Why do American Christians still die on the hill of creationism?I can't think of a more effective way of outing yourself as a retard and alienating your intellectual class.This is the real reason the long term culture war cannot be won by Charlie Kirk style conservatives. Academia and educated people in general are aware of how insane young earth creationism actually is.So many of you are so contrarian you deliberately choose to follow insane beliefs just to "own the libs"
>>24489086
>>24489086>outing yourself as a retard and alienating your intellectual classthe scientists in your science books are christian
>>24489086proof that the theory is correct?What's that, you got none? ah, ok then.
>>24489087Atheist lore bought stuff like medicine and science. Other one has just bought misery and insufferability
>>24489086>how insane young earth creationism actually iswhen god created adam, he did no create him as a babyso too when god created the earth, he created it however many years old you should be able to wrap your mind around this
>>24489086you people act like "i don't actually know the answer" isn't even an option.
>>24489090Check your facts about scientific discoveries jeet and see what the catholic church contributedAlso the middle east was under Islam when medicine had its revolution there
>>24489089the theory of evolution is that only the fittest survive and produce kidswhich means that christianity is the truth >"Then God blessed them, and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it; have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over every living thing that moves on the earth.”"- Genesis 1:28>"Blessed are the meek, For they shall inherit the earth."- Matthew 5:5
>>24489090>Atheist lore bought stuff like medicine and scienceNo it didntNone of the scientists until very recently (last 60 years) were atheists
>>24489090>medicinethere is a reason why the sign of medicine is a cross>sciencesee >>24489088
>>24489091I see that as entirely possibly and also God creating a long chain of events that lead to Earth as we know it. I lean towards the second as a keen reading indicates similarities btwn formation of our universe and the way it had to be conveyed to people with no concept of physics and outer space
evolution does not bother me does your conscience bother you
>>24489095and as the hippies die out, there is a return to christianity even among the scientists
>>24489090What medicine? The modern Rockefeller poison medicine? Medicine prior to that had nothing to do with christianity
>>24489088Ah and how many scientists are young earth creationists now? None? Cool.>>24489089All evidence points towards evolution, none whatsoever to YEC. Sequencing the genomes of animals shows that animals are related to each other exactly how we would expect. Even sharing the same genetic mistakes. Why would God go through the effort of making everything appear like it evolved from common ancestors if it weren't the case?>>24489092Fencesitting is boring>>24489094>>24489099Christians have done so much to shit up this board and right wing culture in general. You are spiritually Jewish which is why you argue like one.
>>24489086>Why do American Christians still die on the hill of creationism?two words that will cause atheists a meltdown anywhere on the internetCambrian Explosion
If creationism is fake, then why are boomers so ugly
>>24489101christianity is the definition of right wing political ideology- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left%E2%80%93right_political_spectrum#Origins_in_the_French_Revolution
>>24489086Why do you believe in evolution? What are the falsifiable hypotheses of evolution? Is evolution mathematically possible? What is your religion? In what discipline is your doctorate?
>>24489096i was not talking about their personal beliefs, it is about which is the correct/useful lore >>24489103You find them ugly because, deep down, you see no harm in killing them. If they become ugly enough in your eyes, you will eventually accumulate enough reasons in your mind to justify killing them and taking their money.
>>24489101you straight away turn it into a choice between god or evolution, that's the problem with you faggots. your evidence is all man-made bullshit by the way.
>>24489086evolution is the most retarded theory ever come up with.>bro, lightning hit a dirt puddle billions of years ago
>>24489086The creation vs evolution is debate is low-iq materialistic nonsense. The real truth is that both are simultaneously true. The earth is billions of years old and also 6000 years old.
>>24489086Did you post a picture of your great-grandmother, anon?
>>24489086No one has ever really answered this question:>What in the absolute fuck was his problem?
