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.
TOL, if you have the time & inclination, could you check the two users listed above? I believe with near 100% certainty they are the same individual. Goodusername posted to me quite a bit, until I got fed up with certain aspects of his posting style. At that moment, as if by magic, Swing_Ladder suddenly appeared, with the explanation that he/she, while just signing up, was a “long time lurker”.
Swing_Ladder took up exactly where goodusername had left off. He/she posted only to this thread, only to me, only stuff goodusername had been posting, and most telling, he/she posted it all EXACTLY the same way/in same style as goodusername. The odds of this being two different people are astronomical. Please do whatever you think best; thank you in advance.
We’ll see.
Thanks for pinging me to this post. I read it twice, & found it helpful & fascinating. It reminded me of the basic thesis of Karl Popper’s Conjectures & Refutations. He posits that any truly scientific theory will be able to make specific, non-intuitive predictions, TEST those predictions, & either confirm or falsify the theory based on the outcome.
For instance, the theory of relativity predicted that light would bend under certain circumstances. Proponents realized that a certain African solar eclipse offered the perfect setting in which to test their prediction. They journeyed to Africa, set up their equipment, took measurements, & confirmed their prediction.
Popper then notes that junk/pseudo science does the opposite. I.e.: a non-scientific theory will make manifold predictions, & when few if any come to pass, they will say that what actually happened confirms their theory even more than if their actual predictions had materialized.
Popper wasn’t describing evolution per se, but he might as well have been. The more their predictions fail & the more the field discoveries run counter to prior evolutionary claims, the more fervently/religiously they claim whatever is discovered confirms their theory. No ‘falsifying’ test is ever devised, nor will it ever be. The idea of testing evolution in that way is unthinkable, not to mention impractical. Fwiw.
Of course evolution is science: it is at worst a scientific hypothesis and at best a confirmed theory.
Regardless, it is still science.
Your continued efforts to deny that simple fact say nothing about evolution itself, but speak volumes about the dishonesty ruling your own heart, FRiend.
imardmd1: "As it has been pointed out earlier in this discussion, evolution's tenets and parameters are a matter of belief, a religious concept, not a science."
The evolutionary hypothesis, as proposed by Darwin 150+ years ago has been confirmed -- making it a theory -- too many times to count.
Your repeated DeNiles simply expose your own ignorance and/or dishonesty.
imardmd1: "In your thoughts above, you've just invented a new term to uphold the shaky foundations of evolutionary theory based on misunderstanding of sedimentary geology.
By coining the phrase "prolonged mummification" you beg a lengthening of the fossilization supporting historical geology, as currently taught."
I coined nothing.
Mummification is a process of drying-out for long-term preservation of organic material.
That such processes can rarely occur in nature is likely demonstrated by that T-Rex bone material.
imardmd1: "It is not possible to claim evolution as explaining speciation, because it has never been seen, and it has not yet been reproduced."
Not true.
Basic evolution theory consists of two often-confirmed facts:
Species can be seen modifying and being selected every day, there's no dispute about that, even amongst anti-evolutionists.
But the word "speciation" is a scientific construct, whose criteria are defined by science itself, not by you, and whose definition boils down to: changes significant enough to be classified as a separate breed, sub-species, species, genus, family, etc.
These changes are seen every day, and exact classifications are matters of often lengthy debates.
To pick just one example: Polar Bears were classified as a separate genus, but recently "downgraded" to just another species within the Ursus genus because, among other reasons, it was discovered they can and occasionally do interbreed with Brown Bears.
So degrees of "speciation" are matters of scientific definitions, and as such are seen and debated every day.
imardmd1: "To force this belief exclusively on mankind as the only explanation is to suffocate healthy curiosity, criticism, experimentation; and, yes, well-founded religious thought."
Of course, evolution theory is not the only explanation, it is simply the only confirmed scientific theory.
Over many years, other scientific hypotheses were proposed, but none confirmed, leaving evolution as the only accepted theory we have.
imardmd1: "Wit all respect, my estimate is that your approach falls short of academic acceptance, IMHO."
With all due respect, you in no way, shape or form speak for science, only for your own religious convictions.
As such, factually your approach falls short of scientific acceptance, FRiend.
How do you know, as an incontrovertible, proven fact, that God didn’t create the universe?
Can I answer?
We (me, you, scientists, and basically everyone else) don’t know as an incontrovertible, proven fact, that God didn’t create the universe. We can’t even prove which god didn’t create the universe. How would you prove such a thing?
