Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Creation evangelist derides evolution as ‘dumbest’ theory [Kent Hovind Alert!]
University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee Post ^ | 17 December 2005 | Kayla Bunge

Posted on 12/17/2005 3:58:48 AM PST by PatrickHenry

A former high school science teacher turned creation science evangelist told an audience at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee last Tuesday that evolution is the “dumbest and most dangerous theory on planet Earth.”

Kent Hovind, founder of Creation Science Evangelism, presented “Creation or Evolution … Which Has More Merit?” to a standing-room only audience in the Union Ballroom on Dec. 6. The event was sponsored by the Apologetics Association, the organization that brought Baptist minister Tim Wilkins to UWM to speak about homosexuality in October.

No debate challengers

Members of the Apologetics Association (AA) contacted biology, chemistry and geology professors at UWM and throughout the UW System, inviting them to debate Hovind for an honorarium of $200 to be provided to the individual or group of individuals who agreed.

Before the event began, the “No-Debater List,” which was comprised of slides listing the names of UWM science professors who declined the invitation, was projected behind the stage.

Dustin Wales, AA president, said it was his “biggest disappointment” that no professor agreed to debate Hovind.

“No professor wanted to defend his side,” he said. “I mean, we had seats reserved for their people … ’cause I know one objection could have been ‘Oh, it’s just a bunch of Christians.’ So we had seats reserved for them to bring people to make sure that it’s somewhat more equal, not just all against one. And still nobody would do it.”

Biology professor Andrew Petto said: “It is a pernicious lie that the Apologetics (Association) is spreading that no one responded to the challenge. Many of us (professors) did respond to the challenge; what we responded was, ‘No, thank you.’ ”

Petto, who has attended three of Hovind’s “performances,” said that because Hovind presents “misinterpretations, half truths and outright lies,” professors at UWM decided not to accept his invitation to a debate.

“In a nutshell, debates like this do not settle issues of scientific understanding,” he said. “Hovind and his arguments are not even in the same galaxy as legitimate scientific discourse. This is why the faculty here has universally decided not to engage Hovind. The result would be to give the appearance of a controversy where none exists.”

He added, “The faculty on campus is under no obligation to waste its time supporting Hovind’s little charade.”


Kent Hovind, a former high school science teacher turned creation science evangelist, said that evolution is the "dumbest and most dangerous theory on planet Earth" at a program in the Union on Dec. 6.

Hovind, however, is used to being turned down. Near the end of his speech, he said, “Over 3,000 professors have refused to debate me. Why? Because I’m not afraid of them.”

No truths in textbooks

Hovind began his multimedia presentation by asserting that evolution is the “dumbest and most dangerous” theory used in the scientific community, but that he is not opposed to science.

“Our ministry is not against science, but against using lies to prove things,” he said. He followed this statement by citing biblical references to lies, which were projected onto screens behind him.

Hovind said: “I am not trying to get evolution out of schools or to get creation in. We are trying to get lies out of textbooks.” He added that if removing “lies” from textbooks leaves no evidence for evolutionists’ theory, then they should “get a new theory.”

He cited numerous state statutes that require that textbooks be accurate and up-to-date, but said these laws are clearly not enforced because the textbooks are filled with lies and are being taught to students.

Petto said it is inevitable that textbooks will contain some errors.

“Sometimes, this is an oversight. Sometimes it is the result of the editorial and revision process. Sometimes it is the result of trying to portray a rich and complex idea in a very few words,” he said.

The first “lie” Hovind presented concerned the formation of the Grand Canyon. He said that two people can look at the canyon. The person who believes in evolution would say, “Wow, look what the Colorado River did for millions and millions of years.” The “Bible-believing Christian” would say, “Wow, look what the flood did in about 30 minutes.”

To elaborate, Hovind discussed the geologic column — the chronologic arrangement of rock from oldest to youngest in which boundaries between different eras are marked by a change in the fossil record. He explained that it does not take millions of years to form layers of sedimentary rock.

“You can get a jar of mud out of your yard, put some water in it, shake it up, set it down, and it will settle out into layers for you,” he said. Hovind used this concept of hydrologic sorting to argue that the biblical flood is what was responsible for the formation of the Grand Canyon’s layers of sedimentary rock.

Hovind also criticized the concept of “micro-evolution,” or evolution on a small, species-level scale. He said that micro-evolution is, in fact, scientific, observable and testable. But, he said, it is also scriptural, as the Bible says, “They bring forth after his kind.”

Therefore, according to the Bible and micro-evolution, dogs produce a variety of dogs and they all have a common ancestor — a dog.

