What stance do Orgahs take on Kent Hovind?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by diablodelmar

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ser Clegane

Well - this forum seems to be different then.

---

Thats great! I love this forum.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by diablodelmar

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by me

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by diablodelmar

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:)

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by diablodelmar

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by diablodelmar

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by diablodelmar

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

---

:inquisitive:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by diablodelmar

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!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by diablodelmar

*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.

[QUOTE=diablodelmar]...(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:

---

Originally Posted by 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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by diablodelmar

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by diablodelmar

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat

Uh oh, I'm afraid Kent Hovind has indeed...


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!

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by diablodelmar

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 pretty quickly using Google.

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.

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marcellus

Are you sure you don't mean themodynamics?

Assuming you do mean thermodynamics, I found this article pretty quickly using Google.

---

Yes thanks I always confuse the two.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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 ?

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by diablodelmar

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

Carbon dating
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:

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:

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wolftrapper78

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wolftrapper78

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by diablodelmar

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.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by diablodelmar

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by diablodelmar

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by diablodelmar

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.

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.