[_ Old Earth _] Evolutionists VS. Evolution.

[John]

Evolutionists VS. Evolution.

I shown this to the guys in my platoon this summer (i also brought with me, In the beginning by Dr. Walt Brown, Search for the truth by Bruce Malone and Dr. Kent Hovinds seminars on my laptop), I now have 54 out of 60 believing in creation. the other 6 are die hard Atheists, one guy even said and i quote " you have majority of the evidance in your court, but i will not fold to your god." - Pte Kodama. And "I don't care what the evidance says, i won't accept how you proclaim it happened" Pte Willis.

When will they stop for filling the prediction that says the scoffers we be willingly ignorant?

http://youtube.com/watch?v=0Fmh8PCmrlk

 

[BobRyan]

Evolutionists VS. Evolution.

I shown this to the guys in my platoon this summer (i also brought with me, In the beginning by Dr. Walt Brown, Search for the truth by Bruce Malone and Dr. Kent Hovinds seminars on my laptop), I now have 54 out of 60 believing in creation. the other 6 are die hard Atheists, one guy even said and i quote " you have majority of the evidance in your court, but i will not fold to your god." - Pte Kodama. And "I don't care what the evidance says, i won't accept how you proclaim it happened" Pte Willis.

When will they stop for filling the prediction that says the scoffers we be willingly ignorant?

http://youtube.com/watch?v=0Fmh8PCmrlk

What a great Video!!

Illustrates the truth of Patterson's argument on the point - of "anti-knowledge"

ANTI-KNOWLEDGE

Evolution AS FAITH

Colin Patterson (Senior paleontologist at the British Natural History Museum and author of the Museum’s general text on evolution)

A 1981 lecture presented at New York City's American Museum of Natural History

[quote:4b13d]
Colin PATTERSON:

"...I'm speaking on two subjects, evolutionism and creationism, and I believe it's true to say that I know nothing whatever about either...One of the reasons I started taking this anti-evolutionary view,well, let's call it non-evolutionary , was last year I had a sudden realization.

"For over twenty years I had thought that I was working on evolution in some way. One morning I woke up, and something had happened in the night, and it struck me that I had been working on this stuff for twenty years, and there was not one thing I knew about it. "That was quite a shock that one could be misled for so long...

It does seem that the level of knowledge about evolution is remarkably shallow. We know it ought not to be taught in high school, and perhaps that's all we know about it...

about eighteen months ago...I woke up and I realized that all my life I had been duped into taking evolutionism as revealed truth in some way."

Patterson - again quoting Gillespie accusing that those "'...holding creationist ideas could plead ignorance of the means and affirm only the fact,'" Patterson countered, "That seems to summarize the feeling I get in talking to evolutionists today. They plead ignorance of the means of transformation, but affirm only the fact: 'Yes it has...we know it has taken place.'"

"...Now I think that many people in this room would acknowledge that during the last few years, if you had thought about it at all, you've experienced a shift from evolution as knowledge to evolution as faith. I know that's true of me, and I think it's true of a good many of you in here...

"...Evolution not only conveys no knowledge, but seems somehow to convey anti-knowledge [/u], apparent knowledge which is actually harmful to systematics..."

[/quote:4b13d]

Bob

 

[VaultZero4Me]

You are serious that anyone fell for that video?

Hovind said he didn't have to pay taxes either btw. He quickly realized bare assertions really don't stand up to scrutiny when the IRS found out

 

[Dunzo]

Quote mining rocks.

...dumbarse.

 

[jmm9683]

Quote mining rocks.

...dumbarse.

Somebody should go through the forum and count how many threads that Bob has posted in that contain the same Patterson quote mines.

 

[Dunzo]

Quote mining rocks.

...dumbarse.

Somebody should go through the forum and count how many threads that Bob has posted in that contain the same Patterson quote mines.

I wasn't just referring to Bob

 

[BobRyan]

You are serious that anyone fell for that video?

Hovind said he didn't have to pay taxes either

I love it! The deny-all logic of darwinists is of the form "DO not believe what you SEE taking place on the video -- because Hovind made a tax error"... :-D

What if his lawn is not mowed today?? does that ALSO stop him from discovering Darwinist blunders and does it also lead to the conclusion that we should not believe what we SEE in that Video?

Oh well Patterson did call that aspect of Darwinism "anti-knowledge", so what "else" should we have expected??

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

When you read what Patterson wrote about Fossils NOT being able to identify ancestors OR descendants -- it fits perfectly with the points made by the Creationists on that video -- points that seem to leave the darwinists flummoxed in efforts to contradict themselves.

