Creation evangelist derides evolution as ‘dumbest’ theory [Kent Hovind Alert!]

University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee Post ^ | 17 December 2005 | Kayla Bunge

[razorbak]

So there were no atheists before Darwin?

[sirchtruth]

Evolution has been observed. We observe what you call micro-evolution all the time.We observe that the fossils indicate transitions (take a look at cetacean fossils for example). We observe that genetic similarities correspond to the lineages created from the fossil record...

No, that's mutation. You have an incomplete fossil record, just because there is "similarities" does not mean evolution has occured.

Evolution is indeed a fact.

You're making my point everso clear. When layman think of evolution they think species change. Fish to man stuff. And that is not fact and you know it, and to assert such, is nothing more than deception. The fossil record is not conclusive. Just because some branches of science WISHES it to be so doesn't mean it is.

When you show me a conclusive species change, ONE KIND to ANOTHER KIND, then you might have a point, until then all your doing is speculating...

I have yet to see any specific argument presented by you or any of your fellow believers that shows how the evidence runs counter to the ToE.

The evidence is you can not show, recreate, or point to a valid species change...It's all conjecture.

There's your argument.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"...you will have one poster who belongs to one religion telling another poster who belongs to another religion tell one another, not only are they wrong about their own interpretations of Biblical passages, they are also not even 'Christians'...imagine that...self professed Christians telling other self professed Christians of another religion that they don't even qualify as being a Christian.."

My sister's mother-in-law and sister-in-law think that my whole family is going to Hell because we are Catholic (If they only knew where I stood... :). Even my 6 year old niece. They say we aren't Christians. I bet they also think we have guns stored under the house so we can take over the country. Funniest thing is the sister-in-law thinks she is so educated about the Bible, yet she thought that King James actually wrote it in Hebrew and lived in the time of Jesus and was Jewish. She also never heard of Martin Luther. Knowledge can be VERY selective. (Scary thing:her two kids are being home schooled.)

I would say most Protestant denominations have no problem with Catholics, and most Catholics have no trouble with Protestants. It's just the very vocal minority that make things, um, interesting.

[Oztrich Boy]

Hey, you're the one who brought homosexuality into this.

Hang around the CREVO threads a while, and you'll realize Creationista do this a lot. It seems to be an obsession of theirs. We don't know why they do it, but have learned to tolerate it. It's not their worst flaw.

[sirchtruth]

I am just trying to correct your odd view of how science works, or should work.

You can't say something is fact when indeed it's speculation like evolution. People agree on what they see all the time, but it doesn't mean their conlusion is FACT! In fact there is plenty of reason to believe evolution is a huge deception or illusion. When you have science making conclusions on something without truly observing THE ACT then it's not true science in the first place...Maybe you're the one with the odd view.

At least 60 behind! ;-)

[sirchtruth]

Why would you lie about the guy so bad????

Because they like using the liberal/dem tactic of attacking the messenger because they know his theories get people thinking about the huge holes in the ToE...

[sirchtruth]

If you think that the Theory of Evolution asserts that dinosaurs evolved from birds,

I'll admit it could be the other way around, but it doesn't negate the fact your statement demonstrates your complete ignorance of the "issue."

You're just SO smart!

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"When you have science making conclusions on something without truly observing THE ACT then it's not true science in the first place..."

Like the existence of subatomic particles? Or how about this, like the story of a world wide flood? Tell me you have seen that happen.

[bulldozer]

PatrickHenry quote: "Note: one option is missing from the above -- the creationist will never support his claims with verifiable evidence."

Pot calling the kettle black.

[sirchtruth]

I don't have much hope that sirchtruth will actually learn anything from the following,..

I truly appreciate your posting a NOVEL, however it doesn't change the construct that TOE is only speculation.

You keep showing me little bits of evidence, but never the actual event, so therefore, speculation. I know you scientist can't stand being told you're not only wrong, but being lied too and deceived, is hard to take, but if you'd get your head out of your asses long enough to take a look at reality then maybe you'd get a clue...until then, keep playing with your little conjectures by calling them facts, and I'll keep informing people about the lie that's being perpetrated on society.

[Thatcherite]

So there were no atheists before Darwin?

And plenty of people both believe in God and evolution. So your point is...?

[sirchtruth]

I get my knowledge from University classes, science texts, popular science writings and conversations with scientists.

Obviously! Just stop being duped by an illusion will ya...It's really easy to get sucked into the cult of ToE.

[darbymcgill]

The usual range of responses when a creationist's post is clearly shown to be worthless trash is that the creationist will:

Hey wait... I have a list too.... let me go find it...



The FR Scientist Method

1. First make the oblicatory comment that the un-washed obviously are 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.

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".

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

[Thatcherite]

You keep showing me little bits of evidence, but never the actual event, so therefore, speculation. I know you scientist can't stand being told you're not only wrong, but being lied too and deceived, is hard to take, but if you'd get your head out of your asses long enough to take a look at reality then maybe you'd get a clue...until then, keep playing with your little conjectures by calling them facts, and I'll keep informing people about the lie that's being perpetrated on society.

Which of the following do you consider to be not "only speculation"?

• Atoms
• Electrons
• The stars in the sky being suns like our own
• Quantum mechanics
• Radioactive decay
• DNA profiling
• Petroleum geology
• Relativity
• Black holes

Please explain the difference between the evidence that supports the above and the evidence that supports the theory of evolution. Have you or anyone else ever seen an electron? Have you or anyone else visited another solar system to verify that the stars aren't just a painted backdrop a few million-miles away?

All of modern science is based on inferential evidence, and particularly on successful predictions of what will be found in the field that are made using scientific theories. Here are some made using the theory of evolution. If you want to insist on only using science that relies on direct observations of the theorised phenomena then best throw away the computer that you are sitting at, as the engineers who built it made copious use of scientific theories for which the only evidence is indirect and inferential, and that evidence is no more directly based than the vast avalanche of evidence that supports the theory of evolution.

[sirchtruth]

I am an archaeologist with 35 years of experience in the western US. I have been in a lot of sites all over the west, but there is no evidence for a "global flood."

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!)

So your 35 years of ignoring evidence doesn't mean there is none. I love how you evo's pick and chose your evidence...it's laughable!

[sirchtruth]

Almost every culture on Earth had their start by a river, lake, sea or ocean. All of these locations suffer from local floods.

Nice try! No, these stories are all about a Global Flood, not local...

[sirchtruth]

Hovind cites a number of texts and scientists in print who have said this. It points the finger back at science, not at Hovind.

Right, I'm not sure what you're responding too.

[bobdsmith]

Nice try! No, these stories are all about a Global Flood, not local...

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?

[toadthesecond]

Maybe the global flood was just a big wet patch.

[Oztrich Boy]

Nice try! No, these stories are all about a Global Flood, not local...

"You punk kids think you've see a flood. Why back when I was a lad we had a huge Flood which drowned everything"