Philosoraptor

Philosoraptor Meme | WHAT IF CREATION IS TRUE AND EVOLUTION IS A LIE? | image tagged in memes,philosoraptor | made w/ Imgflip meme maker
1,257 views, 35 upvotes, Made by LivingWater 6 months ago memesphilosoraptor
Philosoraptor memeRe-caption this meme
Add Meme
Post Comment
reply
7 ups, 1 reply
It is possible that creation is true. Its also possible that my shampoo bottle is the ghost of Christmas past. Neither is likely or have any facts but if I right a book about it I can say, see this book says my shampoo bottle is the ghost of Christmas past.
reply
2 ups, 1 reply
It takes more faith to believe in the ludicrous nonsense that is evolution than to believe God spoke and literally His breath brought the world into existance.
reply
[deleted]
2 ups, 2 replies
No, you're confusing faith with intelligence.
reply
1 up
Not hardly.
reply
0 ups, 2 replies
Umm, you're confusing intelligence with believing something as complex as the human body - not to mention the earth, every plant and every creature - could evolve by chance in however long it took. Sure, a monkey might possibly eventually write Shakespeare if it whacks a keyboard long enough. However the odds of that ever happening are...greater than the odds of life spontaneously emerging.
reply
1 up, 1 reply
You're making a logical fallacy (an argument from incredulity)
reply
1 up, 1 reply
And you are noticeably avoiding answering my question as to why you so strongly desire to disprove Christianity. Why?

Yes, science can be useful. However there are limits to human understanding. You have never seen God, so you say he does not exist. Very well; by that logic, anything that has not yet been discovered by man does not yet exist, and only begins to exist when men discover it. That, my friend, is EXACTLY what you are saying. And that notion is blindly arrogant; we don't even entirely understand how our own earth works, and yet you think that we, with our limited knowledge, should be able to fathom God, if he exists? The notion is absurd.

And thus so is your argument that, because you cannot see evidence of God, he cannot exist. However I - and others who believe as I do - say that the very complexity of life is evidence of God. You ignore our evidence, because you say there's no watermark of God in creation. Yet, of all the (quite literally infinite) possibilities of atomic combinations, somehow on Earth they managed to come together in exactly the right order to create life. You, my friend, are the one who is taking a leap of faith here; the probability of all this evolving by random chance is infinitesimally small, so small as to be effectively an impossibility. And yet you say this world is proof of Evolution, and it all happened by chance. Chance, or God? Which is more likely? If I take a box of legos, and start tossing it around, know how many years it'll take before those legos assemble themselves into a lego toy? It'll never happen, and yet that's the same reasoning behind Evolution: that life ordered itself into itself.

And now for the third time I will ask: why do you so strongly oppose something you don't even believe in? All the energy you're pouring into refuting Creation is quite indicitive of not only disbelief but animosity as well. Why do you hate the idea of God so much?
reply
1 up, 1 reply
I wasn't avoiding answering your question. It was a long comment and I wanted to think of a good reply. I'll reply to both of your comments as briefly as I can.

"What if, what if. What if my beard were made of green spinach?"

You were the one who brought up the "what if you're wrong" issue with Pascal's Wager. I was simply replying to it.

"Tell me which is a more believable God: Allah, a god who commands his followers to exterminate all who oppose him; or the God of Abraham, who commands men NOT to kill those who oppose him but rather to win converts through example and to leave retribution for sin to God?"

Neither one is more believable. They are both fictitious as far as I am convinced. Also, the God of the Bible DID command his followers (the Israelites) to exterminate people who opposed him. It's right there in the Bible.

"You never bothered to explain why you hate Christianity so much and desire to completely disprove it...What will you gain from so doing? If I'm such a fool, and others like me, what will you gain from convincing me there is no God?"

I never actually said I hate Christianity. I desire to disprove it so that people who believe it will see that their belief is false. Don't you desire to show non-Christians why you think their beliefs are false? If someone you knew believed something false, wouldn't you desire to correct them? I do what I do for much the same reason as you do what you do.

"You demand to see God in order to believe in him"

I ask for evidence. I have not seen sufficient evidence.

"And yet, the world hated him then as it does to this day."

The world hates Jesus, even though Christianity is literally the largest religion on the planet?

"And I'm fully aware you'll discount this argument because it's in the Bible, which you say is false. But let's pretend for a moment that it's true..."

You're trying to convince me that what the Bible says is true, and you start off by asking me to assume it's true? That's silly. If I just assume it's true, that defeats the whole purpose of you trying to convince me that it's true.

"Tell me, why do YOU hate the thought of Christ? Clearly you do, as evidenced by your repeated and vehement efforts to disprove Christianity."

I never said I hate Jesus. My attempts to disprove Christianity stem from my desire to help people to stop believing what is false, because I care about them, and don't want to see them persist in ignorance.
reply
1 up, 1 reply
"You have never seen God, so you say he does not exist. Very well; by that logic, anything that has not yet been discovered by man does not yet exist..."

Anything not proven to exist must be assumed not to exist, until its existence has been proven.

"and yet you think that we, with our limited knowledge, should be able to fathom God, if he exists? The notion is absurd."

The concept of fathoming God is absurd, yet this same God wants a relationship with me? How can I have a relationship with something that is literally beyond my understanding?

"...because you cannot see evidence of God, he cannot exist."

I can't prove that God doesn't exist. But I don't see sufficient evidence that he does. That's all I'm saying.

"However I - and others who believe as I do - say that the very complexity of life is evidence of God."

I don't understand why. Naturally occurring things can be (and are) complex.

"You ignore our evidence, because you say there's no watermark of God in creation."

Not being convinced by your evidence is not the same as ignoring it.

"the probability of all this evolving by random chance is infinitesimally small, so small as to be effectively an impossibility."

How do you know this for a fact? Also, unlikely is not the same as impossible.

"...and it all happened by chance. Chance, or God? Which is more likely?"

Chance.

"If I take a box of legos, and start tossing it around, know how many years it'll take before those legos assemble themselves into a lego toy? It'll never happen, and yet that's the same reasoning behind Evolution: that life ordered itself into itself."

Self-replicating molecules exist naturally. Lego bricks are not self-replicating.

"why do you so strongly oppose something you don't even believe in? All the energy you're pouring into refuting Creation is quite indicitive of not only disbelief but animosity as well. Why do you hate the idea of God so much?"

Why do you pour that same energy into disproving evolution? I could just as easily say that your obvious animosity is proof that you don't want to accept that evolution is real and that the Bible is false.
reply
0 ups
Christianity may be the largest religion in the world, but it still accounts for less than 30% of the world's population. And very few religions are as polarizing as Christianity (which for the sake of this discussion we're treating as a single unit and not bothering to consider the various divisions within Christianity); would you go to the same effort to disprove Allah? Or Buddha? Or Hinduism? You'll probably say you would, but...of all religions, which one is the most refuted by people of every other religion? Yes, my friend, Christianity is the most hated religion in the world.

