>>573038
I think many in the scientific "consensus" camp misunderstand the nature of science. Time and time again they equate a particular scientific viewpoint - a particular hypothesis or theory such as evolution - with the enterprise of science itself such that if you criticize a particular scientific point of view they will call the critics "evolution deniers" or "science abusers" and this is obviously wrong. Science depends on the freedom of scientists to openly critique scientific established ideas. Science advances as scientists argue about how to interpret the evidence and that means that when you have people like Al Gore saying there is no debate about global warming or Eugenie Scott saying there are no scientific weaknesses of evolution they are actually acting in profoundly unscientific manner because they are shutting down the very dialogue and debate argument that makes science work. These labels attached to people are obviously meant to stigmatize dissenting opinion without ever engaging with the argument. So I think this is a profoundly unscientific approach to these scientific debates.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=667437352756453133

Creationism is as valid a theory as Evolution

So a science book is supposed to say that it's possible the world was created in 7 days and all that mumbo jumbo?

>>573093
Creation isn't a theory. It's an account

leftists spreading propaganda without any evidence, as usual. the textbook does deserve to be banned as do the ones who claim jesus was a myth.

>>573081
>>573093
YOU STUPID SHIT, WHEN THEY CALL SOMETHING A 'THEORY' IN SCIENCE IT MEANS THEY'RE REALLY FUCKING SURE IT WORKS

IT MEANS THEY'VE TESTED AND EXPERIMENTED IT A WHOLE FUCKING LOT

> where creationism is described as, "the biblical myth that the universe was created by the Judeo-Christian God in 7 days."


Isn't that what it is though? I don't understand his issue? Does he want the definition expanded to cover other creation myths or what?

>>573097
No but not call it a myth when science has nothing against Creation and evolution is a theory. It just speaks of the bias of the author which shouldn't be pushed upon children

Why do they even bring these things up in textbooks? Couldn't they just have something saying there are lots of theories and no ones sure? God damnit, why is the American educational system is so fucking retarded.

>>573038
That woman in the vid has some scary fuckin eyes

>>573093
No, because creationism has no evidence, and hasn't been vetted by anyone with half a brain and survived the process.

>>573038
As much as I hate Creationism, he does have a point. The book should have simply gone without acknowledging Creationism at all, or listing off all creationist theories as myths.

That said, I don't think it's good enough of a reason for the book to be banned.

>>573110
No.

A scientific theory is a systematic ideational structure of broad scope, conceived by the human imagination, that encompasses a family of empirical (experiential) laws regarding regularities existing in objects and events, both observed and posited. A scientific theory is a structure suggested by these laws and is devised to explain them in a scientifically rational manner.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/scientific+theory

Every religion is considered a mythology.
-_-
What a dumbfuck.

>>573081
Creationism has no evidence to support its validity. It isn't a theory by scientific standards. The most conclusive theory that explains the "advancement" of life is the theory of evolution.

>>573144
So you want this author's bias to be forced to children?

>>573136
creationism does have evidence, as do many other inaccurate theories. go learn what evidence is, faggot.

>>573159
Around 85% of the world's population are religious.

>>573151
Go on, admit it.

You do not understand what that sentence means, do you.

If you believe the world was created in 7 days, go lay out in the street. There's no hope for you. You can still "believe" and regard all that crap as a legend and shit they talked about while they sat around fires in fear there was a witch amongst them.

Haven't looked yet but I'm guessing at least one person here has already used the "it's a theory" argument without realising the huge difference between an average theory and a scientific theory.

>>573185
There is no evidence. Many legitimate scientists have been asking the creationists for years on evidence.

>>573136
>No, because creationism has no evidence, and hasn't been vetted by anyone with half a brain and survived the process

Yes all science points to creation.

>>573167
I don't want it to be forced onto children. However, I see no reason to waste taxpayer dollars on new books, taking away even more money from the education system.

I say let the book stay, and when they get new ones, buy them from someone else. The books still have value as educational tools, bias aside.

>>573186
Doesn't change the fact that they are all considered mythologies.

1+1=2
if you start calling 1 a 'not number' it doesn't make 1+1 not equal 2.

>>573200
refer to >>573201

>>573118

Loling at the trolls in this thread. If Biblical Creationism isn't a myth, neither are any other religions for all we know.

Well he's an idiot and idiots have a right to be idiots.

Creationism as a theory is not falsifiable. It is not open to scientific method.

Therefore it is not a scientific theory.

Do not compare theories with scientific theories. They do not obey the same rules.

