Books By Creationists?

Many today think that science is anti-God. Atheists encourage this
view by claiming that their way of thinking is ‘scientific’. In claiming
this, they are merely redefining science to exclude God. In fact, science began to flourish only when the biblical view of creation took root in Europe as the Reformation spread its influence. The presuppositions that enabled a scientific approach to investigating the worldthat the created universe is real, consistent, understandable, and possible to investigate, for examplecame from the Bible. Even non-Christian historians of science such as Loren Eiseley have acknowledged this. Consequently, almost every branch of science was either founded co-founded, or dramatically advanced, by scientists who believed in the Bible’s account of Creation and the Flood. And there are many scientists today who believe the Bible.

Has anyone said that it is ? If not then what is the point in raising it ?

And once again, if we take an example from another context, if I, as a scientists, would review scientific papers with the intention of debunking it even before reading it ? Why would it be dishonest in that case, but not in the other ?

slevesque writes:Well isn't that the kind of attitude Tram Law is promoting in this thread, by saying we read a book with the a priori intention of debunking it (ie having already decided what our conclusion will be) ?

3. FossilsAlthough Darwin expected millions of transitional fossils to be found,
none have been found, except for a mere handful of disputable ones.Evolutionist Dr Colin Patterson of the British Museum of Natural Historyresponded as follows to a written question asking why he failed to includeillustrations of transitional forms in a book he wrote on evolution:
‘ I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration
of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or
living, I would certainly have included them. You suggest that an
artist should be used to visualize such transformations, but where
would he get the information from? I could not, honestly, provide
it, and if I were to leave it to artistic license, would that not mislead
the reader?‘I wrote the text of my book four years ago. If I were to write
it now, I think the book would be rather different. Gradualism is
a concept I believe in, not just because of Darwin’s authority, but
because my understanding of genetics seems to demand it. Yet Gouldand the American Museum people are hard to contradict when they
say there are no transitional fossils. As a palaeontologist myself, I
am much occupied with the philosophical problems of identifying
ancestral forms in the fossil record. You say that I should at least
show a photo of the fossil from which each type of organism was
derived. I will lay it on the linethere is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument.Even Archaeopteryx, often claimed as the transition between reptiles and birds, shows no sign of the crucial scale-to-feather or leg-to-wing transition. While it is always possible to maintain faith in evolution by belief in unobservable mechanisms, the evidence of such a systematic paucity of the anticipated evolutionary ‘links’ on a global scale is powerful, positive support for biblical creation, regardless of any argument about how and when fossils may have formed.Footnote:Letter (written April 10, 1979) from Dr Colin Patterson, then Senior Palaeontologist at the British Museum of Natural History in London, to Luther D. Sunderland, as quoted in Sunderland, L.D., 1984. Darwin’s Enigma, Master Books, San Diego, USA, p. 89. Patterson subsequently tried to play down the significance of this very clear statement.

The reconstruction of the evolution of the horse and its relatives assembled by Othniel Charles Marsh from surviving fossils that form a single, consistently developing lineage with many "transitional" types, is often cited as a family tree. However, modern cladistics gives a different, multi-stemmed shrublike picture, with multiple innovations and many dead ends. Other specimens cited as transitional forms include the "walking whale" Ambulocetus, the recently-discovered lobe-finned fish Tiktaalik[4] and various hominids considered to be proto-humans.A middle Devonian precursor to seed plants from Belgium has been identified predating the earliest seed plants by about 20 million years. Runcaria, small and radially symmetrical, is an integumented megasporangium surrounded by a cupule. The megasporangium bears an unopened distal extension protruding above the mutlilobed integument. It is suspected that the extension was involved in anemophilous pollination. Runcaria sheds new light on the sequence of character acquisition leading to the seed. Runcaria has all of the qualities of seed plants except for a solid seed coat and a system to guide the pollen to the seed.

And if we identified the no-evidence-will-change-my-mind as the origin of the stubbornness of creationist, what is to say that same attitude isn't simply also the origin of the stubbornness found in evolutionist ?

Your a troll right ?33. ARGUMENT FROM META-SMUGNESS
(1) Fuck you.
(2) Therefore, God exists.really ?

I see people here define the words so that ''evidence of creationism'' is impossible. People claim that ''creationism isn't scientific, because it is unfalsifiable'' and then turn around and that the claims of creationism have been refuted, and therefore falsified.

Except creationist don't usually say does such micro-managing.

because I think evolution is obviously false when examined honestly.

Uh, not quite.

Well, no, since I said that an evolution is a requirement for atheism.

is just an outright lie. the bible says no such things, and indeed portrays a natural world that obeys the every whim of god. god is in charge of everything:

But it goes more then that, if the facts did not allow for evolution to be possible, then I contend that the consistent atheist would have three option:

I do not deny reality. I deny how it is interpreted by others.

"In his encyclical Humani Generis (1950), my predecessor Pius XII has already affirmed that there is no conflict between evolution and the doctrine of the faith regarding man and his vocation, provided that we do not lose sight of certain fixed points.... Today, more than a half-century after the appearance of that encyclical, some new findings lead us toward the recognition of evolution as more than a hypothesis. In fact it is remarkable that this theory has had progressively greater influence on the spirit of researchers, following a series of discoveries in different scholarly disciplines. The convergence in the results of these independent studieswhich was neither planned nor soughtconstitutes in itself a significant argument in favor of the theory.

We cannot say: creation or evolution, inasmuch as these two things respond to two different realities. The story of the dust of the earth and the breath of God, which we just heard, does not in fact explain how human persons come to be but rather what they are. It explains their inmost origin and casts light on the project that they are. And, vice versa, the theory of evolution seeks to understand and describe biological developments. But in so doing it cannot explain where the 'project' of human persons comes from, nor their inner origin, nor their particular nature. To that extent we are faced here with two complementaryrather than mutually exclusiverealities.— Cardinal Ratzinger, In the Beginning: A Catholic Understanding of the Story of Creation and the Fall [Eerdmans, 1986, 1995], see especially pages 41—58

If you continue to make general replies I will assume you are just being an asshole and will consider that whenever you post anything.