Explain this paradox to me: how is it that you admit you CANNOT disprove the possibility of God's existence, and yet you have entered into this discussion with intent to endeavor to prove God does not exist. So, if God does not exist, prove it! And if you cannot prove it, how then can you with a clear conscience try to convince someone else you are right? Because there's a chance that you might be wrong, and a rational mind cannot ignore a possibility that cannot be disproven.

Now, I would wager your immediate response will be to turn that argument around on me. "Ah ha!" You think. "He still can't prove it himself. His argument is as worthless as mine."

In this discussion, my position does not depend on proving beyond a doubt; however yours does. I cannot prove God is real, yet I know that he is. No, I've never seen him...but I've never seen gravity, either. Nor have I seen life. No one has! Gravity and life cannot be seen; we may see things which are affected by gravity, or things which are alive, but the two forces themselves may not be seen. And yet, in spite of them being invisible, because of the evidence they present in our everyday lives, we know they exist...even though we really don't know exactly what they are. What is life? What IS life? What makes something come alive?

The difference between our two arguments is that whereas you must PROVE God's nonexistence, trust in God is not something that relies on seeing and touching; you are correct in that whether or not God is real is something that cannot be proven, from a human standpoint. It must be taken on faith. Which is exactly what the Bible teaches, and where so many men - such as yourself - fall down, because unless you can see the physical presence of God, you won't believe he exists.

Now you will say, "If God truly loved us, he would show himself to us."

Well, suppose he already did?
reply
[deleted]
2 ups, 1 reply
You don't need intelligence to believe in creationism. You need only "faith"

Science has a basis of testing and/or observance. Science is work. Science can be proven and disproven based on data and/or facts. Science is hard.

Faith is easy. Like when a child that believes in Santa Claus. They are told to believe, and they do so it's true....and easy. When the facts hit them....it's sad. :(
reply
1 up, 3 replies
Which requires more faith? To believe a universe randomly evolved from a cesspool of "matter" (which nobody has any clue where the matter came from either)? Or to believe in God creating something from nothing?

Also bear in mind that humans are not infallible. Nor is our science. Science is an endeavor for humans to understand things...however our understanding is still only OUR understanding. This "science" you put so much faith in, is only as good as the humans using it. So your trust in science is really trust in Man's ability to understand the universe we live in. So you trust in...man. Your trust is in YOU.
reply
2 ups
"Which requires more faith? To believe a universe randomly evolved from a cesspool of "matter" (which nobody has any clue where the matter came from either)? Or to believe in God creating something from nothing?"

It's not about faith. It's about evidence. And the evidence is not on the side of creationism. Also, matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed (First Law of Thermodynamics), so that means they have always existed.

"Also bear in mind that humans are not infallible."

That includes the humans who wrote the Bible. Yet you don't seem to question what the Bible says.

"Science is an endeavor for humans to understand things...however our understanding is still only OUR understanding. This "science" you put so much faith in, is only as good as the humans using it. So your trust in science is really trust in Man's ability to understand the universe we live in. So you trust in...man. Your trust is in YOU."

Yes, that's correct. So what? Because humans are fallible, that means science cannot be trusted at all, ever? While far from prefect, science has a track record of success that creationism can't even begin to dream of. It is scientists who create life-saving vaccines, not priests. It was scientists who put a man in the moon, not pastors. It is scientists who are expanding our collective knowledge of the world around us, not those who are stuck in the First Century.
reply
[deleted]
2 ups, 1 reply
Again: science can be proven or disproven based on empirical data and/or facts.

What data we have on the creation and/or evolution makes WAAAAAAY more sense than basically " a magic invisible Man made it so"
reply
0 ups
And yet, where did the matter from which this universe was created come from?

You refuse to believe in something that is beyond understanding, whereas I believe because I know that I cannot understand otherwise.

So if humans cannot understand it, it cannot exist? That is what you are saying - that humans may prove or disprove the existence of anything. So humans, then, which are according to you just another link in the evolutionary chain...we're the ones who get to decide what does and doesn't exist?

If God does exist, then he must perforce be immeasurably greater than human, in order for him to BE God. So why do you expect to understand God? If he is that great, why should man be capable of understanding him, or seeing him?
reply
0 ups, 1 reply
so you're questioning where "matter" came from...
when there is no explanation for where god came from?
reply
0 ups, 1 reply
God is infinite. Without beginning or end. Why would you assume God is bound by the laws of the universe if he is the one who created the universe?
reply
0 ups, 1 reply
then, by the same logic, we can say that because matter made the universe, it has no beginning or end either.
reply
0 ups
Matter did not make anything; matter is inanimate, in and of itself.

So it comes to a choice of deciding whether to believe in inanimate matter for some as yet unexplained reason exploding and then reforming into not only new forms of matter but eventually - and still randomly - evolving life? That concept is the notion of Spontaneous Generation. Is that what you believe?
reply
6 ups, 3 replies
Not mine...wish it was.
reply
[deleted]
4 ups, 2 replies
reply
[deleted]
4 ups, 2 replies
When the much more likely scenario is absurd than the scenario one desperately promulgates one is in a rather untenable position to say the least. What it comes down to is hating God and loving sin.
reply
5 ups, 1 reply
Saying that accepting evolution is about loving sin is a non sequitur
reply
[deleted]
3 ups, 2 replies
Embracing atheistic evolution is not based on reason as it is wildly unreasonable. The Bible speaks of unbelievers hating God, loving sin and willfully suppressing the truth in unrighteousness.
reply
3 ups, 1 reply
Then what about theistic evolution? Many people believe God directs evolution.
reply
[deleted]
3 ups, 1 reply
Theistic evolution is silly. Why believe in slow and sloppy if ur gonna bring God into it?
reply
4 ups, 1 reply
Lol :3

The reason is because they're trying to reconcile the scientific evidence with what the Bible says.
reply
[deleted]
0 ups
Here is my bottom line: Science doesn't disprove creationism, it proves evolution (or whatever it is set out to prove or find....that's the point of science.) With or without the Bible the findings of science remain constant. Those that believe in creationsim (or the Bible as fact) are constantly trying to disprove science while never being able to prove creationsim.
reply
0 ups
funny how none of you NONE OF YOU, question the bible because it says it is not to be questioned and questioning it results in eternal damnation.
reply
[deleted]
2 ups
reply
4 ups
Except that's not even close to anything science describes :)
reply
3 ups, 1 reply
reply
2 ups, 1 reply
So explain how nothing exploding and creating everything is possible.
reply
3 ups
Nothing didn't explode. The First Law of Thermodynamics says that energy (and hence matter) cannot be created or destroyed. If this is true, then all the matter and energy in the universe has always existed, in one form or another.

