Posted on 04/29/2013 10:55:17 AM PDT by imardmd1
This book describes Dr. Martin's personal journey from an evolution-trained scientist to a Bible-believing creationist. Dr. Martin examines many of the claims and theories of prominent evolutionists, comparing their often incredible, inconsistent, pseudo-scientific explanations of origins to the clear and simple description of the Creation as depicted in the Bible.
The result is the realization that evolution, just like creation, is in fact a faith system - in other words, it takes just as much faith, perhaps more, to believe in the Darwinist theory of evolution as it does to take as simple, profound truth the Bible's clear explanation of a world and a universe brought into existence by the mere thought process of Almighty God.
An additional treat in this book is a series of Marvels of God's Creation, animals whose incredibly complex design completely defies the ability of evolutionists to come up with any explanation for how the creature could have evolved to its present state.
This book is extensively footnoted and is suitable for a textbook in creation science. It gives all the glory to God for His magnificent creation and provides excellent topics for discussion and engagement of non-believers in debate on the world's origin, which can be used by the Holy Spirit to bring an evolutionist to a saving knowledge of Jesus Christ.
Irrelevant to the issue at hand. The Bible's coverage of human concerns is comprehensive, but it is not exhaustive; nor does it need to be. Everything we need to know about The Faith and practice of a life pleasing to The God is complete in it. The concept of evolution is less than worthless, it is a non-working false belief contrary to the actual Plan He has in operation. That is why it is neither present nor discussed in the Bible.
This must explain why the NBA is not discussed in the Bible. Look, this notion that the Bible contradicts evolution is pure supposition. With no palpable evidence I am being told to believe a certain way because of the way some humans intetpret the Bible.
As to the idea that the Church did not play a role in blocking science, this is totally and inescabably false. You can say that others also felt this way but that does not alter facts.
I believe in God and I believe that evolution is real. Perhaps I am wrong. Could be, but those taking a stance that they know absolutely that I am wrong cannot scientifically prove that no matter how indignant they might get.
You just stated two beliefs (neither logically provable) that are contrary to each other. Choose one. Stop kidding yourself.
What I said about evolution being a man-made johnny-come-lately religious philosophy held to but unprovable by real science is quite correct. Its tenet is that variation within a kind (micro-"evolution") can and has/does lead to a completely new, sustainable kind (macro-evolution); which has never happened.
Apparently you're not getting and benefitting from the point that the posting of this article is that a lengthy and expertly researched treatise apropos to the issues is freely offered to you! Why don't you download it, peruse it, then bring back unanswered points for further discussion?
To introduce arguments here already covered there is lazy and unproductive, eh?
The position of evolution is that it sits athwart the contention of Genesis Chapter one, which is: that an all-powerful, all-knowing, pre-existing eternal Being created--ex nihilo--time, space, matter, and continuity; as well as making both inanimate structures and animate kinds of the materials; and did it all in six literal consecutive evening-morning days (with no cataclysm as misinterpreting the verb "to be" in verse 2 yields); ceasing creative activity for one more ensuing evening-morning; and that in this elapsed time all living kinds of things were created, with no possibility of any further kind "evolving" from the panoply of DNA-defined distinct kinds already instituted. Extinction, yes; adventitious appearance by chance, time, and erroneous cell-duplication, no.
Believe this or not, OK. But do not suggest that this interpretation of the account is not literal and exact, nor that it is an allegorical representation of some other reality. To do so is to call The God a liar, right from "the beginning."
The concept of evolution is not an embodiment of scientific fact. It is an antitheological construct opposing the nature and will of The God who has progressively revealed, orally and in writing, His forethought Plan for saving mankind individually from the consequences of sin and death (entropy).
FYI:
Wernher von Braun, father of U.S. space and rocket program which put men on the moon, feels it is futile to look for God through a telescope
Von Braun said, "The evidences of a Creator are so overwhelming to me. I just can’t envision this whole universe’s coming into being without something like a divine will. I cannot envision the creation without the concept of a Creator."
Von Braun cited--the orbit the earth makes around the sun, and the orbit the moon makes around the earth, as examples of physical laws which are a part of creation.
"Prediction of solar eclipses, for instance, were made several hundred years ago with tremendous precision, and reproducibility of celestial motions has always inspired man greatly and made him marvel at the precision of the laws of nature."
"These laws are so precise that we have no difficulty building a spaceship to fly to the moon and can time it with the precision of a fraction of a second. The laws are there. These laws must have been laid down by Somebody." (Wernher von Braun, Baptist Press)
-------
Is von Braun asinine here?
“Shweitzer, for instance, believed that some of the remains were those of red bloods because of the shape of the remains.”
No, she didn’t. She didn’t recognize red blood cells at all because she wasn’t expecting to see any. It took a veterinarian to recognize blood cells, because he wasn’t blinded by evolutionary assumptions. The vet, according to Shweitzer, turned out to be right.