Literally fraudulent and homosexualhttps://voxday.net/2026/05/23/probability-zero-2nd-edition/
>>24489087if you don't think a billion year process of competition, suffering, resilience, biological innovation, violence, survival against all odds, complex relationships and ecological networks is cooler than some lame dysgenic fucking jewish myth that was only invented barely even 2000 years ago by illterate camel fuckers in the middle east? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA you are nothing but a droid. jumping on the modern social contagion of anti-empiracism because like a toddler, you cannot stand being told you don't understand things.
>>24489102>>24489105I'm starting to realize why retards on this board were fucking dumb enough to suck trump's dick for the past 10 years while simultaneously screeching about jews and israel.
>>24489108>evolution>starts talking about abiogenesis you are retarded
>>24489113https://rumble.com/v70fnss-st.-pauls-cathedral-from-glorious-to-groveling.html
>>24489115be a descendant from an ape somewhere else
>>24489086Muh appeal to authority. No one cares about a fake rothschild consensus.Evolution is a pure reddit theory for mathlets:https://xenosarc.substack.com/p/from-a-mathematical-and-logical-standpoint
>>24489102>Cambrian Explosionlet me guess, you spastic monekeys see the word "explosion" and think "ooga booga life go boom" in reality it was on the timescale of tens of millions of years. who's crying, phaggot?
>>24489107>man-made bullshitso, like your bible and all abrahamic religions then?
>>24489115>>evolution>>starts talking about abiogenesisIsn't that the starting point of your theory, or did the first single life appear via some other method?
>>24489114I don't support Trump--I don't even vote. Which one of my questions indicates that my IQ is below 70? Have you never heard the aphorism that in court a good lawyer never asks a question to which he does not already know the answer?
>>24489116ah yes, time begun in ancient rome, fell into a black hole in the middle ages, and then anal sex was created so priests could fiddle with little boys. praise YAHWEH
>>24489122>a good lawyer never asks a question to which he does not already know the answer?Go ahead, let's hear it then. Why is evolution wrong and what is your actual answer for existence?
>>24489086Listen here, buddy: I don't give a FLYING FUCK if you think someone is retarded. I will continue to believe what I believe.
>>24489123
>>24489124>Why is evolution wrong and what is your actual answer for existence?Why not address my initial questions? Do you not have sufficient background in science, mathematics, or philosophy?
>>24489087>actual christian lore
>>24489120christianity is not "abrahamic">"Jesus said to them, “Most assuredly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I AM.” Then [the jews] took up stones to [kill] Him [...]"- John 8:58-59nor is islam, by the waythe claim that "arabs come from ishmael" is not only non-biblicalit would not even be relevant, as arabs do not see themselves as a chosen race "from the seed of abraham" as the kikes do >"The promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. Scripture does not say “and to seeds,” meaning many people, but “and to your seed,” meaning one person, who is Christ."- Galatians 3:16you have a kike's reading of the bible
>>24489118>shitty creationshit plebbit-tier AI slop blog postyou should be embarassed posting this crap>20^150 muh big number!!the probability of getting one pre specified modern protein by uniform random assembly in a single draw is completely irrelevant. evolution does not assemble shit like marbles. it modifies existing DNA through mutation/recombination/duplication/indels/frameshifts, transposition/exonization/gene fusion/fission/regulatory change and THEN selection filters heritable variation over populations and generations>orphan genethere are literally comparative genomic studies of de novo genes that have already been done, so this is a complete fucking lie. don't believe me? see for yourselfhttps://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23028352/https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3213175/>1 in 10^77that figure concerns a very specific function estimate, not the probability of any useful biological function. keefe and szostak experimentally found ATP binding proteins in a random 80 aa protein library. again far from mathematically impossible>punctuated equilibriumtiktaalik, pakicetus, ambulocetus, feathered dinosaurs, synapsids, hominin fossils are all transitional evidence that we have objectively observed and found. is this shit really the best you tards have? this is toilet paper
>>24489127Why not address my question? Regardless of who you are arguing with, whether or not they know any of the details on evolutionary theory, you still claimed you know the answers via your courtroom metaphor. So stop dodging the question and let's hear it.PS I work in a niche engineering field and took some philosophy classes when I was younger but wtf does that have to do with anything? How does one "mathematically prove" evolution?I am genuinely curious what your answers are, so now's your chance to prove what you know.
