What are some good Veeky Forums approved Creationist books for me to educate my kids/future generations on?

>ATHEISTS/EVOLUTIONISTS/SCIENTISTS ABSOLUTELY AND UTTERLY BLOWN THE FUCK OUT

Will they EVER recover?

>Science is for heathens
Yeah who cares about modern medicine and shit. I mean who needs the stuff amiright my fellow Evangelical Protestants?

>Creationist
You literally cannot get any dumber than this.

W E W

This has to beg the question, why do so many scientists believe in evolution? Even though many scientists do NOT believe in it, there is still a significant percent that does. If you think about it, the darwinists have the same evidence as us, but we can come to different conclusions because we don't have the bias of darwinism. Darwinism is the biased assumption that Richard Darwin had all the correct ideas about life science, based on the fact that he was a leading scientist of the time (the 19th century). Actually, Darwin wasn't even a real scientist, he just drew pictures and made stuff up on a boat, but the darwinists don't want to hear that. The bias of darwinism makes many people deluded into thinking that the evidence always points in favor of THEIR view, even though to an unbiased person that would not be the case. But the delusional/biased people aren't the only ones that make up believers in evolution. Since evolutionists have a monopoly on the media and on education, they are able to brainwash (for lack of a better word) aspiring students. That is how some people can continue to be deluded. However, science teachers also dismiss any evidence against evolution a priori, and even refuse to discuss it at all. Many students end up thinking that the only evidence out there is evidence IN FAVOR of evolution, and they're just ignorant of the facts that go against the mainstream theory.

>Since evolutionists have a monopoly on the media and on education, they are able to brainwash (for lack of a better word) aspiring students

Absolutely this.

It's the work of the cultural marxist globalists who are making degeneracy a necessary condition of existence in order to breed out whiteness.

Veeky Forums will never understand this, they're all marxists

Thankfully I'm starting to see a lot of 'deus vult' comments on the more redpilled boards.

>mfw reading every word of this post

You are the fedora, christcuck.

yeah, exactly! they're the ones iwht control over all the knowledge in the system, so they can control what people see as fact. it lets them cover up the holes in the theory. for instance, evolution predicts that humans and spiders can have a common ancestor that shares both the features of a spider and a human. However, that common acnestor would also have to have the features of all the other mammals, because the spider-human ancestor would also be the acnestor of all mammals. That gets to be pretty complex.

Stop the memes. Evolution theory and Big Bang theory aren't anti-Christian, in fact they were both theories by Christians. Darwin believed in God when he wrote On the Origin of Species. He wrote about his belief in "God as first cause." Also, On the Origin of Species was praised by Christians at that time, and some warned of future Christian fundamentalists that they would take the Bible literally and it will just be bad, which is happening. Big Bang theory and the expansion of the universe theory was by a Catholic priest.

"Now Veeky Forums am become Poe's Law, the destroyer of certainty."
-Robert Memenheimer

This post reeks of reddit so hard I can almost see the upvote arrow

if you think about it, the common ancestor between humans and spiders actually isn't physically possible. Just think about the number of legs it would have had. Spiders have eight legs, humans have two, so you might think the common ancestor should have had 5 legs. However, the human-spider ancestor would have t o have had the features of the common ancestor of MAMMALs, not just humans. Since humans have 2, and other mammals have 4, then the number for the mammal ancestor would be 3. The spider-human ancestor would be (8+3)/2, which is 5.5. The human-spider ancestor would have to have had 5.5 legs, which is not a possible number of legs. If you have half a leg, it's not really a leg. You can have 5 legs, you can have 6 legs, but you can't have 5.5 legs. I think this means humans and spider would not have had a common ancestor, so they are from separate lineages in a family tree. Spiders might be the brother-in-law, and humans would be the brothers

does that help?

...

