How many creationists out there have ever read a book on evolution not written by a creationists?

Question

What was the title/author?

I've written to dewcoons, trulyblssd, and william r, repeating my question, asking for a title and author,

OK, over half an hour and NOT ONE title or author. Is this what leads peopel like Martin S to believe what he says?

Is it funny or scarry how many creationists have answered "yes" but none have given a title or author?

When writting to William r, I asked him to name a title or author; this it the response I got:
"It was in high school, and as that was a long time ago ( 40+yrs. ) The title is gone from my memery. I hated the subject, It offended me greatly, because it offended my faith. Sorry, I could not be of more help."

I put this here because it probably typifies what most creationist experience. Note, the rejection is not based on any understanding of the subject, but because he belives it contradicts his faith.

I thank him for writing, but note his real objection.

Answer 1

i love you skeptic but you know they will all say you need jesus

all things are possible with god except the only way to get to god is jesus

heh man, ill email you later

Answer 2

...The newbie would no longer actually be a good participant, yet he nevertheless had sufficient *intelligence* to understand the regulations of the game and direct the products subsequently. inspite of the actual undeniable truth that, to be honest, maximum Creationists have not even study on the starting place of Species. Neither have maximum atheists. in the adventure that that they had, that that they had comprehend that Darwin isn't the paragon of evolutionary theory he's held as a lot as be. He replaced into incorrect on numerous factors. To take your analogy better, say that the newbie receives up and leaves. An creationist seems on the board and says, "There could were an quite proficient participant in the back of this board configuration." An atheist seems on the board and says, "This configuration replaced into obviously brought about by ability of the wind, because i visit't see a participant." Neither one is ideal, yet they sit down and bicker with one yet another as if that's the most important element in the international.

Answer 3

I don't remember but I do remember all through school being told about evolution and seeing charts of the evolution of man from an ape like creature. I wasn't a Christian then and had never read the Bible or investigated the subject on my own so I always assumed that since it was in a science class in school it must be true. Now I've learned about all of the flaws and hoaxes associated with this theory that make it untenable. I've read the confessions of prominent scientists who admit that the reason they still hold to this theory is because the only other alternative is that a supernatural being created life and that is unacceptable for them to consider.

Here is just one of the many articles I've become aware of that shoots the theory of evolution and the so called supporting evidence full of holes.

From the Answers button @ http://web.express56.com/~bromar/

Human Evolution: The Legacy of the Fossil Evidence

Human evolution has many issues, including the realities of genetics, biochemistry, design theory, irreducible complexity, DNA structure, and information systems. However, the reality of the human fossil record alone is enough to reject the theory of human evolution all together. Here are just a few of the major problems with the alleged fossil record of the past century:

Ramapithecus was widely recognized as a direct ancestor of humans. It is now established that he was merely an extinct type of orangutan.

Piltdown man was hyped as the missing link in publications for over 40 years. He was a fraud based on a human skull cap and an orangutan's jaw.

Nebraska man was a fraud based on a single tooth of a rare type of pig.

Java man was based on sketchy evidence of a femur, skull cap and three teeth found within a wide area over a one year period. It turns out the bones were found in an area of human remains, and now the femur is considered human and the skull cap from a large ape.

Neandertal man was traditionally depicted as a stooped ape-man. It is now accepted that the alleged posture was due to disease and that Neandertal is just a variation of the human kind.

Human Evolution: The Current Tree

Human evolution has its currently fashionable specimens that lead from small ape-like creatures to Homo sapiens. These are examples of the most recent alleged links:

Australopithecus afarensis, or "Lucy," has been considered a missing link for years. However, studies of the inner ear, skulls and bones have shown that she was merely a pygmy chimpanzee that walked a bit more upright than some other apes. She was not on her way to becoming human.

Homo erectus has been found throughout the world. He is smaller than the average human of today, with a proportionately smaller head and brain cavity. However, the brain size is within the range of people today and studies of the middle ear have shown that he was just like current Homo sapiens. Remains are found throughout the world in the same proximity to remains of ordinary humans, suggesting coexistence. Australopithecus africanus and Peking man were presented as ape-men missing links for years, but are now both considered Homo erectus.

Homo habilis is now generally considered to be comprised of pieces of various other types of creatures, such as Australopithecus and Homo erectus, and is not generally viewed as a valid classification.

Human Evolution: The Most Recent Find

In July 2002, anthropologists announced the discovery of a skull in Chad with "an unusual mixture of primitive and humanlike features." The find was dubbed "Toumai" (the name give to children in Chad born close to the dry season) and was immediately hailed as "the earliest member of the human family found so far." By October 2002, a number of scientists went on record to criticize the premature claim -- declaring that the discovery is merely the fossil of an ape.

Human Evolution: The Theory Has No Support in the Fossil Record

Human evolution is a theory in denial. With all of this fossil evidence (or lack thereof) it becomes increasingly clear to an earnest seeker that human evolution did not happen at all.

Answer 4

Yea! I went to collage too, and had to study that nonsense. To them it is a religion, but to us, it is a theory, and a very stupid one at that. If Darwinism is true, then why are not humans still being found in the process of changing from ape to human, and where is the missing link? Missing my left big tow, nonexistent link, is more like it. Besides, when was the last time you went to Bible class, and had to study for a test? and you call us nearsighted, and judgmental.

Answer 5

I did I went to college studied medicine I don't remember all the textbooks but there are so many inconsistencies in the theory and it is a theory not a law, that it takes a big leap of faith to believe it.

Answer 6

I have read many. That's how I realized ridiculous the theory is. If life came from some chemicals and a spark, why cant they do that today? Just imagine how much money you could make.

Answer 7

Theres a video call the privileged planet. It's by a non-Christian. Very interesting!

Answer 8

I've never read a book but I've read many articles on the issue written by both sides.

What's your point?

Answer 9

Sure I have, its called my biology book! Its amazing how they justify teaching evolution in school, but not creationism! Funny stuff! Well....atleast to me!


GOD BLESS!

Answer 10

I've always wondered that myself. If that's the case, no wonder they have so many misconceptions about science.