/lit/ - Literature

>>16146273
The God Delusion
God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything
Outgrowing God: A Beginner's Guide

>>16146312
Hey friend I think you answered in the wrong thread

the bible

>>16146325
Well Bible predates evolution so it can't "debunk" it, more just disprove/contradict
I want something that attacks weak points of evolutionary theory directly and exposes their stupidity

>>16146346
Why There Is No God: Simple Responses to 20 Common Arguments for the Existence of God
Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon
God: The Most Unpleasant Character in All Fiction
All That's Wrong with the Bible: Contradictions, Absurdities, and More

>>16146376
Tip your fedora elsewhere pseud

>>16146443
Said by the guy that wants books to debunk evolution

There’s none. There won’t ever be any book debunking it. It’s not a theory anymore but absolute fact. The details need working out, but it cannot be debunked.
This is why the Catholic church recanted Their centuries old belief. They pretend they can square away the 5000+ year old earth of the Bible with the actual age, Adam and Eve as maybe allegorical, etc. it’s done.
Turn to Spinoza or forever vanquish the eyes in the sky.

>>16146447
Yes.

>>16146454
Notice how the OP post never mentioned anything religious in the first place, and yet you jump to conclusions that I'm a Catholic
That's what we in the business call "projection"
>It’s not a theory anymore but absolute fact
Lol what a scientific thing to say
You're a midwit

>>16146273
shit books

>>16146454
>be fish
>somehow survive out of water
>reproduce with another fish
>off spring can somehow survive out of water
>eventually fish turns into a philosopher that can question its own existence
Makes sense

>>16146443
The only person that I've every known to wear a fedora irl was extremely catholic

>>16146472
>pretends to miss the point by interpreting it too literally
Shit bait try again on sunrise I'll be there waiting with bated breath.

>>16146454
>It’s not a theory anymore but absolute fact
you people disgust me
go back

>>16146346
good luck friend HAHAHAHAHAHAHA

unless you force yourself to ignore empirical, observed cases of evolution you are not gonna make it bud.

>>16146467
>conclusions that I'm a Catholic
All I can tell is that you’re a science denier. There are a lot of christfags and christ-larpers, here, but notice how I did not call You anything at all.
Stop being a defensive mid, ...low-wit

>>16146471
Read one of the books already suggested, son.

>>16146454
>t.

>>16146494
Read the whole thing
>It’s not a theory anymore but absolute fact. The details need working out, but it cannot be debunked.
No you go back.

>>16146502
>Furfag
Gtfo

>>16146454
>dawkins
>absolute fact
>cannot be debunked
Hahaha holy shit and they say atheism is not a religion

>>16146325
Bible has nothing to do with evolution.

>>16146471
Yeah, it does make sense when you take the time to learn about it beyond an extremely basic level.

>>16146511
>It’s not a theory anymore but absolute fact. The details need working out, but it cannot be debunked.
you people disgust me
go back

>>16146500
>empirical, observed cases of evolution
Oh? So you observed a creature evolve into something completely different? Do tell
>>16146501
>science denier
There is nothing scientific about evolution. It's based purely on speculations and misinterpreted data. All of empirical cases can be just as easily explained with creationism.

>>16146519
Dawkins has a PhD and has made major contributions to evolutionary biology. The man is literally an expert on evolution

>>16146532
>All of empirical cases can be just as easily explained with creationism.

All of the empirical cases can also be explained by me creating the universe as is last Thursday. Are you going to worship me now?

>>16146522
Bible claims that all creatures are contemporary to one another and existed simultaneously, until most of them went extinct (which is proven by archeological findings all over)

Evolution claims that species came and went and evolved into different species over time, and for example humans and dinosaurs never coexisted, as they are whopping 65 mil years apart (which is proven by, well, nothing really)

>>16146541
And I'm an expert in astrology.
>>16146553
So you admit that evolution isn't empirical. Good. We're getting somewhere.

Still no book recs though.
Believe it or not, I actually don't want to argue with midlits. I wanted a book.

>>16146567
So if you think biology is made up what type of book are you looking for? Some type of religious or occult thing?

>>16146519
>Opens folder “Fedora” from 2006
Woh! Awesome refutation. Fat guys in hats nearly killed Dawkins himself.
Read a book, shitforbrains

>>16146532
>So you observed a creature evolve
We have evidence. Lots of evidence. That’s how it works. Go on. Tell us how Satan planted all that evidence there.
>Evolution is not science!
And you are not one to speak on the topic.

>>16146577
Biology isn't made up. Just evolution is.
>>16146579
>Read a book, shitforbrains
That's why I made this thread: to get a book recommended to me. So far, no such case.
>We have evidence
Like what? A rhino bone? A monkey tooth?
To this day, fossils of all species were found in all layers, but no in-betweens.
If you could post some that'd be sweet, because I have.
>Tell us how Satan planted all that evidence
Nice strawman bro. I never brought religion, it was your doing.
Clearly you see the world in binary, black and white.
This guy doesnt believe in my religion (evolution) ergo he must support this other religion! That's how it works.
>you are not one to speak on the topic
So when are you shutting your puter and going to bed then?

I believe it was Terrance McKenna who gave a dualist perspective on evolution in which he claimed it’s the universes natural response to entropy.
Even though the theory of evolution is the most often pointed to reasoning for atheists as the “final nail in the coffin”, it can really just be looked at as the another natural property of the universe. No one points at time or gravity as being proof of a god or lack thereof. Evolution can be looked at in a similar light.

>>16146312
Seething

>>16146273
The absolute state of this board. Next thing you know we'll have people asking for books that prove the Earth is flat and books that support the Geocentric Model.