Hovind said, however, Charles Darwin made a “giant leap of faith and logic” from observing micro-evolution into believing in macro-evolution, or evolution above the species level. Hovind said that according to macro-evolution, birds and bananas are related if one goes back far enough in time, and “the ancestor ultimately was a rock.”

He concluded his speech by encouraging students to personally remove the lies from their textbooks and parents to lobby their school board for accurate textbooks.

“Tear that page out of your book,” he said. “Would you leave that in there just to lie to the kids?”

Faith, not science

Petto said Hovind believes the information in textbooks to be “lies” because his determination is grounded in faith, not science.

“Make no mistake, this is not a determination made on the scientific evidence, but one in which he has decided on the basis of faith alone that the Bible is correct, and if the Bible is correct, then science must be wrong,” he said.

Petto said Hovind misinterprets scientific information and then argues against his misinterpretation.

“That is, of course, known as the ‘straw man’ argument — great debating strategy, but nothing to do with what scientists actually say or do,” he said. “The bottom line here is that the science is irrelevant to his conclusions.”

Another criticism of Hovind’s presentation is his citation of pre-college textbooks. Following the event, an audience member said, “I don’t think using examples of grade school and high school biology can stand up to evolution.”

Petto called this an “interesting and effective rhetorical strategy” and explained that Hovind is not arguing against science, but the “textbook version” of science.

“The texts are not presenting the research results of the scientific community per se, but digesting and paraphrasing it in a way to make it more effective in learning science,” he said. “So, what (Hovind) is complaining about is not what science says, but what the textbooks say that science says.”

Petto said this abbreviated version of scientific research is due, in part, to the editorial and production processes, which impose specific limits on what is included.

He added that grade school and high school textbooks tend to contain very general information about evolution and pressure from anti-evolutionists has weakened evolutionary discussion in textbooks.

“Lower-level texts … tend to be more general in their discussions of evolution and speak more vaguely of ‘change over time’ and adaptation and so on,” he said. “Due to pressure by anti-evolutionists, textbook publishers tend to shy away from being ‘too evolutionary’ in their texts … The more pressure there is on schools and publishers, the weaker the evolution gets, and the weaker it gets, the more likely that it will not do a good job of representing the current consensus among biologists.”

Debate offer still stands

Hovind has a “standing offer” of $250,000 for “anyone who can give any empirical evidence (scientific proof) for evolution.” According to Hovind’s Web site, the offer “demonstrates that the hypothesis of evolution is nothing more than a religious belief.”

The Web site, www.drdino.com, says, “Persons wishing to collect the $250,000 may submit their evidence in writing or schedule time for a public presentation. A committee of trained scientists will provide peer review of the evidence offered and, to the best of their ability, will be fair and honest in their evaluation and judgment as to the validity of the evidence presented.”

Make it visible

Wales said the AA’s goal in bringing Hovind to UWM was “to crack the issue on campus” and bring attention to the fallibility of evolution.

“The ultimate goal was to say that, ‘Gosh, evolution isn’t as concrete as you say it is, and why do you get to teach everyone this non-concrete thing and then not defend it when someone comes and says your wrong?’ ” he said. “It’s just absurd.”


TOPICS: Heated Discussion
KEYWORDS: antisciencetaliban; clowntown; creatidiot; creationisminadress; crevolist; cultureofidiocy; darwindumb; evolution; fearofcreation; fearofgod; goddooditamen; hidebehindscience; hovind; idiocy; idsuperstition; ignoranceisstrength; keywordwars; lyingforthelord; monkeyman; monkeyscience; scienceeducation; silencingdebate; uneducatedsimpletons
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 951-1,0001,001-1,0501,051-1,100 ... 2,101-2,129 next last
To: darbymcgill
1. First make the oblicatory comment that the un-washed obviously are not aware of the scientific method.

I have seen this argument used. Most commonly when the creationist poster is obviously not aware of the scientific method.

2. In your most condescending tone respond to the un-washed using demeaning phases like "you obviously are not up to speed on blah blah" or "anyone who ever studied 8th grade blah blah should know that", etc.

This argument is also used, usually when the poster throws in a comment that a bright and reasonably well-educated 12 year old would see through. You aren't doing badly so far.

3. If the un-washed dares to continue the futile inquiry, simply respond with a terse, "The theory never said that" or "what is your source for that misguided statement".

Not bad. This is quite a good response to people who think that the theory of evolution is about morality, the existence of a deity, or abiogenesis.

