I went to Natural History Museum last year...

I went to Natural History Museum last year, and when you enter there's this exhibition of skulls of humans and their ancestors.

Creationists, how do you explain this?

Attached: human-evolution-skulls-at-the-natural-history-museum (1).jpg (2453x1482, 1.11M)

Other urls found in this thread:


There's one about horse evolution too.

Attached: evolution-of-horses_wideexact_1230.jpg (1230x692, 108.78K)

reminder OP Catholic schools teach evolution

Nothing really special about the skull differences. Caucasians, Blacks, Asians; we all got different skull shapes, human all the same.

Fossils were put there by the devil to test your faith

Why is there a progressive range of skulls very similar to less similar to human skulls?

Go talk to your priest and he'll sort out everything for you

haha very funny epic trol

btw op, if you want to know about actual creationist's opinions check this link: www.creation.com

Evolution is compatible with Christianity and Catholicism. Even the Catholic Church has stated that they accept theistic evolution. I also remember seeing that exact wall at the natural history museum, pretty cool stuff.

Can conform. I went to Catholic school.


Honestly one of the more bold assertions I've seen. That apply to all of the skulls shown?

Attached: 17f04.jpg (609x640 912.85 KB, 100.35K)

Skulls of black People.

evolution is a meme because of genetic entropy
until you physically show a few chemicals turn into a human your theory is nothing more than a theory

Theistic evolution is bullshit and the Catholic Church doesn't have an official position on evolution vs creationism.

Basically based. I also tend to agree with the Orthodox doctrine that Eden was not a geographical place but an ontological place and that evolution is impossible because a) death didn't enter the world until the Fall and b) intellect and will are not the product of atoms colliding, ergo if we were to have evolved from anything it couldn't have been something without an intellect or a will. Evolution is a concerted effort by nefarious freemasonic forces in the world to destroy the dignity of man and undermine his faith in the Lord. How can anyone say this is not true? We know this because many have written these very things and many of the people to have "discovered" such fossils are nefarious people. Additionally, if evolution were to be true it would invalidate Genesis, the foundation of Christianity, and collapse the entire structure. The theory of evolution is from the pits of hell.

Unironically based and breadpilled.

The bible supports evolution better than a young earth. Stop listening to YECs.

All the early church fathers were YEC

Attached: 1300044776986 (1).jpg (600x600, 34.07K)

You have to be trolling or severally misinformed

Wrong. God warned Adam that he would "surely die" if he eats from the tree. There was a concept of death even before Eden.

That's appeal to authority over 1000 years ago when no one had the slightest idea of evolution.

The unified teachings of the Church fathers are considered to be infallible. Ergo we have to believe them to be true and figure out the deception of evolution or you are to become an atheistic materialist. These are literally the only two paths.

Why do Catholic schools teach evolution?

Wherefore as by one man sin entered into this world, and by sin death; and so death passed upon all men, in whom all have sinned.

Catholic schools and curriculum producers, like all western schools and institutions have been infiltrated by free masons, communists and their ilk.

In 50 years you'll be asking why the Catholic church ordains women if it supposedly wrong.

I'm Catholic.
If Justin Martyr was around today. Do you think he accept evolution based on the evidence and it's compatibility with the Bible? I believe so because many modern day apologists also accept evolution.
It's not atheistic if you believe in a deity such as God.
It's not materialistic because you can still have the creator which is immaterial and you believe that souls exist which are immaterial.

If we look at multiple translations of Romans 5:12 it mentions people or men. There was still death and carnivorous activity before Adam and Eve. If God were to change all animal behaviour that would mean he wasn't done his creation which directly contradicts Hebrews 4:4 and Genesis 2:3.

Read Fr Seraphim Rose.

You know, mans behaviour changed after Adam's sin as well
Please inform me who then was Adam's father, a monkey?

Theistic evolution is gay. Take your pick.

Attached: gen-2.jpg (352x499 314.72 KB, 15.49K)

Only for the ones that sinned.

What are those books about.

