Best Creationist Literature

[Anonymous No.20396811]

I'm a recently converted Catholic and although the Church allows for theistic evolution I feel like the young-earth creationist interpretation of Genesis is more consistent both with the text and the Church Fathers, who were all Young Earth Creationists.
So which are the best books refuting the evolutionary worldview?

[Anonymous No.20396813]

>>20396811
The hated Peter Hitchens

[Anonymous No.20396814]

>>20396811
you'd be wrong both theologically and historically, read the confessions from Augustine

[Anonymous No.20396816]

>>20396811
Yeah

[Anonymous No.20396817]

do you really need theology to refute more theology?

[Anonymous No.20396825]

>>20396814
Augustine was a Young Earth creationist though. He said the Earth was 6,000 years, calculating this from Scripture. Saint Augustine is the only Church Father evolutionists go to, because he supported a somewhat non-literal reading of Genesis, but even he was a Young Earth Creationist. Even Origen, ffs, was a young earth creationist. All the other Fathers too.

[Anonymous No.20396855]

>>20396825
he wasn't. he believed that God created everything in an instant and that He described it for us as being completed in six normal days for the sake of our understanding. How the creation developed inside of time isn't a problem to him since by god's time it was instantaneous.

[Anonymous No.20396865]

>>20396855
No you've read selections of the City of God. In the later books he defends the 6K years and Noahs Ark

[Anonymous No.20396872]

>>20396811
Kent Hovind did nothing wrong. Internet atheists ended up being crazier and stupider than he was.

[Anonymous No.20396877]

>>20396865
no shit he defends Noah's ark, the deluge happened we have indipendent confirmations in other myths.
As far as 6000 years he's simply defending the historicity of the old testament.

[Anonymous No.20396884]

Science can never disprove creationism.

The 3 evidences for evolution they have are:
1) Micro-evolution
2) DNA similarities
3) Fossil record

Micro-evolution proves nothing because it's entirely conceivable that there's a limit to the variance a particular kind of animal can go through. Finches might develop smaller beaks in different environments, but they will never give birth to a non-Finch. Apes might go through various adaptations, but they will never give birth to a human.

DNA similarities prove nothing. Similar coding in different computer programs don't prove evolution from a common ancestor, but rather a common designer, or designers working from common principles.

Fossil record proves nothing. It's a bunch of dead animals. There's no way to prove they had children or that their children were any different from them, or that their ancestors were. It's a bunch of dead animals that they put in some sort of "ascending" order and act like they've proven something.

Their dating methods all rely on the assumption that certain physical laws and characteristics have been constant throughout history, which they cannot prove but simply take as dogma.

[Anonymous No.20396902]

>>20396855
>Unbelievers are also deceived by false documents which ascribe to history many thousand years, although we can calculate from Sacred Scripture that not 6,000 years have passed since the creation of man.
St. Augustine

[Anonymous No.20396912]

>>20396872
>Kent Hovind did nothing wrong
Other than embezzling from his own church of course.

[Anonymous No.20396933]

>>20396811
>So which are the best books refuting the evolutionary worldview?

I don't know, but you might get some book leads from Gideon Lazar's remarks here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VBuMRmWgvG

Also, Stephen C. Meyer, Signature in the Cell, might be of interest; it's not young earth, but focuses rather on refuting non-theistic evolution.

Similarly, Philip E. Johnson, Darwin on Trial, might be of interest. Johnson, a law professor at Berkeley, goes after Darwin's evidence and reasoning.

Lastly, the blog https://uncommondescent.com/ has a lot of interesting material (it goes back a number of years).

[Anonymous No.20396934]

>>20396811
>>20396855
>>20396877
>>20396884
ahhh sweet, a schizo thread

[Anonymous No.20396939]

>>20396872
>Kent Hovind did nothing wrong.
Yeah actually I watched a few of his debates today on 2x speed and thought he won every single one of them. The scientists he was debating simply kept appealing to authority and gaslighting: "We know this now!", "We are the rational ones!", "There are hundreds of thousands of scientists working on this, smart people, who all agree with evolution!", "You're lucky to have that computer, Mr. Hovind; science built that!", etc.
Obviously I disagree with his theology and I think he's kind of goofy but he was just smashing them all in debates.
>>20396912
I thought he was imprisoned for tax avoidance. He's some sort of libertarian type guy who hates paying tax.

