Originally posted by VoidSpirit the title should be "the creationist lies, misinterpretation, misquotation and misinformation handbook for the ignorant."
How do you know? I think it might be a good book for more information
I can use to help atheists and evolutionists overcome their shortcomings.
😏
P.S. You can read the chapter on Carbon Dating here without buying
the book.\\
http://creation.com/images/pdfs/cabook/chapter4.pdf
One of the things my parents always encouraged me to do when they were bringing me up - and something that I still do right up to the present day - was to read things that I was inclined not to agree with so as to either: challenge, test and therefore - perhaps - strengthen my own beliefs; or make it possible for me to change my mind based on argumentation and evidence.
If I were you, RJHinds - seeing as your beliefs in the supernatural and in the literature of your religion are already firmly established - I'd be reading material that challenged and strengthened those beliefs - by testing them - while not excluding the possibility of modifying or altering them.
People who are genuinely inquisitive might look upon your preening yourself on a public forum over ordering a book that caters to your pre-existing beliefs as a sign of you shoring something up or insulating yourself - consciously or subconsciously - as opposed to actually exercising your intellectual and spiritual curiosity.
"Creationist researchers have suggested that dates of 35,000–45,000
years should be recalibrated to the biblical date for the Flood.7"
hehehe. yeah, recalibrate observed scientific data to conform with a myth. as expected there were other misleading deceptions there, but covering them all is a moot point.
that entire chapter is meaningless. scientists know about the limitations of radiometric/carbon testing. it was they who discovered these limitations and have already incorporated the margins of error in their data.
unfortunately for you and the creationist agenda, carbon/radiometric testing is used as corroborative evidence, not as sole evidence. but you'll never know this and other factoids because you won't read anything by real scientists.
Originally posted by VoidSpirit "Creationist researchers have suggested that dates of 35,000–45,000
years should be recalibrated to the biblical date for the Flood.7"
hehehe. yeah, recalibrate observed scientific data to conform with a myth. as expected there were other misleading deceptions there, but covering them all is a moot point.
that entire chapter is meaningless. scie ...[text shortened]... ou'll never know this and other factoids because you won't read anything by real scientists.
You do not mean real scientists. You mean evolutionary scientists. 😏
I have just read the first chapter of the book and it starts off with a circular argument using the bible as "proof" that the bible is correct. Not very scientific.
It then goes onto many pseudo-scientific arguments and even that you cannot get increasing complexity (i.e. effectively using the "Blind Watchmaker" argument). As well as misunderstanding of the laws of thermodynamics.
This paragraph is hilarious:
Observed changes in living things head in the wrong direction to support
evolution from protozoan to man (macro-evolution).
Selection from the genetic information already present in a population
(for example, DDT resistance in mosquitoes) causes a net loss of genetic
information in that population. A DDT-resistant mosquito is adapted
to an environment where DDT is present, but the population has lost
genes present in the mosquitoes that were not resistant to DDT because
they died and so did not pass on their genes. So natural selection and
adaptation involve loss of genetic information.
It then goes on and talks about those old tired arguments about "gaps" between fossils etc.
The book is very funny. I am looking forward to reading the following chapters.
Originally posted by FMF One of the things my parents always encouraged me to do when they were bringing me up - and something that I still do right up to the present day - was to read things that I was inclined not to agree with so as to either: challenge, test and therefore - perhaps - strengthen my own beliefs; or make it possible for me to change my mind based on argumentation and e ...[text shortened]... r subconsciously - as opposed to actually exercising your intellectual and spiritual curiosity.
I am curious about what others that have done studies and who are
scientist that also believe in god and creation have to say on the
subject. I don't see any need for reading material that challenge
my beliefs in God that are most likely works of Satan.
Originally posted by lausey I have just read the first chapter of the book and it starts off with a circular argument using the bible as "proof" that the bible is correct. Not very scientific.
It then goes onto many pseudo-scientific arguments and even that you cannot get increasing complexity (i.e. effectively using the "Blind Watchmaker" argument). As well as misunderstanding of th ls etc.
The book is very funny. I am looking forward to reading the following chapters.
I have studied Physics and know the laws of thermodynamics probably
better than anyone on this website. So I think I will be able to judge
if he has a misunderstanding of them or not myself once I get the book.
If the book is very funny, as you claim, then it will not be a total loss of
money and time. 😉
Originally posted by RJHinds I am curious about what others that have done studies and who are
scientist that also believe in god and creation have to say on the
subject. I don't see any need for reading material that challenge
my beliefs in God that are most likely works of Satan.
Trying to strengthen your pre-existing beliefs by seeking out material that confirms them rather than strengthen them by challenging them and testing them against material that contradicts them, is arguably the diametric opposite of genuine "curiosity".
Originally posted by FMF Trying to strengthen your pre-existing beliefs by seeking out material that confirms them rather than strengthen them by challenging them and testing them against material that contradicts them, is arguably the diametric opposite of genuine "curiosity".
I think it's a bit unchristian the way writers and publishers such as these package up this sort of tripe to make it look like genuine reference material and then punt it out to gullible but sincere and (for the most part) well-meaning suckers. Still, at least it's relatively inexpensive, eh?
Get the "Dragons or Dinosaurs" one next RJ, then post the best bits!
Originally posted by avalanchethecat I think it's a bit unchristian the way writers and publishers such as these package up this sort of tripe to make it look like genuine reference material and then punt it out to gullible but sincere and (for the most part) well-meaning suckers. Still, at least it's relatively inexpensive, eh?
Get the "Dragons or Dinosaurs" one next RJ, then post the best bits!
How do you know it is not genuine reference material?
Dr. Batten is a genuine scientist.
31 Dec '11 00:06
Creation Answer Book
Back to Top