Jump to content


Photo

Suggested Reading?


  • Please log in to reply
81 replies to this topic

#41 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 19 March 2009 - 12:44 AM

Another book I found highly interesting:

“I Don’t Have Enough Faith To Be An Atheist”

Norman Geisler and Frank Tuerk

View Post


Well if you think about it, being an atheist is an oxymoron statement. For how can you be against something you claim does not exist?

#42 RonningMan

RonningMan

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 22 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Norway

Posted 03 April 2009 - 12:00 PM

"Genetic Entropy & The Mystery of the Genome", John C. Sanford:
Great book! Shows why why the Primary Axiom (Mutation+natural selection=evolution) is false.

"Science vs. Evolution" (or The Evolution Handbook, which is a shorter version), Vance Ferrell.
Very comprehensive and easy to read. Covers a great number of topics, and tries to show why the Evolution theory is wrong.

"Noah's Ark: A Feasibility Study", John Woodmorappe.
About how the ark was a possible project.

"Buried Alive", Jack Cuozzo
Why the Neanderthals fit into the Young Earth view, and not the ThoE.

"Secrets of the Ica Stones and Nazca Lines", Dennis Swift
Shows that ancient people saw dinosaurs alive.

#43 NHAM88

NHAM88

    Copy Paste Spammer

  • Banned
  • Pip
  • 7 posts
  • Age: 27
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • London

Posted 02 May 2009 - 04:29 PM

Well I find myself on a ‘creation vs evolution’ forum discussion looking at recommended books, and what do I find? I find people recommending books by Lee Strobel, Jonathan Wells, Ken Ham, Geoffrey Simmons, Tom Sutcliff, Vance Ferrell, Jack Cuozzo, Norman Geisler, Frank Turek, and various others, many of whom I’ve never heard of.
What do all of these people have in common? Well not a single one of them is a scientist (I include Wells in this as despite his PhD he does not work at any scientific research institution and if he has ever published any peer-reviewed work it was a long time ago and it didn’t provide support for his nonsensical claims). If I want to learn about history I would go to a historian, if I want to know about law I go to a lawyer, and if I want to know about science I go to a scientist. Why do creationists insist on this completely irresponsible method of reading any old hack irrespective of what their qualifications are, as long as the work agrees with their preconceived ideas? There are plenty of good scientists who have published books explaining evolution, if only you would read what they have to say. If you want to know about evolution, try reading books by people who actually work in the subject and study it, not unqualified Christian apologists.
The only person that would be considered a scientist, and whose work was actually taken slightly seriously, of those you have mentioned, would be Michael Behe, and even he accepts common descent. His claim about irreducible complexity is not accepted by the rest of the scientific community, and even the rest of his department at Lehigh have distanced themselves from his views.
If you want to know about the fossil record read Evolution: What The Fossils Say and Why it Really Matters by Donald Prothero. He has been working in palaeontology for 30 years and so he has handled and personally worked with the fossils he talks about. Don’t read some garbage by Geoffrey Simmons who is a doctor for crying out loud.
Other books by respected scientists that I would recommend are; The Making of the Fittest by Sean Carroll, Why Evolution is True by Jerry Coyne, and Your Inner Fish by Neil Shubin. These are all well respected scientists who work at respected institutions and represent the scientific consensus.

#44 de_skudd

de_skudd

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,518 posts
  • Location:North Augusta, SC
  • Interests:reading, learning, talking and stuff
  • Age: 41
  • no affiliation
  • Creationist
  • North Augusta, SC

Posted 04 May 2009 - 10:02 AM

What do all of these people have in common? Well not a single one of them is a scientist (I include Wells in this as despite his PhD he does not work at any scientific research institution and if he has ever published any peer-reviewed work it was a long time ago and it didn’t provide support for his nonsensical claims). If I want to learn about history I would go to a historian, if I want to know about law I go to a lawyer, and if I want to know about science I go to a scientist. Why do creationists insist on this completely irresponsible method of reading any old hack irrespective of what their qualifications are, as long as the work agrees with their preconceived ideas? There are plenty of good scientists who have published books explaining evolution, if only you would read what they have to say. If you want to know about evolution, try reading books by people who actually work in the subject and study it, not unqualified Christian apologists.