Also, the Big Bang wasn't an explosion as we typically think of explosions. It was a massive expansion of the singularity.
reply
[deleted]
3 ups
reply
4 ups, 1 reply
i.imgflip.com/1rurop.jpg (click to show)
reply
2 ups
We don't reject science. God is a God of science just as He is of math, grammar, history and so forth.
reply
5 ups, 2 replies
being agnostic is the best. pretty much every aspect of every belief is absolute bullshit in every way. i'll just wait until i die and find out then, thank you. and i'll keep my sundays.
reply
[deleted]
2 ups
I'm sure The Judge of All the Earth will be terribly impressed with your approach.
reply
2 ups, 3 replies
I concur. By the time you find out which is a lie and which is truth it'll be too late and the Judge of All the Earth will have cast you into "utter darkness where the worm dieth not and there will be gnashing of teeth." This we call hell.
reply
3 ups, 2 replies
You know how many Christians have shown me conclusive evidence that Hell exists? Zero. Not a single one. If you can't even prove Hell is real, why would the threat of your God sending me there frighten me in the slightest? Your "proof" of Hell is nothing but Bible verses; words on paper written down by ignorant, superstitious people from antiquity. Your threats are empty.
reply
2 ups, 1 reply
Lol...friend, no one is threatening you. Except God. Now, suppose you're wrong? What do you think will happen?

If I'm wrong, then I'll merely become nothing when I die and won't know the difference. So, even though I don't gain, neither do I lose. However if you're wrong, you're going to be condemned to eternal suffering by the God you claim doesn't exist.

So why are you so set on proving God doesn't exist? What will that gain you? Or anyone?

So, what if you're wrong?
reply
3 ups, 2 replies
If I'm wrong, and God does exist, then I'll go to Hell for all eternity. But since I don't believe the evidence supports that claim, I don't believe it's true.

What if you're wrong about Islam? What if you did and find out Islam was correct and Allah sends you to Hell? Therefore, you should become a Muslim. See how your argument could be used to support ANY religion? Like a rubber band, it stretches so far, it eventually snaps.
reply
1 up, 2 replies
What if, what if. What if my beard were made of green spinach?

Tell me which is a more believable God: Allah, a god who commands his followers to exterminate all who oppose him; or the God of Abraham, who commands men NOT to kill those who oppose him but rather to win converts through example and to leave retribution for sin to God? Which is more godlike? The god who says "go wipe out my enemies", or the God who says "believe in me and thus become separate from my enemies, because when the time comes I will destroy them"? Which sounds more like a god?

You never bothered to explain why you hate Christianity so much and desire to completely disprove it. Why do you hate it so much? What will you gain from so doing? If I'm such a fool, and others like me, what will you gain from convincing me there is no God? How will that make the world any better, or worse? Tell me.

You demand to see God in order to believe in him; and so when the Bible says "blessed are those who have not seen and yet believe", you say "well I didn't see it so it's not real." However let's look in the Bible. The Bible says that when God came to earth in the form of a man, people refused to acknowledge him! Not because he didn't perform miraculous signs - he did. Nor was it because he isn't claim to be God - he made no secret of who he was. And yet, the world hated him then as it does to this day. And I'm fully aware you'll discount this argument because it's in the Bible, which you say is false. But let's pretend for a moment that it's true: God came to earth, and men didn't recognize him and murdered his earthly form (which God allowed for mankind's redemption). So if that's true, why should you expect to recognize God even if you saw him?! Unless you're better than anyone who lived during those times.

Tell me, why do YOU hate the thought of Christ? Clearly you do, as evidenced by your repeated and vehement efforts to disprove Christianity.
reply
0 ups
it's not the act of not seeing it. i didn't see man go to space, or man advancing technology. but i know it because of things that affect my daily life. news reports, internet, even the computer i'm typing this from. but the changes to a christian's life are ones they brought upon themselves, like going to church and praying something good will happen. who brought about the industrial age? mortals. who went to the moon? mortals. god has had no effect on the advancement of humanity, at least directly. why do people die horrible deaths DAILY even if they are believers? only giving peace after death to those who think of him as a benevolent lord, and dismissing ALL OTHERS to eternal damnation?
if god exists, he must be a sadist.
reply
[deleted]
1 up, 1 reply
Allah is the god of Abraham. Same as Yahweh for Jews. All the same. Humans started at the same god and adjusted to fit their needs over time. So who's to say which one (if any) is real or fake. There were God's before this one and there will be God's after this one.

Man needs something to believe in because for some the idea of nothing is mind blowing and depressing. Religion is a crutch. ANY religion. They are all rooted in the same thing: making people comfortable with death and to some degree as a guide for living life.

If you're already ok with death and your generally nice to everyone.......you really don't need religion.
reply
0 ups, 1 reply
So if Allah is the god of Abraham, and Abraham was the father of the Jews, why did Allah command Mohamed to destroy Israel?

And now I'll ask you, since you clearly desire to get involved: why do you so badly want to disprove Christianity?
reply
[deleted]
1 up, 1 reply
A. Because MAN has a need to justify their actions.

B. Im not trying to.disprove Christianity. All religions are silly. And im not trying to disprove any of them. I am pointing out facts about them.
reply
0 ups, 1 reply
Correct. Mohamed sat under a tree one day and formulated his own version of God that pretty much gave him the right to do whatever the hell he wanted to do, in the name of Jihad. And you're telling us that this god is the same one who handed down the most stringent set of laws found anywhere in the world, outlined in the Old Testament? Mohamed needed to justify his actions, his hated, so he created his own twisted image of God and made himself Allah's prophet. Allah is as much God as a cartoonist's buffoonish image of a man is the actual man.

