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 ... 401-450451-500501-550 ... 2,101-2,129 next last
To: shuckmaster
Gimmie one example please. Just one is all I ask!

Common EVO tactic.... Do your own research...
451 posted on 12/17/2005 2:24:27 PM PST by darbymcgill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 450 | View Replies]

To: pageonetoo

How long do you think would be long enough then? Give reasons for your answer. Take any well-known fossil sequence, and explain why the dates between the samples aren't long enough, by reference to known rates of allele frequency change. This will require you to debunk the work of those who have shown that measured rates of change are sufficient to account for modern genetic diversity, assuming the physicists measurements of the age of the earth are correct.


452 posted on 12/17/2005 2:24:40 PM PST by Thatcherite (F--ked in the afterlife, bullying feminized androgenous automaton euro-weenie blackguard)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 420 | View Replies]

To: darbymcgill
Common EVO tactic.... Do your own research...

WRONG! When you make a claim and are asked to back it up you should do so, or withdraw. We aren't going to do your research for you.

453 posted on 12/17/2005 2:25:43 PM PST by Thatcherite (F--ked in the afterlife, bullying feminized androgenous automaton euro-weenie blackguard)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 451 | View Replies]

To: Thatcherite; darbymcgill
Perhaps you'd care to cite some of Hovind's arguments (particularly the ones that even AiG says are bogus) so that we can all debate them if you don't think he is being taken seriously enough. Take your pick of them.

How about the flood and the Grand Canyon? I have been waiting for somebody to support that little gem.

454 posted on 12/17/2005 2:25:47 PM PST by Coyoteman (I love the sound of beta decay in the morning!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 448 | View Replies]

To: darbymcgill
It seems that you don't understand how that fallacy works, so it's not surprising that you can't recognize it. Today, a number of posters have chosen to comment on Hovind's criminal behavior. If those posters had then claimed that his arguments on evolution were invalid because he cheats on his taxes, lies to his neighbors, doesn't help old ladies cross the street, or otherwise engages in unsavory behavior, then those posters would be guilt of the ad hominem fallacy.

Simply pointing out that he cheats on his taxes, which he does, is not in and of itself fallacious. In fact, it can't be fallacious, insofar as it's not even an argument, per se - it's merely a statement of fact.

455 posted on 12/17/2005 2:27:42 PM PST by Senator Bedfellow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 445 | View Replies]

To: Thatcherite
When you make a claim and are asked to back it up you should do so, or withdraw.

Quite so. If I were to assert that astrology is bunk, and that its original premises were debunked, I could back that up. Easily.

456 posted on 12/17/2005 2:28:50 PM PST by PatrickHenry (... endless horde of misguided Luddites ...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 453 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry

Placemarker


457 posted on 12/17/2005 2:30:27 PM PST by Thatcherite (Evolutionists should be burned at the stake)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 456 | View Replies]

To: Senator Bedfellow
Simply pointing out that he cheats on his taxes, which he does, is not in and of itself fallacious. In fact, it can't be fallacious, insofar as it's not even an argument, per se - it's merely a statement of fact.

Right. In fact, Isaac Newton was apparently a genuine creep, and in some ways a total whack job. But that says nothing about his science work. Hovind, on the other hand, is apparently an all-round whack job. His "science" is a joke.

458 posted on 12/17/2005 2:32:45 PM PST by PatrickHenry (... endless horde of misguided Luddites ...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 455 | View Replies]

To: Senator Bedfellow
Oh I get it... What was the title of the article?

Tax Expert Debunks TOE.
459 posted on 12/17/2005 2:35:59 PM PST by darbymcgill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 455 | View Replies]

To: darbymcgill
Ah, I see - so the real fallacy you've spotted here is the "posting on subjects not approved by darbymcgill" fallacy. Hmmm, that one must have been omitted from my rhetoric texts.

The thread's about Hovind; we're discussing Hovind. Who are you to say what can and can't be posted?

460 posted on 12/17/2005 2:40:30 PM PST by Senator Bedfellow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 459 | View Replies]

To: Thatcherite; CarolinaGuitarman; 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.