They're about Catholic and Orthodox views on evolution. Fr. Ripperger is of the FSSP and he makes a metaphysical argument that evolution as a whole is bs but he also singles out theistic evolution as being bs.

AIG and other YEC orgs have done both good and bad research, some surprisingly good given their lack of resources. I'd recommend a book called "In Six Days: 50 Scientists Who Believe in Creation" edited by J. Ashton. Contains testimonies of 50 qualified scientists with Masters and PhD credentials and why they believe YEC. Their creds are from established public schools, you can look up their theses and dissertations through univ. libraries and online to judge their relative iq's for yourself. There's nothing wrong with YEC, it makes the most sense theologically, you just have to be willing to look at each piece of research critically, and not accept it as a totality, just like any other ongoing research…and be willing to be mocked, persecuted, and in the minority.
I gave the book to an evolutionist Roman Catholic high school teacher, and he came back saying "You made a creationist out of me." Not even remotely kidding.

Are you guys mad the Catholic Church apologized to Galileo and went away from their steadfast assertions about Geocentrism?

You aren't?

Reminder that the roots of modern creationism spring from the imagination of a supposed "prophetess" after she read Paradise Lost.

Thumbed through the second, but haven't seen the first. Most of the arguments presented are based on very dated info. That's always my issue with literature like this, it feels like a product of its time rather than something with any sort of staying power. Someone quoted a passage from Chesterton's "The Everlasting Man" at me, specifically the portion about Java Man being based on scant evidence. Within a decade or two of its publication, more findings were made in that area and elsewhere that confirmed its validity. Many publications I've come across have a similar problem: they rely upon gaps in our understanding at the time they were published.

Attached: Screenshot_20190713-200806.jpg (1014x1372, 645.5K)

Geocentrism is probably true. Either way as it stands right now there is no way of knowing. Im Eastern Orthodox but i like the work of Robert Sungenis.


I've had enough, goodbye.

Yep … I'm out.

If Einstein's theory of relativity is too believed, who's to say that the Earth isn't the center of the solar system and the sun revolves around us? Motion is relative after all.

Only certain prots are creationists, most christians accept that God created the universe in a way that makes sense to us (Big Bang,evolution etc)

For a discussion free of Papist censorship, join:

Reported for spam

This may surprise you to know, but the early church fathers were not idfalliable.

Attached: 731.jpg (486x409, 42.65K)

Attached: p1545642858107.jpg (1784x1024, 516.53K)

Basically darwinian evolution is nonsense. The only evolution that exists is epigenetic evolution, which isn't evolution because it's just activating dna that was already there; this is what you do when you breed dogs for example. Then there's devolution, which are genetic deterioration that provide benefits, usually at surviving against harmful diseases, but it could be for anything beneficial. A simple way to imagine it is: Imagine if there was a disease, we'll call it "arms disease", because it infects your arms and then kills you. Well if due to unfortunate genetics you were born without any arms, you couldn't be infected by arm's disease, as you don't have arms; this loss of information in your genes (deteriation) was beneficial to your survival, as you now do not get killed by arm's disease. This is how bacterial adaptations work. Sickle cell anemia is a good example of beneficial devolution.

Gibberish can't produce speech. Chemistry can't write code. Information is what is necessary to make life, and information is precisely what random disorder is excellent at destroying. You just can form just about none of the necessary information from natural causes, because it didn't form by natural causes. Speech requires intention, and intent only comes from minds. Gene code is a form of speech, and like speech it requires a mind to develop it, or else it simply would never form in nature.

The Darwinist is trying to use disorder to create order, but disorder destroys any order it creates immediately. Natural selection can preserve the order that disorder creates, the problem is you need life to already exist in order for natural selection to exist. Before there was life, there was no natural selection, and therefor no way for order to be preserved instead of destroyed by disorder. Abiogenesis would never happen, it would be like trying to get nature to produce a functional computer with code and everything just with natural forces, and no specially tailored natural forces either, as those tailored conditions also need to come about by chance.

