Skip to comments.Evolution of a Creationist Book - Free Download
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.
(Download "The Evolution of a Creationist" for free in pdf, epub, kindle.)
Dr. Martin has several degrees in biology, dentistry, theology, and business, and lectures across the continent in philosophy of origins as well as family counseling. See his bio sketch for credentials confirmation
Isn't 'creation science' a contradiction in terms? Science constantly challenges its hypothesis while creationism doesn't challenge the literal acceptance of the Bible.
I find it amazing that one cannot be a person of faith AND an adherent of evolution. Why can’t evolution be part of God?
I get arguments from both sides of this issue and neither side makes much sense to me.
I would argue that once consensus is achieved in any theory, the proponents cannot assimilate new empirical data that contradicts the theory.
Then it is no longer scientific progress, but rather, the propagation of a myth.
well, im sure all the intellectual elitest on this board, i.e evolutionist have downloaded the pdf, gone thru it and throughly rejected it and also contacted the author himself and gave him what for..
or perhaps, as always, it will be the usual freeper elitest who simply post on the thread itself and trash it there so they dont have to actually challenge the science behind the scientist who wrote the book...
hmmmmm, guess which of the two scenarios is most likely....
“Science constantly challenges its hypothesis”
Nothing could be further from the truth. Read ‘The Structure of Scientific Revolutions’ by Thomas Kuhn. He tore the curtain off the myth of the ‘scientific method’ once & for all. Unless & until you read it, you simply have no idea. [Btw, afaik, Kuhn was an atheist.]
Wrong. Evolutionism, an opposing faith, attempts to pervert science to confute creationism's agreement with scientific fact.
Here’s a question for you. How many global warming-believer scientists are ‘constantly challenging their hypotheses’?
Hint: “hide the decline”.
With all due and sincere respect, your confusion is due to lack of depth in spiritual maturity or/and scriptural discipling. IMHO
Which does not stop people from trying. Evolution theories are constantly being examined and reviewed and, if the evidence supports it, updated.
Then it is no longer scientific progress, but rather, the propagation of a myth.
And how much challenge is there in the creationism world?
Scientifc fact or Biblical accounts?
How many are having their hypotheses challenged? Answer, a lot. How may creationists are challenging the Biblical account?
However, theistic evolution is a Scripturally indefensible oxymoron.
You are wasting your breath on these creationist taliban.
So are you saying many global warming scientists are admitting that their predictions aren’t panning out [i.e.: have been diametrically opposite of what actually occurred] & their theory may be fundamentally wrong? Link, please.
Otherwise, what do you mean by ‘challenged’? If being challenged results in doubling down, it’s not a challenge. Doubling down means ‘data be damned; we stick w the theory come hell or high water’.
LOL, taliban, vocabulary straight from the anti-Christian/anti-American left.
So Thomas Kuhn, MIT professor, likely atheist & monumental debunker of the so-called scientific method was a...creationist Taliban?
Look, all Kuhn did was show that scientists act about their theories exactly as religious people act about theirs. No difference. You’d have to read the book to get the full gist. (If you don’t LOL at certain passages you have no sense of humor.) Scientists use the ‘scientific method’ ONLY when it suits their purpose. The instant it undercuts whatever theory they subscribe to, the scientific method goes out the window.
Don’t take my word for it. Read The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. You won’t regret it; it’s an eye popper. [That may be the first & only pun I ever made.]
Perhaps I’ve misunderstood, but I wonder what factual scientific observations have shown the existence of God.
And if you are planning t mention irreducible complexity, I will ask the same question of it ... what factual scientific observation have shown that irreducible complexity is proof of the existence of God?
IMHO you can’t think very much of God if you think he can’t have a say in evolution.
Sure, many creationists constantly test the accuracy of the Scriptures.
It holds. Other theories don't.
Have you read accounts of scientists finding woolly mammoth meat preserved in permafrost? Do you think such soft tissue/blood, etc., could ever be found for a Tyrannosaurus Rex?
No I'm saying that others challenge their theories, providing alternative answers and presenting their research. How many creationists challenge the literal reading of the Bible?
I think you're right.
I think you're right.
What scientific observation supports the idea that everything was done in 6 literal days?
“No I’m saying that others challenge their theories, providing alternative answers and presenting their research.”
What ‘others’ are we talking about? I asked for a link, remember?
Here’s the deal. Global warming scientists made many predictions. The first & foremost prediction they made was that the planet was warming, & that the warming trend would intensify w time.