Oh, you mean like this one... see posts leading up to 180..
461 posted on 12/17/2005 2:41:44 PM PST by darbymcgill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 453 | View Replies]

I think everyone should take a few minutes & ponder this article from Answers in Genesis, "Maintaining Creationist Integrity". What does it mean when the major YEC creationist organization (no giants of integrity themselves) feels the need to publicly distance themselves from Kent Hovind?
... AiG published a particular article entitled Arguments we think creationists should NOT use, and followed this with a related Creation magazine article Moving forward—arguments we think creationists shouldn’t use. This was not aimed at any particular person or organization, but was produced as a result of the collective wisdom of AiG’s trained scientists and other professionals, based on years of research and experience.

When an attempted critique of this AiG article appeared on Kent Hovind’s Web site, AiG was somewhat surprised (and disappointed) to note that it frequently and significantly misrepresents and/or misunderstands the statements and positions made in our carefully researched document.

In the interests of maintaining Christian/creationist integrity, we believed we had to respond to Kent Hovind’s critique (albeit with a heavy heart), particularly because of the mistakes in facts and logic which do the creationist cause no good.

Before responding to specifics, it may be worth pointing out the obvious: If these arguments don’t convince fellow creationists, why would any creationist think they are going to convince evolutionists? And it would be worth revisiting our articles hyperlinked above for our motivation in compiling these dubious arguments.

Our purpose is to encourage God’s people to avoid fallacious arguments and incorrect information that could become a stumbling block to those who have the background to understand the material. (By the way, AiG has met with Kent Hovind in the past to discuss many of the items below, including the fraudulent claims of Ron Wyatt.)

...

[Hovind says he links to AiG's website even though they don't link to his.]

We certainly promote many materials produced by other creationists, but not just because they are ‘creationists’. We also promote material by some of the Intelligent Design movement for example, on merit. There are minimum criteria of quality and science understanding. We also have difficulty with the idea of promoting sites which have various overtly bizarre ideas, not just in creation issues, but also linking creation issues with other ‘fringe’ thinking (such as arguments against paying income tax, various cancer cures, etc.) which regardless of their merits or otherwise, have nothing to do with the creation issue. Our actions in this matter are not the product of aloofness, but of caution and concern for the credibility of the creation movement as a whole.

...

One reason for such a list ["Arguments we think creationists should NOT use"] is precisely because there are many arguments still being widely used which fly in the face of ‘facts’ and reason. Sometimes this is because the people concerned are not aware of the realities involved, sometimes because they do not understand them, or because they have not bothered to really assess something for themselves. It’s often ‘easier’ to just go with the arguments which seem to ‘work’ in convincing an audience. This is why certain practices and procedures of peer-review (as discussed in this entire document) are desirable, i.e. a ‘self-critical’ process within the creation movement. It is perhaps easier for an organization composed of a substantial number of scientists and thinkers to undertake such processes than organizations which are controlled by a single individual. Nevertheless, our list was not aimed at Kent Hovind, in spite of the defensiveness in his response overall.

...[big snip]...

Unfortunately, Kent Hovind’s document repeatedly misrepresents or misunderstands not only our article, but the issues themselves. Our article was not aimed at any individual, but we plead with all creationist ‘lone wolf’ popularizers to familiarize themselves with the immense amount of good science being done by qualified (though fallible) creationist researchers, most of them not even associated with our own ministry. These are people who have shown that they are willing to be corrected, and to interact with their critics formally in peer-reviewed fashion.

We plead for all of us to swallow pride and, without sacrificing independence of thought and originality, be prepared to submit to the rigors of peer review and to the thoroughly Biblical process of ‘iron sharpening iron’. That would be real ‘working together’, not some artificial unity in which scientifically trained creationists (i.e. Bible-believing scientists) are supposed to smile sweetly while plainly wrong and even fraudulent claims are being promoted in the name of ‘Creationism’.