At a deeper level this can be understood as a problem with all machines (aka the problem of irreducible complexity). Machines have a unique quality about them; they are only functional once all the necessary parts for their function are completed. What that means is that machines fundamentally provide no benefit to the survival of any organism until they are finished, meaning they cannot be selected for by natural selection until they are already done. This would mean that the entire machine (a highly ordered, and therefor highly improbable thing) would have to be produced by disorder, and also be preserved from being destroyed the disorder, all coming about without any help from natural selection, even though highly ordered things are also by nature especially fragile. What this means is that even when you do have life, machines cannot be developed by Darwinian style evolution. This is why I say all evolution is epigenetic, for the changes you see between person to person, or even between breeds of dogs are all epigenetic changes; different activations of their already existing genes. It is why you cannot breed a dog into something that is not a dog; because a dog lacks the genes to be anything other than a dog, and there isn't anything that can create those genes as genes are a complicated machine that cannot be selected by natural selection, for they need to be complete to provide benefits to be selected for. That and it is simply too unlikely, the searchspace one would have to explore to create all the new machines by chance is truly enormous, it just doesn't add up. That's because life didn't come about by chance, it was designed because code requires intent to be written. We see code in our bodies, this requires an author of the code, and that author can be none other than God, of course.

Oh, and a thing's order is directly proportional to how unlikely it is, meaning life, which is composed of pretty much nothing but highly ordered machines is exceptionally unlikely. Mathematically speaking, there are not enough mutations from the first life to the last on earth to account for the creation of life, let alone even 1 fundamentally new protein structure; Even mere proteins are very, very complicated machines.

Gotta be honest though, i'm a bit disappointed in Zig Forums, I thought at least some of you would be redpilled on intelligent design.

This is your guy if you're looking for a serious, legitimate and absolutely true alternative to creationism/theistic evolution. He is Christian of course. Just keep looking up Stephen Meyer until you're satisfied in all the answers.

This is a great, great website too.


False, Process Structuralism + epigenetic + evo devo = the TRUE theory of evolution

Obligatory IP video

I feel like a case can be made for it, but this feels awfully similar to the standard "god of the gaps" argument. Many of these patterns only seem to come to light when we wish to see them, or are so basal that they could apply to anything. For as much convergence and "order" I see in the fossil record, I see an equal if not greater amount of divergence and spontaneity. Even OP's pic reflects this: it isn't some road to homo sapiens, it's a messy bush of trial and error, and we're the end product. That's not even counting the many extinct varieties of apes that lived long before the first australopiths started migrating.
There are even earlier instances, such as periods immediately after mass extinction events, where you have a wide variety of strange creatures evolving, with only a few select forms living on to a later point in time.
To me, the whole section on intelligence adds to this, the narrator suggests that several distinct potential forms for "humans" to develop from were present at any given time. This would mean that our place was ultimately a luck of the draw, and not something directly ordained by our Creator. Leads one to think that had things been different, it could've been that God's chosen creatures were covered in scales or feathers rather than hair.
Overall I don't dislike the argument, but I do wish it didn't lean so heavily on gaps in our understanding.

Attached: Troodonish_dinosauroid.png (613x871 45.42 KB, 167.48K)

For discussion free from Papist censorship, visit:

I would have preferred if i were born into that universe tbh.

I really hate that there's any gaps to begin with. That being said I'm interested to see if there are any more cohesive explanations that don't outright deny the science (like YEC's).

Process structuralism makes sense to me as a hobbyist quantum field physicist when combined with some admixture of chaos and evo devo. I'm not gonna pretend i have all the answers - because God's life choices make as much sense to me now as they did when i was 5 - but I'm confident that someday God will finally let us see how he went about everything (hopefull in my lifetime).

What do they teach about evolution?

Interesting segway discussion, is gen modding ok in a christian worldview?

We'd probably still be having this same conversation, just with the envy at those alternate forms being switched to something else.

Gaps exist as our technology hasn't quite reached the finesse necessary to measure these as-yet unseen processes.
Hobbyist paleoanthropologist here, I mostly just work off the standard model for the sake of brevity. Funny enough, the only reason I really dug into it was due to YEC denial of the fossils or their significance. I honestly don't understand much of God's intent with this, and I don't really think we will either.