>>16146532
fucks sake anon do you have to be quite so wilfully stupid

>>16146579
There is no evidence of evolution. There were a few attempts, they were immediately debunked and ridiculed at their time, but a century later they are now somehow hauled as remarkable revelations. Truly a clown world.

>>16146614
Yes except gravity and time is observable right now, and evolution never happened and there is no evidence that it happened. There is no species evolving into other species. There is no journey from primitive to more complex. There is only degradation and decay.

>>16146618
I'm sorry I spoke blasphemy on your religion, I'll be sure to put some gifts and flowers before a bust of Dawkins tonight.

In the meantime, it'd be nice to have a book rec, or at the very least an argument...

>>16146633
Fossil record is wrong trust in Jesus

>>16146622
>the coccyx is just for show

>>16146614
The point is that it chips a big part of the god of the gaps argument away, that being the origin of complex lifeforms. Without that it becomes a lot harder to argue for god's existence based on any specific empirical evidence at least.

>>16146532
Yes it's called adaptation
https://youtu.be/kVaF-O0cVoo

>>16146559
The Bible makes no such claim. Nor did it even have the goal of commenting on such things.
The book of Genesis is a collection of traditional stories people used to teach how the world works. It's not an authoritative text. It's a nation's combined heritage. Two tribes disagreed on the story for the creation of humans, so both of the stories were included. Trying to interpret that as scientific truth makes you a literal chimp brain.

>>16146622
What do you think about the moth species that changed colour in areas with heavy pollution?

>>16146643

>>16146645
>this bone looks like a tail omg we're literally monkys!!!
There are literally thousands of fossils of apes. Same for humans.
NOTHING in-between.
Some clowns found like 1 or 2 fragmented bones in 20th century but it was all bogus and everyone laughed at them.

Now please if you believe fossil record supports your case, it wouldn't be hard at all for you to show me a fossil of a creature that is a stage between ape and human,. or fish, or whatever humans came from.

Oh wait you cant
Humans today are not different whatsoever from humans thousands of years ago. Same DNA, same body, same everything.
Except brain is smaller, as evidenced by this anon here.
Degradation and decay. Not evolution and improvement.

You can't even make a case supporting your "undebunkable" theory. Because it's not a theory, it's a religion. You can't prove it, you can only ridicule infidels.

>>16146656
Adaptation is true, evolution isn't.
A bird may become a better suited bird for situations, but it won't turn into a dinosaur, no matter how many billions of years past.
>the bible makes no such claims
It does exactly that.
>The book of Genesis is a collection of traditional stories people used to teach how the world works
Which contradict evolution.

>>16146686
Fossil record shows many many different species coming into existence over time

>>16146273
The Death of Evolution - Wallace Johnson

In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood

Creation Rediscovered: Evolution and the Importance of the Origins Debate

Bones of Contention: A Creationist Assessment of Human Fossils

The Metaphysics of Evolution

Theistic Evolution: The Teilhardian Heresy

An Easy-to-Understand Guide for Defeating Darwinism by Opening Minds

STOP TALKING ABOUT MONKEYS WHERE IS BOOK RECS

>>16146686
>NOTHING in-between.
What is Lucy then?

>>16146703
...Can I see it?

>>16146722
A collection of random unrelated bones?..
Anon you can't be serious with this.

>>16146722
Skeleton of a monkey with like 80% bones missing

Also one of her legs was found 20 meters away from the rest of the body, and like 3 meters deeper
I guess she was killed with a rocket launcher or something

>>16146699
Birds on islands with different food types adapted different beak sizes for their food type. The adaptations showcase the rise of different species of bird from a common ancestor when the islands were in one piece.

Not gonna argue with you about the Bible. You are severely wanting in the intelligence department.

>>16146711
Finally book recs. Gracias.

>>16146726
Open up a random book on palentology

>>16146760
>The adaptations showcase the rise of different species
It doesn't. It shows one species of bird adapting to different foods. That's all it shows and it's all it is. The "different species" part exists in Darwin's head. He had very good imagination.

>>16146769
Okay so you don't have evidence. Thanks for admitting it at least.

Don’t reply to this retard. He was trying to spam his stupid shit on /tv/ last year. His threads were extremely unsuccessful so I guess he’s branching out.

>>16146273
Evolution is like motion, or an ecosystem, or frozen yogurt shops. It's happening right in front of you. You don't investigate whether or not it exists, you investigate how it works and why.

Now, as a discerning creationist, you might say
>evolution began 6,000 years ago
or
>the nature of creatures changes according to god's will
or even
>dinosaur bones were put on earth as a test

But you can't deny that evolution happens. That would be like denying sunlight.

>>16146753
>Skeleton of a monkey with like 80% bones missing

>Also one of her legs was found 20 meters away from the rest of the body, and like 3 meters deeper
I guess she was killed with a rocket launcher or something

Ok sure. I’m just going to ask some simple questions and all I want in return is a simple yes or no in response

Yes or no, do you believe that;
>humans have a genetic code that can determine certain traits in our lives(ex being tall, short, brown hair/eyes etc)

>Some of these traits can be advantageous for survival over other traits (ex making you run faster, being stronger etc.)

>these genetic traits can be passed down onto your off spring.