>>573185
Really, give me that evidence. Not reasons evolution may be wrong, but evidence creationism is right. And no, the bible is not evidence.

>>573206
they're called myths by less than 15% of the world's population. How exactly does that make them myths? Dummy atheists

Proof of creationism? I dunno, God did it.

>>573208
youre calling evolution a myth? because its in the bible. itt idiots who use only one translation of the bible for all their bashing needs.

>>573223
hate to break it to you but that number is much higher than 15%.

>>573208

I can't debate him thereofr I'll call him a troll.

>>573118

You know that else is a theory? The earth revolving around the sun.

>>573212
>Creationism as a theory is not falsifiable. It is not open to scientific method. Therefore it is not a scientific theory. Do not compare theories with scientific theories. They do not obey the same rules.

Creation isn't a theory it's an account. And yes it's falsifiable if you could show that we weren't created and came about otherwise that would falsify it.

well the bible is literally myth. If you want to believe in it, okay, but it is still myth, one way or the other.

>>573234
No over 85% of the world ascribe to a religion. l2stats

>>573240
this is observable and calculable. Fail atheist white belt logic is fail.

>>573258
protip: almost everything that is falsifiable in the bible has been proven accurate

the atheist teens on 4chan try way too hard

>>573258
says you jack

>>573278
So is evolution.

Your point?

>>573272
and over 90% of the world population are idiots. your point is?

Sigh
Not everyone believes in the same religion.
That's when when teaching people at schools they learn evolution, the idea with a fuckton of research into it AND it has NO religious connections.

>>573298
>implying your IQ is very likely to be lower than most of the worlds save for nigger or hispanic nations

>>573282
exactly
http://www.biblearchaeology.org/

>>573278
So is evolution. You can look at a fossil record. A high school biology class can "evolve" bacteria in a petri dish. Its still a theory.

Gravity is a theory too and I doubt many people would argue that. Most people don't get that a scientific theory is not the same as a run of the mill theory.

>>573272
and the catholic church has stated that it believes that the creation story in the bible is a metaphor for god creating the universe and that evolution is the most likely possible reason for the way our species came into being. so thats 1.2 billion people out of 6.x billion. now we add in the 15% of the world that are atheists and your numbers now seem off.

>>573296
How is evolution observable and calculable?

>>573298
refer to >>573285

>>573256
> if you could show
I think what you mean is 'if you could prove'

Proofs are just about impossible in the real world. You would need a total set of axioms for the universe and all universal data. Godel's incompleteness theorum still stands in the way of the first one.

Either way, all available data could STILL have been faked by an omnipotent deity with some weird desire to do so. So the evidence can always be overturned by LOLGOD.

Genesis is an account. Creationism is a theory posited that the account in Genesis is 100% true.

It is not a very impressive theory. It is not on the same caliber as a scientific theory.

This should not bother religious people, since they value faith not science. But for some reason this thread is still full of people defending the position.

Banning books? Censorship? What happened to your freedom of specch, USA?

>>573321
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/misconceptions_faq.php#b6

Educate yourself.

>>573315
itt atheist teens who dont know when people debate evolution theyre not debating whether it exists but whether it accounts for all life/creation

>>573299
yeah but there's no proof behind it. It's nothing beyond a wild fairy tale.

>>573282
protip: almost every post that is controversial in the /new/ has been proven to be a troll

the trolling newfags on 4chan try way too hard

>>573332
It got in the way of religious doctrine. That makes it bad.

>>573321
Start with a population with a very low rebirth cycle, insert an adverse parameter, observe the population evolve around the adversity.

>>573321
Ever here of bacteria?
They evolve to become more resistant to antibiotics.
...did you pay attention in high school biology or not?

>>573345
>bawwwww
okay teenager

>>573315
>So is evolution. You can look at a fossil record.
What about fossils?

>A high school biology class can "evolve" bacteria in a petri dish. Its still a theory.
no genetic mutation took place to increase the complexity of the genome of the bacteria.

>Gravity is a theory too and I doubt many people would argue that. Most people don't get that a scientific theory is not the same as a run of the mill theory.
everyone believe in gravity. You can observe it and calculate it unlike evolution.

>>573342
but evolution does not adress creation of life at all. at least get some basic education before you start spouting your fundie bullshit.

>>573342
>itt a dumbass who didn't read that this thread was arguing evolution versus creationism, not the origin of the universe, as seen in the OP.

>>573319
false. Not every catholic believes the creation story to be a myth. This is what the pope said and he doesn't speak on behalf of anyone but himself. That's 1 man, like yourself.