Now how about you explain why she missed something this obvious. & while you’re at it, explain her boss’s reaction. Why did he immediately dismiss the possibility that she had discovered blood cells? [& spare me the routine about them not being blood cells. There is a photo of the cells still in the vein. That’s how the vet was able to recognize them & call them to Shweitzer’s attention. (Then there’s Shweitzer’s own identification of the round red discs as blood cells. Look it up.)]
As I said, I’m done here; you seem to be a willful jerk. If you are representing yourself as a Christian, you are doing other Christians no favor.
We are at war with Muslims who are taliban, a war fought overwhelmingly by Christians from Christian America, so you choose to attack Christian American conservatives on freerepublic, as “taliban”.
“Taliban, vocabulary straight from the anti-Christian/anti-American left.” to quote my post to you way back at post 18.
It sure has resulted in a ton of name calling and insults and attacks from you.
"No, she didn’t. She didn’t recognize red blood cells at all because she wasn’t expecting to see any. It took a veterinarian to recognize blood cells, because he wasn’t blinded by evolutionary assumptions. The vet, according to Shweitzer, turned out to be right. Now how about you explain why she missed something this obvious."
"& while you’re at it, explain her boss’s reaction. Why did he immediately dismiss the possibility that she had discovered blood cells?"Are you referring to Jack Horner? He never dismissed the possibility, and in fact was immediately open to the possibility.
“She was having trouble preparing the slides, and went to a vet histologist who specializes in preparing slides made from bone for help, and she then showed the slides to a pathologist who believed them to be blood cells.
I don’t think it would be obvious to a nonspecialist.”
Wrong. It was a veterinarian who first identified the blood cells.
“Are you referring to Jack Horner? He never dismissed the possibility, and in fact was immediately open to the possibility.”
Oh yes indeed, he was open to the possibility. So open, he gave Shweitzer this advice: “Now see if you can find some evidence to show that that’s not what they are.”
"Wrong. It was a veterinarian who first identified the blood cells.""We first came upon the possibility that proteins might exist in the the T. rex quite by accident. In the fall of 1991, I was trying to find a way to prevent the T. rex bone sections from slipping off glass slides. Looking for some help, I took the samples to the university's vet histologist, Gayle Callis, who specializes in examinations of modern bone. Then I promptly forgot about them. Three months later she called. Apparently she had taken the samples to a conference, and someone asked her about the oldest bone she had ever worked with. She said, "I just happen to have this dinosaur sample...." and put it under a microscope. A pathologist took a look at it and said, "Do you know you have blood cells in this bone?" Gayle brought the slides back and showed me. And that's when all the excitement in the lab began." Earth Magazine June 1997
"Oh yes indeed, he was open to the possibility. So open, he gave Shweitzer this advice: “Now see if you can find some evidence to show that that’s not what they are.”"Exactly. Isn't that the advice you would expect him to give if he thought they might be remains of blood cells?
What I cannot understand is your absolute refusal to acknowledge and accept the FACT that one of your Christians was the first to go the “taliban” name calling route - not me.
Like most folk, I reserve the right to defend myself - even from so-called Christians who have no problem referring to someone with whom they disagree a “taliban”.
This is, I believe, the third time I have explained this to you with absolutely no effect. I have to conclude that you are not a fair minded individual, but a diehard partisan.
Do you realize how strange that post is, I point out your attacking American Christians labeling them with the name of our anti-Christian, Islamic wartime enemy, and you you keep claiming fantasies and illusions.
I have no idea what that bizarre statement of “your Christians” mean, nor your bizarre claim of Christians calling you taliban on this thread, which you made up, it didn’t happen, although it would be less offensive to compare an anti-Christian person to the taliban than a Christian or freerepublic Christians in general, as you did.
There is something wrong with you, your posts are bizarre and paranoid, with fake claims of being called taliban on this thread, you made it up and keep claiming it, although we can read the thread and see how weird your lies are.
To: 0.E.O
You are wasting your breath on these creationist taliban.
16 posted on 4/29/2013 12:27:39 PM by John Valentine
I must say, that was one of the most excellent responses to the theory of evilution that I have ever read.
I plan on borrowing it, or at least parts of it, in the future, with due credit to you of course.
I also notice that no evolution supporters on this thread bothered to respond to your logic.
Their lack of response, speaks volumes.
Good job brother. God would, and I am sure does, approve.
:>)
I'll go w the Smithsonian version:
'In 1991, Schweitzer was trying to study thin slices of bones from a 65-million-year-old T. rex. She was having a hard time getting the slices to stick to a glass slide, so she sought help from a molecular biologist at the university. The biologist, Gayle Callis, happened to take the slides to a veterinary conference, where she set up the ancient samples for others to look at. One of the vets went up to Callis and said, “Do you know you have red blood cells in that bone?” Sure enough, under a microscope, it appeared that the bone was filled with red disks. Later, Schweitzer recalls, “I looked at this and I looked at this and I thought, this can’t be. Red blood cells don’t preserve.”'
