I'll start

Dipshit

>>24526691 (OP)
Abrahamshits are such mentally ill freaks.

>>24526742
>>24526747
>m-muh echo chamber safe space!!

>>24526691 (OP)
Aristotle: Physics, Parts of Animals

>>24526742
>>24526747
>Most of the creationist literature consists of retreaded arguments that have long since ceased to be taken seriously. The arguments from minimum complexity or variations on the blind watchmaker argument have been around for 150 years. These arguments pose a minimum level problem for biologists and are no argument in favor of anything, let alone the Judeo-Christian God of Genesis. Dembski and his fellow advocates of intelligent design have at least come up with a new theory and Dembski is at his best when he discusses information theory as it relates to intelligent design of the universe. Briefly stated, Dembski's theory is that a purely naturalistic system, such as evolution cannot create information, therefore the existence of information in DNA and throughout the living world implies an intelligent creator who imparted that information. Demski actually does a great job of making this sound compelling.

>>24526691 (OP)
I am curious, what are the general points the book tries to make?

That said, if you want to ague against evolution, I feel like the funnest bit of sophistry would be to point out that we as a society (religious or atheist) already don't believe in evolution (in practice). I cant think of a single law, policy, or social norm that is derived off the theory of evolution. At most incest being illegal, but that was already taboo long before we could give a proper scientific explanation of why, plus that is from an understanding of genetics not of evolution. The theory of evolution informs us about about nothing, at most it is used between atheist and christian to slap fight each other, but plenty of christians believe in evolution and claim its guided by god, while an atheist without evolution could still simply state he doesnt know how life came into existence, but point out that automatically assume its god would be a "god of the gaps" fallacy.
Therefore I assert that the theory of evolution itself does not actually exist.

>>24526767
My view is that rejecting common ancestry (CA) is a far bigger deal than the Modern Synthesis’s premise that mutations are blind to organismal need. Creationists reject both, but most ID and Third-Way Evolution (TWE) proponents accept CA while arguing for some degree of telos in mutations.

I lean toward the Extended Evolutionary Synthesis (EES), an expansion of MS, as mutational biases appear more pervasive, yet I see no evidence of any telos driving mutations. Still, some TWE and ID proponents surface compelling insights.

>>24526767
My view is that rejecting common ancestry (CA) is a far bigger deal than the Modern Synthesis’s (MS) premise that mutations are blind to organismal need. Creationists reject both, but most ID and Third-Way Evolution (TWE) proponents accept CA while positing some telos in mutations.

I lean toward the Extended Evolutionary Synthesis (EES), an expansion of MS, as mutational biases appear more pervasive, especially during niche construction, yet I see no evidence of any telos driving mutations. However, some TWE and ID advocates surface compelling insights. Ultimately, creationism is untenable; it rejects CA, despite abundant and indisputable evidence supporting it.

So since creationists don't believe in evolution or deep time how do they explain away fossils?

>>24526856
they believe in dinos and have museums where they present their own narrative, quite funny actually

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/feb/28/creation-museum-kentucky-noahs-ark-museum-ken-ham

>>24526691 (OP)
darwin retried. more a refutation of darwinism himself than evolution altogether (although it doesn't exactly endorse evolution, just points out how tenuous the whole theory is)

>Midwit thread on the literature board
Checks out.

I’ve heard good things about The Transformist Illusion by Douglas Dewar. I haven’t read it myself because it’s very expensive and hard to find. It’s also probably outdated now.

>>24526691 (OP)
>refuting without proposing an alternative scientific hypothesis
Into the dumpster it goes

The theory of evolution is basically just the idea of the capitalist self regulating market transposed to the domain of biology. Just as the market supposedly regulates itself by ensuring a balance of opposing forces in the arena of entrepreneurual competition whereby those firms that make bad decisions are punished with bankruptcy and those that make good decisions are rewarded with profit and get to continue existing, so also does natural selection regulate the animal kingdom and produce efficient organisms adapted to their environment without the need for any intentional regulating force. "Natural selection" is nothing more than the "invisible hand" of Adam Smith. It's not a coincidence that these ideas came about in tandem in Britain when that country was undergoing the industrial revolution. As the rise of capitalism began in earnest the idea of nature as governed by God and society reflecting that natural hierarchy was replaced by the idea of entrepreneurs "experimenting" in the market and a godless biological realm governed by natural selection and mutation (mutation is the biological equivalent of invention/venture in capitalism). All we did was create a new mythology to reflect and justify our social conditions just like humans have been doing from the beginning, and obviously our complex way of "evidencing" this mythology is just reflective of the advanced intellectual state of our culture, but it's no different than the medieval theologians' justification for their worldciew.