>>24489130I don't think that you comprehend how large 20^150 is.
>>24489086Honestly I don't see how evolution wouldn't be true. Why would God give all cetaceans hip bones disconnected from their skeletons? Why give apes tailbones? What the fuck is that giraffe laryngeal nerve? Shit makes no sense.
>>24489126when you are defending pedophilia of the church, an institution that is supposed to represent the moral pinnacle of society, by comparing it to a profession that has way more frequent interaction with lots more children, and even then the difference is a rounding error, you know you've lost.kys tranny
>>24489131My initial questions were:> Why do you believe in evolution? What are the falsifiable hypotheses of evolution? Is evolution mathematically possible? What is your religion? In what discipline is your doctorate?Why not defend your position? Why fatuously smear opponents as "retards" or "Trump supporters"?
>>24489128>why was circumcision implementedseveral reasonsfor one, it was to remind them not to be degenerates (fags, race mixers, etc)>"If your right eye causes you to sin, pluck it out and cast it from you; for it is more profitable for you that one of your members perish, than for your whole body to be cast into hell. And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and cast it from you; for it is more profitable for you that one of your members perish, than for your whole body to be cast into hell."- Matthew 5:29-30but mostly, it was a sacrifice. an acknowledgement of god's authority since he is the creator of the world, he can even order abraham to take away the life of his firstborn son, isaac>"All that open the womb are Mine, and every male firstborn among your livestock, whether ox or sheep. But the firstborn of a donkey you shall redeem with a lamb. And if you will not redeem him, then you shall break his neck. All the firstborn of your sons you shall redeem. And none shall appear before Me empty-handed."- Exodus 34:19-20let alone a circumcisionbut that was in accordance to the old lawwith animal sacrifices at the temple, etcgod established a new covenant, through the death and resurrection of jesus, the messiah a sacrifice of the firstborn son of god>"Abraham looked around and saw a ram caught in a bush by its horns. He went and got it and offered it as a burnt offering instead of his son."- Genesis 22:13>"The promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. Scripture does not say “and to seeds,” meaning many people, but “and to your seed,” meaning one person, who is Christ."- Galatians 3:16so now we no longer have to keep circumcision physically, but mentally >"Neither circumcision nor uncircumcision means anything; what counts is the new creation."- Galatians 6:15>"Circumcise your hearts, therefore, and do not be stiff-necked any longer."- Deuteronomy 10:16
>>24489119>>24489114>seethes helplessly with no arguments or refutations of Cambrian Era being the stop point for all current and past forms of life both living and extinctconcession accepted
>>24489128Don't forget about Lot having drunken sex with his own daughters, and Noah and his family surviving the flood with all different breeds of animals, since if they didn't then it would point to animals evolving from the one in the ark.
>>24489134>"Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven."- Matthew 7:21>"“But whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in Me to sin, it would be better for him if a millstone were hung around his neck, and he were drowned in the depth of the sea."- Matthew 18:6
>>24489132can you read? calculating the probability of an exact final arrangement after the fact is not the same as modelling a historical generative process. i don't care if it was 99^99999^99999 it is completely fucking irrelevant because that isn't how evolution or abiogenesis works. when you can explain to me what bearing the probability of a finished protein apparating into existence in one blind draw has on anything I will stop laughing at you
>>24489129>christianity is not "abrahamic"Abraham is the common progenitor of the Jewish people, including Jesus, and of Muhammad. stinky jews and sandniggers are what you worship.>I have a kikes reading of a kike bookwew who would have guessed
>>24489140Why are you so emotionally invested in scientific hypotheses? Is not detachment and objectivity of no little importance? In any case, why do you think that the probability of the occurrence of the final step is greater than the probability of each step of the process occurring?