So, why are you even bothering to point out "facts"? What do you hope to gain?
[deleted]
2 ups
I hope to gain a stimulating conversation.
reply
0 ups
What if you die*
reply
1 up, 3 replies
The Bible explicitly makes mention to hell dozens of times in the New Testament. Here's a video where some Siberian miners found the sounds of hell. https://youtu.be/8iPIXq_jGMQ This is all the proof you need.
reply
1 up, 2 replies
then why have pilots not heard the choirs of heaven?
reply
0 ups, 1 reply
Because Heaven is a lot farther away than hell. Hell may very well be at the earth's core where as Heaven is likely to be out of the reach of human ears.
reply
0 ups, 1 reply
we've gone past the moon and heard nothing. because heaven is commonly depicted with large, fluffy clouds, i would say it is still within the earth's atmosphere, at a low enough level for clouds like that to exist. also known as right below the common cruising altitude for commercial airliners. and because there are no reports of angels being sucked into air intakes, if heaven exists it must be somewhere off-planet. but i digress.
reply
0 ups
Those pictures with large, fluffy clouds though are depicted by humans who have never seen heaven. They are just imagining what it would look like.
reply
0 ups
But that's just a guess. Don't quote me on that.
reply
0 ups, 1 reply
I just searched Siberian miners sounds of hell. People can listen and decide for themselves. It's not the kind of thing you find on your suggested YouTube feed so I appreciate being able to search for stuff like that!
reply
1 up
I'm glad someone enjoyed it.
reply
0 ups, 1 reply
That video proved jack squat. It was thirty seconds of screaming and other noises. That's all the proof I need? No, that's not proof of anything other than how gullible some people can be. If you actually think I would be convinced by that, you must really think me stupid.
reply
1 up
I firmly believe based upon what Christian scientists and the Bible itself says that that was hell we found. Whether or not you believe that was hell or not is not the point. Hell does exist, and while I do believe we've found it I also believe that someday when Jesus returns for the final battle between good and evil, which honestly will be a short battle, their will be men, women, and unfortunately children who will spend the rest of their waking lives in that horrible place.
reply
2 ups, 1 reply
so even if i'm a great person, i'll still go to hell because i... didn't retweet god?
reply
1 up
No, salvation comes by faith ALONE through grace ALONE in Jesus Christ ALONE
reply
0 ups, 1 reply
a) you sound like a Jehovah's witness

b) "oh no! i'm in hell! if only i believed all that stuff that made no sense!"
reply
1 up, 1 reply
Actually I'm not a JW, I'm a firm Baptist. Secondly, when you come to know Jesus Christ as your personal Savior it makes more sense than you'd think.
reply
1 up, 1 reply
also, what if you never even heard of god? in the time of the rise of christianity, communication was limited. do you go to hell for something you never chose?
reply
0 ups, 1 reply
Unfortunately yes those who never heard the name of Jesus will go to hell and it truly is sad and that's why it's my job to make sure I tell as many people as I can so that they WILL hear the name of Jesus and hopefully be able to join HIM in heaven someday.
reply
0 ups, 1 reply
which is rather interesting, considering you are being quite aggravating to everyone who doesn't comment "lol christiantiy good"
reply
0 ups, 1 reply
I just posted the meme. If you don't like it you don't have to say anything. Just keep scrolling. You don't HAVE to argue your opinion.
reply
0 ups, 1 reply
I would, but I commented once and there's no way to "unsubscribe" from a meme's notifications without turning them off entirely.
So i'm stuck with these annoying responses.
reply
0 ups
Well I'm truly sorry. I suppose that's both our faults. I apologize for my behalf.
reply
4 ups, 1 reply
:)
reply
5 ups, 1 reply
Billions and billions of lies.
reply
4 ups, 1 reply
:)
reply
4 ups, 3 replies
Well according to the Bible creation came from God literally just speaking. Evolution wants to say that creation came from two specs of dust floating in a dark void or space if you will. It takes more faith to believe in Evolution than it does to believe God spoke and the breath of His voice brought the world into existence.
reply
3 ups
i could respond with how an omnipotent being was "just there" is equally, if not more unbelivable, as well as the fact that the big bang is in no way related to evolution, but i don't feel like starting a comment war.
reply
1 up, 1 reply
Upvoted! Still trying to wrap my head around where God or specs of dust came from :)
reply
1 up, 2 replies
Let me put it this way and I know it isn't easy to comprehend. I myself have yet to figure out how God always existed from the start and I've been a believer all my life, but yes God was, God is and God will always be existant. That is to say He existed before time began, He is a living breathing God, and He will always remain the same.
reply
[deleted]
1 up, 1 reply
reply
0 ups, 1 reply
That's actually a good question. It's just that we see God in the Old Testament show that He hates sin and must take action on it because He is a holy God. By the fact that He is the Ultimate Judge, He's required to punish sin. We do see Him in the New Testament being a vengeful beast as you say. He wants to give us grace like He wanted to when Cain killed Able and Cain denied his mercy. He's not necessarily a totally chill hippy who does magic. He hated sin then as much as He did in the NT. You see it when Jesus reprimands the Sadducees and Pharisees. It's just that the focus of the OT is looking forward at the cross, where as the NT looks back at the cross.
reply
[deleted]
0 ups, 1 reply
reply
0 ups
I am not comparing the reprimanding of Sadducees and Pharisees to near total genocide of the human race. I'm just saying that God looks at all sin no matter how insignificant the same. To Him, a big mistake is equal to a lilttle one. Sin is sin.
reply
0 ups, 1 reply
if you don't question yourself, you have no right to question others.
reply
0 ups, 1 reply
I don't need to question myself. I know what I know by the grace of God, I am what I am by His mercy and I am not questioning others. I am just trying to share the good news of Jesus' saving grace.
reply
[deleted]
0 ups, 1 reply
reply
0 ups
That's your opinion and you're obligated to it. I've done what I've been told. Whether you believe Jesus or not is now up to you.
reply
1 up, 1 reply
You said "Evolution wants to say that creation came from two specs of dust floating in a dark void or space if you will". Can you show me a science textbook that says that?

I'll wait...
reply
1 up
I was talking about creation in general not THE creation. Like the beginning of the world.
reply
3 ups, 1 reply
It's not really a Philosoraptor meme but...f**k it.
reply
2 ups, 1 reply
Creation is true and Evolution is ultimately the biggest lie ever.
reply
[deleted]
0 ups, 1 reply
reply
0 ups
Yes, Evolution in fact is #FAKENEWS
reply
3 ups, 1 reply
reply
1 up, 1 reply
That would be man. If creation is a lie, man does not exist. Explain. They can't. There is no reasoning to evolutions erroneous and quite vain imaginations.
reply
[deleted]
0 ups, 1 reply
reply
1 up
Science proves the Bible has been and always will truth.
reply
[deleted]
4 ups, 1 reply
He's always watching you, you better be good or no presents (heaven), white dude with long white beard yet he's invisible to everyone.....
reply
0 ups, 2 replies
That's right. But goodness doesn't get people into heaven unfortunately or most of us would make it.
reply
1 up, 1 reply
if someone killed 100 people, and on their deathbead cried out "i accept the word of jesus christ!!" before he died, he STILL goes to heaven? also, "or most of us would make it"? are you saying that good people shouldn't be rewarded for their actions? that's like saving the world but not getting repaid because you didn't play "just cause 2"! are you all INSANE?
reply
0 ups
I know it sounds ludicrous, but yes if they killed 100 people or even 1,000 people and repented of their sin and accepted Jesus Christ they would get into heaven. They still have to be accountable for their actions but they would still get to move into paradise. Good people ought to be rewarded but like I said before goodness unfortunately doesn't get people into the presence of God. Isaiah 64:6 "We are all infected and impure with sin. When we display our righteous deeds, they are nothing but filthy rags. Like autumn leaves, we wither and fall, and our sins sweep us away like the wind." That's from the New Living Translation Bible
reply
[deleted]
1 up, 1 reply
What proof is there they don't?
reply
0 ups, 1 reply
The book of Titus specifically says "Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;"
reply
[deleted]
1 up, 1 reply
Oh...ok, for second I was worried you were going to base it on opinion and conjecture but this seals it up nice and indisputably.