Origen is a heretic you winnie the pooh moron. His teachings were anathmatized before the east and west split in 1054.

Origen was never declared a heretic, and it was not teachings such as that which were seen as suspect.

"He was anathematized by the Second Council of Constantinople in 553, specifically in its eleventh Canon:

If anyone does not anathematize Arius, Eunomius, Macedonius, Apollinarius Nestorius, Eutyches and Origen, as well as their heretical books, and also all other heretics who have already been condemned and anathematized by the holy, catholic and apostolic church and by the four holy synods which have already been mentioned, and also all those who have thought or now think in the same way as the aforesaid heretics and who persist in their error even to death: let him be anathema."

Hmm. I stand corrected. But should we really throw the baby out with the bathwater? Does "their heretical books" refer to all of his books or just the ones where he promotes false teachings?

Automatic dismissal of ideas is a sign of low intelligence.

"So which is real, the Ptolemaic or Copernican system? Although it is not uncommon for people to say that Copernicus proved Ptolemy wrong, that is not true…one can use either picture as a model of the universe, for our observations of the heavens can be explained by assuming either the earth or the sun to be at rest."- Physicist, Stephen Hawking

"…to the question whether or not the motion of the Earth in space can be made perceptible in terrestrial experiments. We have already remarked…that all attempts of this nature led to a negative result. Before the theory of relativity was put forward, it was difficult to become reconciled to this negative result."- Physicist, Albert Einstein

We can't feel our motion through space, nor has any physical experiment ever proved that the Earth actually is in motion."- Historian, Lincoln Barnett

"…all this evidence that the universe looks the same whichever direction we look might seem to suggest there is something special about our place in the universe. In particular, it might seem that if we observe all other galaxies to be moving away from us, then we must be at the center of the universe…There is, however, an alternative explanation: the universe might look the same in every direction as seen from any other galaxy, too. This, as we have seen, was Friedmann's second assumption. We have no scientific evidence for, or against, this assumption. We believe it only on grounds of modesty: it would be most remarkable if the universe looked the same in every direction around us, but not around other points in the universe."- Physicist, Stephen Hawking

"The Michelson-Morley experiment confronted scientists with an embarrassing alternative. On the one hand they could scrap the ether theory which had explained so many things about electricity, magnetism, and light. Or if they insisted on retaining the ether they had to abandon the still more venerable Copernican theory that the earth is in motion. To many physicists it seemed almost easier to believe that the earth stood still than that waves - light waves, electromagnetic waves - could exist without a medium to sustain them. It was a serious dilemma and one that split scientific thought for a quarter century. Many new hypotheses were advanced and rejected. The experiment was tried again by Morley and by others, with the same conclusion; the apparent velocity of the earth through the ether was zero."- Historian, Lincoln Barnett



But when you look at CMB map, you also see that the structure that is observed, is in fact, in a weird way, correlated with the plane of the earth around the sun. Is this Copernicus coming back to haunt us? That's crazy. We're looking out at the whole universe. There's no way there should be a correlation of structure with our motion of the earth around the sun – the plane of the earth around the sun – the ecliptic. That would say we are truly the center of the universe.

All of you should be ashamed of yourselves for believing atheists in white lab coats instead of Scripture inspired by the Holy spirit.

All of his teachings are wrong. Modernists are trying to rehabilitate origen because his heretical beliefs can be used to destroy Christianty.

Attached: photo_verybig_189925.jpg (640x959, 386.07K)

The unified teachings were. As are the ecumenical councils. You guys act like the councils were infallible enough to decide on the canon, but too fallible for literally anything else

(X) doubt

Check out a series called “Answers in Genesis”. I have yet to see it myself, but from what I heard it can answer questions like this

So, when a child tells you that 2+2=5, you should carefully consider it and study it instead of automatically dismissing it? Neat.

That's an organization, not a series. And sure they answer questions, but most of their stuff is very surface level, it's more like something to comfort and reaffirm rather than a teaching tool. Just meant to arm laypeople against individuals that might have more knowledge on the subject. Bear in mind I speak from experience.

