Evolution Disproves Christianity

It's easy to disprove Christianity. One word, Evolution.

Evolution is not compatible with the story of Genesis. If Adam and Eve didn't exist, then there was no original sin, no fall of man, and no need for Jesus as a savior.

"Theistic Evolution" is a pseudoscience and cannot be proven. "Evolution" on the other hand is fully proven.

If you have to stoop to "Genesis was a metaphor", then you've admitted defeat.

Homeless People Are Sexy Shirt $21.68

Yakub: World's Greatest Dad Shirt $21.68

Homeless People Are Sexy Shirt $21.68

  1. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    still no explanation

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polystrate_fossil

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      God had a desire to cause the data we observe

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      How old do you think the Earth is? 6,000 years? Further proof religion is only for the uneducated masses who don't have the IQ to understand the fields of science.

      https://www.quora.com/Why-are-there-petrified-trees-that-stand-up-through-rock-sediment-layers/answer/Malcolm-Sargeant?no_redirect=1

      >The trees were buried and preserved in a rapid succession of floods which left layers of mud one on top of the other. After a few million years the trees petrified and the mud became rock. Further on in time the mud based soft rock eroded away leaving the harder petrified trees standing out.

      • 6 months ago
        Anonymous

        >rapid succession of floods
        we already knew this

        • 6 months ago
          Anonymous

          Small floods have been happening all over the world for billions of years. There is no need to resort to the children's tale of Noah's Ark.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >billions of years
            Prove it. Stop making moronic assertions.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            With telescopes we can see galaxies that are billions of light years away. Since light travels at a constant speed of 186,000 mi/sec, then the light from those galaxies took billions of years to reach earth. Which means billions of years of time has passed in the universe.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >With telescopes we can see galaxies that are billions of light years away
            >Since light travels at a constant speed of 186,000 mi/sec
            More assertions. You just replaced one assertion with two more.

            >6000 years
            Prove it.

            Holy Bible KJV

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            There you go, anon. I'm afraid you are the moronic one if you try to get into any kind of argument about proof or evidence:

            >With telescopes we can see galaxies that are billions of light years away
            >Since light travels at a constant speed of 186,000 mi/sec
            More assertions. You just replaced one assertion with two more.

            [...]
            Holy Bible KJV

            .

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            Yes, this is much more verifiable and real than the measurement of the speed of light.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            What I mean is that you are very much mistaken if you think that there's literally any evidence on this planet that you're going to produce that'll convince someone who's just going to dismiss whatever you say anyway. You're playing a losing game.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            It's a troll anyway. No one can be that moronic. Can they?

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            That's not for me to say, but you are playing this:
            >A: claim in book is true
            >B: claim in book is false
            >A: prove it

            >A: claim in book is true
            >B: prove it
            >A: it's in book
            Aside from the fact that it's not in the book under the "standard" interpretation (the Earth being literally 6000 years old, as if you were reading a historical document in our modern sense of the term), this is the meta. The proof could be as simple as "1+1=2" or "water is wet" and it wouldn't matter, since you one can always just say something like "that's just an assertion" or something similar. This isn't about "finding the truth", it's about "me being right".
            Even without having the theory of evolution, one could show Genesis 2 to be impossible in this kindergarten-sense that hardly anybody educated believed before the 19th century, really: actually, if Genesis 2 were true in the historical sense, that'd require evolution to work orders of magnitude faster than it does, since all human ethnicities would have had to evolve in only 4000 years, not 50000 (give or take). It is actually the historical interpretation of the flood-story that requires the existence of some unproven hyper-evolution, since Noah and his family would have represented the genetic bottleneck. We don't observe such hyper-evolution, and also people say that evolution doesn't happen at all, so there would have been no plausible way for ethnicities as diverse as the South American natives, Africans, Swedes, Chinese, Vietnamese, and Australian Aboriginals to evolve.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            There were literal giants in biblical times nerd

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            A light-year is a measurement of distance not time

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            Correct. A light year is the amount of distance that light covers in one year. So, if something is one light-year away from us, then it will take light 1 year to move from it to us. So, if something is 2 light years away, it will take light 2 years to reach us. If a star is a billion light years away from us, then it will take a billion years for that light to reach us. That means that the star is a billion years old (or, rather, a star was at that location a billion years ago).

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            you're presupposing it will be the same over time

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            There's no evidence that the speed of light has changed since seconds after the Big Bang, and even if it did it would either be going slower and thus implying that the Earth is not 6,000 years old or it would be going faster which would have notable and measurable effects.

