Will answer almost all questions evolutionists have

page: 3
0
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 26 2005 @ 11:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Joshm2u
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.


There's one flaw in your assumption: I don't believe in evolution.




posted on Jul, 27 2005 @ 12:51 AM
link   
it doesnt matter if you believe in evolution or not. there are many creationists who try to put the gap theory in with the bible along with other things that the bible does not teach as being truth.

I know I am stepping into a conversation and I probably dont know a hole lot on what you are talking about, but i do know that Dr Hovind (has the title Dr because of his PHD) does present many good facts about this earth. and many people just try to shut him out before they even do the research for themselves.

I used to think that the earth was billions of years old as well. I was taught that in school. I didnt even question it, because it was said to have been proven. i was like ok. it must be true. I took a look at Dr Hovind and looked up his work and researched him and what he preached. and sure enough, I am coming to the exact conclusions he has come to. Im sure we would disagree on somethings, but we both believe in the bible and base everything from that.
and I believe that is the reason many people try to discredit him is because he seems to make great progress in fitting science into the bible, or the bible into science. I have a lot of his videos, i watch them a lot. I look up his references and see if they are true, there have only been about two references I have not been able to find, why i dont know, but only two. out of many.
references from scientific journals and magazines and other such resources.

I suggest that before you go around saying that DR Hovind is a liar, I think that whoever wants to make that claim should research him and his work with an open mind and saee for yourself.

put the facts with the observations and then decide what makes more sense, also consider the experiments done in the past to prove or disprove certain theories.

im not trying to say that you are wrong, just trying to say that you cant assume something just because you heard it from someone else, or just because it has been repeated so many times. its not how you determine truth.

thanks



posted on Jul, 27 2005 @ 02:22 PM
link   

Tassadar
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.

All well and good, so why should it matter if scientific evidence is at odds with that history? I mean, evolution is just a science, and a very well supported one at that. It doesn't undo anything god or jesus did any more than finding out that planets were controlled by mechanical gravity did.


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.

But when taken in with the rest of the evidence, the pressence of sea-shells on mountain tops can be seen to be best explained by the processes that scientists have come upon. I don't see why geology should trump god when astronomy doesn't.

Evolution has simply found a way to try to explain the world and deny that God exists.

Evolution doesn't deny god. If that were so then there wouldn't be so many pious christians who are evolutionists. Heck if that were true then evoltionary biology would be filled with hindus and buddhists, when its overwhelmingly christian. Science doesn't deny that god exists, all it does is examine the world and try to make sense of it without having to say 'then a miracle or divine intervention occured and we got this..".

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

Er? I dont understand the last bit. There'd have to be a gap? Or are you saying that the record is too gappy, and that if thre were all these generations then we wouldn't have any gaps?

If the latter, i don't see why we can expect to have fossils from every 'stage' in the process. Fossils form rarely. And considering how rarely they form, the transitional species that we do have are really impressive.

Josh2mu
the thing is we havent been getting taller and bigger. that is just what evolutionists belive, and are propogating to the world.

If you look at the record from the primitive apes to the austalopithecines to habilis, erectus, and then sapiens, the trend has indeed been that the lineage grew taller and grew larger brains. That doesn't mean that people today must be taller and smarter than people a thousand years ago tho.


if the atmospehere was different a few thousand years ago then people would have grow larger

This is really silly. higher concentrations of oxygen do not result in giants. And the record of human remains does not show that there were giant humans in the past.

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

This is why things like the 'laws' of physics aren't called laws. Because they break down at certian conditions.
But this is silly, why is the scientific method that created the laws of phsyics so important and absolute and unbreakable for you but evolution is not? And also the laws of thermodynamics prevent god from existing and prevent jesus from existing.



LightSeekerA 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.

And that is why there is no law of gravity, because particles on the subatomic scale do not obey the formulae.

The whole subject of Quantum Physics and M Theory or String Theory, if you like doesn't really enter in to our debate.

I didn't bring it into consideration, joshm2u did by bringing in the 'laws' of thermodynamics. Evolution doesn't break that 'law', and practically nothing does on the macro-scale. But the 'laws' of physics do break down on the subatomic scale or the extremely high energy scale. And its a good thing that was already brought up because just above your post we have someone saying that the big bang violates that law. The law doesn't even apply to it, and its not an inviolate law anyway.