There is a difference though, between evolution and the origin of the universe. Evolution doesn’t start until there’s life. And estimates put the origin of life one earth at about 3.8 billions years ago. The earth is almost a billion years older than that at 4.5 billion. The universe itself, much much older.
You can answer all you want. I’m not reading any more of your posts, or those of your alter ego.
I appreciate the fact you believe me to be a sock puppet, but you couldn’t be further from the truth. You mentioned in an earlier post that goodusername and I shared a common way/style in the way we posted. What, exactly, are you referring too?
Also, my apologies to goodusername. I didn’t know jumping in on this conversation would also earn you a blacklist.
People who are dishonest and/or into relentless game-playing assume everyone else is just like them. In fact, some people are honest & don’t play games. On your prior post I read your screenname & the first line. On this post, just your screenname.
I said I don’t read your posts any more. I meant it.
“People who are dishonest and/or into relentless game-playing assume everyone else is just like them.”
Aren’t you the one accusing me of being a sock-puppet?
“I said I don’t read your posts any more. I meant it.”
And I didn’t doubt your sincerity. But, as demonstrated by some of your comments on the appearance of soft tissue in dinosaur fossils, you’ve been wrong before.
But if you are going to ignore me, will you at least respond to BroJoek’s last post. He raised some excellent points.
I have no doubt that God did create the Universe and everything in it, including us and, so it appears, including evolution.
As for "proof", there are several traditional proofs offered up by ancient philosophers, and I'd say any of them will serve.
But we should remember that the subject here is science, not metaphysics or theology, and in science the first rule is: natural explanations for natural processes.
In other words, science rejects as a matter of definition of the word "science" any reference to God or other supernatural explanations.
That's why I say, just as soon as you inject God into any scientific discussion, then it is no longer scientific.
It is something else: religion, theology or metaphysics, etc., but not science, because science can't deal with anything other than the natural world.
You might at least do yourself the favor of freely downloading the Martin book mentioned in the opening passage, read it carefully to see your theses at least blunted, then come back with your objections to that.
Otherwise, I'm not going to waste my time recapitulating the claims you have made in your Post 164, which have all been refuted by others. (At least, please account for Stephen Jay Gould's "punctuated equilibrium" to explain the failure of the "geological column" to support Darwinian gradualism, and the Mt. St. Helen's sedimentary depositions that bring the whole presuppositions of history of geology, as taught, into disrepute.)
When I speak of science, I speak as one who has successfully employed the tools and methods of science for both commercial and theoretical efforts. When I speak on origins, I speak as a philosopher, as happenings not now nor ever provable by scientific methodology, for they are not repeatable (and neither you nor I were there, observing). Please be kind not to confuse these areas of endeavor, as you have been doing, eh?
I cannot respect a blending of evolutionism and science practice. They are not the same.
I don’t debate with links.
If you have a case to present, then present it — here.
Otherwise we can all reasonably conclude that you are really just blowing smoke.
The truth of the matter, again, is that you don’t speak for science, because you reject the defining scientific principle of natural explanations for natural processes.
So what you are selling here is not science, but something else — your religious convictions.
Must go now, will have more later...
Thanks for your kind words!
Sounds to me like Fantasywriter is projecting some of his/her own behavior onto others.
With luck I’ll have more time for this later... B-)
“natural explanations for natural processes.”
That is your presupposition in a nutshell. God says He created the world by His command. You are applying a natural explanation for what God says is supernatural.
As to God ‘creating’ evolution, where do you get that? Where is there a hint in the Bible that God created evolution? [I’m referring to macroevolution.] Are you saying, in effect, ‘Of course there’s no hint of God creating evolution in the Bible, but I believe He did it anyway.’ Is that your bottom line?
Look at it like this: if God used evolution, the Genesis acct wd read quite differently. I.e.: when it came to man, it wd say that God took a semian-likie creature and formed it into a man. Subsequently the Bible wd not refer to man as made in God’s image but rather in the image of whatever ape-like creature He has used.
Iow, it’s not both/and; it’s either/or.
Did you know, btw, that the Bible actually does speak of evolution? It does, in so many words. Here’s the passage:
“3 Know this first of all, that in the last days mockers will come with their mocking, following after their own lusts, 4 and saying, “Where is the promise of His coming? For ever since the fathers fell asleep, all continues just as it was from the beginning of creation.” 5 For when they maintain this, it escapes their notice that by the word of God the heavens existed long ago and the earth was formed out of water and by water, 6 through which the world at that time was destroyed, being flooded with water. 7 But by His word the present heavens and earth are being reserved for fire, kept for the day of judgment and destruction of ungodly men.
