Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Creation evangelist derides evolution as Ďdumbestí 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 ... 201-250251-300301-350 ... 2,101-2,129 next last
To: XeniaSt

I don't believe a tornado going through a junk yard can create a 747 either. What does that have to do with evolution?


251 posted on 12/17/2005 10:56:45 AM PST by stormer (Get your bachelors, masters, or doctorate now at home in your spare time!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 244 | View Replies]

To: VadeRetro

Except her feet are missing.


252 posted on 12/17/2005 10:56:53 AM PST by VadeRetro (Liberalism is a cancer on society. Creationism is a cancer on conservatism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 249 | View Replies]

To: XeniaSt
I started there in Mensa, prep school and college.

Wow you must be really smart then. I promise to pay attention.

Yours begins with the belief that you are the most important person in the whole world.

You're projecting again. Creationists like yourself believe that the entire universe was constructed for the benefit of human beings. If that isn't hubristic, nothing is. Regrettably -- and this is despite your obviously admirable intelligence -- you're just not all that important.

I look to the Princples of Thermodynamics, and see a path to chaos.

Not that old canard again, I hope. You are aware that the laws of thermodynamics apply only to closed systems?

253 posted on 12/17/2005 10:56:57 AM PST by Alter Kaker (Whatever tears one may shed, in the end one always blows one√ā¬ís nose.-Heine)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 244 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
"The anti-Christs can hide, but can't run away from the stake."

70 posted on 12/17/2005 10:37:58 AM EST by Baraonda
(Comment #70 Removed by Moderator)

For the lurkers, this is the kind of "reasoned debate" scientists are often up against. This post provides a good glimpse into the nature of those who oppose science in general, and evolution in particular, with such vehemence.

The current battles to include religion and ID in science classes are largely coming from implementation of the Wedge Strategy set forth a decade ago. Take a look.

Finally, if these folks win, will we see the following?

It is a truism that almost any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so, and will follow it by suppressing opposition, subverting all education to seize early the minds of the young, and by killing, locking up, or driving underground all heretics.

Robert A. Heinlein, Postscript to Revolt in 2100


(And no, evolution is an established science, not a "sect, cult, or religion." It is dishonest to claim otherwise.)
254 posted on 12/17/2005 10:57:59 AM PST by Coyoteman (I love the sound of beta decay in the morning!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]

To: Thatcherite
"Well, you don't have to wait for long. It is the last sentence you wrote in your post 201."

I did not write that sentence. That sentence and its whole paragraph is a quotation at the link provided at post #122

Kent Hovind's $250,000 Offer

It reads: "Creationist Kent Hovind has widely publicized his "standing offer" to pay $250,000 for scientific evidence of evolution. He argues that the "failure" of anyone to claim the prize is evidence that the "hypothesis" of evolution is not scientific but religious in nature. What is the real meaning of Hovind's challenge?"

Pay more attention next time.

255 posted on 12/17/2005 10:59:25 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 235 | View Replies]

To: CarolinaGuitarman
Don't tell me, the 2nd Law? lol

"Nature must obey orders given to it by Humans, except where it conflicts with the 1st Law"

;)

256 posted on 12/17/2005 10:59:45 AM PST by freedumb2003 (American troops cannot be defeated. American Politicians can.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 247 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman
XS>If you would have ever taken a course in the "Philosophy of Science" You would know that the "Theory of Evolution" has never advanced past a hypothetical construct.

From an NSF abstract:

Those who oppose the teaching of evolution often say that evolution should be taught as a "theory, not as a fact." This statement confuses the common use of these words with the scientific use. In science, theories do not turn into facts through the accumulation of evidence. Rather, theories are the end points of science. They are understandings that develop from extensive observation, experimentation, and creative reflection. They incorporate a large body of scientific facts, laws, tested hypotheses, and logical inferences. In this sense, evolution is one of the strongest and most useful scientific theories we have [emphasis added].

Modified from RadioAstronomers's post #27 on another thread.

223 posted on 12/17/2005 11:30:07 AM MST by Coyoteman (I love the sound of beta decay in the morning!)