If rocks were created at the same time as Earth 4.5 billion years ago, and evolution is real, then the all rocks should have evolved into animals and there should be no rocks left. There are still rocks left because they were created 5 thousand years ago when God created Earth and that isn't enough time for evolution to occur.

what I want to know is why is mainstream science so opposed to questioning perspectives like this? There are a lot of people who are questioning the evidence in favor of common descent with modification, but we all know that teachers and scientists aren't interested in discussing the facts, they're interested in advancing their own agenda. The problem is, many students aren't satisfied with just being told "this is correct, you just have to accept it and ignore the holes in it." I don't want a theory full of "holes," I want one full of "wholes." If evolution can't explain why chimpanzees and humans can be extant together, even when they're supposed to be genetically related by a common ancestor, and that's the cornerstone of the theory, then why should we be expected to believe it? It's a sad symptom of the state of science when there are tens of thousands of "darwinism apologists" in our classrooms, and there are only a handful of dissenters (some of whom get blacklisted or imprisoned for questioning the consensus).

>I don't want a theory full of "holes," I want one full of "wholes."

Holy fucking shit, you're not just stupid, you're stupid and dangerous.

>If rocks were created at the same time as Earth 4.5 billion years ago
That's another thing - what the hell is .5 of a billion? Doesn't exist!

Stupid fedoras think they can dazzle us with fancy numbers, but I'm too smart for that.

WHAT

Reformed Dogmatics

funnily enough there's a spelling error on the 4th page, so I'm pretty sure no one has read this, not even the editor.

You might think "well, just because chimpanzees and humans had to have had a common ancestor that shared features of both humans and chimpanzees, that doesn't mean that its descendants would have to have those shared features," but that really doesn't make any sense. If I said, the ancestor had feature A, then both chimpanzees and humans would have to have feature A, because otherwise it wouldn't be a "shared feature." So say you had a common ancestor with features A, B, C, and D. If the chimp has A, B, C', and D', but the human has A', B', C, and D, then none of those features are "shared." Therefore, there's no evidence that the supposed common ancestor is related to either humons or chimps. If you wanted to demonstrate shared common descent, you would have to have something like birds, which all have wings (W), all have beaks (B), and who all have feathers (F). Dinosaurs had no wings (W'), teeth (B'), and some of them had feathers (F). Therefore, when you compare birds and dinosaurs, you can see that dinosaurs' features were MODIFIED, because all birds share certain features. If they didn't share certain features, like humans and chimps don't, then you would't have any reason to say birds and dinosaurs are related.

try this one

You have no idea how the theory of evolution works

>but that really doesn't make any sense

Why not? The only problem I can see here are your ordinary presuppositions.

You fell for the bait newfriend

nice b8

I admire the optimism in people who think that people such as that shitposter are too stupid to actually exist.

>le science
Empiricism is inherently anti-Christian.
>theory
>works
You have no idea how your own ideology works

On the other hand, spiders have eight eyes. Humans have 2 eyes, and so do mammals. That means the spider-human acnestor will have had 5 eyes, just like you would expect. If spiders had 7 eyes, it would not work. However, this seems to actually be evidence in FAVOR of a common acnestor between spiders and humans/all mamals. There is another test for common ancestry, which is to look at the dna. If two species are descended from a common ancestor, then you would expect to see the same sequences of dna in both species. However, the spider genome has not been found to be identical to human dna in that respect, which is a result AGAINST relationship. The same is true for chimpanzees. If you look at chimpanzee dna, it may be similar in some places, but that's because it needs to do similar things (regulate bloodflow, make white blood cells, etc). In fact, humans have not been found, contrary to evolutionary prediciton, to have the same dna as ANY species whose dna has been thoroughly investigated.

And people say Veeky Forums is the smartest board, yet this is one of the most retarded conversations i've ever seen in my entire life.