>>16146787
Now imagine if each of those four differently adapted birds had their populations split again, with a different ecological situation for each group. The number of variations would increase exponentially.
Then imagine it kept happening, over millions upon millions of years. The most recent adapted bird would seem completely unrelated to the first bird from all those years prior.

disbelief in evolution is blasphemy of the highest order
it's blasphemy against the christian god to think that all interpretations of the bible must be physical in nature, and to think that the assertion that god created man must mean that he did so by physically intervening in the universe and not via evolution itself. paul himself spoke on the difference between material reality and spiritual reality in 1 corinthians, like literally people understood this two thousand years ago. giving up the spiritual interpretation to marry yourself to a physical interpretation is literally just atheism by another name, because it disregards the spiritual sense in which something might be true entirely in favor of only believing in the material reality of things
you are literally one step away from atheism, no self-respecting christian should want anything to do with this ridiculous belief system

>>16146346
>I want something that attacks weak points of evolutionary theory directly and exposes their stupidity
Wouldn't you need books that present evidence to the contrary, or at least one that proposes a theory with the same level of empirical evidence as evolution? Why don't you try to read about why evolution is true and then try to debunk it from there, provided you're being honest about this quest? The goal of science, not scientism, is to refine theory as much as possible so they can better explained nature so if you were to demonstrate that evolution is false, I'm sure the scientific community would be rejoiced. The only problem is that the amount of evidence for evolution is so vast that it's become a fact; that's how scientific theories work, unlike the way we "theory" in our daily life. Read pic related in good faith and report back anon. Best of luck!

>>16146611
>That's why I made this thread: to get a book recommended to me. So far, no such case.
There’s no book forthcoming. I already told you why.
> Like what? A rhino bone? A monkey tooth?
Read the books offered thus far and learn. I’m not gonna teach you.
> but no in-betweens.
They told me shit like that as a kid. Yes, we have in-betweens. Again, read.

>>16146622
>Truly a clown world.
>that refuses to read a book for the evidence he wants a book to disprove

Blavatsky's theosophy is interesting.
>As regards the evolution of mankind, the Secret Doctrine postulates three new propositions, which stand in direct antagonism to modern science as well as to current religious dogmas: it teaches (a) the simultaneous evolution of seven human groups on seven different portions of our globe; (b) the birth of the astral, before the physical body: the former being a model for the latter; and (c) that man, in this Round, preceded every mammalian – the anthropoids included – in the animal kingdom.

>>16146312
>>16146376
>>16146454
cringe and offtopic
neo-atheists act like religious zealots to defend their dogmas

>>16146273
Wisdom of Ancient Cosmology -Wolfgang Smith
Darwin’s God -Cornelius Hunter
Cosmos and Transcendence -Wolfgang Smith
Genesis, Creation, and Early Man -Fr. Seraphim Rose
Refuting Evolution -Dr. Johnathan Sarfati
Sword of Gnosis (Chiefly for the Bruckhardt essay critiquing Darwin) -J. Needleman
Mind and Cosmos: Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature Is Almost Certainly False - Thomas Nagel
Related: https://www.discovery.org/m/2020/04/Scientific-Dissent-from-Darwinism-List-04072020.pdf

>>16146855
>disbelief in evolution is blasphemy of the highest order
shut the fuck up, it can be both literal and allegorical

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-sPBF1o4a4U&t=24s

Here is my view on the topic: it isn't black and white. Evolution as we understand it now has some serious flaws, but that doesn't mean everything scientists have speculated is rubbish.
What you should be looking towards debunking is specifically the Neo-Darwinist interpretation of evolution.
The theory of evolution is pretty solid as a general concept, but don't follow these scientist fetishists who can't accept anything but the mainstream conception of things.

I don't have any specific books for you, but look into critiques of neo-darwinism.

>>16147119
You read that shit?

>>16146273
There aren’t any, though modern evolutionary theory (Neodarwinism) is still very incomplete because of anti-lamarckism dogma.
>>16146346
There isn’t any stupidity in evolutionary biology that isn’t found in every single academic field: the adherence to dogma and slowness to take up new ideas (as I mentioned Lamarck, who has been vindicated by the process by which genes can be made more active through actions of an individual, showing that evolution is more complex than neodarwinism).
There exists problems with the teaching of evolutionary theory (especially with the way that atheists who have never read a biology textbook talk about it) that ignores nuance, namely the arbitrary nature of “species” because evolution occurs gradually and there is no perfectly satisfying definition of a species (though they have to be established by niche for ecological studies), and so every form is the searches for transitional form because the process doesn’t stop (though in places there can be low pressures to evolve which slow it).
You should go to /sci/ or /his/ for this kind of thread anyway.
If you want a book on evolution, I unironically recommend reading Darwin’s Origin, it’s well written, provides good justification for his theory in a way that is easy to understand, admits what the theory cannot do (see abiogenesis), acknowledges the failure of the species concept (some neodarwinists pretend this has been solved by the reproductive definition; but the hybridisation found in plant evolution and general difficulty in determining true reproductive isolation proves the concept still doesn’t work that well),!and doesn’t contain the smug atheism of a lot of other Pop-sci books on evolution you’ll be recommended by neckbeards. Additionally some textbooks
>>16146312
>relating Evolution with atheism
Absolute retard, go back. The only people who do that are atheists who want to pretend atheism isn’t stupid by attaching it to an important scientific discovery; and fundamentalist Protestant mutts who want to pretend their literalist reading of the bible isn’t millennia out of date by relating evolution to something as baseless as atheism.
Darwin mentions God numerous times in On the Origin of Species, stating that evolution is in no way in contradiction with theism (this is also very first thing that students on university evobio courses are told still today), there’s no reason why God wouldn’t act through evolution to form life, in fact it makes creation more beautiful if change can be affected (which it clearly can).
>inb4 what about abiogenesis
Not evolution, Darwin’s belief was that God created the initial forms from which everything else evolved (which would still be true with abiogenesis because everything operates under God).

