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

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

[Texas Eagle]

Oops. A paragraph was supposed to evolve between your comments and mine. Let me try again.

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

How conveeeeenient.

[shuckmaster]

Who knew Hovind had such a fan club here?

There's a certain element out there trying hard to portray conservatism as synonymous with ignorance. Apparently "Hovind" is a keyword that triggers them off.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"How conveeeeeeeenient."

And also very true. How can science test the untestable? How can science deal with the supernatural? It can't, so it doesn't. Scientists don't say God doesn't exist, they say it is not a scientific question. Your inability to see that science has limitations is your problem.

BTW, most people who believe in evolution are theists (in the USA, most are Christians).

[Alter Kaker]

So how does that differ from what God did to you?

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"Fantastic question for the Christmas season. Maybe some of the posters are unaware of the story :-) "

13 years of Catholic school would make it hard to forget. :)

[RightWhale]

he fires off rapid-fire lies one after the other

It is a valid rhetorical style. There is a way of parsing sentences so that the pauses for breath come in the middle of sentences while the next sentence begins without pause. This technique allows one to keep the floor indefinitely.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"Oops. A paragraph was supposed to evolve between your comments and mine. Let me try again."

Didn't help you any. :)

[Texas Eagle]

Your inability to see that science has limitations is your problem.

MY problem??? Wow. And they say drug use is a victimless crime.

[Thatcherite]

Pay more attention next time.

Try to type more accurately next time. How am I supposed to know that the sentence is a quote when you don't quote or italicise it? And don't you read what you are quoting? Why did you drag me through a ridiculous cycle of denial of what you had posted? All you needed to do was say, "oops I forgot to indicate clearly that I am quoting". Instead you just made yourself look ridiculous.

[Dimensio]

But one of my favorites is where is exposes the frauds in evolution like Piltdoan Man, Glued Moths, human fetuses drawn to look like pig fetuses, the way Hawking pretends like the Law of recapitulation just doesn't exist.

Hmm, let's see. You were already told about why the moth issue was not actually fraud, but rather than accept that or attempt to explain why you disagree with the "not fraud" assessment you simply repeat your initial claim as though it were never debunked. Looks like you're just another creationist liar.

[Thatcherite]

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

Evidently I'm not allowed to leave my terminal for a meal. So sorry I didn't respond instantly. So sorry also that you are not capable of clearly indicating which parts of your posts are quotations and which parts aren't

[stormer]

Didn't mean to be obtuse. But I am afraid I'm only familiar with Jack Chick through his "work". Its just that the comment about the tornado in the junk yard sounded like something he would say.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"MY problem??? "

Yes, yours. Scientists already know that science has limits. It's creationists who wish that science could be anything and everything so they could sit at the same table with science. Doesn't work that way.


"Wow. And they say drug use is a victimless crime."

Maybe you should cut down then. I don't use drugs.

[Uri’el-2012]

BTW, most people who believe in evolution are theists (in the USA, most are Christians).

303 posted on 12/17/2005 12:36:17 PM MST by CarolinaGuitarman

Nominally Christians.

Surely not a follower of the Christ.
He who created the universe from nothing and told us how He did it.

b'shem Y'shua

[Baraonda]

"post 201. Now, stop lying."

The quote at post 201 is not my quote. It came from the link below. The sentence in question is in bold. Anyone who cares could verify this by clicking the linkl below.

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?"

[Thatcherite]

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

But of course sirchtruth already knew that, having been told it several times before. Memory loss can be a wonderful thing.

[Texas Eagle]

It's creationists who wish that science could be anything and everything so they could sit at the same table with science. Doesn't work that way.

You're probably right. Tell you what. Let's end this debate right here. I'll take your word over the word of Sir Frances Bacon, Sir Isaac Newton and Louis Pasteur. What did they know about science anyway?

[Thatcherite]

Evidently Shuckmaster's mind-reading machine wasn't working either. Shucks.

[Alter Kaker]

Nominally Christians. Surely not a follower of the Christ.

So again, you're saying the Pope is not a Christian?

[Dimensio]

That's not true. They DO use photographs of embryo's though. That's different than the drawings that Haeckel used.

Actually, Haeckel's drawings have been used in more "recent" biology textbooks. What is not used is Haeckel's claim regarding embryology. That is, Haeckel falsified his drawings in order to make them appear to have similarities that were evidence of evolution, however, no contemporary textbook actually claims that the similarities of Haeckel's embryonic drawings are themselves evidence of evolution.

So the claim that Haeckel's drawings are being used is not a lie. However, when a creationist like Full Court claims that Haeckel's actual fraud is being used to promot evolution, that is a flat-out lie. But that shouldn't be surprising to hear, because creationists lie all the time.