The meaning of a 'scientific theory' and other objects such as hypothesis and facts:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aVAYDWJrJ7c&feature=related

Creationism and evolution and why the former has no claim to be held in equal regard to the latter:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oseaJ0gxvPw&feature=related


All the answers you need for this thread are in those two interviews. Pseudo-christians in this thread are trolls.

>>573375
You calculate genetic variations over generations. Its easy to do with something that has a quick life cycle like bacteria. Genetic mutations take place all the time, there is argument on this from anyone that knows they are talking about.

Just because people believe something doesn't make it true. It requires evidence. Evolution has evidence. Creationism does not.

>>573394
actually that's been the papal office for like the last 60 years. It's also what they teach in catholic schools, you know those places where catholics go to learn real things.

>>573375
For the record, evolution does not mean there is an increase in complexity. It just means that the organisms most fit for their environment survive pass on their genes, and the ones that aren't die.

The two concepts aren't interchangeable.

>>573375
HOHOHO
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14094-bacteria-make-major-evolutionary-shift-in-the-lab.html

Anyone who thinks creationism as a theory deserves equal weight to evolution as a theory gets no respect.

It is an immature position to take.

They are not equally resolved theories. I don't care how many people go to church on sunday's and fill out census forms with a tick. They are not equal, at all.

Now, try to convince me that creationism is valid without saying 'its a theory!!'

>everyone believe in gravity. You can observe it and calculate it unlike evolution.


calculate the gravitational rotation curve or GTFO

>>573413
* is no argument on this from anyone that know what they are talking about.

>>573256
and how would one go about falsifying it? Unless you built a time machine and went back in time to watch the formation of the universe (lol), you can't falsify it by its very nature (the same way you can't falsify the divinity of a flying spaghetti monster).

>>573433

galactic rotational curve*

>>573428
Often times it's not even survival of the fittest. The mutations in evolution are random. One species may gain a mutation that doesn't benefit them in any way, but also doesn't hinder them. The mutation is still passed on.

>>573454
That too. Forgot about that.

>>573329
Wrong

>Either way, all available data could STILL have been faked by an omnipotent deity with some weird desire to do so. So the evidence can always be overturned by LOLGOD.
Science points to God. None of it points to any alternative and if you had any you would have produced them here for us.

>Genesis is an account. Creationism is a theory posited that the account in Genesis is 100% true.
Creationism is the term coined and not used widely by those who believe in Creation which is the believe that God created the universe.

>It is not a very impressive theory. It is not on the same caliber as a scientific theory.
It's not a theory. Evolution however is a theory which isn't very impressive after 200 years we still have no proof of it and science is pointing the other way

>This should not bother religious people, since they value faith not science. But for some reason this thread is still full of people defending the position.

Religious people do care about science but the new atheists where you got this propaganda from didn't tell you that. I am not up to date on the most recent inventions but up until recently most important scientific discoveries were discovered by theists.

>>573439
You build a model that makes predictions about very specific modulations in rare high end frequencies.

You then test is against the observations.

Until it can be falsified its just talk. Cosmology has lots of talk, but they get off their ass to TEST things.

Ever heard of the LHC?

>>573335
bring up an issue here it's not up to me to go prove your own position which is contrary to mine against myself.

>>573467
Give me a reason anything points to a God doing it aside from it being the most convenient explanation.

>>573332
yeah if it makes a claim which cannot be proven why should it be forced upon children? are you for that?

>>573480
7/10

You had me going at first, but you slipped. GG, troll.

You all do realize that no christian fundie would frequent 4chan and that every anti-evolution/science/whatever and pro-creationism/GAAAAWD comment here comes from trolls, right?

>>573375
The fossil record shows a certain species of animals lived during a certain time period. After that time period that species isn't found anymore, but a very similar species is. So on and so fourth.

Bacteria do evolve in the petri dish. If you have a bacteria colony, then it it with antibiotics, most of the colony will die. Those that survived did so because of some genetic mutation that makes them immune to that antibiotic. When they multiply, they pass that mutation on to their offspring, thus making the new colony immune to antibiotics. It's not exactly that clean cut, but the principle is there.

Imagine for some reason or another, tall people started dying. All the tall people got killed off for some reason, leaving only short people. Those short people have short babies, and if they have tall babies those babies get killed off, leaving only shorties. This is how evolution works. The human race just evolved to be shorter.

>>573350
>Start with a population with a very low rebirth cycle, insert an adverse parameter, observe the population evolve around the adversity.
they adapt to the adversity they don't mutate increasing complexity. Fail

>>573351
This is not due to a mutation of the genome increasing complexity so it's not evolution.