>>16147126
nah just read the first sentence

>>16147140
k

>>16147119
your choice of words already indicates that you are an atheist, you think there's a dichotomy between "literal" which typically implies "happened in a physical sense" and that this sense is the most "real" sense in which something can happen, and "allegorical" which is a tool for writing stories of a moralizing or educational character, not of describing things which are absolutely true in the highest possible sense
the spiritual sense is neither of these. it is completely disconnected from any specific physical interpretation and transcends mere morality, it is the essence of truth itself, the means by which all other forms of understanding are made possible at all
thinking it's some cheap literary device and that the alternative is a description of physical reality implies a lack of spiritual understanding that conviction cannot possibly make up for, even if the physical reality you believe in is religiously motivated

>>16147207
Do you believe that something which physically happens can have a higher spiritual significance? As in it is simultaneously physical and spiritual?
Also, the point you made about the fundamentalists is true in that they fall into a false dichotomy between the physical and spiritual. But seemingly, you fall into the same dichotomy when you state that disbelief in evolution is blasphemy because it MUST necessarily negate the spiritual sense of Genesis.

>>16147133
Based

>>16147375
>Do you believe that something which physically happens can have a higher spiritual significance? As in it is simultaneously physical and spiritual?
i think all physical phenomena have some spiritual significance, and that all spiritual phenomena must necessarily have some physical manifestation (or else how would we, who exist physically, know about it?). so yes, the world is simultaneously physical and spiritual. but what is spiritual can have any kind of physical manifestation, so worrying about the physical manifestation of what is spiritual is putting the cart before the horse
>disbelief in evolution is blasphemy because it MUST necessarily negate the spiritual sense of Genesis.
it's not that evolution proves or disproves any particular spiritual sense, it's that assuming a physical interpretation based on spiritual understanding is fundamentally backwards and implicitly assumes a primacy of the physical over the spiritual. to put the spiritual above the physical means to be unconcerned with the physical interpretation, whether we evolved from apes or simply appeared as we are now, or if the communion wafer literally turns into the body of christ in your mouth or if it remains bread, none of these interpretations fundamentally change what is true spiritually. but picking one can only come from materialistic thinking, from placing such importance on the physical that you make your whole doctrine revolve around it

Scott Turner's books

Shapiro on epigenetics

>>16147133
>(as I mentioned Lamarck, who has been vindicated by the process by which genes can be made more active through actions of an individual, showing that evolution is more complex than neodarwinism).
Epigenetics is not Lamarckianism. At all. They're fundamentally different. Lamarckianism postulates that conscious action by an organism can alter its DNA (or cause its offspring's DNA to change). This is not true.

>namely the arbitrary nature of “species” because evolution occurs gradually and there is no perfectly satisfying definition of a species
No, atheists are well aware of this, hence why atheists are always pointing out that taxonomy is an inexact science. It's YEC that are always getting in a tizzy about "kinds".

>>16147565
>>16147133
yeah, idfk what you mean with this "atheists get confused by species" thing. its only christfags that do this, because theyre trying to defend the jewish belief in adam naming the animals in eden. i have literally never seen an atheist not get, even if just clumsily, that species is sort of just arbitrary, hence why it has like seven definitions.

>>16147516
> to put the spiritual above the physical means to be unconcerned with the physical interpretation, whether we evolved from apes or simply appeared as we are now, or if the communion wafer literally turns into the body of christ in your mouth or if it remains bread, none of these interpretations fundamentally change what is true spiritually. but picking one can only come from materialistic thinking, from placing such importance on the physical that you make your whole doctrine revolve around it

Anon, this is beautiful thank you for sharing this with me. I think I now understand what you’re getting at, God bless you.

>>16146273
Evolution is a theory, it does not need "debunking". What need debunking are people who pretend it's a fact.

>>16146323
fuck you

>>16146273
Anything related to Theosophy

>>16146273
This is all you need. Explains everything wrong with evolution.

>>16148306
Quick rundown?

>>16146273
Idk but cool fish anon

Darwin's Doubt
Darwin's Black Box

Just to name two of the biggest ones.

>>16148068
Why are godless people so angry and aggressive like you?

>>16146808
>Evolution is like motion, or an ecosystem, or frozen yogurt shops. It's happening right in front of you. You don't investigate whether or not it exists, you investigate how it works and why.

And you maintain that this is not dogma?

>>16150207
It is only dogma in the sense that it is self-evident. Any process that happens in parallel favors the more effective process.

>>16147122
>The theory of evolution is pretty solid as a general concept
It is not. It violates every known statistical law.

But biologists are all innumerate retards who went into biology because they couldn't into math, so fuck them.

Doesn't "debunk" evolution but it critiques certain aspects of it: Darwinian Fairytales by David Stove

Genesis 1 is a completely separate account of creation from Genesis 2 and 3. So understand that Genesis 1, 2, and 3 are not one piece and that chapters 2 and 3 are not contingent on chapter 1. When you read Genesis 2 it tells of how God created the world, how he created man and woman and placed them in a garden in the land of Eden, and how they disobeyed him. Personally I believe this is literal but doesn't preclude the universe being created 13.5 billion years ago; the discovery of a big bang and start date to our universe for me seems more profound than God creating everything like pulling a rabbit out of a hat. Genesis 1 is a complicated piece of ancient Jewish poetry and is heavy in symbolism. I too think Genesis 2 and 3 are heavily symbolic but also literal. It's difficult to parse out symbolism from ontological history in Genesis, since personally I think Genesis is an incredibly important and complicated anthropological text that explains the archetypes that God has set out for humanity. Everything else in the Bible is implied in Genesis.

>>16146376
I sincerely hope this post is ironic.

The only criticisms of evolutionary theory worth reading aren't going to 'debunk' it any more than Einstein 'debunked' Newton.

