What stance do Orgahs take on Kent Hovind?

[Lorenzo_H]

He's a creationist (for all those who don't know, thats somebody who disproves evolution).

Here's a link to one of his debates. Hes a pretty convincing guy, if you ask me.

http://creationists.org/debates.html#hovindandmoore

[Redleg]

He's a creationist (for all those who don't know, thats somebody who disproves evolution).

Here's a link to one of his debates. Hes a pretty convincing guy, if you ask me.

http://creationists.org/debates.html#hovindandmoore


The problem is that creationism is a religious theory

Evolution theory is based upon scientific observations and a theory is developed from those observations.

Kind of hard to disprove a theory based soley upon lack of evidence.

[English assassin]

He's a creationist (for all those who don't know, thats somebody who disproves evolution).

Really? Heh, that IS news.

Wait. Can we set the parameters of this thread right now. Did you want a fact based discusssion in which the rival positions are subjected to the same level of critical scrutiny, and the theory which is, overall, the best explaination of all the facts, is the winner, at least until a more refined theory comes along?

Or did you want to tell us you believe in God?

Only getting that out in the open early doors could save us all a lot of time.

[Lorenzo_H]

The problem is that creationism is a religious theory

Evolution theory is based upon scientific observations and a theory is developed from those observations.

Kind of hard to disprove a theory based soley upon lack of evidence.
Evolution is also a religious theory. It hasn't been observed (definition of "Science"= something that can be tested through observation). Only micro-evolution can be proved.

[Lorenzo_H]

Oh man I'd love to argue with you all but I don't have time right now, unfortunartly.

[English assassin]

Evolution is also a religious theory. It hasn't been observed (definition of "Science"= something that can be tested through observation). Only micro-evolution can be proved

Bye bye ~:wave:

[R'as al Ghul]

Good move, English Assassin! :laugh4:

You've repulsed that attack with only 1 post.
But be careful, you may be ambushed when routing him from the field. :charge:

[Redleg]

Evolution is also a religious theory. It hasn't been observed (definition of "Science"= something that can be tested through observation). Only micro-evolution can be proved.

Trixs are for kids you silly rabbit.....

[Banquo's Ghost]

Evolution is also a religious theory. It hasn't been observed (definition of "Science"= something that can be tested through observation). Only micro-evolution can be proved.

Is that so?

*pause*

You know, I simply can't be bothered any more. Here's a pink elephant for you instead.

:elephant:

[Ironside]

I'll bite. If you wonder, this issue has been beaten to death about a few dozens times before.

Science is also to draw the simplest conclusion from the evidence presented in front of you. And is it proven that micro-evolution exists, fossiles exist, that all life is working on the same basic principles, you were born from your parents, they had in turn parents etc, etc.
All information taken together seems to indicate that primitive life existed first, and that more advanced life has occured later on, in a systematical way that makes you see the clear simularity between the parent and his/her great, great, great etc grandchild.
Now that means that either evolution is true or that either God, P'Tah, Odin, Zeus, the invisible Lepruchan living outside my door, the Flying Spaghetti monster, 11 dimentional Aliens, those aliens that are living in dead bodies playing around with our minds (by implementing false memories) trying to start to understand the human mind so that they can survive, your neighbours cat or those lab rats observing us as thier supercomputer known as earth is going to answer what's the question that the answer is 42 and how is it linked to the meaning of life, is responsible for one very intricate scam as they placed all those evidence around.
Science does not deal with this, as said, because science can't prove a negative. I can't disprove any of the things I wrote above, thus neither thing is science.

Now for the funny part IMO. An awful amount of creationists constantly makes the mistake of considering that proving (and that's often "proving") one part of a theory wrong means that the entire theory needs to be scapped for thier own theory, that contains no actual proof itself. I mean by writing this I've proven that BMW:s grows on trees :laugh4: .

So to conclude, proving that evolution is wrong still doesn't prove that God exist, in fact proving that divine creatures (aka gods) exist, still doesn't prove that God exist. :laugh4:

And the test for creationism to join the club of science, prove this: How can you prove that your neghbours cat isn't God?

[Duke Malcolm]

Kind of hard to disprove a theory based soley upon lack of evidence.

Don't get me wrong, I trust in evolution, but this just reminded me of what Athiests say when they argue with Theists; the former says "There is no evidence", thus the Athiesm theory is comparable to the Creationism "theory" in that respect...

But I digress, and have nothing other to say than perhaps Professor Richard Dawkins should be made compulsory reading in schools...

[Tribesman]

It's unfortunate that many public school children are denied this opportunity because of the high wall of protection that has been built around the false religion of evolutionism.

Wow , evolution is a religeon , and a false one according to that site .
Damn , and there was me thinking it was a scientific theory .

[Redleg]

Don't get me wrong, I trust in evolution, but this just reminded me of what Athiests say when they argue with Theists; the former says "There is no evidence", thus the Athiesm theory is comparable to the Creationism "theory" in that respect...

You forget I am a christian who believes in God and creation - however I know that with logic one can not prove or disprove anything by the lack of evidence.

[Ironside]

It's unfortunate that many public school children are denied this opportunity because of the high wall of protection that has been built around the false religion of evolutionism.

Wow , evolution is a religeon , and a false one according to that site .
Damn , and there was me thinking it was a scientific theory .

Have they started to assult geology yet? :laugh4:
As it was among the first fields were the age of earth were considered way more then a few thousands years old (they entered millions quite fast).

[yesdachi]

I don’t know who the heck Kent Hovind is but if he disproves evolution then my stance is that he is a not worth me spending my time taking a stance over.

[ZombieFriedNuts]

You know I’ll only believe in creationism if god comes to me and shouts at me for being an atheist.:laugh4:

[Lemur]

Is it too early to start "War on Christmas" threads? They would go nicely with this one ...

[Uesugi Kenshin]

I have only one question and then I will be able to make up my mind as to whether or not this guy is a hypocrite, or merely misguided.

Does he get flu shots every year?

[ZombieFriedNuts]

Ok I’m curious what do flu shots have to do with anything, its not part of a conspiracy is it?

[Louis VI the Fat]

That Hovind guy is quite a character. Visit his Dinosaur Adventure Land (http://www.dinosauradventureland.com/) and get evidence that man and dinosaurs once roamed the earth together, a few thousand years ago!





Have they started to assault geology yet? :laugh4:
Uh oh, I'm afraid Kent Hovind has indeed...
(http://shopping.drdino.com/view_item.php?id=453&cat=Foreign)

Well Geology is just a religious theory, eh? It hasn't been observed (definition of "Science"= something that can be tested through observation). Only micro-geology can be proved. Have you ever witnessed tectonic plates moving, Ironside?

[Marcellus]

Isn't Kent Hovind the one who set the ridiculous $250,000 challenge to anyone who could 'prove' evolution was the only possible way for life to arise (defining evolution as something that it quite simply isn't)?

[GoreBag]

The front stance.

[Big King Sanctaphrax]

Ok I’m curious what do flu shots have to do with anything, its not part of a conspiracy is it?