>>573403
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=667437352756453133

>>573479
You can prove God doesn't exist with the LHC?

please, do tell. Idiot.

>>573413
>You calculate genetic variations over generations. Its easy to do with something that has a quick life cycle like bacteria. Genetic mutations take place all the time, there is argument on this from anyone that knows they are talking about.
Genetic mutations take place all the time and nobody argues with that. People who keep with the science which is about things which can be calculated and observable however don't agree that there's a process which increases the complexity in the genome of a living organism. And the bacteria changing is an adaptation whereby again no mutation took place to increase its complexity.

>Just because people believe something doesn't make it true. It requires evidence. Evolution has evidence. Creationism does not.
Just because people believe something doesn't make it true. It requires evidence. Where is the evidence for evolution? Science points to creation.

>>573419
Not all catholics believe that the creation account of genesis is a myth. Fail.

>>573375
Are you a troll?
Evolution is observed all the time. Why do you think flu vaccines are something to take more than once per lifetime? Because viruses evolve.

>>573427
Terrorism: n. The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.

fail

>>573467
I wrote a full reply and it got lost just at the end.

I cannot be bothered writing it again.

So I will say this. In Christian terms, my beliefs fall under 'deist' not 'atheist'.

The position of creationists is absolutely FULL of misused or misunderstood terms. It cannot be respected by anyone who has studied those terms even a little bit.

Being religious does not mean being an idiot. You do not compare apples with elephants. Creationism is not an equal theory to evolution or cosmology. It embarrasses all other people of faith.

>>573547
Okay, there are arguments among evolutionists for certain mechanisms. But why does the science point to god? Where? What science points to god? What evidence is there? That evolutionary theory is not perfect is not evidence for god.

>>573428
Everybody believes organisms adapt to their environments. People who cling to science know no mutation takes places whereby new complexity is found to make the specie adapt which wasn't already in it's genes before. Evolutionists however believe such a process exists.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zaKryi3605g

Interviewer: Can you give an example of a genetic mutation or an evolutionary process can be seen to increase the information in the genome?
Dawkins: ..... *silence*.... *babbling not answering the question.


fairy tale is a fairy tale

>>573430
the e. coli mutation is a loss in complexity in the genome. FAIL

>>573606
So the mechanism isn't known. Why does that make creationism a valid alternative?

>>573433
Acceleration due to Gravity:
g = 9.8 m/s^2 [down]

Force of Gravity:
Fg = Gm1m2/r^2

G is universal gravitational constant: 6.67 x 10^-11
m1, m2 are the two masses that attract each other
Fg is the attractive force between the two masses
r is the distance between the two masses

Gravitational Potential Energy (near surface of Earth):
Eg = mgh

m is mass of object
g is acceleration due to gravity
h is height of object above the surface of Earth
Eg is the amount of gravitational potential energy an object has when it is near the surface of the Earth

Gravitational Potential Energy (in general):
Eg = -Gm1m2/r

>>573606
Are you aware of the timescale this is occurring at??

Fuck. Stupid people.

>>573439
by showing that we came about in a way which was other than it. Simple

>>573484
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pEMDqTxfkmM

>>573093
>>573081
>>573106
>>573185
>>573201
>>573256
>>573278
>>573282
>>573310
>>573321
>>573342
>>573467

>>HURR DURR MAYBE IF I DISMISS ALL ATHEISTS AS "TEENAGERS" LIKE MY PASTOR TOLD ME TO DO THEN ALL THE EVIDENCE AGAINST MY DELUSIONAL BELIEF SYSTEM WILL GO AWAY DURP DURR DERP HERP

>>573503
???

Is it up to me to go prove your assertions against my position? Should I link you over to a page which is going to take you 3 hours to read?

So I take it you have nothing?

>>573623
We know what gravity does but the don't know what gravity is.

Hello.

Everyone who thinks Creationsim is a valid scientific theory is Scientifically illiterate and has no fucking clue what they are talking about.

I point to basic education as my proof

/thread

>>573647
That wasn't convincing at all.

>>573506
>The fossil record shows a certain species of animals lived during a certain time period. After that time period that species isn't found anymore, but a very similar species is. So on and so fourth.
Yes extinct species everybody believes in them. What's your point?

>Bacteria do evolve in the petri dish. If you have a bacteria colony, then it it with antibiotics, most of the colony will die. Those that survived did so because of some genetic mutation that makes them immune to that antibiotic. When they multiply, they pass that mutation on to their offspring, thus making the new colony immune to antibiotics. It's not exactly that clean cut, but the principle is there.
It doesn't cling to it because the phenotypical shape of it is different. No complexity adding mutation mutation took place.