>>16146808
Are you retarded? When people say they don't believe in evolution, they mean 99% of the time that they don't believe in the evolutionary creation narrative. That "BILLIONS OF YEARS AGO, when nobody was around to observe, there existed a primordial soup, in which spawned a single-celled organism, which mutated and evolved into some aquatic creature, which evolved into a land creature, and after billions of years the single-celled organism eventually evolved into a philosopher."
This is completely unfounded, unscientific, and speculative at best. We have no way of going back in time and verifying these claims. We have no way of verifying or falsifying these claims even with the information we have present to us today. Yet if we do not hold this belief with our entire hearts, we are slandered as "creationists", "science-deniers", and the lot. It's absurd.

>>16146273
Read stephen Jay Gould or Brian Goodwill

But, have in mind that they will not say "the Earth is 13000 years old, God made all and humans lived with dinosaurs" what they will say is that evolution does happen but natural selection is not necesarily an integral part of it but either something that you can completly discard to explain it or just one small process more.

>>16146808
Evolution doesn't happen. If you claim otherwise, maybe you should provide some modern-day proof instead of strawmanning.
>>16150414
Fucking this.

>>16146831
Except it doesn't happen and birds stay birds.
>now imagine
I'm sure you have nice imagination, but that doesn't make evolution any more real.

>>16146809
>goalposting
So you admit that Lucy is bogus.
Good.

>questions
Yes
No
Yes

Humans today are very, very similar to humans who lived thousands of years ago. Same DNA. No genes were changed much drastically besides mutants and other statistical outliers. If you were to reanimate an ancient human, you could mate with it and produce fine offspring.
There is no reason to believe that after any amount of time a human would evolve into something much different, let alone IMPROVED/EVOLVED/BETTER/MORE COMPLEX something. All we see is degradation and decay, not improvement.

>>16150328
How does it violate statistical laws? Abiogenesis violates statistical laws, but abiogenesis isn’t evolution and even Darwin didn’t believe in abiogenesis.

>>16146447
>Said by the guy that wants books to debunk evolution
This has to be bait, right?
>hurr durr you looking for literature that challenges the current status quo? Must be a retard
Because that’s what you sound like

>>16146615
the piss christ is catholic art

>>16146273
People seem to confuse micro and macro evolution.
Micro exists and seen this happen.
We have yet to see macro, which is what the fish-reptile-bird-mammal-robot yet. Macro, probably does not exist.

>>16146760
That is micro evolution.

>>16146807
Looks like it was a success here, hopefully he doesn't come to /his/ because they will sperg harder than here.

>>16146808
That is micro, not macro

i totally got that reference, OP. lemme know if you want my dodo code

>>16150625
It's a YEC meme. "Evolution violates the laws of thermodynamics", which what they actually are getting at is "evolution involves a reversal of entropy because it means that life is improving". This is wrong, firstly, because entropy CAN locally be reduced, and the Earth is constantly being bombarded with (and losing) energy from outside itself so the idea of the planet as a closed bubble is wrong, so even in principle no, entropy does not prevent evolution.

Secondly, it's wrong because it presupposes that things must be getting "better", which isn't the case at all. Organisms are constantly getting more adapted to their environment (that is, better at breeding in their environment), but that's not "better". It's totally possible to get caught in energy wells were evolution runs you down a hole you don't want to go down because it's easier to keep going down instead of going all the way back up (humans are the ONLY animal that menstruates in the manner that we do; the entire existence of the Panda). The Panda and a Grizzly bear are just as evolved, but the Grizzly is far "better" by human standards. YEC presumes that evolution posits the opposite of what the Genesis narrative does (sinful degradation away from God), but this is not the case at all (the very etymology of the word reflects this). A brontosaurus was far more evolved for its environment than a panda would be, and a panda is far more evolved for its environment than a brontosaurus would be.

And no, abiogenesis does not violate "statistical laws", we have empirical confirmation that RNA world can happen.

>>16150725
>>16150728
There is no such thing as a difference between "micro evolution" and "macro evolution. Taxonomy is an arbitrary exercise in classification. Cows and crows are both descended from the same ancestor, so yes the distinction between them is blurry, it's just really easy to put the arbitrary marker where they differ because they differ so much.

>>16146273
why does everyone wanna pretend to be retarded these days? what happened?

>>16150778
I see, thanks for the correction.

AHEM
FUCK ATHEISTS, FUCK PROTESTANTS, FUCK AMERICANS, AND KILL ANYONE WHO IS SIGNIFICANTLY GENETICALLY DIFFERENT FROM YOU
Evolution is based, biological determinism is redpilled and acting to the true will of God who acted beautifully on his complex and biologically ever changing creation through his laws of evolution. Strict creationism is as retarded as atheism.
Now fuck off because I’M WALKIN’ ‘ERE

>>16150612
Please post proof for this. I would seriously be interested.

>>16150782
they don't believe in god but they don't want to believe in science either, so they end up with weird copes

>>16150612
There are actually several groups in Onirthurae. With the exception of Aves (birds), they're all extinct. So, no, if it evolved to be something other than a bird, it wouldn't be a bird, because "bird" is an arbitrary classification.

>>16150857
>tfw I don’t believe in God or evolution
>tfw I KNOW God AND evolution are both very real

>>16146273
OP this is the most retarded thread I've seen in a while, and it baffles me that you can accept the mechanics of evolution exist, but that the scale "doesn't happen." If something is capable of change within a few generations, it won't decide not to over several million years.
You won't find any good books to help disprove an extremely well documented concept. If you want to learn more, there's a vertebrate comparative anatomy and physiology textbook on libgen that goes in to great depth on evolution and how similar vertebrates really are to one another and their more primitive extant relatives.

>>16150909
name? ive been looking for something like this.

>>16150926
Vertebrates: Comparative Anatomy, Function, Evolution. Author Kenneth Kardong.

