Evolution of a Creationist Book - Free Download

Biblical Discipleship Ministries ^ | 12/22/2010 | Dr. Jobe Martin

[imardmd1]

A Layman’s Guide To The Conflict Between The Bible And Evolutionary Theory

(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

[CommieCutter]

Sfl

[0.E.O]

This book is extensively footnoted and is suitable for a textbook in creation science.

Isn't 'creation science' a contradiction in terms? Science constantly challenges its hypothesis while creationism doesn't challenge the literal acceptance of the Bible.

[sakic]

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.

[dartuser]

Science constantly challenges its hypothesis ...

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.

[raygunfan]

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....

[Fantasywriter]

“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.]

[imardmd1]

Science constantly challenges its hypothesis while creationism doesn't challenge the literal acceptance of the Bible.

Wrong. Evolutionism, an opposing faith, attempts to pervert science to confute creationism's agreement with scientific fact.

[Fantasywriter]

Here’s a question for you. How many global warming-believer scientists are ‘constantly challenging their hypotheses’?

Hint: “hide the decline”.

[imardmd1]

I get arguments from both sides of this issue and neither side makes much sense to me.

With all due and sincere respect, your confusion is due to lack of depth in spiritual maturity or/and scriptural discipling. IMHO

[Popman]

Bm

[0.E.O]

I would argue that once consensus is achieved in any theory, the proponents cannot assimilate new empirical data that contradicts the theory.

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?

[0.E.O]

Wrong. Evolutionism, an opposing faith, attempts to pervert science to confute creationism's agreement with scientific fact.

Scientifc fact or Biblical accounts?

[0.E.O]

Here’s a question for you. How many global warming-believer scientists are ‘constantly challenging their hypotheses’?

How many are having their hypotheses challenged? Answer, a lot. How may creationists are challenging the Biblical account?

[imardmd1]

Both. What I meant here is that creationism's validity is based both on a literal Biblical hermeneutic and factual science observations. I did not mean that it was possible for evolutionism to disprove creationism with scientific fact.

However, theistic evolution is a Scripturally indefensible oxymoron.

[John Valentine]

You are wasting your breath on these creationist taliban.

[Fantasywriter]

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’.

[ansel12]

LOL, taliban, vocabulary straight from the anti-Christian/anti-American left.

[Fantasywriter]

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.]

[dmz]

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?