So for the past 15 yrs we’ve seen no warming, & some say we are actually in a cooling trend. I asked you to link to global warming scientists admitting that their predictions were so far off, their theory might actually be in jeopardy. This is not too much to ask. If Science constantly challenges its hypothesis, this is a premier opportunity for them to not merely challenge the hypothesis, but to admit they screwed up big time.
Let’s see those links.
They called me “taliban” they get it right back.
Check out Michael Mann of “hockey stick” notoriety reluctantly admitting that climate change is driven by solar events.
Sounds like a tacit admission to me.
You are attacking Christians with the vocabulary straight from the anti-Christian/anti-American left.
Since you provided no link, I’m going to wing in based on memory. Let’s see now, did Mann come out of the blue & admit he screwed up? Or were his damning emails, including “hide the decline” leaked, forcing the admission of which you speak? I’m remembering ‘B’; how do you remember it?
Your reason will not save you. Neither will mine. Make your decision.
Mind you, many evolutionists just parrot the defense without testing it or thinking about it much. But there are plenty of creationists who are very familiar with how the scriptures have been attacked during the liberal era; so many of these assaults have been proven wrong (i.e. that Moses, for example, couldn't have written the Pentateuch because writing wasn't existent in his day) that they know that current assaults will likely be proven wrong as well. The sciptures stand the test of time.
I'm not counting on your opinion. His is in the Bible, which He had written for him. What He indicates about macro-evolution is that there was/is none. Decide. Your choice.
Basically he says that climate models cannot account for observed past climate change. He actually stops just short of the key admission. My bad, but I would never hold out Michael Mann as an exemplar of a good scientist in any case.
There are other, better, examples of former warmists who have had the scales removed from their eyes. I just don’t want to take the time to dig them out on behalf of someone who wouldn’t be grateful. - not you.
I’m hoping sakic is just temporarily busy, & will get back to me as time permits. I’m really curious as to whether he/she believes we might ever discover soft tissue from T-Rex. Wooly mammoths you can kind of understand; they were supposedly late in the ‘evolutionary cycle’, correct? But T-Rex reputedly goes back a long time...what is it—a million, two million yrs?
Cd it actually be closer to 68 million yrs? Seems a long time for soft tissue to survive. I wonder if it’s possible for blood & other soft tissue to survive that long?
What say you, sakic? Will scientists ever discover 68 million yo soft tissue? Odds seem low to me; how do you see it?
They (the so-called Christians) used the term first. As for the rest of what you say, I really don’t care about the anti-christian left. I am no part of them and they are no part of me.
Glad to see you watched the video. It was hilarious, wasn’t it?
“but I would never hold out Michael Mann as an exemplar of a good scientist in any case.”
Too bad; you already did. See post 31.
“There are other, better, examples of former warmists who have had the scales removed from their eyes. I just dont want to take the time to dig them out on behalf of someone who wouldnt be grateful.”
Honestly, this is the genuine truth: I’m trying to stop LOL sufficiently to type. That is the weakest post I’ve ever read on such a thread. It’s its own parody; nothing I can say cd possibly improve on it. If you had to lose the argument [& you did], thanks for losing in such a hysterically funny way. The comedy is much appreciated.
I guess it is you after all. I NEVER have had any regard for Michael Mann. You are a straight up liar. Weak assed lamer, can’t do research, want others to do your legwork, get lost.
“I NEVER have had any regard for Michael Mann.”
That’s why you cited him in post 31 as a scientist who had changed his position on global warming. Because you had no regard for him.
Sorry, that makes no sense. Why cite him at all, if you hold him in such disregard? You destroyed your own case; never a good move. If you imagine that standing up for the ‘scientific’ side of the argument means descending to this level of invective, you lose the argument twice.
Neither does your over-the-top hostility. Are personal/ad hominem attacks a rational response to being challenged? I gotta tell you, it makes you look illogical at best. If you imagine that standing up for the ‘scientific’ side of the issue means descending to this level of personal invective, you lose the argument twice.
LOL, between saying things like “(the so-called Christians)” and calling Christians “taliban”, I think you are pretty transparent and contradict your claim of “I really dont care about the anti-christian left. I am no part of them and they are no part of me.”.
Your reason will not save you.
Then why do you muddy the waters with a reference to factual scientific observations at all?
Would your faith be insufficient without the appeal to science?
I never knew of a passage in the Bible where He says there is no such thing as evolution. I look forward to you posting that piece of scripture.
Seems pretty improbable to me, but who knows what will happen.