/lit/ - Literature

>>15928023
there are none.
there is some religitard shit that makes an attempt, but it fails.

>>15928030
This is a 18+ website bro you should go play video games or something

>>15928119
>Thinking anyone who doesn't adhere to your moronic beliefs is underage.

>>15928161
Yeah, any adult with half a brain understands that creation can't exist without a creator. It's common sense.

>>15928188
i think /x/ is more your scene anon

>>15928188
But why would it be jew-god?

>>15928188
What created the creator? Nothing? he's always been? If that is possible why isn't it possible that the original form of creation has the same story?

He is my ancestor :)

>>15928203
>What created the creator? Nothing? he's always been?
Yes

>>15928203
>why isn't it possible that the original form of creation has the same story?
Intelligent design?

Yokey dedicates a chapter to it in Imperium

>>15928188
But there is a Creator and there is evolution you brainlet, this is obvious

>>15928188
Sorry your wrong, it's just common sense

Imagine not understanding the slightest thing about the theory of evolution and asking for books that "debunk" it. Utter cringe OP. Go study evolutionary biology and criticize it from there if you absolutely must.

>>15928023
No books, but you can repeatedly ram your head against a wall and you might come up with a theory.

>>15928230
So things can come into being without a creator, then. In which case, what's your problem with evolution?

>>15928244
Yockey's refutation of it is pretty weak tbqh, he basically just opposed it by necessity because it was materialist and didn't conform with his (or Spengler's) metaphysics.

>>15928280
There is adaptation, but not evolution.
Some animals can change to their surroundings, even somewhat drastically, but they never become new species, they never evolve i.e. never improve
Nothing becomes more complex over time, things only degrade and decay.
There's no "primitive lifeforms evolve into more complex ones" going on.

>>15928315
>Go study evolutionary biology
What is there to study? Every book on the matter opens with blatantly, laughably false shit like embryo comparions and fucking australopithecus, all of which were debunked and laughed at a century ago.

>>15928364
That's not how taxonomy works, though. No taxonomist would argue that "species" is anything more than an arbitrary categorization of life (which is why some species can breed together and others can't).

Are you suggesting that there is some innate single thing that makes, say, a crow a crow? And that this thing is independent of the actual material nature of the crow, such that you could take the "Crowness" out of a crow and put it in a cow (which lacked "Cowness" because I would assume you believe that you can't be both "Cowness" and "Crowness")?

>>15928372
Are you suggesting that embryos do not exist, and that evidence of Australopithecus predates the 1920s?

>>15928023
What are some books that debunk forests?

>>15928119
Sure thing dude all those evolutionary biologists are under 18

>>15928358
True that its weak, but I've never seen an argument against evolution that didnt rest on pseudo science
CS Lewis has a chapter against naturalism that could be used, as it was by Platinga, to make a certain kind if stance against evolution, but only as it pertains to being rational creatures.

>>15928372
On the origin of species has neither of those, nor does The Selfish Gene.

>>15928364
What's your evidence for that, bitch? Earth isn't a closed system, there is a ridiculous amount of energy supplied by the sun that can sustain locally lower entropy (if you were going to cite the gay entropy argument)

>>15928402
>I've never seen an argument against evolution that didnt rest on pseudo science
Basic observation of reality, namely the existence of genes, is "pseudoscience"?

>>15928023
Unironically? Leave science to scientists.

>>15928420
I meant to add "prior to reading Yokey's"

>>15928023
If evolution isn't real then eugenics is impossible, dogs don't exist, and it doesn't matter if only retards breed.

>>15928023
Dilbert by Scott Adams

>>15928377
A subspecies is just a group that zoologists can tell apart like 90% of the time. That's it.

And people say the races aren't subspecies! Top kek

>>15928194
Why would you suggest that?

If evolution is debunked it only means that evolution is debunked.

>>15928023
>Lol aren't Christians so ridiculous when they ask for the missing link? GOD OF THE GAPS HURR DURR
>Wait a sec, the link between species is literally the foundation of our entire theory

>>15928417
>Earth isn't a closed system
The universe is though.