Such a process, recognizing the fallibility of all of us, would also delineate more clearly such things as the burden of proof in regard to various claims, and would help separate ‘shaky, flaky’ theories from reasonable speculations—i.e., legitimate hypotheses which seek to be constrained by Scripture, fact, and the faculties of rational thought with which our Creator has endowed us.


462 posted on 12/17/2005 2:44:57 PM PST by jennyp (WHAT I'M READING NOW: Art of Unix Programming by Raymond)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 456 | View Replies]

To: Baraonda
Absolutely agree that one should be prepared to defend it. But, I did not disclaim all knowledge; I only disclaimed that last sentence being attributed to me, which was not.

That is just ludicrously disingenuous.

463 posted on 12/17/2005 2:45:05 PM PST by Thatcherite (Evolutionists should be burned at the stake)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 417 | View Replies]

To: Alter Kaker
Yes, but you must remember the Roman Empire carefully censored things they felt hurt or embarrassed the Empire.

Some person tried by a Roman Official, executed by His cronies and supposedly raised from the dead would probably not pass the Roman censors. It is a shame while the Roman Empire imploded a bunch of ignoramuses burned down libraries and records. Who knows what kind of history and literature was lost.
464 posted on 12/17/2005 2:46:15 PM PST by rollo tomasi (Working hard to pay for deadbeats and corrupt politicians.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 449 | View Replies]

To: rollo tomasi
Yes, but you must remember the Roman Empire carefully censored things they felt hurt or embarrassed the Empire.

Yes, but that isn't evidence, that's an explanation for a lack of evidence.

465 posted on 12/17/2005 2:50:59 PM PST by Alter Kaker (Whatever tears one may shed, in the end one always blows one’s nose.-Heine)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 464 | View Replies]

To: Senator Bedfellow
Ah, I see - so the real fallacy you've spotted here is the "posting on subjects not approved by darbymcgill" fallacy. Hmmm, that one must have been omitted from my rhetoric texts.

And as I see it, the logic police on these threads are doing too much profiling. They like to point out the logical flaws at their CREVO opponents but are strangely silent when the ping listers fire out some whoppers themselves.

It only took 6 posts before Hovind was called names and only 10 before he was debunked because of his tax returns and then some ping lister had the nerve to taunt the CREVO's numerous straw men.

I find these inconsistencies humorous.
466 posted on 12/17/2005 2:52:55 PM PST by darbymcgill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 460 | View Replies]

To: Baraonda

Anyone that read the articles could see this footnote is a quote and it did not come from Hovind

Its understood just fine

Wolf


467 posted on 12/17/2005 2:57:45 PM PST by RunningWolf (Vet US Army Air Cav 1975)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 201 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
Quite so. If I were to assert that astrology is bunk, and that its original premises were debunked, I could back that up. Easily.

Now that would be the fallacy of "suppressed evidence" if I recall.
468 posted on 12/17/2005 2:58:14 PM PST by darbymcgill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 456 | View Replies]

To: darbymcgill
It only took 6 posts before Hovind was called names and only 10 before he was debunked because of his tax returns...

As I said, when Hovind stops labeling anyone who disagrees with him a liar, perhaps I'll take complaints about name-calling more seriously. As for the second part, post ten never "debunked" him because of his tax returns - in fact, it doesn't really mention his theories on evolution at all. If you insist on reading things that aren't there, I don't think anyone's going to be able to help you.

469 posted on 12/17/2005 3:02:51 PM PST by Senator Bedfellow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 466 | View Replies]

To: Alter Kaker

The reputation and a detail of events that Tacitus provided was evidence apart from a Biblical account. The reason why Jesus was not splattered all over the Roman Empire by secularist because it was forbidden and probably considered Christianity to be only about worshiping an insane Jew. Not a very popular idea to the elites who could read and write.

Also I find Books of the Bible to be highly accurate in regards to historical events. The Bible, even among secularist, should not be frowned upon in regards to it's historical accuracy.


470 posted on 12/17/2005 3:09:09 PM PST by rollo tomasi (Working hard to pay for deadbeats and corrupt politicians.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 465 | View Replies]

To: Senator Bedfellow
Then you'll be able to explain why those who post references to know scientific frauds within the TOE are ridiculed for posting straw men?

