Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
In this preface is his explanation on why he became a creationist from being a christian evolutionist.
You can continue reading this online book by clicking on the purple button in the upper right hand corner of the site that reads "Next Page" or click on the table of content column on the left side of the site to any area of your interest.
This is for any honest impartial seeker out there that knows there are two sides to every issue. This link is to show why a christian evolutionist became a creationist.
It's astounding to read his claim that, in trying to get answers Walt Brown found a lack of evidence for evolution
This passage looks fishy
"With this growing possibility came a problem. If that much water sloshed over the earth for a year, many dead animals and plants would have been buried in vast amounts of mud and other sediments. This could explain how almost all fossils formed, especially those on the highest mountains. But the fossil record was supposedly the best evidence for evolution, a theory I had passively accepted. If a global flood produced most fossils, where was the evidence for evolution? The more I struggled with this question, the more amazed I became at the lack of evidence supporting evolution and the abundant evidence supporting creation. By 1972, I had become a creationist."
If he started from scratch, the fossil record would have showing him that the chronological stratification does not support an instant flood and the existence of fossil sea -floors on mountains would support a long term geological scenario not a mountain high flood scenarion. An impartial evaluation of the evidence could not give him the result he came to.
I think this is yet another 'I used to be an atheist - like you' ploy and this: "If that much water sloshed over the earth for a year, many dead animals and plants would have been buried in vast amounts of mud and other sediments. This could explain how almost all fossils formed, especially those on the highest mountains. But the fossil record was supposedly the best evidence for evolution, a theory I had passively accepted. If a global flood produced most fossils, where was the evidence for evolution?" betrays him.
He began with the acceptance of a flood and on that basis was the (very ignorant) dismissal of fossils as all buried in mud at one time - I repeat, not supported by the facts - and thus the rationale for rejecting evolution. I doubt that he ever became a Creationist from evaluating the evidence and rejecting evolution. He began with Creationism and dismissed the evidence for evolution without considering it properly, and always reasoned from a creationist point of view.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 09-17-2010 at 08:05 AM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.