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 ... 451-500501-550551-600 ... 2,101-2,129 next last
To: Dimensio
Do you have an actual argument to present for your side,

You know my argument by now, so why continue to show you absolute ignorance of it?

Or maybe you do this just to show your arrogance?

501 posted on 12/17/2005 4:25:09 PM PST by sirchtruth (Words Mean Things...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 295 | View Replies]

500 posts in the first 12 hours, more or less. Hovind is always a great topic.
502 posted on 12/17/2005 4:28:47 PM PST by PatrickHenry (... endless horde of misguided Luddites ...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 501 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry

And I missed it.

I second the motion to debate Hovind online. The debate thread could be closed to all but Hovind and a couple of FReepers.

Results would be locked for everyone to see forever.


503 posted on 12/17/2005 4:30:33 PM PST by js1138 (Great is the power of steady misrepresentation.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 502 | View Replies]

To: Oztrich Boy
Oops, Ex Nihilo is Aussie - prolly where the confusion arose. Sorry about that.
504 posted on 12/17/2005 4:31:51 PM PST by Senator Bedfellow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 491 | View Replies]

To: sirchtruth
[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.

Do even *you* believe this stuff that spews out of your brain?

And whether do you do or not, do you *really* believe that anyone is going to mistake your bizarre rant for an adequate rebuttal to the enormous amount of hard evidence contained in the link you're trying to blow off?

What's wrong with you folks? Do you find reality that hard to take a good look at?

505 posted on 12/17/2005 4:31:54 PM PST by Ichneumon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 494 | View Replies]

To: shuckmaster
I've already stated I'm not in the dancing mood tonight...

But, thanks for asking
506 posted on 12/17/2005 4:32:24 PM PST by darbymcgill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 493 | View Replies]

To: js1138
I second the motion to debate Hovind online.

A tornado will assemble a 747 in a junkyard long before Hovind will agree to a written debate. He's strictly a razzle-dazzle flim-flam man.

507 posted on 12/17/2005 4:33:47 PM PST by PatrickHenry (... endless horde of misguided Luddites ...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 503 | View Replies]

To: Stultis

National Geographic and RD? *more sigh*


508 posted on 12/17/2005 4:34:10 PM PST by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 192 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry

I think we should issue the challenge every day.

FR has several million unique visitors per week.


509 posted on 12/17/2005 4:36:03 PM PST by js1138 (Great is the power of steady misrepresentation.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 507 | View Replies]

To: Dimensio
Absolutely no theory in science is ever proven. Why single out evolution?

Show me a fish evolving to a man right now, and I might believe your stupid ass theory...

BELIEVE is the key word there for both you and I. The only difference I state my theory as a belief, your ilk tries to state BELIEF as fact, and I don't buy it and apparently neither does the majority of people, at least honest people.

510 posted on 12/17/2005 4:36:31 PM PST by sirchtruth (Words Mean Things...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 293 | View Replies]

To: Ichneumon
Do you find reality that hard to take a good look at?

Here's some reality. You'll probably appreciate this fellow (other folks might not). I think he's a handsome lad!


Fossil: KNM-WT 15000

Site: Nariokotome, West Turkana, Kenya (1)

Discovered By: K. Kimeu, 1984 (1)

Estimated Age of Fossil: 1.6 mya * determined by Stratigraphic, faunal & radiometric data (1, 4)

Species Name: Homo ergaster (1, 7, 8), Homo erectus (3, 4, 7, 10), Homo erectus ergaster (25)

Gender: Male (based on pelvis, browridge) (1, 8, 9)

Cranial Capacity: 880 (909 as adult) cc (1)

Information: Most complete early hominid skeleton (80 bones and skull) (1, 8)

Interpretation: Hairless and dark pigmented body (based on environment, limb proportions) (7, 8, 9). Juvenile (9-12 based on 2nd molar eruption and unfused growth plates) (1, 3, 4, 7, 8). Juvenile (8 years old based on recent studies on tooth development) (27). Incapable of speech (based on narrowing of spinal canal in thoracic region) (1)

Nickname: Turkana Boy (1), Nariokotome Boy

See original source for notes:
Source: http://www.mos.org/evolution/fossils/fossilview.php?fid=38

511 posted on 12/17/2005 4:36:52 PM PST by Coyoteman (I love the sound of beta decay in the morning!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 505 | View Replies]

To: darbymcgill

So, in the meantime I'll presume you were just just making stuff up in post #440 when you said "some of the premises of the original TOE have been debunked".