[Anonymous No.20396957]

>>20396933
Thanks. Have you read this book by Meyer? Someone told me it's supposed to be a mathematical refutation of evolution but I haven't read it yet. Is Meyer even a creationist?

[Anonymous No.20396967]

>>20396957
>Have you read this book by Meyer?

No, I haven't, but an anti-Darwinist friend of mine thinks highly of it, and all of Meyer's books.

[Anonymous No.20397010]

surely looking exclusively for books refuting evolution will do nothing but lead to major confirmation bias and you'll just become a retarded bubble-worlded faggot and-

Ah fuck why am I even bothering

[Anonymous No.20397022]

>>20396811
>the young-earth creationist interpretation of Genesis is more consistent both with the text and the Church Fathers, who were all Young Earth Creationists.
Augustine and Origen explicitly weren't though, unless you go out of your way to willfully misread them.

[Anonymous No.20397026]

>>20397010
Well everyone knows the arguments for evolution it's been crammed down our throats since we were young children.
Billions of years ago nothing exploded, it became primordial soup, that somehow became life, then after billions of years a single celled organism turned into Plato.
The evidence for this is DNA similarities (doesn't prove it), fossile record (doesn't prove it), micro-evolution (doesn't prove it), and the various assumption-laden dating methods, which we can reject by simply rejecting the several unprovable assumptions.

[Anonymous No.20397033]

>>20397022
This has already been addressed:
>>20396825
>>20396902

[Anonymous No.20397045]

>>20397026

Surely the answer to the perceived "shoving down your throat" of evolution isn't to swing to the opposite extreme and seek out exclusively creationist lit.

I don't give a shit what OP believes. I just think he's a faggot for being close minded and cowardly.

[Anonymous No.20397053]

>>20397045
If you go to the shop to buy milk it doesn't follow that you never eat eggs.

[Anonymous No.20397068]

>>20396902
>>20397033
In the same exact document Augustine says that his understanding is limited and that if someone discovers a better explanation later then it isn't his chief concern.

YEC is a pointless battle and it's more profound to read Genesis as an account of the beginning of human society, which it actually is, rather than the beginning of the material planet.

[Anonymous No.20397074]

>>20396811

> muh Ussher chronology
There is nothing fundamentally biblical about arithmetic. In fact arithmetic is the deadliest enemy of a pure biblical worldview because mathematical platonism suggests that God is not sovereign enough to make 2+2 equal to 5. The unbiblical Euclidean worldview is of this world. The synthetic a priori is a lie straight from the Devil.

[Anonymous No.20397092]

>>20396811
>I feel like the young-earth creationist interpretation of Genesis is more consistent both with the text and the Church Fathers, who were all Young Earth Creationists.
Welcome to the BASED company, intern. Glad to see you in the team.

>So which are the best books refuting the evolutionary worldview?
Scientific papers themselves are good too, but "darwin's black box" is highly recommended
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1674984715000518

[Anonymous No.20397111]

>>20397068
So every Church Father including St. Augustine and Origen was YEC.
But because St. Augustine said it wasn't his chief concern you're now justified to contradict all their interpretations?
>YEC is a pointless battle
Nope. It's theologically necessary. God created the world perfect, with no death or suffering or decay. The Fall brought death into the world. In theistic evolution, God created the world full of death and suffering; death was his main instrument to create humans. It's an evil God.
>>20397074
I'm a Christian Platonist. I believe God is identical to the Good. Classical theism makes much more sense than personalism.

[Anonymous No.20397119]

>>20396811
So you just converted to Catholicism and have decided to ignore church dogma to believe your own thing?

[Anonymous No.20397130]

>>20397111
>I'm a Christian Platonist. I believe God is identical to the Good. Classical theism makes much more sense than personalism.

Platonism is fundamentally incompatible with Christianity. Its mathematical formulation suggests numbers are more eternal than God (Read Berkeley's 'The Analyst'). No, Platonism and all its variants are pure poison.

[Anonymous No.20397132]

>>20397026
So you've applied an impossibly high standard of proof to the physical evidence, while accepting creationism just because some ancient jews wrote it down in a book.

[Anonymous No.20397134]

>>20397119
There is no Church dogma on evolution. Catholics are welcome to believe in creationism or theistic evolution, officially. I don't know how the Popes square that with Genesis but that's what their position has been.

[Anonymous No.20397145]

>>20397130
numbers as in the numerals that represent them and are used as adjectives modifying substantives (5 oranges) or the concept of numbers (which the numerals refer to, like V or 5)?

[Anonymous No.20397152]

>>20397130
No it doesn't lol there's no such thing as being more or less eternal. God is the Good, He is Being, He is Love, He is Beauty, all the Forms have their genesis in him and take their being from him. Everything emanates from Him, including numbers. Many Church Fathers were influenced by Platonism.

[Anonymous No.20397168]

>>20396811
Funny that you think the early church fathers were young earth

[Anonymous No.20397178]

>>20396811
The Bible.

[Anonymous No.20397185]

>>20396811

This big ol' tome is a thorough exposition on the patristic doctrine of Genesis, with some bits and pieces refuting evolutionism.

The patristic witness on this issue is unanimously clear - the bible has the correct timeline of the earth's history, creationism is true, every single Saint believed this.

https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3201.htm <- Read St Basil the Great's hexaemeron too, since it's heavily referenced. This part from the first homily is great, since it BTFO's the continually self-refuting evolutionary theories of his day:

" 'In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. Genesis 1:1' I stop struck with admiration at this thought. What shall I first say? Where shall I begin my story? Shall I show forth the vanity of the Gentiles? Shall I exalt the truth of our faith? The philosophers of Greece have made much ado to explain nature, and not one of their systems has remained firm and unshaken, each being overturned by its successor. It is vain to refute them; they are sufficient in themselves to destroy one another.

The dishonest poster ITT who appeals to St Augustine for belief in evolution not only was refuted by St Augustine's actual belief in a young earth, but is refuted by referring to every other Church Father - since St Augustine does not say "I give what I say up to non-believing Atheists for correction", but "I give what I say up to the Church for correction", and the Church is unanimous on biblical history. Orthodox Christianity isn't an Augustine-Onlyist cult - the consensus of the Fathers is relevant here, and all of them affirm biblical history as factual.

[Anonymous No.20397199]

>>20396811

For a more secular perspective, if you are even slightly scientifically trained, you would see how shaky and flimsy evolutionary theories and timelines are. Dr. Jason Lisle, though a Protestant, has great lecture series on secular science proving the biblical timeline.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0qjrTSra0pQ

[Anonymous No.20397204]

>>20397132
Tell me how:
1) Fossil record
2) DNA similarities
3) Micro-evolution
proves the Darwinian meta-narrative. It doesn't.

Yes, theology and philosophy and mathematics are much more certain and higher than the empirical sciences. The sensory world is mostly illusory.

[Anonymous No.20397210]

>>20396811
>I'm a recently converted Catholic

Anon, with all due respect, I would submit for your consideration that a much better use of your time would be in reading Caussade, Abandonment to Divine Providence

Or: Sr. Faustina, Divine Mercy in My Soul

Or: Therese of Lisieux: The Story of a Soul

Or: The Catholic Catechism

Or: C. Bernard Ruffin, Padre Pio

Blessings.

[Anonymous No.20397234]

>>20397185
These were precisely my thoughts. I wouldn't say every Saint believed in YEC; the more recent ones like Mother Theresa and John Paul II were evolutionists, but every Church Father was. It makes no sense to ignore them on this issue. People say: "Don't look to the Fathers as scientific authorities" but we're not. We're looking to them as theological authorities, and their theology teaches young earth.

[Anonymous No.20397235]

>>20397111
>every Church Father including St. Augustine and Origen was YEC.
most of them didn't even talk about it. Augustine's "allegorical" interpretation stems from the fact that he believed the world and time to have existed at equal origin rather than thinking earth was just some random byproduct of spacetime.

Honestly I haven't full thought the theology of it through, the bigger question with me is the idea of Moses' authorship of the Torah which Augustine believed in.

[Anonymous No.20397252]

>>20397204
No. Read Heraclitus. This is not a discussion on physics, this is a discussion on metaphysics. If you negate the analogy of the river, negate Becoming over Being, no causal discussion of geological nor biological phenomena will get anywhere.

[Anonymous No.20397261]

>>20397234

Well, I'm not Roman Catholic - I'm Orthodox. To my knowledge, none of our canonised Saints after the schism affirmed evolution. Our shared pre-schism Saints were unanimous in YEC, though.

[Anonymous No.20397275]

>>20397252
If you mean to interpret Heraclitus in a nominalist/nihilistic-atomism sense then absolutely I reject that. I'm a Platonist.

[Anonymous No.20397294]

Guys, you don't have to pretend to believe that the earth is 6000 years old any more. Trump lost, Tradlarping is done.