4. If the first 3 steps fail to convince the un-washed they are out of their league, ping 50 or so of your distinguished scientist buddies and have them join the thread. The shear number of insults should begin to discourage the provacateer and others.

Don't get that one I'm afraid. Typically I'd much rather discourage the provocateur (excellent use of language BTW) by showing them where their ideas are misguided. These are open forums that anyone is free to join, and there never seems to be any shortage of creationist posters backing each other up, curiously even when the more bizarre strictures of Leviticus are endorsed in public.

5. Make cute little insulting comments on the open forum to your pinger buddies so the unwashed can see how clever you are behind their backs.

You're losing it now. "open forum", and "behind their backs"? You're getting more incoherent, I'm afraid.

6. If an un-washed requests sources. Send them a link which contains no useful information, but does allow them to easily purchase books authored by you and your buddies.

I'd be real interested if you can provide five citations of that ever happening on FR. Hell I'll be real interested if you can provide one, as actually you've just made that one up because you were struggling to extend your list once you'd got past the descriptions of reasonable behaviour on the part of evos.

7. Are they still out there? If so it's time to impress them with all the letters you have following your name and all the places you went to school. Challenge them to attend 14 years of grad school so they can be as smart and broke as you are. That should convince them.

You are continuing to struggle here. I've never seen any evo on here try to impress with the letters after their name. On the contrary that particular argument is occasionally used as a proxy by the creationist, as in, "My uncle/friend/neighbour is a real smart top scientist with a ton of letters after his name and loads of peer reviewed publications and he says, 'Evolution is bunk'". Curiously the uncles/friends/neighbours never appear to post here themselves to explain why they think evolution is bunk. It is true that to understand the details of evolutionary biology you'll need to put a few years of study in. The idea that somehow those who haven't studied it can see grade-school objections that haven't occurred to those who have studied it is frankly just risible.

8. For the really difficult cases just to prove how smart you are and how dumb they are, without responding to their inquiries or arguments, start listing all the words they misspell.

Argumentum ad mis-spelling is used by both sides. From where I'm standing most of you seem to have difficulty with the Queen's English. ;)

9. If you are asked a question you don't know the answer to or if proven you've made an error in a response. Do not acknowledge the error. Challenge the grammar and intellect of the un-washed. Try to convince them that if they weren't so dumb and illiterate they would have phased the question properly. Upon understanding the issue you would have obviuosly provided them proper enlightenment.

Please provide examples of evolutionists actively ducking an issue where they were in error by attacking intellect or grammar. Be specific, explain what error the evo was ducking.

10. And finally, remember how we handle issues of discord in our peer reviews and seminars. When a collegue dares to challenge your findings (like that would ever happen) start sounding righteoulsy indignant and throw some swear words and bad names their way. And make sure your pinger buddies throw some in as well.

I'm sure you can provide lots of examples of evos swearing at creationists. Tell you what, for each one of those you provide I'll provide you with an example of a creationist threatening evos with eternal damnation. I'll have an easier time finding my cites than you'll have finding yours.

1,001 posted on 12/18/2005 6:30:58 AM PST by Thatcherite (Evolutionists should be burned at the stake)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 993 | View Replies]

To: darbymcgill
What's with the Christian tradition that not washing was a virtue? Other cultures did not have that.

A man should wash himself and take a meal before riding to court, even if he is not too well clad. No man should be ashamed of his shoes or trousers or of his horse either, though he has not a good one. Havamal v.61

1,002 posted on 12/18/2005 6:38:56 AM PST by Oztrich Boy (so natural to mankind is intolerance in whatever they really care about - J S Mill)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 993 | View Replies]

To: sirchtruth
See, I have to stop right here, because I believe there is plenty of evidence of a Global Flood, I'll admit, I look at the evidence and BELIVE it to be so. The Salt Lake, Grand Canyon, Niagra Falls, all the oceans, almost every culture speaks of a flood...Plus the eye witness accounts in the bible. (There I admitted it!)

Most ancient civilisations were beside the sea or great rivers. To these people their local areas *were* the whole world. When you read the Old Testament for example you don't get any sense of a world outside a small area in the Middle East. If you cannot see why such cultures would have folk-tales about devastating floods in the past that killed nearly everybody "in the world" then you need to talk to the citizens of New Orleans. Imagine the stories that would be told a hundred years later about Hurricane Katrina in a pre-literacy S Louisiana culture with no flood-defences to speak of.

If you think that there is any evidence for a global flood then you need to talk to some geologists. They went looking for the evidence in the 18th Century, as geology became better understood. They found none, and no-one has found any since. Our modern understanding of geology is used by mineral and petroleum companies when searching for deposits. Those companies follow the money. If flood geology predicted anything in any useful way those companies would employ flood geologists, not conventional ones.