Do you understand the concept of Deconstruction or Post-Modernism?

257 posted on 12/17/2005 11:00:44 AM PST by Uriíel-2012 (Y'shua <==> YHvH is my Salvation (Psalm 118-14))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 223 | View Replies]

To: Thatcherite

Those who promote the destruction of Christianity cannot but be the anti-Christians. A Christian does NOT promote its demise.


258 posted on 12/17/2005 11:03:18 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 239 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman
For the lurkers, this is the kind of "reasoned debate" scientists are often up against.

You should try to be more charitable. They're doing the very best they can, with the intellect the good Lord gave them. True, it's not very much, but let them enjoy what they have.

259 posted on 12/17/2005 11:04:21 AM PST by PatrickHenry (... endless horde of misguided Luddites ...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 254 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman
Don't forget this,

"In another time, another age, its adherents used to be burned at the stake or given the rope."(post 70)


and

"Big Brother is watching the anti-Christ!

To know the enemy is to annihilate it."(post 83)

Very telling indeed.
260 posted on 12/17/2005 11:04:50 AM PST by CarolinaGuitarman ("There is a grandeur in this view of life...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 254 | View Replies]

To: Baraonda

"Those who promote the destruction of Christianity cannot but be the anti-Christians. A Christian does NOT promote its demise."

A Christian also doesn't recommend burning at the stake and hanging for having a different view.


261 posted on 12/17/2005 11:06:00 AM PST by CarolinaGuitarman ("There is a grandeur in this view of life...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 258 | View Replies]

To: XeniaSt
Do you understand the concept of Deconstruction or Post-Modernism?

Oh tell me faltzani, when exactly did Derrida force scientists to consider evolution a scientific theory? You're just talking out of your ass and I think you know it.

262 posted on 12/17/2005 11:07:58 AM PST by Alter Kaker (Whatever tears one may shed, in the end one always blows one√ā¬ís nose.-Heine)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 257 | View Replies]

To: wireman

>>"Well, you don't have to wait for long. It is the last sentence you wrote in your post 201."

>Let's not try to confuse the lunatic fringe with facts.

Had you read post #201 carefully you would have found out that it's not my quote, but a quote from the link at #255 which was given earlier by another post.

Read the posts instead of marching in lockstep like an automaton.

An apology would also be appropriate here.


263 posted on 12/17/2005 11:08:43 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 246 | View Replies]

To: CarolinaGuitarman
Now that it's deleted, I guess I can't include it in the list. For what it's worth, this is what would have been included in The List-O-Links, in the section THIS IS YOUR BRAIN ON CREATIONISM:

NEW post 70 by Baraonda on 17 Dec 2005. The anti-Christs can hide, but can't run away from the stake.

264 posted on 12/17/2005 11:09:22 AM PST by PatrickHenry (... endless horde of misguided Luddites ...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 260 | View Replies]

To: XeniaSt

One more question: When you go to your Mensa meetings do you folks discuss the merits of Jack Chick?


265 posted on 12/17/2005 11:09:56 AM PST by stormer (Get your bachelors, masters, or doctorate now at home in your spare time!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 257 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry

It still won't be forgotten. :)


266 posted on 12/17/2005 11:10:29 AM PST by CarolinaGuitarman ("There is a grandeur in this view of life...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 264 | View Replies]

To: XeniaSt
Do you understand the concept of Deconstruction or Post-Modernism?

Uh, yeah. They're (heretofore traditionally leftist) intellectual "leveling" tactics that aim to eliminate or confuse distinctions between rigorously accumulated objective knowledge and pure prejudice, by basically claiming that all knowledge is prejudicial, or deterministically associated with cultural/ethnic/religious/economic or other identity groups.

We're familiar because we see antievolutionists using the same tactics here on every thread. Most recently you.

267 posted on 12/17/2005 11:11:34 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 257 | View Replies]

To: Baraonda; Thatcherite
(this is to Baradona, cc: Thatcherite)

Those who promote the destruction of Christianity cannot but be the anti-Christians. A Christian does NOT promote its demise.