[Anonymous No.20397318]

>>20397294
I'm not a Trad I have many problems with the Traditionalist movement within Catholicism. I'm a Christian Platonist so I believe, like Origen, in universalism and reincarnation. All souls, even the Devil's, will return to God, but for some it will take more lifetimes than for others. This is similar to what Plato taught and I believe it's compatible with Catholicism. If I said that to a Trad he would probably wish I was burned alive for heresy.
The 6000 year old Earth is not inherently Trad. It's based on Scripture and tradition.

[Anonymous No.20397569]

>>20397318
>The 6000 year old Earth is not inherently Trad. It's based on Scripture and tradition.

[Anonymous No.20397578]

Are we really going to have to have another few years of rehashing the old talkorigins etc. debates about evolution because people took the tradlarping thing too seriously after 2016?

[Anonymous No.20397588]

>>20397578
yes and anons will rehash amazing atheists talking points in response. time ended not in 2016 but in 2008.

[Anonymous No.20397628]

>>20397588
You beat back the YECs on one front and then the anti-hereditarian Wokes open up another front while you're occupied. The pro-science struggle never ends.

[Anonymous No.20397667]

>>20396811
Chuck missler is a good choice since you like Kent

[Anonymous No.20397679]

>>20396811
>So which are the best books refuting the evolutionary worldview?
This interview is what convinced me https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-AS6rQtiEh8

[Anonymous No.20397688]

Why not just accept it on faith and pray to God about it?

[Anonymous No.20397693]

>>20397679
The comments lmao

[Anonymous No.20397711]

>>20397588
So we're having another wave of tradlarping at 2024?

[Anonymous No.20397745]

>>20397693

>FrigginNeato
>3 months ago
>Her condescending smile and cadence whenever she believes that she's created an "ah ha" moment is absolutely maddening.
>Richard Dawkins has the patience of, all things, a saint.

I kek'd at the last line of that.

[Anonymous No.20397751]

>>20397711
every election year keyboard warriors will fight the good fight of culture wars - to those about to post we salute you

[Anonymous No.20398859]

>>20397569
Do you understand the difference between Catholic Traditionalism (a movement defined by rejecting the Novus Ordo mass and Vatican II) versus Scripture and tradition?

[Anonymous No.20398878]

>>20397578
>>20397711
Why is it impossible for 4channers to believe that someone may actually hold genuine beliefs instead of just "LARPing"? This postmodern, ironic, "believe nothing, ridicule everything" culture on 4chan is deleterious to the soul. You're teaching yourselves to be afraid of sincerity, which is a dangerous thing.

[Anonymous No.20398896]

We've really come full circle in cringy internet autism, from the fedora atheists of the late 00's to the being-without-pussy tradcath larpers of the early 20's. The complete antithesis in worldview is incidental. The substantial constant lies in the fact that both positions, namely fedora-atheism and being-without-pussy tradcath-larping, both are just arbitrary expressions of profound autism.

[Anonymous No.20398906]

>>20396811
Robert Sungenis is the man you want.

[Anonymous No.20398915]

>>20396811
recently converted catholic here, how can i make some fucking money on all the rarted fundamentalist tradcaths?

[Anonymous No.20398920]

>>20397152
>emanates
You're a Neoplatonist /pantheist. Christianity is ex nihilo

[Anonymous No.20398931]

>>20396884
Is this true? Can any evolutionist refute this? Using logical arguments and evidence not mockery.

[Anonymous No.20398937]

>>20398920
The Trinity solves this. The Father eternally generates the Son and the Holy Ghost and they have fellowship in perfect love for eternity. They don't need to create the world because God's emanative power is fulfilled in the generation of the Son and Spirit. So creation becomes a free choice, ex nihilo.

[Anonymous No.20398946]

>>20397045
You're supposed to engage with both sides. You have no argument, you're just pretending to be intelligent.

[Anonymous No.20398958]

>>20396884
>it's entirely conceivable that there's a limit to the variance a particular kind of animal can go through
Show that there is a limit, there is not one.
>DNA similarities prove nothing
I guess you don't believe in paternity tests?
>>20396884
>Fossil record proves nothing. It's a bunch of dead animals. There's no way to prove they had children
You are absolutely retarded and reading off of a script. It doesn't matter if they had children or not, one fossil means there were more of that species. Animals just dont pop out of thin air and die.

