I feel like beating up on some Creationists today.
You know: the evolution-denying knuckle draggers whose determined denial of science and evidence forces them to do hilarious mental gymnastics for their religion.

lol entertain me!

>>936481817 (OP)
Tell me more about the 'dinosaur bones are 60 million year old trees' meme.

>>936481817 (OP)
creationism doesn't preclude evolution, if you think it does you don't know what either are

>>936482175

Sorry, haven't heard that meme. Sounds silly lol

>>936482335

Creationism is generally defined as life arising through a specific act of divine creation as described in Genesis. This precludes evolution as an explaination.
Most self-identified creationists would conform to this definition and this is the one we will be using.

Pedantry noted and dismissed lol

>>936482517
>This precludes evolution as an explaination.
evolution doesn't create life, so no it doesn't
thanks for confirming you don't know what evolution is

>>936482517
you're confusing evolution with abiogenesis

>>936482598

Oh you've misunderstood. How adorable.
No dear. What makes these incompatible is Creationism envoking Genesis as a literal record of how life was created.
If you know what Genesis says then you know it describes unrelated, created kinds and NOT a related tree of life.

Swing and a miss, pleb
lol

>>936482657
Not even a little.

Evolution describes how the diversity of life on this planet came to be as it is now, not how life ultimately began.

Not sure what you're babbling about

>>936482732
>created kinds and NOT a related tree of life.
that's problematic for creationism then, because life on this planet is related, they aren't all separate species all created at once, in parallel, unrelated
so if that's the route you're choosing then by that definition creationism is already invalid
swing and a miss

>>936482774
>not how life ultimately began.
so you agree that evolution isn't incompatible with creationism, glad to know

>>936482732
>>936482442
>>936481817 (OP)

i'm in the same camp as you regaurding how life came about.
however, you really come off as an insufferable faggot and everyone is just gonna think youre a mad tranny

>>936482876
>so if that's the route you're choosing then by that definition creationism is already invalid


...um yeah
lol i think perhaps you have missed the point of this thread...

>>936482921

Nope.
Creationism calls for life being created in its present form as an act of divine creation.

Evolution says that the diversity of life on this planet arose via descent with modification.

Not sure why you're struggling with this lol

>>936482995

lol don't care what they think of me as i clobber them

>>936483175
>Not sure why you're struggling with this lol
because the species that have existed over even human history have changed, they aren't the some, some died, new ones came about
so if you're going to say that all life as we see it right now was a direct result of creationism and no changes to the diversity of life have occurred, it's already invalid
so you either have to agree that evolution is compatible as a means to account for how life did in fact change over time, or concede that creationism is invalid given that definition

>>936483197
great. let me know when the clobbering will start, cause right now youre just grab-assin

>>936483269

Oh...you're just not at all familiar with the creationist argument. I see.

Creationists do accept adaptation because it is literally observable. However, they hold that an organism can only change so much, or with it's "Kind". Like antelope "kind" or bird "kind".
But there is no space for the idea that birds are evolutionary descendants of dinosaurs of that whales share a common ancestry with animals like antelope.

>>936483421

As soon as any dumb ass creationists feels froggy
lol

>>936483480
and you don't seem to understand that evolution is completely compatible with that viewpoint, that god created life, and evolution is the process that accounts for those changes

>>936483480
you just doubling down on admitting you don't know what evolution is

>>936483542
>evolution is completely compatible with that viewpoint

Are you stupid or is reading comprehension just beyond you?
Fuckin try again, bud
lol

>>936483582

lol let's make this easier for you, clod.

Creationism says that Birds, as flying creatures were created on day 5. Dinosaurs, as land creatures were created on day 6.

Evolution says that dinosaurs existed before birds and that the birds are a lineage of dinosaurs that evolved from maniraptoran.

Go ahead and tell me how those two models are compatible.
Go on...

>>936483645
>Are you stupid
the irony

>>936483740
>Dinosaurs, as land creatures were created on day 6.
...there's no dinosaurs in the bible, it doesn't account for any plants or animals that went extinct before humans

>>936483749

lol from the chump who insists on arguing about two subjects about which he is demonstrably ignorant...

>>936483805
the irony

>>936483786

>>936483786
>it doesn't account for any plants or animals that went extinct before humans

LMAOO
Fuck, i'm here to school folks on evolution. Why are you making me teach creationism as well?
My dear...according to creationism, all life was created over the course of 7 days and that includes humans.
According to creationism, dinosaurs and humans coexisted.
So cure dodge but answer the question: Creationism requires that birds were created as birds before dinosaurs.
Evolution requires that birds arose as a lineage after dinosaurs.

Explain how those two views are compatible. Put up or shut up lol


Here's a tip: You should at least understand the concepts you claim are compatible before you make a fool of yourself.

>>936483839

lol from the chump to whom i am currently teaching THE BASICS of creationism

>>936483926
>According to creationism, dinosaurs and humans coexisted.
[citation needed]

>>936484037

Fuckin hell lol
Do you need me to get out the crayons?