>Imagine for some reason or another, tall people started dying. All the tall people got killed off for some reason, leaving only short people. Those short people have short babies, and if they have tall babies those babies get killed off, leaving only shorties. This is how evolution works. The human race just evolved to be shorter.
Wrong. No mutation takes place for this to happen. The genes are copied from both parents. Fail

>>573564
No. It changes shape but no genetic mutation took place whereby it gained any features or complexity it previously couldn't be.

>>573647

You are irredeemably stupid if you can't see the logical fallacies strung throughout that. I watched it back when it was first posted after some other retard posted it in /b/ and faceplamed at all the circular reasoning.

I feel that in the future there will be two distinct social classes: one, which is hard-core religious, which is pandered to in public education and is kept happy through superficial means/brainwashing, and

The people who run everything else. Those are the ones who go to 2 year colleges to unlearn all the public education...they will hold entry level management jobs/sciences etc...then the four years, etc like regular post secondary schooling is now. They will be liberal religious types, Buddhists, and atheists. Their job will be to keep the burger flippers and lawn mowers happy, free from worrying about the "horrible" anti-christian school system and will be keeping everything running smoothly.

I'll bet money on it.

>>573718
>implying that such a system doesn't already exist

>>573573
>The position of creationists is absolutely FULL of misused or misunderstood terms. It cannot be respected by anyone who has studied those terms even a little bit.
No it's not. Creation is the believe that God created the universe

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/creation

>Being religious does not mean being an idiot.
No kidding sherlock. Believing in evolution doesn't mean one believes it because he's an idiot, he is deceived.

>You do not compare apples with elephants. Creationism is not an equal theory to evolution or cosmology.
Creation is not a theory it's an account. Evolution however is not science like geology, anthropology, archaeology, physics, chemistry, biology, etc.

>It embarrasses all other people of faith.
Says you - a man who doesn't understand the claims of evolution.

Behold the following Image.

It is the reason that nothing the educated people in this thread say will change the minds of brainwashed religionfags. You point out the difference between Scientific theory and general theory and guess what? It goes in one ear, and out the other.

If they were honest and intelligent enough to comprehend what you have to say, they wouldn't BE creationists.


Give up.

>>573718
HOW ABOUT YOU GO TO SCHOOL IN THE FIRST PLACE YOU ILLITERATE FUCKSTICK
MY BRAIN WAS FULL OF FUCK READING THAT

>>573734

>>hurr durr I am right because my pastor says so durr hurp durr

>>573597
>Okay, there are arguments among evolutionists for certain mechanisms. But why does the science point to god? Where? What science points to god? What evidence is there?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pEMDqTxfkmM

>That evolutionary theory is not perfect is not evidence for god.
You don't understand. This process is supposed to exist in nature we are supposed to be able to observe this in every living organism on earth. Nowhere has it been observed. It's a fairy tale. Do you just believe it because it gives you an excuse to not believe in God?

>>573748

You do not understand science.

Stop fucking your sister, Get off of 4chan, and go to school.

>>573618
>So the mechanism isn't known. Why does that make creationism a valid alternative?
Because the mechanism what evolutionists believe exist, this is whereby every living thing changed to the state it is today from erstwhile forms. If this process isn't observed evolution isn't observed.

Creation is the only tenable position.

>>573683
The mutation is that some people are short and some are tall. All genes are mutated to an extent from their parents, otherwise we'd all be clones. This is why animals evolved sex- with two parents instead of one, and the mixing of genes that takes place, there is a greater variety of genes in the population.

Nowhere did I say the genome had to be more complex than it's parents'. Your claim that all evolutionists believe this is a straw man argument. Evolution is simply the belief that small changes in inherited genes can eventually change a species by process of natural selection.

>>573627
he was silent and babbled not answering the question. Fail.

>>573748

Darwin's finches?

>>573661
>We know what gravity does but the don't know what gravity is.
We know it's science because we can calculate it and observe the effects of its governing laws precisely.

This is science... unlike the theory of evolution.

>>573670
you listened to the whole 28 minute video in 3 minutes? amazing

Christfags

[X] Told
[ ] Not Told

>>573697
>You are irredeemably stupid if you can't see the logical fallacies strung throughout that. I watched it back when it was first posted after some other retard posted it in /b/ and faceplamed at all the circular reasoning.
Which logical fallacy are you referring to?