>>15928702
BTFO BY THE DILBERT BOY
/THREAD

>>15928730
See >>15928377

There is literaly no reason why evolution couldn't be the way god/the creator wanted life to form. Why would he have to create every single organism at the same time? Creationists are brainless retards that never should have been allowed to read the book and prove why translating the bible was such a big mistake.

>>15928859
But anon, a Rabbi in the 1600s said that the Earth is 6000 years old! It would be heresy to use other models (such as the 20,000, 50,000, or 200,000 year models used in Medieval Europe)! Are you really just going to turn your back on the Pentecostal Church, founded in 1900, by denying that they and they alone have the correct interpretation of scripture?!

>>15928892
What does the age of the earth have to do with evolution? What's the correlation.

>>15928965
The usual argument I see is that unless the Earth was very very old evolution wouldn't have enough time to take place. This isn't actually true, as other anons have pointed out this weird idea that Fundies have where evolution is a change of "species" as if that were an actual thing and not just a human construction, so you could totally have a 6,000 year old Earth and evolution on it.

The other argument I see is that the Earth is only 6k years old so it HAD to be created because there simply wouldn't be enough time for life to occur. This is also wrong because the Earth isn't 6k years old (anatomically modern humans alone are about 20,000 years old).

But then, the kind of Fundie whose going to throw a fit about evolution not being real isn't going to be the kind of person who would actually look into the age of the Earth, so the correlation is Young Earth Creationism, and it (YEC) demands both a young earth and a created earth.

>>15929013
What the fuck is a Fundie? Also, can you please try to be more succinct in your responses, it's a very simple question asked and now I've to sift through your essay to get your answer...

>>15928965
>what does an amount of time have to do with evolution?
What are you, retarded?

>>15929059
Are you not American?

>>15928735
Universal entropy increases, it can temporarily increase locally. Now go fuck yourself.

>>15929075
I might be retarded, can you please answer the question.

>>15928188
really, /lit/, we're taking baits this pathetic now? This board went to shit. We used to see right through ones this lazy

>>15929226
A Fundie is a mean term for a Fundamentalist Christian, a popular sect within America that essentially believes the only book you need is the Bible.

The age of the Earth has no impact on evolution because the mechanism by which evolution occurs is always occurring. How MUCH evolution occurs is time dependent.

The earth is older than 6,000 years.

The kind of person who says the Earth is 6,000 years old also does not believe in evolution. There is basically no one who does not believe both; if you believe one, you believe the other (in America).

All of this is a simplification.

>>15929276
Alright. The earth being only 6k years old doesn't negate evolution, and the earth being older than 6k years does not prove evolution either.

I'm not actually retarded btw.

>>15929299
Yes. In the American context, however, it does, because again, the kind of person who argues that evolution is not real specifically believes this to be the case, in part, because they believe that the earth is only 6k years old, which "isn't enough time" for evolution to occur (and because, of course, if the earth was 6k years old and made by God, he also made life, it didn't evolve).

This is why I asked if you are American.

>>15929314
The problem is not time, the problem is that scientists mistook degradation for evolution.
Even in a billion years life wouldn't be drastically different.

Look at this fish here. Supposedly millions of years old species. Not different whatsoever from the fossil version. Why he not evolving? Is he a perfect lifeform?

And don't even get me started on the fossils.
Every "period" has human traces in them. Every single one. No lifeform predates human, he is contemporary to all.

>>15929314
>In the American context
fuck the American context

>>15928377
Can you map out the transition from "cowness" to "crowness"? The fact that you can tell them apart means that the distinction is not entirely arbitrary. The fact that you can't map out the transition from a common ancestor to a cow and a crow and at which point the spheres of "cowness" and "crowness" intersect means that evolution has no basis in reality.

>>15929342
>Every "period" has human traces in them. Every single one. No lifeform predates human, he is contemporary to all.
Yeah the Burgess Shale fossils include human remains you goddamn retard.