Religion is a human creation and then they go demanding that study of the natural world must conform to their fiction.

>>24526747
being anti-evolution has nothing to do with that whatsoever. theorists like Lamarck and Cuvier had alternative theories of human origins and both existed either during or after the Enlightenment.

>>24527111
>Religion is a human creation
Marxist revisionist drivel. its more complicated than that and has more to do with linguistics than anthropology.

Sorry, Republicans tend to be averse to reading books.

>>24527512
Check here for more thoroughness: >>24526853

>>24527516
>Republicans
Cicero and Machiavelli actually wrote them, correct

>>24526691 (OP)
>Stephen C Meyer
Didn't he write those Twilight books?

>>24526691 (OP)
Genesis chapter one

https://tasc-creationscience.org/other/plaisted/www.cs.unc.edu/_plaisted/ce/humanity.html

>>24526691 (OP)
>Stephen C. Meyer
There are good works against Scientism but none of them come from christcuck apologists. Even if these critics are christcucks they're mostly culturally such, since they're often Perennialists.

>>24526758
kek

I hate scientism but I hate Young Earth Creationists even more.
Evangelical nonsense that not only works backwards from conclusions but founds those conclusions on literalism based on oral tradition that's been retold in a dozen languages before it gets to their own. Such inexcusable retardation that it literally tarnishes the very idea of religiosity itself - the plague of 21st century atheism wouldn't be nearly as pervasive if Baptist faggots weren't the loudest lunatics on the planet making serious learned people look dumber by association.
There is no way to take even the most cursory glance at genetics, think through macro-level population dynamics for ten seconds, and not immediately realize evolution is inevitable.

>refutation of evolution
>it's actually a evangelical commentary on Darwin's origin of species
Up their with those Hindu retards that claim everything came from India.

>>24529328
>Those who do not admit the common meaning of the Scriptures say that water is not water, but some other nature, and they explain a plant and a fish according to their opinion. They describe also the production of reptiles and wild animals, changing it according to their own notions, just like the dream interpreters, who interpret for their own ends the appearances seen in their dreams. When I hear ‘grass,’ I think of grass, and in the same manner I understand everything as it is said, a plant, a fish, a wild animal, and an ox. “Indeed, ‘I am not ashamed of the Gospel’... Since Moses left unsaid, ‘ as useless for us, things in no way pertaining to us, shall we for this reason believe that the words of the Spirit are of less value than the foolish wisdom (of those who have written about the world)? Or shall I rather give glory to Him Who has not kept our mind occupied with vanities but has ordained that all things be written for the edification and guidance of our souls? This is a thing of which they seem to me to have been unaware, who have attempted by false arguments and allegorical interpretations to bestow on the Scripture a dignity of their own imagining. But theirs is the attitude of one who considers himself wiser than the revelations of the Spirit and introduces his own ideas in pretense of an explanation. Therefore, let it be understood as it has been written.

St. Basil the Great, Hexaemeron

>>24529370
You could just as easily pull quotes from Augustine, Origen, or Thomas Aquinas saying the opposite but it only matters if you hollow out your fucking mind and build your worldviews from obscure quotes. Don't do that.
This seems like an especially retarded mindset to box yourself into when you consider that pretty much every word from Christ's mouth was a parable or metaphor and half of the Old Testament is only relevant as a series of types and prophecies of His coming.

>>24529395
Send quote from St. Augustine or even Aquinas. The first literally only says that the days of creation could have been longer but from when the world was already created he follows the exact timeline

>>24529292
Do these people just live rent free in your head unabated?

>>24527515
The cope is hilarious as always kek

The next time a fedora spergs about falsifiability and/or evolution point out that aspects of evolution are unfalsifiable and watch their retard brains try to link their baby's first biology to their baby's first philosophy of science. Shit's hilarious.