File: 1625014877422.jpg (256.06 KB, 1077x1145, 1624978591138.jpg)
No.539313
File: 1625015802725.jpg (127.08 KB, 960x960, 1580526939207.jpg)
Go to bed, schizomin.
No.539317
File: 1625016909014.png (556.27 KB, 767x845, d0be0e81d96169711e79e22f75….png)
Best Yu-Gi-Oh girl.
No.575597
File: 1665463054230.jpg (2.56 MB, 2367x2849, untitled.jpg)
hey ota ran 17 km while listening to the imperishable night soundtrack and watching the moonrise
No.575600
File: 1665466470270.jpg (117.22 KB, 800x767, 1665104120493282.jpg)
https://youtu.be/UM82qxxskZEIs Genesis History?
Ironically if you look at scientific evidence, it debunks naturalism.
There is no known process in which new genetic information can be added to an organism’s DNA. Information can be deleted, duplicated, or rearranged, but not added. This is why you can turn a gray wolf into a chihuahua, but it will never be anything but a canine.
This should flat out disprove macro-evolution right there. But there's more.
What about the fossil record? When you think of "missing link" you probably think of monkey -> man.
But "missing links" are actually the rule not the exception. All lifeforms have "missing links". Alleged "transitionary" fossils are incredibly rare, and arguable, like them lining up small horse fossils to larger and making the claim that they must have evolved into each other.
This almost complete lack of transitionary fossils, despite otherwise finding a plethora of fossils, is very strong scientific evidence that there was not slow evolutionary transitions.
If there was we'd have already found countless fossils showing it, since allegedly all life on Earth underwent these processes, but we don't.
1/2
No.575601
>>5756002/2
What about irreducible complexity? Traits with inter-working parts that would have been useless without the other(s). An asexual creature had a random mutation for male sexual organs which are useless without female sexual organs? This is already impossible, but now what are the chances through random mutation compatible female sexual organs appear in the same timeframe?
Radiometric dating, also bullshit, gives wildly incorrect dates for rocks of known age. Check the beginning of the video, that "canyon" that looks millions of years old was formed in 1980 from the Mount St.Helens eruption. The rocks that are supposed to date to 1980 give dates of millions of years too.
The issue with the naturalist paradigm is they start with the conclusion that creation can't be true, and therefor they have to come up with increasingly ridiculous ideas on how to explain things, despite the scientific evidence actually pointing to the contrary.
No.575602
File: 1665467842698.png (2.33 MB, 1200x1167, frogger.png)
In less than 7 years I will be 40 years old
No.575606
File: 1665472433377.jpg (2.47 MB, 1749x2500, yande.re 18231 dress kaho ….jpg)
me also
wonder what i will be doing
what will become of me..?
No.575609
File: 1665475522554.jpg (376.67 KB, 665x958, 1665374265842.jpg)
getting a new laptop can't decide between 3060 and 3070 please help
No.577049
File: 1667909755522.jpg (169.43 KB, 850x1183, untitled.jpg)
ran 13 km while listening to imperishable night soundtrack and watching the lunar eclipse moon turned red and saw a shooting star next to it
No.585388
File: 1675356723979.jpg (165.98 KB, 1500x1001, 1675294494734104.jpg)
>>585381>>585384>>585382>>585386Two more weeks right?
https://youtu.be/jyATE9StbK8Now watch this video.
Genetics and mutation is like shuffling two decks of cards together. If you keep doing it you might get interesting results like a deck of only red cards, but you will never get an 11 card or any other new card. Selection only selects from existing genetic code.
If you have ABC, mutation can turn it into CBBA for example, but it can't turn it into ABCD (it can't add a new letter). They've been trying to get this to happen in e.coli for decades and no one can get it to happen even under rapid lab conditions. It's never been observed, verified, or otherwise proven possible, and if it's not then a single-celled organism can't turn into all life on Earth like in the fairy tale of evolution.
One kind of animal can never turn into a different kind. The amount of change natural selection can cause is limited. What we observe is mutations cause loss of information over time, not a gain.
No.585394
File: 1675363723186.jpg (499.47 KB, 1300x952, 1da49b76b1d86e8ce219296ee1….jpg)
I was trying to find what music video this was from and literally can't through a search engine
"90s music video white room black furniture" etc. can't find it
Virtual insanity btw
No.585433
File: 1675390173004.png (1.58 MB, 1600x1200, 63aec84924efdd0c2a65f48de7….png)
>>539307The moon having the same spin/revolution time is explained by tidal locking.
But think about the fact that we can observe a total solar eclipse. The moon just happens to be the exact right distance to completely and perfectly block out the sun. A few hundred million years earlier and the moon would have been much bigger (would still be a total eclipse but not like we have now), and a few hundred years into the future and there will be no chance to view a total solar eclipse.
What is the scientific reason for this seeming coincidence? None, there is none. The moon fits perfectly into the Sun during a total solar eclipse, or on a more general note, the Moon just happens to be about 400 times smaller than the Sun, while the Sun just happens to be about 400 times further from the Earth than the Moon is. And humanity just so happens to be around at the right time to witness it.
Did this really just happen on its own?
No.585439
File: 1675393497763.jpg (249.78 KB, 1400x1120, c237bfec91170069a35e14184a….jpg)
>>585433>The moon having the same spin/revolution time is explained by tidal locking. Tidal locking is just the term for it, we observe it but no one understands why it happens.
>Then God said, “Let there be lights in the expanse of the heavens to separate the day from the night, and they shall serve as signs and for seasons, and for days and years; and they shall serve as lights in the expanse of the heavens to give light on the earth”; and it was so. God made the two great lights, the greater light to govern the day, and the lesser light to govern the night; He made the stars also.The main purpose of the moon and all the stars are for keeping track of time and making calendars.
