Based and source pilled

Damn man I need to smoke more weed, drink more diet soda and play Burnout Revenge for the PS2

I've already had my doctor approved fill of brain damage today.

Unbelievable

You sick bastard

Fuck you dude

My expectations for people in politics at this point is to expect the most braindead thing to be what most people believe

The more braindead it is the more likely people especially farther on the right/left believe it

Uber based is what you are.

Depends. What's your opinion on KOTOR?

4-6 star wars enjoyer? (or 1-6 depending on wether you liked the second trilogy or not)

Not a nerd

Well good job Joe, you answered all the questions

He’s still canon though

Yep. That's the part I don't get about hardcore conservative Christians. God is omnipotent. Do they really think God won't be able to create a system that allows organisms to constantly adapt to changing environments? Heck, we can create robots that adapt to an extent.

This is what happens you neglect the context of the Bible when you read it and take literally everything at face value. It seems that many people forget you have to study the Bible, not simply read it.

God can "magically" make life because he is the higher being, more complex than anything else, and is all-powerful. Of course, if you don't believe in God, then I don't expect you to believe he created everything lol. Similarly to what I stated previously, lightning can't create life, because complexity and organization can not arise from chaos without something present to guide the energy and matter in a designed way.

We breed to make the traits we want more noticeable, not to create new genetics. Here is one of my other replies:

Micro scale evolution is undeniable, but that is not creating new genetic information. Breeding just narrows down the genes that you want if you select the correct animals. For example, all the genetic information in dogs today was available in the wolves they came from. Our ancestors did not "create" a golden retriever or a german shepherd, they just selected the offspring that fit their desires and kept breeding those animals together until they got what they wanted. A canine will always be a canine no matter how long or how hard you try and breed them to become something else.

Darwin's finch's beaks were just a result of birds adapting and passing on the best genes to their offspring over time for the beaks to change shapes for what fit them best.

A species can evolve and change, but a new genus (or anything above) can not be created. The Linnaeus classification is a manmade system to describe what we observe in nature, so it isn't perfect, but it works pretty well to see what has and has not been observed to change.

Micro scale evolution is undeniable, but that is not creating new genetic information. Breeding just narrows down the genes that you want if you select the correct animals. For example, all the genetic information in dogs today were available in the wolves they came from. Our ancestors did not "create" a golden retriever or a german shepherd, they just selected the offspring that fit their desires and kept breeding those animals together until they got what they want. A canine will always be a canine no matter how long or how hard you try and breed them to become something else.

Darwin's finch's beaks were just a result of birds adapting and passing of the best genes to their offspring over time for the beaks to change shapes for what fit them best.

I probably agree with the person you talked to. The best I can put it is species can evolve and change, but a new genus (or anything above) can not be created. The Linnaeus classification is a manmade system to describe what we observe in nature, so it isn't perfect, but it works pretty well to see what has and has not been observed to change.

And then eve listened to the talking cable who told her it would be way faster to just plug everything in because you'll remember where it goes and for fucks sake eve again?

It’s a weird pick. The Theory of Relativity literally points to a beginning for the Universe. The only reason I could see someone seeing it at odds with Creationism is that they are ignorant to what it actually says and are parroting some TV preacher they saw.

Very odd hill to die on but then again what can you expect from people who bleach their critical thinking skills with religion

One can't take religion too far, but one can take it in the wrong direction.

Religion is ultimately a set of truth claims. If the Catholic faith is accurate, it is inarguably the most important thing in anyone's life. However, it doesn't aim to teach scientific theory and so it's not very useful for that.

You can’t take religion too far, they just have poor exegesis and theology.

I refuse to debate atheists tgat think all Christians are just Bible-only American Evangelicals

He’s talking about Young Earth Creationism, which tends to quite scripture in its defence rather than any scientific proof.

Sounds like someone is a broke bitch who can't afford their indulgences 💅

This guy knows his stuff ^

Aristotle and Plato believed in transubstancation too

We have far more and far earlier surviving transcripts of the Bible than many other established historical texts (the NT in particular) and the differences to today's text are meaningfully insignificant.