1) According to creationism life was created in more or less its present form as described in the book of Genesis.
2) According to the book of Genesis all land animals (human included) were made on the 6th day of creation.
3) Therefor, if one accepts (as do Creationists) that Genesis represents a literal account of how God created life on earth...humans and dinosaurs coexisted.

Pretty goddamn simple to follow, is it not, simpleton?
lol

So now that you're backed into a corner, you're desperate not to answer the question but i'll keep repeating it until you answer or run away like the intellectually vapid little bitch you are.

Creationism requires that birds were created as birds before dinosaurs.
Evolution requires that birds arose as a lineage after dinosaurs.

Explain how those two views are compatible. Put up or shut up lol

>>936484195
that's a lot of text not citing where the bible says dinosaurs existed, that god created them, and that they co-existed with humans
where's the bible stories about humans running from dinosaurs? or killing them to feed entire villages?

>>936484195
Now do eve being made from Adam's rib

>>936484331

Well the Bible doesn't mention dinosaurs because when it was written before we knew about dinosaurs. Ain't no one here arguing the bible is accurate, bud
lol
But Creationists hold that the Bible is an accurate account of history and since we know dinosaurs existed and that they are land animals, they must necessarily (according to that tradition) have been made on the sixth day of creation along with humans.

I mean....this is pretty basic deductive reasoning. I'm not sure if this is genuinely over your head or if it's just your ego preventing you from conceding you were ignorant and wrong lol

>>936484494

...why?

>>936484561
Because that's what god did right? Explain how the creation of women (eve being made from Adam's rib) fits the evolution model

>>936484639

Um...i think you're a little confused about which position i hold...

>>936484674
Yea, I done goofed

>>936484541
>Well the Bible doesn't mention dinosaurs because when it was written before we knew about dinosaurs
so then no we didn't live along side them, thanks for confirming

>>936484711

lol it happens

>>936484733

Nah. If the Bible is indeed an accurate historical record the way creationists believe it is then necessarily dinosaurs co-existed with humans.

But since you're clinging so desperately to a red herring, i'ma just strip that away from you and use another example.

See if you can answer this, you plodding animal:

According to creationism, there is chimpanzee "kind" and human "kind". Separately and distinctly created forms of life.
According to evolution, humans and chimps arose from a common ancestor.

Explain how the creationist model and the evolutionary model are compatible.

Don't be shy.....shall i hold my breath?

>>936484739
Dont smoke week folk...wait scratch that and reverse it. Smoke lots of weed folks

Keep this in you back pocket but they wont understand it or at least will pretend to
https://youtu.be/plVk4NVIUh8?si=hIW7eYz_MscXE2y6

>>936484856
>then necessarily dinosaurs co-existed with humans.
that doesn't follow, as there's no mention of dinosaurs, so no, dinosaurs didn't co-exist with humans

>>936484711
>I feel like beating up on some Creationists today

>>936484931

This is indeed evolution in action but to a creationist it is meaningless because they will just say "Well they've adapted to their environment but they are still bacteria".

>>936485013

It's pretty basic logic and it's also an actual position held by actual creationists.
But i get that you're learning all this for the first time, you ignorant cuck
lol

Let's try again, simpleton:

According to creationism, there is chimpanzee "kind" and human "kind". Separately and distinctly created forms of life.
According to evolution, humans and chimps arose from a common ancestor.

Explain how the creationist model and the evolutionary model are compatible.

>>936485124
>It's pretty basic logic
no it isn't, it's faulty logic
>and it's also an actual position held by actual creationists.
idgaf, it's nonsense

>>936481817 (OP)
How did all of existence come to be?
Evidence please, no theories.

>>936485062
Adaption is evolution

>>936485268
>no it isn't, it's faulty logic

Ok. Identify the errors in logic...
lol bet you can't

>idgaf, it's nonsense

Doesn't matter whether you believe it, imbecile.
It's what they believe and it's what you declared was compatible with evolution.

>>936485456

Not sure.

But that's fine in this context because evolution is a description of how the diversity of life on this planet arose, not how the universe came to exist...

>>936485494

Certainly. It's exactly the mechanism of evolution.
But creationists will reject that

>>936485456

How does that have anything to do with evolution?

>>936485456
There was more matter than antimatter after the big bang

>>936481817 (OP)
2

>>936483740
I'm not a literalism, but playing the devil's advocate, flying insects wouuld have come around before dinosaurs. I also have not read the Bible, so there's that.

>>936490306
Literalist"

?????

Evolutionary Creationism is my belief.

>>936493357
Okay, so you believe God created life, and then it got more diverse, and a whole lot of it went extinct, multiple times, and each time it started over from what was left and made new diversity, culminating in what is alive now. Am I getting that right? Do you think this happened in 6000 years or over a few billion years? Or some other time scale?

What is it that makes you think God is necessary when it is plausible for very simple life forms to have come into existence and for evolution to have begun there? All it needs to start out with is a micelle that maintains interior conditions that are different from the outside environment.

Maybe it could attract chemicals like amino acids and nucleic acids from the outside which assemble in the different conditions inside the micelle, and then it buds off when it gets too full, or it gets shaken up too much.