You were given a list of evolution supporters. The question put to you is "are these people who want the destruction of Christianity"?

Over 80% of Americans support the Theory of Evolution." I am a very devout Christian. Does using the brain God gave us make us people who "promote the destruction of Christianity"?

268 posted on 12/17/2005 11:11:43 AM PST by freedumb2003 (American troops cannot be defeated. American Politicians can.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 258 | View Replies]

To: CarolinaGuitarman

I might include it anyway, with a note that it's been deleted.


269 posted on 12/17/2005 11:12:03 AM PST by PatrickHenry (... endless horde of misguided Luddites ...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 266 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman
Meant to also ping you to the preceding.
270 posted on 12/17/2005 11:12:10 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 267 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman
I was just walking with my children observing God's glorious creation and this scripture came to mind. 18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, 19 because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. 20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, 21 because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Professing to be wise, they became fools, 23 and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man—and birds and four-footed animals and creeping things. Romans 1:18-23 I know unbelievers consider it foolish to take God at his Word but my heart soars when I consider His creation and the beautiful children that he formed in my womb.
271 posted on 12/17/2005 11:12:48 AM PST by happyhomemaker (That they may teach the young women to be sober, to love their husbands, to love their children)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 254 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry

I think I omitted a line at the beginning, but 90% of it is quote in my post 115.


272 posted on 12/17/2005 11:14:38 AM PST by Senator Bedfellow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 269 | View Replies]

To: happyhomemaker

So, because we believe the evidence of the physical creation, we are going to Hell?


273 posted on 12/17/2005 11:14:41 AM PST by CarolinaGuitarman ("There is a grandeur in this view of life...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 271 | View Replies]

To: happyhomemaker
I know unbelievers consider it foolish to take God at his Word but my heart soars when I consider His creation and the beautiful children that he formed in my womb.

Out of curiosity, and I mean no offense, but if God (rather than a man) created the children in your womb, what's so special about Mary?

274 posted on 12/17/2005 11:15:25 AM PST by Alter Kaker (Whatever tears one may shed, in the end one always blows one√ā¬ís nose.-Heine)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 271 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry

Kent Hovind is one of the sharper knives in the drawer. However good he is at this, he cannot explain everything with his ID hypothesis, and there are some holes in his development. But give him due credit. He is doing his best and his best is very good.


275 posted on 12/17/2005 11:15:42 AM PST by RightWhale (Not transferable -- Good only for this trip)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CarolinaGuitarman
So, because we believe the evidence of the physical creation, we are going to Hell?

No beer volcano for you!

/Soup-Nazi-Creationist mode

276 posted on 12/17/2005 11:17:22 AM PST by balrog666 (A myth by any other name is still inane.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 273 | View Replies]

To: CarolinaGuitarman; happyhomemaker
So, because we believe the evidence of the physical creation, we are going to Hell?

We are. Pope Bennedict and I, while being burned for all eternity, will laugh ruefully as we lament having accepted science.

277 posted on 12/17/2005 11:17:37 AM PST by Alter Kaker (Whatever tears one may shed, in the end one always blows one√ā¬ís nose.-Heine)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 273 | View Replies]

Comment #278 Removed by Moderator

To: happyhomemaker
I am happy for you (no satire).

I have no problem at all with what you have described.

Your post is in great contrast to the post above I was reacting to (#70, now removed) which seemed to promise scientists who study evolution the stake or the rope.

279 posted on 12/17/2005 11:18:52 AM PST by Coyoteman (I love the sound of beta decay in the morning!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 271 | View Replies]

To: RightWhale
Kent Hovind is one of the sharper knives in the drawer.

It takes brains to be a successful flim-flam man. Look at Clinton.

280 posted on 12/17/2005 11:19:01 AM PST by PatrickHenry (... endless horde of misguided Luddites ...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 275 | View Replies]

To: jegoing
"Tis the season on FR for Agnostics and Atheists. Interesting time of the season to come out and in some cases out of the closet."