Well, if this Hovind chap really didn't believe in evolution, he'd have one flu shot and trust that it would give him permanent immunity.

It must be quite good to delude yourself into swallowing this rubbish, in some respects. You wouldn't need to worry about MRSA while you were in hospital, as that would require the bacteria to evolve, and that's just not possible! Awesome!

*Chugs antibiotics wantonly*

[wolftrapper78]

My stance is that Kent (whom I have met) is a good guy who is also smart. He sometimes jumps to conclusions on certain things, but still good guy.

Most creationists will tell you that evolution cannot be disproven and that both evolutionism and creationism both need to be taken with a certain amount of faith.

[ZombieFriedNuts]

April fool’s Day (April 1st) “Darwin Day”.
hmm :laugh4:

[Ser Clegane]

Chick Tract: Big Daddy? (http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0055/0055_01.asp)

q.e.d. :smug:

[yesdachi]

Chick Tract: Big Daddy? (http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0055/0055_01.asp)

q.e.d. :smug:
My favorite line in that comic is where a kid in the background says “Wow! Wrong for 125 years and still in our book!” it just strikes me funny because I could believe it to be true.:laugh4:

[English assassin]

Chick Tract: Big Daddy? (http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0055/0055_01.asp)

q.e.d. :smug:

Wow. Evolution was small fry. Now I know that there are only two fundamental forces in nature, the electromagnetic, and Jesus, and not the four those lying scientists told me.

GodDAMN I wish I had knowed all this when I was sitting physics A level.

[master of the puppets]

hmm, so...was there a dinosaur jesus? was noah running from egyptian deinon? was the great flood how the plesiosaur got into lock ness? why did god kill off the dinosaurs, "just cause the T-Rex could'nt clasp its hands dose'nt mean it was'nt praying!!!"

but really i think evolution is sound enough. we have the missing links between birds and dinosaurs, fish and land animals, just because we do not yet have the thing that links us with the higher apes does not disprove evolution. hell just look at our anatomy, if a person had a tail the old church would have called him satan and had him burned. we now know every human has a tail bone! why, mabey "god" put it there as a weird quirk, or mabey our ancestors 3 million years ago had tails and we over time drew them into the body when there was no more use for them. why would "god" give us organs like the appendix which were meant to process raw meat if we were just eating fruit in the garden of eden, cause our ancestors needed that appendix to survive, even now we are changing, a bunch of organs in the body like the appendix have stopped working because we do not need it, we can cook out food, we are still evolving. why in the hell were our ancesters only 2000 years ago signifigantly shorter, cause they were more like monkeys.

the evidence is everywhere, creatonists just refuse to see it.

[InsaneApache]

"Dinosaur adventure land; the place where dinosaurs and the bible meet!"

I hav'n't laughed as much in ages. Do people really swallow this guff? :inquisitive:

So if I got this straight, a man who can't prove whether God exists, goes around saying that evolution is a religion! Like I said I hav'n't had such a good belly laugh for donkeys years.

Looks like he's making quite a bit of money as well out of the gullible. :wall:

[BHCWarman88]

My stance is that Kent (whom I have met) is a good guy who is also smart. He sometimes jumps to conclusions on certain things, but still good guy.

Most creationists will tell you that evolution cannot be disproven and that both evolutionism and creationism both need to be taken with a certain amount of faith.


Yep,Agree with Second Paragraph..if you don't have Faith,why belive in anyone of them??

[InsaneApache]

Evidence? :inquisitive:

https://img437.imageshack.us/img437/436/invitation600p2gg.th.jpg (https://img437.imageshack.us/my.php?image=invitation600p2gg.jpg)

Look, look theres a brachiasaurus having a little dip in the pond, just before Noah saves him. Talk about make it up as you go along. Hilarious. :laugh4:

Edited because I can't stop laughing

[Ironside]

Well Geology is just a religious theory, eh? It hasn't been observed (definition of "Science"= something that can be tested through observation). Only micro-geology can be proved. Have you ever witnessed tectonic plates moving, Ironside?

Did you chose one of the things that actually have been observed, on purpose? :inquisitive:

Anyway. No I haven't seen tectonic plates moving as they are slightly to big to observe changes that meassured in cm/year. ~;p

[Duke of Gloucester]

But I digress, and have nothing other to say than perhaps Professor Richard Dawkins should be made compulsory reading in schools...

Please no! He is evangelical about evolution and thinks religion (not creationism) is superstition and sees science as a weapon to fight it with. He is almost as bad as this Kent Hovind person.

The bible is not a science text book. We are not supposed to read the bible to find out how the earth was made. We are supposed to read it to find out why the earth was made and what our response to our existence should be. Similarly, science is not a tool for fighting religion; it is to help us understand the way the universe works.

[English assassin]

Richard Dawkins may go out of his way to make statements that annoy the religious, and that may make him a bad mannered person. But his beliefs can be tested against evidence, and he could be proved wrong. They therefore have some meaning.

There is no possible observation about the world that could prove Hovind's views wrong. Whatever we see or do, he has the catch all answer "God did it". His views therefore have no meaning.

Please don't think Dawkins abrasive style puts him down on an intelectual par with a creationist.

[Duke of Gloucester]

But his beliefs can be tested against evidence, and he could be proved wrong.

"Beliefs" is not the correct term for scientific notions based on current evidence and exposed to possible falsification by new evidence. The correct term is "theories". My problem with Dawkins is that he treats them as if they are beliefs and tries to convert people to them. His belief (and this is the correct term) that all religion is superstition and that the public should be rescued from it with the sword of scientific understanding is not testable against evidence.


They therefore have some meaning.

I strongly challenge the notion that only testable hypotheses have meaning. What about the idea that all human beings deserve equal treatment? You can't test that belief against evidence, but you could hardly call it meaningless.


Please don't think Dawkins abrasive style puts him down on an intelectual par with a creationist.

I do place them on a par, because one uses science as if it is religion and the other used a religious text as if it is science.

[Big King Sanctaphrax]

thinks religion (not creationism) is superstition

Well, isn't it? I don't see how there is a stronger evidence base for most religions than there is for, say, believing that walking under ladders is bad luck.

[Duke of Gloucester]

Any person of faith who claims their beliefs are founded on objective, testable evidence is lying. If your belief system means that you are only going to accept things for which there is objective evidence, then sure, all other faiths are superstions, but I would claim your refusal to consider things outside the realm of objective evidence is itself a faith. What evidence do you have that this is the best system on which to base your life?

[A.Saturnus]

Any person of faith who claims their beliefs are founded on objective, testable evidence is lying. If your belief system means that you are only going to accept things for which there is objective evidence, then sure, all other faiths are superstions, but I would claim your refusal to consider things outside the realm of objective evidence is itself a faith. What evidence do you have that this is the best system on which to base your life?

It may not be the best system to base your life on but theories with less assumptions are more likely to be true.


His belief (and this is the correct term) that all religion is superstition and that the public should be rescued from it with the sword of scientific understanding is not testable against evidence.

I have read some of his book and haven't had that impression. Could you point out examples?

[InsaneApache]

Originally posted by Duke of Gloucester
His belief (and this is the correct term) that all religion is superstition and that the public should be rescued from it

So, pray tell me, which one isn't a superstition and why?

Baal

Zeus

Jupiter

Zoroaster

Muhammad

Jesus

Horus

Ra

Jahweh

Baha'i

Jainism

Scientology

Shinto

And on and on....

[GoreBag]

What about the idea that all human beings deserve equal treatment? You can't test that belief against evidence, but you could hardly call it meaningless.

It's meaningless.

[Duke of Gloucester]

I have read some of his book and haven't had that impression. Could you point out examples?

The comment is more based on TV interviews that he has given. I have only read sections of "The Selfish Gene" and none of his other works.


So, pray tell me, which one isn't a superstition and why?


None of them. Religion enables its followers to get in touch with the something spiritual that transcends the physical world. If followers of a religion perceive they do this through their religion - if it gives them a religious experience - then it is effective. Of course you might argue that it is "all in their minds" and you may be right, but the experience enriches their lives, then it is valid. No scientific experiment is going to validate or falsify their claims. As Richard Feynman said "The laws of physics don't tell us whether God exists or not so we are free to hold strong opinions one way or the other".

All of them. If anyone claims that following a particular ritual or praying to Jesus, Allah, Jove they will get, or worse can give you in return for a small donation, an advantage in their next exam, business deal, sporting event, courtship, military endeavour then that is superstition. It isn't the way it works unfortunately


It may not be the best system to base your life on but theories with less assumptions are more likely to be true.

I am not sure about this. If you don't rely on assumptions that turn out to be true, your conclusions will be incomplete. However the question about whether something is literally true is less important, in a religous context that exploring what it means. This is where Hovind gets it wrong. The implications of the Genesis story for believers' relationship with God is what is important, not whether it happened exactly as described. (It can't have happened exactly as described because there are different, contradictory accounts in Genesis 1 and 2)

[Papewaio]

Being disapproving of something is not the same as disproving it.

[English assassin]

I know i should leave this alone but...

Before coming on to this morning's brilliant thought (!), a word about my logical positivism that DoG pulls me up on. As an intellectual position I realise this is about as fashionable as a kipper tie, suffering as it does from problems such as being meaningless on its own terms (DoG could have skewered me by offering the statement "only falsifiable statements have meaning" as being itself unfalsifiable and therefore according to me meaningless). However it seems to me this is essentially the Cretan paradox again, and the answer is that the logical positive approach applies, valuably, to statements about things in the world, ie things we see, feel, touch, and so on. It is dubious or invalid when applied to ethical statements.

Given that there are physical things that we can see and touch that are evidence for/consistent with/explained by the theory of evolution, I think it is correct for me to demand that the world should be measurably different depending on whether any statement about those facts is true or false. A statement that makes no possible difference to the real world depending on whether it is true or false is, by my lights, meaningless. For example, the statement that the entire world was created five minutes ago by God, complete with my memories, yesterdays posts in this thread, fossils, and so on, has no meaning.

Note incidentally that I don't say that a meaningless statement might not be true. That would be a different issue. God might indeed have created the world five minutes ago. The point is that there would be no measurable difference between a world in which he did and a world in which he did not, and so the statement that he did is not worth any further consideration. What could we add by debating or investigating it?

Now, today's brilliant thought is to riff on this idea that science is what we see. (OK, they said tested through observation to be accurate). They seem to take that quite literally. If you read the cartoon on the first page, the strong nuclear force appears to have been replaced by Jesus as the reason for the stability of the atomic nucleus, presumably because no one has ever observed the strong nuclear force directly.

But consider: it is true we only infer the existence of the strong nuclear force because of numbers appearing on machines when we do experiments, but our whole perception of the world is similarly indirect. This is a old observation. I believe that the sun exists, but I only infer that from photons arriving in my eyes (or more accurately still, because of neuron activity that I beleive is associated with photons arriving in my eyes). I believe that New Zealand exist, but the evidence is indirect. I have never directly perceived the sun, or New Zealand, and indeed I am not sure what it would mean to do so.

So really this is just hyperbolic doubt all over again. Mr Hovind really has to be with Descartes in rejecting not just scientific theories about events that he cannot see because they are in the past, but also those that he cannot see because they are too far away, too small, or, really, anything not relating to his own mental states. He can't pick on evolution just because he thinks the bible says something different. After all, he has never actually experienced the bible any more than I have experienced evolution. He thinks he has had mental experences consistent with reading what he describes as a "bible", but that is far from being the same thing.

[Duke of Gloucester]

To be fair to Hovind, that cartoon thing is by Jack Chick, although it does quote something Hovind has said about evidence for human evolution.

Attacking the nonsense from the other side, statements such as "Through him all things came into being, not one thing came into being except through him" and that Jesus "sustains all things by his powerful hand" are powerful spiritual claims (Claims about the unity of nature which we associated more with Eastern mysticism than with Christianity) about the nature of Jesus and his relation to creation. To reduce them to a level of explaining nuclear physics is to belittle them in a way that borders on sacrilege.

[Lorenzo_H]

The front stance.
lol funny man.

Guys, has anyone here heard of the "Conservation of Angular Momentum?"

[English assassin]

To reduce them to a level of explaining nuclear physics is to belittle them in a way that borders on sacrilege.

Yes, well I wouldn't take issue with that.


Guys, has anyone here heard of the "Conservation of Angular Momentum?"

Sure, it was invented some time after the Book of Joshua...

[Ironside]

lol funny man.

Guys, has anyone here heard of the "Conservation of Angular Momentum?"

In what direction does a vibration travel?

[Lorenzo_H]

Evidence? :inquisitive:

https://img437.imageshack.us/img437/436/invitation600p2gg.th.jpg (https://img437.imageshack.us/my.php?image=invitation600p2gg.jpg)

Look, look theres a brachiasaurus having a little dip in the pond, just before Noah saves him. Talk about make it up as you go along. Hilarious. :laugh4:

Edited because I can't stop laughing
There is actually a lot of evidence for dinosaurs having lived with man.

[A.Saturnus]

I am not sure about this. If you don't rely on assumptions that turn out to be true, your conclusions will be incomplete. However the question about whether something is literally true is less important, in a religous context that exploring what it means. This is where Hovind gets it wrong. The implications of the Genesis story for believers' relationship with God is what is important, not whether it happened exactly as described. (It can't have happened exactly as described because there are different, contradictory accounts in Genesis 1 and 2)


Apart from the fact that I am sure about it, I agree with you. If one reads the Bible as a description of the genesis and ontology of the universe, he or she will get it all wrong. If one reads the Bible as a source of wisdom, he or she may gain it. And that counts for believers and unbelievers alike.


There is actually a lot of evidence for dinosaurs having lived with man.

Sure, Jurassic Park I-III.

[InsaneApache]

Apart from the fact that I am sure about it, I agree with you. If one reads the Bible as a description of the genesis and ontology of the universe, he or she will get it all wrong. If one reads the Bible as a source of wisdom, he or she may gain it. And that counts for believers and unbelievers alike..