>>15929369
>The fact that you can't map out the transition from a common ancestor to a cow and a crow
You literally can, bitch, their common ancestor is at the point synapsids and diapsids diverge.

>>15929342
The idea of the Coelacanth being a living fossil or whatever is superficial. There's plenty of evidence of change in them as time has gone by. They've been changing, as has all life (namely, their body plan has change over time). They found a niche, and they've stayed in it. As long as that niche remains, why change any more than you have to? The idea that evolution is moving towards some higher virtuous ideal is just flat out not what the theory says. They've adapted to their environment. It's evolving, it just doesn't have any pressure on it to change significantly.

>>15929393
Go get a bucket of ice cream, stick your head in it three times and only remove it twice.

>>15929342
>Why he not evolving?
Because there's no pressure to, you fucking idiot.

>>15929369
That's because there is no such thing as "cowness" and "crowness". They're human constructions we've created to communicate information. This requires a simplification. Where is the cowness? Where is the crowness? There is no such thing, we've just made these terms up. That doesn't mean that they are useless, or don't have validity, but rather that they are, again, simplifications.

The fact that there is no clear distinction IS the demonstration of evolution. They both derive from a common ancestor, and are both two different continuous chains of change. We can indeed map out a transition from some shared ancestor to what we now call "cows" and what we now call "crows", and it would require showing every single lifeform in between their last common ancestor and a given crow and cow today. You're arguing that the Romans didn't exist because Italians are a thing, that change is impossible. That's completely silly.

The fact that there IS overlap between the two things is a demonstration that they were not created, as what they share is what they've both retained from their last common ancestor.

>>15928357
He didn't come into being. He always was and always will be. if the logic youre using to reason is real than my argument holds to be necessary and true. that said, evolution may be true so long as it was caused by Him

>>15929486
So then you don't believe that everything has a cause, you do believe that things can just poof into being for no reason from nothing, and that God did this. In which case, you don't actually have a problem with evolution, or things poofing into existence for no reason from nothing, you're just arguing that God poofed into existence from nothing for no reason, and then made humanity.

So, there could be other things that could poof into existence for no reason from nothing, like other Gods.

>>15929495
Everything has a cause and thats God. He has no beginning or end nothing caused God, He just always was. Yes evolution is possible, maybe God set everything in motion from the "big bang". Without God science becomes religion. because you have to believe that our senses (which all science comes from) are real.

>>15929595
So which is it? Do all things have a cause, including God, or can things just happen for no reason what so ever? You're making mutually contradictory statements here.

>>15929600
I really thought /lit/ was better than to make such an absurd question regarding the cosmological argument

>>15929614
You're the one being irrational and nonsensical here.

>>15929617
I'm a different anon. I'm sure theres plenty of interesting critiques of the First Cause, but applying infinite regress to counter the First Cause or assume the unvierse is self existent are not good ones.
For the universe to be self caused it must subsist in Being itself. What then is the origin of change?

>>15929495

No, his point is that God did not come into being, from nothing or otherwise, and that he always has been. Causality itself being secondary to being.

>>15929459
Romans are distinct from Italians. Just because you want to change the labels of things and the meanings of words does not mean that you are altering reality, a cow is not a crow.

>>15929636
Infinite Regress is only illogical if you argue an infinite series of things that only exist to cause some individual thing. A causes B via a link, but that means we need a link for the link, and a link for the link for the link, and a link for the link for the link for the link, and... so on. That is to say, the response to that image from cripchan about a train pulling itself is that it's totally correct, but no one argues that the world is made up of trains.

>>15929642
So then things don't actually need causes, and things can just poof into being for no reason at all.

>>15929654
But there is a chain of continuity between both Romans and Italians, and cows and crows (a more apt analogy would be Italians and Frenchmen and Romans). There is some degree of overlap. This overlap can be empirically verified. The meanings of these words are ultimately just meanings that we humans have applied.

Unless you're arguing that you can produce for me a bucket of "crowness", then?