Sunderland
"I wrote to Dr. Patterson and asked him why he didn't put a single picture of an intermediate form or a connecting link in his book on evolution. Dr. Patterson now, who has seven million fossils in his museum, said the following when he answered my letter:

Sunderland – reports:

Before interviewing Dr Patterson, the author read his book, Evolution, which he had written for the British Museum of Natural History. In it he had solicited comments from readers about the book’s contents. One reader wrote a letter to Dr Patterson asking why he did not put a single photograph of a transitional fossil in his book.


On April 10, 1979, Patterson replied to the author (Sunderland) in a most candid letter as follows:

[quote:f925a]

“ I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them.
You suggest that an artist should be used to visualise such transformations, but where would he get the information from? I could not, honestly, provide it, and if I were to leave it to artistic license, would that not mislead the reader?

I wrote the text of my book four years ago. If I were to write it now, I think the book would be rather different. Gradualism is a concept I believe in, not just because of Darwin’s authority, but because my understanding of genetics seems to demand it. Yet Gould and the American Museum people are hard to contradict when they say there are no transitional fossils. As a palaeontologist myself, I am much occupied with the philosophical problems of identifying ancestral forms in the fossil record.

You say that I should at least show a photo of the fossil from which each type of organism was derived. I will lay it on the line- there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument. The reason is that statements about ancestry and descent are not applicable in the fossil record. Is Archaeopteryx the ancestor of all birds? Perhaps yes, perhaps no there is no way of answering the question. It is easy enough to make up stories of how one form gave rise to another, and to find reasons why the stages should be favoured by natural selection. But such stories are not part of science, for there is no way of putting them to the test. So, much as I should like to oblige you by jumping to the defence of gradualism, and fleshing out the transitions between the major types of animals and plants, I find myself a bit short of the intellectual justification necessary for the job “

[Ref: Patterson, personal communication. Documented in Darwin’s Enigma, Luther Sunderland, Master Books, El Cajon, CA, 1988, pp. 88-90.]

[/quote:f925a]


And yet when we take the time to actually SEE the video we SEE the befuddlement of the Darwinists on that video as they uwittingly blunder right into what Patterson calls the error of "stories easy enough to make up ABOUT HOW one thing came from another".

http://youtube.com/watch?v=0Fmh8PCmrlk

Bob

 

[VaultZero4Me]

You are serious that anyone fell for that video?

Hovind said he didn't have to pay taxes either

I love it! The deny-all logic of darwinists is of the form "DO not believe what you SEE taking place on the video -- because Hovind made a tax error"... :-D

What if his lawn is not mowed today?? does that ALSO stop him from discovering Darwinist blunders and does it also lead to the conclusion that we should not believe what we SEE in that Video?

Oh well Patterson did call that aspect of Darwinism "anti-knowledge", so what "else" should we have expected??

Bob

Hi Bob, I do not appreciate being quote mined, and then you adding something in quotes, as if to quote me, that I did not say. That is dishonest.

If you want to paraphrase my argument into something it is not, drop the quotes.

Lying to the IRS wasn't Hovind's only problem. He lied to his audience about his qualifications. His diploma came from a diploma mill. His thesis fails to be a real phd thesis (40 pages ftw!, or a "continuing process" ftw! : ).

Anyone fooled by Hovind either:

Wants to be fooled, in which case there is no point debating.

-or-

Lacks high-school level understanding of science, therefore needs to study some before understanding all of the flaws in his argument. Again, there would be no point in debating.

So, if you want to strawman me, drop the quotes. Highschool english should have taught you that quotes should include the exact words from the original text. Paraphrasing would require the text to be unquoted. Would you like for me to cite a grammar handbook on this issue?

 

[BobRyan]

There is no reference in the video provided here of "Hovind's degree" there is no mention in the video about "the IRS or taxes" there is no mention in that link to ANYTHING you complain about.

Maybe you need another topic thread to express your complaints.

So far we have you focused on "anything BUT" the topics in the video and the ones raised in the OP.

Was I "not supposed to notice"??

In fact - in what you have said so far it is not possible to know that you even CLICKED ON the video so as to have an actual informed comment on what we SEE when we watch it.

That would be "arguing from the void" of what you did not see -

In my response I claim that you are looking for any side issue that you can find other than dealing with the actual science objections we SEE Hovind bringing up and the actual self-contradictory arguments we SEE the evolutionists in the movie providing.

Again - you provide no response to that point either.

Bob

 

[VaultZero4Me]

There is no reference in the video provided here of "Hovind's degree" there is no mention in the video about "the IRS or taxes" there is no mention in that link to ANYTHING you complain about.

Maybe you need another topic thread to express your complaints.

So far we have you focused on "anything BUT" the topics in the video and the ones raised in the OP.

Was I "not supposed to notice"??

In fact - in what you have said so far it is not possible to know that you even CLICKED ON the video so as to have an actual informed comment on what we SEE when we watch it.

That would be "arguing from the void" of what you did not see -

In my response I claim that you are looking for any side issue that you can find other than dealing with the actual science objections we SEE Hovind bringing up and the actual self-contradictory arguments we SEE the evolutionists in the movie providing.

Again - you provide no response to that point either.

Bob

So, someone's qualifications mean nothing?

Indeed they do. In fact, all of that is relevant because it shows a pattern of dishonesty. Hovind is a court-proven liar, and gained a profit from his lies. In the end it came back around to bite him.

But, I guess you would like everyone to disregard how much of a liar he was and just watch the video.

Hey Bob, I have ocean front property for sale in Kansas. Any interest?

I did watch the video btw. Refer to my above post as to why I just can't be bothered to respond to it.

 

[BobRyan]

The points raised in the video "stand" and the ad hominem attempted against the one raising them - does not "change the problem" for darwinian evolutionism.

That seems to "surprise" darwinists -- not sure why.

Maybe it's that "anti-knowledge" thing that Patterson keesp talking about.

Bob

 

[Guest]

Evolutionists VS. Evolution.

I shown this to the guys in my platoon this summer (i also brought with me, In the beginning by Dr. Walt Brown, Search for the truth by Bruce Malone and Dr. Kent Hovinds seminars on my laptop), I now have 54 out of 60 believing in creation. the other 6 are die hard Atheists, one guy even said and i quote " you have majority of the evidance in your court, but i will not fold to your god." - Pte Kodama. And "I don't care what the evidance says, i won't accept how you proclaim it happened" Pte Willis.

When will they stop for filling the prediction that says the scoffers we be willingly ignorant?

http://youtube.com/watch?v=0Fmh8PCmrlk

The first thing I would point out is how obvious it is that this video was cropped to show certain sections of the argument without revealing the context leading up to them. Faulty journalism at the very best of times, more likely an outright lie.
Hmm, I remember there being something about 'bearing false witness' in the bible, maybe from the ten commandments? I can't exactly remember what it was though but from observing the behaviour of good, god-fearing creationists in today's society, perhaps it was "Thou shalt bear false witness", but that doesn't sound right, care to correct me?

Creationists seem to place an incredible amount of weight in all their arguments against evolution on what people have said, which is something that holds no weight whatsoever in the scientific community. You can lie when you're speaking. You can be misinterpreted when you're speaking. Numbers don't lie. Evidence doesn't lie. Those are what powers the scientific community, not what people have said.

Scientists are very weak against this type of attack since their knowledge is in their fields of expertise and not in the areas of debate and public speaking. Scientists also admit when they make mistakes, to which creationists then quote them admitting an error, take it out of all context and claim it as their own evidence.

Quotes are not evidence.

Also Kent Hovind is not a real doctor, he has an honorary PhD from some unacreddited diploma mill university for something to do with creationism. Him calling himself 'doctor' is an insult to anyone who's been down the laborious and time consuming road of attaining a real PhD.
In reality, science holds creationism in contempt. Our time is too valuable to be wasted trying to get blood out of a stone by enlightening you to the knowledge you've gone out of your way to ignore.

I can only say it's sad that the others in your platoon are so easily convinced but kudos to the 6 who have a shred of common-sense. It really shows how a politician or a good speaker (let's not invoke Godwin's law although if you want to, the example is certainly relevant) can turn the public opinion from rationality to something that's outright ludicrous and morally wrong by talking around a more intelligent but less aggressive opponent.

 

[Jayls5]

lol stopped after the first "contradiction" in this video.

Even in the (limited) context shown by the video, the guy wasn't saying that the fossils by themselves proved it.

Bunk. The end.

 

[VaultZero4Me]

Also Kent Hovind is not a real doctor, he has an honorary PhD from some unacreddited diploma mill university for something to do with creationism. Him calling himself 'doctor' is an insult to anyone who's been down the laborious and time consuming road of attaining a real PhD.
In reality, science holds creationism in contempt. Our time is too valuable to be wasted trying to get blood out of a stone by enlightening you to the knowledge you've gone out of your way to ignore.

Not just that, but what real person holding a doctorate even uses the title "Dr." as much as he does.

Does Stephen Hawkings sign his name Dr. Hawkings? Were his books title "A Brief History of Time" by Dr. Stephen Hawkings,

No. Just Stephen Hawkings. Hawkings woos his audience with content, not titles.

Dr. is most commonly reserved for medical doctors (and you'll notice that maybe they do it to woo you into thinking they know what they are doing ).

Dr. Hovind as he likes to call himself, did that as another part of his smoke and mirrors act to woo the audience into believe he knew what he was talking about.

Wonder if he asks the warden to address him as Dr. Inmate 5638

 

[Guest]

Wonder if he asks the warden to address him as Dr. Inmate 5638

I laughed for a good few seconds there. You win five internets.

 

[lordkalvan]

The question is, should we rate Bruce Malone and Kent Hovind's opinions equally with those of, say, fundamentalist Christian Dr Richard G Colling, reported on http://exchristian.net/exchristian/2005/05/christian-evolution-resource-list.php as arguing:

"It pains me to suggest that my religious brothers are telling falsehoods" when they say evolutionary theory is "in crisis" and claim that there is widespread skepticism about it among scientists. "Such statements are blatantly untrue," he argues. "Evolution has stood the test of time and considerable scrutiny... What the designer designed is the random-design process," or Darwinian evolution, Colling says. "God devised these natural laws, and uses evolution to accomplish his goals."

or Dr Francis Collins on the same website:

"I am unaware of any irreconcilable conflict between scientific knowledge about evolution and the idea of a creator God; why couldn't God have used the mechanism of evolution to create?'"

 

[BobRyan]

lol stopped after the first "contradiction" in this video.

Too funny for you??

IT is amazing how often the darwinists contradict themselves and then censor "themselves" from seeing "the data".

And yet how willing they are to tell us about it.

Oh well -- "it's all good"

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

It is helpful to note that the reason the Darwinists were so happy to contradict themselves is in fact central to Patterson's statement below about "Stories easy enough to make up but they are not science" and the "limits" of science when it comes to wild claims about fossils by Darwinists.


When you read what Patterson wrote about Fossils NOT being able to identify ancestors OR descendants -- it fits perfectly with the points made by the Creationists on that video -- points that seem to leave the darwinists flummoxed in efforts to contradict themselves.

Sunderland
"I wrote to Dr. Patterson and asked him why he didn't put a single picture of an intermediate form or a connecting link in his book on evolution. Dr. Patterson now, who has seven million fossils in his museum, said the following when he answered my letter:

Sunderland – reports:

Before interviewing Dr Patterson, the author read his book, Evolution, which he had written for the British Museum of Natural History. In it he had solicited comments from readers about the book’s contents. One reader wrote a letter to Dr Patterson asking why he did not put a single photograph of a transitional fossil in his book.


On April 10, 1979, Patterson replied to the author (Sunderland) in a most candid letter as follows:

[quote:a69e1]

“ I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them.
You suggest that an artist should be used to visualise such transformations, but where would he get the information from? I could not, honestly, provide it, and if I were to leave it to artistic license, would that not mislead the reader?

I wrote the text of my book four years ago. If I were to write it now, I think the book would be rather different. Gradualism is a concept I believe in, not just because of Darwin’s authority, but because my understanding of genetics seems to demand it. Yet Gould and the American Museum people are hard to contradict when they say there are no transitional fossils. As a palaeontologist myself, I am much occupied with the philosophical problems of identifying ancestral forms in the fossil record.

You say that I should at least show a photo of the fossil from which each type of organism was derived. I will lay it on the line- there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument. The reason is that statements about ancestry and descent are not applicable in the fossil record. Is Archaeopteryx the ancestor of all birds? Perhaps yes, perhaps no there is no way of answering the question. It is easy enough to make up stories of how one form gave rise to another, and to find reasons why the stages should be favoured by natural selection. But such stories are not part of science, for there is no way of putting them to the test. So, much as I should like to oblige you by jumping to the defence of gradualism, and fleshing out the transitions between the major types of animals and plants, I find myself a bit short of the intellectual justification necessary for the job “

[Ref: Patterson, personal communication. Documented in Darwin’s Enigma, Luther Sunderland, Master Books, El Cajon, CA, 1988, pp. 88-90.]

[/quote:a69e1]


And yet when we take the time to actually SEE the video we SEE the befuddlement of the Darwinists on that video as they uwittingly blunder right into what Patterson calls the error of "stories easy enough to make up ABOUT HOW one thing came from another".

http://youtube.com/watch?v=0Fmh8PCmrlk

Bob

 

[Jayls5]

lol stopped after the first "contradiction" in this video.

Too funny for you??

IT is amazing how often the darwinists contradict themselves and then censor "themselves" from seeing "the data".

And yet how willing they are to tell us about it.

Oh well -- "it's all good"

Bob

Yeah, I think it's funny to me.

I think it's funny that you didn't see the overt misleading this video has done. In order for you to not see the misleading, you must have ZERO comprehension of argument what-so-ever. The whole point that a lot of those guys were saying is that other scientific proof is even stronger than the fossil record. That's why they were saying "forget fossils" and "fossils mean nothing." Obviously it doesn't LITERALLY mean that they're nothing in terms of support or proof. That's why he said fossils are consistent with evolution but not "proof" (as in sole proof). The video tries to make the person appear to lie (or equivocate) while completely ignoring the context of how he was using "proof."

Honestly, I feel dumber for even giving this time for discussion, it was that poorly done.