Amongst the things you need to explain if you want to sustain flood geology is angular unconformities. These make perfect sense with conventional geology, and none at all with flood geology.

1,003 posted on 12/18/2005 6:40:11 AM PST by Thatcherite (Evolutionists should be burned at the stake)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 995 | View Replies]

To: peyton randolph

Evolved, huh.. Hatred based on ignorance isn't an evolved position, it is quite the opposite. When pressed to show that you know anything of your subject, you hide your ignorance behind a swatting at another subject of which you are also apparently ignorant. What kind of person does that?

You would attack Hovind for not knowing anything etc.. Not having established that in any way, it appears that is exactly what you have done - not what he has done. What kind of person does that?

I can answer the question; but, I leave it to you. Perhaps there is enough humanity left in your "evolved" self to still experience shame for your actions.


1,004 posted on 12/18/2005 6:53:39 AM PST by Havoc (President George and King George.. coincidence?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 973 | View Replies]

To: sirchtruth
I forgot to point out what happens when someone who is a committed flood geologist gets a job with an oil company...

Here is Glenn Morton's Story

I'll quote a crushing passage from it, for those who can't be bothered to follow the link...

"But eventually, by 1994 I was through with young-earth creationISM. Nothing that young-earth creationists had taught me about geology turned out to be true. I took a poll of my ICR graduate friends who have worked in the oil industry. I asked them one question.

"From your oil industry experience, did any fact that you were taught at ICR, which challenged current geological thinking, turn out in the long run to be true? ,"

That is a very simple question. One man, Steve Robertson, who worked for Shell grew real silent on the phone, sighed and softly said 'No!' A very close friend that I had hired at Arco, after hearing the question, exclaimed, "Wait a minute. There has to be one!" But he could not name one. I can not name one. No one else could either. One man I could not reach, to ask that question, had a crisis of faith about two years after coming into the oil industry. I do not know what his spiritual state is now but he was in bad shape the last time I talked to him. " "

1,005 posted on 12/18/2005 6:59:16 AM PST by Thatcherite (Evolutionists should be burned at the stake)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1003 | View Replies]

To: Thatcherite

Placemarker


1,006 posted on 12/18/2005 7:00:55 AM PST by Thatcherite (Carolina Guitarman is worried about my new tagline)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1005 | View Replies]

To: Thatcherite

POP "Tagline"


1,007 posted on 12/18/2005 7:07:28 AM PST by Thatcherite (More abrasive than SeaLion or ModernMan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1006 | View Replies]

To: CarolinaGuitarman; PatrickHenry
This thread is moving so quick I'll probably fire on myself if I am not careful...

This is grand entertainment.

Went to bed early last night and now I'm just buried. But it's funny stuff.

1,008 posted on 12/18/2005 7:20:56 AM PST by VadeRetro (Liberalism is a cancer on society. Creationism is a cancer on conservatism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 679 | View Replies]

To: bobdsmith

Two can play at that game. I can cite scientific theory that says bleeding a patient removes bad blood and cures the patient.

So what if you can cite myths from different cultures. Those myths may embody a great deal of truth. Most myths are not based on fiction, they are based on an element of fact that is attempted to be explained in light of the belief system of the culture from whence the "myth" comes. In that case, the individual "myth"s are not the issue - the common thread of truth is the issue. That is just plain and obvious unless you don't want to deal with the central point.. that of a flood.

For most, a flood means there is a God who can and will judge this planet. What does a child do when scared? Covers it's eyes and pulls the blanket over it's head to hide itself from what it fears... The blanket vanquishes the closet monster as it were.. But in truth, were there a closet monster, the blanket is no defense and the child is doomed. Yet, you pull a blanket of willful ignorance over your head to hide from your closet monster - God.


1,009 posted on 12/18/2005 7:22:34 AM PST by Havoc (President George and King George.. coincidence?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 998 | View Replies]

To: Baraonda
Only nincompoopish, gullible simpletons believe in the cult of evolution.

And you want to burn nincompoopish, gullible simppletons at the stake. I hate to think what you'd have done to the Three Stooges.

1,010 posted on 12/18/2005 7:23:54 AM PST by VadeRetro (Liberalism is a cancer on society. Creationism is a cancer on conservatism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 690 | View Replies]

To: lemura
For all we know, PH is Hovind!

PH could fake Hovind. I don't think Hovind could fake PH.