512 posted on 12/17/2005 4:36:59 PM PST by shuckmaster (An oak tree is an acorns way of making more acorns)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 506 | View Replies]

To: sirchtruth; Dimensio

your ilk

Based on previous readings on these threads, I'm beginning to think that 'ilk' is an insult.

513 posted on 12/17/2005 4:39:11 PM PST by ml1954 (NOT the disruptive troll seen frequently on CREVO threads)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 510 | View Replies]

To: sirchtruth
Show me a fish evolving to a man right now

You can't possibly be as dumb as you pretend or else you wouldn't be capable of typing...

514 posted on 12/17/2005 4:40:19 PM PST by shuckmaster (An oak tree is an acorns way of making more acorns)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 510 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman; CarolinaGuitarman
Show me a fish evolving to a man right now, and I might believe your stupid ass theory...
510 posted on 12/17/2005 7:36:31 PM EST by sirchtruth

Now there's a true classic! It's going into the list.

515 posted on 12/17/2005 4:40:23 PM PST by PatrickHenry (... endless horde of misguided Luddites ...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 510 | View Replies]

To: shuckmaster

Sure, presume away...


516 posted on 12/17/2005 4:41:27 PM PST by darbymcgill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 512 | View Replies]

To: sirchtruth
Show me a fish evolving to a man right now, and I might believe your stupid ass theory...

Show me an existing roman civilisation is full fling right now and I *might* just believe that such a thing ever happened.

517 posted on 12/17/2005 4:43:09 PM PST by bobdsmith
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 510 | View Replies]

To: Thatcherite
Sirchtruth has had the scientific meaning of the word theory explained many times.

Is it the contention of all you evolutionist that just because I've had something explained to me that mean I should just automatically belive in the cult of evolution?

I've "explain" alot of things to evolutionist too...Obviously you don't believe you're being duped by a huge lie?

518 posted on 12/17/2005 4:44:06 PM PST by sirchtruth (Words Mean Things...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 225 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry

This little gem does dempnstrate the power of Hollywood to generate negative intelligence in its customers.


519 posted on 12/17/2005 4:44:26 PM PST by js1138 (Great is the power of steady misrepresentation.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 515 | View Replies]

To: shuckmaster

And I forgot to add that your quote editing is to be admired as much as your presuming.


520 posted on 12/17/2005 4:45:08 PM PST by darbymcgill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 512 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry

Show me a fish evolving to a man right now, and I might believe your stupid ass theory...

Make note of the qualifier 'might'. This implies continuing skepticism even in the event that what is proposed was observed. Which in turn implies an idiot.

521 posted on 12/17/2005 4:45:46 PM PST by ml1954 (NOT the disruptive troll seen frequently on CREVO threads)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 515 | View Replies]

To: wireman
I think that's why it's called the THEORY of evolution. Words DO mean things.

It can be called whatever you like, still parading it as FACT is a lie.

522 posted on 12/17/2005 4:47:30 PM PST by sirchtruth (Words Mean Things...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 218 | View Replies]

To: ml1954
Based on previous readings on these threads, I'm beginning to think that 'ilk' is an insult.

In the early days of NTN, "ilk" was on the list of forbidden names and I have always wondered just how stupid those people were who were so incapable of consulting a dictionary.

523 posted on 12/17/2005 4:47:36 PM PST by balrog666 (A myth by any other name is still inane.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 513 | View Replies]

To: All
It just keeps getting better: THIS IS YOUR BRAIN ON CREATIONISM .
524 posted on 12/17/2005 4:50:00 PM PST by PatrickHenry (... endless horde of misguided Luddites ...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 521 | View Replies]

To: sirchtruth
[Do you have an actual argument to present for your side,]

You know my argument by now, so why continue to show you absolute ignorance of it?

Actually, the fact that he's aware that you haven't got any actual argument to present shows that he *is* quite familiar with your material.

525 posted on 12/17/2005 4:50:57 PM PST by Ichneumon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 501 | View Replies]

To: ml1954
Show me a fish evolving to a man right now, and I might believe your stupid ass theory...

This looks like a good spot for a placemarker.

Give a man a fish, and you'll feed him for a day. Give him a religion, and he'll starve to death while praying for a fish. -- Timothy Jones

526 posted on 12/17/2005 4:51:41 PM PST by forsnax5 (The greatest problem in communication is the illusion that it has taken place.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 521 | View Replies]

To: ml1954
Make note of the qualifier 'might'. This implies continuing skepticism even in the event that what is proposed was observed. Which in turn implies an idiot.