>>16148411
Same person behind this trash
https://answersingenesis.org/education/online-courses/creation-apologetics-master-class/

So if you are a creationist nut job, you'll find the book wholly agreeable.

>>16150950
thank you kindly

How do people who don't believe in Evolution explain Dog breeds?

>>16146273
You cannot empirically debunk evolution since, at the very least, the core tenets of it true beyond any reasonable and unreasonable doubt.

You would have to really argue for some idealistic worldview or postmodernism to the extreme to stand a chance.

I'd recommend any political book arguing for a neoliberal postmodern society such as ours, but more extreme.
Just as it is now argued genes don't play any significant part in intelligence, for humans that is, we can aim to structure society around the worldview that genes play no part in anything and that all differences between any populations or even species are purely social constructs and not real.

>>16146471
sense and logic are subjective, and very limited in your case, senior

This thread provides yet more proof that the /lit/ consensus on any topic is a contrary indicator of truth.

>>16146273
Hey op! Good to see someone interested in this discussion. In order to totally debunk evolution, you have to have a firm grasp of it. Judging from a glance over this thread, I don’t think you do. That not an attack on you, simply stating a fact. I strongly encourage you to look this over to familiarize yourself with the theory and get a better understanding of it, that way you have a more full picture
I found this article to be pretty great back in the day. I hope you do too
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

>>16150962
Wtf is that link I’m tearing up

>>16148064
>disregarding that a "theory" in science has a well-defined meaning different to that used colloquially.
Given that the theory of gravity is just a theory for you, I suppose you go around jumping tall buildings toward the ground since you don't pretend gravity is a fact.
>>16150414
>after billions of years the single-celled organism eventually evolved into a philosopher
So it went straight from single-celled organism to philosopher?
>>16150857
>they don't believe in god but they don't want to believe in science either, so they end up with weird copes
Who the fuck has to "believe" in science? The scientific method is just a method that you can use to probe Nature about its secrets; that's it. Whether you believe in science is not important; the important part lies in the fact you can build useful models that can provide you with reproducible experiments and scientific theories with great prediction power. That's it; if I can reproduce your experiment then that's what matters, we don't have to share beliefs in a particular god. This is one of the things religion lacks: predictive power.

I do concede that religion might've served as the blueprint for what's now science but at its best, religion is just a proto-science. It gets you to ask questions about the universe but everything has already an answer; that being, god did it. For better or worse, there's no room for improvement which is something that it's at the core of science. Does this theory not work at all? Discard it. Does some of it work? Let's improve it and discard the useless part.

>>16151316
>So it went straight from single-celled organism to philosopher?
Great strawman. Try respond to what I actually said in my post. The evolutionary creation story is not science; there is literally no reason to believe it. It is a creation story like all the others.

>>16150414
>>16151380
>That "BILLIONS OF YEARS AGO, when nobody was around to observe
Many of the natural processes humans have been able to explain through the arduous process of science we cannot observe because either they happened millions/billions of years ago or happen too slowly for humans to perceive it. Do continents move? Does black matter exist? According to you, it's a sound 'No'. However, with enough data and a rounded theory we can explain these processes and predict their effects.
>there existed a primordial soup, in which spawned a single-celled organism, which mutated and evolved into some aquatic creature, which evolved into a land creature, and after billions of years the single-celled organism eventually evolved into a philosopher.
While seemingly implausible and many things go against intuition but it doesn't mean they're wrong, this is one of the best hypothesis we've to explain the origin of life thus far. We know that the chemicals of life can all be made from simpler chemicals that aren't alive themselves so that's a pretty good start. Whether this hypothesis ends up being the right one is inconsequential; if it doesn't work whatever it was learned won't be discarded. It's fine to not know everything, what matters is that we're more and more about life and the universe bit by bit.
>This is completely unfounded, unscientific, and speculative at best.
How's unfounded and unscientific? All scientific theories were pure speculation at one point so nothing bad with it. The next step is to substantiate the claims with empirical evidence.
>We have no way of going back in time and verifying these claims.
See above.
>We have no way of verifying or falsifying these claims even with the information we have present to us today.
Which claims?
>Yet if we do not hold this belief with our entire hearts, we are slandered as "creationists", "science-deniers", and the lot. It's absurd.
I'd agree with you; there's not reason to slander anyone because they aren't convinced. So what do you think it's a better explanation for the origin of life according to you?

>>16151009
>the core tenets of evolution are true
Like I said
Evolution is a religion
A cult
They don't need proof because they have faith

>>16151007
Degradation is not evolution, quite the opposite in fact
Wolves were perfect, we mutated them into abominations
>>16150855
I need to post proof that something doesn't happen? Do you have brain scurvy? The burden of proof is on you

>>16150857
Evolution is anti-scientific

Why’s it so hard for theists to say god created evolution jfc

>>16151773
I don't get it either, I don't see how that would contradict the Bible. I mean, we know that God created everything, but how the fuck did he made it?

>>16151773
>>16151791
Social ossification. tl;dr if we let in one change, we can't stop further changes, and we lack the power to deal with change at all so we'll lose more power.

To put it another way, Joel Osteen has a lot of material rooted in YEC, and if it turns out YEC is wrong (it is), he'll have to make new material, and he just doesn't have time for that, and that'd mean he'd lose money, so let's just keep rolling with this YEC thing for as long as we can.

>>16151773
Because evolution makes no sense and has no evidence?

>>16146312
Lmfaooooo

>>16151773
you don’t have to be religious to realize evolution doesn’t explain anything, Nietzsche figured it out too..

>>16152196
>Nietzsche figured it out too
explain?

>>16146273
Not that i think anyone should be Christian but:

https://youtu.be/mQaReWoUyyQ

>>16146273
>Using a word like "debunk."

