Re: What stance do Orgahs take on Kent Hovind?
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:
Re: What stance do Orgahs take on Kent Hovind?
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:
Re: What stance do Orgahs take on Kent Hovind?
I saw alot of his videos. He's a smart guy, maybe a bit extreme, but he is an intellegent man.
Re: What stance do Orgahs take on Kent Hovind?
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
Re: What stance do Orgahs take on Kent Hovind?
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.
Re: What stance do Orgahs take on Kent Hovind?
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
Re: What stance do Orgahs take on Kent Hovind?
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:
Re: What stance do Orgahs take on Kent Hovind?
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.
Re: What stance do Orgahs take on Kent Hovind?
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.