[Anonymous No.20398967]

>>20398931
In general, he is asking for apodictic proof for empirical claims, which is quite simply not possible, then implicitly and fallaciously suggesting that because parts of the wealth and breadth of evidence (none of it conclusive in the apodictic sense, because no empirical evidence is conclusive in the apodictic sense) are potentially false, then it must actually mean that God did it all.

It is not worth engaging with at all. It is predicated on zero understanding of epistemology and profoundly dishonest reasoning. Be compelled by it if you must, I genuinely don't care, it is your choice to be a retard.

[Anonymous No.20398999]

>>20396811
> What are the best books supporting my edgy fringe world-view
Enjoy your Echo Chamber. Also Catholicism doesn't support the young earth bullshit

[Anonymous No.20399015]

>>20398958
> Animals just dont pop out of thin air and die.
PROVE that they don't just dont pop out of thin air and die!

Pro-tip: you can't!

[Anonymous No.20399024]

>>20398931
You can't "refute" any of this. You also can't refute that the world was created last Thursday and all our memories from before last Thursday are synthetic, put there by the creator to make it more "real". Point is, you can easily build irrefutable scenarios, but they tend to be more complex and create more questions than answering. Occam's razor is there for a reason.

[Anonymous No.20399034]

>>20398958
>Show that there is a limit, there is not one.
1) I don't need to show that there is one. The evolutionists make the claim that there isn't, which is contrary to all observed experience. Dogs only give birth to dogs, humans only to humans, birds only to birds. Never has one kind of animal given birth to a different kind, in all observed history.
2) I'm not interested in developing a creationist scientific theory. I don't like empirical science. Geometry, algebra, calculus, philosophy, theology, logic -- these are the disciplines we can be certain of (physics is OK as well because it's more of an a-priori discipline). All I'm interested in is refuting the evolutionist arguments and providing an epistemic warrant for believing that which I already know by theology.

>I guess you don't believe in paternity tests?
That's not a good argument. Just because DNA tests work to determine paternity in certain cases doesn't mean that genetic similarity proves common ancestry in all cases. I do not believe that I have a common ancestor with a banana and a rose. I believe the same designer designed us, so we have similar coding.

>one fossil means there were more of that species.
Yes, and what does that prove? An animal may have existed in the past which doesn't exist anymore? Some animals went extinct? So what? You cannot prove that that animal gave birth to any children which were different from itself. You can arbitrarily arrange the fossils so that they APPEAR "transitional", but it proves nothing.

[Anonymous No.20399042]

>>20398967
>he is asking for apodictic proof
I mean the evidence is just not compelling, I don't think he asked for apodictic proof. He's right that those 3 strands of evidence do not i any way prove evolution. It seems you're easily compelled by very poor evidence desu. What I expect though is that he misrepresented the proof so there's some more evidence. But your answer is very bad, it just says that's all the evidence there is and he's the unreasonable one. He really isn't. You cannot show how that evidence proves evolution rationally.

[Anonymous No.20399053]

>>20399024
>. Point is, you can easily build irrefutable scenarios, but they tend to be more complex and create more questions than answering. Occam's razor is there for a reason.
Materialism doesn't even have an answer to the first cause argument or the mind-body problem, it's not a more plausible scenario than Christianity in any way. Again, is there any evidence for evolutionary theory? I don't see how fossil records prove it either.

[Anonymous No.20399150]

>>20399053
>Ontotheology
>Answer

[Anonymous No.20399158]

>>20399053
1) It shows you the world is older than 4000 years, unless you construct hilarious scenarios like "it was put there 4000y ago to fuck with us"
2) Fossils more primitive as you go further back
3) Common ancestry can be found for whole trees
4) Selection process on genes has been observed many times

[Anonymous No.20399174]

>>20399158
1) Doesn't. The dating methods rely on various unprovable assumptions. This is why a-priori disciplines are superior to empirical science.
2) No. Neanderthals have larger skull sizes than modern humans. How are they more "primitive"? Natural selection doesn't care about "primitivity" or "advancement" anyway. All it cares about is survival. A worm is primitive, but it's evolutionarily fit because it can reproduce and survive. This shows you don't even understand your own belief system.
3) So? The common ancestor was a tree, not a rabbit or a rose.
4) Yes, micro-evolution has been observed, but macro-evolution has never been observed.