8 But do not let this one fact escape your notice, beloved, that with the Lord one day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years like one day.” 2 Peter 3:3-8
It’s all right there in that passage. Evolution’s faulty assumption: “For ever since the fathers fell asleep, all continues just as it was from the beginning of creation.”
The first non-natural event which evolutionists overlook: “For [a]when they maintain this, it escapes their notice that by the word of God the heavens existed long ago and the earth was formed out of water and by water”
The second world-wide event overlooked by evolutionists:
“through which the world at that time was destroyed, being flooded with water.”
& finally, the issue of time, indicating that God’s time is unique to Him: “But do not let this one fact escape your notice, beloved, that with the Lord one day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years like one day.”
Iow, evolutionists assume the natural world has operated under knowable, calculable conditions for billions of yrs. The apostle Peter says in order to believe this, one has to overlook 2 events: the creation of the universe by God’s word, & the Genesis flood. Christian evolutionists have to make one further assumption: that there is something divine about the animal-type that gave rise to man. How else cd man be both descended from animals & reflect God’s divine image?
Oh, & before you all rush in & claim that man & apes evolved along different lines, here are the words of Darwin himiself:
“There can, consequently, hardly be a doubt that man is an off-shoot from the Old World simian stem; and that under a genealogical point of view he must be classified with the catarhine [Old World monkeys] division . . . But a naturalist, would undoubtedly have ranked as an ape or a monkey, an ancient form which possessed many characters common to the catarhine and platyrhine monkeys, other characters in an intermediate condition, and some few, perhaps, distinct from those now found in either group. And as man from a genealogical point of view belongs to the catarhine or Old World stock, we must conclude, however much the conclusion may revolt our pride, that our early progenitors would have been properly thus designated.”
1. Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man,Chapter Six, On the Affinities and Genealogy of Man:Rank of Man in the Natural System, Sixth Edition, edited under Encyclopedia Britannica, Great Books of the Western World, Vol.49, Darwin, William Benton Publishers, 1952, pp.335-336. Darwin further stated this belief on pp.337, “We have seen that man appears to have diverged from the catarhine [African and far eastern monkeys] or Old World division of the Simiadae [monkeys and apes], after these had diverged from the New World division.”
http://www.thedarwinpapers.com/oldsite/number9/Darwin9.htm#N_1_
So in addition to being ‘scientific’ you’re also a quack psychiatrist? There’s another word for a person who fancies himself a psychiatrist but who is in fact anything but: a ‘jerk’.
Hmmm. The express purpose of presenting this topic was to give you the opportunity of commenting on the author's illumination of a very convincing refutation of the faith-based evolutionary's conjectures. What's the problem (rhetorical)?
Otherwise we can all reasonably conclude that you are really just blowing smoke.
Well, if so, it's not evolutionary pants-afire smoke, which is coming out of the contentions you made. Martin's book deals with them effectively.
The truth of the matter, again, is that you don’t speak for science, because you reject the defining scientific principle of natural explanations for natural processes.
Natural explanations may or may not be based on foundational truths. Some not: Phlogiston as source of energy. Stress causes ulcers. Tyrranosaurus rex was carnivorous. Fossilization requires thousands or hundreds of thousands of years. Blood vessels or relicts of blood cells in dinosaur bones are from mummification of flesh prolonged hundreds of thousands or millions of years. Evolution is a process recognized by the ancients and thoroughly proven today. Et cetera, etc.
Prove that the explanations you propose are not just assumptions made to connect a gradualism time frame with (an) observed fact(s).
So what you are selling here is not science, but something else — your religious convictions.
I've not been "selling" either. Stick to disproving rather than ignoring the issues Martin deals with in "The Evolution of a Creationist." The purpose of the initial post is to bring the free availability of the book again to the attention of the community, not to troll for displaying my ability (or lack of it) as a creationist or debater.
If "cant" is your word for simple text-book science, that fact alone confirms you are anti-science and therefore unqualified to speak for, or even about, it.
imardmd1: "...each point of which is not only arguable and flatly disprovable..."
No point of which is disprovable scientifically.
imardmd1: "almost an insult to the atheist who is up on the latest (and continuing) modifications to the supporting arguments that have been made to accommodate recent geological, biological, and cosmological developments that have undercut the evolutionary stance."
So now you are speaking for atheists too??
And your religion is what exactly?