>>24489135Defend what? The default position with overwhelming evidence that is considered the leading theory on genesis of life? I can't tell you anything here that you haven't already heard and immediately deny, just like I can't convince flat earthers how fucking stupid they are.Stop dodging the question and just tell me what you think is the answer if you don't like it.>Why fatuously smear opponents as "retards" or "Trump supporters"?Because 99% of the morons on this board literally spent the past decade sucking his dick. Just like how most of the dorks here are also brown. It's a matter of statistics.Now stop dodging and let's hear your answers.
>>24489086WHY CAN ATHEISTS DEFINE ATHEISM
>>24489137the cambrian period, not "era", you drooling nigger, is characterised by hard bodied animals became much easier to fossilize and a diversification event of already existing animal lineages. Bacteria, archaea, cyanobacteria, algae lineages, and other microbial/eukaryotic lineages predate the Cambrian. late ediacaran trace fossils show worm like/mobile animals before the cambrian. ikaria wariootia is also described as a pre Cambrian bilaterian (which is the lineage that later includes arthropods, molluscs, annelids, echinoderms, chordates, and eventually vertebrates). try again, this time with more cope.
>>24489143I'm not so easily gaslit. I initially asked the following questions> Why do you believe in evolution? What are the falsifiable hypotheses of evolution? Is evolution mathematically possible? What is your religion? In what discipline is your doctorate?If you choose not to answer, that's OK, but then this conversation can serve no further purpose.
>>24489136>the omnibenevolent deity needs you to perform a blood sacrifice of the top skin sheath of infant penises>this is perfectly rational
>>24489146Jesus Christ man what the fuck is wrong with you? You should up to this thread saying some nonsense about how you are enlightened and have the answers and then refuse to elaborate. Why? Are you embarassed for how fucking dumb you will sound?I believe in evolution because the evidence is overwhelming. How many more fucking times do I have to tell you this until you stop repeating the same dumb fucking question?Stop dodging like a dipshit and just say what you wanted to say since your first retarded post.
>>24489086Why did he do it, bros?
>>24489086The Catholic Church says, hard science is right, and its the will of God.
>>24489142Evolution does not require each step to be independently improbable and simultaneously required. at step 1, the population does not need to find the final protein.it only needs a variant that is viable/neutral or weakly beneficial. once that variant exists, step 2 is not starting again from the full 20^150 search space, it is conditional on the previous sequence already existing. that is a path dependent conditional process>emotionally invested im emotionally invested in bullying creationtards on the internet. your arguments are so easy to pick apart because none of you have invested any fucking time into understanding what evolution actually is, shit is so funny
>>24489150>You should up to this thread saying some nonsense about how you are enlightened and have the answers and then refuse to elaborate.What was my first post in this thread?> I believe in evolution because the evidence is overwhelming.Great! Can you specify 1) what you think is the evidence, 2) why you think it is evidence, and 3) why you think it is overwhelming?
>>24489086>Why do American Christians still die on the hill of creationism?They need the Bible to be 100% factually true retelling of events, no contradiction and no allegory allowed, written in plain English by God himself. So if it's not in the Bible or contradicts the Bible then it's fake and gay.
Protestants are retards. Go figure.
>>24489137"Life" became more complex and diverse after the Cambrian explosion... before that it was massive hoards of sea slugs and primitive horseshoe crabs and slime all over the place that just continuously self replicated like worms pretty much. And plants didn't exist.
>>24489130>does not assemble shit like marbles. it modifies existing DNA through mutation/recombination/duplication/indels/frameshifts,You have zero reading reading comprehension or you lack the intelligence to comprehend text.>evolution does not assemble shit like marblesEvolution assembles nothing because evolution is a lie.>there are literally comparative genomic studies of de novo genes that have already been done, so this is a complete fucking lie. don't believe me? see for yourselfDoesn't even address the point. You're rothschild raging so hard you don't even understand the problem.>originating from long non-coding RNAsOh, what a coincidence. Or maybe not a coincidence. But your kind would say that a car found in the desert is result of natural geological deposition processes.>ATP bindingOne of the easiest tasks. You don't seem to know what exponential likelihood decrease is. Yes, this experiment is known and it changes nothing about estimates. 1/10^77 is the mainstream estimate.Everything you say here has been adressed and none of your arguments are valid.