Creationism is a hypothesis, not a theory

>>573758
> Creation is the only tenable position.

....

Please tell me that thought did not just come out of a functioning brain.

Actual changes to genome happen incredibly rarely. The chances of EVER seeing it happen in a lab is infinitesimal.

Requesting that process as a precursor for accepting any part of evolution is just trolling.

Believing that the absence of that data supports creationism as an 'only alternative' is just absolutely stupid. I cannot say it any other way and stay true to my beliefs. It was a stupid stupid thing for you to say.

>>573755
>You do not understand science.
I stand refuted... no really is that it?

>>573734
In part one of your argument you say creation doesn't refer to the creation of species but to the universe, then in part two go on about how evolution is faked because they are being deceived (by the devil) but offer no alternative...you inadvertently revealed a belief that contradicts your first statement on a personal level.

>>573795

Prove to me you are smart enough to comprehend if I told you.

god says its real so it MUST be real

>>573806

Everything you said was wrong on a fundamental level.

You

Do

NOT

Understand

Science

ITT: Atheists preaching intolerance against Christians and Christians preaching intolerance against Atheist, sounds like the same bullshit to me

HOLY SHIT WHY DO PEOPLE SAY THAT THE SCIENCE POINTS TO A CREATOR

OTHER THEN SAYING "WELL WHAT ELSE COULD CAUSE IT" TELL ME HOW THE FUCK IT POINTS TO GOD

>>573806

You stated Evolution cannot be proven because it cannot be observed. This shows you fail at understanding the very basics of what constitutes scientific testing and observation.

well the protestants hate the catholics
and the catholics hate the protestants
and the hindus hate the muslims
and everybody hates the jews

>>573736
I'm not going to waste my time spell and grammar checking a bunch of 4chan posts. I really do not care even slightly. For you, however, I will make sure (albeit superficially) that this post is up to your rigorous literary standards. I apologize for the inconvenience that you suffered, you stupid fucking christfag. You are a non-entity, and I will no longer acknowledge your existence, as it does not serve my purposes.

Good day, and fuck you,

The Honors College Student who doesn't kare.

Oh look.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ImvlS8PLIo

Science pretty much proves the big-bang, but people still cling to religion.

4CHAN DEBATE TEAM IN THE FUCKING HOUSE!!!

YEA FUCK YOU GUYS GO DIE HERP DERP

>GREETEXT

I ACTUALLY MADE UP ALL THAT SHIT ABOUT MYSELF I'M ONLY 15

I BROWSE /a/ and /h/ DAILY

>>573765
>The mutation is that some people are short and some are tall. All genes are mutated to an extent from their parents, otherwise we'd all be clones.
No mutation takes place for this to happen, the information is copied from both parents and the diversity is there because it's copied from their genes where it already exists.

>This is why animals evolved sex- with two parents instead of one, and the mixing of genes that takes place, there is a greater variety of genes in the population.
cool story bro. I hope you don't teach that to children.

>Nowhere did I say the genome had to be more complex than it's parents'. Your claim that all evolutionists believe this is a straw man argument. Evolution is simply the belief that small changes in inherited genes can eventually change a species by process of natural selection.
No. Evolution is the believe that natural selection coupled with this fairy tale process of complexity increasing mutation evolves living species. I don't know anyone who doesn't believe in natural selection, the asinine part of the theory of evolution is not it takes this process into it but the mutational one. Natural selection spreads genes it doesn't create any new complexity. It's the process of complexity adding mutation which evolutionists believe in which is yet to be shown anywhere.

>>573806

If this was a science forum I could post a very large explanation to why what you stated was totally wrong.

However, this is 4chan, so instead I shall tell you to get a fucking education and stop making a dumbass out of yourself.

>>573758
Creationism was also not observed. Therefore completely untenable assertion.

>>573774
variation. No mutation takes place. All the finches have the genes to create all those beak sizes.

Take a rabbit and bring it to another continent it will adapt as well.

/sci/ is this way pussies ----->

leave /stormfront/ to me

this thread

It's not a myth if you can't prove it wrong.

Evolutionism has been proven wrong many times though.

/b/ is the shit faggots

fuck you

blarghhhh

THIS ENTIRE FUCKING THREAD MAKES ME WANT TO SLAUGHTER A COW

Dear creationists.

All of your arguments have been debunked on the following site.

>>www.google.com

Thousands upon thousands of times I might add.


Good day to you.