Those frauds are recognized facts, why are they not as legitimate and the tax return posts?

Do you only take seriously flaws in logic that undermine your world view?
471 posted on 12/17/2005 3:11:17 PM PST by darbymcgill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 469 | View Replies]

To: darbymcgill
Then you'll be able to explain why those who post references to know scientific frauds within the TOE are ridiculed for posting straw men?

Considering that the term "straw men" has been used five times on this thread, one of which was in the article itself, three of which were by you, andthe last of which was not referring to any known scientific fraud, I guess I'm not sure why I should feel compelled to "explain" something that you're pretty clearly imagining. That is, I guess I could speculate on why you see things that aren't there, but I don't think you'd like my suggestions.

472 posted on 12/17/2005 3:16:21 PM PST by Senator Bedfellow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 471 | View Replies]

To: Senator Bedfellow; CarolinaGuitarman
Ah, the number of strawmen that creationists can create knows no limits.

I am not a mind reader but I'm quite sure "number" does not mean one. If you want to dance, ask someone else. I was just asking for consistency and you and your ilk give me spin. The MSM would be proud.
473 posted on 12/17/2005 3:24:48 PM PST by darbymcgill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 472 | View Replies]

To: XeniaSt
I started there in Mensa,

Don't think I would go there. Some of the dumbest people I have known were Mensa.

Anyway, I am just lurking, as I have truthfully never heard of Hovind, and am just watching the thread unfold. Don't have a horse to ride in this race.

474 posted on 12/17/2005 3:26:18 PM PST by chronic_loser ((Handle provided free of charge as flame bait for the neurally vacant.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 244 | View Replies]

To: darbymcgill

Begone!

475 posted on 12/17/2005 3:27:58 PM PST by balrog666 (A myth by any other name is still inane.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 473 | View Replies]

To: darbymcgill
I am not a mind reader but I'm quite sure "number" does not mean one.

I'm pretty sure a goldfish evolving into a cat isn't an example of a "known scientific fraud". You'll pardon me if I don't assign your complaints much weight.

476 posted on 12/17/2005 3:31:13 PM PST by Senator Bedfellow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 473 | View Replies]

To: balrog666
Well okay then, be gone little b'lwag666

Back under the rock with you!!

Wolf
477 posted on 12/17/2005 3:33:36 PM PST by RunningWolf (Vet US Army Air Cav 1975)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 475 | View Replies]

To: Senator Bedfellow
So you now understand why complaints about tax returns carry little weight in the EVO/CREVO argument.
478 posted on 12/17/2005 3:36:03 PM PST by darbymcgill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 476 | View Replies]

To: XeniaSt
I've come to an understanding from the Anthropic principle that this universe was wonderfully formed for mankind

That's backwards from the actual anthropic principle. It's like saying voles live in my house because the house was created for them. It's even more like saying owls live in back of the house created for them because voles live in the house until they are caught and thrown out into the yard for the owls.

479 posted on 12/17/2005 3:37:16 PM PST by RightWhale (Not transferable -- Good only for this trip)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 244 | View Replies]

To: darbymcgill

How much weight were you asked to assign them when considering his arguments on evolution? None. So I guess everybody's happy, right?


480 posted on 12/17/2005 3:38:46 PM PST by Senator Bedfellow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 478 | View Replies]

To: Senator Bedfellow
So I guess everybody's happy, right?

Now if I were to speak of everybody's happiness I run the risk of committing the fallacy of drawing conclusions from incomplete evidence or reading something that ain't there as you say.

But as far a me.... I'm overjoyed... thanks for asking..
481 posted on 12/17/2005 3:50:56 PM PST by darbymcgill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 480 | View Replies]

To: Stultis
Now, the Weekly World News does publish antievolutionists.

Doesn't Batboy prove evolution?

482 posted on 12/17/2005 3:52:00 PM PST by RightWingNilla
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 405 | View Replies]

To: darbymcgill
Common EVO tactic.... Do your own research...