>>15929438
Such a sick burn bro I now believe the world is flat and was made 6000 years ago

>>15929459
The crowness is in the fact that crows are distinctive, in themselevs. If I point to 3 rocks and 3 trees, they both partake in threeness, hence mutually identifiable with 3. 3 itself is not a human construct, else all the rules of math would be void.
>>15929660
If you're going to say that the universe is the causal chain then all the potentiality for all causality is subsistent within the unvierse itself. Motion requires space, but if all is contained within the universe, there cannot be a void or absence of reality. This requires the universe to be timeless and an infinite monad.

>>15929695
>This requires the universe to be timeless and an infinite monad.
Correct, which all evidence points to.

>3 itself is not a human construct, else all the rules of math would be void.
Not at all. Just because it's a human construct doesn't mean it doesn't have rules, or follow logic, or anything of the sort. There's plenty of math that is completely and utterly divorced from reality (Euclidean space is actually one of these). Just because we can construct a logical system from axioms doesn't mean that those axioms are at all descriptive of reality (see: Flatland). We can come up with systems where 1+1+3 that are totally consistent and logical, that doesn't mean that reality has to operate under that system.

>>15929660
>So then things don't actually need causes, and things can just poof into being for no reason at all.
So you agree that matter cannot exist on its own?

>>15929660
So then things don't actually need causes, and things can just poof into being for no reason at all.
Incorrect. God is not a creation, so He did not "poof into existence," nor was He created or will Himself into existence. The anon was arguing that God in particular is above causality, time, and all that shiz.

>>15929660
>So then things don't actually need causes, and things can just poof into being for no reason at all.

Yes. Not that God does this, since he always is, or rather, he simply is, but in general, things emanating therefrom do not need a cause in the Materialist or even grossly Temporal sense. I myself do not think they have one proper, "causality" being merely that which moves backwards, so to speak, relative to final immutable things, as they reveal their finality, through which they have always been to being with.

>>15929799
So then you're arguing from a Platonic sense, via an explicit dualism.

>>15929773
So then you're saying that anon is also explicitly supporting dualism.

>>15928023
Not a book but this website talks about how Neodarwinism is basically dead because there’s so much conflicting evidence to natural selection as a mechanism for evolution.

https://www.thethirdwayofevolution.com/

>>15929831
This is their basic premise, and the website lists lots of leading scientists that reject Neodarwinism as well. Ignore the anti-theist dogma, it’s a given in the scientific community.

>>15929816

Dialectical, or "positive", Monism, i.e. the Monad maintaining itself regardless of "lesser" things, as opposed to "negative" Monism, i.e. Salafism.

>>15929850
>>15929831
So, basically, they're just arguing that epigenetics and horizontal gene transfer are important? Am I missing something here, because I've never met someone who believes in evolution that rejected these two things. They're acting as if they're some kind of radical third way, but they're just advocating evolution.

>>15929747
The only monadology that makes sense to me is something akin to Spinoza in which universal consciosuness is the monad. Material monadology is a difficult position to take.
>Just because it's a human construct doesn't mean it doesn't have rules, or follow logic, or anything of the sort.
Ive heard this from multiple people and it makes no sense. Either its a real, axiomatic law, or its an arbitrary human imagination. Even if the human mind maybe "filters" it into some kind of system, like how Kant describes, there is still a Ding an sich which operates independent. The human category of percpetion is still universal and necessary in a kantian system. Saying its a "construct" is such a meaningless statement

>>15929857
They’re saying that natural selection is not the mechanism by which evolution occurs, which basically everyone takes for granted that it is.

>>15929956
What do they suggest, then? Other than selection, horizontal gene transfer, and epigenetics. Or is it just those three?

>>15929679
I don't believe that the world is flat, and I don't necessarily believe that the world is 6k years old. I have no fucking idea how anyone can believe in evolution.

Just listen to Vox day's videos on it

>>15929975
Do you not believe genes exist?

