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
Printable View
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
Quote:
Originally Posted by diablodelmar
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.
Really? Heh, that IS news.Quote:
He's a creationist (for all those who don't know, thats somebody who disproves evolution).
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Redleg
Oh man I'd love to argue with you all but I don't have time right now, unfortunartly.
Bye bye ~:wave:Quote:
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
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:
Trixs are for kids you silly rabbit.....Quote:
Originally Posted by diablodelmar
Is that so?Quote:
Originally Posted by diablodelmar
*pause*
You know, I simply can't be bothered any more. Here's a pink elephant for you instead.
:elephant:
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?
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...Quote:
Originally Posted by Redleg
But I digress, and have nothing other to say than perhaps Professor Richard Dawkins should be made compulsory reading in schools...
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 .
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Duke Malcolm
Have they started to assult geology yet? :laugh4:Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman
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).
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.
You know I’ll only believe in creationism if god comes to me and shouts at me for being an atheist.:laugh4:
Is it too early to start "War on Christmas" threads? They would go nicely with this one ...
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?
Ok I’m curious what do flu shots have to do with anything, its not part of a conspiracy is it?
That Hovind guy is quite a character. Visit his Dinosaur Adventure Land and get evidence that man and dinosaurs once roamed the earth together, a few thousand years ago!
Uh oh, I'm afraid Kent Hovind has indeed...Quote:
Originally Posted by 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?
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)?
The front stance.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by ZombieFriedNuts
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*
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.
hmm :laugh4:Quote:
April fool’s Day (April 1st) “Darwin Day”.
Chick Tract: Big Daddy?
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:Quote:
Originally Posted by Ser Clegane
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ser Clegane
GodDAMN I wish I had knowed all this when I was sitting physics A level.
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.
"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:
Quote:
Originally Posted by wolftrapper78
Yep,Agree with Second Paragraph..if you don't have Faith,why belive in anyone of them??
Evidence? :inquisitive:
https://img437.imageshack.us/img437/...600p2gg.th.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
Did you chose one of the things that actually have been observed, on purpose? :inquisitive:Quote:
Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat
Anyway. No I haven't seen tectonic plates moving as they are slightly to big to observe changes that meassured in cm/year. ~;p
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Duke Malcolm
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.
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.
"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.Quote:
Originally Posted by English Assassin
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.Quote:
They therefore have some meaning.
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.Quote:
Please don't think Dawkins abrasive style puts him down on an intelectual par with a creationist.
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.Quote:
thinks religion (not creationism) is superstition
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Duke of Gloucester
I have read some of his book and haven't had that impression. Could you point out examples?Quote:
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.
Originally posted by Duke of GloucesterSo, pray tell me, which one isn't a superstition and why?Quote:
His belief (and this is the correct term) that all religion is superstition and that the public should be rescued from it
Baal
Zeus
Jupiter
Zoroaster
Muhammad
Jesus
Horus
Ra
Jahweh
Baha'i
Jainism
Scientology
Shinto
And on and on....
It's meaningless.Quote:
Originally Posted by Duke of Gloucester
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.Quote:
I have read some of his book and haven't had that impression. Could you point out examples?
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".Quote:
So, pray tell me, which one isn't a superstition and why?
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
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)Quote:
It may not be the best system to base your life on but theories with less assumptions are more likely to be true.
Being disapproving of something is not the same as disproving it.
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.
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.
lol funny man.Quote:
Originally Posted by GoreBag
Guys, has anyone here heard of the "Conservation of Angular Momentum?"
Yes, well I wouldn't take issue with that.Quote:
To reduce them to a level of explaining nuclear physics is to belittle them in a way that borders on sacrilege.
Sure, it was invented some time after the Book of Joshua...Quote:
Guys, has anyone here heard of the "Conservation of Angular Momentum?"
In what direction does a vibration travel?Quote:
Originally Posted by diablodelmar
There is actually a lot of evidence for dinosaurs having lived with man.Quote:
Originally Posted by InsaneApache
Quote:
Originally Posted by Duke of Gloucester
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.
Sure, Jurassic Park I-III.Quote:
Originally Posted by diablodelmar
Elaborate please.Quote:
Originally Posted by A.Saturnus
Ohh please; my vegas nerve has just recovered from laughing at this drivel....:sweatdrop:Quote:
There is actually a lot of evidence for dinosaurs having lived with man.
I'm sorry to go against my fellow manxman but...PAH!Quote:
Originally Posted by diablodelmar
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*
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:
Okay, I'll bite.Quote:
Originally Posted by diablodelmar
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:Quote:
Originally Posted by GeneralHankerchief
Quoting the late Bill Hicks, in Revelations:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill Hicks
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).
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 ?
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'?
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by GeneralHankerchief
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:
*steps onto podium*Quote:
Originally Posted by Ianofsmeg16
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.
A bit of links for a few arguments.
Those human tracks are carved out and would in any case still not be human tracksQuote:
Originally Posted by diablodelmar
Johnson spoke about another knee-joint found one year earlier and never refered to been Lucy'sQuote:
Originally Posted by diablodelmar
The inca stones with dinosaurs is falsifications and is still drawn very veird for being so accurate (five fingers on a Allosaur etc)Quote:
Originally Posted by diablodelmar
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by diablodelmar
Ofcourse everything here is part of the big conspiracy, I presume?
Damn you Ironside , how do you find it so easy to bust these myths with a minimum of effort ?:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:
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.
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:
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 ?
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ianofsmeg16
I'm afraid those tracks aren't carved out. The evolutionist would like to have you believe it because they are allowed to lie.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ironside
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.
:inquisitive:Quote:
Originally Posted by diablodelmar
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)
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 ?
But nobody here believes in that theory.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ser Clegane
I know the bible sufficiently well.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman
Kent does not lie. You may think he does, but he doesn't.
What do you mean? That nobody on this board beleives that God and evolution are not mutually exclusive?Quote:
Originally Posted by diablodelmar
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?
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"Quote:
Originally Posted by diablodelmar
btw you do know what evolution is dont you? I mean, the proper definition?
No one has mentioned it in this thread yet. And hey, aren't moderators supposed to be unbiased?Quote:
Originally Posted by Ser Clegane
Well ... it isn't the subject of the thread, so perhaps nobody felt it was necessary to state the obviousQuote:
Originally Posted by diablodelmar
Unbiased with regard to enforcing forum rules? - correctQuote:
And hey, aren't moderators supposed to be unbiased?
Unbiased in a sense that they are allowed to have/state an opinion? - not correct
There are six types of evolution. Only one of them has evidence and is, as you so deliberatly put it, fact.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ianofsmeg16
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.
No what I'm saying is that most moderators in forums I go to do not debate.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ser Clegane