>>24489153>Evolution does not require each step to be independently improbable and simultaneously required. at step 1, the population does not need to find the final protein.it only needs a variant that is viable/neutral or weakly beneficial. once that variant exists, step 2 is not starting again from the full 20^150 search space, it is conditional on the previous sequence already existing. that is a path dependent conditional processSo, if it is a "path dependent conditional process" why do you think that the probability of the occurrence of the final step is greater than the probability of each step of the process occurring?
>>536861167See, you don't understand the argument.The post *specifically* mentions this. It mentions homologs and orphan genes. You can't even comprehend the problem.
>>24489159>"path dependent conditional process"This argument can't be made for orphan genes because no homologs can be found for them.In order for orphan genes to emerge, the entire search space has to be searched if a random process is responsible for their emergence. This is, of course, impossible.
>>24489159I am not saying the final step is more probable than every earlier step. i am saying each step has to be evaluated conditionally from the state that already exists. again, evolution is not trying to hit one pre declared final sequence by one exact path. Evolution has no foresight. a mutation only has to be viable/neutral, or beneficial in its immediate context. it does not need to “know” it is on the way to a later protein
>>24489158>>24489168>>24489185pathetic whinging from somebody who doesn't understand what they posted or hasn't a clue how to defend it. utter dogshit. in all of that you had literally nothing of substance to say except poo your diaper and go "nuh uh!!"> no homologs can be found for themthat does not mean no evolutionary precursor. >In order for orphan genes to emerge, the entire search space has to be searched if a random process is responsible for their emergenceyep, you don't know fucking shit about what you're talking about. orphan genes arise through rapid divergence, duplication plus divergence, de novo birth from noncoding DNA, exonization, transposable elements, frameshifts, structural variation, gene fusion and fission, or annotation error. de novo gene birth does not mean a finished 150aa protein randomly appears from nothing. It means an ancestrally non genic locus acquires gene like properties (transcription, an ORF, weak translation, expression, then possible retention by drift or selection). try to read an actual peer reviewed paper from a reputable journal or a biology textbook, not an answersingenesis creationist dog wank blog you turd brained peasant.
>>24489215>it does not need to “know” it is on the way to a later protein>each step has to be evaluated conditionally from the state that already existsAnd for orphan genes, exactly one state exists, the finished states. There are no homologs; there are no previous versions. Just a perfectly functional gene that encodes perfectly viable proteins out of nowhere. And every species has dozens of them, even species that, according to mainstream science, split off from a common ancestor very recently (not more than a few million years ago).
>>24489263Complete dogshit argument. I didn't ask for mechanisms that boil down to magic hocus pocus, I asked for explanations that take the math into account. There are none.>orphan genes arise through rapid divergence, duplication plus divergence, de novo birth from noncoding DNA, exonization, transposable elements, frameshifts, structural variation, gene fusion and fission, or annotation error. de novo gene birth does not mean a finished 150aa protein randomly appears from nothing. It means an ancestrally non genic locus acquires gene like properties (transcription, an ORF, weak translation, expression, then possible retention by drift or selection)."Yet it is obvious that this explanation cannot possibly address the statistical impossibility of the existence of orphan genes that encode biologically useful proteins."https://xenosarc.substack.com/p/from-a-mathematical-and-logical-standpointYou don't understand math, you don't understand exponential functions, you only understand memorized lies. Your kind would say that a car found in the desert is result of natural geological deposition processes.
>>24489284wrong again. previous versions can be noncoding orthologous loci, transcribed lncRNAs, proto genes, short ORFs, weakly translated peptides, duplicated genes that diverged beyond recognition, exonized regions, TE derived regions, or rearranged genomic segments.for de novo genes, the previous version is often an inherited DNA sequence that was not previously annotated as a gene that can already exist in related species at the same syntenic locus but be noncoding, disrupted by stop codons, differently spliced, weakly transcribed, or untranslated>perfectly functionalmore loaded nonsense. young orphan/de novo genes are often short simple, weakly expressed/tissue specific, rapidly evolving, sometimes transient. only some later become functional or essential, many do not. actual reality is more complicated and messy. you start with noncoding sequence -> transcription --> short ORF/proto-gene --> weak translation --> drift or selection then finally possible retention/refinement.