[Anonymous No.20399190]

>>20399158
>1) It shows you the world is older than 4000 years, unless you construct hilarious scenarios like "it was put there 4000y ago to fuck with us"
You don't need evolution for this though, so it doesnn't seem to be an argument for evolution but rather a prerequisite for it
>2) Fossils more primitive as you go further back
That's still not evidence that one evolved from the other. Like that anon said, computer programs are more advaced but does it mean they evolved from each other?
>3) Common ancestry can be found for whole trees
What do you mean? How do you find common ancestry for tree species differently than for animal species?
>4) Selection process on genes has been observed many times
He already mentioned micro-evolution, but how does it prove macro evolution?

[Anonymous No.20399191]

>>20399158
Literally is no point in discussing anything such as physics, chemistry, biology or under unless they're changed their metaphysics. The metaphysics that has to be comprehended Heraclitus' river. Just as it is impossible to step into the same river twice, it is impossible to be born into the same "Platonically real" species twice. Modern biology is nominalism.

[Anonymous No.20399209]

29+ Evidences for Macroevolution
The Scientific Case for Common Descent

https://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

[Anonymous No.20399210]

>>20399174
1) Can't be changed it's Emprical. It's not mathematics, proving stuff is a messy process and the proof is never 100%.
2) Bigger skull size doesn't mean anything, but yes, locally it may not be obvious and there are fluctuations. It does no always increase complexity either, sometimes being more primitive has advantages. Not talking about 10m years though, you go back 500m years and then we talk about skull size, more like absence of skulls.
3) That common ancestor was single celled and lived 4Bn years ago, not 4000, is my point. I mean "tree" in the sense of evolutionary hierarchy tree.
4) Has been observed at point 2, unless you're closing your eyes.

[Anonymous No.20399218]

>>20399191
You just effectively ended all possible discussion. This is a mind-closing comment.

[Anonymous No.20399220]

>>20399210
>Bigger skull size doesn't mean anything,
NTA, but how can it possibly not mean anything? Do you argue it's pure coincidence that homininis had increasingly larger skulls?

[Anonymous No.20399226]

>is there any evidence for evolutionary theory? I don't see how fossil records prove it either.

[Anonymous No.20399228]

>>20399210

>3) That common ancestor was single celled and lived 4Bn years ago, not 4000, is my point. I mean "tree" in the sense of evolutionary hierarchy tree.

If you're trying to give scientific evidence, don't start appealing to mythology.

[Anonymous No.20399237]

>>20399042
>But your answer is very bad, it just says that's all the evidence there is and he's the unreasonable one
I wrote parts of the wealth and breadth of evidence. I don't really care if you're illiterate or dishonest, either case means a waste of time.

[Anonymous No.20399239]

>>20399226
>when you have no arguments left
Embarrassing

[Anonymous No.20399240]

>>20399210
1) Exactly. It's not 100% and it's not even 50%. You simply can't prove the various assumptions involved in dating the Earth with all the various methods they use. Creationists have come up with alternative explanations for each of these. For example they say the geologic column is a hoax and the layers were actually formed by the Flood. They also say that there could have been less carbon in the atmosphere pre-Flood so Carbon dating doesnt work because it relies on the assumption that carbon levels were always the same. Etc.
2) Ok, there are creatures right now without skulls. Worms for example. This doesn't prove that those creatures have a common ancestor.
3) Yeah I understand that's the origin myth you believe in but it's not science.
>>20399209
I'll have a read of this, thanks anon, but from the table of contents it looks like they're rehashing the same old stuff they taught in school which didn't convince me.

[Anonymous No.20399243]

>>20399237
>I wrote parts of the wealth and breadth of evidence.
What evidence?

[Anonymous No.20399248]

>>20399240
Let us know if you find anything, I'm not convinced by the evidence either. It may very well be true, but it's just a faith-based argument from the evidence I know.

[Anonymous No.20399252]

>>20399218
Is it really mind-closing to note that Platonism is impracticable at the levels of science at physics or lower or that induction is the great scandal of philosophy? If strict deduction was necessary for the common law, it wouldn't even be possible.

[Anonymous No.20399256]

All the evidence for macro evolution is indirect evidence and extrapolations from observed evidence of micro evolution.

The evidence of macro evolution is based on indirect evidence such as the interpretation of the fossil record, homology of similar structures, embryology , vestigial organs, DNA similarities, and observed changes or adaptations of existing organisms.

There is not direct or empirical evidence of changes in organisms that have resulted from descent with modification or random mutations creating new and improved information.

Fossils show evidence that life forms found in the lower layers of the rock layers are generally simpler than fossils found in higher levels providing indirect evidence of macro evolution. Fossils provide perhaps the best evidence of macro evolution. However there are far too many incidences where the complex fossils are found underneath fossils that are are suppose to be much older.