You're basing proof of fallible man with more fallible man stories. (Like saying santa claus is real because Mommy says so.) At what point does the fact nothing the bible says is based on anything of provable substance come to light and the house of cards falls on itself?

I guess never huh? That's what faith is.
reply
0 ups, 1 reply
Basically. I'm not saying what I believe is true because Mommy or Daddy or whoever says so. I'm saying what I believe is not only THE truth but true in general because the Bible says it is infallible. And that in of itself is proof enough.
reply
[deleted]
1 up, 1 reply
You say "bible" , Little jimmy says "mommy"....whatever.....neither are able to be proven with any reasonable basis of data or facts except for falling back on "because ______ says so"

So again- have a great day/life/death/whatever. I am not going to continue to debate it with you.
reply
1 up, 1 reply
Not so. I have already told you that my proof comes from the infallibility of the Word of the God Himself and that I am not relying on someone who is prone to error. However, because I also believe it's called freedom of speech and everyone has the freedom to choose their own salvation or condemnation I will let the issue lie. I will not force it. I could die knowing I proclaimed the name of Jesus Christ with all dignity and sent His message that He loves each and everyone of us and He will save us if we only believe in HIM and the consequence of not taking His FREE gift of paradise wrapped up in faith itself will be an eternity in hell. May God richly bless you today, tomorrow and forever til the day you die. I'm sorry I could not get you to see the blessedness of His comfort. God be with you my friend.
reply
1 up, 4 replies
"I'm saying what I believe is not only THE truth but true in general because the Bible says it is infallible. And that in of itself is proof enough."

So your proof that the Bible is true is that the Bible says it's true? That's circular reasoning.

You also said "I am not relying on someone who is prone to error." So the Bible authors weren't prone to error? So you're saying they were infallible? I thought the Bible says all humans are fallible, evil and wicked. So that means I can't trust what they wrote. It's an entirely self-defeating argument.
reply
1 up, 1 reply
Not true. These were men who knew Jesus and had 1 on 1 experience with the Savior themselves so they had credible authority to write what would eventually become the New Testament.
0 ups
There's no actual historical evidence that the four gospels were written by Matthew, Mark, Luke or John.
reply
1 up, 1 reply
It is circular reasoning, true, but while men yes are prone to error and the Bible does say we are fallible the Holy Spirit the infallible 3rd person of God told those men what to write so that what they wrote would not be erroneous.
0 ups
But if you admit they are error-prone, you would also have to admit that what they said about the holy spirit guiding them is also error-prone and could be false
reply
0 ups
Okay so you have sought answers, done research, now it's up to you to believe or not. Other than this I am done going back and forth on this meme.
reply
0 ups, 1 reply
There is evidence that the four Gospels were written by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. You have to do your research but there is evidence if you're willing to look. You don't have to believe but if you want answers then like Jesus said, "if ye seek, ye will find"
0 ups
I do seek answers, and I have done research.
reply
2 ups
very unlikely
reply
2 ups
comment war: the meme
reply
3 ups, 3 replies
reply
3 ups, 1 reply
...says the "ignorant backwards creature"
reply
[deleted]
2 ups, 1 reply
reply
2 ups
:o
reply
2 ups, 1 reply
God created man, man created evolution and God shook His head in disgust.
reply
2 ups, 1 reply
People haven’t evolved to grow shoes, shirts and pants. We can’t even evolve to stop getting sun burn. Once you understand that simple fact of science—the whole theory is out the window.
reply
2 ups, 2 replies
evolution is dictated by natural selection, if a creature does not reproduce the faulty genes which turned out to be an advantage, the genes are not passed on and evolution does not take place. getting a sunburn does not kill us or prevent reproduction, so natural selection does not take place. once you understand this simple fact of science, the theory can be welcomed back.
reply
2 ups, 1 reply
When humans devolved the ability to not need shoes and sunblock, I’ll believe that. It’s not happening. Evolution is a myth. We’d evolve physical features to protect us from dying in the wild. But we don’t. We have evolved our technology, because our bodies don’t evolve. The theory of evolution was created by Charles Darwin for Queen Victoria. He had to come up with something good or it would be off with his head. So he made up the theory of evolution so he could say his research proves the Queen was the most evolved being in the universe. And that monkeys wandered out of Africa headed north across Europe and evolved into humans. The black and brown people were inferior half-monkeys who hadn’t selected their mates properly. That’s why they are still savages and the Queen and royals are far superior because their ancestors were better at selecting for good genes. It is literally the foundation of all racism. Because it was backed by the Crown.
reply
2 ups, 2 replies
"It is literally the foundation of all racism." So racism didn't exist until Darwin's time?

Also, if evolution, as you claim, was fabricated to appease Queen Victoria, why are scientists still holding to it 135 after Darwin's death?
reply
2 ups, 3 replies
The first scientific proof that racism was right because the savages are inferior, was the theory of evolution. It was finally scientific proof of superiority and inferiority. Once a made up wrong theory becomes mainstream and accepted, it does not go away easily. What science ever demonstrated evolution actually happened? None. The reality, if you look at a chart of the genetics of animals, which you will only see if you are lucky in a show at a major museum—is that it is clear that the types of living creatures that can exist are arranged in a table—just like the periodic table of the elements. If evolution was occurring in relation to environment, it could not possibly maintain any type of arrangement like the periodic table. But it does. And we all know that the elements on the periodic table all can exist, but only under certain circumstances. Living creatures can all exist under the right circumstances.
reply
2 ups, 1 reply
"The first scientific proof that racism was right because the savages are inferior, was the theory of evolution. It was finally scientific proof of superiority and inferiority. "

Evolution doesn't actually create scientific basis for superiority. If one understood evolution, they wouldn't use it as a weapon, and would recognize when people used evolution as such.

"What science ever demonstrated evolution actually happened?"

Fossil records, bodily relations to other animals (such as that manatees have the skeleton of human hands), habitats, etc.

