Creation vs Evolution

rsinanan · Newbie Alert Joined: 18 Nov 2006 Posts: 2

Good Day,

Just for you to get some real info...

visit www.drdino.com

also go to www.youtube.com and search for Kent Hovind. You will get some videos of him debating evolutionists.

Don't worry, all his videos are copyright free...so you're not doing anything illegal.

However keep in mind he was found guilty of tax evasion this year....but that's a different issue....

The evidence he presents is very good....

Thanks.

FFT · Posted: Sun Nov 19, 2006 7:28 am Post subject:

rsinanan · Newbie Alert Joined: 18 Nov 2006 Posts: 2

Okay I admit he should have followed "Give onto Caesar that which is Caesar's"

Now, with reference to the vids on youtube where he debates Mathew Rainbow and the other one where he debates 3 evolutionists at the same time....you have to admit the evolutionists have NOTHING solid to support their HYPOTHESIS...

Now, if Hovind isn't your favourite guy...anyone else you would suggest?

I think the whole creation vs evolution thing is something we should attack head on and not avoid it...

If we avoid discussing the difficult issues, then maybe we don't believe the Word as much as we think..

FFT · Posted: Mon Nov 20, 2006 2:52 am Post subject:

Okay, I'll give the one where he debates three evolutionists described as "hovind takes three different evolutionist at the same time from different fields so they can not use the 'that is not in my field' excuses this time." This'll be interesting.

First, qualifications, as they're always important.

Kent Hovind claims his legitimate title of Doctor (he does have a religious-based PhD in Christian Education) in an illegitimate way (as a citizen of Florida, he can only claim this title if he "clearly identifies the religious character of the educational program").

So, let's look at these three different evolutionists from different fields to see how they apply.

1. Jim Strayer is a professor of mathematics and "metagrobologist," that is he apparently collects puzzles.
2. R. Luther Reisbig is currently a professor of thermal sciences at Michigan State and was a professor of aerospace engineering at the time of the debate.
3. Reinhold Schlieper (who didn't introduce himself much) is an associate professor of humanities.

So wait, not a single professor of biology? Not even anyone that teaches a field related to biology? Well, that doesn't really make sense if you were trying to have an honest debate about evolution. Oh wait Laughing

I forgot we were talking about Hovind.

The debate was being held at Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University, a university which does not even offer degrees in biology-related fields.

More as I watch.
_________________
When Science was in its crib, Religion tried to strangle it. When Science was in its infancy, Religion tried to abuse it. Now that Science is grown up, Religion wants to be in its good graces.

Theology is philosophy/ethics for people who already know what conclusion they want to come to.

FFT · Posted: Mon Nov 20, 2006 3:05 am Post subject:

First, Hovind's "predictions" are hilariously backwards. One glaring example:

Hovind insists that he believes that as stated in the Bible, the Lord created the Earth over six days, and he believes that the Earth is about 6,000 years old. That is, his premise includes the fact that the Bible exists and is actually entirely hinged on the Bible's existence.

Hovind's 6th "prediction"

"I predict that there will be a way to find the will of the creator such as messengers speaking for Him and maybe even a Book tellig how He created and why."

The premise is "hay here is this book and I believe what it says, so here's some predictions I can come to" and the prediction is "hay maybe there's a book."

Another prediction of Hovind's:

"I predict that there will be skeletons found of people showing signs of great age such as larger brow ridge and bigger jaws" and goes on to explain that the brow ridge doesn't stop growing etc.

Well, this would be fine and dandy except that we've found fossils of neanderthal children, and their brow ridges were significantly more prominent than in children today. We also haven't found child fossils with neanderthal fossils without prominent brow lines, though this admittedly could be a sampling bias. Further, I haven't noticed my grandmother turning into a neanderthal, though this may just be me.
_________________
When Science was in its crib, Religion tried to strangle it. When Science was in its infancy, Religion tried to abuse it. Now that Science is grown up, Religion wants to be in its good graces.

Theology is philosophy/ethics for people who already know what conclusion they want to come to.

FFT · Posted: Mon Nov 20, 2006 3:13 am Post subject:

"The first five [types of evolution Hovind erroneously asserts we have seen no examples of] are purely religious, and if you want to believe in those first five, you enjoy yourself, but don't call it science, and don't expect me to pay to teach that to the next generation of kids as part of science because it's not. It's nothing but a religion."

"I think the evolution theory as it's currently taught in our textbooks is totally unscientific, there is no — not a shred of evidence to back it up, and I simply resent paying for it."

"Evolution is a dying religion surviving only on tax dollars."

Laughing

_________________
When Science was in its crib, Religion tried to strangle it. When Science was in its infancy, Religion tried to abuse it. Now that Science is grown up, Religion wants to be in its good graces.

Theology is philosophy/ethics for people who already know what conclusion they want to come to.

FFT · Posted: Mon Nov 20, 2006 4:23 am Post subject:

He actually trotted out the tired old "universe = one sentence" trick.

This has actually come up here before:

Etymology of "universe"

Middle English, from Old French univers, from Latin universum, from neuter of universus, "whole" : unus, "one;" + versus, past participle of vertere, "to turn."

So we have Latin for "one turned."
_________________
When Science was in its crib, Religion tried to strangle it. When Science was in its infancy, Religion tried to abuse it. Now that Science is grown up, Religion wants to be in its good graces.

Theology is philosophy/ethics for people who already know what conclusion they want to come to.

P1234567890 · Posted: Mon Nov 20, 2006 6:54 am Post subject: Re: Creation vs Evolution

P1234567890 · Posted: Mon Nov 20, 2006 7:06 am Post subject:

JasonCMI · Not So Newbie Joined: 22 Nov 2006 Posts: 8

Anyone claiming that the science of Intelligent Design is falsified is scientifically ignorant. As Biologist Dr. Gary Parker put it in his book "Creation, Facts of Life: How Real Science Reveals the Hand of God" (2006):
"Throwing dynamite into the fire started by Michael Denton (Evolution A Theory in Crisis, 1985) and Phillip Johnson (Darwin on Trial, 1991), biochemist Michael Behe brought popularity to the intelligent design (ID) movement among secular scientists with the publication of his book (Darwin's Black Box, 1996), describing stunning examples of irreducible complexity found in the "molecular machinery" of living cells: the astonishing rotary motor of the bacterial flagellum, photoreceptor / effector systems ("eyes"), complex stimulation / inhibition in blood clotting and the immune system, etc!!!" (Page 97)
How did the supposed first organism survive with no ability to clot blood? It is the faith in evolution that is totally bankrupt. And when the facts disagree with your "holy book" - evolution, you just ignore them. Read the book "Not By Chance: Shattering the Modern Theory of Evolution", by Dr. Spetner, and for more information you can visit Creationontheweb.com.

JasonCMI · Not So Newbie Joined: 22 Nov 2006 Posts: 8

"in just a few random mutations?, which we absolutely know to be true" These kind of comments are pure cowardice. You are lying. No informed creationist says evolutionists believe the human eye came about from a "few" mutations. Everyone knows that evolutionists hope in the impossible, that many, many mutations magically created the irreducibly complex eye. So you lie about what we are saying, putting false words in our mouth, and then say we are wrong. That is pathetic, and the fact that you have to sink to such a low level should show you that you are wrong.

Ana · Posted: Thu Nov 23, 2006 12:57 pm Post subject:

Ana · Posted: Thu Nov 23, 2006 1:09 pm Post subject:

P1234567890 · Posted: Thu Nov 23, 2006 2:02 pm Post subject:

Ana · Posted: Thu Nov 23, 2006 2:07 pm Post subject: