Will answer almost all questions evolutionists have

page: 2
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 25 2005 @ 05:57 PM
link   
He's a fraud. Anyone who believes in what he says, either doesn't know he is a fraud, or likes to gather information that might sound good...but in reality are just bunch of lies.

Case closed.




posted on Jul, 25 2005 @ 10:06 PM
link   
lightseeker knows his or her facts. boo ya



posted on Jul, 25 2005 @ 10:07 PM
link   
your just saying its a bunch of lies, becuase it might conflict with your evolutionist beliefs. most of his theories do make sense, you should try researching them sometime before claiming they are lies.



posted on Jul, 25 2005 @ 10:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by lightseeker
I don't mean to step on your toes here, but isn't your "theory", pretty generally referred to, nowadays, as the "Law of gravity"?

In science, there are no laws. Laws are a more archaic concept in science. Most physicists nowadays don't even bother to use the term, because they realize that a very large scales, very small scales, and even very high energies, these 'laws' simply don't operate. Hence, the Theory of Gravity remains a theory. Just like evolution, despite it being so incredibly well suported by the observations and evidence, remains a theory.

josh2u
who cares if he isnt really a doctor. that doesnt mean that things that he says arent right.

It does make him a liar and a fraud, since he says he is a doctor. But you're right, we don't need to consider that sort of thing, we can simply look at what he actually says, and when we do that, we realize that the man is an idiot.

[on how the sun burns
Hovind: Excellent question, Andres. I'm sorry but I don't know that I have a positive answer. [....] As far as the oxygen required, I'll have to pass on that one too and do some more study on that one. I don't know that I could prove one way or the other. I think there are different types of burning though - some do not require oxygen. Sorry about that, Andres. I'll have to do some research and check back with you on that one.



some professors sound like they are smarter than him, but "Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools" Romans 1:22

Amazing. You claim he's intelligent and knows science, and to demonstrate that you present a passage from the bible? Lets just be clear, Kent Hovind has no idea wtf he is talking about.


most of his theories do make sense, you should try researching them sometime before claiming they are lies.

This is a recurrent problem with you, you keep making claims (that are actually bogus), and then don't try to back them up or explain them. Pretty weak.

WHICH of hovinds 'theories' have you researched and why are they convincing? Can you answer that question?



posted on Jul, 26 2005 @ 02:15 AM
link   


Tell me... Josh... why must the concept of evolution be excluded from the Biblical story of creation?


I didnt see the answer in this thread, if its in there I apologize. im just trying to hepl people understand the bible a little better.
according to the bible, which is what I believe in, Man brought death into the world. If you try to fit creation and evolution together it doesnt work, because now you are putting death before man even appeared on earth.

thats just according to the bible. the bible says mans sin brought death in the world. Evolution says that millions of years of death brought man into the world.

that would be a contradiction if you put the two together.



posted on Jul, 26 2005 @ 04:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by Evolution Cruncher



Tell me... Josh... why must the concept of evolution be excluded from the Biblical story of creation?


I didnt see the answer in this thread, if its in there I apologize. im just trying to hepl people understand the bible a little better.
according to the bible, which is what I believe in, Man brought death into the world. If you try to fit creation and evolution together it doesnt work, because now you are putting death before man even appeared on earth.

thats just according to the bible. the bible says mans sin brought death in the world. Evolution says that millions of years of death brought man into the world.

that would be a contradiction if you put the two together.


Simply put: Arrogance, perhaps?

According to the bible and what EC said, it's always because of man, It is our sins that all forms of life must die. That must be why all dogs go to heaven and humans go to hell (I've been told I have a one way ticket booked there already :lol
The bible is centered around people. The focus of god is always on us the rest is just scenery and extras. Even the living embodiment of god is a human.

Also, how many times have we heard this line,
"I can't believe we came from monkeys," or something similar to that.



posted on Jul, 26 2005 @ 10:38 AM
link   
its not only the monkey part i cant belive but also the biological "soup", and the rocks. and having all that "form from something smaller than the period on this sentence" sounds a little weird to me, and seems to contridict the first law of thermodynamics. most of the information behind the Neanderthals, and all those "cave men" has been tainted anyways.



posted on Jul, 26 2005 @ 11:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by Joshm2u
its not only the monkey part i cant belive but also the biological "soup", and the rocks. and having all that "form from something smaller than the period on this sentence" sounds a little weird to me,

Anything you are not familiar with or are uneducated on could sound weired to you.. it is not sufficient reason to conclude it's not true.

most of the information behind the Neanderthals, and all those "cave men" has been tainted anyways.