Elaborate please.


There is actually a lot of evidence for dinosaurs having lived with man.

Ohh please; my vegas nerve has just recovered from laughing at this drivel....:sweatdrop:

[Ianofsmeg16]

There is actually a lot of evidence for dinosaurs having lived with man.
I'm sorry to go against my fellow manxman but...PAH!

The Earth is over 3 billion years old, Dinosaur evidence (i.e. fossils, footprints, eggs etc) stop completely at the K-T boundary, the Cretaceous-Tertiary boundary (around 65 mya), and Human evidence starts at around 3 mya with the founding of 'Lucy' an upright ape of the family austrolapithecus, if my maths is correct that is a seperation of...oooh...62 million years.....this is all scientific fact.

The only area Creationists and Evolutionists really have any right to argue about is the beginning of the Universe, because Evolution has been proved and will continue to be proved until all the fundamentalist Creationists have wiped egg off their faces....the only area that truly should remain open for discussion is the Creation, an area which I am personally still waiting for a good enough answer.

*steps of podium*

[InsaneApache]

No. I disagee. Let's keep the discussion on how man learned to fly by observing pterodactyles and furthermore helped those poor triceartops lay thier eggs in a neat pile, after all I do like a good belly laugh at such cretinous ideas.
:mad: :elvis: :sneaky: :wideeyed: :rolleyes4: :wink3:

[GeneralHankerchief]

There is actually a lot of evidence for dinosaurs having lived with man.

Okay, I'll bite.

Such as?

[InsaneApache]

Okay, I'll bite.

Such as?

You mean you did'n't click on the link? This guy knows it all, he has the answers. Just send a cheque for as much as is in your bank account and he'll tell you. Reminds me a little bit of our new Nigerian friend we just adopted in the backroom. :laugh4:

[Sardo]

Quoting the late Bill Hicks, in Revelations:


You know, the world's 12 thousand years old and dinosaurs existed, and they existed in that time ... you'd think it would have been mentioned in the ******* Bible at some point.
'And lo, Jesus and the disciples walked to Nazareth. But the trail was blocked by a giant brontosaurus ... with a splinter in his paw. And O, the disciples did run a-shrieking: "What a big ******* lizard, Lord!" But Jesus was unafraid, and he took the splinter from the brontosaurus's paw, and the big lizard became his friend. And Jesus sent him to Scotland where he lived in a loch for O, so many years, inviting thousands of American tourists to bring their fat ******* families and their fat dollar bills. And O, Scotland did praise the Lord: "Thank you, Lord. Thank you, Lord. Thank you, Lord."'

[wolftrapper78]

They wouldn't have called them Dinosaurs since the term wasn't invented until very recently. Many think that Behemoth and Leviathan that come from the last part of the Book of Job, possibly the oldest book of the Bible, may be referring to dinosaurs (land and sea respectively).

[Tribesman]

Many think that Behemoth and Leviathan that come from the last part of the Book of Job, possibly the oldest book of the Bible, may be referring to dinosaurs
Well apart from saying something ridiculous like "surely the books that made up Genesis being the oldest books in the bible" , I will leave it with ,if this really really old book of Job uses words like bronze and iron bars to describe the "dinosaur" then how can it be that old ?

[InsaneApache]

Are these people that are advocating that T. Rex lived amongst the Caesars serious?

I shall never be amazed at the ignorance of some homo sapiens.

Can someone reveal to me where it is stated in the Bible that Moses, et al, interacted with the 'terrible lizards'?

[Lorenzo_H]

Okay, I'll bite.

Such as?
Where do you think Dragon legends arose from? There are over 4000 Dragon legends. They say legends always come from some truth. Do you think over 4000 people in different places all over the world would lie about the exact same thing? FYI the word dinosaur did not exist until the late 1800s.

Look at the Ica stones of Peru. They were made by an ancient tribe (Incas). Over 300 of them depict dinosaurs. Some even have dinosaurs with men. The evidence that they were seen alive is in the fact that the skin is included in the drawings. Actual dinosaur skin has been found (that supposedly dies millions of years ago). The Colecanth was a fish that supposedly became extinct millions of years ago. When a live Colecanth was found swimming in the pacific ocean near Japan, evolutionist could only say in their embarrassment "Wow, this fish can survive millions of years!" :inquisitive:

[Lorenzo_H]

I'm sorry to go against my fellow manxman but...PAH!

The Earth is over 3 billion years old, Dinosaur evidence (i.e. fossils, footprints, eggs etc) stop completely at the K-T boundary, the Cretaceous-Tertiary boundary (around 65 mya), and Human evidence starts at around 3 mya with the founding of 'Lucy' an upright ape of the family austrolapithecus, if my maths is correct that is a seperation of...oooh...62 million years.....this is all scientific fact.

The only area Creationists and Evolutionists really have any right to argue about is the beginning of the Universe, because Evolution has been proved and will continue to be proved until all the fundamentalist Creationists have wiped egg off their faces....the only area that truly should remain open for discussion is the Creation, an area which I am personally still waiting for a good enough answer.

*steps of podium*
*steps onto podium*

I have never felt so alone in my whole life! Now even my fellow countrymen are stabbing me in the back!
[/histerical rhetoric]

Look, it is well known that in Texas loads of Dinosaur footprints were found at the bottom of what used to be a river. The very fact that they didn't get worn away there after being there millions of years I don't know. But anyway, they found some dinosaur footprints. Did you know they also found human footprints with the dinosaurs? Thats enough evidence for any normal human, but not evolutionists.

All evolutionist said was "didn't find anything here to disprove evolution."
Scientific fact? Nope.

About your Lucy, let me tell you the story of Lucy. An evolutionist archeologist was commisioned to go and find missing links. He was told he had a certain amount of time to find one, or he would lose his job. It wasn't until the week before his contract expired that he found "Lucy" (that would be highly suspect in a court of law). What he found was a completely crushed head, nothing could be made of the head at all! The very important feet bones were not found at all. All he had was part of the legs and body. He didn't, however find a knee joint, which was needed to see if Lucy had monkey legs or human legs. They found the knee joint 2 miles away and 200 feet deeper in the strata. Considering the fact that there are monkeys living in Etheopia, I can tell you that what he found wasn't a missing link at all!

The evidence against evolution is overwhelming, however it is kept in the school systems because of the following reasons:
1) People don't like the idea of God telling them what to do.
2) Many evolutionists have actually agreed that Evolution is not true, but they have said "we will be forced to rewrite all our books" so they didnt take it out.

[Ironside]

A bit of links for a few arguments.


Look, it is well known that in Texas loads of Dinosaur footprints were found at the bottom of what used to be a river. The very fact that they didn't get worn away there after being there millions of years I don't know. But anyway, they found some dinosaur footprints. Did you know they also found human footprints with the dinosaurs? Thats enough evidence for any normal human, but not evolutionists.

Those human tracks are carved out and would in any case still not be human tracks (http://paleo.cc/paluxy/wilker6.htm)


About your Lucy, let me tell you the story of Lucy. An evolutionist archeologist was commisioned to go and find missing links. He was told he had a certain amount of time to find one, or he would lose his job. It wasn't until the week before his contract expired that he found "Lucy" (that would be highly suspect in a court of law). What he found was a completely crushed head, nothing could be made of the head at all! The very important feet bones were not found at all. All he had was part of the legs and body. He didn't, however find a knee joint, which was needed to see if Lucy had monkey legs or human legs. They found the knee joint 2 miles away and 200 feet deeper in the strata. Considering the fact that there are monkeys living in Etheopia, I can tell you that what he found wasn't a missing link at all!

Johnson spoke about another knee-joint found one year earlier and never refered to been Lucy's (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/knee-joint.html)


Look at the Ica stones of Peru. They were made by an ancient tribe (Incas). Over 300 of them depict dinosaurs. Some even have dinosaurs with men. The evidence that they were seen alive is in the fact that the skin is included in the drawings. Actual dinosaur skin has been found (that supposedly dies millions of years ago). The Colecanth was a fish that supposedly became extinct millions of years ago. When a live Colecanth was found swimming in the pacific ocean near Japan, evolutionist could only say in their embarrassment "Wow, this fish can survive millions of years!" :inquisitive:

The inca stones with dinosaurs is falsifications and is still drawn very veird for being so accurate (five fingers on a Allosaur etc) (http://www.bibleandscience.com/otherviews/swift.htm)
As for the tame dinosaurs, wouldn't it be quite a few bones lying around the settlements in that case?
And for the Colaecanth, it has still evolved a bit since those old fossiles. The old ones were shore-living and the ones found today, lives on deeper water for example. They are very simular, not the same.


Where do you think Dragon legends arose from? There are over 4000 Dragon legends. They say legends always come from some truth. Do you think over 4000 people in different places all over the world would lie about the exact same thing? FYI the word dinosaur did not exist until the late 1800s.

As for the dragon myths. While quite interesting and with many theories existing on how the myths has occured, here's two facts. No dragon fossile has even been discovered and no known dinosaur has looked like a dragon while alive. You could mix bones from several different kinds of dinosaurs and get somthing simular to a dragon though. Taken together it hardly proves anything about dinosaurs living at the same time as humans.

Ofcourse everything here is part of the big conspiracy, I presume?

[Tribesman]

Damn you Ironside , how do you find it so easy to bust these myths with a minimum of effort ?:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:

[Banquo's Ghost]

Ironside, thank you for taking the time to properly refute the claims presented. :bow:

I salute your resilience, for, I fear, there is little point in arguing rationally with the irrational.

[InsaneApache]

Wait! you mean that they're not true? That all the examples that diablodelmar posted are proven hoaxes! (In my best Victor Meldrew stylee) I don't belieeeve it!!!

Those sneaky evolutionists must have constructed a time machine and snuck back in time and planted all the fossil evidence, just to upset the God squad.

I wonder how much money old kenty boy has made out of this?

I think I've just got an idea for a business plan.:eyebrows:

[Tribesman]

I wonder how much money old kenty boy has made out of this?

So does the inland revenue service .:laugh4: they are not happy at all .

Now then , since "Dr." Hovind has repeatedly been exposed as a habitual liar , how can anyone believe anything that he says ?

[Ianofsmeg16]

This Kent bloke baffles me still, every reverend I've spoken to believes in Evolution, they say it makes alot more sense than the god theory, so why can't this man accept scientific fact?

[Lorenzo_H]

This Kent bloke baffles me still, every reverend I've spoken to believes in Evolution, they say it makes alot more sense than the god theory, so why can't this man accept scientific fact?
Because it isn't scientific fact. Watch the debate I posted.

[Lorenzo_H]

A bit of links for a few arguments.



Those human tracks are carved out and would in any case still not be human tracks (http://paleo.cc/paluxy/wilker6.htm)



Johnson spoke about another knee-joint found one year earlier and never refered to been Lucy's (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/knee-joint.html)



The inca stones with dinosaurs is falsifications and is still drawn very veird for being so accurate (five fingers etc) (http://www.bibleandscience.com/otherviews/swift.htm)
As for the tame dinosaurs, wouldn't it be quite a few bones lying around the settlements in that case?
And for the Colaecanth, it has still evolved a bit since those old fossiles. The old ones were shore-living and the ones found today, lives on deeper water for example. They are very simular, not the same.



As for the dragon myths. While quite interesting and with many theories existing on how the myths has occured, here's two facts. No dragon fossile has even been discovered and no known dinosaur has looked like a dragon while alive. You could mix bones from several different kinds of dinosaurs and get somthing simular to a dragon though. Taken together it hardly proves anything about dinosaurs living at the same time as humans.

Ofcourse everything here is part of the big conspiracy, I presume?
I'm afraid those tracks aren't carved out. The evolutionist would like to have you believe it because they are allowed to lie.

If you look at the ground underneath the tracks, the now rock soles have been compressed more than the surrounding rock. This cannot be imitated by chiseling out the footprint. And also how do they get there when the riverbed dries up? Your telling me that somebody swam to the bottom of the river and did it?

Ok. You show what these dragons look like. All 4000 of them please, while your at it. I have never heard a more dumb arguement. There are some described as being a Tricerotops, others Stegosaurus while some descriptions match the proper predator style dinos. The classical stereotypical dragon we know comes from the Chinese Calendar (which leads to an interesting subject; why would there be 11 other animals that all do exist, where as supposedly the Dragon is fake?) and depicts an animal with a long neck, wings like those of a bat, a long tail and plates on the back. I believe this is because it arises from all the legends of different dinosaurs from all over. For example, one legend will describe a long-necked, long-tailed dinosaur (like Diplodicus), another will have a dinosaur with plates on the back (Stegosaurus) and another fire breathing (I forgot the name of the Dino that has a nasal passage which may have properties like those of the bombardier beetle). These would all add up to one dof them being on the Chinese calendar. After all, they were simply known as "Dragons" as a generic word for all of the dinosaurs.

The story about Lucy is a cover up. Like I say, evolution says its OK to lie, so its part of the teaching to lie.

Once again, evolution is a theory applauded because if you believe you came from a rock, then there is no God telling you not to commit adultery. Let me tell you, God is not against having fun. He set out rules though, and I think we need to obey them.

[Ser Clegane]

Once again, evolution is a theory applauded because if you believe you came from a rock, then there is no God telling you not to commit adultery.

:inquisitive:

Just FYI - evolution and belive in God are not mutually exclusive (at least for a significant number of people, including church "officials", they aren't)

[Tribesman]

Once again, evolution is a theory applauded because if you believe you came from a rock, then there is no God telling you not to commit adultery.
hmmmm... someone spouting the virtues of the bible does not appear to know the bible .:no:

I'm afraid those tracks aren't carved out. The evolutionist would like to have you believe it because they are allowed to lie.

Hold on there diablo , you can read can't you , Kent is shown to be a habitual liar , is he an evolutionist ?

[Lorenzo_H]

:inquisitive:

Just FYI - evolution and belive in God are not mutually exclusive (at least for a significant number of people, including church "officials", they aren't)
But nobody here believes in that theory.

[Lorenzo_H]

Once again, evolution is a theory applauded because if you believe you came from a rock, then there is no God telling you not to commit adultery.
hmmmm... someone spouting the virtues of the bible does not appear to know the bible .:no:

I'm afraid those tracks aren't carved out. The evolutionist would like to have you believe it because they are allowed to lie.

Hold on there diablo , you can read can't you , Kent is shown to be a habitual liar , is he an evolutionist ?
I know the bible sufficiently well.

Kent does not lie. You may think he does, but he doesn't.

[Ser Clegane]

But nobody here believes in that theory.

What do you mean? That nobody on this board beleives that God and evolution are not mutually exclusive?

[Marcellus]

So let me get this right...things evolutionists say are lies because 'they're allowed to lie' but anything that Kent Hovind say must be the truth because he simply doesn't lie? Do you have anything to back up these assertions?

[Ianofsmeg16]

But nobody here believes in that theory.
I do, I'm pretty sure Ser does. Its a neutral way of thinking when you say "God created the universe but let the Animals evolve"

btw you do know what evolution is dont you? I mean, the proper definition?

[Lorenzo_H]

What do you mean? That nobody on this board beleives that God and evolution are not mutually exclusive?
No one has mentioned it in this thread yet. And hey, aren't moderators supposed to be unbiased?

[Ser Clegane]

No one has mentioned it in this thread yet.
Well ... it isn't the subject of the thread, so perhaps nobody felt it was necessary to state the obvious

And hey, aren't moderators supposed to be unbiased?

Unbiased with regard to enforcing forum rules? - correct

Unbiased in a sense that they are allowed to have/state an opinion? - not correct

[Lorenzo_H]

I do, I'm pretty sure Ser does. Its a neutral way of thinking when you say "God created the universe but let the Animals evolve"

btw you do know what evolution is dont you? I mean, the proper definition?
There are six types of evolution. Only one of them has evidence and is, as you so deliberatly put it, fact.

The only one which has been observed is Microevolution (changes within a kind). Macroevolution (changes from one kind to another) has never been proved and still is doubtful. Microevolution does not require Macroevolution. Neither is there fossil evidence, because Carbon dating is extremely inaccurate and is not used unless it agrees with the archeologists previous estimates. Who here can tell me what method is used?

Cosmic evolution is another form of evolution which has not been observed. Noone has a clue how stars, or meteorites are formed. Evolutionists can only take wild guesses, claim it to be fact and put it into the textbooks.

[Lorenzo_H]

Well ... it isn't the subject of the thread, so perhaps nobody felt it was necessary to state the obvious


Unbiased with regard to enforcing forum rules? - correct

Unbiased in a sense that they are allowed to have/state an opinion? - not correct
No what I'm saying is that most moderators in forums I go to do not debate.

[Ser Clegane]

No what I'm saying is that most moderators in forums I go to do not debate.
Well - this forum seems to be different then.

[Lorenzo_H]

Well - this forum seems to be different then.
Thats great! I love this forum.

[Duke of Gloucester]

Originally Posted by Ser Clegane
What do you mean? That nobody on this board beleives that God and evolution are not mutually exclusive?

No one has mentioned it in this thread yet.

I think that the position described is implicit in my posts, isn't it? For example:


The bible is not a science text book. We are not supposed to read the bible to find out how the earth was made. We are supposed to read it to find out why the earth was made and what our response to our existence should be

If you actually read Geneseis 1 and 2, then you find there are two different acounts of creation. In Gen 1 creation is achieved in this order: light; heaven and earth; land and sea; plants; stars, sun and moon; fish and birds; land animals; man (male and female). In Gen 2 the order is: heaven and earth; man (male); plants (trees really, but I assume it means plants); animals and birds; woman. My question to Kent would be "Which of these is correct?".

My answer is the Genesis acount is not meant to the be the literal truth of the origin of the universe. However it does tell deeper and more important truths about the nature of the universe and the meaning of life. Taking it too literally is actually wrong.

[Banquo's Ghost]

I'm afraid those tracks aren't carved out. The evolutionist would like to have you believe it because they are allowed to lie.



See Ironside, I told you. Mad as a bucket of frogs.

diablodelmar (lovely nick for a Christian, by the way :laugh4: ) I admire your unstinting and unwavering faith, even as it saddens me. All the same, it's best not to start a thread asking for opinions if you are going to dismiss any arguments against your views as simply lies.

Refute them by your own standards, by all means, but just saying the evidence presented is a lie, demeans the whole debate.

I am interested in whether your dismissal of science reaches into other disciplines. Was Galileo a liar for challenging christian orthodoxy of his time? Is gravity a lie, since physicists don't really know what the gravitional force is? What about the theory behind all those consumer electronics that make your life easier (and allow you to post on this forum)? All lies? Unless there is a book of the Bible that I don't know of that details God's creation of the Walkman mobile phone for Noah? Why pick on biology?

Damn, I knew I shouldn't get into this thread. :wall: *calm, calm*

(By the by, I have a spiritual belief and trained as an evolutionary biologist. The two are not mutually exclusive. The understandings each brings belong to different paradigms and are often complementary. I don't use my science to threaten my, or other people's spiritual beliefs, nor vice versa.

I am always reminded by the story of Prof. Maynard Smith, a noted evolutionary biologist and Christian, who when asked what the study of evolution had taught him about the mind of God replied: 'That He is inordinately fond of beetles'. :laugh4:)

For the inquisitive, there are more species of beetles than almost any other order of fauna - so why create so many beetles? :inquisitive:

[GodsPetMonkey]

Evolution is also a religious theory.

"Evolution is no more a religion that not collecting stamps is a hobby"

I have no idea who originally said that (and I am far too lazy to google it), but they were obviously a far wiser man then I am.



Guys, has anyone here heard of the "Conservation of Angular Momentum?"

Oh Lord, what next? No, don't tell me, experience shows it'll probably be that entropy clearly disproves evolution (followed by a random copy and paste of an evangelical's interpretation of the laws of thermodynamics, because unlike 'scientists', they don't need to spend a good part of their life studying to just to understand this stuff).

Sigh, I remember the days when the creationists used to wheel out the old entropy argument as soon as someone mentioned "scientific method". I guess after a while even they get tired of being wrong.


There is actually a lot of evidence for dinosaurs having lived with man.

:inquisitive:


Where do you think Dragon legends arose from? There are over 4000 Dragon legends. They say legends always come from some truth. Do you think over 4000 people in different places all over the world would lie about the exact same thing? FYI the word dinosaur did not exist until the late 1800s.

