[_ Old Earth _] Evolution Vs Evolution Concerning Textbooks

[Barbarian]

Not to offend, but it seems Hovind thinks evolution is a joke.

Hovind isn't taken seriously, because he has all these loony ideas that even other creationists think are off the wall.

Some of them are also put off by his arrest record and other legal troubles.

The fact that he claims to have a PhD, but got it from a person running a "university" out of a split level house in Colorado, also gives some honest creationists concern.

My question would be why doesn't evolution offer $100,000.00 to creationists to prove them wrong? That would be interesting

I think James Randi's offer of $1000,000 to anyone capable of showing any paranormal phenomenon would be of interest to Hovind.

I wonder why he doesn't take that. And Randi, unlike Hovind:

• Actually has the money[/*:m:b9c25]
• Will actually let the applicant tell him what the phenomenon will be.[/*:m:b9c25]
• Does not rely on a mythical "board of experts"[/*:m:b9c25]
• Has the judging out in the open, where everyone can see it[/*:m:b9c25]

Hovind is an embarassment to honest creationists, and many of them have vigorously criticised him for various things mentioned above.

Answers in Genesis, a Young-Earth website, has made a list of claims they think creationists should not make, as they are highly doubtful or outright falsehoods. This is a list of the ones Hovind uses:
Moon dust thickness proves a young moon
Woolly mammoths were snap frozen during the Flood catastrophe
Dubois renounced Java man as a missing link and claimed it was just a giant gibbon
The Japanese trawler Zuiyo Maru caught a dead plesiosaur near New Zealand
The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics began at the Fall
Archaeopteryx is a fraud
There are no beneficial mutations
No new species have been produced
Earth's axis was vertical before the Flood
Paluxy tracks prove that humans and dinosaurs co-existed
Darwin's quote about the absurdity of eye evolution from Origin of Species
Earth's division in the days of Peleg (Gen. 10:25) refers to catastrophic splitting of the continents
The phrase "science falsely so called" in 1 Timothy 6:20 (KJV) refers to evolution
Ron Wyatt has found Noah's Ark
Ron Wyatt has found much archaeological proof of the Bible
Many of Carl Baugh's creation evidences

AIG considers the following to be unlikely and inadvisable to use, and are often used by Hovind:
Canopy theory
There was no rain before the Flood
Natural selection as tautology
Evolution is just a theory
The speed of light has decreased over time
There are no transitional forms
Gold chains have been found in coal
Plate tectonics is fallacious
Creationists believe in microevolution but not macroevolution
The Gospel is in the stars.

I think you could do better than Hovind.

 

[Rebecka]

I think you could do better than Hovind

But I agree with all of them. These rumors against these men of not having real PHd's are just that..rumors.
Their arguments make sense and are backed up by science, even though you don't believe it.
Dinosaurs lived when man did not too long ago, and "science" says they lived billions of years ago, which isn't believable.
Who in tarnation could know anything from billions of years ago?
They weren't there and do not know.
100 years ago, they said the earth was 4 million years old, then a year later, it was 6 million years old, then a different guy says, no it is 11 millions years old..you get the picture, always a new earth age depending on who is at the computer that day.

 

[Barbarian]

But I agree with all of them. These rumors against these men of not having real PHd's are just that..rumors.

Actually, I only mentioned Hovind, who got his "PhD" from a "university" operated out a splitlevel house, and which has been described as a "diploma mill."

Their arguments make sense and are backed up by science, even though you don't believe it.

Never saw one backed up by science. Do you have one in mind, or did they just tell you that they were?

Dinosaurs lived when man did not too long ago, and "science" says they lived billions of years ago, which isn't believable.

That's a pretty remarkable claim. Do you have any evidence for it?

Who in tarnation could know anything from billions of years ago?
They weren't there and do not know.

How can detectives ever solve crimes. They weren't there, and do not know. :wink:

100 years ago, they said the earth was 4 million years old, then a year later, it was 6 million years old, then a different guy says, no it is 11 millions years old..you get the picture, always a new earth age depending on who is at the computer that day.

You're probably thinking of Kelvin's calculations:

"Lord Kelvin deduced in 1862 that the absolute age of the earth was no more than 400 million years old - too little time for evolution to have generated all of the life we see on earth today. Lord Kelvin attempted to figure out the age of the earth by using Fourier's theory of heat conduction. In order to use the theory, however, he had to make four assumptions: "first, the [earth] must be a solid...; second, it must have constant thermal conductivity and heat capacity throughout; third, it must have been initially all at the same high temperature, surrounded by an infinite space at a lower temperature; fourth, no heat is generated or destroyed anywhere in the system"(Brush, 1983, 56). As it turns out, all four assumptions were mistaken - the earth has a liquid core, the thermal conductivity and heat capacity of the earth's interior are different than that of the crust, it is possible that the earth was formed by the aggregation of cold particles, and radioactive elements in the earth produce substantial heat (Brush, 1983, 58-59). Thus, Kelvin's results were entirely false, and one must look to more reliable tests - such as radioisotope dating - to determine the age of the earth."
http://www.geocities.com/evrimkurami/FAQ1.html

There's an interesting sidelight to this. Kelvin and Darwin argued about it. Darwin couldn't explain why Kelvin got such a low answer, but he pointed out that the evidence in biology clearly showed that the Earth was much older than that. Later, when radioactivity was discovered, the problem was solved. Even Kelvin grudgingly admitted that Darwin had been right.

The results from various radioisotope analyses, is about 5 billion years.

 

[Pearly Gator]

Dinosaurs lived when man did not too long ago, and "science" says they lived billions of years ago, which isn't believable.

That's a pretty remarkable claim. Do you have any evidence for it?

In 1571 the Spanish conquistadors were exploring what is now Ica, Peru when they discovered rocks with strange creatures carved on them. They had never seen animals like this so they sent some to the King of Spain. He also had never seen such creatures.

Dr. Cabrera, a medical doctor from Lima devoted much of his life to collecting and studying these stones. On them you will see people doing brain and heart surgery as well as every known dinosaur clearly depicted. Several hundred of them show humans and dinosaurs together.

Many more here:
http://www.genesispark.com/genpark/ancient/ancient.htm

If it were mere legend, stories would be localized, not diversified across all human cultures and epochs. Since many of the artifacts clearly show Triceratops, T-Rex and skin texture that we now know to be true, they had to be seen by humans.

The Glen Rose fossils of human and dinosaur tracks together confirm the conclusion.

 

[evanman]

Once I was a tadpole long and thin.
Then I was a frog with my tail tucked in.
Then I was a chimp in a tropical tree,
And now I am a Professor with a PhD!

 

[Barbarian]

Ah, yes. There's a guy in Lima who, if you give him about a half an hour, can "find" a stone with your particular profession depicted on it.

However, they are all recently-cut. Fakes, in other words.

Do you have any evidence for the idea that dinosaurs (other than birds, of course) have lived at the same time as humans?

Surely there must have been some sort of evidence for them. Recently-cut stones with lizards on them are not exactly what we need here.

And the Glen Rose "mantracks" were debunked some time ago - by creationists. Dr. Harold Coffin and his people from Loma Linda U. convincingly showed that some were misinterpreted dino tracks, and others were fakes.

 

[Pearly Gator]

Ah, yes. There's a guy in Lima who, if you give him about a half an hour, can "find" a stone with your particular profession depicted on it.

However, they are all recently-cut. Fakes, in other words.

Do you have any evidence for the idea that dinosaurs (other than birds, of course) have lived at the same time as humans?

Surely there must have been some sort of evidence for them. Recently-cut stones with lizards on them are not exactly what we need here.

And the Glen Rose "mantracks" were debunked some time ago - by creationists. Dr. Harold Coffin and his people from Loma Linda U. convincingly showed that some were misinterpreted dino tracks, and others were fakes.

The evidence flies in the face of your evolutionist beliefs. Go ahead and call the evidence lies. It's still there for open minds to consider.

 

[Barbarian]

You'll need to provide more evidence than some scribblings. If they are depictions of real dinosaurs, then the fairies, unicorrns, wyverns, sphynxes, and all the rest must be real too.

As far as the Paluxy tracks, here's an exerpt from the creationist site, "Answers in Genesis", from their "Arguments we think creationists should not use."

"Paluxy tracks prove that humans and dinosaurs co-existed.’ Some prominent creationist promoters of these tracks have long since withdrawn their support. Some of the allegedly human tracks may be artefacts of erosion of dinosaur tracks obscuring the claw marks. There is a need for properly documented research on the tracks before we would use them to argue the coexistence of humans and dinosaurs."

 

[Pearly Gator]

Thanks for mentioning the earlier date for radio-carbon dating. I stand corrected.

You'll need to provide more evidence than some scribblings. If they are depictions of real dinosaurs, then the fairies, unicorrns, wyverns, sphynxes, and all the rest must be real too.

The problem I have with your statement is that the many cave drawings, carvings, pottery and ceramic figures that depict dinosaurs predate the discovery by archaeologists, of many types of the creatures. Brachiosaur and Iguanadon being two, circa the 1970's. That is evidence that the artists saw the creatures. I am unable to reconcile that evidence any other way.

As far as the Paluxy tracks, here's an exerpt from the creationist site, "Answers in Genesis", from their "Arguments we think creationists should not use."

"Paluxy tracks prove that humans and dinosaurs co-existed.’ Some prominent creationist promoters of these tracks have long since withdrawn their support. Some of the allegedly human tracks may be artefacts of erosion of dinosaur tracks obscuring the claw marks. There is a need for properly documented research on the tracks before we would use them to argue the coexistence of humans and dinosaurs."

It's not just limited to human foot prints, human hand prints have been discovered with dino tracks. These are not just found at Glen Rose, but are found around the globe.

http://omniology.com/ModernHumanFootprints.html
http://omniology.com/CretaceousHandPrint.html
http://omniology.com/CretaceousFootPrint.html
http://omniology.com/Empirical-ManTracks.html

Further evidence of humans, in the form of tools, is found throughout the geological column.

Respectfully,

(That living dinosaur) The Gator

 

[JakTak]

There is evidence to suggest that both creationism and evolution is true, and evidence to suggest each is false. And we all know that there is no defining statement or piece of evidence to prove without a doubt that one is right or wrong.

It is this way for a reason. The reason is that you have to decide which one you will believe, because that's all they are, beliefs. My belief is that creation is right and evolution is wrong, but as stated before, there is no defining way to sway one side into fact or fiction.

The fact remains that there is no defining PROOF for evolution. No scientist anywhere in the world at anytime has been able to prove it. The same goes for creation. All we have are these fossils, tracks, plants, carbon-dating, and other junk that scientists think they know about.

12,000 people each year graduate from 'home' classified universities. They are no different than other universities in the fact that you must be local or state approved to be teaching further education. Whether the difficulty rivals that of 'traditional' college is not in discussion. They are legal schools. The other fact is that 40% of 'traditional' colleges or uni's are not even good schools anyway, so a professor starts his own uni in his home, does that make it a 'diploma mill'?

Barbarian, your first picture appears to be a salamander. I can't say because I honestly don't KNOW, but that would be my guess. I used to catch them as a kid in a creek near my house. It doesn't prove anything. Oh, it has a tail like a fish and a body like a lizard, Whoopee Doo!! that proves evolution. Did you ever stop to think, they might have existed the same amount of time as other creatures? Or that a reptile adapted to living in the water so it grew a wider tail over a period of time? Yes that type of evolution exists, we see it all the time, but not fish turning into lizards. A salamander proves nothing.

I really don't know what the second one is, but how can it prove 'thing a' grew into 'thing b' when they are completely different species? There is no proof and there probably will never be any outstanding evidence to support the theory of evolution. All you people who are debating evolution need to take a serious look and realize that you believe in evolution simply because you want to. The evidence comes second to you. The same way most of us creationist believe simply because we have faith and feel it is right, then we try to put forth some evidence.

I've been in this debate for years, the same way many other people probably have. And I'm beginning to tire of reading books and articles and senseless posts by people who BELIEVE in evolution but can't provide any evidence. It's all a big cycle. Before me there were other people who debated this to death and neither could provide a clear answer as to which was true or false. It will go on until the last day, and there still will be no precise closure, no end to the discussion.

So my answer to you all. Will any of you step forward with proof or will you continue to post your 'I believe this so it must be true'? Because anything evolutionists bring to the table can be explained through creationism and vice versa. Whether you wish to believe it or not.

Sorry to interrupt the debate, adding my 2 cents.

///Edited\\\

I'd like to add that during the civil war, a unit of blue coats shot down a pterodactyl and had a picture made of it. There are actually 4 or 5 versions running around the net for the last few years but only one is real. It was photographed during the civil war and published in a book by Random House in 1946, before there were detailed image editing programs. In 1968, Random House stopped plans to republish the book after receiving a formal letter from the government. It is not known what the letter addressed but assumed it was this book, which contained black and white images of strange creatures, mutations, 'dinosaurs', and strange historical accounts from people.

I myself find it hard to believe since you can go out and get books like this now, but I did find it interesting. How can any of you say that we didn't exist with dino's simply because there is no 'outstanding proof' ... There is no 'outstanding proof' that Michael Jackson is black, we all know he is, but if you saw him for the first time today, you would think he was white. I'm not ragging on the guy, he sings good, what he does in his own time is none of my business. Like LBJ, good president, morally a bad man.

But those stones you said are 'recently cut'.... Get over it. You attempt to give evidence for evolution and you say 'show me the evidence for creation or young earth.' but when they do, you disregard it without serious thought. The stones are real, there are thousands of them, from all over the globe, made when man walked with dino's. Believe what you want tho, that's why we're here, to debate.

 

[Barbarian]

The Barbarian wrote:
You'll need to provide more evidence than some scribblings. If they are depictions of real dinosaurs, then the fairies, unicorrns, wyverns, sphynxes, and all the rest must be real too.

The problem I have with your statement is that the many cave drawings, carvings, pottery and ceramic figures that depict dinosaurs predate the discovery by archaeologists, of many types of the creatures.

The problem is, none of them are identifiable as dinosaurs. Long necked monsters are depicted in lots of stories, but it doesn't mean much. Huge carnivorous reptiles such as giant relatives of the komodo dragons lived in human times. But again, unless you want to argue all the other monsters that don't look vaguely like dinosaurs are real, then there's no point in arguing such a thing.

Barbarian observes:
As far as the Paluxy tracks, here's an exerpt from the creationist site, "Answers in Genesis", from their "Arguments we think creationists should not use."

"Paluxy tracks prove that humans and dinosaurs co-existed.’ Some prominent creationist promoters of these tracks have long since withdrawn their support. Some of the allegedly human tracks may be artefacts of erosion of dinosaur tracks obscuring the claw marks. There is a need for properly documented research on the tracks before we would use them to argue the coexistence of humans and dinosaurs."

It's not just limited to human foot prints, human hand prints have been discovered with dino tracks. These are not just found at Glen Rose, but are found around the globe.

When even honest creationists have pointed out the problems, there's no point in this one, either.

Further evidence of humans, in the form of tools, is found throughout the geological column.

Show me a documented human tool that came from undisturbed pre-KT deposits. Remember, it has to be documented, not someone's story.

 

[evanman]

Interesting that one of the carvings shows a man riding on a triceratops (this is unmistakeably so)!

See for yourself:

http://www.marshill.org/Triceratops%20B ... 0Stone.htm

 

[Barbarian]

Now all you have to do is demonstrate that they aren't the usual fakes we see coming from these areas.

These look suspiciously like the fraudulent stones obtained by Don Patton from an admitted forger of artifacts in Peru, and later presented by him as genuine.

http://www.geocities.com/athens/agora/3 ... ekly56.htm

 

[evanman]

An interesting article indeed, and one definately worth investigating. I shall reserve judgement on it though. The author, David Matthews, also needs to back up his arguments too with firsthand evidence, don't you think?

Unfortunately the link to his Home Page didn't work so I am unable to read about Mr matthews. Got any suggestions?