The site you have given is actually a very brief biased creationalist site.. not a scientific one.. could you at least TRY and find something from the actual scientific community to back your claims rather than a church? There is no 'tainting' of neadathals.. and they are not human. This has been proven with dna:


Using refined and expensive genetic techniques, U.S. and German researchers extracted mitochondrial DNA from Neanderthal bone. These studies showed that the Neanderthal DNA sequence falls outside the normal variation of modern humans.

"These results indicate that Neandertals did not contribute mitochondrial DNA to modern humans," says Dr. Mark Stoneking, associate professor of anthropology at Penn State. "Neandertals are not our ancestors."

The findings will cause of reconsideration of the current consensus that Neandertals became extinct only 30,000 years ago and co- existed for some time with modern humans in Europe. The new research indicated that Neandertals and modern humans diverged genetically 500,000 to 600,000 years ago. While the two species may have lived at the same time, Neandertals did not contribute genetic material to modern humans, the researchers report.


www.accessexcellence.org...



posted on Jul, 26 2005 @ 11:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by Evolution Cruncher
the bible says mans sin brought death in the world. Evolution says that millions of years of death brought man into the world.

Why take it literally? We read Revelation with a metaphorical and symbological meaning, why not Genesis? People read the parables that jesus tells as metaphorical, not literal right? The relevancy of the parable of the Good Samaritan is no less lacking in power if there wasn't actually a guy on the roadside and a nice guy from Samaria. So what would it matter if genesis isn't literal history???


that would be a contradiction if you put the two together.

The bible also says that the heavens are held up like a vault over the earth, but we know that scientifically thats not accurate. The bible says that the sun was stopped in its tracks, but we know that that can't happen according the things like physics and theory of gravity. Does that mean that they are also in contradiction?


joshm2u
and seems to contridict the first law of thermodynamics

Evolution does not contradict the laws of thermodynamics, this is an incorrect statement propagated by the creationist movement.

most of the information behind the Neanderthals, and all those "cave men" has been tainted anyways.

What are you talking about?


Neanderthals had short, narrow skulls, large cheekbones and noses and, most distinctive, bunlike bony bumps on the backs of their heads.
Many modern Danes and Norwegians have identical features,

If that page thinks that a modern danish skeleton can be reasonable confused with a neanderthal skeleton (in form lets say, not in degree of fossilization, etc), then that page has no idea what its talking about.


"Detailed comparisons of Neanderthal skeletal remains with those of modern humans have shown that there is nothing in Neanderthal anatomy that conclusively indicates locomotor, manipulative, intellectual or linguistic abilities inferior to those of modern humans."

They have completely different brain sizes and I've never heard of anything stating that they could speak.

In 1957, the anatomists William Straus and A. J. Cave examined one of the French Neanderthals (La Chapelle-aux-Saints) and determined that the individual suffered from severe arthritis (as suggested by Virchow nearly 100 years earlier), which affected the vertebrae and bent the posture.

Another indication that that site is complete garbage. There is a huge difference between 'this neanderthal had arthritis' and 'there are no neanderthals, just arthritic regular humans'.

The result, pictured prominently on the cover of the magazine Science 81 (October, 1981), was essentially indistinguishable from modern man!

And the point is what exactly? This is precisely what scientists claim, that neadnerthal is very similar to modern man. And what kind of subjective bullcrap is that? It looks modern? What does anyone care what their personal opinion is? The fact remains that neanderthal skeletons are distinguishable from modern humans, they even had a seperate and distinct technology, and the few genetic samples that are had clearly show that they are a seperate species.

Are you going to constantly change subjects each time someone takes a closer look at it? What exactly are you here for? This is a discussion site, not a soapbox for you to disseminate bull# arguements that were rejected a long time ago.



posted on Jul, 26 2005 @ 12:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Joshm2u
wow you guys definaly know much more about hovind than i do. all i know about him is from his video series taht my cousin started showing me abotu creation. i know the bible quite well, and most of his things make sense, and although all of you make very valid points, its not really him im believing in, it is God and creationism.


I am a stuanch creationist, but I have rejected the "Young Earth" theory as incompatable with the archeological evidence. Bishop Ussher's estimate of the Earth only being 6,000 years old is flatly refuted by the mountains of ancient artifacts recovered all over the world that date back as much as 50,000 years. No, even though there are Christian Geologists who say they can prove, scientifically, that the earth is 6,000 years old; I don't buy it. There is just too much evidence to the contrary.

However, that does not mean that it negates my belief in the creation of Earth and the Universe by God. It does not; but there are lots of Christian Scientists out there who believe that Creationism is not counter-intuitive or un-scientific and a great many who believe that the Earth may be billiions of years old. "Christian" and "Scientist" are not mutually exclusive terms, no matter what some out there may believe.




[edit on 7/26/2005 by lightseeker]



posted on Jul, 26 2005 @ 01:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nygdan
In science, there are no laws. Laws are a more archaic concept in science. Most physicists nowadays don't even bother to use the term, because they realize that a very large scales, very small scales, and even very high energies, these 'laws' simply don't operate. Hence, the Theory of Gravity remains a theory. Just like evolution, despite it being so incredibly well suported by the observations and evidence, remains a theory.


Not to put too fine a point on it, but that is just BS. The "Law of Gravitation" is universally accepted as true, and can be confirmed, using Keplars "Law"(how about that, another law), and has never, to my knowledge, been shown to break down, or not work , regardless of the conditions. I have been a student of science for thirty years, and never have I heard it stated, that gravity remains a theory. It has even been confirmed that gravity has a number of different levels of force. This is not theory, unless you are referring to new hypotheses on certain aspects of gravitational force, as in "Inirtial Gravity Theory" or "Event Horizon Gravity Theory"; but that doesn't really enter in to our discussion here.



posted on Jul, 26 2005 @ 01:24 PM
link   
if evolution does not contridict the first law of theormodynaics (another law there), then where did we come from according to evolution? please enlighten me.



posted on Jul, 26 2005 @ 02:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by lightseeker
The "Law of Gravitation" is universally accepted as true, and can be confirmed, using Keplars "Law"(how about that, another law), and has never, to my knowledge, been shown to break down, or not work , regardless of the conditions.

The theory of gravity does not explain gravity on the sub-atomic scale. Most physical 'Laws' infact break down at that level and the effects need to be re-interpreted in 'quantum' version of the theory. The 'laws' of phsyics are no inviolate.
They are theories, which are nothing more than hypotheses, which are based upon observations of the natural world. They aren't facts. The theory of gravity is, and will allways remain, a theory, for example. Similarly, the theory of evolution will allways remain a theory, never a fact.

but there are lots of Christian Scientists out there who believe that Creationism is not counter-intuitive or un-scientific

How can creationism be said to be scientific? it posits the miraculous actions of a god at a distance. Anything requireing miracles and the like to explain it can't be said to be scientific.

Originally posted by Joshm2u
if evolution does not contridict the first law of theormodynaics

How about, since you keep changing your topic and avoid the questions, you demonstrate that evolution actually does violate the laws of thermodynamics, and we'll start from there eh?



posted on Jul, 26 2005 @ 02:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nygdan
How can creationism be said to be scientific? it posits the miraculous actions of a god at a distance. Anything requireing miracles and the like to explain it can't be said to be scientific.


We use the same evidence you do. Simply from another perspective.
I don't believe in God because of creation. I believe in God because of what Jesus Christ has done for me. That crucifixion that happened 2000 years ago, it has had an impact on me.

When I look out and see thousands of stars at night, I think, "wow, God that is awesome. You made them all."
When I see the sunset (I know the sun doesn't reall set, the earth spins, but it's still the proper term) I look at the way the sky is arrayed and think, "wow God, you made this moment just so I could enjoy creation".
Next time you look in the mirror and take a good look at your eyes, tell me what you see.

There are seashells on mountains, agreed?
You see them and presume the mountains arose from the ground over millions of years and these are our ancestors somehow...
I see them and I just try to think about how big a global flood really had to be and I'm awestruck and so thankful God isn't going to flood the world again.

My view makes sense so I keep. Maybe you believe evolution makes sense so you keep it.
Both worldviews of Biblical creation and evolution/old-earth theory are coherent and cohesive in that they both make sense and they stick together.
Sure, we can both poke at each other (although I'll stand by God's word 100%).
Evolution has simply found a way to try to explain the world and deny that God exists.

just a challenge... trace the evolutionary ancestory of the blue whale. The nipple the mother uses to nurse it's young gives it milk and oxygen. For the whale to have evolved from some other kind of land-based organism like many scientists seem to argue now, thousands of generations of whales would have died meaning there would have to be a gap because it's impossible... Just a brain-teaser. I haven't figured it out yet and noone else has been able to explain it with evolution. Of course, the true answer is God said, "Let there be..." and there was. That makes sense.



posted on Jul, 26 2005 @ 03:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Joshm2u
if evolution does not contridict the first law of theormodynaics (another law there), then where did we come from according to evolution? please enlighten me.


Dude, stop showing your ignorance as if it is something proud to have flaunted.

Evolution isn't concerned with the big bang theory and origin of the first life. If you want question pertaining to that subject, ask an astrophysicist or astrobiologist. If you want to know why the verifrom appendix doesn't do anything, why some people are born without wisdom teeth and why humans have been getting progresively smarter, taller and bigger over the last 10,000 years, then ask an evolutionist.



posted on Jul, 26 2005 @ 04:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Frosty
humans have been getting progresively smarter, taller and bigger over the last 10,000 years.


the thing is we havent been getting taller and bigger. that is just what evolutionists belive, and are propogating to the world. i think that we have been getting smaller and shorter. you are thinking with a uniformitarism view point. if the atmospehere was different a few thousand years ago then people would have grow larger, or maybe we just started out larger.Giants
More giants
and today i dont see too many 8 foot tall people around.

and as for the first law of thermodynamics......the big bang has something coming from nothing.



posted on Jul, 26 2005 @ 04:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nygdan
The theory of gravity does not explain gravity on the sub-atomic scale. Most physical 'Laws' infact break down at that level and the effects need to be re-interpreted in 'quantum' version of the theory. The 'laws' of phsyics are no inviolate.
They are theories, which are nothing more than hypotheses, which are based upon observations of the natural world. They aren't facts. The theory of gravity is, and will allways remain, a theory, for example. Similarly, the theory of evolution will allways remain a theory, never a fact.


That is incorrect; you may want to refresh your memory with a good reference on scientific method. A Hypothesis is merely a temporary and tentative expanation of observed events or phenomena but which has not been proved; a Theory is a proven hypothesis that has been verified by many scientists in different places. A Law is similar to a mathematical postulate, in that it is usually expressed as a single mathematical formula and is universally accepted as true at face value, because it has always been observed to be true.

Thus, the "theory" of Gravitation has universally been accepted as Law because it has always been observed, in the natural world, to be true.
We were discussing the Laws and Theories related to the discussion of Evolution vs Creationism, weren't we? The whole subject of Quantum Physics and M Theory or String Theory, if you like doesn't really enter in to our debate.


How can creationism be said to be scientific? it posits the miraculous actions of a god at a distance. Anything requireing miracles and the like to explain it can't be said to be scientific.


The scientific investigation of the creation of our world and universe is no different than yours, although we start with a different hypothesis than you do. But to be a true hypothesis, it must posses the possiblilty of being wrong, so it requires as much discipline and integrity, scientifically speaking, as does your own. There is much evidence for the creation of our own planet, geologically and archeologically, so it's not like we're making it up as we go along.




How about, since you keep changing your topic and avoid the questions, you demonstrate that evolution actually does violate the laws of thermodynamics, and we'll start from there eh?


I'll answer that, if Josh doesn't mind. The theory of evolution not only violates the first law of thermodynamics, it violates the second law as well. Here's how:
The first Law of Thermodynamics states : Nothing is now coming into existence or going out of existence; matter and energy may be converted into one another, but there is no net increase in the combined total of what exists.

In other words, energy and matter can not be created from nothing. You can change matter into energy ( water into steam ) you can change energy into matter (steam condenses back to water) but you can not create water out of empty air. Evolutionists believe either that the Big Bang began the universe when a mass of matter smaller than the period at the end of a sentence, suddenly exploded and sent matter and energy cascading through the universe, creating planets, galaxies, etc, etc; or they believe that the Big Bang started everything from basically nothing. Either way, you violate the 1st law; the only difference is that in the first argument you have to ask them, "Now, just where did that original matter come from, anyway."?Remember, under the rules of the 1st Law, there is no net increase in the amount of matter and energy, so how in the world did enough matter and energy come from to populate the entire universe with the trillions of stars and billions upon billions of galaxies and other matter, like the earth for example.?

The Second Law states : The entropy of a closed system cannot decrease.

Or put more simply, everything in the universe is running down; every system, left to itself, will tend to move from organization and stability to disorganization and chaos.

Evolution flies in the face of this law, for in evolution, life emerges from non-life; life doesn't get more and more disorganized, it gets more and more organized and stable. The one-celled ameoba metamorpasises into a fish; the fish into an amphibian and so on and so on until the amoeba is now an ape who evolves into a man. The whole idea is anathema to scientific theory. The 2nd law is not just broken it's shattered.

If you ask me, it takes alot more faith to believe in Evolution Theory than Creation Theory; with Creation Theory, you at least can explain why the scientific laws do not hold.




Grace & Peace,

Lightseeker



posted on Jul, 26 2005 @ 05:35 PM
link   
also I would like to add to the post that lightseeker posted.

people have limited science to the "natural" world. ok. well according to the first and second law of thermodynamics, matter and energy cannot create itself.
that is a fact and indeed scientific. the reason that is scientific is because it has been observed and tested and demonstrated.

the first law of thermodynamics says that matter and energy cannot create itself and or cannot be created out of nothing.
well if that is true, how did matter get here, we are here you know... how did matter and energy get here? according to the big bang theory; 20 billion years ago, nothin exploded and made everything. and I have read that out of a few science textbooks, if you would like references, I will dig them up for anyone who wants to know.
but that being said, that takes a lot of faith to believe that the big bang occurred.

and yes the big bang is a part of the evolution theory, biological evolution starts with 3.4 billion years ago when the complex chemical soup came alive.

well I would like to point out that the earth had to come from somewhere? the second law of thermodynamics says so. the second law says that everything tends toward disorder or everything is falling apart.
the earth just cant keep falling apart. we cant just keep losing the moon. the sun just cant keep shrinking and the universe cant just keep expanding; if, it didnt have an origin.
you cant just keep losing heat, eventually your going to go cold.

what I am getting at, is the earth was not always here. where did the earth come from?

the magnetic field has lost 6% within the last 150 years. that was published in scientific magazine. if you want that reference, ill dig that one up too. well you cant just keep losing, eventually you will have nothin left to lose.

if anyone can understand where I am going with this, they will come to realize that evolution does try to cover origins, but it doesnt do a great job at providing evidence for the big bang, evolution of stars, of the evolution of chemicals. evolution tries to skip everything and start with life.
that is not scientific. in my opinion.

anyone who knows that first two laws of thermodynamics knows that the big bang is a big joke and that matter and energy cannot just come into existence just because the only other explanation is "God said let there be"

of couse this is all based on my faith in the bible and a few scientific laws.
any questions on this topic I am willing to answer.



posted on Jul, 26 2005 @ 05:48 PM
link   
Not to bash anyone, but the 'scientific christians' are kind of funny. For thousands of years, they believed earth was 6,000 years old. Then, after years of evidence, they say, "Um, ok, but God made the earth millions of years old". I hear some even say that God created the spark in the primordial ooze that started the enitre evolution process. It seems that these 'christian scientists' constantly scamble to work thier faith around scientific facts.



posted on Jul, 26 2005 @ 06:19 PM
link   
well I as a creationist, dont try to work my religion around science. I believe that there is a great explanation as to how and why God created things.

I would like to know how the earth was proven to be millions of years old. carbon dating does not work, that has been proven. K-AR dating does not work.

the geologic collumn was thought up before any of those dating methods were invented. this was based on the assumption that different layers are different ages.

any help on this topic would be much appreciated

thanks





top topics
 
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join