            Have you ever heard about tired light bro
            Have you heard about the Hubble tension and the crisis in cosmology

            The degree of precision of a specific cosmological model's calculations is irrelevant as the error isn't large enough to imply that the universe is not significantly older than 6,000 years.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >it would be going faster which would have notable and measurable effects
            Yeah and we are detecting those effects now. The light was faster and then slowed down so the universe looks older than it actually is.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            Prove it

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            The error in cosmological models is ±0.020 billion years, meaning that the universe is somewhere between 13.807 billion years old and 13.767 billion years old. So, yes, some imagery (not all imagery, some) is appears 0.02 billion years older than it should be, but the universe is still very clearly not 6,000 years old.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            God created plants on the third day.

            And the Sun on the fourth day.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            What was the Earth orbiting if the Sun hadn't been created yet?

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            That's the thing you get hung up on? Not the plants growing without sun?

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            It was orbiting God.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            is that AI god?

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            That's actually a real photo of God taken by the James Webb Telescope.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            You'd think he'd smile for the camera.
            I'd like to think Jesus would.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            Have you ever heard about tired light bro
            Have you heard about the Hubble tension and the crisis in cosmology

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >then the light from those galaxies took billions of years to reach earth
            It would take billions of years if God hadn't fast-forwarded the light so we could see it.

            >rapid succession of floods
            we already knew this

            Anon, have you considered that Genesis doesn't discuss a global flood but a regional one? It doesn't say "all the Earth" but "all the earth" as in land. The same Hebrew word Eretz is used in reference to regions, for example, "the land of Egypt," "the land of Israel," etc.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            So what's the deal with collecting all the animals if it was just a regional flood? And what about the humans living in the other regions?

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            There's many possible reasons for collecting the animals.
            1. To preserve local wildlife diversity
            2. To help the region recover after the flood
            3. To teach future generations the importance of environmental stewardship

            >And what about the humans living in the other regions?
            What about them?

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >What about them?
            Wasn't the point of the flood to wipe out humanity and start over with Noah and his family? Did the people in other regions live on?

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            The Bible says the whole Earth was covered above the highest mountains.

            The Bible made up bullshit and people who come up with cope such as "local flood" are morons who would flunk out of any science class. These kinds of people are completely worthless, contribute nothing to society, invent nothing, and are unattractive and have no friends. That's why the dedicate themselves to this ancient desert trash, it's all they have in life.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >the whole Earth
            With a lowercase e

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            Literally the vast majority of translations have a lowercase e. Atheists are illiterate confirmed:
            https://www.biblegateway.com/verse/en/Genesis%207%3A19

            Show me the spot on a map where Noah's flood occurred, where the mountain ranges could hold the water like a giant swimming pool and I will concede. Show it to me. Prove it.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            The flooding of the Mediterranean Sea basin you dumbass.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            The point was to punish the most wicked people for their sins, just as in Sodom and Gomorrah. An entire region of people were drowned, not just a handful of localities, but it wasn't a worldwide flood either.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >region

            This is not in the story, but added by you.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            See this:

            >then the light from those galaxies took billions of years to reach earth
            It would take billions of years if God hadn't fast-forwarded the light so we could see it.

            [...]
            Anon, have you considered that Genesis doesn't discuss a global flood but a regional one? It doesn't say "all the Earth" but "all the earth" as in land. The same Hebrew word Eretz is used in reference to regions, for example, "the land of Egypt," "the land of Israel," etc.

            The translations putting a capital E on earth are adding something to the story that wasn't there.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            The Bible says that the earth was flooded. It also says that the earth went to Egypt to buy grain. If we assume the same thing for both verses, the entire population of the planet traveled to Egypt, and was also flooded. Otherwise, some people were flooded and some people traveled to Egypt to buy grain.

            You do not know better that Hebrew translation scholars. You're an uneducated young earth creationist moron nobody.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            Not an argument

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            If a modern Bible translation puts "Earth" instead if "earth", I will accept the scholars' translation choice infinitely over your worthless conspiritard nobody opinion. You always lose.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            Not all versions have Earth. You are choosing some translations over others, and it's not even the ones accepted by modern scholars. Ironically, you're siding with creationist translators.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            Literally the vast majority of translations have a lowercase e. Atheists are illiterate confirmed:
            https://www.biblegateway.com/verse/en/Genesis%207%3A19

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            The Bible was written for the israelites by Hellenists who worshiped Zeus and Aphrodite, the text can't be trusted unless we suppose that Zeus and Aphrodite are the source of religious legitimacy.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            The Bible says that the earth was flooded. It also says that the earth went to Egypt to buy grain. If we assume the same thing for both verses, the entire population of the planet traveled to Egypt, and was also flooded. Otherwise, some people were flooded and some people traveled to Egypt to buy grain.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >6000 years
            Prove it.

        • 6 months ago
          Anonymous

          succession of floods
          >sigle gigantic flood
          Not the same

  2. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    You just solved religion. Expect the Nobel Prize to come any day in the post

  3. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    original sin is that we as humans are capable of viewing ourselves as guilty of things. monke doesn't care about shit except eating, drinking, pissing, and shitting. monke can rip someone's balls off and laugh at it. humans at least are a little squeamish. The original sin is that we are now conscious of ourselves and our own morality.