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.

I have to strongly disagree. Creationism is not a scientific hypothesis and the methodology of creationist 'researchers' like Hovind, Dembksi, or AIG, are not scientific methodologies.

What is the scientific theory of creationism, if you say that there is one? Neither Hovind nor AIG and ICR can come up with a scientific theory of creationism, I'd like to hear yours.

I'll answer that, if Josh doesn't mind

Gosh, ya think he will?



The theory of evolution not only violates the first law of thermodynamics, it violates the second law as well. Here's how:

Here are some articles on why your understanding and application on this matter are incorrect:
Entropy, Disorder and Life
The Second Law of Thermodynamics, Evolution, and Probability(pdf)
Attributing False Attributes to Thermodynamics

The 1st law 'violation' was addressed above, and, again, I don't understand how the scientific method which came up with the thermodynamic laws is acceptable, but that its other equally well supported conclusion, evolutionary biogogy, is not acceptable. Why would thermodynamics trump evoluiton (it doesn't, but lets pretend it did)? Why wouldn't evolution trump thermodynamics? I suspect people don't think of it that way because people aren't uncomfortable with astronomy and phyiscs and the like, but that they are uncomfortable with being a type of ape and their faith is weak enough that it can potentially be disturbed by the scientific reality of things like the big bang and evolution.

evoluton cruncher
that is a fact and indeed scientific. the reason that is scientific is because it has been observed and tested and demonstrated.

This is not actually correct. In truly empty space, physcists have observed a variety of particles that pop in and out of existence and flit all over the place, its so raucous that its called the 'quantum foam'. Something can indeed come from nothing. And also, this realyl doesn't have anything to do with evolution. I agree that if the big bang can't be explained then the history of the universe that follows is all suspect, but that only makes Evolution as suspect as mechanics, chemistry, electronics, flight, etc etc. The big bang has to do with eveything because its the earliest point in the universe that science can get to, but it has no more to do with darwin's theory than any other scientific theory, or any other human thought and proposition.

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.

This is actually another misconception that is passed around in the creationist 'community' or movement, the idea that a declining magnetic field of the earth indicates that the earth is young.

In the geological records we can infact see tht the magnetic field of the earth has rather constantly (tho not consitently) chagned over time, sometimes reversing in polarity entirely.
Here is a short reference page on that claim. It provides the orignal citation in the creationist literature for reference and address the claim in general and the specific claims made in the creationist magazines.
This is a longer article on the entire concept if you are interested.

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.

I don't think it makes sense to turn to an evolutionary biologist and say "where is your orbital radio-telescope, where are your particle accelerators and abiogenetic experiments". Evolutionary biologists strictly look at evolution defined as starting with groups of organisms, not the origings of life and not the evolution of stars or the origins of the universe as a whole. Chemists look at the origins of life. Stellar Cosmologists look at the evolution of stars, and people doing research in Cosmology and advanced particle physics are the ones looking at the origns of the universe. We wouldn't expect stephen hawking to have a detailed knowledge of the phylogenetics of tetse flies, and shouldn't expect an entomologist to probe black holes.
So science as a whole isn't ignoring anything. If anyone is ignoring anything its creationist 'researchers', who's organizations often require them to not research anything that would go against creationism and even require them to affiar beleif in biblical creationism, and who simply and literally ignore and throw out any evidence that can't be re-interpreted in biblical terms. Thats not scientific. Heck the whole idea of trying to interpret the natural world in biblical terms and to support events in the bible is non-scientific. A real scientific creationism would ignore the bible completely and start with observations of the universe, probbing and testing it. But if you do that you never get anything like the genesis account.

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"

it does not make sense to say that the existence of the universe violates the FLoTD, but that god doesn't.

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.

This has never been proven. Rather radio-isotopic dating methods have been demonstrated to be extremely accurate and powerful methods for investigating age. Carbon dating alone demonstrates that the earth is older than 6,000 years, but of course it hasn't got anything to do with the billions of years theory. Other dating methods demonstrate that.

the geologic collumn was thought up before any of those dating methods were invented.