But let's note here: your suggestion that somehow, to be valid, science must arrive at 100% of the corrects answers in its first efforts, confirms yet again that you either: 1) know nothing about real science, or 2) willfully distort it to support your own beliefs.
imardmd1: "You might at least do yourself the favor of freely downloading the Martin book mentioned in the opening passage, read it carefully to see your theses at least blunted, then come back with your objections to that."
To repeat: I don't debate against links, but if I did, then I'd simply refer you to other links, i.e., this one.
So, if you have a case to make, then make it here, and I'll respond.
imardmd1: "Otherwise, I'm not going to waste my time recapitulating the claims you have made in your Post 164, which have all been refuted by others."
False, none have been refuted by anyone.
imardmd1: "At least, please account for Stephen Jay Gould's "punctuated equilibrium" to explain the failure of the "geological column" to support Darwinian gradualism..."
Several points to remember here:
imardmd1: "and the Mt. St. Helen's sedimentary depositions that bring the whole presuppositions of history of geology, as taught, into disrepute."
The only disrepute was Dr. Steven Ausin's effort to perpetrate fraud on science.
In fact, there was nothing honest about what he did, and the results are fully explainable in normal scientific terms.
imardmd1: "When I speak of science, I speak as one who has successfully employed the tools and methods of science for both commercial and theoretical efforts."
Sure, and I drive a Chevy truck.
Does that make me qualified to speak for GM engineers?
In fact, you speak arrogantly and condescendingly as one who apparently rejects the basic definition of science: that it only provide natural explanations for natural processes.
Instead, it appears you would have science replace certain observations, hypotheses and theories with your own unique religious interpretations.
imardmd1: "When I speak on origins, I speak as a philosopher, as happenings not now nor ever provable by scientific methodology, for they are not repeatable (and neither you nor I were there, observing)."
You may well "speak as a philosopher", since philosophy includes many branches unconcerned with material nature (i.e., metaphysics, aesthetics, ethics, etc.)
But you do not speak as a scientist, because you seemingly reject the basic scientific premise.
In fact, basic evolution (descent with modifications, natural selection) is observed and repeated every day both in nature and in many human activities -- a fact which even anti-evolutionists don't deny.
Finally, scientific theories do not require observation (anything which can be observed is not a theory, it's a fact).
Instead, theories required confirmation through use of falsifiable predictions.
Evolution theory (but no opposing hypothesis) has been confirmed too many times to list them all.
imardmd1: "Please be kind not to confuse these areas of endeavor, as you have been doing, eh?"
Only you are trying to deliberately confuse yourself and others.
imardmd1: "I cannot respect a blending of evolutionism and science practice.
They are not the same."
Regardless of your religious convictions to the contrary, basic ideas of evolution remain: scientific observations (aka facts), hypotheses and confirmed theories.
Sorry, I'm not interested in that book.
But I am very interested in people who post on Free Republic to argue against Evolution Theory.
I enjoy the opportunity to take on their (your) arguments one by one, and respond with what I think is basic science.
So I'll say it again: spare me your arrogance and condescension, and make your best case -- here, on Free Republic.
Sure, link to whatever authorities you wish as your sources, but you make the argument, and let's see how well you can do, FRiend.
“and the Mt. St. Helen’s sedimentary depositions that bring the whole presuppositions of history of geology, as taught, into disrepute.)”
—I’m guessing that the layers that the site is discussing are these (at least, it’s the only photos of layers that I can find):
http://www.creationism.org/articles/nelson1.htm
The problem is that any geologist undergrad should be able to quickly discern that the layers are volcanic ash that consolidated, and probably formed very quickly from a single volcanic eruption.
Here’s another well known example:
http://gregvaughn.photoshelter.com/image/I0000vX.buOgCKmQ
That’s Cathedral Rock - also from a single eruption, with subsequent erosion exposing the layers.
Other pics:
http://www.highonadventure.com/Hoa08aug/Vicki/Digging%20Ancient%20Dirt.htm
Here’s a description of how such layers are formed:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuff
“During some volcanic eruptions a layer of ashes several feet in thickness is deposited over a considerable district, but such beds thin out rapidly as the distance from the crater increases, and ash deposits covering many square miles are usually very thin. The showers of ashes often follow one another after longer or shorter intervals, and hence thick masses of tuff, whether of subaerial or of marine origin, have mostly a stratified character. The coarsest materials or agglomerates show this least distinctly; in the fine beds it is often developed in great perfection.”
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.