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 ... 101-150151-200201-250 ... 2,101-2,129 next last
To: Full Court
The head and body of Archaeopteryx is similar to that of a small coelurosaurian dinosaur, Compsognathus; the flight feathers are exactly like those of modern birds.

So you're going to be the first to argue with all the idiots from your side who chirp "Archaeopteryx is JUST A BIRD! A BIRD!??" You know better, right?

Actually, when Fred Hoyle claimed Archy was a fake, the fossils WERE carefully examined. They weren't.

BTW, we've recently found a new one. It also has clear feather impressions.

151 posted on 12/17/2005 9:01:21 AM PST by VadeRetro (Liberalism is a cancer on society. Creationism is a cancer on conservatism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 148 | View Replies]

To: nmh

"I'm still waiting for my gold fish to "evolve" into a cat. How silly people are ... to believe in "evolution" and all the nonsense that goes with it."

And a bunch of nonsense it is.


152 posted on 12/17/2005 9:01:23 AM PST by Baraonda (Demographic is destiny. Don't hire 3rd world illegal aliens nor support businesses that hire them.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 130 | View Replies]

To: Full Court
[What Hovind exposes is the fact that believers in the religion of evolutionist theory GLUED the moths to trees to try and support their "thoery."]




At first I thought this was really good and very subtle satire.

Then I realized you're serious.
153 posted on 12/17/2005 9:01:33 AM PST by spinestein (All journalists today are paid advocates for someone's agenda.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: Full Court
"The Heackle drawings WERE and ARE used."

Prove it. Your anecdotal evidence is not enough.

" In fact, a friend of mine has a copy of the pages of that book. I made the copy at the time and sent them to him. "

I am sure you can provide us with this picture too.

"The evolution fairy take rests on nothing but lies and the Heackle drawings are just more proof of that."

They are not used, unless it's an historical sketch. PHOTOGRAPHS are used today. And learn to spell the man's name. It's Haeckel.
154 posted on 12/17/2005 9:02:20 AM PST by CarolinaGuitarman ("There is a grandeur in this view of life...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 137 | View Replies]

To: XeniaSt

" If you would have ever taken a course in the "Philosophy of Science" "

I have.

" You would know that the "Theory of Evolution" has never advanced
past a hypothetical construct."

I take it you never took (or at least passed) a philosophy of science class.


155 posted on 12/17/2005 9:03:21 AM PST by CarolinaGuitarman ("There is a grandeur in this view of life...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 149 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman; spinestein; CarolinaGuitarman; VadeRetro; AntiScumbag; peyton randolph; ...

You’ve probably never heard of this skeleton - it’s kept quiet by evolutionists. This well-authenticated discovery had been in the British Museum in London for nearly 70 years.

In 1812, a 5’ 2” fully human female skeleton was found, missing only the feet and head. It was found inside hard, ancient limestone, that was part of a formation more than a mile long! Modern geological dating places this formation at 28 million years old!

When the two-ton limestone block, containing Guadeloupe Woman, was displayed in the British Museum in 1812, it was displayed as proof of the Genesis Flood. But that was 20 years before Lyell and nearly 50 years before Darwin. In 1881, the exhibit was quietly taken down to the basement and hidden there.

www.evolution-facts.org/2evlch18a.htm

156 posted on 12/17/2005 9:05:08 AM PST by Full Court (Keepers at home, do you think it's optional?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 144 | View Replies]

To: VadeRetro

"May the good Lord shower you with health, prosperity, happiness and wisdom.

Before the stake catches me and wrestles me to the ground, yes."

=====

The sooner, the better. You're on your road to righteousness. Don't let the detractors sway you.

God bless and Merry Christmas.


157 posted on 12/17/2005 9:05:25 AM PST by Baraonda (Demographic is destiny. Don't hire 3rd world illegal aliens nor support businesses that hire them.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 142 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry

I like this creationist threads.

Can you put me on your ping list?

I may not always contribute to it my vast accumulated knowledge, but at a minimun I'll give it a BUMP.

Thank you and may the Good Lord bless you.


158 posted on 12/17/2005 9:08:14 AM PST by Baraonda (Demographic is destiny. Don't hire 3rd world illegal aliens nor support businesses that hire them.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 135 | View Replies]

To: CarolinaGuitarman

They are used. "2002 – believe it or not – Haeckel’s drawings still appear in many high school and college textbooks. Among them are "Evolutionary Biology" by Douglas J. Futuyma (Third Edition, Sunderland, MA: Sinauer Associates, 1998), and also the bedrock text, "Molecular Biology of the Cell" (third edition), whose authors include biochemist Dr. Bruce Alberts, president of the National Academy of Sciences. Some texts which don’t use Haeckel’s forged drawings, still use his discredited theory. One of those is the current (1998) National Association of Science teacher’s guide, “Teaching About Evolution and the Nature of Science”. "

The book I checked out was from a public library. I saw this with my own eyes.

You can stomp your feet and throw a baby sit all you like, but the drawings are still being used to try and support the evolution fairy tale.


159 posted on 12/17/2005 9:09:22 AM PST by Full Court (Keepers at home, do you think it's optional?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 154 | View Replies]

To: peyton randolph
Some biology professors have countered with a how-to DVD on debating Hovind:


160 posted on 12/17/2005 9:09:34 AM PST by RightWingAtheist ("Why thank you Mr.Obama, I'm proud to be a Darwinist!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Full Court
[The "theme park" is a hands on kids activity place in the back yard of his home. Any admission feee (which I think is 5 dollars) goes to support the missionaries that work there.]



Man, this guy is sucking up the money from every possible source. Speaking fees, audio and video tapes, a 5$ per head kid's playground in his back yard. I wonder how much he gets for the "My grandfather was no ape" tee-shirts or the fish eating a caricature of Darwin bumper stickers.
161 posted on 12/17/2005 9:10:21 AM PST by spinestein (All journalists today are paid advocates for someone's agenda.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: Full Court
Feathers added to a fossil?

No need to add them. Did you see this handsome specimen in the news a couple of weeks ago?


(AP) A new analysis of Archaeopteryx, the earliest known birdlike animal, shows it had feet like dinosaurs--a finding that adds weight to the belief that the birds frequenting backyard feeders today are descendants of mighty ancient carnivores.

While not all scientists agree, many consider Archaeopteryx the first bird, since it had wings and was the first fossil found with feathers.

Details have been lacking on the animals, however, since only a few fossil specimens have been found. The new one, reported in Friday's issue of the journal Science, is the 10th known and one of the most complete. ...

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/12/01/ap/tech/mainD8E7KKLG7.shtml

162 posted on 12/17/2005 9:11:24 AM PST by Coyoteman (I love the sound of beta decay in the morning!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 148 | View Replies]

To: ndt

>>"What's so "laughably Luddite?"

>Did you or did you not just call for the burning at the state of scientists (that would be antichrists to you)?

If you have to ask the question it implies you did not understand my statement. If you did not understand it, how can you refer to it as "laughably Luddite" then?


163 posted on 12/17/2005 9:12:06 AM PST by Baraonda (Demographic is destiny. Don't hire 3rd world illegal aliens nor support businesses that hire them.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 146 | View Replies]

To: Senator Bedfellow

What's a Melon Labe?


164 posted on 12/17/2005 9:13:07 AM PST by Baraonda (Demographic is destiny. Don't hire 3rd world illegal aliens nor support businesses that hire them.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 147 | View Replies]

To: Full Court
This well-authenticated discovery had been in the British Museum in London for nearly 70 years.

Your link doesn't work, and I'd be curious to know what exactly your sources are.

Modern geological dating places this formation at 28 million years old!

Show me the evidence.

165 posted on 12/17/2005 9:14:56 AM PST by Alter Kaker (Whatever tears one may shed, in the end one always blows one’s nose.-Heine)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 156 | View Replies]

To: Full Court
And if the IRS had anything to charge him with, they would of done so already.

You obviously are either able to channel government bureaucrats or suffer from serious reading comprehension problems.

the IRS tried to harrass him

You have a link to proof of a finding of said IRS harrassment?

After all, sycophants have links to everything.

Good luck.

166 posted on 12/17/2005 9:15:32 AM PST by AntiScumbag
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 145 | View Replies]

To: Full Court
Why would anybody use Haeckel's drawings when much better detailed PHOTOGRAPHS show the gill arches just as good?

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/wells/haeckel.html

BTW, you still haven't answer my refutation of your claim that Darwin based his theory on Haeckel. It's simply not true at all.
167 posted on 12/17/2005 9:16:38 AM PST by CarolinaGuitarman ("There is a grandeur in this view of life...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 159 | View Replies]

To: CarolinaGuitarman
XS>" You would know that the "Theory of Evolution" has never advanced past a hypothetical construct."

CG>I take it you never took (or at least passed) a philosophy of science class. 155 posted on 12/17/2005 10:03:21 AM MST by CarolinaGuitarman

Has it been observed twice, published and independently observed?

b'shem Y'shua

168 posted on 12/17/2005 9:17:38 AM PST by Uri’el-2012 (Y'shua <==> YHvH is my Salvation (Psalm 118-14))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 155 | View Replies]

To: RightWingAtheist
Some biology professors have countered with a how-to DVD on debating Hovind

Nice one. However, I'd change the cover art to the following.


169 posted on 12/17/2005 9:19:48 AM PST by peyton randolph (Warning! It is illegal to fatwah a camel in all 50 states)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 160 | View Replies]

To: Full Court
Probably haven't heard of it because whoever you lifted that from pretty much made it up. The Guadeloupe skeleton was not contained in a block of limestone, but buried along with other skeletons, dog bones, and tools, indicating that it was likely a modern post-Columbian specimen. The only one to claim it was millions of years old was an Aussie creationist named Cooper in the journal Ex Nihilo - the museum itself has never dated the specimen in light of the obvious indicators of its age. Oh, and it was on display until 1967, when the museum took it down to make room for other specimens. But other than that, your use of the words "a", "the", and "it" are correct.
170 posted on 12/17/2005 9:20:01 AM PST by Senator Bedfellow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 156 | View Replies]

To: XeniaSt

"Has it been observed twice, published and independently observed?"

Yes, but if you took a philosophy of science class, you would know that direct observation isn't a requirement for a scientific theory. MOST scientific theories have a lot of indirect evidence. Again, next time actually take the class, or study harder.


171 posted on 12/17/2005 9:22:13 AM PST by CarolinaGuitarman ("There is a grandeur in this view of life...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 168 | View Replies]

To: Alter Kaker

See #170.


172 posted on 12/17/2005 9:22:50 AM PST by Senator Bedfellow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 165 | View Replies]

To: CarolinaGuitarman

In a 1997 interview in The Times of London, Dr. Richardson stated: "This is one of the worst cases of scientific fraud. It’s shocking to find that somebody once thought to be a great scientist was deliberately misleading.

It makes me angry. ... What he [Haeckel] did was to take a human embryo and copy it, pretending that the salamander and the pig and all the others looked the same at the same stage of development.
They don’t. ... These are fakes."


173 posted on 12/17/2005 9:24:46 AM PST by Full Court (Keepers at home, do you think it's optional?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies]

To: spinestein

He doesn't charge speaking fees. And any thing he produces he does not copyright, so that others can copy them and pass them around for free.


174 posted on 12/17/2005 9:26:24 AM PST by Full Court (Keepers at home, do you think it's optional?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 161 | View Replies]

To: AntiScumbag
You have a link to proof of a finding of said IRS harrassment?

Babe, they gave the cars back.

175 posted on 12/17/2005 9:27:16 AM PST by Full Court (Keepers at home, do you think it's optional?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 166 | View Replies]

To: Full Court
What book was that picture in? And why are you evading the fact that Darwin didn't use Haeckel in developing his theory?
176 posted on 12/17/2005 9:28:50 AM PST by CarolinaGuitarman ("There is a grandeur in this view of life...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 173 | View Replies]

To: CarolinaGuitarman

In 1866 Haeckel predicted that a transitional substance would be found on sea floors, to fill the gap between non-living matter and life. So certain was he that he even named it monera ahead of time. Mud was dredged from the sea floor and called Bathybius haeckelii by Huxley, and monera was proclaimed as a fact.
In 1875 chemists from the boat, HMS Challenger, which did the dredging, determined that the substance was actually gypsum - a rock! This fact was not translated into English and made public until 1971 - nearly 100 years later!
http://www.baptistlink.com/godandcountry/html/faker_haeckel.0


177 posted on 12/17/2005 9:29:58 AM PST by Full Court (Keepers at home, do you think it's optional?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 167 | View Replies]

To: Senator Bedfellow

Good post.


178 posted on 12/17/2005 9:30:00 AM PST by spinestein (All journalists today are paid advocates for someone's agenda.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 170 | View Replies]

To: Full Court
If Hovind is not rich, then how can he make a $250,000 offer? If he doesn't have that kind of money, then doesn't that make the entire offer bogus from the start?
179 posted on 12/17/2005 9:30:40 AM PST by CarolinaGuitarman ("There is a grandeur in this view of life...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 174 | View Replies]

To: Full Court
Your point? That Haeckel made some stupid claims? I have never even heard of the *monera* claim of Haeckel; mustn't have been very popular.

BTW, the origins of life are not part of the theory of evolution.
180 posted on 12/17/2005 9:33:10 AM PST by CarolinaGuitarman ("There is a grandeur in this view of life...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 177 | View Replies]

To: CarolinaGuitarman
XS>Has it been observed twice, published and independently observed?"

CG> Yes, but if you took a philosophy of science class, you would know that direct observation isn't a requirement for a scientific theory. MOST scientific theories have a lot of indirect evidence. Again, next time actually take the class, or study harder.

171 posted on 12/17/2005 10:22:13 AM MST by CarolinaGuitarman

You are right; it has been deconstructed in our post-modern universities.

When I took the course, direct observation was mandatory.

b'shem Y'shua

181 posted on 12/17/2005 9:34:33 AM PST by Uri’el-2012 (Y'shua <==> YHvH is my Salvation (Psalm 118-14))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 171 | View Replies]

To: spinestein

Thx, but it's apparently not a new creationist canard - it didn't take long to google up the reality of the situation. Ya gotta love this internet thingy :)


182 posted on 12/17/2005 9:34:42 AM PST by Senator Bedfellow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 178 | View Replies]

To: CarolinaGuitarman
Your adversary might respond like his academic counterparts, “The faculty on campus is I am under no obligation to waste its my time supporting Hovind’s evolutionists' little charade.”

Please don't attack me; I'm just an innocent bystander :^)

183 posted on 12/17/2005 9:36:35 AM PST by Chaguito
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: XeniaSt
" When I took the course, direct observation was mandatory."

No it wasn't. We have never directly observed an electron, have we? No. It's all INDIRECT evidence. You must have slept through your class. No wonder you didn;t pass it. :)

BTW, we have DIRECTLY observed new species forming:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
184 posted on 12/17/2005 9:38:07 AM PST by CarolinaGuitarman ("There is a grandeur in this view of life...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 181 | View Replies]

To: CarolinaGuitarman
Mazel Tov

Have a nice journey!

b'shem Y'shua

185 posted on 12/17/2005 9:41:36 AM PST by Uri’el-2012 (Y'shua <==> YHvH is my Salvation (Psalm 118-14))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 184 | View Replies]

To: XeniaSt

Bye!


186 posted on 12/17/2005 9:41:56 AM PST by CarolinaGuitarman ("There is a grandeur in this view of life...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 185 | View Replies]

To: Full Court

"This fact was not translated into English and made public until 1971 - nearly 100 years later!"

Not sure about this "fact". Looks like Huxley admitted the error.

"Bathybius was not a fossil, but a putative primitive organism that was "discovered" living on ocean floors. It was a gelatinous layer with tiny granules in it that were sometimes observed to move around. In 1868, Thomas Huxley named it Bathybius haeckelii, because it seemed much like Ernst Haeckel's idea of a very primitive organism -- Urschleim or ancestral slime.

However, during the Challenger expedition (1872-1875), chemist John Buchanan noticed that Bathybius appeared in ocean-floor samples preserved with alcohol, but not those in normal seawater. After some experimentation, he discovered that he could produce Bathybius by adding alcohol to an ocean-floor sample; this "organism" turned out to be a precipitate of calcium sulfate. When the expedition returned, Huxley "ate leek", but otherwise took it in stride. For more details, check out this Huxley archive (http://aleph0.clarku.edu/huxley/guide9.html)."

From: http://www.evowiki.org/index.php/Fake_fossils


187 posted on 12/17/2005 9:43:48 AM PST by stormer (Get your bachelors, masters, or doctorate now at home in your spare time!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 177 | View Replies]

To: CarolinaGuitarman
how can he make a $250,000 offer?

No, no, he's got no money. Nope, none at all. Just kiddie rides in his back yard.

But, Full Court knows all. Never mind that couple of million he scammed from idiot true believers and didn't bother to report 'cause he's a preacher with a little tax protester flavor mixed in.

She can't comprehend simple English, but she just knows her boy is innocent. Innocent, I tell ya, innocent!

188 posted on 12/17/2005 9:44:26 AM PST by AntiScumbag
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 179 | View Replies]

To: Baraonda
If you had read the link you would know that the "offer" comes with an asterisk that has absolutely nothing to do with evolution. Now, get back on your stake.
189 posted on 12/17/2005 9:47:06 AM PST by shuckmaster (An oak tree is an acorns way of making more acorns)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 150 | View Replies]

To: stormer

Oops - The period and close quote goofs up that link. Try this: http://aleph0.clarku.edu/huxley/guide9.html


190 posted on 12/17/2005 9:48:02 AM PST by stormer (Get your bachelors, masters, or doctorate now at home in your spare time!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 187 | View Replies]

To: XeniaSt
Mazel Tov Have a nice journey! b'shem Y'shua

lehitra'ot eizel

191 posted on 12/17/2005 9:49:14 AM PST by Alter Kaker (Whatever tears one may shed, in the end one always blows one’s nose.-Heine)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 185 | View Replies]

To: metmom
I actually attended one of Hovind's presentations years ago. It was much lamer than even I (at that time very familiar with the antievolution movement) expected. For instance at one point he was discussing discrimination against creationists. Asked for examples of "science journals" that had refused to publish creationist research he cited two: National Geographic Magazine and The Readers Digest. (Yep, seriously. I nearly fell out of my chair.)
192 posted on 12/17/2005 9:49:53 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 24 | View Replies]

To: Full Court

Well, you may be pig-ignorant and devilishly dishonest but, with posts like this, you're certainly good for a hearty belly laugh! Thanks for sending me off to do my chores with a huge smile.


193 posted on 12/17/2005 9:51:17 AM PST by shuckmaster (An oak tree is an acorns way of making more acorns)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 156 | View Replies]

To: shuckmaster; sirchtruth
Well Sagan said its fact, some of your cultist buds here say its fact.

You with them or not? No schukn n jivin now either.

Wolf
194 posted on 12/17/2005 9:52:09 AM PST by RunningWolf (Vet US Army Air Cav 1975)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Stultis

LOL - What about the Weekly Reader?


195 posted on 12/17/2005 9:52:59 AM PST by stormer (Get your bachelors, masters, or doctorate now at home in your spare time!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 192 | View Replies]

To: Senator Bedfellow
[...it didn't take long to google up the reality of the situation. Ya gotta love this internet thingy...]


It comes in handy when debating the latest Bush basher I hear tossing out "Haliburton", "selected, not elected", Bush lied, people died.", "tax breaks for his rich oil buddies" and other such brainless pap.
196 posted on 12/17/2005 9:53:02 AM PST by spinestein (All journalists today are paid advocates for someone's agenda.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 182 | View Replies]

To: shuckmaster
Well, you [Full Court] may be pig-ignorant and devilishly dishonest but, with posts like this, you're certainly good for a hearty belly laugh!

Pig-ignorant is a bit too charitable. But, the ownership of FC is complete.

All hail Dr. Dino!

Assuming he hasn't shut his garbage site down, he will be civilly enjoined at some point. It's also pretty obvious that he'll either plead guilty to various tax crimes or be indicted at some point.

All hail Dr. Dino!

197 posted on 12/17/2005 10:01:15 AM PST by AntiScumbag
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 193 | View Replies]

To: spinestein

It's always fun to find whatever crackpot source the script is coming from.


198 posted on 12/17/2005 10:04:47 AM PST by Senator Bedfellow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 196 | View Replies]

To: Full Court
Even Darwin, who called this his ‘strongest single class of facts’, was duped.

Too funny. You need to examine your timelines. Cretin.

199 posted on 12/17/2005 10:06:46 AM PST by Thatcherite (F--ked in the afterlife, bullying feminized androgenous automaton euro-weenie blackguard)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 103 | View Replies]

To: sirchtruth
Don't you remember when your ancestors were swimin' around? Someone HAD to come up out of the water to take that first breath!

Lungfish

200 posted on 12/17/2005 10:08:48 AM PST by MRMEAN (Do I really need a sarcasm tag?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 101-150151-200201-250 ... 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