Yes. It was invented before darwin published his ideas too. The geologists who came up with the column were essentially creationists. The column is a system of relative ages, comparing layers to other layers. THe stunning thing is, that when you put radio-isotopic dating methods to it, you confirm those relative ages (and of course get absolute ones).

this was based on the assumption that different layers are different ages.

Is that really such a poor assumption? I mean, what evidence suggests that they were laid down at the same time? The evidence seems to refute that hypothesis.


but i do know that Dr Hovind (has the title Dr because of his PHD)

Kent Hovind does not have a PhD. He went to 'Patriot University" which is not a regionally accredited university, iow, its not a real school and has no authority to grant PhDs. Its as if I paid skeptic overlord or simon gray or Spinger (the three parts of this boards llp) to give me a peice of paper that said Mr. Dr. Nygdan, Esquire, Knight Errant.
He is not a doctor. Furthermore, he's an idiot:

I'm sorry but I don't know that I have a positive answer. [to how does the sun burn] 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.


That guy is not a phd. I'd expect a statement like that to come from someone without a high school diploma, let alone a BS, MS, or of all things a PhD.

does present many good facts about this earth. and many people just try to shut him out before they even do the research for themselves

I haven't done that, I've looked into his claims; he is either a liar or completely uneducated. Even groups like Answers In genesis have instisted that some of the arguements that he uses are clearly totally incorrect. Infact, his huge errors in logica and basic science facts have been refuted and explained so often, and yet he still continues to harp them, that I think he's clearly a fraud and a liar, not just ignorant.


I took a look at Dr Hovind and looked up his work and researched him and what he preached. and sure enough, I am coming to the exact conclusions he has come to

What do you consider his best arguement for a young earth to be?

and I believe that is the reason many people try to discredit him is because he seems to make great progress in fitting science into the bible

No. People talk about how he's unethical because they've already looked at his suposed 'scientific information' and found it to be complete bunkum. After that, all thats left is his reputation and what not. And why shouldn't people point out that his reputation is trash? He goes thru lenghts to make a case of his reputation, calling himself a 'Dr', even calling his website and radio show 'Dr. Dino', to establish an aura of respectablity and authority for himself, when he is completely undeserving of repsect and authority. If he doesn't want people to question his credentials, then he shouldn't foist his credentials out there on everything, of course they are going to come under questioning. And given that, if he still wanted to address those concerns, then he could easily do that by making his 'phd thesis' publically available. When a person gets a phd, they do so by writting a thesis that makes an orignal contribution to science, and that thesis is stored in a public records facility, like a university library, or other public repositories. I wrote to Patriot U asking to review his thesis, and they said that he requested that they not permit anyone to see it. Others have written hovind and he has claimed, entirely unbeleivably, to have 'lost' it. Only one person has seen his thesis and luckily they retained a copy of it. Its not up to any kind of real standards, its got entire sections that are blatant word for word copies of other pages within it, it has an illustration that is a magazine photo cut out and glued in (folded over to fit), and , importantly, its neither the size nor on the same topic. He claims its 250 pages long, no, its 101. He claims its on "The Effects of Teaching Evolution on the Students in our Public School System". No, its doesn't even address that subject, let alone make it its focus. Even within the document it claims that there are 16 chapters. There are four.

This all might seem harsh, but its to a point. Kent Hovind is a fraud and a liar. He is not to be trusted for any sort of information, whether its about his education, his background, his taxes, and certianly not when it comes to anything involving science.



posted on Jul, 27 2005 @ 04:43 PM
link   
Nygdan have you ever even seen Dr. Hovind's series? Or do you just believe everything that other evolutionist's tell you? Sure you make points against him... but he speaks so much that he is bound to make mistakes such as the ones listed. Even if he is mislead slightly in some of the information he speaks on, I should say that people who believe Evolution are mislead far more. Please watch his videos to get a better understanding of what it is he is so generously preaching. He obviously puts the largest emphasis on Evolution being taught in school in the videos. He says that Evolution should only be taught in private schools which are funded by people who have believe it. A public school should teach non- controversial subjects like Math.



posted on Jul, 28 2005 @ 01:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by SupaSmoove101
Nygdan have you ever even seen Dr. Hovind's series? Or do you just believe everything that other evolutionist's tell you?

I have researched his claims from his websites and publications and transcripts of his lecutures and 'debates' along with transcripts of his radio-show. After having seen all that, there is no way I would pay for his bogus videos.


but he speaks so much that he is bound to make mistakes such as the ones listed.