    Now please frick off and stop shitting on an entire faith with a diverse set of beliefs within said faith, just because you "disproved" one really (shitty) closed-minded and thinly defined sect of said faith that everyone else within said faith kinda looks down upon (The americana "don't ask questions" baptist money-grabbing "Christianity" you were likely raised in)

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      No, ALL of Christianity and Abrahamism is fully disproven by the discovery of Evolution, no exceptions. Now frick off with that Semitic desert garbage that destroys the whole world.

      • 6 months ago
        Anonymous

        I have to say they really aren't. Genesis was always interpreted as somewhat mythical, or poetic, by Christians. You did have these arguments pre-Darwin and pre-Lamarck too. You're really arguing against 19th-century fundamentalism (not pejoratively: fundamentalism as a movement arose against modernism, and then veered off into this ridiculous farce where the Earth is literally 6000 years old etc.). You always had these kinds of well-intentioned but not really all-there zealots, but most of the time, they got ignored or told to shut it by the local clergy or TPTB. Nowadays, espousing the most nonsensical ideas is sort of done as an act of defiance, but that has nothing to do with proving anything or having coherent worldview.
        The real issue is that thought has completely fallen apart, "fall of Rome"-style: some of the words are the same, but it's little more than people sifting through the ruins of a once-great civilization, trying to keep up appearances. This whole argumentation in this thread would have gotten one laughed out of the room some centuries ago.

        • 6 months ago
          Anonymous

          No one in the first century or before thought the Genesis story was a metaphor. Even Jesus and the Apostles talk about it as literal. Only hundreds of years later did people start questioning it as they learned more about the world and became more advanced.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Even Jesus and the Apostles talk about it as literal.
            They mention Adam (and that's really it), but Adam was a well-known idea. They didn't preface every mention of Adam with "this is strictly metaphorical", but that's because they wouldn't have needed to, and it also would not have been relevant. You're retrojecting our autistic, Western standards that came about somewhat as a reaction to the 30 Years War and its endless religious conflict, and the general nuttiness of the 17th century. The rationalists came out of that era, and they tried to present some anodyne compromise solution as "god the scientist" (also where the swoon theory comes from, though that's maybe taking it a bit too far). 2000 years ago, nobody would have felt the need to specify things according to our traumatized epistemology, just like how the Greeks didn't feel the need to make hyper-exact specifications when talking about the gods - and they had Mount Olympus, an actual mountain that wasn't that hard to climb, right there.
            The people who DO claim that "Jesus talked about Adam literally" are once again the fundamentalists, and they said that as a reaction to said modernists. It's like a scared five-year-old who goes: "NO! YOU'RE WRONG, NUH-UH!" and then folds his arms. They, like modern leftists, are also very susceptible to purity-spiraling, which is where you get KJV-onlyism from. The KJV being an English book from the 17th century, and the idea that it's authoritative making no sense from start to finish.
            In a funny way, the mental world isn't even 6000 or 4000 years old, it's 250 years old, and crudely trying to speak Early Modern English is people's idea of "ancient times".

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            Enough israeli schizo babble. The Bible is not real. Jesus is not real. It's all fake and people are abandoning it. Good riddance.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            Ah, my friend, how quickly the turntables have. You decry

            >With telescopes we can see galaxies that are billions of light years away
            >Since light travels at a constant speed of 186,000 mi/sec
            More assertions. You just replaced one assertion with two more.

            [...]
            Holy Bible KJV

            , yet you then resort to the same standard when you don't like an argument. What superiority can you claim over our friend there? I don't begrudge you, but as you might be able to say, the problem here has little to do with either concrete position.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            In a sense, you're also arguing against Biblical inerrancy, which is indeed easy enough to disprove (non-existent census of Quirinius in Luke, etc.), but the ACTUAL doctrine of Biblical inerrancy doesn't state that "the Bible is factually inerrant down to the letter", this, too being some 19th century idea. The actual doctrine of Biblical inerrancy states that the Bible is an inerrant guide to spiritual edification, showing up that "error" where pi would come out to exactly 3 in 1 Kings 7 proves nothing because who cares. They didn't expect some hyperautist to come along and AKSHUALLY the calculation about some description of some bowl. All you've ever likely heard is some incredibly childish parody of literally anything. And fair enough, that IS what they shove down people's throats, but all of this is, as said, an early modern phenomenon.

      • 6 months ago
        Anonymous

        >trolling outside of /b/
        aint you got anything better to do on your day off

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      >The americana "don't ask questions" baptist money-grabbing "Christianity" you were likely raised in)
      We really need to do something about the Calvinist stranglehold over both Christainty and Atheism. As long as the children of Calvinist thought keep fighting each other, the more damage they do to our religion, it is a cancer.