>>573901
So Odin really did create the universe from the body of the slain giant Ymir, and created man from the tree at the end of the world. You can't disprove it, so it must be true.

ughgughgh

>>573805
>Please tell me that thought did not just come out of a functioning brain.
Posit an alternative? Everything came out of nothing? There is no alternative.

>Actual changes to genome happen incredibly rarely. The chances of EVER seeing it happen in a lab is infinitesimal.
Wrong. We should be observing them very often in every organism. We can sequence genes nowadays. Comparing the genes of a living organism to the same which lived a while back shows no evolution.

>Requesting that process as a precursor for accepting any part of evolution is just trolling.
It is evolution. Natural selection is only spreading these genes according to the fairy tale. So the process is evolution itself. This is it doesn't exist.

>Believing that the absence of that data supports creationism as an 'only alternative' is just absolutely stupid.
No. It's beyond this. Even if one believes in evolution makes no difference, the matter has to come from somewhere.

aww fuckkk

>>573915
Desperate atheist fag is desperate.

YOU ARE NOW BLINKING AND BREATHING MANUALLY YOU CAN'T STOP

WE PENIS NOW

>>573941
HOW BLINK AND BREATHE WITH HANDS???

COME AT ME BRO

>>573944

LIKE THIS

>>573813
>In part one of your argument you say creation doesn't refer to the creation of species but to the universe, then in part two go on about how evolution is faked because they are being deceived (by the devil) but offer no alternative...
No. Where did I mention the devil? Where did I say that evolution is faked because they are being decieved?

To say evolution is an alternative is to make it tenable, but science shows it's not. So the only tenable position is Creation.

CHOCOLATE FROSTY COMING UP

>>573816
So I take it you can't prove your false claim against the documentary?

MACBOOK PRO

ALL OF THE INFIDELS MUST DIE!!!

ALLAH AKBAR!!!

>>573836
I
STAND
REFUTED
...
NO
REALLY
IS
THAT
IT
?

check out my doubles you FUCKING FAGGOTS

trolls trolling trolls trolling trolls....

the point is?

>>573979

/new/ has the most butthurt fags since gay porno

>>573915
>>573915
>>573915
>>573915
>>573915
>>573915


this.

Seriously creatards. Who do you think knows better about the science behind evolution and creationism?

99.99% of all scientists?

Or your 15~25 ass that has at best a BA if even?

Seriously people.

applies to all of the little butthurt bitches in this thread

>>573861
>You stated Evolution cannot be proven because it cannot be observed. This shows you fail at understanding the very basics of what constitutes scientific testing and observation.
Evolution cannot be observed genetically in gene sequencing comparing any living organism today to old ones. The genotype is the same. Perhaps you didn't understand what I meant?

>>573882
>If this was a science forum I could post a very large explanation to why what you stated was totally wrong. However, this is 4chan, so instead I shall tell you to get a fucking education and stop making a dumbass out of yourself.

In other words you provide no substance. In spite of this fact you have the gall to tell me to go get educated. GG I think i've won that one.

>>573884
there's no possible alternative

>>573881
>No mutation takes place for this to happen, the information is copied from both parents and the diversity is there because it's copied from their genes where it already exists.

That's actually true. In a situation with two parents, no mutation typically takes place, rather the mixing of genes creates diversity in offspring genes. However, with bacteria, where new bacteria are essentially genetic copies of the single parent bacteria, for diversity to occur there must be a mutation. Essentially, genetic diversity is what allows evolution to happen, but that doesn't necessarily mean mutation is the cause of that diversity.

>No. Evolution is the believe that natural selection coupled with this fairy tale process of complexity increasing mutation evolves living species. I don't know anyone who doesn't believe in natural selection, the asinine part of the theory of evolution is not it takes this process into it but the mutational one. Natural selection spreads genes it doesn't create any new complexity. It's the process of complexity adding mutation which evolutionists believe in which is yet to be shown anywhere.

This is just wrong. Evolution is the belief that changes to organisms occur over generations as a result of natural selection. That's it, pure and simple. At its core it says nothing of mutation, creating gene complexity, or anything like that. Those are aspects that are currently debatable, but to say that evolutionary theory must support those aspects is wrong.

I'll say it again, EVOLUTION IS THE BELIEF THAT CHANGES TO ORGANISMS OCCUR OVER GENERATIONS AS A RESULT OF NATURAL SELECTION.

>>573916
>So Odin really did create the universe from the body of the slain giant Ymir, and created man from the tree at the end of the world. You can't disprove it, so it must be true.
How many believe in that? Is any text purporting this to be an account and not a myth? Also this makes no sense. Where was the giant if the universe didn't exist? It would have to exist and he would have to be in it to make it which is a contradiction. When we die we become dust nothing to do with trees so you can put that Odin myth to rest as it's just been disproven.

>>574023
If everything had to be created, then God had to be created. If you say that god was not created, the statement that everything needs to be created is not logically valid, and your argument is, by definition, false.

>>574058
don't ever fuck with odin

>>574058
Sarcasm is lost on you. I know you are just a troll, but your efforts are so poor that I won't bother anymore. Skirmishing with a good troll can be fune, but you are just lame.

>>574058
Oden and Ymir already existed "outside" of this universe. Therefor, they are exempt from the rules. Duh, they're gods dude. Well, one was a giant...

>>574058
Where was god if the universe didn't exist? God couldn't exist in a universe which did not exist, correct?

>>573987
most scientists in the anglo-american world believe in evolution not because their fields confirm it but simply because the socialist schools taught them so.

Also a lot of scientists - phd level or otherwise - do not believe in evolution or have serious doubts about it explanatory power.

>>574058
>implying that doesn't make sense

>>574004

Please see

>>573915

>>574025
>That's actually true. In a situation with two parents, no mutation typically takes place, rather the mixing of genes creates diversity in offspring genes. However, with bacteria, where new bacteria are essentially genetic copies of the single parent bacteria, for diversity to occur there must be a mutation.
No. They are copying themselves multiplying and they have no evolved new features or complexity they previously didn't have.

>Essentially, genetic diversity is what allows evolution to happen, but that doesn't necessarily mean mutation is the cause of that diversity.
Cool story bro. The diversity is there, how did it come about. No gene sequencing will show you this came about by the fairy tale process which is supposed to exist of the evolutionary theory. Fairy tale was fairy tale, is fairy tale, and will be fairy tale until hopefully one day it's a thing of the past in everyone's mind.

>>574147
are you implying there's no such thing as genetic diversity?

1. genetic mutations occur (fact)
2. things that live longer and have more sex reproduce more
3. things live and have sex, and occasionally 1 happens

therefore evolution

ib4micro vs macro evolution: walk many feet, never reach mile

>This is just wrong. Evolution is the belief that changes to organisms occur over generations as a result of natural selection.
By the complexity increasing mutations. Natural selection just spreads these about according to the fairy tale of evolution.

>That's it, pure and simple. At its core it says nothing of mutation, creating gene complexity, or anything like that.
Yes it does. This is all it is at its core - a genetic theory.

>Those are aspects that are currently debatable, but to say that evolutionary theory must support those aspects is wrong.
The process doesn't exist, it has never been shown now had increase in complexity been shown. No amount of paleo-babble will change that.

>I'll say it again, EVOLUTION IS THE BELIEF THAT CHANGES TO ORGANISMS OCCUR OVER GENERATIONS AS A RESULT OF NATURAL SELECTION.
No. I don't know anyone who doesn't believe in natural selection. Evolutionists believe natural selection spreads new genes which increase the complexity of the organism which has mutated them by this fairy tale process.

>>574181
>>Natural selection

You have absolutely no idea what that term means, do you?

>>574062
>If everything had to be created, then God had to be created. If you say that god was not created, the statement that everything needs to be created is not logically valid, and your argument is, by definition, false.
No because God needs to be outside of the universe to create it and to say the cause of the universe had to be created leads to an infinite regression which makes no sense philosophically because you'd never reach the present by having an infinite number of causes in the past. This philosophical dilemma is also a reason why the universe can't be infinite. Therefor the only tenable position is that the cause of the universe was always there, never created.

>>574181


See >>573915

>>574081
>Sarcasm is lost on you. I know you are just a troll, but your efforts are so poor that I won't bother anymore. Skirmishing with a good troll can be fune, but you are just lame.
Trying to play it off as if it was sarcasm.

>>574181

>The process doesn't exist

Hey bro go outside and get a tan. Then make sure your kids get a tan. Eventually your descendants will be born with darker skin!

Who would have thought?

>>574147
>No. They are copying themselves multiplying and they have no evolved new features or complexity they previously didn't have.

Ummm, yes they do. Their new evolved feature is their immunity to previous antibiotics.

>Cool story bro. The diversity is there, how did it come about. No gene sequencing will show you this came about by the fairy tale process which is supposed to exist of the evolutionary theory. Fairy tale was fairy tale, is fairy tale, and will be fairy tale until hopefully one day it's a thing of the past in everyone's mind.

The diversity came about either through genetic mutations or through the mixing of parents' genes. Or did you not learn about dominant and recessive genes in science class yet?