Yea, you have a low IQ. It's pretty easy to understand that it wouldn't take long at all to show him that 2 + 2 = 4 with basic arithmetic.

Creation.com has some very good in-depth scientific papers, check those out if you want substance. I agree that AIG is very surface-level.

They're not much better, really. Plus they share a lot of the same research material with AiG on subjects I'm interested in, and they aged as well as milk. I know more recent findings sent these organizations into a bit of a scramble with combinations of traits they weren't expecting.
However, I've seen quite the opposite with a complete specimen that was finally unveiled two years prior. No initial reports, no combing over the papers (though some are still in preprint), just dead silence. I assume it has something to do with their previous statements, kind of wrote themselves into a corner by denying what had been obvious for decades.

Attached: DtQxCDlX4AAIiEZ.jpeg (3157x1753, 643.05K)

Why didn't gorillas evolve too?

It's completely ridiculous that people haven been brainwashed far enough that *hey look at all these skeleton recreations" is supposed to lead us to he conclusion of evolution. It's like if I had said that - actually, - the moon is made of cheese. And if you come here, I will show you various varieties of cheese. Checkmate cheese deniers.

They have, there are at least two distinct species with several subspecies that have been discovered and studied, each with their own distinct morphology, behavior and diets. Evolution does not mean anthropogenesis, every animal on earth isn't in some mad dash to become human.

It's one of many lines of evidence, but is by no means the only one. People have actually gone out into the elements, poured over countless remains of various animals, that includes beings like these. The morphology of these specimens are then compared not only to extant lifeforms like us or the apes, but to other findings in that area and elsewhere so as to understand their relation to one another. Sites like the Turkana Basin and the Sterkfontein cave system have yielded a large body of evidence for these beings, and continue to do so to do this day. In fact, several have been posted in this thread already!
In that same way we have also travelled to the moon, taken samples of the Moon's surface, analyzed them and compared them to our own rocks, and have found them to not be cheese at all. You can make any claims you like, but without evidence it will not stand up to scrutiny. God bless

Attached: Banner-Apollo-11.jpg (770x671 69.76 KB, 63.32K)

As a baseline, can we all accept that the scientific community as a whole is inherently biased and will not rigorously examine Christ-inclusive theories in any capacity similar to how they would secular ones? I feel that a lot of us are allowing ourselves to be deluded into believing that this group of people are somehow unbiased despite being sinning humans.

Recognizing bias in a group does not mean outright rejection of everything that group has researched discovered. Also what exactly do you mean by a "Christ-inclusive theory" exactly? Invoking the supernatural and looking no further for fear of damnation? That is not how new discoveries are made or how hypotheses are verified, regardless of one's background. Just because neither myself or anyone else in this thread takes every discovery made to be a fraud cooked up by Darwinist monkey-worshippers does not mean we have been duped. Surprisingly enough, there are things that other people know more about than you do, same goes everyone else. To invoke some form of conspiracy shows your inexperience with the data and that your idea has no footing, so you rely upon people's uncertainty. I sincerely hope you look into subjects you blindly accuse of some misdeed. Go in peace, brother.

Still not sure how anyone claiming to be a christian can read genesis, which is clear in that land animals were all made in one day and still believe that that can be reconciled with evolution. You need to pick one. Will you be a christian, or will you be a satanist

With the Lord a day is like a thousand years

I tend to see it as how C. S. Lewis described atheists reacting to the changes when talking about the possibility of alien life, in Religion and Rocketry.

Same thing from being believers in steady-state Universe, to the Big Bang(though they'd love if some form of cyclical Creation was possible, even if makes them crpyto-hindus. See their obsession with multiverses and stuff)

But if you mean modern creationism, sorry, but that's pure pseudo-science.
They don't have any clear theories about how taxonomy works, or anything else, and think that by shitting on Darwinism they prove themselves right(hint: it doesn't)

Funny how so many people love to mindlessly repeat this verse without putting any critical thought into it. I never hear them use he other half of the verse I’m any context, and I never hear anyone use his verse when they read that the resurrection was in three days. I will never understand why they have such contempt for Genesis; it’s like a crucifix to a demon.