View Post


Hmmmm, I just did a quick perusal of this thread and saw more than seven or eight (non-evolutionist) scientists publications being described. You may want to actually look into the thread, and not just skim over it. I might suggest you read “Why is a Fly Not a Horse?” by Dr. Giuseppe Sermonti for a start.

You assertion that “not a single one of them is a scientist”, is baseless, and what some might consider an out-and-out lie. Be that as it may, Darwin, himself wasn’t a scientist (was without a degree in any scientific discipline) when he wrote “Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life”. Therefore, based upon your logic, he should be considered “any old hack” , and his whole book is chock full of “nonsensical claims”.

I think you’ll find that many of us have done extensive reading of book by evolutheists, and have found them wanting on both science and logic…

But, if you have a problem with all that, here's a bunch of scientists you can argue with:
http://www.discovery...download&id=660

#45 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 26 May 2009 - 04:42 PM

But, if you have a problem with all that, here's a bunch of scientists you can argue with:
http://www.discovery...download&id=660

View Post



:( Excellent rebuttal, but I doubt NHAM88 will rejoin that :lol:

#46 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 07 June 2009 - 04:49 PM

Refuting Evolution - Johnathan Sarfati

Refuting Evolution 2 - Johnathan Sarfati

Creation Scientists Answer Their Critics - Duane Gish

#47 pdw709

pdw709

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 102 posts
  • Age: 36
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • UK

Posted 13 June 2009 - 01:34 PM

Darwin, himself wasn’t a scientist (was without a degree in any scientific discipline) when he wrote “Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life”. Therefore, based upon your logic, he should be considered “any old hack” , and his whole book is chock full of “nonsensical claims”.


Science is something you DO, and not just a title you can buy from an unacredited university (Mr H*vind??). Charles Darwin spent a lifetime making observations, collecting evidence, making scientific predictions and then testing them. He wrote and published academic papers which were peer reviewed and publically debated.

It's the process of following the scientific method makes you a scientist and nothing else (which incidently is why creationism is not science). Besides he could hardly have gone to "University" and studied evolutionary science could he? :)

Incidently, I've asked this before, but why does Kent H*vind's name get the "o" asterixed out? Is his name rally considered blastphemous?

#48 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 13 June 2009 - 03:10 PM

Incidently, I've asked this before, but why does Kent H*vind's name get the "o" asterixed out? Is his name rally considered blastphemous?

View Post


No, it's just that atheists have as hard a time refuting his points as they do pronouncing his name. Therefore we thought we'd make it easier on them :huh:



I'm just kidding pdw, I have no idea why that happens. :)

#49 Bruce V.

Bruce V.

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,153 posts
  • Age: 54
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Northern Califiornia

Posted 30 June 2009 - 09:16 AM

This book is brand new.

Signature of the cell.

A great book. I was worried because if you read a typical Stephen Meyer paper it is well written by a very difficult read.

However, this book is an easy read. He spends time and explains concepts and builds to conclusions gradually. In other words it was written to a lay person. His thesis is that information proves design. Dr. Meyer has been researching this thesis since the early 80's. In other words this is his life's work and it shows.

It is a great book and I highly recommend it.

Bruce

#50 urbanguru

urbanguru

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 46 posts
  • Age: 27
  • Muslim
  • Creationist
  • Norway

Posted 30 October 2009 - 10:59 AM

The Edge of Evolution: The Search for the Limits of Darwinism
~ Michael J. Behe

Truly amazing book, it's a must-read!

"Until the past decade and the genomics revolution, Darwin's theory rested on indirect evidence and reasonable speculation. Now, however, we have begun to scratch the surface of direct evidence, of which this book offers the best possible treatment. Though many critics won't want to admit it, The Edge of Evolution is very balanced, careful, and devastating. A tremendously important book."