Common creationist tactic - Lie & duck!

483 posted on 12/17/2005 3:52:32 PM PST by shuckmaster (An oak tree is an acorns way of making more acorns)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 451 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
Posted by Patrick Henry, the Creationist.

Oops, sorry! The real Patrick Henry, the Creationist, is dead.

484 posted on 12/17/2005 3:53:08 PM PST by razorbak
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: darbymcgill

Well, there you go.


485 posted on 12/17/2005 3:59:07 PM PST by Senator Bedfellow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 481 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry

Darwin lovers don't like to debate...every time they do, they lose. They would rather scream and yell and hide behind the status quo...hateful atheists ...


486 posted on 12/17/2005 4:01:08 PM PST by eleni121 ('Thou hast conquered, O Galilean!' (Julian the Apostate))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: shuckmaster

Can you honestly reply that you've never read, heard, or seen posted evidence that some of Darwin's original postulations have been debunked or "revised to fit current knowledge"?


487 posted on 12/17/2005 4:02:08 PM PST by darbymcgill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 483 | View Replies]

To: RightWingNilla
Doesn't Batboy prove evolution?

Yet another joke at the expense of the Clown Prince of AstroPhysics, aka the Freeper formerly know as "medved" (and about 20 other screen names since that one) and his faithful mascot, Splifford the ASCII Bat?

488 posted on 12/17/2005 4:07:34 PM PST by longshadow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 482 | View Replies]

To: razorbak
The real Patrick Henry, the Creationist, is dead.

So they tell me. It may interest you to know that he died in 1799, sixty years before Darwin published Origin of Species (in 1859), so it's difficult to imagine how the original PH could have been anything other than a creationist. But perhaps I've missed some profound point you were trying to make.

489 posted on 12/17/2005 4:08:37 PM PST by PatrickHenry (... endless horde of misguided Luddites ...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 484 | View Replies]

To: freedumb2003
"God, I love the self-importance of the Holy Rollers. So, now 80% of all Americans are under Satan's sway? Satan is laughing all right."

I'm not important nor am I a "holy Roller". If that is how many believe evolution, then they are following satan. Yeah, he's laughing his arse off at YOU! Isn't it a pity how you must resort to name calling - "Holy Roller" to feel superior, at least for the moment.

Yeah, it's true:

Matt.7:14

[14] Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and FEW there be that find it.

Thank you for backing that statement up - 80%, you say ... .


"By getting those who profess to be closest to God (Megolomania anyway) to close their eyes to anything beyond the end of their noses, to "debate" by distorting (a form of lying) about the presented arguments, and by not using God's greatest gift -- the Human Brain -- to understand and use the tools given to us by science, Satan is registering wins up all along the Right side of the Culture wars.""

He gave each individual gifts. A brain is one of them. Like others in history, you can use it for good or use it for evil - Hitler, Darwin etc... You use it to mock Christianity, deny God and what He states about Creation. You are also quite presumptuous. I've read up on the evolving hypothesis of evolution, and found them to be wanting. They make NO sense at all and remains a hypothesis at best. Evolution is the religion for the godless and desperate who have no knowledge of objective science. Evolution defies the very laws they claim to adhere to. Evolution stands legitimate science on its head - evolution is utter nonsense.

Yes, lying, distortion ignoring the obvious are tools of the evolutionist. The Author of Science, God apparently isn't the same god you acknowledge that is if you acknowledge anyone but yourself and fellow atheists. Some day soon ... you're in for a nasty surprise - eternity where the sun doesn't shine. I feel sorry for you and hope you straighten yourself out before it is too late.
490 posted on 12/17/2005 4:11:14 PM PST by nmh (Intelligent people believe in Intelligent Design (God))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 228 | View Replies]

To: Senator Bedfellow; Alter Kaker
The only one to claim it was millions of years old was an Aussie creationist named Cooper in the journal Ex Nihilo

Watch it, sport!

Yes the 28MY estimate is Cooper's, and it was published in ex Nihlo, but Cooper's a bloody Pom!