>A few hundred million years earlierThe universe didn't exist.
https://answersingenesis.org/evidence-for-creation/10-best-evidences-young-earth/ No.585451
File: 1675410836464.gif (132.96 KB, 620x587, Time_Clock-620x587.gif)
Did you know that if Earth's history was compressed to 24 hours, the human history would've began at 11:58:43PM? Really makes you realize how truly insignificant we are.
No.585453
File: 1675415132617.jpg (83.92 KB, 706x1000, 1675078556656.jpg)
>>585452*participants ought to be put through a rigorous female evaluation process, unworthy applicants will be removed from the gene pool without parole
No.585454
File: 1675415728308.jpg (1.26 MB, 885x1254, 6ad461effdf8d4c5a1f5c858eb….jpg)
>>585451If seawater originally contained no sodium (salt) and the sodium accumulated at today’s rates, then today’s ocean saltiness would be reached in only 42 million years, only about 1/70 the three billion years evolutionists propose. After 3 billion years, we would expect to see 70x more salt in the ocean than we see today.
Going by the current models of the sun's nuclear fusion, the Earth would have been below freezing 3.5 billion years ago, when life supposedly evolved. (faint sun paradox)
The earth’s magnetic field is wearing down so quickly that it could be no more than 20,000 years old.
Carbon-14 is found in diamonds supposedly billions of years old, but carbon-14 couldn't last longer than a few hundred thousand years at most.
Soft tissue is found in dinosaur fossils, this couldn't be preserved ~60 million years.
We observe 19 billion tons of sediment deposited into the oceans each year, the average thickness of sediment on the ocean floor being 1300 feet. At this rate, 1,300 feet of sediment would accumulate in less than 12 million years, not billions of years.
In many mountainous areas, rock layers thousands of feet thick have been bent and folded without fracturing. How can that happen if they were laid down separately over hundreds of millions of years and already hardened?
No.585457
File: 1675419732234.jpg (1.47 MB, 3200x4488, 94021.jpg)
tsukuyomi moon phase
No.585463
i know what i'm doing is an exercise in futility but i find it funny how all these talking points whatmin literally copy pasted from answerisingenesis.com can be so easily disproved even if you don't have any knowledge about the subject matter whatsoever
>>585454>If seawater originally contained no sodium (salt) and the sodium accumulated at today’s rates, then today’s ocean saltiness would be reached in only 42 million years, only about 1/70 the three billion years evolutionists propose. After 3 billion years, we would expect to see 70x more salt in the ocean than we see today. sea salinity is at an equilibrium, it's not increasing
salt deposits on the bottom of the ocean offsetting the input oceans receive from rivers
>Going by the current models of the sun's nuclear fusion, the Earth would have been below freezing 3.5 billion years ago, when life supposedly evolved. (faint sun paradox)greenhouse gases
>The earth’s magnetic field is wearing down so quickly that it could be no more than 20,000 years old.throughout the earth's history its magnetic field reversed multiple times, preceding that reversal the strength of the field plunged, it's believed this rapid weakening we're seeing now could be an indication that the poles will shift again
>Carbon-14 is found in diamonds supposedly billions of years old, but carbon-14 couldn't last longer than a few hundred thousand years at most.the amounts that are "found" are literally in the margin of a equipment induced measurement error
No.585464
>>585454>Soft tissue is found in dinosaur fossils, this couldn't be preserved ~60 million years.it could, iron present in blood can conserve tissue for extremely long periods of time under very ideal conditions
>We observe 19 billion tons of sediment deposited into the oceans each year…and where are you getting that rate even from? sea floor sediment accumulates extremely slow, and just because something is dumped in the ocean doesn't mean it will end up on the ocean floor anyway
>In many mountainous areas, rock layers thousands of feet thick have been bent and folded without fracturing. How can that happen….because they simply can? it's called ductile deformation
do you want me to google anything else for you?
No.585469
File: 1675444656482.jpg (253.58 KB, 1333x1000, 11b2986f23c724f1999cd19b93….jpg)
>>585463>>585464They already know these weak explanations and have prebunked them. See "rescue devices" at the bottom of pages.
https://answersingenesis.org/evidence-for-creation/10-best-evidences-young-earth/Some of these copes are okay, some aren't, like claiming soft tissue/carbon-14 was around that long, or that hardened rock layers supposedly millions of years old and deposited separately could bend.
No.585470
File: 1675445168703.jpg (217.55 KB, 1237x982, 2f79c06e5fc8fcd8834c5ebe48….jpg)
Regarding your explanation for the Earth's rapidly decaying magnetic field, there is no evidence for it.
https://www.icr.org/article/depletion-earths-magnetic-field/"The only valid theoretical mathematical explanation and the only tenable data support the conclusion that the earth's magnetic field was created with a sizable amount of original magnetic energy and has been continuously decaying ever since and that it is headed for extinction in a few thousand years."
No.585472
>>585469>>585470and how do they "predebunk" it? it's literally just "uhhh you can't empirically prove with 100% certainty what happened billion years ago anyway haha" hand-waving
the salt one is even based on an entirely false premise as i've already said
oceans salinity is NOT increasing, it is staying the same despite the fact salt is still being added to the oceans via various processes, so why should there even be more salt now? it's like you're not even reading what i'm saying
anyway the most puzzling aspect to me is why do you insist on being a bible literalist and grasping at straws like this when not being one is not mutually exclusive with being a theist
you do realize creationism is a relatively modern concept and even the earliest christian theologians thought the book of genesis was allegorical and that god did not in fact create earth in 6 days?
i mean, even the person who first proposed the big bang theory was a literal catholic priest, there's nothing stopping you from believing in god and not thinking the earth is 6000 years old or that dinosaurs lived among humans