Read more: http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/dinosaur.html#ixzz2S4wc10S1
But I do appreciate how your version eliminates the veterinarian altogether. Less embarrassing that way, isn't it? After all, no one less than a pathologist (according to you) can recognize red discs of blood sitting in a vein, right?
"Oh yes indeed, he was open to the possibility. So open, he gave Shweitzer this advice: “Now see if you can find some evidence to show that that’s not what they are.”"
'Exactly. Isn't that the advice you would expect him to give if he thought they might be remains of blood cells?'
Are you trying to make a joke? Or have you drunk so deeply of the evolutionist Kool Aid, you don't see how ridiculous that statement is? Shweitzer's boss advised her to find evidence to show that what looked like red blood cells was NOT red blood cells--& you claim this means he thought they WERE red blood cells? Let me guess: you also believe up is down & black is white.
This is the problem w people who have bought the junk/pseudo science behind evolution. They lose their ability to think clearly. You, for example, see red blood cells, & read that every single test applied to them indicates they are indeed blood. So you try to claim they're not blood.
Next you claim that Shweitzer's boss telling her to demonstrate that what looks like red blood cells is NOT red blood cells actually means he wanted her to prove it WAS blood. Honestly, if you can't argue more honestly than that, this discussion is a waste of time.
"But I do appreciate how your version eliminates the veterinarian altogether. Less embarrassing that way, isn't it? After all, no one less than a pathologist (according to you) can recognize red discs of blood sitting in a vein, right?"Ah, by vet I thought you were specifically referring to Gayle. But yes, the pathologist is a vet as well. Actually, I would think that Gayle, as a histologist, would be somewhat more qualified to identify the remains. Although pathologists do quite a bit of that kind of work too.
"Are you trying to make a joke? Or have you drunk so deeply of the evolutionist Kool Aid, you don't see how ridiculous that statement is?"So let me see if I have it straight on what it is you think happened: Mary doesn't think it's red blood cells - Jack isn't even open to the possibility of it being red blood cells, so he instructs his employee to spend her time trying to prove that they're not red blood cells. Do you really don't see how ridiculous THAT is?
"Shweitzer's boss advised her to find evidence to show that what looked like red blood cells was NOT red blood cells--& you claim this means he thought they WERE red blood cells?"YES. Unless he thought they WERE red blood cells - or at least quite open to the possibility - why would they BOTHER trying to prove that they're not?
Your post is just shy of lucid. Before going any further, please clarify. Here’s what you wrote:
“Ah, by vet I thought you were specifically referring to Gayle. But yes, the pathologist is a vet as well. Actually, I would think that Gayle, as a histologist, would be somewhat more qualified to identify the remains. Although pathologists do quite a bit of that kind of work too.”
Here’s what I had posted:
‘The biologist, Gayle Callis, happened to take the slides to a veterinary conference, where she set up the ancient samples for others to look at. One of the vets went up to Callis and said, “Do you know you have red blood cells in that bone?”’
So you are claiming to identify the ‘one of the vets’ by name? Where do you get this info? Link, please.
“So you are claiming to identify the ‘one of the vets’ by name? Where do you get this info? Link, please.”
—huh? The only vet I have a name for is Gayle.
Here’s my original comment:
“It took a veterinarian to recognize blood cells, because he wasn’t blinded by evolutionary assumptions.”
To which you responded:
“[Shweitzer] was having trouble preparing the slides, and went to a vet histologist who specializes in preparing slides made from bone for help, and she then showed the slides to a pathologist who believed them to be blood cells.
I don’t think it would be obvious to a nonspecialist.”
To which I responded:
“Wrong. It was a veterinarian who first identified the blood cells.”
To which you replied:
‘A pathologist took a look at it and said, “Do you know you have blood cells in this bone?’
To which I cited the Smithsonian piece which includes the following:
‘The biologist, Gayle Callis, happened to take the slides to a veterinary conference, where she set up the ancient samples for others to look at. One of the vets went up to Callis and said, “Do you know you have red blood cells in that bone?”’
Your reply:
‘Ah, by vet I thought you were specifically referring to Gayle. But yes, the pathologist is a vet as well. Actually, I would think that Gayle, as a histologist, would be somewhat more qualified to identify the remains. Although pathologists do quite a bit of that kind of work too.’
Which has to be misdirection At Best. Because my original statement was that none of the evolutionists, including your precious ‘Gayle’, identified the red blood cells. They were identified by a nameless [per the Smithsonian article] veterinarian at a conference.
Now it turns out I was right. So what are you going to do? Waste my time w more babble, misdirection & dishonesty, or admit I was right?
“Now it turns out I was right. So what are you going to do? Waste my time w more babble, misdirection & dishonesty, or admit I was right?”
—Huh? I already said I misunderstood - when you mentioned the vet I thought you were referring to Gayle. I’m not disagreeing with you, and I have no idea what you’re now arguing about.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.