      • 6 months ago
        Anonymous

        Baptists are usually Provisionists not Calvinists.

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      Crows are moralgays though, there's even a term for it:
      >crow court
      Kinda based to be honest.

  4. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    The Bible disproves evolution

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      The Bible is a collection of desert schizo babble that has no connection with reality or real historical events.

      >Genesis Creation Story
      Disproven by Cosmology

      >Adam and Eve
      Disproven by Evolution

      >Noah's Ark
      Disproven by Geology and is a copy of the Epic of Gilgamesh myth

      >The Exodus
      Disproven by Archaeology

      >Jesus
      No historical records from the time he was said to have lived (5BCE-33CE), only stories about him are from anonymous non-eyewitnesses 50-100 years later.

  5. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    Evolution hasn't even been proven though, Science can't show that 1 species can evolve into another

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      It's proven with DNA right here.

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      Actually this is well attested.
      https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/science-sushi/evolution-watching-speciation-occur-observations/

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      It is proven though. You just don't understand the proof, so default to something you can undestand, like semitic fairytales

  6. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    The real problem is that, unbeknownst to any of you, y'all brains are fried by, I suspect, BPA or whatever shit they've been pumping into the environment. Also by toxic memes. It doesn't really matter who's right on anything, but all of you, I'm afraid, are arguing in a structurally unsound manner.
    If you want to imagine it a bit comically, imagine one side arguing that 1+1=2 and another side arguing that 1+1=3, but with some visible green miasma surrounding and suffocating both. Yes, there may be the issue of correctness at stake, but I feel that that's really secondary compared to the fricking toxic fumes which everyone is breathing in and not noticing.

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      Who gives a flying shit about toxicity, fricknuts?! You're on Oyish for Christ's sake!

      • 6 months ago
        Anonymous

        I do not mean the word in the SJW-sense at all. I mean as in... well, toxicity, like "toxin" and "poison". Affecting you right now, as evidenced by you being unable to parse the sentence and simply scanning for the words, then calling up the SJW-association.

  7. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    Lacking even a single piece of scientific evidence that their god exists disproves any religion.

  8. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    Not a Christian but focusing on the physical validity of religion is midwit

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      How should you measure its validity?

  9. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    >If you have to stoop to "Genesis was a metaphor", then you've admitted defeat.

    Origen wrote in what, 220 that Genesis was a metaphor.
    It's hardly a "stoop"

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      Wow, some guy who lived thousands of years after the story was written said a thing.

      • 6 months ago
        Anonymous

        >Origen of Alexandria
        >some guy

        Anon... Origen was one of the most important early Christian scholars.

        • 6 months ago
          Anonymous

          And condemned heretic

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            Was he condemned as a heretic for that? And he was only condemned after he was already dead.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            Not for that. Augustine also did the same thing as Origen. Was he "some guy" or a "heretic"?

            He was condemned for his wishy-washiness leading to heresy. Augustine didn't do that.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            Not for that. Augustine also did the same thing as Origen. Was he "some guy" or a "heretic"?

        • 6 months ago
          Anonymous

          Genesis is israeli book written thousands of years before that gay Origen.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            But OP is talking about Christianity. Origen was one of the earliest Christian scholars.

  10. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    Evolution disproves everything in this entire stupid fricking israelitebook.

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      >IF THIS WAS 3,000 YEARS AGO I'D SMITE YOU FOR THAT BUT EVER SINCE CAMERAS WERE INVENTED I CAN'T

  11. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    Original sin is not literally due to a fruit being eaten. This is low quality even for Oyish bait.

  12. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    >And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.
    Sounds ds like an account of evolution of smart human races out of dumb mud people.

  13. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    Sorry but I am not a Calvinist nor made an Icon out of the bible by treating it as absolute God's word with no room for human error

  14. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    Evolution isn't real and once Trump is Preisdent again every single evil Satanist preaching it will ve slaughtered and the blood of their children will fill the streets
    God does not forgive
    God does not forget
    Kill anyone who denies Christ is God

  15. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    >Evolution Disproves Christianity
    And Judaism.
    And Islam.

  16. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    Genesis was written by Moses, a human who did not lived those ages. Supposedly, God told Moses the story of the creation, and then Moses wrote it, how do we know that Moses's interpretation was 100% accurate? We don't. Some people will tell you that the bible is "divinely inspired", but that doesn't happens until the new testament.

  17. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    Don't care. I believe in God and evolution and you can't stop me.

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      elaborate, im intrigued because this sounds even more moronic than creationism

      • 6 months ago
        Anonymous

        He's Redeemed coomer don't reply

      • 6 months ago
        Anonymous

        God built the universe so he could watch it grow. Simple rules leading to greater and greater complexity.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *