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.

[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

[R'as al Ghul]

Good move, English Assassin!

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

[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.

[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 .

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.

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

[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.

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!"

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.

[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.

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...


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 pretty quickly using Google.

[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?

Man, this thread is

[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.

[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?

[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 .

[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?
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).

[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.

[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.

[Kaiser of Arabia]

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

[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.

[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?