He is a/the leading light of the Creation Science Movement - it and him can be located at

Bill Cooper
Creation Science Movement
Portsmouth
United Kingdom

His principal claim to fame appears as the author of After The Flood

Bill Cooper is a council member and trustee of the Creation Science Movement. He is married with two daughters and has recently been awarded an Honours degree by Kingston University (England) for combined studies in the History of Ideas (Religion, Philosophy and Political Theory) and English Literature. He has lectured on The Table of Nations, under the auspices of the CSM, in Germans, Belgium and at many venues in England including Leeds University.

He has written numerous articles for the Creation Science Movement and for the Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal published by the Creation Science Foundation of Australia, on the Table of Nations (The Early History of Man series), the historical Jonah and other subjects.

This book shows how European history can be traced right back to the flood and the descendants of Japheth, through contemporary accounts and a table of nations.
More Creteanist sources claim he is alos an archaelogist with a Th.D and a Ph.D.

Tried for a better photo, but do you know how many middleaged heavy-set Bill Coopers there are on Google?

491 posted on 12/17/2005 4:13:56 PM PST by Oztrich Boy (so natural to mankind is intolerance in whatever they really care about - J S Mill)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 170 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman
Hovind whines about how no one will debate him in a verbal setting where his 30 second sound bites take an hour to debunk, but I have yet to see him debate someone on a forum such as this where the audience is more science savvy than he is and his points can be torn apart as easily by the audience as it can by his official opponent.

Hovind, if you are listening, I challenge you to debate the scientists on this forum. I sure we could find enough scientists here that are willing to have a go at you. Let's see how well you do against specialists in the fields your 'science' putatively includes.
492 posted on 12/17/2005 4:14:24 PM PST by b_sharp (Science adjusts theories to fit evidence, creationism distorts evidence to fit the Bible.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 407 | View Replies]

To: darbymcgill

no. please give me an example.


493 posted on 12/17/2005 4:14:47 PM PST by shuckmaster (An oak tree is an acorns way of making more acorns)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 487 | View Replies]

To: Ichneumon
Just because *you're* entirely ignorant of the evidence doesn't mean it isn't there.

..And just because *you're* sadly duped into believing such cultist B.S. doesn't mean it's evidence for anything.

494 posted on 12/17/2005 4:15:03 PM PST by sirchtruth (Words Mean Things...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 428 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman; CarolinaGuitarman
Some day soon ... you're in for a nasty surprise - eternity where the sun doesn't shine.
490 posted on 12/17/2005 7:11:14 PM EST by nmh

Possibly another keeper. But the list is already long enough. I'll wait for something really spectacular.

495 posted on 12/17/2005 4:16:25 PM PST by PatrickHenry (... endless horde of misguided Luddites ...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 490 | View Replies]

To: Waywardson
But it's the "charge" that matters....

LOL!It's amazing to see how this cult of evolution takes over seemingly intelligent minds...

I've never seen so many smart people duped buy such obvious crappola, that which they would throw logic "holy" out the window!

496 posted on 12/17/2005 4:19:14 PM PST by sirchtruth (Words Mean Things...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 343 | View Replies]

To: sirchtruth

LOL!It's amazing to see how this cult of evolution takes over seemingly intelligent minds...

It is amazing. How does this happen?

497 posted on 12/17/2005 4:21:59 PM PST by ml1954 (NOT the disruptive troll seen frequently on CREVO threads)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 496 | View Replies]

To: shuckmaster; darbymcgill
Keywords left out in that reply

honesty integrity, or perhaps in the place of those words just plain ignorance and stupidity.

Wolf
498 posted on 12/17/2005 4:22:17 PM PST by RunningWolf (Vet US Army Air Cav 1975)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 493 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
where the sun doesn't shine

Barrow?

499 posted on 12/17/2005 4:23:49 PM PST by Coyoteman (I love the sound of beta decay in the morning!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 495 | View Replies]

To: longshadow

500


500 posted on 12/17/2005 4:23:56 PM PST by PatrickHenry (... endless horde of misguided Luddites ...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 495 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 401-450451-500501-550 ... 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