All I'm saying is if you identify common ancestors based on shared features, whether that's DNA matching or morphological traits, then you can't account for spiders and human relationship. Maybe you want to make the claim that shrimp are the common ancestor of humans and spiders. Ok, so 300 million years ago, some shrimp got isolated and underwent speciation. Then later maybe another group of shrimp branched off. The original shrimp population remained unchanged. Ok, as unlikely as that is, even if it were the case, it still doesn't explain how spiders have 8 legs and humans have 2 legs. The common ancestor of humans are mammals, which have 4 legs, so if you compare humans and mammals, their common ancestor had to have had 3 legs in order to be the simplest amount of change between each species. However, if you apply the same comparative method to spiders and mammals, you see that it's impossible to have a common ancestor with that number of legs. Adding shrimp in there just makes things even more difficult, because the common ancestor of humans and spiders now also has to have a common ancestor with a shrimp, which has I don't know how many legs, so you'll get an even more bizarre fraction number of legs.

Fuck off, STEMfag.

Actually, it's generally difficult for evolution to predict the correct number of appendages, specifically legs, present in ancestral forms of certain species. First, consider an example in which "evoltion" is capable of the predictsion of one correct estimation of leg count. For example, pigs and humans common ancestors. The evaluation criterion for whether the predictsion of the estimation is viable has to be within the definition of the leg domain. This is possible because a leg is defined as a discrete unit; you can't have half a leg and still be a leg. Therefore, if the number of legs predicted does not represent a discrete number of legs, then the prediction is invalid. Therefore, because frogs have 4 legs and humans have 2 legs, the nubmer of legs predicted is valid. (4+2)/2=3. However, what about humans and tripod fish? This ancestor would have had to have had 2.5 legs, which is invalid. This does not even bring up the issue of extrapolation to common ancestors of common ancestors (what about the common ancestor of humans/mammals and insects?), or the issue of ill-defined leg sets, like those of the "vestigial pelvic" bones of whales, and purpotedly also in serpentine creatures.

>All this American Protestants pigs
The Vatican has approved the theory of evolution since quite a while. The scientific method is also respected by it, and there have been a lot of priest that dwell into science, including the father of genetics.

it's an interesting possibility that the common ancestor might have actually had 0 legs, with leg development being a subsequent event. for example, worms are supposedly very ancient, potentially predating legs completely. but note that one ancient species with 0 legs does not imply that the ultimate common ancestor has 0 legs. with these kinds of things, there's no way of knowing whether the old species is actually the exact species that gave descent to all its purported descendants. for example, if there was a 0-legged ancient species, it is more likely that this species is only peripherally related to humans and spiders, and was rather related to the common ancestor of humans and spiders instead of being THE exact common ancestor. for this reason, such a discoverey introduces the new issue of a 0-legged ancestor into the average. first we can find the # of legs for the human-speider ancestor (assuming binary branching evolutioniary history), and then add that in with the 0-legged ancestor. this gives us 5 legs for the human-spider ancestor, and then 2.5 legs for the human-spider-worm common ancestor, which is not a valid leg number, unless you consider fractional legs to indicate some kind of vestigial developmentations.

this raises an interesting point, one about which i never thought about beofre. Assume the truth of the whale-pelvic-bone hypothesis, and then consider the consequences "evolutionarily."
it seems reasonable that the center of gravity of the whale would certainly lower it to the ground during its expansion over many generations, therefore it is likely that to compensate for its enormous girth it would take to the water as the result of Adaptation/adaptions. However, interestingly, this creates one small problem for the calculations of the truth values of the number of legs for the mammal family. If whales do actually belong to said family according to the lineage described, then what is the number of legs that they do have? Is it zero or is it 1? Whales obviously do not have legs in the traditional sense of the word, but in this case a radical reanaliysis of the facts seems to warrant an altered understanding of the notion "leg." therefore, wouldn't it be logical to propose a leg ennumeration system in which flippers and hip bones together constitute one single leg? In this case, the correct predicted number of legs for the mammal ancestor should be 1+2+4/3, which is 3.5. Unfortunately, If I'm interpreting the data correctly, this result does not bode well for the inclusion of whales into the mammal family.