>>15929866
Not that anon, but if the universe is mostly comprised of vacuum - and vacuum is just absence of things, or "nothingness" - then I don't have issues with saying that there is infinite amount of nothing. It is just about the only interpretation which makes immediate sense for me.

>>15928194
>jew-god

friendly reminder to fuck all skaven. atheismbis a skaven trick to turn you away from the divine and towards their evil degeneracy

>>15929965
>We now know that the many different processes of variation involve well regulated cell action on DNA molecules.
>evolution is a complex process with distinct mechanisms and stages rather than a phenomenon explainable by a small number of principles (eg random mutation + natural selection)
To be honest I’m not well versed in evolutionary science whatsoever so I couldn’t say exactly what, I just thought it was interesting.

>>15929975
>I have no fucking idea how anyone can believe in evolution.
ffs why do people on here have to be so wilfully stupid
what is wrong with you people

>>15930016
If the material universe is the complete source of reality itself, then how can it have within it an absence of reality?

>>15930042
My point is that no one who "believes in evolution" would seriously argue that natural selection (that is to say, mutation in an animal resulting in higher fitness meaning it has more kids and therefore there are more organisms with that gene) is the ONLY method of evolution, rather it's just the one under contention because most evolution deniers don't know what horizontal gene transfer or epigenetics are. That is to say, once you accept that DNA and hereditary are material processes, anything that can interfere with those material processes (this goes more so for epigenetics as mutlicellular life can't really do horizontal gene transfer) can obviously influence those material processes.

>>15930064
Vacuums are real, they aren't an "absence of reality", they're just an absence of matter (and energy, ignoring quantum silliness).

>>15930080
Did vacuum always exist?

>>15928188
Yes. All creations have a creator. But you have to prove it's a creation by proving it has a creator. Circular reasoning much?

>>15930330
"We evolved, therefore there was nothing"

>>15930338
Thanks for putting words in my mouth.
I don't know that it's impossible for a god to have kicked off abiogenesis then let natural forces evolve the initial microbial species. But it would be a rather odd choice if we were meant to be the product of his creation. He'd have killed an estimated billions of species over billions of years just to get to us.

>>15929443
So there's no evolution.

>>15929989
the existence of genes doesn't prove evolution, or does it how?
>>15930046
Tell me why you believe in evolution, if you do.

>>15928023

>>15930404
>i know how God thinks
and there it is

>>15928023
Foucault: Les mots et les choses. Foucault tries to argue that darwinism is a thought-form wedded to a certain historical epoch where the overall paradigm is one of "progress". So you have historicist, progressist sciences and humanities. But these are just outward forms of senseless revolutions of paradigms. In the renaissance the overall form of knowledge was one of "correspondences" (magically potent kind of similarities), from 1600 to 1800 you had "tableaus" (orderly tables), then from 1800 to now (1966 or 20th century) "progress".

Foucault thinks that a new kind of paradigm will emerge (or is already emerging). Hence darwinism will become (or is already) obsolete.

>>15928718
bullshit
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subspecies

>>15930914
Muh gods act in mysterious ways

No one suggested a book yet, lol.

species change is true, no one denies that anymore

what is in question is whether purely mechanical natural selection can account for all of life's variety and development (it can't), let alone for the principle underlying life and consciousness itself (it can't)

>>15931572
scott turner (biologist)
james shapiro, evolution: a view from the 21st century
etienne gilson, from aristotle to darwin and back again

>>15928301
you're *

The authors demonstrate that creationists are ignorant of upwards of 90 percent of the relevant information regarding evolution. The typical creationist author is a secondary source redactor who never reads the technical literature. Having myself taken some amount of time to understand the claims and evidence of the theory of evolution, it becomes immediately clear to me that creationists generally have no clear understanding of what they are talking about.

>>15931913
*This book

>>15928023
Aren't you tired of the lying, you little fucking weasels?

>>15929233
it's because of all the r/chapo refugees. The catboyphiles on /pol/ know that these people cannot resist bait.