Homology shows that vertebrates have similar bone structures that are used for different purposes. This is indirect evidence of common descent, as it show similar design.

Embryology was once believed to show indirect evidence for descent with modification however studies in 1995 by Richardson in England using actual photographs of embryos proved that the Embryos do not support macro evolution. The drawings by Haeckel were frauds.

Vestigial organs were once thought to provide evidence for evolution in the creation of new organs and uses for old organs. Present evidence indicates that while organs may lose there function it is due to a lose of information, This does not support macro evolution that requires a gain of information. ( See the blind fish of Death Valley, and studies of the appendix. )

Many species show changes ( or micro evolution) such as the peppered moths of industrial England, or the Darwin Finches of the Galapogos Islands. This studies show that species can change and adapt to new environments but the changes are natural variations that previously existed within the population and are completely reversible. Descent with modification requires an improvement that is not reversible.

There are sufficient indirect evidences to support the theory of macro evolution there is no direct evidence and many of the indirect evidences are suspect.

[Anonymous No.20399257]

>>20399252

>ethics all the way at the bottom

>when the ethical injunction to have valid logical sequences over invalid logical sequences is presupposed for the very top

The One is the Good for a reason, Anon.

[Anonymous No.20399260]

>>20399191
Nominalism is utterly retarded. Please read Plato and get baptised.

[Anonymous No.20399266]

>>20399228
Chemical traces are fossils too, certain chemicals appear in unusual concentrations in certain rocks, and there's no natural process except life creating these.

[Anonymous No.20399267]

>>20399252
>posting the fake one

[Anonymous No.20399269]

>>2039926
>get baptised
Bishop Berkeley was a nominalist and he's unrefuted

[Anonymous No.20399272]

>>20397318
>I'm a Christian Platonist so I believe, like Origen, in universalism and reincarnation. All souls, even the Devil's, will return to God, but for some it will take more lifetimes than for others.
That is way outside of fold of orthodoxy and dogma. Universalism? Maybe there could be just the slightest chance for some sort of case for that (althought Origen's speculations about the fate of the devil are extreme), but reincarnation? That goes against the very foundation of the teachings of Christ. Origen did not even believe it. He proposed a pre-existance of souls, but where are you getting this idea that he held reincarnation? My friend, nothing of this is necessary for Christian Platonism, and these ideas are not only incompatible with Catholicism but with all forms of Christianity. How do you square these things?

[Anonymous No.20399275]

>>20399256
Good, seemingly ubiased post anon. I would just take issue with the view that homology proves macro evolution. The skateboard and the car both have 4 wheels. This isn't because they have a common ancestor, but rather because it's a good design. If God created vertebrates with similar bone structures, it could just as easily be counted as evidence for intelligent design. These bone structures are simply a good design, that's all. It doesn't actually point to macro evolution.

[Anonymous No.20399290]

>>20399272
It makes sense to me and solves a lot of issues such as the fate of unbaptised babies and animals and the seeming cruelty of a God who would create souls to be damned. If souls are reincarnated over and over until they reach enlightenment and are able to attain the beatific vision, then these issues go away for me.
I'm happy to be corrected though. A new convert shouldn't be overly sure of his theology.

[Anonymous No.20399304]

>>20399269
Please read Plato. Start with the Meno. Don't do the dumb "Last Days of Socrates" reading order first. That's not how the ancient Platonists taught their students to read him. The Meno opened my eyes so much when I read it.

[Anonymous No.20399320]

>>20399290
I don't see where the need for reincarnation comes in if you already have universal reconciliation. People are born, having never existed before, then they die, and do not return of Earth but, if they have done evil in life, they will face the flames of Tartarus. In time, they are purified of their sin and eventually return to God. Why rebirth?

[Anonymous No.20399321]

Are birds dinosaurs (cladistics) OR is there is a kind-essence (baraminology) that fundamentally distinguishes them? If so, where is this property located?

[Anonymous No.20399329]

>>20399320
Because I don't believe that child molesters and rapists are worthy of the beatific vision, nor do I believe that punishment cleanses sin by itself. I think the person has to attain enlightenment and truly seek after the Good.

[Anonymous No.20399358]

>>20399304
Some of us had already read Plato years ago newfag

[Anonymous No.20399364]

>>20399266

That's a complete non-sequitur.

Do you not actually understand how what you said is completely irrelevant to what I said?