"The reality, if you look at a chart of the genetics of animals, which you will only see if you are lucky in a show at a major museum—is that it is clear that the types of living creatures that can exist are arranged in a table—just like the periodic table of the elements."

We're talking about biology here, not chemistry.

"If evolution was occurring in relation to environment, it could not possibly maintain any type of arrangement like the periodic table."

And it doesn't. The evolution of an animal is far more complicated than the organization than some elements we may have discovered. It's hard to get a grasp of, but it's the best theory we have as there is no other explanation. By the way, a theory, while it may not be a law, is called a theory because of the presented evidence.

"But it does."

No it doesn't. Elements don't evolve. Sure, they may have alpha and beta radiation, but radiation of chemicals and evolution of animals aren't the same thing.

"And we all know that the elements on the periodic table all can exist, but only under certain circumstances."

Actually, that's compounds. The elements in a chemical equation need to be balanced with the amount of elements in a compound. The elements themselves, however, are capable of existing in many circumstances, bonded with another element or not.
reply
2 ups, 3 replies
You’re absolutely, completely missing the point and have it totally wrong. It is positively, without doubt or dispute by science—all a matter of compounds and Chemistry. There is zero evidence of evolution in the fossil record. Zero. There are fossils of things that went extinct. None of them demonstrate natural selection as practiced by living organisms. That was completely made up. The transformational improvement that causes one species to become another has NEVER been observed by human beings. It was ONLY theorized by Darwin. The reality is the only way we get new complex creatures is when they meet a similar creature and share enough DNA to produce offspring. If the offspring are fertile and capable of separate existence, that is the only way you get evolution. There is ZERO evidence of a single species ever independently teansforming into a new species. ZERO. In fact, most “evolution” fails and produces creatures that are less advanced than their parents. Like lion/tiger hybrids, mules, horse/zebra hybrids. That type of interbreeding is the ONLY FORM OF EVOLUTION EVER OBSERVED BY HUMANS. HOWEVER, IT ISNT EVER MENTIONED BY DARWIN BECAUSE IT WOULD REQUIRE WHITE PEOPLE TO INTERBREED WITH NONWHITE, LESS EVOLVED SAVAGES. This is positively a fact. We just don’t hear about for one reason. And one reason only. Political Correctness. The liberal morons shouldn’t be bu4ning confederate flags and toppling statues of General Lee. They should be burning down every museum that contains exhibits that were opened hundreds of years ago on the “theory of evolution.”
reply
2 ups, 1 reply
"It is positively, without doubt or dispute by science—all a matter of compounds and Chemistry."

Evolution contains some chemistry, but isn't relevant to chemistry as much as it is relevant to biology.

"There is zero evidence of evolution in the fossil record. Zero. There are fossils of things that went extinct."

Things that went extinct as their offspring began to develop better tactics and appearances for their environments.

"None of them demonstrate natural selection as practiced by living organisms. That was completely made up."

Apart from the armadillo Darwin ate and the prehistoric fossil he found.

"The reality is the only way we get new complex creatures is when they meet a similar creature and share enough DNA to produce offspring. If the offspring are fertile and capable of separate existence, that is the only way you get evolution."

That is not technically evolution as many hybrids are unable to create their own offspring, thus ending an evolutionary pattern. If only humans could stop f**king around with others species.

"There is ZERO evidence of a single species ever independently teansforming into a new species. ZERO. "

For a start, no need to emphasize the "zero". Secondly, it's never independent. Environmental factors frequently contribute to the development of a species, such as other predators, finding prey, the ecosystem, and other factors.

"In fact, most 'evolution' fails and produces creatures that are less advanced than their parents. Like lion/tiger hybrids, mules, horse/zebra hybrids."

Those species you mentioned are merely hybrids, not evolutionary offspring. Like I said, many hybrids can't breed.

"That type of interbreeding is the ONLY FORM OF EVOLUTION EVER OBSERVED BY HUMANS."

21st century weapon, the caps lock is. Secondly, humans couldn't observe a natural practice that takes millions to billions of years.

"HOWEVER, IT ISNT EVER MENTIONED BY DARWIN BECAUSE IT WOULD REQUIRE WHITE PEOPLE TO INTERBREED WITH NONWHITE, LESS EVOLVED SAVAGES."

More caps. Also, there is even less evidence that Darwin was a racist then there is for the theory of evolution; far less. Darwin mentioned humans as a species, not black or white or asian humans. Even if he was a racist, the people who believe in evolution, or liberals, wouldn't use evolution to justify racism. They'd justify political correctness more, as evolution led to the human race as a whole.
2 ups
You are using many words, but you are wrong. I can point to precisely why.

“Evolution contains some chemistry, but isn't relevant to chemistry as much as it is relevant to biology.”

That statement is fundamentally incorrect. “Biology” is the “chemistry” that occurs within things that are alive. And the reason why you are stuck with an inability to accept this fact is because “science” cannot define what “life” is. It is pure magic. Your “science” will do anything and everything, no matter how wrong and harmful to deny the reality that we are surrounded by magic which we cannot explain nor understand.
reply
[deleted]
1 up, 1 reply
reply
[deleted]
1 up, 1 reply
1 up
Tell me what “life” is and how to create it?

Tell me what “gravity” is and how to make it?

Tell me what “dark matter” is and how to create it?

We can prove all three coexist. But we cannot prove why, how or where they come from. To prove you like cake all you have to do is say “I like cake.” That is exactly what you are doing here. You are just saying what you like.
reply
1 up, 2 replies
Anyone with any understanding of the laws of nature who looks at these primitive charts would immediately see that this is a misunderstood periodic table of life forms. I have seen massive charts like this organized by the museum. The only reason, the fact that this is an obviously ordered table is never mentioned in science is because of people like NEIL DEGRASSE TYSON who want to believe in atheism. It only takes one person like that or one person like Queen Victoria using Darwin’s made up theory to make it mainstream and accepted, even though it is obviously wrong. Just like people thought the earth was flat—and nonsense like gay people got AIDS because god was punishing them for their sins in the 1980’s
reply
3 ups, 1 reply
All living organisms on Earth are interconnected in a tree/web of life, not in separate little grids and boxes like the periodic table
reply
2 ups
I see what you did there. And I get what you mean.
reply
1 up
reply
[deleted]
0 ups, 1 reply
reply
1 up, 2 replies
People don’t realize, how recent “science” is and how overpowered it is by time. The length of time we’ve had “science” is as wide as a hair in comparison to the size of the Earth, when we consider the amount of time we were hiding from night time in caves.
reply
[deleted]
1 up, 2 replies
3 ups
No, but you do

OOHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH, SNIZZAPPP!!!!
reply
[deleted]
0 ups
So you acknowledge cavemen existed? And that the hair width of science to the Earth existence....but isnt the Earth 3000 years old? We have documents going back pretty far relative to 3000 years. Science has been around for like 2000 .....seems like a big hair.
reply
[deleted]
2 ups, 1 reply
reply
2 ups, 1 reply
reply
[deleted]
1 up, 1 reply
reply
1 up
reply
1 up, 1 reply
Human beings have never observed evolution in nature.
reply
1 up, 1 reply
If the Queen didn’t declare that evolution is science, it would never have been science.
reply
1 up
Queen Victoria died in 1901. If evolution is only science because she declared it to be so, then why would it still be considered science more than a century after her death?
reply
0 ups
MemeSpirited, you seem to be the great billard ball scientist here!
reply
[deleted]
3 ups, 2 replies
Evolution can work backward to a common beginning (for instance, modern dogs to ancient wolf ancestors to common canine mammals before them and so on), while creation starts at the beginning and works forward based on nothing but faith. For instance - Adam and Eve had only 3 sons. Who did they mate with? Even if they had sisters how long could that nonsense go on until the offspring are drooling imbeciles? On that basis alone creationism is silly.
reply
1 up, 1 reply
Actually, if you bothered to read the Bible you'd know that Adam and Eve had other children besides Cain, Abel, and Seth. The Bible simply makes no record of their names because their names were irrelevant.
reply
[deleted]
3 ups, 1 reply
Their names were irrelevant because it never happened. Lol
reply
1 up, 1 reply
Seth was the descendant of Adam and Eve through whom eventually Noah was descended. And in Noah's time, the earth was flooded and only Noah and his household were spared. So, yeah, the other descendants who turned away from God were pretty irrelevant.
reply
[deleted]
1 up, 1 reply
reply
0 ups, 1 reply
What you're hearing is what you want to hear.

Unless a whole bunch of humans evolved simultaneously, there was incest in Evolution as well. Your point is?

Speaking of invest, apart from God saying incest is wrong, why is it wrong? According to your reasoning, it should be permissible; why is it not? Doesn't hurt anyone. Does it?
reply
[deleted]
1 up, 1 reply
reply
0 ups, 1 reply
You didn't answer the question. To set a precedent, I'll show you how it's done:

Leviticus 18:8, through the next few verses.

So now, my good sir, kindly explain why apart from God, incest should be prohibited. What good reason is there?
reply
[deleted]
1 up, 6 replies
reply
0 ups
Oh. So it's okay for homosexual invest but not heterosexual incest. That right?

And anyway, why bother considering two or three generations down the road? Why is that the parent's concern? If it makes them happy, and it only MIGHT hurt their offspring's offspring down the road - and that assuming the children of incest also engage in incest - that doesn't make a very convincing argument against incest. Isn't our logic "it's right if it's right for you"? Again, if it's right for a brother and sister, why does anyone get to tell them no? Why must they be forced apart just because there's a chance their own children's children might have genetic defects?
reply
0 ups
I am not trying to redirect my questions. I'm merely trying to figure out exactly where the line you draw is. So far I've learned you think incest is okay as long as it's homosexual incest.

I've also learned you consider "science" to be your infallible guidepost, against which you measure EVERYTHING. It's how you determine right vs wrong.

Okay. Except science is fallible. "Science" is a means, not an end.

And science does not cover morals. Which is what I'm getting at. So, apparently you desire to draw morals from science. Would that be correct?
reply
0 ups
Ok. So then would it be okay if a brother and sister used birth control? No danger of kids with genetic defects.
reply
0 ups
Actually, I've merely been doing a really bad job of leading to this question. So you say science dictates what is okay and what is not okay in this scenario, because it determines what is advantageous and what is not from a genetic point of view.

But if you recall, this was never about science, was it? I'm horrible at making points, sometimes, and the point of this rather lengthy and roundabout discussion has been this:

If there is no God, why is incest morally wrong? It may be scientifically considered to be genetically disadvantageous, yet you have still not bothered to mention why incest is morally wrong.

If there is God, then God is where we draw our morals from; god determines right vs wrong. If there is no God, however, there is no absolute right or absolute wrong; there is only what each man determines for him or her self or as a group. Yet these determined "truths" are not absolute; they were determined by man and may be changed by men.

And that is the point I have been clumsily driving at. How can you say incest is wrong apart from God stating that it is so? It may be possibly problematic from a genetic point of view, but that isn't a moral issue. That is strictly scientific. And you just said science is a process. Okay; so science may determine that incest is likely to result in mental and physical disabilities within a few generations. Howeve you fail to explain why this makes incest morally wrong; science may provide information, but people must decide what to do with it. And so, in spite of you believing the probability of genetic defects makes it undesirable to engage in incestuous relationships, that remains only YOUR opinion. What if someone interprets it differently? Science gives them the same info as it gives you, but again, science does not determine the law. While it is undesirable genetically speaking, it is not MORALLY wrong.

Or is it? If it is, please explain why, and what determines whether or not something is morally wrong.
reply
0 ups
Oh. So it would be OK if it was two brothers engaged in incest? Or two sisters?
reply
0 ups, 1 reply
Ah. I'm not talking about genetics; I'm talking about whether or not incest is right or wrong.
0 ups
Who cares about genetics? If it's right for those two people, who are you to tell them it's wrong, even if their kids might have genetic disorders? Suppose they use birth control?
reply
1 up, 2 replies
The Bible doesn't tell you that Cain and Able and Seth had bros or sisters but it is assumed based on the context following the murder of Able and the offer to repent by God which Cain ultimately declines and in the next set of passages it is pretty well presumed that when Cain took off, he took a sister of his or multiple sisters and they multiplied rather quickly eventually starting what would become the Muslim religion.
reply
1 up, 1 reply
Genesis 5:4 - "after Seth was born Adam lived 800 years and had other sons and daughters." It's in the Bible.
reply
[deleted]
0 ups, 1 reply
And they all reproduced incestiously ever after....
reply
0 ups, 1 reply
It wasn't incest. At that time it was biologically safe to mate with your sister. You didn't have to worry about AIDs or HIV or stuff like that.
reply
[deleted]
0 ups, 1 reply
Yeah but genetics kinda don't like inbreeding. This is science....this is the truth. Forget the creepy incest factor or even STDs.

Here is my bottom line: Science doesn't disprove creationism, it proves evolution (or whatever it is set out to prove or find....that's the point of science.) With or without the Bible the findings of science remain constant. Those that believe in creationsim (or the Bible as fact) are constantly trying to disprove science while never being able to prove creationsim....without falling back on "because the Bible says so."
reply
0 ups, 1 reply
Science does not prove evolution. It is proof what the Bible said long ago was right but it can never prove evolution. And besides the Bible is all the proof we need. That's why it's called faith.
reply
[deleted]
0 ups, 1 reply
I actually left off my last line from my previous comment, I edited it before posting.