1,011 posted on 12/18/2005 7:25:26 AM PST by VadeRetro (Liberalism is a cancer on society. Creationism is a cancer on conservatism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 697 | View Replies]

To: Havoc
Two can play at that game. I can cite scientific theory that says bleeding a patient removes bad blood and cures the patient.

Really? "Scientific theory" as in (a) explains past observations (b) makes successful predictions of future observations and (c) there are potential observations that would falsify it (that haven't been made so it is still a theory, and not a failed hypothesis). I'd love to see your cite for that.

1,012 posted on 12/18/2005 7:28:37 AM PST by Thatcherite (More abrasive than SeaLion or ModernMan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1009 | View Replies]

To: Havoc
So what if you can cite myths from different cultures. Those myths may embody a great deal of truth. Most myths are not based on fiction, they are based on an element of fact that is attempted to be explained in light of the belief system of the culture from whence the "myth" comes. In that case, the individual "myth"s are not the issue - the common thread of truth is the issue. That is just plain and obvious unless you don't want to deal with the central point.. that of a flood.

See #1003.

For most, a flood means there is a God who can and will judge this planet. What does a child do when scared? Covers it's eyes and pulls the blanket over it's head to hide itself from what it fears... The blanket vanquishes the closet monster as it were.. But in truth, were there a closet monster, the blanket is no defense and the child is doomed. Yet, you pull a blanket of willful ignorance over your head to hide from your closet monster - God.

And yet many devout people see no physical evidence for a global flood, and abundant physical evidence that falsifies a global flood. Are they hiding from God too?

1,013 posted on 12/18/2005 7:31:05 AM PST by Thatcherite (More abrasive than SeaLion or ModernMan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1009 | View Replies]

To: RunningWolf; balrog666

The one who makes the claim, must prove it.

I won't hold my breathe waiting for this ... but I did get a good laugh out of it. The haughty arrogance displayed here no longer amazes me. It's par for the course.


1,014 posted on 12/18/2005 7:33:20 AM PST by nmh (Intelligent people believe in Intelligent Design (God))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 963 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman
... your 35 years of ignoring evidence ...

Truly, a wasted life.
</internet idiot mode>

1,015 posted on 12/18/2005 7:33:40 AM PST by PatrickHenry (... endless horde of misguided Luddites ...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 995 | View Replies]

To: Thatcherite

You have to go back in history and read - it was actual practice.. lol


1,016 posted on 12/18/2005 7:33:46 AM PST by Havoc (President George and King George.. coincidence?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1012 | View Replies]

To: eleni121

I stand by my statement.


1,017 posted on 12/18/2005 7:33:55 AM PST by furball4paws (The new elixir of life - dehydrated toad urine.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 786 | View Replies]

To: Havoc

I'm well aware that "bleeding" was actual practice. I was taking issue with your assertion that it was a scientific theory.


1,018 posted on 12/18/2005 7:34:43 AM PST by Thatcherite (More abrasive than SeaLion or ModernMan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1016 | View Replies]

To: Thatcherite

Rhetorical body-swerve placemarker


1,019 posted on 12/18/2005 7:37:43 AM PST by Thatcherite (More abrasive than SeaLion or ModernMan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1018 | View Replies]

To: furball4paws; All

My calculations were in serious error. It appears it required 10^25 cc of water to flood the Earth - still an incredible number that would require much of the oxygen boung in minerals to be converted to water.

In addition, to flood the Earth in 40 days and 40 nights, it would take 6 inches per minute of rainfall. 12 inches per hour is considered a deluge. (of course there's the minor problem that each inch of rain increases the Earth's diameter requiring even more to keep up the rate).


1,020 posted on 12/18/2005 7:39:04 AM PST by furball4paws (The new elixir of life - dehydrated toad urine.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 743 | View Replies]

To: furball4paws

It is amusing and instructive to work out the total requirement for water to flood from current sea-level to the peak of Everest. When I did this exercise on the back of an envelope I came up with the requirement being a sphere of water around 1200 miles in diameter.


1,021 posted on 12/18/2005 7:42:05 AM PST by Thatcherite (More abrasive than SeaLion or ModernMan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1020 | View Replies]

To: nmh; balrog666
More importantly WHO created this "existing matter"

I did. Why do we need a "who" to create existing matter? What would such a Who be made of if not some kind of pre-existing matter? And where does that take you? What kind of explanation is that?

1,022 posted on 12/18/2005 7:42:21 AM PST by VadeRetro (Liberalism is a cancer on society. Creationism is a cancer on conservatism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 797 | View Replies]

To: longshadow
Out of about 100 anti-Evos who participated in the poll, only two engaged in massive fraud. But the most disturbing part of the story is that the remainder of their fellow ant-Evos never condemned them for their fraudulent behavior after it was exposed, AFAIK.