I don't really take that habitability argument too seriously. Life adapts to the environment it is placed in, what may work for one organism could be a hazard or death sentence for another. I mean had oxygen no been introuced into the equation, the world would've looked quite different, but we'd still have life, though it wouldn't be anything we'd recognize. Or for something more recent:
Seems like it has the potential to be a good argument, but needs some revision.

I meant it in general that the secular bias of the scientific community recoils at the thought of allowing Christ to exist as an entity in our world, and prefers by-and-large theories that exclude him with vigor, no matter their veracity or longevity. This isn't a dismissal of all scientific processes, but rather that we have to be skeptical of a so-called scientific consensus.

Who? Who is this community that you speak of that is so anti-theist exactly? Are you talking about atheist speakers that happen to be scientists? Again, most of the community is from a mixed background, it's not an inherently atheistic group.

Attached: Scientific Method.jpeg (970x945, 57.95K)

Male and female, he created them. Created. Read genesis 2. It's clear that at least with humans we were created as we now are, not as monkeys. If humans were created as we now are, and on the same day as all other life, why would it be different for anyone else.

So nothing else can be considered human save for beings exactly like us? Or are you of the persuasion that these are the result of malignancies?

Attached: DyTfXicWoAAkjlY.jpg (1500x1897 53.51 KB, 377.92K)

They were probably just other beasts or disabled humans. That's pretty obvious. I dont see why it's easier for you of little faith to trust a scientist over Moses

Which ones exactly? A deformity or disability would imply an abberation, that only one or so should be found if this were a population. Instead, we have multiple individuals with this same slew of traits in a relatively uniform manner. Doesn't look very obvious to me at all, as I have put time into studying these individuals.

I do not simply trust, I understand what is being presented. If you wish to remain ignorant for fear of being labelled an infidel, be my guest. As for me I do not consider this an issue of faith.

Genesis is clear about creation. Genesis is the basis of all of the bible, jesus and the apostles treated it as history. The church fathers treated it as history. When you deny Genesis, you deny both Jesus and his bride. You of little faith would sooner trust some bones than you would the infallible word of God.

Were the beings those bones belonged not part of God's creation? The Father did not give us a spirit of crippling fear, He gave us a mind that we must use accordingly. I do not answer unto a man who does not wish to understand. The Wisdom of God makes all look foolish, but when even a fool can see you are in error, that is an even greater offense unto the Creator.
You continue to drag this discussion into the realm of theology, as though these fossils will crumble to dust before you if you continue to invoke God's name. They will not. Your word is not God's, so stop pontificating in such a manner towards any who would disagree with your notions.

Well, if you think evolution is reconcilable with christianity, show me some verses which point to evolution being true, show me which church fathers taught evolution

None if the authors knew of such processes in their day, just as they thought their world was the center of the universe. I am not well-versed enough in theology to blend the two together, and so I make no attempt to. It is not my place. What I observe is quite different from what you continue to spout, and that is enough.

Ok ok, so the holy spirit guided the church in everything except for creation. It was just an accident that the church fathers were all creationists

What else was there to be? People didn't start to formally study the natural world until much later. Didn't really have a functional taxonomic system until Linnaeus stepped in.

Attached: 343.jpg (594x1000, 126.3K)

I just feel like were evolution to be true, it would have been made obvious in genesis, instead of it being explicitly preached against

That go for heliocentrism and a semi-spherical earth as well, or are we going to be selective with our scripture here?

As was made clear earlier, the universe very well might be geocentric, it cant be made clear from science on earth. I personally believe the earth is geocentric. So no, I'm not being selective. Genesis is the basis of the bible, when you act like genesis is untrue, then you make untrue statements made by jesus when he treats genesis as history

If you are willing to twist the facts to fit your interpretation of the Word, then there is no further discussion to be had. I will not be talked down to as some common heretic.

It's not twisting the word to read the bible as is, and how it has been interpreted for over 3000 years

Well if the shoe fits , lace it up, heretic.