Thats hardly an excuse for talking about what he doesn't understand.


Even if he is mislead slightly in some of the information he speaks on,

These are not 'slight' errors or honest mistakes we're talking about.


I should say that people who believe Evolution are mislead far more

Demonstrate this.


Please watch his videos to get a better understanding of what it is he is so generously preaching.

Generous? He is selling his vidoes for profit, he charges to lecture at churches, and he is also a business partner of Jack Chick, and the two of them advertise their respective businesses thru one antoher. He's not being generous. Nothing wrong with making money, but its senseless to call it charity.


. He says that Evolution should only be taught in private schools which are funded by people who have believe it. A public school should teach non- controversial subjects like Math.

There is no scientific controversy over the occurance of evolution (macro, micro, whatever you want to call it). There is scientific controversy over things like the speed and tempo of evolution or what is the proper focus or 'unit' of evolution (individual organisms or genes, or even populations) and even whether all changes have to be adaptive or some can be neutral, etc etc.
And, you will notice, that is generally not taught in schools, because the debates are far too complex for high school students. On the occurane and general operation of evolution tho, there is not a serious debate within the evolutionary biology community as to whether it happens. There are no challenges to it being presented in the scientific literature either. Those debates were settled soon after darwin presented his original hypothesis. There is no reason to not teach in public schools that evolution (the change of alleles in populations over generational time) occurs as a fact and there is no reason to not teach Darwins theory of evolution via a mechanism of natural selection as an extremely well supported theory. Thats what its taught as, and thats definitly how it should be.

What evidence suggests that it shouldn't??



posted on Jul, 28 2005 @ 02:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Evolution Cruncher

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.


I would like to see evidence of these disprovals; I live for this stuff, and I've never heard of such an instance. What I have heard is the opinion of individuals that don't appear to have a firm grasp on the scientific process involved in geologic dating, but only a superficial familiarity coupled with probable exposure to some questionable source material which may attempt to cast dispersions on the various dating methodologies. Each process is accurate for specific conditions. If you attempt to use a process for something it was not intended to measure, then the results are invalidated, but this does not disprove the methodology. It only displays the incompetence of the tester.
Here is a very useful primer on Geologic Dating:



posted on Jul, 28 2005 @ 06:57 PM
link   
is Dalrymple, G. Brent an evolutionist?

I dont want to make this post a short one.

what about the Geologic Collumn, how did they get the dates before radiometric dating was even invented? darwin claimed certain layers to be certain ages and radiometric dating wasnt even around yet.

I know how some radiometric dating methods work, and I know for a fact that two methods dont work.

but im asking about the geologic cullumn.

thanks



posted on Jul, 28 2005 @ 10:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Evolution Cruncher
is Dalrymple, G. Brent an evolutionist?

I dont want to make this post a short one.

what about the Geologic Collumn, how did they get the dates before radiometric dating was even invented?

They didn't.

Before radioisotopic dating was available, there was only 'relative dating'. They could say that such and such layers were older or younger relative to each other. And they were able to work out a heck of a sytsem where they could coordinate layers across great distances and give relative ages for newfound layers. Eventually they worked out something called 'biostratigraphy'. This is where you use specific types of fossils that are called 'index fossils'. These allow you to work them into the relative age system and give a new layer a relative age quickly. USually nowadays these are fossils are small ones, likesay forams and the like. You can come across a formation of unknown age with some large vertebrate fossils and then use biostratigraphy and the geological colum to get relative dates, liek 'this specimin is from the late middle carboniferous', etc etc.

Then radioisotopic dating came along and allowed scientists to get absolute ages, and very precise ones too. When these radioisotopic methods were put to work, they independantly confirmed the relative ages. The relative ages system is so accurate, quick, and useful, that its still very widely used in paleontology, geology, and even the oil industry.


darwin claimed certain layers to be certain ages and radiometric dating wasnt even around yet.

He probably siad that such and such layers were specifically the mid-late ordovician or the like. They had 'estimates' of actual age back then but as far as I understand it the methods weren't very good, and were recognized as such.


I know how some radiometric dating methods work, and I know for a fact that two methods dont work.

