad has said the exact same thing. It's because Christianity is a cult and those sorts of rationalizations will keep you from asking real questions. It all just comes down to thinking the "Bible" is a more reliable source of evidence than... actual, repeatable scientific observations and evidence.
(please log in to view the image)
2. Cool, work on that discovery and convince the entire population of esteemed astrophysicists. Point is no one's done it. The universe is old as shit and starlight isn't the only evidence of that. It's just further evidence of it.
3. Dating methods using rate of decay are reliable. It's established science. It's only dishonest apologists who try to claim otherwise. The scientific field doesn't doubt it's validity. (And please don't make me explain why science is reliable, because people in the field are always trying to prove others wrong, so there's constant questioning.)
KMC Community Forums
Nov 29th, 2017 02:52 PM
Attachment: 