The Holy Warrior thing. Witnessing is witnessing, even when it's bad behavior in public.

1,023 posted on 12/18/2005 7:51:19 AM PST by VadeRetro (Liberalism is a cancer on society. Creationism is a cancer on conservatism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 841 | View Replies]

To: Havoc; Thatcherite
Hatred based on ignorance isn't an evolved position, it is quite the opposite...You would attack Hovind for not knowing anything etc.

To reiterate, you (and Hovind for that matter) believe that dinosaurs co-existed with man, snakes can talk, virgins give birth, the dead can be resurrected, there is a supreme being who sits around with nothing better to do than answer the prayers of nitwits, or there was a guy who spent three years partying with twelve of his buddies but remained abstinent the whole time.

To coin a biblical phrase, perhaps you shouldn't be casting stones about other people being ignorant.

Speaking of which...let's get to the good stuff.

Draw Winky too?.

This pic enjoying quality time is priceless. A re-enactment of Adam feeding the dinosaurs? Based on the dress-up costume in the background, was this wild critter tamed with a Jedi light saber?

Perhaps there is enough humanity left in your "evolved" self to still experience shame for your actions.

What do you think?

 

BTW, Season's Greetings!

1,024 posted on 12/18/2005 7:53:04 AM PST by peyton randolph (Warning! It is illegal to fatwah a camel in all 50 states)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1004 | View Replies]

To: Thatcherite

So what. People will see closet monsters. Whether it actually be a monster or not is quite another thing. When one turns on the light, said evidences tend to disappear. There is no evidence precluding a global flood.

As for what people believe vs. what makes them "devout" that's quite another thing. Belief doesn't = truth. And blind faith is folly.


1,025 posted on 12/18/2005 7:54:09 AM PST by Havoc (President George and King George.. coincidence?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1013 | View Replies]

To: Dimensio
Can you support your "opinion" with evidence? I can claim that George W. Bush is a crack dealer and it has as much weight as your "opinion" on Darwin unless you're willing to pony up some evidence.

Congratulations! You will soon be starring in Creationist Quote Salads everywhere!

1,026 posted on 12/18/2005 7:59:42 AM PST by Gumlegs
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 942 | View Replies]

To: Jorge
I am an ex-evolutionists turned Christian.

One of the funny things I've noted that happens with evolutionists when they turn creationist is they forget that there was ever any evidence for what they used to believe or even what it WAS that they used to believe. Their posts betray an invincible ignorance indistinguishable from those of people who have always been creationists.

That always struck me as odd. If you were familiar with the evidence for evolution and accepted it for some time, one might think you'd have a semiconvincing story about how you became unconvinced. And you should still remember a few things about why you used to accept evolution. You should know more than a Duane Gish strawman of evolution. "So one day, we are told, a snake gave birth to a bird. But where O where was there another little bird for it to mate with?"

1,027 posted on 12/18/2005 8:02:14 AM PST by VadeRetro (Liberalism is a cancer on society. Creationism is a cancer on conservatism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 879 | View Replies]

To: eleni121
Then read the post to which I am responding...

Uh, yeah. That was my post. I still don't understand your response.

as for Piltdown...lots of hoaxes so little time.

Right. Piltdown was a hoax, not a "fraud". But there aren't "lots" of them. In fact I believe it's the only hominid fossil that was ever successfully hoaxed.

1,028 posted on 12/18/2005 8:02:40 AM PST by Stultis (I don't worry about the war turning into "Vietnam" in Iraq; I worry about it doing so in Congress.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 788 | View Replies]

To: peyton randolph

Bluster and vacancy is all you offer. You don't know your subject. How many posts must we run through while you handwring and chase tangeants. You're an uninformed prejudiced hack.


1,029 posted on 12/18/2005 8:04:36 AM PST by Havoc (President George and King George.. coincidence?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1024 | View Replies]

To: Baraonda
Sidenote: I've been known for great visions.

So was Timothy Leary.

1,030 posted on 12/18/2005 8:04:42 AM PST by VadeRetro (Liberalism is a cancer on society. Creationism is a cancer on conservatism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 888 | View Replies]

To: Dimensio
...but your history of ridiculing observed reality because you don't like it does not constitute an "argument".

It has nothing to do with liking it or not, it has to do with LYING about what the facts point too.