All of the methods work. What two are you saying don't work and why? Also, shouldn't, technically, you be saying that none work since they all confirm an age of the earth greater than 6,000 years?



posted on Jul, 29 2005 @ 01:25 AM
link   
dude you need to watch some of Hovinds videos, he explains how the dating methods work, and I have looked them up. they dont work, I reformatted my computer so I dont have the links anymore, but go to www.arky.org that is one site that explains problems with Carbon dating. possibly other dating methods.



posted on Jul, 29 2005 @ 02:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by Evolution Cruncher
dude you need to watch some of Hovinds videos, he explains how the dating methods work, and I have looked them up. they dont work, I reformatted my computer so I dont have the links anymore, but go to www.arky.org that is one site that explains problems with Carbon dating. possibly other dating methods.


Well horvind is an idiot, but thats beside the point. Also, the site you used I really like this part
Almost as bad as worldnetdaily.

site
ARKY = Absolute Real Knowledge for You! Biblically based is the only absolute!


If you were really serious about learning about this stuff rather than finding a site that tells you what you want to here, try the site below. It's also the link that came up on a google search: Radiometric dating.

It is a paper written By Dr. Roger Wiens, entitled: "Radiometric Dating A Cristian Perspective". Its fairly long but I skimmed through it and from what I can tell it's a fairly good interpretation of radiometric dating. It also has some links at the bottom that may be of interest, personally I haven't checked any of em out, so i won't comment on them.


Radiometric Dating a Christian Perspective
This paper describes in relatively simple terms how a number of the dating techniques work, how accurately the half-lives of the radioactive elements and the rock dates themselves are known, and how dates are checked with one another. In the process the paper refutes a number of misconceptions prevalent among Christians today. This paper is available on the web via the American Scientific Affiliation and related sites to promote greater understanding and wisdom on this issue, particularly within the Christian community.




posted on Jul, 31 2005 @ 01:19 AM
link   


If you were really serious about learning about this stuff rather than finding a site that tells you what you want to here, try the site below. It's also the link that came up on a google search: Radiometric dating.


would you ever consider the possibility that maybe everything that supports evolution and the earth/universe being billions of years old is something you might want to hear just to push the theory? is it even possible for that to happen? oh yeah I think it is. it used to be a fact that everything revolved around the earth. now they know that it wasnt true, some people believe in that theory still but they are wrong.

decay rates are known to change, no one sat there for 5730 years and waited to see if that was the half life for C14. and the equalibrium problem does exist, it is assumed that it wouldnt be a problem because it is assumed that the earth is old enough to ignore the equalibrium problem.
I cannot stress this enough, I dont know how anyone else could not understand this, the radioactive carbon14 is forming 38% faster than it is decaying, now if something died a thousand years ago, the ratio of C14 would be much less than today. the amount of C14 in the object tested is compared to the amount of C14 in the atmosphere. if the atmosphere is constantly increasing in C14, carbon dating will not work. you will get inaccurate results no matter what you test. because C14 is forming almost twice as fast as it decays. if you cant understand this, I cant help you.

so tell me why you think the earths atmosphere has nothing to do with carbon dating.



posted on Jul, 31 2005 @ 02:36 PM
link   
This is one of the best analyses I have ever read on C-14 dating vs. Biblical record.

(excerpts):
(regarding dendrochronlogic method)
At least until someone with adequate qualifications attempts to develop a 5000-year-limited master tree-ring sequence, the current dendrochronologic calibration of C-14 ages will be a major test of faith for individuals who adhere to straightforward historical-grammatical exegesis of the Bible. This is not blind faith, because there are C-14 data that are incongruous on the basis of Curve B in Figure 4, but have clear significance when interpreted in accord with Curve C. Examples of such data are given in References 11 and 15.

(conclusion)
In full perspective there is a basis for confidence, and also room for doubt, regarding compatibility between C-14 age data and the chronological data in the Bible. For most individuals, selection between these options will be influenced by predilection, rather than a decision based merely on the weight of evidence.

The linked document also fully explores C-14 biosphere concentrations. This gentleman appears to know what he is talking about. The question is constantly posed in this thread, if anyone has actually watched Hovinds videos, or perused his material. I can answer "yes" to both. My evaluation is, that he knows just enough about what he is talking about to make a fool of himself, and that's being generous on my part.



posted on Aug, 1 2005 @ 04:55 AM
link   


This is one of the best analyses I have ever read on C-14 dating vs. Biblical record.


ok man, have I ever mentioned to you the problem with the atmosphere that makes carbon dating a flawed method?

EC



posted on Aug, 1 2005 @ 05:51 PM
link   
Would I be too forward if I suggested you went out of your way to find out what creationists tell you about tree rings and c14.
It turns out, that right in the middle of a tree, you can have a ring section that dates 1000's of years older, or very young...and then the expected pattern would resume.

If you really do want to be comprehensivly informed on this finite, but important topic... its worth it to suffer through the other side of the info.

Im not tryin to be a wise guy here... I just cant bring myself to look it all up again...but I know its there.

[edit on 1-8-2005 by jake1997]



posted on Aug, 2 2005 @ 12:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Evolution Cruncher
dude you need to watch some of Hovinds videos, he explains how the dating methods work,

I am readily familiar with radio-isoptic dating methods. I have seen hovind's critiques. He is not familiar with the methods, he is thoroughyl inept.


and I have looked them up. they dont work,

You erred in your research. They do indeed work. I would like to see your support for them not working.


but go to www.arky.org that is one site that explains problems with Carbon dating. possibly other dating methods.

Please point out which page amoung those refutes the methods.


would you ever consider the possibility that maybe everything that supports evolution and the earth/universe being billions of years old is something you might want to hear just to push the theory?

Why would anyone want to 'push the theory'???? It serves not metaphyiscal or ideological purpose, its simply a scientific theory. One doesn't need to push it. One merely needs to look at the evidence and consider it rationally. Upon doing so, one concludes that evolution does indeed happen and that evolutionary theories are sound.


evolution cruncher
the problem with the atmosphere that makes carbon dating a flawed method?

Here is a short refutation of the claim.


jake1997
If you really do want to be comprehensivly informed on this finite, but important topic... its worth it to suffer through the other side of the info.

I, as allways, am curious to hear that side. Please present the argument or a link to a good forumlation of it.



posted on Aug, 2 2005 @ 01:16 PM
link   
Hovind seems to be a bit of an unscientific crackpot at first glance, and I've read a lot of Creationist stuff to know I would rather not subject myself to any more of it.

He seems to base his hypotheses about the origin of the cosmos and life on earth not on anything scientific, but on a literal interpretation of the Book of Genesis. Which is a common sense, pre-scientific way of interpreting widely observed phenomena and then explaining the unknown in terms of some unseen or inferred supernatural entity. A way of explaining things that people needed answers to BEFORE the advent of science.

I love how some people refute that Evolution is Just a Theory.

Fine. Gravity is a theory. Continental drift is a theory. The notion that the Earth revolves around the sun is a theory. Electricity is a theory. Electrons are tiny units of charged mass that nobody has ever seen.

Each of these theories is an explanation that has been, to a wide extent, confirmed by observation and experiment and is accepted by knowledgeable experts.

Here's the gist of Evolution, refute it as you want:

Small, random, inherited differences in individuals of a species result in different chances of survival and propagation (success for some of them, death without any offspring for others).

This natural "culling" leads to significant differences in shape, size, strength, behavior, biochemistry, natural defenses and social habits over many generations as different inherited features are passed on (as well as mutations, most of which are either superficial or unsuccessful).

Because less successful competitors tend to produce fewer offspring, the useless or negative variations or mutations tend to disappear over time, whereas the useful variations tend to be perpetuated through a species' population.


So in other words, if a fish is born with a mutation that it can breathe air for a limited amount of time, AND it is able to breed AND its' mutation is passed on to its' children AND they are able to breed then it eventually makes it so that you have some fish that can breathe some air.

If this makes the fish more successful in feeding, then they will overtake other species, maybe even driving them into extinction through competition.
Because the mutated fish do so well, there is a population boom.

Then, one of the fish is born who can breathe BOTH air and water. See above.

And so on and so on.

It's wildly improbable (but possible and scientifically observable), it takes a long time to happen, and it's not very exciting. But according to science, it took many billions of years just for life to start evolving INTO the first fish and insects and lesser organisms.

So, to me, it makes total sense, and it doesn't mean that there is no God. It just means that back in the days of Genesis, people had no frickin clue what a DNA strand was, or a genetic mutation, or could even conceive of a number as large as a billion. So they explained it how they could.

But now we know more.





[edit on 2-8-2005 by Jakomo]



posted on Aug, 2 2005 @ 07:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jakomo
I love how some people refute that Evolution is Just a Theory.

thats cause it is. has it been proven at all?

Originally posted by Jakomo
Fine. Gravity is a theory. Continental drift is a theory. The notion that the Earth revolves around the sun is a theory. Electricity is a theory. Electrons are tiny units of charged mass that nobody has ever seen.

actually there is the law of gravity, and as for the others, they can be observed in nature like you said, or be tested. how can u test millions and millions and millions of years? evoltuion is imaginative.

i agree that there are variations amoung fish, but that doesnt give proof for evolution, that just shows a change amoung the species.

Originally posted by Jakomo
according to science, it took many billions of years just for life to start evolving INTO the first fish and insects and lesser organisms.

now that makes no sense to me. how do living beings come into existance for non-living material, like rocks?


Originally posted by Jakomo
back in the days of Genesis, people had no frickin clue what a DNA strand was, or a genetic mutation, or could even conceive of a number as large as a billion. So they explained it how they could.

But now we know more.

yes we may know more about genetics now, but what does that have to do with evolution? we werent there in the times of genesis, so what is in genesis is their account. but they couldnt have been that dumb, becuase they did live much much longer than we do now (some 900 years plus).
here is a creationist site, if you wish to view it, that answers questions regarding mutations. im not denying that there are mutations, but there cant be new genetic information added.



posted on Aug, 3 2005 @ 07:58 AM
link   


Fine. Gravity is a theory. Continental drift is a theory. The notion that the Earth revolves around the sun is a theory. Electricity is a theory. Electrons are tiny units of charged mass that nobody has ever seen.


Gravity is not a theory it is a law, there are thoeries on what gravity can effect and what it can do, but gravity exists and there is no denying that at all. gravity is a fact.

the notion that earth revolves around the sun is a proven fact when they sent voyager. they saw how the solar system is set up. that is also a fact and not theory.

Electrons are not a theory, they exist and they hold a negative charge. they are used in electronics, hence the name electron (electronics). I took electronics glass, and you can observe what the electrons do, how they work. you can test how they work and what they work with, and you can demonstrate. that is science.




according to science, it took many billions of years just for life to start evolving INTO the first fish and insects and lesser organisms.


no man, that is according to evolution, and how do they know that it took billions of years? they dont, it is assumed. you have to imagine that it took billions of years.



back in the days of Genesis, people had no frickin clue what a DNA strand was, or a genetic mutation, or could even conceive of a number as large as a billion. So they explained it how they could.

But now we know more.


so you are trying to say that we are more wise than those in the past? I can agree to some extent, but im sure that adam and eve knew what a billion meant. im sure that he was the smartest man that ever lived.

you know that the bible says in II Peter that "...professing themselves to be wise, they became fools..."
interesting.

I wouldnt say that we are so wise and that we have all the answers, I dont think we ever will.


EC

[edit on 3-8-2005 by Evolution Cruncher]



posted on Aug, 3 2005 @ 08:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by Evolution Cruncher


according to science, it took many billions of years just for life to start evolving INTO the first fish and insects and lesser organisms.


no man, that is according to evolution,

You are saying evolution isn't science now? :shk:


so you are trying to say that we are more wise than those in the past? I can agree to some extent, but im sure that adam and eve knew what a billion meant. im sure that he was the smartest man that ever lived.

Aside from it being a myth.. I thought they ate from the tree of knowledge? Wouldn't that mean they were stupid before hand?



posted on Aug, 3 2005 @ 08:38 AM
link   


You are saying evolution isn't science now?


thats what I have been saying the entire time, evolution is a religion, it requires faith to say that we came a from rock 4.6 billion years ago. and you dont know for a fact that it happened and all tests that have been done to try and prove that live can spontaniously generate have been debunked....

my theory on creation has an eye witness account that God created everything. what does evolution have?

so yes, evolution is not science, its a study, its a hypothesis and its a religion, a religion of death.


EC
EC





top topics
 
0
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join