• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

Are there any creationist resources (sites, books) to do not misrepresent science and evolution?

pitabread

Well-Known Member
Jan 29, 2017
12,920
13,373
Frozen North
✟344,333.00
Country
Canada
Gender
Male
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Private

FYI, but blatant copy pasting from other web site is a violation of the forum's policies regarding respect of copyrights.

Likewise, copy pasting giant walls of text with zero commentary is poor form and not conducive to a discussion.
 
Upvote 0

Psalm 27

Well-Known Member
Aug 21, 2020
1,130
541
Uk
✟137,222.00
Country
United Kingdom
Gender
Female
Faith
Christian Seeker
Marital Status
Private
Upvote 0

Speedwell

Well-Known Member
May 11, 2016
23,928
17,626
82
St Charles, IL
✟347,280.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Married
Your point being? Your post is about geology, not evolution and it's stuff that happened 200 years ago.
 
Upvote 0

pitabread

Well-Known Member
Jan 29, 2017
12,920
13,373
Frozen North
✟344,333.00
Country
Canada
Gender
Male
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Private
Reactions: Astrophile
Upvote 0

Subduction Zone

Regular Member
Dec 17, 2012
32,629
12,069
✟230,471.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
So nothing but weak attempts to libel the founders of geology. It appears that your source does not understand the scientific method. The findings of Lyell and others was not accepted due to their personal philosophies. It is accepted because the evidence supports it. Their ideas have been tested and confirmed. Minor problems were fixed and new discoveries have been made since then.

Like evolution all of the scientific evidence supports old Earth geology. There is no scientific evidence for YECism. For a definition of scientific evidence read my sig.

It is very telling when a group has to try to attack the character of people that they disagree with and not their ideas. It tells us that those ideas could not be refute by those that oppose them. This whole thing is pretty much just an ad hominem attack and not a refutation.
 
Reactions: Astrophile
Upvote 0

Subduction Zone

Regular Member
Dec 17, 2012
32,629
12,069
✟230,471.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Lyell influenced Darwin
Of course he did. Scientists influence each other. And both scientists have been shown to be essentially correct.

Once again, don't attack supposed personal philosophy. That has nothing to do with science. You might as well admit that you are wrong.
 
Upvote 0

Subduction Zone

Regular Member
Dec 17, 2012
32,629
12,069
✟230,471.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
You know? I know that Genesis is accurate
No, you only believe. If you knew you could support your claims with evidence. And the Bible is the claim. It is not the evidence.

You would be doing yourself a huge favor is you learned what evidence is.
 
Upvote 0

pitabread

Well-Known Member
Jan 29, 2017
12,920
13,373
Frozen North
✟344,333.00
Country
Canada
Gender
Male
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Private
In the beginning, God created the heaven and the earth. Read Genesis 1 for yourself

Or you can read and respect the request in the OP. Since you appear to have little interest in doing that, I'll ask that you take your posts elsewhere. Otherwise you'll be reported for trying to derail the thread.

Last time a poster came in and was deliberately disruptive, they got the ban-hammer rather quick.
 
Upvote 0

pitabread

Well-Known Member
Jan 29, 2017
12,920
13,373
Frozen North
✟344,333.00
Country
Canada
Gender
Male
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Private
No, you only believe. If you knew you could support your claims with evidence. And the Bible is the claim. It is not the evidence.

You would be doing yourself a huge favor is you learned what evidence is.

Can I ask that this thread not be detailed, please.

I just had a previous thread hopelessly derailed and I foresee this one going down exactly the same path. It's bloody frustrating trying to have any sort of focused discussions here.
 
Upvote 0

Speedwell

Well-Known Member
May 11, 2016
23,928
17,626
82
St Charles, IL
✟347,280.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Married
It’s the book the op needs to read to answer creation sceptics
But it is not a book which contains an accurate representation of the theory of evolution. What the OP is asking for is a creationist source which portrays the theory of evolution accurately while arguing against it.
 
Upvote 0

pitabread

Well-Known Member
Jan 29, 2017
12,920
13,373
Frozen North
✟344,333.00
Country
Canada
Gender
Male
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Private
What the OP is asking for is a creationist source which portrays the theory of evolution accurately while arguing against it.

Exactly.

For anyone that wonders what that looks like, I suggest they go read the works of Todd Wood. Then if they can find any creationist sources that grant a similar respect for science insofar as portraying it accurately, by all means present them.
 
Reactions: Astrophile
Upvote 0

inquiring mind

and a discerning heart
Site Supporter
Dec 31, 2016
7,221
3,311
U.S.
✟697,694.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
You have to admit, this is sort of a catch 22 question for creationists though. You only accept Wood’s work because he puts evolution in a positive light (even though he apparently doesn’t hold with it at all). If a creationist presents a scientific article that challenges your view, you would paint it as creationist nonsense.
 
Upvote 0

Subduction Zone

Regular Member
Dec 17, 2012
32,629
12,069
✟230,471.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single

The problem is that creationists do not tend to follow the scientific method. It is why the term "Creation scientist" is thought to be an oxymoron. Wood followed the scientific method and had to admit that evolution is strongly supported by evidence. The same cannot be said, as yet, of creationist beliefs.
 
Upvote 0

pitabread

Well-Known Member
Jan 29, 2017
12,920
13,373
Frozen North
✟344,333.00
Country
Canada
Gender
Male
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Private

I don't think it's a catch-22 at all. It's possible to disagree with something, but still present that something in an fair and accurate manner. Doing so only lends credibility to the disagreement.

When creationists resort to creating strawman caricatures of the scientific method and evolution, they only hurt their own credibility. Case in point was that site another poster linked earlier in the thread that claimed that evolution is not testable. That's a blatantly false claim; other than hoping that their audience doesn't know any better, I don't see the point of spreading misinformation like that.

And for the record, I don't agree with Todd Wood's work myself. But I do find it fascinating. Where I to share his creationist views, I would likely approach things in a similar manner he does. He's not satisfied with blanket claims like "DesignerDidIt". He's trying to figure out the details. And he doesn't need to resort to strawman caricatures of evolution in the process. He recognizes what creationists are really up against and what they need to do if they ever hope to topple the scientific theory that is evolution. I respect him for that.
 
Reactions: Astrophile
Upvote 0

Andrewn

Well-Known Member
CF Ambassadors
Site Supporter
Jul 4, 2019
5,846
4,331
-
✟724,827.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
Upvote 0

Speedwell

Well-Known Member
May 11, 2016
23,928
17,626
82
St Charles, IL
✟347,280.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Married
No, not a positive light, an accurate light. Let me give you an example:

1. I don't believe in Christianity because I don't think Jesus Christ died on the cross and rose from the grave three days later.

2. I don't believe in Christianity because I don't think Jesus Christ was an Olympic figure skater who is going to take us all to heaven on ice skates.

Neither statement is a positive statement about Christianity, but which one describes Christianity more accurately?
 
Last edited:
Reactions: Astrophile
Upvote 0