[_ Old Earth _] How Can All Those Scientists Be Wrong?

[John]

The idea that evolution may be false is a difficult idea for many people to accept, particularly when a lot of well-educated, smart people, and well-respected organizations say it is true. How can it be that so many people are so wrong?

* Most people are taught in school, and from television shows and museums, that evolution explains our universe and all living things, and that evolution is a proven fact. They have not been told about the problems with the theory of evolution, nor have they been given the opportunity to study the concept of "special creation" as a legitimate alternative.
* Much of the confusion around the concept of "evolution" is that this word is commonly used to describe two very different things:
1. Micro-evolution refers to the fact that living things have a built-in variability which allows them to adapt to small changes in the environment. When scientists say that evolution is a proven fact, they mean that micro-evolution is a proven fact. No creation scientist disputes this. Indeed, this ability to adapt would be expected as a part of "good design". Textbook examples of "evolution in action" almost always describe this type of small change, such as the "peppered moth" story, or the development of resistance to pesticides. What is happening in these cases is not the creation of something new, but merely the emphasis of an already existing trait.
2. Macro-evolution refers to the type of change which has created people from hydrogen gas. Evolutionists say that large scale change is possible because we have seen small scale change in action. However, the flaw in this reasoning is that living systems have limits beyond which no further change can take place.
* Some other considerations include:
o Much of day to day scientific activity ("practical science") does not directly depend upon evolutionary assumptions, and so progress is made.
o Scientific fields of study have become very narrow. A scientist can believe that the evidence for evolution is found in "some other field", even if it is not obviously seen in his own.
o Since scientists know that other scientists believe in evolution, they believe it also, even though they may not know much about the details themselves.
o Scientists want to have an answer for everything, and so the "best" theory is the accepted theory, regardless of its absolute merits.
o Non-naturalistic ideas (like special creation) are regarded as outside the scope of scientific study. Can we equate "what is true" only with "what can be seen and measured"? Is the physical dimension "all there is"? Many scientists have been taught to believe that religious and scientific beliefs are separate things which should be kept separate. However, many of the well-known scientists of the past (such as Louis Pasteur, Issac Newton, and Michael Faraday, among many others) operated with their religious and scientific ideas working together.

Source http://emporium.turnpike.net/C/cs/wrong.htm

 

[Relic]

.

click


.

 

[John]

Neat.

 

[jwu]

2. Macro-evolution refers to the type of change which has created people from hydrogen gas. Evolutionists say that large scale change is possible because we have seen small scale change in action. However, the flaw in this reasoning is that living systems have limits beyond which no further change can take place.

Actually, hydrogen to people includes many things that are beyond the scope of the theory of evolution. The ToE only deals with the change of lifeforms, not with how elements formed, how planets formed, how the first life came to be.

* Some other considerations include:
o Much of day to day scientific activity ("practical science") does not directly depend upon evolutionary assumptions, and so progress is made.

Actually the ToE is exceptionally successful at making specific predictions, and it has various applications. The development of medicine is just one field.

o Scientific fields of study have become very narrow. A scientist can believe that the evidence for evolution is found in "some other field", even if it is not obviously seen in his own.

He can check it out at any time though, the evidence is open for anyone to read up on.

o Since scientists know that other scientists believe in evolution, they believe it also, even though they may not know much about the details themselves.

For this reason only those scientists who work in relevant fields are used for statistics about the acceptance of a scientific theory.

o Scientists want to have an answer for everything, and so the "best" theory is the accepted theory, regardless of its absolute merits.

True - if the ToE were falsified today, it'd still be the best explanation for nearly all observations of the field of biology until a better theory comes along. Hence it would be continued to be used provisionally.

o Non-naturalistic ideas (like special creation) are regarded as outside the scope of scientific study. Can we equate "what is true" only with "what can be seen and measured"? Is the physical dimension "all there is"? Many scientists have been taught to believe that religious and scientific beliefs are separate things which should be kept separate. However, many of the well-known scientists of the past (such as Louis Pasteur, Issac Newton, and Michael Faraday, among many others) operated with their religious and scientific ideas working together.

Keep in mind though, overturning the theory of evolution is the dream of nearly every biologist. It'd make one rich and famous, and elevate the one who manages to do this into the ranks of Galileo or Einstein. There is no reason why anyone would keep evidence against the ToE hidden, if it can stand up to scrutiny.

 

[John]

The ToE only deals with the change of lifeforms, not with how elements formed, how planets formed, how the first life came to be.

Right, but without those other factors, evolution can't happen, so it goes hand in hand with evolution.

Actually the ToE is exceptionally successful at making specific predictions, and it has various applications. The development of medicine is just one field.

Thats just smart people experimenting using different methods, it does not justify evolution.

For this reason only those scientists who work in relevant fields are used for statistics about the acceptance of a scientific theory.

many of these stats are from many different scientists every ware and in anything

True - if the ToE were falsified today, it'd still be the best explanation for nearly all observations of the field of biology until a better theory comes along. Hence it would be continued to be used provisionally.

Hence the creation theory, the truth of the matter is that people don't want "religion" to govern their perfect little lives be it true or not.

Keep in mind though, overturning the theory of evolution is the dream of nearly every biologist. It'd make one rich and famous, and elevate the one who manages to do this into the ranks of Galileo or Einstein. There is no reason why anyone would keep evidence against the ToE hidden, if it can stand up to scrutiny.

O yes there is reason, people have been covering up creation evidence and either destroying it or bending it into evolution evidence for years, the reason is simply that people that hate or otherwise against god don't want there theory to be torn down and God be right.
another method is called fire/hire, if one in the sciences finds evidence that might support creation he gets fired, same goes for teachers. scientists get grants and funding to support evolution theory, creation scientists get squat. if the humanism way is supported and God hated of course any contradicting evidence would be removed or ignored.

 

[jwu]

Right, but without those other factors, evolution can't happen, so it goes hand in hand with evolution.

Why not? Let's say that God created the universe, the earth and the first lifeform. Why couldn't God leave it for evolution to take over from there on?

Thats just smart people experimenting using different methods, it does not justify evolution.

It absolutely does! The ToE does make very specific predictions about which genetic features should be observed in various species. These predictions are very unlikely to be correct by pure chance if evolution were wrong, but they consistently come up to be correct.

many of these stats are from many different scientists every ware and in anything

Please elaborate, preferably with an actual example of such a statistic.

Hence the creation theory, the truth of the matter is that people don't want "religion" to govern their perfect little lives be it true or not.

I'm not sure if i understand you correctly there...if the ToE were falsified, it'd get a big "deprecated" stamp onto it - just like Newtonian mechanics. Yet people seem not to have any problems with Newtonian mechanics being taught at school.

O yes there is reason, people have been covering up creation evidence and either destroying it or bending it into evolution evidence for years, the reason is simply that people that hate or otherwise against god don't want there theory to be torn down and God be right.

Many scientists are Christians though - why would they do this? Do you propose some conspiracy there?

another method is called fire/hire, if one in the sciences finds evidence that might support creation he gets fired, same goes for teachers.

Examples, please.

scientists get grants and funding to support evolution theory, creation scientists get squat.

Because creationism doesn't qualify as science in first instance, and because unlike creationism, evolution does produce practical results.

Which practical applications has creation science produced? (Note: I'm not talking about scientists who happen to be creationists, but actual creation science)

if the humanism way is supported and God hated of course any contradicting evidence would be removed or ignored.

And no such evidence ever fell into the hands of a Christian scientist?
Also note that evidence against the ToE is not evidence for creationism by default, as there is no dichotomy between these two. There is no reason to cover up any such evidence even if it were as you describe.

 

[John]

Why not? Let's say that God created the universe, the earth and the first lifeform. Why couldn't God leave it for evolution to take over from there on?

Cuas ehe clearly stats, that he made all in 6 days, plus a god that needs to use evolution is wastefull and retarded, tell me..does God not know what it is he wants, and don't be saying stuff like, evolution is a wonderful thing, god used it so that his creation could adapt the his creation and flourish or anything along those lines, for that is not the God of the Bible.

It absolutely does! The ToE does make very specific predictions about which genetic features should be observed in various species. These predictions are very unlikely to be correct by pure chance if evolution were wrong, but they consistently come up to be correct.

predictions are nice but again you making predictions based on what you can see, Micro evolution is all there is, and i agree with that. but micro does not = macro not even in a google of years.
and it nice the science can use that metohd to help us in everyday life, but that does not prove theToE

(ToE those things stink, phew )

Please elaborate, preferably with an actual example of such a statistic

.

i have no soucre that was just what i was told.

I'm not sure if i understand you correctly there...if the ToE were falsified, it'd get a big "deprecated" stamp onto it - just like Newtonian mechanics. Yet people seem not to have any problems with Newtonian mechanics being taught at school.

The ToE can't be falisyed just like creation and the whole God scene, because the ToE is a closely garded tax paid religion.

Many scientists are Christians though - why would they do this? Do you propose some conspiracy there?

because christian or not.. they loose there job or reputaion by going against evolution, look at dr. Hovind, walt brown they are creationists and people hate them for it, don't shoot the messenger man.

Examples, please.

everyware you look, google somthing like "teacher fired for teaching creation" we just had a teacher here get fired for just suggesting there was an alternative to evolution.

Because creationism doesn't qualify as science in first instance, and because unlike creationism, evolution does produce practical results.

the creation account needs to be able to proove there theorys, but because its under "religion'
and therefore out of scince (stupid if you ask me, science should delight i finding new evidence on any subject) they don't get funding and shunned when supposed evidance for the Bible is thought to be found.

And no such evidence ever fell into the hands of a Christian scientist?
Also note that evidence against the ToE is not evidence for creationism by default, as there is no dichotomy between these two. There is no reason to cover up any such evidence even if it were as you describe

people need to defend their faith, hilter tryed to do it, he was 100% worng about it was he not ? my point is that if you belive it you defend it, even if its 100% wrong, and people will do anything they can in somecases, even removing evidance and killing, history has prooved this.

 

[Drew]

people need to defend their faith, hilter tryed to do it, he was 100% worng about it was he not ? my point is that if you belive it you defend it, even if its 100% wrong, and people will do anything they can in somecases, even removing evidance and killing, history has prooved this.

There is no doubt that human beings in general, including scientists, have some difficulty in accepting that they have been mistaken. I think there is great variability from person to person in this respect.

However, I think that the scientific method is designed to minimize such human biases. The very nature of the enterprise is such that no one's "personal authority" really carries any weight. Claims have to be subject to falsification with objective evidence. Now I happen to believe that the nature of our world is such that there are some items of knowledge that are beyond the reach of the scientific method. I will not elaborate in this post.

However, for claims that can be supported and falsfied through objective evidence, the scientific method is a robust self-correcting system. All collective enterprises undertaken by human beings will be imperfect. But I am highly skeptical of any claims that the scientific community could persist in holding models of the world that are contradicted by the evidence. We know from the history of science that models are replaced and/ or modified when falsifying evidence is found. There is, of course, a certain amount of inertia in this respect, caused perhaps in part by the universal human attribute of not wanting to change one's view. But in the end, the methodology wins out and we slowly claw our collective way to the truth.

 

[jwu]

Cuas ehe clearly stats, that he made all in 6 days, plus a god that needs to use evolution is wastefull and retarded, tell me..does God not know what it is he wants,

Why would God need six days? He could have done it in a second! What does time even mean to God?

and don't be saying stuff like, evolution is a wonderful thing, god used it so that his creation could adapt the his creation and flourish or anything along those lines, for that is not the God of the Bible.

Well, even if the noachian flood had happened, you'd need evolution on steroids to account for the current diversity of species.

predictions are nice but again you making predictions based on what you can see, Micro evolution is all there is, and i agree with that. but micro does not = macro not even in a google of years.
and it nice the science can use that metohd to help us in everyday life, but that does not prove theToE

Macroevolutionary predictions such as those about the distribution of ERV sequences consistently are found to be accurate as well though. If you have a different explanation for these sequences, then please let me know.

The ToE can't be falisyed just like creation and the whole God scene, because the ToE is a closely garded tax paid religion.

A single in situ cambrian bunny fossil would blow the ToE out of the water.

because christian or not.. they loose there job or reputaion by going against evolution, look at dr. Hovind, walt brown they are creationists and people hate them for it, don't shoot the messenger man.

Hovind and Brown hold no reputation whatsoever because of their outlandish claims, not because they are creationists. I have given you calculations of a geologist which show that Brown's model is untenable. And Hovind isn't even a real doctor. He bought his degree at a diploma mill.

everyware you look, google somthing like "teacher fired for teaching creation" we just had a teacher here get fired for just suggesting there was an alternative to evolution.

You made the claim, so it is your obligation to prodive evidence.
We have to make a distinction here though. Teachers are bound to separation of church and state; scientists are not. I'd like to see examples for both teachers and scientists, so we can discuss both cases.

the creation account needs to be able to proove there theorys, but because its under "religion'
and therefore out of scince (stupid if you ask me, science should delight i finding new evidence on any subject) they don't get funding and shunned when supposed evidance for the Bible is thought to be found.

Evidence for the Bible is perfectly valid in the field of archaeology.
Please cite an actual case where evidence was discounted just because it'd support the Bible.

people need to defend their faith, hilter tryed to do it, he was 100% worng about it was he not ? my point is that if you belive it you defend it, even if its 100% wrong, and people will do anything they can in somecases, even removing evidance and killing, history has prooved this.

Hitler wasn't a scientist.
Actually, science works very differently from what you characterize it as. While no-one likes to have one's pet theory or hypothesis falsified, it is perfectly normal for people who publish in scientific papers to include a "potential falsification" section in their publication, in which they explain what find could falsify their ideas.
You can find a nice example of this right on an evolution evidence page:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html

Of course, there have been a few "black sheep", but these are rare and don't get tolerated by the scientific community.

 

[Jayls5]

I looked up these two individuals that you said were 'persecuted' by the scientific community. One of them I couldn't find, but I read the other:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kent_Hovind

The guy is a fraud and has just about no scientific background. He deserved every bit of criticism he received. You'll have to find some better examples than that, seriously.

 

[John]

I looked up these two individuals that you said were 'persecuted' by the scientific community. One of them I couldn't find, but I read the other:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kent_Hovind

The guy is a fraud and has just about no scientific background. He deserved every bit of criticism he received. You'll have to find some better examples than that, seriously.

So what if the guy faltered on some points, a few wrong answers is not enough to disclaim an entire mans life work. and he is right on many things he talks about, once more i have to say..."don't shoot the messenger"

http://www.theconservativevoice.com/article/22457.html

 

[John]

Why would God need six days? He could have done it in a second! What does time even mean to God?

time means nothing, 6 days is symbolic.

Well, even if the noachian flood had happened, you'd need evolution on steroids to account for the current diversity of species.

4000+/- years is ample time for diversities with in kinds. prove me wrong.

Macro evolutionary predictions such as those about the distribution of ERV sequences consistently are found to be accurate as well though. If you have a different explanation for these sequences, then please let me know.

if i take the word Doug and by changing one letter at a time over time i can get the word Fool, we have Doug's and certainly fools in the present but the in between has never been observed, its all guesswork based on assumptions.

A single in situ cambrian bunny fossil would blow the ToE out of the water.

whats that ?

Hovind and Brown hold no reputation whatsoever because of their outlandish claims, not because they are creationists. I have given you calculations of a geologist which show that Brown's model is untenable. And Hovind isn't even a real doctor. He bought his degree at a diploma mill.

outlandish claims, hello you believe we came form a rock.

Evidence for the Bible is perfectly valid in the field of archaeology.
Please cite an actual case where evidence was discounted just because it'd support the Bible.

if their is evidence that we can clearly see today, supporting the bible, not just in history, but in predictions (the bible has never been off on those amazing for a book written by liars, thieves and murderers ) tell me if the Bible is so right on with history and such , why can't it be right on on everything ?

Hitler wasn't a scientist.

i said "people". you don't need a degree in anything to support yourself, i have nothing in any field i am citing mostly what other people said. science has been wrong many times, whats to say its not wrong now ? or great hoax like the gill slits.

 

[jwu]

4000+/- years is ample time for diversities with in kinds. prove me wrong.

Not necessary - my point is that a literal interpretation of Genesis requires more evolution than the ToE itself actually proposes.

if i take the word Doug and by changing one letter at a time over time i can get the word Fool, we have Doug's and certainly fools in the present but the in between has never been observed, its all guesswork based on assumptions.

I take it that you're looking for transitional fossils (intermediate forms)?

Just some, i can get you a longer list if you're interested:
Cladoselache
Tristychius
Ctenacanthus
Paleospinax
Spathobatis
Protospinax
Acanthodians
Canobiu
Aeduella
Parasemionotus
Oreochima
Leptolepis
Dendrerpeton acadianum
Archegosaurus decheni
Eryops megacephalus
Trematops
Amphibamus lyelli
Doleserpeton annectens
Triadobatrachus
Vieraella
Karaurus
Tiktaalik Rosae
Archaeopteryx

[quote:ef93c]
A single in situ cambrian bunny fossil would blow the ToE out of the water.

whats that ?
[/quote:ef93c]The ToE makes very specific predictions about the strata in which certain fossils should be found. E.g. according to the ToE, there is no chance that we'd ever find mammal fossils in intact cambrian strata, as the cambrium predates the first mammals my hundreds of millions of years.
If a mammal fossil were found in undisturbed cambrian strata, then the ToE would be in serious trouble.

outlandish claims, hello you believe we came form a rock.

Actually i don't...but even if i did, would it really sound so bad when you consider Genesis 2:7?
"And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul."

However, the problem with Hovind is that he lacks even a basic understanding of science. I've already given the example about conservation of angular momentum. Anyone who has a bit of real life experience or taken physics 101 can see right through his argument.

if their is evidence that we can clearly see today, supporting the bible, not just in history, but in predictions (the bible has never been off on those amazing for a book written by liars, thieves and murderers ) tell me if the Bible is so right on with history and such , why can't it be right on on everything ?

If a literal interpretation of the Bible were not completely right, how would we find this out? By discovering evidence against it, right?
Exactly that happened in regards to a literal reading of Genesis.

i said "people". you don't need a degree in anything to support yourself, i have nothing in any field i am citing mostly what other people said. science has been wrong many times, whats to say its not wrong now ? or great hoax like the gill slits.

Actually that hoax was uncovered by...*drumroll*...scientists.

That's the good thing about science - it corrects its errors and changes when new evidence is found. That's a good thing, not a bad one.

 

[Jayls5]

I looked up these two individuals that you said were 'persecuted' by the scientific community. One of them I couldn't find, but I read the other:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kent_Hovind

The guy is a fraud and has just about no scientific background. He deserved every bit of criticism he received. You'll have to find some better examples than that, seriously.

So what if the guy faltered on some points, a few wrong answers is not enough to disclaim an entire mans life work. and he is right on many things he talks about, once more i have to say..."don't shoot the messenger"

http://www.theconservativevoice.com/article/22457.html

The guy is insane, not even worthy of discussing here. The wiki link shows all of the crazy things he has said. He is not a scientist, so why should anyone be surprised that scientists gave him no respect when he tried to make claims about science? His own "challenge" where he offered money for proof of evolution, he presupposed things that evolution doesn't even claim.

Hovind has made controversial remarks regarding conspiracies, science, creation, equal rights, religion and government over the years. Hovind considers the King James Version of the Bible to be the inerrant word of God that must be taken literally. Because of this, he believes all findings of science will eventually be found to agree with Scripture  which he says is a priori known to be true[citation needed]. He says that evolutionists also have a priori assumptions, namely that God does not exist (or at least not one that performed special Creation), thereby distorting their own application of science.[62][63][64] Hovind maintains that biology textbooks are lying and that he considers evolution to be a religion.[65] He has said, "I'm not trying to get evolution out of the textbooks, nor am I trying to get creationism into the textbooks. What I'm trying to do is get the lies out of the textbooks."[66]

Hovind has several conspiracy theories about the U.S. government. He believes that Laetrile actually works as a "cancer cure" and teaches that the US government is conspiring to suppress a cure for cancer.[22] On his radio program he has said that the U.S. government was behind the 9/11 attacks and that a "lot of folks were told not to come to work."[67][reliable source needed] He also believes the Oklahoma City bombing was carried out by the government. "Did you know the Federal Government blew up their own building to blame it on the militias and to get rid of some people that weren't cooperating with the system?"[68] He also alleges that "UFOs are apparitions of Satan" and that the US government possesses UFOs.[68] Additionally, Hovind believes that the Federal Reserve, the Council on Foreign Relations, the United Nations, and various other groups are actively planning to create a one world government and that the 1993 World Trade Center attack was staged by the US Government in order to pass "anti-terrorism" legislation that restricts civil liberties. He says, "I love my country, but fear my government. And you should too."[69]

As part of his "one world government" conspiracy theory[citation needed], Hovind also believes that HIV, West Nile Fever, Gulf war syndrome, chronic fatigue syndrome, multiple sclerosis, Wegener's disease, Parkinson's disease, Crohn's colitis, Type I diabetes, and collagen-vascular diseases such as rheumatoid arthritis and Alzheimer's were all engineered by "the money masters and governments of the world" for the purpose of global economic domination.[70]

Hovind disregards all fossil evidence, saying that "no fossils can count as evidence for evolution," because "all we know about that animal is that it died," and we do not know that it "had any kids, much less different kids."[71][verification needed].

During a debate with Farrell Till, Hovind made the following statement about Donald Johanson: "[He] found the leg bones of Lucy a mile and a half away from the head bones. The leg bones were 200 feet deeper in a deeper layer of strata. I would like to know how fast the train was going that hit that chimpanzee."[72] According to Donald Johanson, this is false, and although Hovind has been informed of this, he continues to make the statement.[73]

 

[John]

Cladoselache - variant of shark
Tristychius - extinct fish
Ctenacanthus - variant of shark
Paleospinax - extinct shark variant
Spathobatis - is identified as a type of ray
Amphibamus lyelli - extinct
Doleserpeton - extinct
Triadobatrachus - frog
Vieraella - frog
Karaurus - salamander variant
Archaeopteryx - pearching bird, this find is the most worthless prove for evolution

i got bored and did not finish, it does not matter how long the list is, these are not half way forms of animals.
the bible says that if they can only bring forth after their own kind, the day i see a dorse (dog-horse) i will drop every belief i had in God and go to evolution.
some of those names you gave me were quite obvious frog variants and i would bet everything i own that they could mate with other frog variants . did you know that a pug and a wolf could mate ? ( by them selves i highly doubt it, but through artificial insemination ) they are classified as "different species" well whatever they are still the same "kind" of animal.

question if a half way existed, what would it mate with ? the same other half way animal ? so now it needs a male and female to be around at the exact same time, now we have a problem.

Here are some half way animals.

apes half way human 98% simluar, so it must be true)
cats half way rabbit ( because they both have teeth and eyes)
dogs half way wolves ( opps my bad they can bring forth but shhh don't tell anyone)
frogs quite obviously half turtles, they just need to evolve a shell, its coming people)
cows half whale, http://luna.pos.to/whale/gen_art_dna.html
bear half wolverine (they are both furry)
cockroach hmm these are tricky, they can be resistance to pesticides, and soon resistant to sledge hammer over millions of years they could turn into super roaches and take over earth - those DAMN DIRTY ROACHES ARRGGG !!!

my point is its fun to make false assumptions, evolutionists have been doing it for years.

watch out for they day when humans become Gods as the snake (satan) in the garden said, it will just take 1200 million years.

 

[John]

Hovind has made controversial remarks regarding conspiracies, science, creation, equal rights, religion and government over the years. Hovind considers the King James Version of the Bible to be the inerrant word of God that must be taken literally. Because of this, he believes all findings of science will eventually be found to agree with Scripture  which he says is a priori known to be true[citation needed]. He says that evolutionists also have a priori assumptions, namely that God does not exist (or at least not one that performed special Creation), thereby distorting their own application of science.[62][63][64] Hovind maintains that biology textbooks are lying and that he considers evolution to be a religion.[65] He has said, "I'm not trying to get evolution out of the textbooks, nor am I trying to get creationism into the textbooks. What I'm trying to do is get the lies out of the textbooks."[66]

i see nothing wrong here

Hovind has several conspiracy theories about the U.S. government. He believes that Laetrile actually works as a "cancer cure" and teaches that the US government is conspiring to suppress a cure for cancer.[22] On his radio program he has said that the U.S. government was behind the 9/11 attacks and that a "lot of folks were told not to come to work."[67][reliable source needed] He also believes the Oklahoma City bombing was carried out by the government. "Did you know the Federal Government blew up their own building to blame it on the militias and to get rid of some people that weren't cooperating with the system?"[68] He also alleges that "UFOs are apparitions of Satan" and that the US government possesses UFOs.[68] Additionally, Hovind believes that the Federal Reserve, the Council on Foreign Relations, the United Nations, and various other groups are actively planning to create a one world government and that the 1993 World Trade Center attack was staged by the US Government in order to pass "anti-terrorism" legislation that restricts civil liberties. He says, "I love my country, but fear my government. And you should too."[69

ooo he does not trust the government, this proves he is a mad man.

As part of his "one world government" conspiracy theory[citation needed], Hovind also believes that HIV, West Nile Fever, Gulf war syndrome, chronic fatigue syndrome, multiple sclerosis, Wegener's disease, Parkinson's disease, Crohn's colitis, Type I diabetes, and collagen-vascular diseases such as rheumatoid arthritis and Alzheimer's were all engineered by "the money masters and governments of the world" for the purpose of global economic domination.[70]

The bible predicted this. see chuck missler

Hovind disregards all fossil evidence, saying that "no fossils can count as evidence for evolution," because "all we know about that animal is that it died," and we do not know that it "had any kids, much less different kids."[71][verification needed].

100% right, so far you got nothing

During a debate with Farrell Till, Hovind made the following statement about Donald Johanson: "[He] found the leg bones of Lucy a mile and a half away from the head bones. The leg bones were 200 feet deeper in a deeper layer of strata. I would like to know how fast the train was going that hit that chimpanzee."[72] According to Donald Johanson, this is false, and although Hovind has been informed of this, he continues to make the statement.[73]

[/quote][/quote]

Hmm, still not enough to de-bunk a mans life story.

i looked under the cap for you ----"Sorry, Try Again"

 

[John]

Not necessary - my point is that a literal interpretation of Genesis requires more evolution than the ToE itself actually proposes.

example please

The ToE makes very specific predictions about the strata in which certain fossils should be found. E.g. according to the ToE, there is no chance that we'd ever find mammal fossils in intact cambrian strata, as the cambrium predates the first mammals my hundreds of millions of years.
If a mammal fossil were found in undisturbed cambrian strata, then the ToE would be in serious trouble.

i will paint the scene for you. all the animals were haveing just a normal day when suddleytly it started raining something it never did before, and the waters begain to rise. "RUN FOR YOUR LIFE" said larry the t -rex, so larry and other ran as fast as they could trying to escape, but some of the animals were way to slow to out run the raging waters and drowned first, faster ones ran to high ground, were they eventually drowned, many slow fish got caught in the whirling rock particles and sunk and got buried, with others, birds were last , and humans being smarter then dumb animals were the very last .
noah told this story to his sons and daughters, Noah "cool story eh" and its funny after we lived thought this incredible event down the road only 4000 years the world will probably believe it never happened" , but i bet our glorious god will leave something for them.( is the last days there will be scoffers) "no uncle noah, i don't think people could be that dumb." Noah" o, you will be surprised"

The End.. or is it mwuhahaha

*cough* hence the geo column as we see it.

Actually i don't...but even if i did, would it really sound so bad when you consider Genesis 2:7?
"And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul."

actually you do.

the earth form and it rained on the "rocks" then magically turned in to soup of complex chemicals, witch the first life magically spawned, and it slowly began the process of *drum roll please* (i am am drummer ) EVOLUTION, YAY !!!

so lets put the 2 on a scale, god vs magical impossibilities. both require faith, but god offers more then the other choice, so hey why not just believe him and well well, i get eternal life, saweeeet!

However, the problem with Hovind is that he lacks even a basic understanding of science. I've already given the example about conservation of angular momentum. Anyone who has a bit of real life experience or taken physics 101 can see right through his argument.

scale please. hovind vs evolution , false statements vs many much more false statements, one based on magic god other on magic nothing, see above.. give me life.

If a literal interpretation of the Bible were not completely right, how would we find this out? By discovering evidence against it, right?
Exactly that happened in regards to a literal reading of Genesis.

because you when evidence hunting with an assumption that genesis was wrong, it seems that every evidence hunter finds evidence that always supports what his assumption was, like said before one hunter is more appreciated by the mainstream

That's the good thing about science - it corrects its errors and changes when new evidence is found. That's a good thing, not a bad one.

the bible never once had to be corrected, its just been twisted to support want people want i.e Jehovah's, witness, catholics, islam etc etc they just take the Christian bible and twist it to their liking.

i like science and your right that its good thing in many many cases, but its been wrong before and its wrong now.


Sorry if i came off as a dick.. i am all hyped up on caffeine hee hee

 

[jwu]

Not necessary - my point is that a literal interpretation of Genesis requires more evolution than the ToE itself actually proposes.

example please

How many species could Noah possibly get into the ark? Let's say for the sake of this argument, a hundred thousand.

1.6 million species are currently named, the estimation for the total number of species is about ten times that. But i'll use the minimum figure.

That means that 100.000 species had to diversify into 1.6 million species in just 4000 years. That's equal to one speciation step at every 1000 years.
That's a much higher rate of speciation which the ToE suggests.

i will paint the scene for you. all the animals were haveing just a normal day when suddleytly it started raining something it never did before, and the waters begain to rise. "RUN FOR YOUR LIFE" said larry the t -rex, so larry and other ran as fast as they could trying to escape, but some of the animals were way to slow to out run the raging waters and drowned first, faster ones ran to high ground, were they eventually drowned, many slow fish got caught in the whirling rock particles and sunk and got buried, with others, birds were last , and humans being smarter then dumb animals were the very last .
[snip]
*cough* hence the geo column as we see it.

It doesn't work like that at all though. We do see humans drowning in local floods a lot. Smartness and the ability to run isn't sufficient if there is no higher ground within many miles of you.
Moreover, the geologic column is not sorted by agility or smartness. Did snails outrun all those dinosaurs? Did oak trees outrun them? All of these are found higher in the geologic column than dinosaurs.

actually you do.

the earth form and it rained on the "rocks" then magically turned in to soup of complex chemicals, witch the first life magically spawned, and it slowly began the process of *drum roll please* (i am am drummer ) EVOLUTION, YAY !!!

Actually i am a theistic evolutionist who believes that God created the first life.
But even the current hypotheses about abiogenesis cannot be reduced to this. They don't care where the base chemicals came from. And from chemicals being solved out of a rock and "therefore it says we came from rocks" is a huge leap.

But isn't dust just rocks that were smashed into really small pieces? Concreted dust is sandstone, after all!

so lets put the 2 on a scale, god vs magical impossibilities. both require faith, but god offers more then the other choice, so hey why not just believe him and well well, i get eternal life, saweeeet!

The ToE doesn't require faith, it convinces based on evidence. Evolution doesn't equal atheism either.

scale please. hovind vs evolution , false statements vs many much more false statements, one based on magic god other on magic nothing, see above.. give me life.

Which false statements does thet ToE make that science itself didn't/won't correct?

[quote:bc77a]If a literal interpretation of the Bible were not completely right, how would we find this out? By discovering evidence against it, right?
Exactly that happened in regards to a literal reading of Genesis.

because you when evidence hunting with an assumption that genesis was wrong, it seems that every evidence hunter finds evidence that always supports what his assumption was, like said before one hunter is more appreciated by the mainstream [/quote:bc77a]Then there should be creationist explanations for every single piece of evidence as well, right?

[quote:bc77a]That's the good thing about science - it corrects its errors and changes when new evidence is found. That's a good thing, not a bad one.

the bible never once had to be corrected, its just been twisted to support want people want i.e Jehovah's, witness, catholics, islam etc etc they just take the Christian bible and twist it to their liking.[/quote:bc77a]The Bible's interpretation has changed in order to reflect new available evidence. Think of geocentrism, a flat earth etc...

i like science and your right that its good thing in many many cases, but its been wrong before and its wrong now.

Then evidence will show this - but right now the evidence is firmly on one side.

What could convince you that Genesis is to be understood non-literal?

Sorry if i came off as a dick.. i am all hyped up on caffeine hee hee

That happens to me as well sometimes ;)

 

[John]

How many species could Noah possibly get into the ark? Let's say for the sake of this argument, a hundred thousand.

i think is around 8000 base kinds. note that the bible claims they were bigger than normal people so his cubit would have been bigger and hence the ark, but at even a 18" cubit the ark could still hold all the kinds, you bring eggs, and babies.. its common sense.

1.6 million species are currently named, the estimation for the total number of species is about ten times that. But i'll use the minimum figure.

That means that 100.000 species had to diversify into 1.6 million species in just 4000 years. That's equal to one speciation step at every 1000 years.
That's a much higher rate of speciation which the ToE suggests.

"Kinds" not all species, a dog,wolf,coyote can all reproduce hence they are the same kind of animal, Noah brought 2 generic dogs of his time

It doesn't work like that at all though. We do see humans drowning in local floods a lot. Smartness and the ability to run isn't sufficient if there is no higher ground within many miles of you.
Moreover, the geologic column is not sorted by agility or smartness. Did snails outrun all those dinosaurs? Did oak trees outrun them? All of these are found higher in the geologic column than dinosaurs.

trees also float sometimes, snails and other incests are found all scrambled up in the Geo column, there is only like 26 places in the world were the geo column is found and shown in textbooks.

Actually i am a theistic evolutionist who believes that God created the first life.
But even the current hypotheses about abiogenesis cannot be reduced to this. They don't care where the base chemicals came from. And from chemicals being solved out of a rock and "therefore it says we came from rocks" is a huge leap.

But isn't dust just rocks that were smashed into really small pieces? Concreted dust is sandstone, after all!

we can't really use the miracles of god in science it just gets laughed at, so again means it boils down to faith.

The ToE doesn't require faith, it convinces based on evidence. Evolution doesn't equal atheism either.

the "evidence" is not without its bullet holes and hence the debates. no but it is a big player in atheism.

Which false statements does thet ToE make that science itself didn't/won't correct?

many have been corrected but the theory still stands, its time to get a new one, or find new evidence.

Then there should be creationist explanations for every single piece of evidence as well, right?

there is 9as far as i know)

The Bible's interpretation has changed in order to reflect new available evidence. Think of geocentrism, a flat earth etc...

those were debunked. people just got the wrong ideal, the scripture was not changed but the thought of what it meant is, evolutions scripture needs to change, and if it needs to be changed then it was wrong.
]Then evidence will show this - but right now the evidence is firmly on one side.

What could convince you that Genesis is to be understood non-literal?

i would need to see evidence hands on hands on

 

[jwu]

"Kinds" not all species, a dog,wolf,coyote can all reproduce hence they are the same kind of animal, Noah brought 2 generic dogs of his time

I'd like to see an actual definition of the term "kind".

This doesn't solve the problem though - you still need speciation on steroids. If you call the first couple a species of exemplary individuals of their respective kind doesn't change this at all.

trees also float sometimes, snails and other incests are found all scrambled up in the Geo column, there is only like 26 places in the world were the geo column is found and shown in textbooks.

Why did oaks consistently "out-float" conifers then, with not a single exception?
In regards to snails and insects; there are characteristic species associated to each stratum. They aren't scrambled at all.
How about sloths? They're quite slow mammals, yet they supposedly outran all those dinosaurs.
I note you didn't address my point that based on empirical experience, running away doesn't even work on local floods.

we can't really use the miracles of god in science it just gets laughed at, so again means it boils down to faith.

These are two different questions.

the "evidence" is not without its bullet holes and hence the debates. no but it is a big player in atheism.

There is no debate about whether evolution occurs within the scientific community, only the details are being debated.

[quote:762b4]
Which false statements does thet ToE make that science itself didn't/won't correct?

many have been corrected but the theory still stands, its time to get a new one, or find new evidence.[/quote:762b4]
Excuse me, but that doesn't make any sense. A few cases of frauds don't put a dent into the ToE anymore than the witch hunts falsify Christianity. New evidence for the ToE is discovered every day, we haven't even begun to properly discuss it!

[quote:762b4]
Then there should be creationist explanations for every single piece of evidence as well, right?

there is 9as far as i know)[/quote:762b4]
Ok: What is the creationist explanation for the correlation of independent dating methods?
Why is there a continuous tree ring record going back more than 12.000 years? Continueing annual layers of ice going back more than 500.000 years? Limestone layers which take millions of years to form?

[quote:762b4]
The Bible's interpretation has changed in order to reflect new available evidence. Think of geocentrism, a flat earth etc...

those were debunked. people just got the wrong ideal, the scripture was not changed but the thought of what it meant is, evolutions scripture needs to change, and if it needs to be changed then it was wrong.[/quote:762b4]And each time it changes, it gets more accurate. Just like with each time new evidence is discovered, the interpretations of scripture get more accurate.
And please, don't call it "evolution scripture".

What could convince you that Genesis is to be understood non-literal?

i would need to see evidence hands on hands on[/quote]
Just visit the limestone formations of Dover. Or the deep cut through massive granite at the Grand canyon. Neither of these could possibly have formed in just a few thousand years.