Who has come out of the closet? Please explain.
281 posted on 12/17/2005 11:20:26 AM PST by CarolinaGuitarman ("There is a grandeur in this view of life...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 278 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry

Exactly


282 posted on 12/17/2005 11:21:23 AM PST by RightWhale (Not transferable -- Good only for this trip)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 280 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry; RightWhale
Some evidence of what a *sharp knife* he is:

The Smithsonian Institute [sic] has 33,000 sets of human remains in their basement ... Many of them were taken while the people were still alive. They were so desperate to find missing links, so desperate to prove their theory that they murdered people to prove it. It was the philosophy of evolution that drove them (Hovind, Ch 4).

Five billion people [yes, he says billion] could drown in Loch Ness, and no one would show above the surface. It is a big lake. . . . As of the 1960s, there were over 9,000 sightings of the Loch Ness Monster. Today, there have been over 11,000 such sightings (Hovind, Ch 2).

The Trail of Tears was where the Cherokee Indians were driven out of the Chattanooga area all the way to Oklahoma. ... Evolution is responsible for what happened to the Indians. How any Indian can believe in evolution just blows my mind. ... [T]he evolution theory is what destroyed them (Hovind, Ch 4).

I believe the Great Pyramid was built to be the Bible in stone. The Egyptians did not build it. (Hovind, Ch 6).

Adam and Eve probably had hundreds of children. They lived 800 years, and one could have a lot of children in 800 years (Hovind, Ch 6).

There has been research that indicates nearly all homosexuals come from families that have a weak father figure, and a dominant mother ... research shows that there is a social link where the children are raised to be wimps or whatever (Hovind, Ch 6).

from "Unmasking the False Religion of Evolution"

Trail of tears happened in the 1830's; Darwin published 1859. lol

http://www.natcenscied.org/resources/articles/6756_unmasking_the_false_prophet_of_9_1_1999.asp
283 posted on 12/17/2005 11:23:59 AM PST by CarolinaGuitarman ("There is a grandeur in this view of life...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 280 | View Replies]

To: Stultis
National Geographic Magazine and The Readers Digest.

LOL. Maybe they should try "World Weekly News".

284 posted on 12/17/2005 11:24:17 AM PST by RightWingNilla
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 192 | View Replies]

To: Thatcherite; Baraonda

I'm directing you to post #255, again.

Will you at least have the courtesey of admitting that that quotation was not mine, but came from the first para at that link?


285 posted on 12/17/2005 11:24:23 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 255 | View Replies]

To: Alter Kaker; Baraonda
..if you [Baraonda] suggest that there's any direct evidence of him outside of the New Testament.

Good point. There is more empirical evidence for Evolution than there is for Jesus Christ. I find that the faithful, who are fearful of evolution, tend to be fearfully lacking in faith.

286 posted on 12/17/2005 11:24:34 AM PST by elbucko
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 229 | View Replies]

To: stormer
One more question: When you go to your Mensa meetings do you folks discuss the merits of Jack Chick?

The meetings were Intertel.

I'm not acquainted with Jack Chick, is he a friend of yours?

b'shem Y'shua

287 posted on 12/17/2005 11:25:14 AM PST by Uriíel-2012 (Y'shua <==> YHvH is my Salvation (Psalm 118-14))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 265 | View Replies]

To: Baraonda

courtesey = courtesy

Sorry about the spelling.


288 posted on 12/17/2005 11:25:32 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 285 | View Replies]

To: CarolinaGuitarman

Takes genius to come up with all that. P T Barnum was a genius, too.


289 posted on 12/17/2005 11:27:00 AM PST by RightWhale (Not transferable -- Good only for this trip)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 283 | View Replies]

To: RightWhale

"Takes genius to come up with all that. P T Barnum was a genius, too."

Yeah, but I kinda like Barnum.


290 posted on 12/17/2005 11:27:42 AM PST by CarolinaGuitarman ("There is a grandeur in this view of life...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 289 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
... evolution is the “dumbest and most dangerous theory on planet Earth.”