>>16152148
>>16152779
See >>16151051

>>16152196
>Neitzsche, a man who was limited by the vast amount of information and evidence of evolution we have was on the fence about the whole topic

>>16146273
Wait, can you debunk facts? How does that work?

>>16146532
Sickleback fish, which totally changed morphology, enough so that we would otherwise call them different species, in response to environmental shifts.
Or flies that were left in the dark for 60 years and have since adapted to living in it through novel mutations and adaptations developing a very powerful sense of smell and better sensory bristles.

There are also the documented 'in between' stages that we've found. Like Tiktaalik and its off shoots that became land dwellers, or archaeopteryx and its offshoots that continued flight feather development until they became proto-birds, or the semi-aquatic stages of whales we documented, and representations of various stages of early hominids.
Note, of course that evolution isn't a march to progress. There are maniraptorians that lived tens of millions of years later than archaeopteryx that were less reminiscent of birds, and Tiktaalik may very well be a late adapter to land living if some fossilized tracks are correct.

What counts as 'different' either?
Are pugs and mastiffs completely different? Genetically not so much, but morphology-wise they certainly are.
But on the other hand, through convergent evolution things that by appearances be closely related can be very much distant.
A lot of what we consider distinct is just based on some observations from centuries ago, not reality.

>>16146559
Do you dispute the ability to date things based on the degradation of elements within samples?

>>16150619
Now, our best data shows that anatomically modern humans came into being about 200,000 years ago.
Now thats both not a particularly long time for evolution which is measured in the millions of years typically, and humans from the very beginning were not heavily guided by natural selection given our relative dominance over nature even early on. There isn't much selection pressure for humans to change because there isn't much threatening us.

So, with not a lot of time and not a lot of pressure, there is little reason for genetic mutations to drive development any one direction.

>>16152148
>If I don't understand it, it makes no sense
Transistors don't make sense to retards either, but they're the only reason you posted this
Evolution makes perfect sense and does not contradict any meaningful part of Christianity unless you take mythical creation stories 100% word-for-word literally like a drooling evangelical

>>16150414
Why would we need to be there?
We have experiments proving that simple proteins and important chemicals for life can be formed on their own in the proper conditions. This only needed to happen through random chance once or twice for it to turn into something approaching life.

>>16153039
> Do you dispute the ability to date things based on the degradation of elements within samples?
That assumes that the past was the same as the present and nothing catastrophic happened to the Earth before.

Which, of course, we know isn't and can't be true.

So yeah, theoretically you can, indeed, date things, but without a way to calibrate the dates the results are arbitrary.

>>16153121
>Evolution makes perfect sense
If you're innumerate and don't know a thing called "statistics" exists, yeah.

>>16153143
Would these catastrophic events have changed the function of elements despite them existing outside of Earth and behaving the same?
Would these events have caused the half life of radioactive materials to drastically change, in a way that only happened in that time period on Earth?

>>16147133
Lamarckianism and epigenetics are not the same thing my man.

>>16150778
>There is no such thing as a difference between "micro evolution" and "macro evolution. Taxonomy is an arbitrary exercise in classification.
Is this seriously the length you have to go to in order to cling to your belief in evolution? The "all categories are arbitrary!" meme that everyone knows and has heard a million times before?
Micro evolution is real. Yes. We have seen fruit flies evolve into different types of fruit fly in different environments and conditions. We have seen birds evolve into different types of birds in different environments. What we have not seen, however, is a bird evolving into a banana, a chicken evolving into a dinosaur, a fish evolving into a bird, an ape evolving into a human, etc. This is called macro evolution and it has NEVER been observed.

>>16151706
Degradation doesn't exist.
Its an entirely human viewpoint being pushed on a non-human world.

>>16153177
We have many, many transitional forms of dinosaurs becoming birds.
Are you not familiar with the fossil record?

Are you not familiar with our early hominid fossil record either?
Whats the line between ape and man in your mind, regardless?

>>16153163
>changed the function of elements
What functions? What elements?

>Would these events have caused the half life of radioactive materials to drastically change
No, but radioactive materials could have been added (or even removed) drastically.

Dilbertman talks about it in Gods Debris iirc

>>16153154
Why don't you explain to me how statistics disprove evolution then? Even better, if all we need to debunk the entire field is an elementary grasp of a field any non-retard took classes in in high school, why hasn't somebody used that common sense to do it and win their Nobel Prize? Is Big Evolution keeping them down?

>>16153177
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_the_horse
This is the most complete fossil record of a modern animal's evolution that we have, and it does in fact undergo macroevolution. Today's horse is quite different from their fifty million year old ancestors.
If you understand that microevolution does happen and can be directly observed, where exactly is the line drawn? What do you imagine prevents a population from continuing to change past some arbitrary point to be a separate species from what they once were?

>>16153224
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiometric_dating
Radioactive elements, which are found in all rock, have a lifespan before they invariably become unstable and decay into a more stable atomic structure, either an isotope of the same element or another element entirely. A half-life is the time it takes for half of a sample to decay into a more stable form. This works best in volcanic rock due to its more 'pure state'.
We can 'count back' from the modern state and then get information about the age that way. The exacts of this I'll leave you to read in the above article, rather than type this up myself.

We can use previously dated specimens to obtain a relative date of a fossil based on the surroundings that it has.

We control for the possibility of added of subtracted material by going for rock that won't have such a thing occur. Thats why Volcanic rock is preferred.
We can actually use the addition of material for discovering the past, such as the K-T boundary where we can measure an increase in metals that are common in space, but uncommon on Earth as evidence for a large asteroid impact.

