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.
bfl
elucidate
bfl = that would be "Bump For Later"
Thanks! I just don’t know a lot of SMS-type abbrev’s.
Once again you either lie maliciously, or you fail to comprehend the written word; I specified that it was NOT on this thread that the name-calling was started by your ilk.
Either way, you are both ignorant and evil. The fact that Christians are not denouncing you speaks volumes about what their agenda really is. Shame is a feeling that more of you need to become familiar with, but I see no sign of it.
Pride and ignorance combine to give you a truly potent odor.
I don’t speak with God directly but I assume that, with 200,000,000 - 300,000,000 dead bodies lying around which are attributable to evolutionism and doctrines based on it, God has to want evolution/evolutionism out of this world.
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
So you made a faulty assumption that cost me unjustifiable time & energy to correct, & your reaction is: “I have no idea what you’re now arguing about.”?
How decent of you.
Listen, username, I gave you no indication whatsoever that I was talking about ‘Gayle’. You ASSUMED that on your own, & look how many posts it took me to get to the bottom of it. This is called piddle-poor communication. I’d call it worse, but perhaps you get the drift.
Here’s how you make an ASSUMPTION: ‘By ‘vet’ I ASSUME you’re talking about Gayle’. That is ***minimal*** communication. Minimal.
Of course if you’d been that lucid, I’d have responded, ‘What makes you assume that? Callis is not the vet referred to in the Smithsonian article’.
& w that level of ease & efficiency, the false assumption wd have been laid to rest.
Personally, I don’t think you want to communicate clearly. It’s too easy to do, if you really want it. I think you thrive on confusion. That’s what it looks like, anyway.
Consider this:
“[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.”
So you didn’t think it was ‘Gayle’ after all; you thought it was a pathologist. You can’t keep your stories straight long enough to even cover your screw ups.
Look, username, it’s not just piddle poor communication. It’s not just your graceless inability to say “sorry” for making a faulty ASSUMPTION & causing me to lose so much time & energy correcting it. It’s not just your contradictory stories & misdirection.
It’s all three.
Do you have to communicate minimally well in order to post on this site?
No.
Do you have to show minimal decency when your fallacious assumption hijacks the conversation for ~14 needless posts?
No.
Do you have to keep your stories straight & operate w at least a veneer of honesty?
No.
Do I have to go on attempting to converse w someone this bad at communication & this lacking in basic courtesy?
No.
Interesting that there has been 35 comments added to this thread after your rebuttal to evolution and not one evolutionist has even tried to refute your facts.
Do you often get ignored by those your are refuting?
"So you made a faulty assumption that cost me unjustifiable time & energy to correct, & your reaction is: “I have no idea what you’re now arguing about.”?"I thought this was cleared up all the way back in post 116.
"Of course if you’d been that lucid, I’d have responded, ‘What makes you assume that? Callis is not the vet referred to in the Smithsonian article’."Gayle, the vet histologist, is referred to in the Smithsonian article - along with the unnamed vet pathologist.
"So you didn’t think it was ‘Gayle’ after all; you thought it was a pathologist. You can’t keep your stories straight long enough to even cover your screw ups."Huh? When did I ever say or suggest that it was Gayle that identified the red blood cell remains?
“If it’s not the pathologist, than what other vet could you possibly mean but Gayle?”
If you are still this clueless then it’s not communication skills you lack. It is rudimentary reading comprehension at which you fail.
“If you are still this clueless then it’s not communication skills you lack. It is rudimentary reading comprehension at which you fail.”
—heh I figured you would just continue with insults instead of owning up to your error. But thanks anyway for the entertaining (albeit very odd) exchange.
If you are playing dumb, that is a jerkish thing to do. If you are genuinely this clueless...that is just freakishly scary.
“If you are playing dumb, that is a jerkish thing to do. If you are genuinely this clueless...that is just freakishly scary.”
—Really? Let’s see who’s being clueless... try to answer one simple question (and speaking of ‘playing dumb’ and being ‘jerkish,’ you have yet to even try answering any questions.) When you said:
“Wrong. It was a veterinarian who first identified the blood cells.”
What was it that I was wrong about?
I refer you to post 119, where I took time I cd ill afford & laid out the entire timeline of the exchange. You responded:
“I already said I misunderstood - when you mentioned the vet I thought you were referring to Gayle. I’m not disagreeing with you”
Now today you are saying just the opposite of what you said yesterday. Are you a dual personality? Does the person posting today have no idea what the person (posting under your screenname) said yesterday?
You really need to harmonize your stories. Were you right yesterday when you cdn’t fault my meticulously accurate timeline, or are you right today when you’re contradicting what you said yesterday?
[I’m not delineating post 119 a second time. I shouldn’t have had to go to that much trouble once. Twice is out of the question.]
To All: I apologize for ever getting involved w this poster. He’s the tar baby of contradictory, time-wasting contentless posts. This is a great thread. Post 94 is one of the best I’ve ever read on FR; thank you varmintman. Had I known responding to the poster in question wd result in the thread getting bogged down w what is either purposeful misdirection or cluelessness on a scary scale I’d have ignored him completely. Again, my apologies. It won’t happen again.
Doesn't take much time.
Anyone looking for a listing of recent anti-anthropogenic global warming books, a quick search at Amazon produces the following results.
Oy vey, I probably shouldn’t but perhaps another recap would help. As you point out in 119, you state:
“It took a veterinarian to recognize blood cells, because he wasn’t blinded by evolutionary assumptions.”
I responded by pointing out that Mary had trouble with the slides and so wasn’t seeing much of anything (probably due to how miniscule the remains were) - and so went to a histologist for help. Or, to directly quote:
“[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 you responded, confusingly:
“Wrong. It was a veterinarian who first identified the blood cells.”
Well, it was a veterinary conference. Gayle, the histologist and the unnamed pathologist are both veterinarians. “Wrong”? Wrong about what? I wasn’t sure what you meant, but thought maybe you were stating that it was the veterinarian Gayle who first noticed the red blood cells instead of the pathologist (although, that person, too, is a veterinarian). You then, for some reason, cite the Smithsonian article (perhaps you think the Smithsonian article contradicts the Earth Magazine article because they give some different details? They don’t contradict though.) And then you state:
“But I do appreciate how your version eliminates the veterinarian altogether.”
Again, the veterinarian was a pathologist. At this point I’m thinking that maybe you didn’t realize that the pathologist I referred to was also a veterinarian, and so you thought I had the wrong person. (I still think that that’s where you’re confused, but I’m not sure, since, as usual, you wouldn’t answer the question.) And so to try to clear things up I respond:
“Ah, by vet I thought you were specifically referring to Gayle. But yes, the pathologist is a vet as well.”
I thought that would clear everything up and we’d be able to move on. I stated that I misunderstood (due to your error, although I didn’t say that), and then tried to subtly (and nicely, without directly stating you were in error) fix where I thought the confusion was (by stating that the pathologist is a vet).
At least, I HOPED we’d move on since the question of “which vet first noticed the red blood cells” is easily the least interesting and least relevant part of the whole discussion. Yet, you decided to have a tantrum and make that the ONLY topic of discussion for all of the following rambling, incoherent, ad hominem posts.
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#ixzz2SDeZaOW8
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.