[Anonymous No.20399373]

>>20399290

Here's one thing about universalism: If universalism is true, then there is no requirement at all to be virtuous, including to pray for the souls of the dead. It's the same problem of "Once saved, always saved", but completely unconditional.

If asceticism means anything, if fasting means anything, if prayer means anything, then all of that meaning is completely undone if everyone is saved no matter what their efforts in this life are. There's no reason to actually get closer to God, and to learn the truth, or to be open to getting deeper into the truth, because universalism by logical necessity gives you the false comfort that learning the truth, and acting according to it doesn't and can't matter.

[Anonymous No.20399377]

>>20399358
Well I don't understand why you think he's wrong. For example when you see two objects of the same colour, the only way you can associate the two is if you have knowledge of Similarity itself. If you had no such knowledge, you would see one blue surface and another blue surface, and your mind would never associate the two.
Of course as a nominalist you don't even believe there is such a thing as blue lol. You just have particular blue things. But then you don't even believe in "particular", "blue", or "things". So I don't even understand how your worldview is supposed to function.

[Anonymous No.20399378]

>>20399329
Yet you think the devil, who is one millionthfold worse than any man ever born of a woman has ever been capable of, will be saved? Also, you said universalism, which refers to universal reconciliation, so you'll have to pardon that I assumed you held to that idea.
I am sympathetic to your feelings. I myself think that there is, or at least it seems to me to be, an injustice in salvation being restricted only to the living. Yet with universal reconciliation, there is no active choice involved to turn to Christ, which is an essential component of the religion (and, as you say, would also grant salvation to the most evil men). What would resolve this would be something like a continous harrowing of Hell, but this notion isn't present in any of the Church Fathers.
A question, do you not accept the last day? This reincarnationism would only work if the current state of creation continues eternally.

[Anonymous No.20399385]

>>20398967
>>20399237
>>20399024
This is cope. There's direct evidence for microevolution. There's no direct evidence for macroevolution. All anon asked for is direct evidence, not an unreasonable standard.

Evolutionary theory is called theory because it's just a theory that can fit the evidence. It's unproven. No one asked for anything unreasonanble, this is dogmatic cope when you want to really believe in your ideology.

[Anonymous No.20399386]

>>20399373
I don't think that's true. My universalism at least involves punishment and reincarnation. Souls are reincarnated until they become virtuous and seek after God. Hell is simply the absence of God, it's a state in their souls rather than a spatio-temporal place where they go to get burned. The reason to be good and pray and get closer to God is because these things are Good and the enlightened man will seek after them. We don't do it merely as a matter of prudence, so we don't go to hell, but for its own sake. Or am I wrong?

[Anonymous No.20399389]

The sheer fact that Thomism depends on Aristotelianism, which says man is rational animal, means that from the get-go Catholicism does not make the same clean distinction between man and animals as AIG and mainstream creationism does. At some point, Jerusalem and Athens has to part. They should never have met to begin with.

[Anonymous No.20399402]

>>20399290
But do you believe Christ is the son of God and he resurrected?

[Anonymous No.20399407]

>>20399378
I think you misunderstood me a little bit. Yes, I believe all souls will eventually turn to God. It's just that some are not yet worthy. They become worthy only when they attain enlightenment. For some it might take 100 lifetimes, for others only a few.
>there is no active choice involved to turn to Christ
There is that's the whole point. I think it's only when you make that active choice to turn to Christ that you cease being reincarnated and enter into the beatific vision. Hell, in my understanding, is absence of God: a state in one's soul rather than a spatio-temporal place people go to get burned for sins.
>A question, do you not accept the last day?
Yes, when every last soul has attained enlightenment we will have the New Jerusalem. Or maybe the New Jerusalem is already there and some of us are just stragglers waiting to attain enlightenment and get in.
Anyway this is all just my personal opinion and speculation I realise it has very little historical support. The main motivation is to reconcile my Platonism with my Catholicism.

[Anonymous No.20399421]

>>20399389
Christianity has been platonic since the very beginning. There's never been a departure between Athens and Jerusalem, it's just that some Christian theologians are Platonists and some are Aristotelian, and to different degrees. You won't get a clean break for many reasons. Anthropologically we're the same culture, metaphysically it's one truth, theologically rationality was given by God to lead us to Him, etc. The only breaks from it are paganism, Eastern infused philosophies, gnosticism, pessimism, nihilism, postmodernism, etc. These are all inferior and reject reason.