>>15931913
They know exactly what they're talking about. It all makes total sense when you understand all creationist arguments are throwing rhetoric at the wall and making you legitimize them by engaging, so they can insert their cult where it's not wanted or relevant.
see
>>15931939

>>15930404
It wouldn't necessarily be an odd choice, that's just how you see it. That's the wonder of being able to think differently.

>>15931560
>"Muh X" means X is refuted
I can tell that argument flusters you because you've heard it many times.

>>15931939
I guess this Joe Schmoe represents all creationists and Christians now, according to you

>>15930191
That sort of gets into the problem of defining a vacuum involving virtual particles. In a sense you could argue that there are no true vacuums (experimentally, we cannot make true vacuums). However, according to the Big Bang, there was a time, however brief, where there were no vacuums. All space and matter and energy was compressed to a single point, wherein there physically could not be a vacuum. It stands to reason that for some arbitrarily short (less than a second here) amount of time a similar state, wherein space was condensed enough that all space was occupied, continued to exist.

But that also gets into problems involving atoms and the like as, technically, there is nothing but a vacuum, as there are no actual physical "Things". But this is bigbrain physics.

>>15928023
fuck off back to /pol/, knuckledragger

>>15930644
It's still changing (again, see >>15929427), it's just gotten really really fit for its environment, so there isn't much pressure to. Mutations are still going on, but they're selected against, because it threw darts at the wall and happened to hit the bullseye. The form it has now is the best that it can do for its environment. If the environment changes, so will it.

>>15931989
Why is this so? Where did the laws causing this to happen in this particular way come from?

>>15931957
>It wouldn't necessarily be an odd choice, that's just how you see it. That's the wonder of being able to think differently.
Sure. Do you have an explanation for why a god might decide to sacrifice the lives of billions of species just to create one? Especially if he's omnipotent. Perhaps god likes needlessly wasting the lives of sentient creatures. Perhaps god doesn't really care about humans and we're rather inconsequential or even an accident of his overall greater design than just us. These all seem to be a better fit than a god who particularly cares about us. But you know, it doesn't really matter. I don't need to refute the idea that we were created. You have to prove the idea that we were.

>>15932046
>Do you have an explanation for why a god might decide to sacrifice the lives of billions of species just to create one?
Yeah, their lives don't matter

>Perhaps god likes needlessly wasting the lives of sentient creatures
If those "sentient" creatures culminated in humans, I wouldn't call that a waste. How would an atheist answer the same questions you're posing now?

> Perhaps god doesn't really care about humans and we're rather inconsequential or even an accident of his overall greater design than just us
This could be so, but it's inconsequential to me.

>These all seem to be a better fit than a god who particularly cares about us
It depends on what you believe about God. Did He send his son to be killed, so that we can be saved? Then it would seem He cares, and His lack of mass intervention is the ultimate good.

> I don't need to refute the idea that we were created. You have to prove the idea that we were.
Can you prove that we emerged from nothing? Science doesn't make any truth claims, it proves nothing. Today's theory is tomorrow's source of mockery.

>>15930080
There is an absence of actuality. If the universe is self existent then all actuality is subsistent within it. How can there be unrealized potentiality in something subsistent in pure actuality? That implies absence of reality.

>>15932026
Which are you asking about here?

Models break down when you get too close to the Big Bang itself. Firstly, the incredible heat means that "matter" wasn't really a thing and yet space was so compressed that this high temperature energy plasma-shit was filling all space. This is all the Big Bang.

If you're referring to last line, most of the space that takes up an atom is the electron cloud. But an electron is puny, incredibly tiny, and most of the space in the cloud is empty (the electron isn't in it). Thus, most of the space in the universe that's actually filled with matter is mostly empty. This takes a step further with protons and neutrons and electrons themselves actually being quarks, so they're empty too. But yet, they still act on each other (think two magnets pushing each other away). This is Quantum Mechanics.

>>15932086
I understand, you're interested in Quantum Mechanics and Quantum this and Quantum that. However, my question remains unanswered- where did the laws that make your statements possible come from? Why is there order, so that we can say that "matter wasn't a thing due to incredible heat" and "there was high-temperature energy plasma-shit filling all the space?" Surely, the scientists making the aforementioned predictions are infallible, and their theories represent reality to a tee; however, from where did the order originate?

>>15932076
>If those "sentient" creatures culminated in humans, I wouldn't call that a waste.
They very much are. Especially considering how long it took that process to culminate in humans. Or is god too incompetent to create humans from the get go? Is the great god only limited to being able to create single celled organisms?
>How would an atheist answer the same questions you're posing now?
If there is no god, there is no intentional design to the universe, only regularities we call laws. There is no need then to ask why billions of species were wasted, when that why implies intention. There simply was none.
>This could be so, but it's inconsequential to me.
If a god doesn't care about us, there's little reason to think he'll take care of us somehow after we're dead. But hey, I can respect a deist who believes that after he dies, nothing happens.
>It depends on what you believe about God. Did He send his son to be killed, so that we can be saved? Then it would seem He cares, and His lack of mass intervention is the ultimate good.
And if you believe god cares so much about us, that we're presumably a major reason why he created the universe to begin with, then the dragged out process of how we came to be is very incongruent. Why is god so incompetent?
>Can you prove that we emerged from nothing? Science doesn't make any truth claims, it proves nothing. Today's theory is tomorrow's source of mockery.
The thread is about evolution being false. The post I made that you, for some odd reason decided to respond to, made a circular argument for the existence of a creator. Now you come to me asking for proof that we came from nothing. For someone who called me not very open minded earlier (of course, people are only ever concerned about other people being open minded about /their/ ideas), the fact that you think there are only two options is rather funny. Perhaps there needed to be a first cause to it all. But how do we know that the first cause is a sentient creator who made the universe on purpose? If you want someone to believe a god did it all, you have to prove your idea correct, not commit a black and white fallacy.

there are gaps in the link between apes and man, many failed attempts at attesting these links, like java man for example. the whole of creation was consciously crafted to be reunited in man, both egyptians and christians got it millenia ago

>>15928023
If you want to know more about the topic regardless of what you believe I would recommend The Selfish Gene. The reason I reccomend it is because it outlines very explicitly how and why evolution works, while still being nontechnical enough to be engaging to read.
Sine you obviously do not think evolution is right, it will still be useful to you because understanding the opposing view is crucial to actually be able to argue against it. If you don't understand the alternative view you'll just look like an idiot fighting against strawmen.

>>15932132
Not him but what is your point? He said at the big bang our models break down and he says they break down because of several consequences of compressing matter. This actually means we don't know anything about it (not even in the weak sense of the scientific method). The whole big bang stuff is only one possibility anyway.

>>15928023
the fact that most atheists are childless losers

ITT: Evolutionists being pseuds, as usual.

>>15929672
All the Sikhs are Singhs but not all of the Singhs are Sikhs, bro.

>>15928030
SCIENCE

>>15928364
This
evolutionists cant explain how new information is added to the system
it's mathematically impossible for random mutations to write itself new complex DNA codes

>>15928023
Nietzsche debunks evolution, read Beyond Good and Evil.

the thing is when the layman uses the term evolution he doesn't know exactly what it means. all science is based on observation. evolution amounts to "thing change based on their environment", it doesn't tell us much.
"God" isn't an answer to life either. Logical explanations of life will always fall short.

>>15928221
No one has ever believed that their ancestor was a rock

>>15928420
>Basic observation of reality, namely the existence of genes, is "pseudoscience"?
Those all support evolution

>>15928023
The so-called Theory of Evolution is a magnifying glass on nature created by the rationality that sprouted out of religion. Evolution tells us nothing about reality, we don't know what drives evolution.

>>15932462
as opposed to the people on this board who are .... ?

>>15929342
>Every "period" has human traces in them. Every single one. No lifeform predates human, he is contemporary to all.
Hah. That's a new one.

>>15928023
Harry potter and the philosopher stone