"That's what faith is" So glad you concur.

And again- it SETS OUT TO PROVE.....Science is an ongoing mission to prove and find the truth. It may not prove something, but that's the intent and it may lead to a general belief (theory) given the best evidence that has been tested and reviewed.
reply
0 ups, 1 reply
It takes more faith to believe in evolution than in creation. True it sets out to prove but science can not prove why a lame man all of the sudden is able to stand up and have full power over his legs or why some one blind from birth is all of the sudden able to see all the different color spectrums as someone who could see all their life. Science unfortunately is not the final authority. God is.
reply
[deleted]
0 ups, 1 reply
Nothing in evolution is "all of the sudden" that's creationsim. No theory? Bam. God did it. Easy. Done.

It doesn't take faith to believe in science. In fact that's the demise of science. Proving why things happen is science. No scientist says "because we hope it does..." They run multiple studies and search for the answer over and over and test and run experiments, collect massive amounts of data , retest it until they have a proven answer or best guess based on real world, actual evidence.
0 ups
Again I could rebuttal your statement in saying that yes in fact the Big Bang Theory indeed was infact all of a sudden. However this was just me posting my beliefs based upon my moral upbringing that is justified by my freedom of speech. You believe atheism and science; I believe in Christianity and faith. Therefore I resign from this comment war. As Jesus said on the cross, I quote: "It is finished."
reply
[deleted]
2 ups, 1 reply
LOL- "assumed" - so in addition to being written by very fallible man, there are gaps you just "assume" and "presume" are true.
reply
1 up, 1 reply
It's LOGICAL INTELLIGENT assumptions not guesses or hypotheses. Yes the Bible was written by fallible man but the Holy Spirit guided those men to write PERFECT words.
reply
[deleted]
2 ups, 1 reply
Look- it's pointless to continue. You believe in an all powerful invisible man and ghosts that make people do things.

In court cases this gets people off for insanity.

So I won't burden you with my more of my nonsensical science and factual rubbish.
reply
1 up, 1 reply
Rolling up my sleeves and cracking knuckles. Ooookay. Now listen I have to be nice and I will continue to do so since I am a representive of Christ and I don't want to do anything to discredit His Holy name. God is all powerful, invisible yes but only to the human eye and no I don't believe in ghosts, the HOLY Ghost yes but not ghosts and I can tell you for a fact that if in court cases if this gets off for insanity then I am the King of Insanity because what I've said obviously is not a popular message. I personally don't care because I am only the messanger. I will continue to deliver His message of saving grace in faith whether I have upvotes or not. That's not why I am here.
reply
[deleted]
0 ups, 1 reply
Cool man....go for it. Rock on.
reply
0 ups
I will. I won't "cram it down people's throats" but I am required by my Savior and God to at least tell people that there's a better life, that Christianity isn't about rules and regulations to keep under a Zeus like God which isn't the case FYI. It's about a relationship with your best friend. He's my greatest advocate, my one and only true friend, and He gave His life to save me from dying to go to hell to pay for all my lust, all my lies, all my disobedience to my parents so I can do nothing less than give my all to Him who so richly earned it.
reply
1 up
reply
1 up, 1 reply
would that mean that pholosoraptor wouldn't exist?
reply
2 ups, 2 replies
Let's put it this way, if evolution is inexistant than that makes man a liar. If creation is a lie, than you have no VALID proof that we exist by reason or even scientific logic. This also means you have to question how we got here if not by the creativity of our Father.
reply
2 ups
Zeus
reply
1 up, 1 reply
that's interesting, but i meant that pholosoraptor is a dinosaur which creation says never existed because dinosaurs are evidence of evolution, and we can't have that, can we?
reply
1 up, 1 reply
Pholosoraptor indeed is a dinosaur however while the Bible doesn't NOT say they existed it doesn't say they were either so I see where you are coming from. The thing is though the Bible DOES say that God created "everything that creepeth along the earth" and that includes dinosaurs which in fact are not evidence of evolution. Job was actually written before Genesis and it makes mention to the Leviathan and other similar large reptilian, aquatic or avian beasts that would be considered dinosaurs.
reply
1 up, 1 reply
well, because of carbon dating of the remains of the dinosaurs, we figured out that they existed millennia before the bible says that an omnipotent being with no beginning or end created earth.
reply
0 ups
Here's the thing though. While the Bible does not explicitly say when everything took place, based upon how long everyone lived in the OT, it is a good educated conclusion to believe that dinosaurs lived not millions or even billions of years ago but actually thousands, like 4-6 thousand years ago.
reply
1 up, 1 reply
its not.take goose bumps for example.
reply
1 up
Goose bumps are not proof of evolution.
reply
1 up, 1 reply
reply
1 up
You are absolutely right.
reply
1 up, 1 reply
why can't we just all agree on anything? or agree to disagree? or at least not write essays that we call comments arguing on subjects that are beyond our comprehension? in short, STOP COMMENTING ON THIS UNCREATIVE MEME.
seriously, no effort was put into this.
reply
0 ups
First of all, this wasn't meant to start a comment war. I was just using my freedom of speech to post what I believe to be true. Uncreative or not, whether effort was put into it or not, I agree that we have different beliefs. I did not intend to do this much commenting on this, but it does give me an opportunity to share my beliefs and to be a witness to the truth.
reply
1 up
i wonder... has anybody considered that this meme might have intentionally started a comment war? i mean, you get points for having your stuff commented on, soooo...
reply
1 up, 1 reply
reply
0 ups
It isn't.
reply
1 up, 1 reply
reply
0 ups
Aristoteles, leave your ship, it has alreday been shipwrecked. Poeple just don' t reaiize it, they think it 's the unsinkable Titanic. But Schrödinger/Heisenberg waves have already wrecked it - people, get into the boats, before it's too late for you and you have to swim in ice-cold water!
reply
[deleted]
1 up, 1 reply
reply
3 ups
reply
0 ups, 1 reply
i am very sad that i cannot stop getting notifications for this godawful meme.
reply
0 ups
I am sorry that is the case. I did not intend to start a comment war. That is not why I posted this. If people would quit arguing their opinion and agree to disagree than you'd stop getting these dumb notifications.
Flip Settings
Philosoraptor memeRe-caption this meme

Created with the Imgflip Meme Generator

Show embed codes
IMAGE DESCRIPTION:
WHAT IF CREATION IS TRUE; AND EVOLUTION IS A LIE?
hotkeys: D = random, W = like, S = dislike, A = back