1,031 posted on 12/18/2005 8:07:47 AM PST by sirchtruth (Words Mean Things...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 914 | View Replies]

To: Havoc; Coyoteman
There is no evidence precluding a global flood.

It is possible to make a number of predictions about what you'd expect to see in the rocks if there had been a global flood around 5000 years ago. Coyoteman is an archeologist who can date continuous settlements at the same sites back to well beyond that date. Those predictions don't come true. Also there is no genetic bottleneck dating back to that time, as would be required by the entire world ecology being saved on a boat. The number of alleles at many loci in the human genome is far too high for example to have come from 8 individuals that recently. That evidence alone falsifies any literal interpretation of the Noah story.

And blind faith is folly.

Agreed.

1,032 posted on 12/18/2005 8:13:30 AM PST by Thatcherite (More abrasive than SeaLion or ModernMan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1025 | View Replies]

To: Baraonda
Why do I feel this Darwin character plagiarized God's work - ie the Bible?

It should be trivial to find parallel passages if you're right. Is Seconday Sexual Characters of Man in the Old Testament or the New?

1,033 posted on 12/18/2005 8:14:24 AM PST by VadeRetro (Liberalism is a cancer on society. Creationism is a cancer on conservatism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 940 | View Replies]

To: Thatcherite
The actual evidence that sustains the theory is what counts.

Yes, But that does not mean evolution is FACT, regardless of the scientific meaning of theory. Since science can not demonstrate this "theory" in action and as suggested in highschool textbooks, as many so-called facts have been proven to be bogus, agandized science can not parade evo as something that has or is happening.

The absolute absudity of a fish evolving into a man is not only ludicrous, it defies logic...especially when the scientific method is used to test the theory.

Reject the theory of evolution if you are comfortable rejecting the evidence that sustains it.

I only fully reject the conclusion of evolution based on the so-called evidence which agendized science says sustains the cult's beliefs.

1,034 posted on 12/18/2005 8:19:02 AM PST by sirchtruth (Words Mean Things...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 979 | View Replies]

To: Havoc
Apparently you are as ignorant about Spirit lake as you are about Hovind. "gullies in ash.." You're either ignorant of your subject or a liar. The vast mudflows in the aftermath of the eruption may have included ash; but, they were hardly 'ashflows' as you would profer in ignorance.

Ah! The irony!

Pyroclastic flows at Mt. St. Helens.

Go learn something and come back when you know what you're talking about. Don't waste our time pontificating from ignorance.

If you aren't Hovind, then he cloned himself or has a twin.

1,035 posted on 12/18/2005 8:20:53 AM PST by VadeRetro (Liberalism is a cancer on society. Creationism is a cancer on conservatism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 952 | View Replies]

To: Thatcherite

One can make predictions; but, whether the predictions are of any use is quite another thing. The rest of your dialogue begs whether there is enough "time" nothing more. There is no time problem. There is only an unwillingness to accept facts on the evo side. A population of 8 can do a lot of damage in a short period of time. Any actual problems, or just handwringing?


1,036 posted on 12/18/2005 8:20:57 AM PST by Havoc (President George and King George.. coincidence?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1032 | View Replies]

To: Thatcherite

I didn't subtract out the mountain ranges, but we're in the same ballpark.


1,037 posted on 12/18/2005 8:21:57 AM PST by furball4paws (The new elixir of life - dehydrated toad urine.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1021 | View Replies]

To: Havoc
There is no evidence precluding a global flood.

A former creationist describes why he left creationism after he saw the evidence.

1,038 posted on 12/18/2005 8:22:11 AM PST by Thalos
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1025 | View Replies]

To: Thatcherite
Really clever people like Ichneumon and VadeRetro and physicist (I don't include myself at that intellectual level) spend their *whole lives* studying this stuff.

I *must be* pretty clever. I'm a would-be SF writer whose one published book is a western.

1,039 posted on 12/18/2005 8:23:14 AM PST by VadeRetro (Liberalism is a cancer on society. Creationism is a cancer on conservatism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 962 | View Replies]

To: Havoc; Thatcherite
You're an uninformed prejudiced hack.

Really? Hmmm. What Would Jesus Do?

I know. Time for a sanity quiz.

True/False   Dinosaurs co-existed with man

True/False   Snakes can talk

True/False   Virgins give birth

True/False    The dead can be resurrected

True/False    There is a supreme being who sits around with nothing better to do than answer the prayers of nitwits

True/False    There was a guy who spent three years partying with twelve of his buddies but remained abstinent the whole time

True/False    There are trees with magic fruit

True/False    An ancient civilization built a seven-story tower that frightened God

Take your time. Consult your Bible if necessary. This is an open-book quiz.