Christianity is anti-empiricism, user.

There is no arguing this.

No, it's anti-scientism. Learn the difference.

No, it's anti-empiricism because empiricism is an ideology that clashes with it.

quite the contrary my good lad, what a fine day to be dissertating at such a pleasantry of a question. this discernment is quiet unfortunately inccorrect as ever before has anyone seen, for it is quiet unlikely that such a question be ramificationable in the not-so-distant forthcomings; As you are undoubtedly salient, evolution has never been ascendantly validated, and therefore is not such as would most likely be considered in the upper eschelon of scientific inquirey as "true science." Though it may be the case that in such a day and age such as this, many do accept it as thus; lamentaciously; the various evidentialities of evolutionary "science" (requiring that it be called such is a misnomer; unfortunately) are the result of might we call a CONSPIRATION of the upper classes of under-educated scientists [of the 19th centuries]. Keep in mind that an animal such as an aardvark is said to have existed AFTER the time of an animalistic creature such as a Trilobyte. However, bear in mind the word-initial letters in each case. Aardvark: "A," trilobytte ("T"). If the trilobite existed prior to the aardvark, then why does aardvark begin with a letter prior to the first letter of trilobyte? If evolution were indeed most EFFICEINT, wouldn't the names of animals begin with the first letter of hte alphabet, then working it's way through to the later letters? we do not find this patter exant among those animals who exist supercilliously today.

Then pick up your computer and smash it to bits, you hypocrite.

Asking something like this on Veeky Forums...

the stupidity is strong with this one.

ultimately, you have to realize that the facts are the facts. If you look at the data, 100% of species are thought to be descant from a common acnestor. if you look at the dna you'll realize that the genes are all aligned in a certain way. however, you have to realize, DNA is an informational system. slightly more formally, "'DNA'"==[["INFORMATION"]]. however, that information can't "evolve" per say, but it has to come from somewhere, but not by the means of evolution biologically speaking. so if it comes about from some other source, you can speculate all you want, but it takes some empirical research to really demonstrate a CONVINCING origin. and that's just it. it's all in our minds. the idea of information. it doens't "exist" in the natural universe. biologically speaking, evolution can't "evolved," from itself(or from nothing), because it doesn't "exist"! however, as soon as this realization is made it has more reaching implications unto the rest of evolutionairy theory. therefore, if the concept of informational quality in DNA structures is introduced by humans, then so is the "narrative" process of evoltion throughout history. so it doesn't make any sense to talk about one species evolting into another diachronically, it only makes sense to talk about them in the most synchronic sense of the concept. as soon as you abstract away from these things, you realize that the entire dialogue of evolution can be arbitrarialized into a number of facets which aren't necessary for the procedure to take place, if at all, including "single common ancestor" theory.

the stupidity is also strong with this one.

>computers are science
Oh look, somebody that doesn't understand science or theology.
>facts are facts
top ideology

Hey man, good job, this bait really did its part in defacing some stupid desu. LOL

reddit: the post

Fuck off, STEM heathen fedora scum.

do americans actually believe this?

highlights

>IT MAKES NOT SENSE FOR THERE TO BE ANY CHIMPS

>Darwinism is the biased assumption that Richard Darwin had all the correct ideas about life science

>spiders might be the brother-in-law, and humans would be the brothers

>I don't want a theory full of "holes," I want one full of "wholes"

If they didn't share certain features, like humans and chimps don't

>that means the spider-human ancestor will have had 5 eyes, just like you would expect

>their common ancestor had to have had 3 legs in order to be the simplest amount of change between each species

>Therefore, because frogs have 4 legs and humans have 2 legs, the nubmer of legs predicted is valid. (4+2)/2=3

>this gives us 5 legs for the human-spider ancestor, and then 2.5 legs for the human-spider-worm common ancestor

>Unfortunately, If I'm interpreting the data correctly, this result does not bode well for the inclusion of whales into the mammal family

>If evolution were indeed most EFFICEINT, wouldn't the names of animals begin with the first letter of hte alphabet, then working it's way through to the later letters?

