Evolution Is Religion--Not Science

[jasoncran]

Yep. The police are responsible for public safety, and lying to them is often a crime, as well as interfering with their duties. But of course, Hovind lied under oath, which is not only a crime, but a serious sin.



If he'll lie after swearing to tell the truth, he'll lie for anything.

only if the crime being charged with is actually a crime. one can lie to an officer about speeding and they cant arrest you. they can give you a ticket. often they wont if you admit to it. perjury? hmm yeah a certain president did that a few years ago.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/stories/galleglytext121098.htm
from Wikipedia on Clintons impeachment

In April 1999, about two months after being acquitted by the Senate, Clinton was cited by Federal District Judge Susan Webber Wright for civil contempt of court for his "willful failure" to obey her repeated orders to testify truthfully in the Paula Jones sexual harassment lawsuit. For this citation, Clinton was assessed a $90,000 fine, and the matter was referred to the Arkansas Supreme Court to see if disciplinary action would be appropriate.[25]

Regarding Clinton's January 17, 1998, deposition where he was placed under oath, the judge wrote:


"Simply put, the president's deposition testimony regarding whether he had ever been alone with Ms. (Monica) Lewinsky was intentionally false, and his statements regarding whether he had ever engaged in sexual relations with Ms. Lewinsky likewise were intentionally false...."[25]

In January 2001, on the day before leaving office, Clinton agreed to a five-year suspension of his Arkansas law license as part of an agreement with the independent counsel[clarification needed] to end the investigation. Based on this suspension, Clinton was automatically suspended from the United States Supreme Court bar, from which he then chose to resign

if it is a crime this man because he was the potus walked. a bar suspension! if I did that I would face jail time. so please. we pick whom we trust when we want to. oh what vile evil sinnes we are.

 

[TOG]

You could shoot all that down, if you'd show us some checkable evidence for your claim that Equus and Hyracotherium are found in the same strata. When do you think we'll be seeing that?

You haven't shown any "checkable evidence", why should I? Everyone has seen that chart. It's in every high school biology textbook. I made a claim that it's incorrect and your only answer is to produce the chart, as if that proves anything. I also pointed out the symbiosis between termites and protozoa, where neither can live without the other. Your "answer" to that was to use big scientific sounding words that really said nothing more than "they can't live without each other". You have provided nothing. You have proved nothing. Why should I bother providing anything you demand?

The TOG​

 

[Doulos Iesou]

So I guess telling a lie to a police officer is worse than telling a lie to anyone else?

According to the law, yes.

That kind of thinking goes through every believer in one way or another. We are fallen because we are sinners, and we are saved in a state of sin.

All lying is wrong, but his lying about his taxes is particularly bad. Especially... as I continually remind you... the fact that he has been unrepentant about his wrong doing. I lie, as do all Christians, but the Christian life is one of repentance. That is not something I see with Hovind.

The original concept of Ad Hominem still stands, and the same about everyone's character here. If a lie justifies the discredit of his work, everyone in this thread is in serious trouble.

Is something inherently false because Kent Hovind says it? No. If he got up and said, "the Earth orbits around the Sun." I would reply, "amen!" However, regarding his statements concerning evolution, they are questionable for the following reasons.

1. As you noted, the impossibility to verify almost anything he says. Fabrication is simply another word for lying.
2. He is a known and convicted liar, even lying in a court of law.
3. He is unrepentant about his lies regarding his teachings or his finances.

These opinions are not made off of a prejudice, but are based off of my own observations of the man. If a person can't be trusted... why rely on them as a trusted source of information? This is really common sense here. There are people in this world that are untrustworthy, and pointing it out and trying to nullify that objection by crying, "ad hominem," ignores the simple fact that we all pick and choose whom to trust. And the vast majority of my experience with watching Kent Hovind (primarily in debates) is that he is not an honest man, neither in his personal life or in his presentation of scientific evidence.

Those who support him are more than welcome to bring up his actual arguments, as TOG did. Which were then subsequently refuted.

Now, the verification of his work is questionable. Which is why I am not a Hovind fan.

If you were an outsider, what would someone like Kent Hovind make you think about Christianity?

 

[Doulos Iesou]

You haven't shown any "checkable evidence", why should I? Everyone has seen that chart. It's in every high school biology textbook. I made a claim that it's incorrect and your only answer is to produce the chart, as if that proves anything.

He actually provided evidence for his argument, while yours is an argument without any sources or evidence. Simply a naked assertion. Do not demand that which you refuse to give.

I also pointed out the symbiosis between termites and protozoa, where neither can live without the other.

Care to address my point that there are plenty of termites who get along just fine without the symbiotic relationship.

Your "answer" to that was to use big scientific sounding words that really said nothing more than "they can't live without each other".

No, he provided other examples where evolution has provided us with answers to how this symbiotic relationships develop naturally.

You have provided nothing. You have proved nothing.

Was it not you who first provided the empty case that evolutionists have the ancestry of horses wrong? That which is asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence. The burden lies with you.

Why should I bother providing anything you demand?

If you remember our conversation, I asked you to provide an example of scientists fabricating evidence. This is the kind of assertion that requires evidence to support it's claim. You stated, "The various species have never been found in the order Marsh put them and modern horses have even been found in the same layers as Eohippus."

This statement was coupled with no source which could corroborate it's account, and thus because it can be seen as no more than your baseless opinion, it can be rejected without any positive argument. The status quo among paelontologists and evolutionary biologists is that the evolution of horses has been widely documented in the fossil record and contradicts the very claims you are making. In order to turn over this widely held position, you must carry your burden of proof and demonstrate a justifiable reason to doubt this hypothesis.

 

[turnorburn]

evolution is the religion of humanism and atheism among other religions that are disputing the 6 day creation as in.. the morning and the evening were one day each day in succession as outlined in Genesis chapter one. The evolutionist wants to make their days stretch out into years which i suppose you can do in other chapters in the bible but Genesis has the exclusive right to call a "day" the morning and and evening.. nowhere else in scripture will you find it written this way...

tob

 

[Doulos Iesou]

evolution is the religion of humanism

Humanism is a Christian invention..

and atheism

Although people of every religion and belief system embrace evolution, showing that a person is not necessarily an atheist if they embrace it.

among other religions that are disputing the 6 day creation as in.. the morning and the evening were one day each day in succession as outlined in Genesis chapter one. The evolutionist wants to make their days stretch out into years which i suppose you can do in other chapters in the bible but Genesis has the exclusive right to call a "day" the morning and and evening.. nowhere else in scripture will you find it written this way...

We do what? Do you have any idea how we view Genesis?

 

[Barbarian]

I showed you that Hyracotherium was last known from about 45 million years ago, while the oldest fossils of Equus is about 3.5 million years old. That leaves a gap of about41.5 million years.

Again, we'd like to see your evidence that these two existed at the same time. I'm beginning to wonder if you didn't just believe a story someone else dreamed up.

 

[turnorburn]

Watch that video..

tob

 

[turnorburn]

Doulos said:

We do what? Do you have any idea how we view Genesis?

Who's we?

tob

 

[Doulos Iesou]

Doulos said:

Who's we?

tob

Christians who believe in Evolution.

 

[turnorburn]

I don't know any Christians that believe in evolution..

tob

 

[Milk-Drops]

I don't know any Christians that believe in evolution..

tob

That is a lie, you and Barbarian have been talking on this site for years.

 

[Doulos Iesou]

That is a lie, you and Barbarian have been talking on this site for years.

turnorburn judges others on the basis of non-essential doctrines such as Creationism vs Evolution. He has firmly established himself on the throne of judgement.

But with me it is a very small thing that I should be judged by you or by any human court. In fact, I do not even judge myself. For I am not aware of anything against myself, but I am not thereby acquitted. It is the Lord who judges me. Therefore do not pronounce judgment before the time, before the Lord comes, who will bring to light the things now hidden in darkness and will disclose the purposes of the heart. Then each one will receive his commendation from God. 1 Corinthians 4:3-5

What would you expect though from someone who names themselves "turnorburn" and often has descriptive posts about the fires of hell.

 

[Barbarian]

The habit of men, to add new doctrines like creationism, to our faith is a very harmful one. When they do this, they create a new stumbling block to keep people from coming to Him.

This is why it matters. Just in passing, I note that we probably will never see any evidence for that claim that Hyracotherium and Equus are found in the same strata. And no wonder; the gap between the last known Hyracotherium and the first known Equus is over 40 million years.

 

[Barbarian]

That is a lie, you and Barbarian have been talking on this site for years.

I don't think he was intentionally lying. He has only become convinced that fath in his new doctrine of creationism is a requirement for a person to be a Christian. It now overrides faith in Jesus as Savior, in his belief.

 

[TOG]

The habit of men, to add new doctrines like creationism, to our faith is a very harmful one.

In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. (Gen. 1:1 ESV)​

It's in the first verse of the Bible. How is that a new doctrine?

The TOG​

 

[Milk-Drops]

In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. (Gen. 1:1 ESV)​

It's in the first verse of the Bible. How is that a new doctrine?

The TOG​

That isn't all of creationism/Intelligent design. ID bases itself on pointing out perceived flaws in science and claiming that science is junk if it doesn't line up with the Bible exactly.


ID isn't a cohesive branch or theory because its filled with tons of different ideas on how God created the world, how certain theories fit the Bible, etc.
The new doctrine is basically a bunch of anti evolutionists playing guess work with science, trying to shove it into a place that it doesn't belong.


If a person believes god created the universe an the earth? That's cool. Does the Bible go into scientific detail on how that happened? No.

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:The habit of men, to add new doctrines like creationism, to our faith is a very harmful one.

In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.

Notice that the Bible says that God created life but doesn't say how He did it other than using nature to do it. All the YE creationist doctrines were added later by men to make it more acceptable to them.

 

[TOG]

Barbarian observes:The habit of men, to add new doctrines like creationism, to our faith is a very harmful one.

In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.

Notice that the Bible says that God created life but doesn't say how He did it other than using nature to do it. All the YE creationist doctrines were added later by men to make it more acceptable to them.

What do you mean by "later"?

The earliest post-exilic Jewish chronicle preserved in the Hebrew language, the Seder Olam Rabbah, compiled by Jose ben Halafta in 160 AD, dates the creation of the world to 3761 BC while the later Seder Olam Zutta to 4339 BC. The Hebrew Calendar has traditionally, since the 4th century AD by Hillel II, dated the creation to 3761 BC.

Source

Many of the earliest Christians who followed the Septuagint calculated creation around 5500 BC, and Christians up to the Middle-Ages continued to use this rough estimate: Clement of Alexandria (5592 BC), Julius Africanus (5501 BC), Eusebius (5228 BC), Jerome (5199 BC) Hippolytus of Rome (5500 BC), Theophilus of Antioch (5529 BC), Sulpicius Severus (5469 BC), Isidore of Seville (5336 BC), Panodorus of Alexandria (5493 BC), Maximus the Confessor (5493 BC), George Syncellus (5492 BC) and Gregory of Tours (5500 BC). The Byzantine calendar has traditionally dated the creation of the world to September 1, 5509 BC.

Source

The Chronicon of Eusebius (early 4th century) dated creation to 5228 BC while Jerome (c. 380, Constantinople) dated creation to 5199 BC.

Source

This is all "later" in the sense that these estimations of the earth's age were all made after the Bible was written, but it's hardly a "new doctrine" as you called it.

The TOG​

 

[TOG]

I showed you that Hyracotherium was last known from about 45 million years ago, while the oldest fossils of Equus is about 3.5 million years old. That leaves a gap of about41.5 million years.

Again, we'd like to see your evidence that these two existed at the same time. I'm beginning to wonder if you didn't just believe a story someone else dreamed up.

It is now acknowledged that horse evolution as recorded in the fossils follows no recognizable pattern, and that the evolutionary "tree" looks more like a multi-branching "bush." The successive forms indicating straight-line evolution appear only in textbooks; they do not appear in the fossils. Sometimes fossils of different types that supposedly lived at different times appear together in the same strata layer. In Oregon, the three-toed grazer Neohipparion (very much like Merychippus) has been found with Pliohippus. In the Great Basin area, Pliohippus has been found with the three-toed Hipparion throughout the timeframe supposedly represented. Evolutionary scientists freely admit this situation--and to their credit often attempt to correct the misconceptions--but still the horse series appears in the textbooks.

Source

The TOG​