Does the same apply to extinct really means thought extinct in the scientific community.... ;)
527 posted on 12/17/2005 4:53:10 PM PST by darbymcgill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 521 | View Replies]

To: sirchtruth
Show me a fish evolving to a man right now, and I might believe your stupid ass theory...

If we watched "a fish evolving to a man right now," you would no doubt, and with good reason, declare that as evidence of a great miracle, and it would no doubt throw into doubt many accepted ideas in evolutionary science. It would be (the first) evidence for Intelligent Design.

528 posted on 12/17/2005 4:54:58 PM PST by MRMEAN (Do I really need a sarcasm tag?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 510 | View Replies]

To: DennisR
To me, it is much more reasonable to believe in a supernatural being that created everything than to believe everything we see happened by chance, popping out of nowhere!

That's why evo is such a ridiculous theory! God says let there be LIGHT, but they don't buy that, but they'll believe SOMETHING exploded from NOTHING?

These same people who champion the theory would be the first ones to decry any halftruth in any other field!

They're duped with a little bit of truth that makes this illusion of evolution...and those are the most intellegent ones, it's really sad.

529 posted on 12/17/2005 4:56:32 PM PST by sirchtruth (Words Mean Things...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 215 | View Replies]

To: RunningWolf
Wolf, old buddy, you may feel you are simply supporting your fellow creationists but in the case of Hovind I suggest you think twice before blindly giving support.
530 posted on 12/17/2005 4:56:43 PM PST by b_sharp (Science adjusts theories to fit evidence, creationism distorts evidence to fit the Bible.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 498 | View Replies]

To: ml1954
Make note of the qualifier 'might'. This implies continuing skepticism even in the event that what is proposed was observed. Which in turn implies an idiot.

No need. The pure quote is sufficient.


Show me a fish evolving to a man right now, and I might believe your stupid ass theory....

531 posted on 12/17/2005 4:57:48 PM PST by PatrickHenry (... endless horde of misguided Luddites ...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 521 | View Replies]

To: freedumb2003
Creationists should NEVER use the word "proof" in their feeble arguments. It makes thos arguments even more feeble.

Yes, the same way evolutionist shouldn't LIE about THEORY being equal with FACT.

532 posted on 12/17/2005 4:58:57 PM PST by sirchtruth (Words Mean Things...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 211 | View Replies]

To: sirchtruth
Is it the contention of all you evolutionist that just because I've had something explained to me that mean I should just automatically belive in the cult of evolution?

No, we merely expect you to be able to learn something from the explanations.

Sadly, even in that modest expectation, we are repeatedly disappointed.

New information you choose not to accept -- no matter how well established or sourced -- merely bounces off your forehead with a sharp "ping", and leaves no trace of its passage. (A classic example of Morton's Demon in action.) Meanwhile, anything you want to believe, no matter how goofy, gets swallowed uncritically as gospel.

533 posted on 12/17/2005 5:03:15 PM PST by Ichneumon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 518 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry

It is necessary to keep lies as short as possible, directly linked to an appeal to emotion and to move on to a different lie as seamlessly as possible. If the audience is allowed to dwell on the lie for any more than a few seconds, they may develop questions that will expose the lie.


534 posted on 12/17/2005 5:03:19 PM PST by b_sharp (Science adjusts theories to fit evidence, creationism distorts evidence to fit the Bible.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 507 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
Now thats an appealing fantasy
535 posted on 12/17/2005 5:04:53 PM PST by RunningWolf (Vet US Army Air Cav 1975)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 531 | View Replies]

To: sirchtruth
but they'll believe SOMETHING exploded from NOTHING?

Your poor understanding of the Big Bang is as bad as your misunderstandings about most other topics. The Big Bang neither involved an "explosion", or something coming from "nothing". Try learning some physics before you attempt to critique it.

These same people who champion the theory would be the first ones to decry any halftruth in any other field!

Indeed, which is why we decry halftruths (and "notruths") in creationism as well. Thanks for noticing.

536 posted on 12/17/2005 5:06:50 PM PST by Ichneumon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 529 | View Replies]

To: js1138
Although the posts on FR are available through Google (giving a bigger audience), it may be an idea to issue the challenge directly to Hovind. I suspect Hovind has a couple of email addresses, one where he 'bots' replies to the faithful, and one he actually reads. Anyone know an email address that will actually reach Hovind?
537 posted on 12/17/2005 5:08:40 PM PST by b_sharp (Science adjusts theories to fit evidence, creationism distorts evidence to fit the Bible.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 509 | View Replies]

To: b_sharp
Hey sharp,

Well why don't you guys take him on. If you win the debate you win the debate, irregardless of if he has the $250K. I think if the debate actually was going to happen ,the $250K would materialize from somewhere.

Wolf
538 posted on 12/17/2005 5:08:51 PM PST by RunningWolf (Vet US Army Air Cav 1975)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 530 | View Replies]

To: RunningWolf
Interesting isn't it sirchtruth?

It's all interesting, especially when I think I'm debating intellegent people who will just not THINK about what they believe.

I have no problem with people believing in evolution, but not at the expence of them touting it as fact. Also, Hovind gives just as logical explanation for life as any evolutinist I've ever heard...The problem is evo's can't stand the compitition.

539 posted on 12/17/2005 5:08:58 PM PST by sirchtruth (Words Mean Things...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: sirchtruth
Yes, the same way evolutionist shouldn't LIE about THEORY being equal with FACT.

We don't. We're well aware of the difference between the two. However, it's no contradiction to say that Evolution is a Fact and a Theory.

540 posted on 12/17/2005 5:10:13 PM PST by Ichneumon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 532 | View Replies]

To: sirchtruth
It's all interesting, especially when I think I'm debating intellegent people who will just not THINK about what they believe

I hear you truth

Wolf
541 posted on 12/17/2005 5:10:35 PM PST by RunningWolf (Vet US Army Air Cav 1975)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 539 | View Replies]

To: darbymcgill; shuckmaster
"Evos can't answer the arguments for Creationism"

"OK what are they?"

"Do your own research"

542 posted on 12/17/2005 5:11:26 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 451 | View Replies]

To: b_sharp
Anyone know an email address that will actually reach Hovind?

DrDino@ImAnIdiot.com

543 posted on 12/17/2005 5:11:29 PM PST by PatrickHenry (... endless horde of misguided Luddites ...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 537 | View Replies]

To: Alter Kaker
"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."

Your wrong if he was talking out his/her ass he/she would be making more sense.

Post Modernism is hostile to the Project of the Enlightenment generally and specifically hostile to Logic, History and Scientific progress.

It's a form of intellectual anarchy and your right Derrida is the worst offender. He positively unreadable worse even than Marshal McLuhan.
544 posted on 12/17/2005 5:12:11 PM PST by beaver fever
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 262 | View Replies]

To: Thatcherite
I've found the usual reason to be a complete lack of interest in the evidence, ...

...but at least I'll hold onto some logic!!

545 posted on 12/17/2005 5:13:38 PM PST by sirchtruth (Words Mean Things...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: sirchtruth
Hovind gives just as logical explanation for life as any evolutinist I've ever heard

Unfortunately being logical is hardly the sole requirement for a scientific explaination. The whole scientology Xenu story is logical for example, but it's hardly a scientific explaination.

546 posted on 12/17/2005 5:14:31 PM PST by bobdsmith
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 539 | View Replies]

To: eleni121
Darwin lovers don't like to debate...

Wrong.

every time they do, they lose.

Wrong.

They would rather scream and yell and hide behind the status quo

Wrong

...hateful atheists ...

(The worst kind of atheists, no doubt). Wrong. Congratulations. You're batting .000

547 posted on 12/17/2005 5:17:28 PM PST by Gumlegs
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 486 | View Replies]

Jack Chick uses Hovind as a credible source, so I might as well provide a link to Big Daddy?
548 posted on 12/17/2005 5:18:05 PM PST by PatrickHenry (... endless horde of misguided Luddites ...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 546 | View Replies]

To: sirchtruth
"Show me a fish evolving to a man right now, and I might believe your stupid ass theory...

The ToE does not say that any organism from one Class would ever evolve into an organism from another Class in one generation. I believe you know this. You simply create this strawman because you have no ammunition when it comes to attacking an accurate version of the ToE.

When scientists collect evidence from a dozen different fields of science that fit in with a theory it is hardly just a belief. In my opinion, you are insisting on calling it a belief in order to bring it down to the level you consider your own beliefs to be.

549 posted on 12/17/2005 5:19:54 PM PST by b_sharp (Science adjusts theories to fit evidence, creationism distorts evidence to fit the Bible.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 510 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman

You know, we've been wondering where cousin Erg went for a long time. Had we known he was visiting Africa, we would have taken his picture off the milk carton a long time ago.


550 posted on 12/17/2005 5:22:42 PM PST by b_sharp (Science adjusts theories to fit evidence, creationism distorts evidence to fit the Bible.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 511 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 451-500501-550551-600 ... 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