>biologically speaking, evolution can't "evolved," from itself(or from nothing), because it doesn't "exist"!

Illiterate

what did he mean by this?

Fun fact: if you adopt an ideology based upon logic and reason, it is illogical to contradict said ideology (and thereby, is compounding hypocrisy) by being fallacious.

I on the other hand am not bound by it and can say whatever I want.

Lol this troll thread is fun as shit.

Or you could let your children decide what they choose to believe in when they are older.

bait and shitposting somewhat funposting thread aside,

my parents actually think like this. other people i know think like this. it's actually kind of sad

Unfortunately yes. =/

I'd recommend this.

Yes. A great, very information-rich book (even if you don't ultimately buy into the thesis 100%).

I wonder why people question evolution so much but blindly believe in creationism. Doesn't really make sense.
Sage, hide and report this shit thread. OP is just some edgy kid from /pol/. He's on his contrarian phase.

>I don't want a theory full of "holes," I want one full of "wholes"

This is the best one, sounds like something an Evangelical pastor would say during in a sermon as some kind of catchphrase.

This is excellent bait and it is hilarious that so many people fall for it. Veeky Forums truly has changed.

I am amazed how many people fell for your bait.

Both the average age and average IQ plummeted after gaymercancer. Exactly as planned.

>Scientifically based
>Creationism
Nah

>Exactly as planned

Explain

You probably won't believe me (because most people on Veeky Forums are average ultraliberal idiots), but gg was engineered to destroy /pol/ and by extension all the free thought that wasn't mainstream kosher on Veeky Forums (jews dindu nuffin, blacks dindu nuffin, sjws dindu nuffin, etc.). And it succeeded in spades. It terraformed the entire site actually. Now /pol/ is little better than an ironically christian /r9k/ that just bitches about women and shitposts about stupid /b/-tier crap like battlestations. JIDF (yes, it's real, stop throwing tantrums) and other jewish/sjw shills hate free speech and since Western society has basically eliminated any free speech in regard to issues of race and ESPECIALLY the jews and their impact on history, online was one of the few places you could speak about this sort of thing, and both groups hated that and have openly been trying to get rid of online free speech for years. Reddit even made one of their typically retarded pseudomemes about it: "freeze peaches", as if free speech was something to be maligned that we just needed to get rid of. Before gg, you could claim any stupid shit and you'd get your face smashed in with reams of peer-reviewed facts, history, statistics, etc. to show you how retarded you were (that's why so much of Veeky Forums throws an autism fit when /pol/ throws statistics at them - they know they can't counter facts except with stupid opinion which is a weak position and they either have to admit they could be wrong or throw a shitfit). Now that doesn't happen at all. /pol/ has totally changed and by extension the rest of Veeky Forums. /pol/ saw this coming for years and nobody listened. Now Veeky Forums lies in ruins and has basically become le edgy facebook and everyone is scratching their heads wondering why. We warned y'all niggas. You wouldn't listen.

>Actually, it's generally difficult for evolution to predict the correct number of appendages
Darwinism doesn't predict anything at all, as it is not a scientific theory. Scientific theories must necessarily come with a mathematical apparatus, which darwinism completely lacks. (In fact, 'random mutations and natural selection' violates the basic laws of statistics, i.e., the central limit theorem.)

what on earth are you people babbling on about

sweet baby christmas, this board is as bad as /pol/ when it comes to science
they should stick to jew memes and this board should stick to greek memes
leave the actual thinking to people who know what they are talking about

>what on earth are you people babbling on about
It's called 'statistics' and 'philosophy of science'. If you had had a real education (i.e., not from your clown college) you'd have heard of those terms before.

Dude look: This is a blatant troll thread. Just enjoy it.

Yes, yes, you're absolutely right: everything that contradicts the edicts of Goodthink is just trolling put there by Bad Guys to tempt you.