Look at the Ica stones of Peru. They were made by an ancient tribe (Incas). Over 300 of them depict dinosaurs. Some even have dinosaurs with men. The evidence that they were seen alive is in the fact that the skin is included in the drawings. Actual dinosaur skin has been found (that supposedly dies millions of years ago). The Colecanth was a fish that supposedly became extinct millions of years ago. When a live Colecanth was found swimming in the pacific ocean near Japan, evolutionist could only say in their embarrassment "Wow, this fish can survive millions of years!" :inquisitive:


They also say if you eat the crusts of your bread, you get curly hair. The problem with old wives tales is they are often false, and, along with many other legends, if they ever held any truth, it was lost long ago.

As to the Coelacanth, well, so what, species survives long time. Guess what, crocodiles are older then the dinosaurs (if you pretend for a moment that the 'evolutionists', and their dastardly paleontologist buddies are right) and they are still about. What about algae? One of the simplest life forms there is, been around for well over a billion years, hell, probably two billion years!


*steps onto podium*

I have never felt so alone in my whole life! Now even my fellow countrymen are stabbing me in the back!
[/histerical rhetoric]

Look, it is well known that in Texas loads of Dinosaur footprints were found at the bottom of what used to be a river. The very fact that they didn't get worn away there after being there millions of years I don't know. But anyway, they found some dinosaur footprints. Did you know they also found human footprints with the dinosaurs? Thats enough evidence for any normal human, but not evolutionists.


The erosion was pretty good, they were in very good condition, but it was hardly the Yellow River, it was, at best, a slow flowing stream. What’s more, they had to dam the thing, then spend weeks removing the silt from the top of the petrified (that is, turned to stone over millions of years) mud in which the footprints were set. I would guess that for the footprints to erode, all that silt would have to be washed away first.

As to human footprints, while I have never been to the site in my life, I have never seen any (REAL) human footprints in photos or video footage of it, maybe they just kept it all hidden.


...(that would be highly suspect in a court of law)...[QUOTE]

And that is why you are not a lawyer. I would avoid trying to dress corrupted hearsay (which comes across as rather slanderous) as court admissible evidence.

[QUOTE=diablodelmar]The evidence against evolution is overwhelming, however it is kept in the school systems because of the following reasons:
1) People don't like the idea of God telling them what to do.
2) Many evolutionists have actually agreed that Evolution is not true, but they have said "we will be forced to rewrite all our books" so they didnt take it out.

Did God tell you these things?

Honestly, for someone who asserts that the evidence against evolution is overwhelming, you seem to have some trouble bringing this 'overwhelming' evidence to the table. Do you also believe that schools don't replace Shakespeare’s plays in versions written entirely in modern English because they would be forced to rewrite them all from their original form?


Once again, evolution is a theory applauded because if you believe you came from a rock, then there is no God telling you not to commit adultery. Let me tell you, God is not against having fun. He set out rules though, and I think we need to obey them.

No one evolved from a rock (and nor has evolution ever said otherwise).
And don't forget, it's a rock which tells you not to commit adultery, those commandments were written on stone tablets remember (and I am not using 'told' in a literal fashion here).

If adultery is your biggest worry in this world, then I am happy you live such a blissful life. I personally don't need a God to tell me that I should not betray my significant other, that's something I can work out for myself. I have bigger things to worry about to be honest.


No one has mentioned it in this thread yet. And hey, aren't moderators supposed to be unbiased?

Then sign me up, I believe it God, I will not deny it (I am a Quaker, I will not deny that either - but you may have a problem with it, but that's something you need to come to terms with).

I also believe in evolution, I believe it is the best answer to how we have come to have the biodiversity we have on this planet. It does not explain how life began, but where it went afterwards. It is not 100% accurate, and will continue to change, like all large bodies of scientific knowledge, as more and more comes to light. The problem with science is it just is not happy with the concept that "God did it, and there is nothing more to it". In fact, science has never been able to accept the idea that it has all the answers, and there is nothing else to look at.



Uh oh, I'm afraid Kent Hovind has indeed...
(http://shopping.drdino.com/view_item.php?id=453&cat=Foreign)

Well Geology is just a religious theory, eh? It hasn't been observed (definition of "Science"= something that can be tested through observation). Only micro-geology can be proved. Have you ever witnessed tectonic plates moving, Ironside?

I am sure this guy has met someone who has been in an earthquake - hell, there seems to be a volcano brewing in Indonesia right now, maybe he should take a trip and watch some geology in action, preferably close enough that he can reach out and feel that magma turn to rock!

[Lorenzo_H]

Yo dude, what is your explanation of evolution defying the first and second laws of Thermodynamics? Please give me a simple answer instead of a drawn out scientific rhetoric.

[Marcellus]

Yo dude, what is your explanation of evolution defying the first and second laws of aerodynamics?

Are you sure you don't mean themodynamics?

Assuming you do mean thermodynamics, I found this (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/thermo.html) pretty quickly using Google.

[Lorenzo_H]

And that is why you are not a lawyer. I would avoid trying to dress corrupted hearsay (which comes across as rather slanderous) as court admissible evidence.



lol, how do you know I'm a lawyer?

[Lorenzo_H]

Are you sure you don't mean themodynamics?

Assuming you do mean thermodynamics, I found this article (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/thermo/probability.html) pretty quickly using Google.
Yes thanks I always confuse the two.

[wolftrapper78]

Many think that Behemoth and Leviathan that come from the last part of the Book of Job, possibly the oldest book of the Bible, may be referring to dinosaurs
Well apart from saying something ridiculous like "surely the books that made up Genesis being the oldest books in the bible" , I will leave it with ,if this really really old book of Job uses words like bronze and iron bars to describe the "dinosaur" then how can it be that old ?


Because (not to get too off topic) man has always had the technology to smelt iron and always has. Look at the furnaces used to smelt iron in Armenia. Those definitely don't fit the evolutionary paradigm, but it would seem that one of the first things that Noah did when he got off the ark was to build a smelter.
Moses wrote Genesis and Job was alot older than Moses, so, doesn't that mean that Job is the oldest book of the Bible. It was written when Uz(arabia) was a very fertile land, not like it is now. It even talks about bodies of water freezing, 38:30, not something one would know alot about in present day arabia.

[Ironside]

The only one which has been observed is Microevolution (changes within a kind). Macroevolution (changes from one kind to another) has never been proved and still is doubtful. Microevolution does not require Macroevolution. Neither is there fossil evidence, because Carbon dating is extremely inaccurate and is not used unless it agrees with the archeologists previous estimates. Who here can tell me what method is used?

I have to admit that the footprint link didn't contain dismissal of all the footprints, this one does though. The Paluxy Dinosaur/"Man Track" Controversy (http://paleo.cc/paluxy/paluxy.htm)

Carbon dating (http://www.religioustolerance.org/c14datc.htm)
And as implied above carbon dating isn't used on most fossiles because it cannot give accurate results on very old fossiles (and those happens to be the most), due to too low concentration.

I'm still curious why they haven't claimed that the fossiles aren't bones. I mean they could be stones that exactly look like bones or other annimal structures :laugh4: . Care to explain why some bones did get fossilized and some didn't when they came from the same time period as you say? And why there's only been one case of dinosaur skin if we assume that your claim was true?