-- Dr. Philip Skell, Evan Pugh Professor of Chemistry, Emeritus, at Pennsylvania State University, and member of the National Academy of Sciences

#51 Guest_martemius_*

Guest_martemius_*
  • Guests

Posted 12 November 2009 - 04:36 PM

Here's an ordered sequence of reading that should help a number of people here (I tried to keep it as short as possible):

"Calculus from Graphical, Numerical, and Symbolic Points of View" and "Multivariable Calculus" by Ostebee and Zorn
"Introduction to Analysis" by Arthur Mattuck
"Elementary Differential Equations and Boundary Value Problems" by Boyce and DiPrima
"Partial Differential Equations" by Lawrence Evans
"Introduction to Smooth Manifolds" by John Lee
"Classical Mechanics" by John Taylor
"Introduction to Electrodynamics" by David Griffiths
"Introduction to Quantum Mechanics" by David Griffiths
"Spacetime Physics" by Taylor and Wheeler
"General Relativity" by Robert Wald

Probably some biology books too, but it's not as if I've read them either, so it's not really my place to say.


edit: maybe throw a "Principles of Physical Cosmology" by Peebles in there too

#52 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 29 November 2009 - 06:23 PM

The Scientific Case for Creation - Henry Morris, Ph.D.

#53 JMcP

JMcP

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 79 posts
  • Age: 47
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Scotland

Posted 20 December 2009 - 05:12 AM

I would recommend you read "The greatest show on earth", by Richard Dawkins.

If the creationists here would read it, you could pretty much close down the forum!

#54 JMcP

JMcP

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 79 posts
  • Age: 47
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Scotland

Posted 20 December 2009 - 10:12 AM

Of course you are incorrect in so many ways. But, since you like court opinions as evidence, here’s one that directly refutes your assertion, and supports mine:
On August 19, 2005 the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that atheism should be treated as a ‘religion.

http://www.wnd.com/n...RTICLE_ID=45874 ;)

View Post


LOL. Well, if atheism is a religion, who or what do we worship, and what scripures do we have? Where are the rules?

#55 scott

scott

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,749 posts
  • Age: 21
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • mississippi

Posted 20 December 2009 - 11:08 AM

LOL. Well, if atheism is a religion, who or what do we worship, and what scripures do we have? Where are the rules?

View Post


Nature, and naturalistic beginnings/evolution. No God or gods in the picture. Your Idol is nature, and the naturalistic world. Such is easy to see.

#56 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 20 December 2009 - 11:35 AM

LOL. Well, if atheism is a religion,

View Post


Yes... Oh, + you must not have read the link <_<


who or what do we worship,

View Post


Evolution, nature et.al...


and what scripures do we have? Where are the rules?

View Post


The writings of darwin, the Humanist Manifesto, and any other evolutheistic writing that you can latch onto and make statements like "I would recommend you read "The greatest show on earth", by Richard Dawkins. If the creationists here would read it, you could pretty much close down the forum!" And then come back and dogmatically defend the stance. :angry:

#57 JMcP

JMcP

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 79 posts
  • Age: 47
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Scotland

Posted 20 December 2009 - 11:54 AM

Yes... Oh, + you must not have read the link  <_<
Evolution, nature et.al...
The writings of darwin and any other evolutheistic writing that you can latch onto and make statements like "I would recommend you read "The greatest show on earth", by Richard Dawkins. If the creationists here would read it, you could pretty much close down the forum!"  And then come back and dogmatically defend the stance.  :angry:

View Post


Oh come on, Ron. You don't think we actually "worship" those ideas do you?

#58 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 20 December 2009 - 04:24 PM

Oh come on, Ron. You don't think we actually "worship" those ideas do you?

View Post


The way you're dogmatically defending it?... Absolutely! The problem is, you don't realize it.

#59 JMcP

JMcP

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 79 posts
  • Age: 47
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Scotland

Posted 20 December 2009 - 04:27 PM

The way you're dogmatically defending it?... Absolutely! The problem is, you don't realize it.

View Post


Too right I don't realise it! Defending what is almost universally regarded as the truth (evolution) does not imply "worship", Ron.

#60 scott

scott

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,749 posts
  • Age: 21
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • mississippi

Posted 20 December 2009 - 06:47 PM

Too right I don't realise it! Defending what is almost universally regarded as the truth (evolution) does not imply "worship", Ron.

View Post


But you do worship it, and you do realize it. It's easy to see also. Besides evolution isn't truth, because if it was, you could show it as plain as day. In each and every post.

Such you have failed to do, and so has every other evolutionist.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users