>>24489312this is getting tiring. you are going in circles making the same mistakes over and over. for a de novo gene, the starting point is not “nothing” and not a jar of random amino acids. the starting point is existing inherited DNA which can already be transcribed, already contain short ORFs, already be weakly translated, already sit near regulatory elements, and already be copied through generations. so a de novo gene can lack a homologous protein and still have a previous state, which is often noncoding DNA or a transcript, not a fully formed older proteinIn DNA, there are 64 codons and only 3 stop codons, so the probability that a random 150 codon stretch has no stop codon is roughly (61/64)^150 = 7.5 × 10^-4. that is about 1 in 1,340, not 1 in 10^195. if you require a start codon, a long no stop region, and then a stop codon, a crude random genome calculation in a mammalian sized genome still gives thousands of candidate ORFs across both strands. most are junk, transient, weakly expressed, or nonfunctional., but that is the fucking point. evolution does not need every ORF to be useful. it only needs occasional expressed variants that are neutral, tolerated, or useful enough to persist. that's it
>>24489319>more loaded nonsense. young orphan/de novo genes are often short simple, weakly expressed/tissue specific, rapidly evolving, sometimes transient. only some later become functional or essential, many do not.This is belief, not knowledge. Typical for evolutionists. You base your explanations on assumptions that are based on belief. Orphan genes have no history you can trace down.>rapidly evolvingcircular logicThey can only evolve rapidly if evolution theory is correct. That they are rapidly evolving is not a fact. It's something evolutionists believe. This belief is then used to defend evolution theory and portrayed as fact.
>>24489341>the probability that a random 150 codon stretch has no stop codon is roughly (61/64)^150 = 7.5 × 10^-4. that is about 1 in 1,340, not 1 in 10^195See, you don't even understand what this probability is about.1/10^195 is not the probability that a 150 aa polypeptide is encoded.It is the probability that a specfic 150 aa sequence exists (down to the exact aa). And the relevant number in relation to this is 1/10^77, the probability that a 150 aa sequence will perform a useful biological task.
>>24489358>circular logicnot circular logic. it is an empirical description of measurable patterns like sequence divergence, dN/dS, gene turnover, presence/absence across related species, syntenic ORF gain/loss, expression level, tissue specificity, and translational evidence. you align genomes, compare sequences, check whether the same locus exists in relatives, test whether the ORF is present or absent, measure expression with RNA seq, test translation with ribosome profiling or proteomics, and compare rates of change against older conserved genes. its not fucking magic it is empirical data.>no history you can tracein Drosophila, researchers examined orphan genes across multiple species and outgroups, then mapped them back to outgroup genomic regions. some mapped to noncoding DNA, some to introns, some to exons, and some were classified as divergent. that is quite literally tracing their history. here is the study, which you won't read or understand:https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00239-020-09939-z
>>24489381the probability of one exact 150 aa sequence is about 20^-150. That is irrelevant unless evolution is trying to hit one pre specified modern sequence exactly.the probability of getting a 150 codon ORF with no stop codon is a different question. that is what my (61/64)^150 point addressed. it shows that coding substrates/proto ORFs are not remotely as rare as randomly assembling a final proteinthe probability of a sequence performing a specific selected function is another question again. your 1/10^77 number is not “the probability that a 150aa sequence performs any useful biological task.” it comes from an estimate for a specific kind of function by a domain sized fold. you are inflating “specific function” into “any biological usefulness” a young de novo gene can begin as a short expressed ORF, weakly translated peptide, disordered interaction region, regulatory peptide, toxic/antimicrobial peptide, localization signal, binding motif, or dosage affecting transcript. some can be tolerated, a smaller number can be useful and retained. tat is not searching all 20^150. its filtering actual expressed variants produced from existing DNA. try again