And why do creationists insist in messing 5 different theories into one and call it evolution? I mean they are from vast different fields and have very little to do with eachother. Or do you agree that computers is an exellent proof of evolution? :laugh4:

[Tribesman]

Because (not to get too off topic) man has always had the technology to smelt iron and always has.
Rigggght so because man ate the fruit he has the knowledge , how comes at the time that the book was allegedly written (despite the inherent knowledge) there was no Bronnze rRbs or Iron bars ?????
I see he diddn't use it , but he had the knowledge and knew what the results would be , and if he really could have been bothered he could have a nice lightweight alloy with great propensities for sharpness that could have slayed the dinosaur at onemighty stroke from his giant human hands .

It even talks about bodies of water freezing, 38:30, not something one would know alot about in present day arabia.
Arthur foxache , do you not even know anything about basic geography or climatology wolftrapper ??????

Haruchai , you were right :wall: :wall: :wall: :wall: :wall: :wall:
an bhfeiceann tu e ,feicean muppets:no:

[Kaiser of Arabia]

I saw alot of his videos. He's a smart guy, maybe a bit extreme, but he is an intellegent man.

[Papewaio]

Because (not to get too off topic) man has always had the technology to smelt iron and always has. Look at the furnaces used to smelt iron in Armenia. Those definitely don't fit the evolutionary paradigm, but it would seem that one of the first things that Noah did when he got off the ark was to build a smelter.

Man has not always had the ability to smelt iron. Even in Biblical times (4000BC to presetn) a lot of Europe was in the Bronze Age, heck during the time of the wars of Sparta Vs Greece the Nordic communities were still in the Bronze age as far as smelting metal was concerned. It took centuries for Iron to replace Bronze in most civilisations.



Moses wrote Genesis and Job was alot older than Moses, so, doesn't that mean that Job is the oldest book of the Bible. It was written when Uz(arabia) was a very fertile land, not like it is now. It even talks about bodies of water freezing, 38:30, not something one would know alot about in present day arabia.

Photos of Jerusalem Snow (http://www.radwin.org/michael/blog/2003/03/photos_of_jerusalem_snow.html)

[Papewaio]

There are six types of evolution. Only one of them has evidence and is, as you so deliberatly put it, fact.

The only one which has been observed is Microevolution (changes within a kind). Macroevolution (changes from one kind to another) has never been proved and still is doubtful. Microevolution does not require Macroevolution. Neither is there fossil evidence, because Carbon dating is extremely inaccurate and is not used unless it agrees with the archeologists previous estimates. Who here can tell me what method is used?

Cosmic evolution is another form of evolution which has not been observed. Noone has a clue how stars, or meteorites are formed. Evolutionists can only take wild guesses, claim it to be fact and put it into the textbooks.

First of all it is only creationists who lump multiple theories with different names together and call them Evolution. You are lumping Physicists, Astrophysicists, Biologists, Chemists and Geologists... in fact most of the sciencies under the single banner of Evolutionists. All of these guys are competing for a very limited budget and would dearly like to prove internally or externally each other wrong. Scientists favourite dish is humble pie served to someone else. So if they can pook holes in each others theories they will... their white whale are theories and they hunt them with glee.

"Microevolution"... at what point is it considered "macroevolution"?

Fossil Evidence... why would Carbon dating be used when a set of isotopes with a far more suitable halflife can be used to more accurately date the specimen? Use the correct set of isotopes for the correct age of the sample to get a more accurate result. Carbon dating has an upper limit of some 60k years as such it is referred to as a short range dating technique. Uranium-thorium dating is used for longer term dating to 500k years. Uranium-lead radiometric dating is accurate for far longer... for instance 300 000 million +/- 2 million is a very accurate technique.

Stellar evolution, not to be confused as the same theory of a similar name as applied to living replicators. Astrophysicists have a pretty good theory on how stars form, not clueless at all. Essentially light travels at well the speed of light. And much like how much mass in a bonfire determines how long a fire will last, stars length of life depends on how much mass it has. By looking at stars and measuring their mass and spectrum you can figure out how hot it is, what elements it is composed of and deduce how long it will burn for. The Hertzsprung-Russell diagram is a pretty neat summation of stars and maps out their luminosity to their spectrum. Meteorites are formed from the same dust cloud that condenses to form a star and its planetary system.

Singularity to Universe or the more fashionably raunchy title "The Big Bang". This does a very good job in matching the observable facts and creating a theory out of them that explains a few very important points. Why we have a background radiation, why there is so much hydrogen in the universe and why in general there is a redshift away from us in all directions.

Entropy actually neatly fits with Evolution, more from a point of elegance and philosophical view then a direct connection.

[English assassin]

Yo dude, what is your explanation of evolution defying the first and second laws of Thermodynamics? Please give me a simple answer instead of a drawn out scientific rhetoric.


No, look, I've have enough of this. You asked a question. (You loaded it too, what makes you think the answer has to be simple? I wouldn't have got very far in my biochemistry degree if I demanded everything had to be simple). A number of links containing irrefutable answers are given.

Before we dance off to some other "problem" with evolution, possibly involing footprints and dragons, can we put this one to bed with an unequivocal agreement that evolution does not defy the laws of thermodynamics?

(NB as it happens and notwithstanding the length of the links the answer IS simple. The 2nd law states "Entropy in a closed system tends to a maximum over time" The biosphere is not a closed system. Look up, and see the ball of rapidly increasing entropy we call the sun. QED. I'm not being nasty here, but do you have any idea what not being able to grasp this argument does to your credibility in seeking to debate a scientific theory? How come creationists are absolved from the responsibilty of understanding school-age physics?)

And I repeat my point made at the start of the thread, that once again we are proceeding on the wholly intellectually dishonest basis that, if it was possible to find one live issue with the data in the theory of evolution, that theory would be "disproved", and we must prefer instead a "theory" that has not one but a million and one live issues. Why? Why do we allow them to do this?

I worry for the future of humanity, I really do. If it wouldn't fill him with a sense of righteous persection I'd lock the likes of this Hovind up, as far as I can see he's at least as harmful to the common good as the muppets in Guantanamo

[AntiochusIII]

Yo dude, what is your explanation of evolution defying the first and second laws of Thermodynamics? Please give me a simple answer instead of a drawn out scientific rhetoric.A drawn out scientific rhetoric? :dizzy2:

Man, this thread is :laugh4: :balloon2:

[Marcellus]

Yo dude, what is your explanation of evolution defying the first and second laws of Thermodynamics? Please give me a simple answer instead of a drawn out scientific rhetoric.

The second law has been dealt with, but I would quite like to know how you think evolution defies the first law of thermodynamics. The first law states:

"The increase in the internal energy of a system is equal to the amount of energy added to the system by heating, plus the amount added in the form of work done on the system."

It is essentially just a statement of the conservation of energy. How anyone could possibly think that evolution defied this law I don't know.

[Big King Sanctaphrax]

I've avoided weighing in to this thread as, quite frankly, debating with creationists bores and angers me, but I will make one gesture-diablodelmar, spend some time perusing http://www.talkorigins.org/. If you're still spouting this rubbish after that, there's truly no helping you.