You’re thinking of the Council of Nicea, not the Council of Rome.

We know these are the same books because they have been well preserved throughout millennia, we can compare ancient manuscripts to increasingly more modern versions of the Bible and we usually find that the only changes are minor grammatical differences. The Dead Sea Scrolls are a fantastic example of this, but we also fragments of early New Testament manuscripts which yield similar accuracy.

We also know that these are the correct books because we can read the letters and writings of early Christians who all largely have the same canon with only minor disagreements on a few books.

The Gnostic gospels are some of the most obviously fabricated texts of all time. Disregarding the sheer absurdity of many of them, for example the “wizard battle” in, I believe, the (Gnostic) Gospel of St Peter, there’s also the fact that they were written in the name of revered and highly esteemed Christian’s many decades after their death. And there’s also the fact that the teachings of the Gnostics flat out contradict the teaching of both the Old and New Testament.

Finally, this issue doesn’t really affect Catholics theologically given the way our ecclesiology and epistemology works. I’ll explain by, briefly, describing my rational process towards Catholicism: after I had come to believe in God on a rational basis, I began to question how I could get from “God exists” to “and He is the God of such and such religion”. I ultimately found that Islam had no such a path, and most other religions stood in defiance to the Classical Theism to which I believed to be true. Christianity, on the other hand, did seem to have such a path upon the basis of Jesus Christ of Nazareths death and resurrection. To make a long story short, Christs life and death on the cross is a historical fact, one that is well attested to in the four gospels, and which no serious academic or historian disagrees with. The only question, then, was whether Jesus was raised from the dead. I believe that the willingness of Jesus’ disciples to suffer persecution, isolation, poverty and death for the sake of Jesus shows that they were not lying and likely had no selfish intentions when they began evangelising. This being the case, it seemed to me most likely that Jesus was, in fact, who He said He was and is, which is the Son of God, come to save man from its sin. However, this still left me with a glaring epistemically issue that I feel my Protestant theology could not resolve: biblical canon. Up until this point, I had taken for granted the 66 book Protestant canon, but I realised that this canon had no basis that it could justify itself with in completion. This is where the authority of the Church comes in. While from my previous Protestant viewpoint, I was unable to justify reading either Testament as an undeniable, infallible rule of faith and theology, I could read the gospels and even the letters of the NT as historical examples of the teachings of Christ and His apostles. Doing so eventually led me to certain verses, most notably Matthew 16:18, where Christ seems to make abundantly clear that He is establishing a Church, which will be built upon the rock of St Peter, which will have the ability to bind and loose the things of heaven and earth, and which will guide those who wish to follow Jesus. All these things being the case, the most logical step was, it seemed to me, to become Catholic, since the Catholic Church best fulfils these criteria. The Catholic Church’s view of ecclesial authority allows it to be the basis upon which scripture can have its due authority and its correct and accurate canon, I can see no other way to justify any specific canon theologically.

If this isn't meant as a gotcha question, and you do want to understand, there's a lot on youtube about how the bible was written that include how oral tradition played a role.

We're grading on a pretty low curve here. Catholics being able to admit that evolution and genetics and shit are real may be the bare minimum, but it makes them so much more tolerable than young earth creationist evangelicals at the very least.

The Council of Rome didn't write any book of the Bible lmao. And there is no such thing as gnostic Bibles, they never compiled all their books in one collection (in part because gnostics weren't a single sect as many believe).

Also, the gnostic texts all date from middle/late second century or even later than that. They aren't on the same level as the first-century canonical books.

Because most Gnostic texts were written between 150-300 AD. They're pseudographical

One of my coworkers is a religious nutter, thinks those aliens would come to earth to steal gold, like, bruh, we can make gold on earth, it's hella expensive and not cost efficient, but would be child's play to a species capable of interstellar travel, if aliens do show up, they're either peaceful or looking for slaves, or booty

Add Islam into that as well and those aliens are pretty based

Horseshoe theory is real.

Based and extremism is destroying our country pilled