Sounds about right to me. No God, no accountability.

291 posted on 12/17/2005 11:29:15 AM PST by Texas Eagle (If it wasn't for double-standards, Liberals would have no standards at all.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: balrog666
Quite a little circus on display today!

(Once again...)

Send in the clowns (theyre already here).

292 posted on 12/17/2005 11:29:35 AM PST by RightWingNilla
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 217 | View Replies]

To: sirchtruth
Look, my contention is evolution is not proven

Absolutely no theory in science is ever proven. Why single out evolution?
293 posted on 12/17/2005 11:30:07 AM PST by Dimensio (http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Texas Eagle

"Sounds about right to me. No God, no accountability."

Evolution, like every other scientific theory, has absolutely nothing to say for or against the existence of a deity.


294 posted on 12/17/2005 11:30:38 AM PST by CarolinaGuitarman ("There is a grandeur in this view of life...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 291 | View Replies]

To: sirchtruth

Do you have an actual argument to present for your side, or do you just like to toss out inane one-liners because you have nothing to refute the mountains of evidence in support of evolution?


295 posted on 12/17/2005 11:31:04 AM PST by Dimensio (http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Baraonda
MyResponse: Please, show me where I made that quote at the very top. I'm waiting...

post 201. Now, stop lying.

296 posted on 12/17/2005 11:31:41 AM PST by shuckmaster (An oak tree is an acorns way of making more acorns)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 231 | View Replies]

To: happyhomemaker
I know unbelievers consider it foolish to take God at his Word but my heart soars when I consider His creation and the beautiful children that he formed in my womb.

Thanks! You raise a good point here for antievolutionists, especially of the primitive and naive Hovind variety, to consider. Like most other creationists, and as the Bible multiply and affirmatively asserts, God himself "formed" your children in the womb. And yet I'm sure that you have no objection to human embryology and development being taught matter of factly as a natural biological process in textbooks. (At least, having long followed the antievolution movement, I'm not aware of a single such objection ever having been raised.)

Thus it is clearly possible, and commonly done even by the most theologically conservative and devout, to fully accept and affirm Biblical claims that God is personally, intimately and actively involved in a process, and simultaneous accept a purely naturalistic treatment of the selfsame process for scientific purposes.

297 posted on 12/17/2005 11:32:07 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 271 | View Replies]

To: CarolinaGuitarman
Evolution, like every other scientific theory, has absolutely nothing to say for or against the existence of a deity.How conveeeeeeeenient.
298 posted on 12/17/2005 11:32:51 AM PST by Texas Eagle (If it wasn't for double-standards, Liberals would have no standards at all.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 294 | View Replies]

To: wallcrawlr
The problem with Hovind's "debates" is that he fires off rapid-fire lies one after the other. Each one would take quite some time to fully debunk, but there's no time, so Hovind "appears" to be the winner even though his entire argument is supported by falsehoods.

How do you explain that the two wooly mammoth samples dated at vastly different ages actually came from two completely different specimens when Hovind's already gone off onto a tangent about stellar formation (which the theory of evolution does not address at all -- but Hovind, liar that he is, includes it as part of the theory)?
299 posted on 12/17/2005 11:33:43 AM PST by Dimensio (http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Alter Kaker
Out of curiosity, and I mean no offense, but if God (rather than a man) created the children in your womb, what's so special about Mary?

18This is how the birth of Jesus Christ came about: His mother Mary was pledged to be married to Joseph, but before they came together, she was found to be with child through the Holy Spirit. 19Because Joseph her husband was a righteous man and did not want to expose her to public disgrace, he had in mind to divorce her quietly. 20But after he had considered this, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream and said, "Joseph son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary home as your wife, because what is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit. 21She will give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name Jesus,[c] because he will save his people from their sins." Fantastic question for the Christmas season. Maybe some of the posters are unaware of the story :-)

300 posted on 12/17/2005 11:34:03 AM PST by happyhomemaker (That they may teach the young women to be sober, to love their husbands, to love their children)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 274 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 201-250251-300301-350 ... 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