>>16153287
Yeah not really. It literally starts as a little horse with toes that grows into a big horse with no toes
now show me a fish-like creature evolve into a bird-like creature

>>16153324
That's how you dodgy little faggots always are, isn't it? "Well fine, microevolution exists, but show me macroevolution. Well okay, macroevolution exists, but it doesn't seem macro enough to me. There are some transition fossils between fish and modern birds, I guess, but what about the transition fossils between those transition fossils? Ob, well okay, but what about the transition fossils between THOSE transition fossils? Heh, I thought not, checkmate evolutionists."

>>16153324
Voila! A fish with wings!
Fish evolved into birds after they evolved into amphibians, pseudoreptiles, reptiles, archosaurs, dinosaurs, and then finally birds.
You aren't going to find a fish-bird without looking through 200 million years of creatures between them first.

>>16146273

Anon, I...

>>16151706
Professional retard.

>>16153177
>we've never seen an animal change!
>Yes we have.
>well we've never seen it change a little more!
>Yes we have.
>well we've never seen it change a little more!
>Yes we have.
Genes are real, genes change. That's evolution. On a long enough time span, evolution can make things change a lot. What more do you want? Every time you're given exactly what you ask for, you just move the goal posts.

Taxonomy is an inexact science. Hell, for most of human history it wasn't even a science. The Torah lied to you, there is no one specific thing that makes a crow a crow, and a cow a cow. As it turns out, the entire idea of "species" is wrong. It's a human creation meant to understand life. Because every cow's DNA is different, you can't actually describe a cow without describing every single organism in existence. There's just "life", and the various forms it takes.

Even your definition of "macro evolution" is a testament to taxonomy being purely man-made, as in its original formulation the term "macro-evolution" referred to changes observable to the human eye instead of purely at the cellular level. These changes were demonstrated to occur. And then it came to refer to species, an then evolution of new species (by EVERY definition of species) were demonstrated to occur. And now you've moved it even further, and when that has been demonstrated, you will move it again.

So again, what exactly do you want? A reification that your lived experiences are the sum total of reality? You aren't going to get one. Get over it. Pride is a sin.

>>16151316
>>disregarding that a "theory" in science has a well-defined meaning different to that used colloquially.
>Given that the theory of gravity is just a theory for you, I suppose you go around jumping tall buildings toward the ground since you don't pretend gravity is a fact.

Come on, that dishonest. Both intellectually and factually.

>>16146312
based

>>16154701
He's correct though. There's a reason that every single biologist out there doing research and expanding the field believes wholeheartedly in evolution. If any one of them ever managed to prove the "theory" wrong, they would become literally the most famous and revolutionary biologist of all time overnight. But they aren't, because nobody can, because the theory is correct.

>>16155119
It's not like anyone is actually trying to disprove the theory of evolution. Replicating studies doesn't get you tenure, novel studies built on shaky data does.

>>16155141
A biologist who could prove evolution fundamentally wrong wouldn't ever have to worry about tenure again. You have no idea how revolutionary that would be.

>>16154701
this is actually not true
"theory" is frequently used to refer to any speculative stuff like "string theory" in science

>>16153486
>Well okay, macroevolution exists, but it doesn't seem macro enough to me.
I mean, yeah? If that is the most impressive evidence of macroevolution, then there's not a very convincing case for macro lol. It's still quite a leap of faith to believe a fish eventually evolved into a bird or a man.
>>16154192
>You aren't going to find a fish-bird without looking through 200 million years of creatures between them first.
So let's just accept it is so with a handwave argument justified by a little horse evolving into a big horse then...

>>16156272
You can smugly sit there and cross your arms and declare it just isn't convincing enough for you all you want, man. It isn't illegal to be retarded. Every single biologist, geologist, and paleontologist on the planet is convinced, but I'm sure you're more acutely aware of the arguments for and against evolution than they are.

>>16146541
>has a PhD
good goy

>>16156272
What am I handwaving?
That you are asking for something that doesn't exist?
We never had a fish become a bird. We had a fish become something become something and become something again before we got to the point that birds derived themselves from the rest of the dinosaurs.

As for proof of fish ->amphibian we have that. We have transitional states between amphibian -> reptile and we have early archosaurs. And past that we have dinosaur ->bird transitions. We have whatever we need to demonstrate what were historically selected mutations leading to what we now view as distinct 'types of animals' (such a thing isn't really true). You just want some fantasy creature.

>>16156424
>You just want some fantasy creature.
Huh? Not according to evolution theory...
Show me the fossils going the entire evolutionary journey from fish to bird, where every fossil can unarguably said to follow from the previous...

Op, if evolution is so easily disproved please give me some literature refuting the evidence. I’m genuinely curious to see what there is. Since you’re requesting books, I doubt there’s much out there that qualifies. But I’m curious about the resources you’ve compiled so far

>>16156480
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_birds
>But that just connects them to dinosaurs!
Start clicking and don't come back until you read all the way through those links to the origin of dinosaurs, then their amphibious ancestors, then the fish.

>>16146273
It is very simple to discredit the mainstream narrative about evolution with one word, giants

This thread is an excellent demonstration of the law that any sufficiently annoying circle-jerk online will eventually spawn a coubter-jerk that is even more wrong and annoying in exactly the same ways and which will eventually eclipse the original jerk in size.
Christcucks are even more ignorant and overconfident than atheists ever were. No matter how badly they humilate themselves, they remain convinced of their intellectual and moral superiority. Arguments are just an excuse to display their superiority to the plebs; never mind that they don't even understand the issues well enough to even articulate their points of disagreement. This guy probably doesn't think he's ever lost an argument.

christcucks arguing against evolution is a classic category error
they think if they can somehow disprove evolution, it will save their faith in a semite volcano god
in truth, bugs becoming dogs has no bearing on their worship of jews

>>16146519
This. Fuck scientism.