1,040 posted on 12/18/2005 8:24:58 AM PST by peyton randolph (Warning! It is illegal to fatwah a camel in all 50 states)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1029 | View Replies]

To: CarolinaGuitarman
Or how about this, like the story of a world wide flood? Tell me you have seen that happen.

No, but that's my point! I have NOT seen it! I see what looks like evidence of it and make a conclusion based on that evidence. Just like evolutionist, the difference is I don't call what I believe FACT, and tell people this is absolutely what happen. I leave room for other theories to be explored, eventhough I concluded a global flood did happen, but I'm honest enough to also say it's only ONE conslusion since I can't take people back in time to actually witness the event.

Evolutionist do not allow other views to be introduced. Why, because there is an agenda? An agenda to fool people into thinking this is ALL chance and there is no meaning to any of it, because logically that's what evolution leads too...now evo maybe true, but until I see some monkey turn into a man, or a half an eye, true transitional changes, (Not someone guess of a transitional change) it's all speculation and conjecture.

1,041 posted on 12/18/2005 8:32:05 AM PST by sirchtruth (Words Mean Things...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 988 | View Replies]

To: peyton randolph
How about we ask you again for your citations.. Afterall, that is what this tangeant is about - you trying to avoid doing so.. ..Still waiting
1,042 posted on 12/18/2005 8:33:58 AM PST by Havoc (President George and King George.. coincidence?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1040 | View Replies]

To: bobdsmith
I can cite a lot of creation myths from different cultures that involve creation occuring via two gods mating. Does that mean it must be true?

No,I take my belief on faith, evolution can't do this because science can't do this and still be called science, but evo's really try hard to turn their faith into facts as evidenced by this thread.

1,043 posted on 12/18/2005 8:36:17 AM PST by sirchtruth (Words Mean Things...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 998 | View Replies]

To: Havoc

Until you answer the quiz, I have no further response. Your sanity is seriously at issue. I'd like to know if I'm dealing with a crazy person before continuing.


1,044 posted on 12/18/2005 8:37:59 AM PST by peyton randolph (Warning! It is illegal to fatwah a camel in all 50 states)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1042 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry

wasted placemarker-of-life


1,045 posted on 12/18/2005 8:39:06 AM PST by longshadow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1015 | View Replies]

To: sirchtruth
Another citation for you to ignore:

Problems with a Global Flood, Second Edition, by Mark Isaak

1,046 posted on 12/18/2005 8:41:01 AM PST by Coyoteman (I love the sound of beta decay in the morning!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1041 | View Replies]

To: sirchtruth
"No, but that's my point! I have NOT seen it!"

Yet you claim that it is scientific to say that it happened.

"Just like evolutionist, the difference is I don't call what I believe FACT, and tell people this is absolutely what happen."

You don't? lol

"Evolutionist do not allow other views to be introduced."

Sure they do. The new view must have evidence to support it. Creationism/ID don't. They are not scientific claims; why should they be taken seriously?

"An agenda to fool people into thinking this is ALL chance and there is no meaning to any of it,..."

Natural selection is NOT a random process. As for meaning, NO scientific theory deals with *meaning*. That's a philosophical question, not a scientific one.

".now evo maybe true, but until I see some monkey turn into a man, or a half an eye, true transitional changes, (Not someone guess of a transitional change) it's all speculation and conjecture."

If we saw a monkey turn into a man, it would disprove the ToE. Why must creationists wallow in such silly strawman arguments?
1,047 posted on 12/18/2005 8:43:52 AM PST by CarolinaGuitarman ("There is a grandeur in this view of life...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1041 | View Replies]

Caught up to the end of this crazy thread placemarker.


1,048 posted on 12/18/2005 8:47:43 AM PST by VadeRetro (Liberalism is a cancer on society. Creationism is a cancer on conservatism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1047 | View Replies]

To: nmh

You qoute the Bible -- that is not Scientific Proof.

It is an opinion. It is belief. It is not subject to scientific scrutiny.


1,049 posted on 12/18/2005 8:50:10 AM PST by freedumb2003 (American troops cannot be defeated. American Politicians can.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 490 | View Replies]

To: Havoc
I don't believe flash flooding is on par with the destructive power of a volcano. I've seen the results of major flash flooding myself and the two just don't compare. This to, I believe, comes from ignorance.
1,050 posted on 12/18/2005 8:53:57 AM PST by wolfcreek
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 789 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 951-1,0001,001-1,0501,051-1,100 ... 2,101-2,129 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson