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
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.
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
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.
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
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.
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.
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
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
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
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
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
Kent Hovind does not have a PhD
but i do know that Dr Hovind (has the title Dr because of his 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.
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
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
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
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
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?
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
people to question his credentials, then he shouldn't foist his credentials out there on everything, of course they are going to come under
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
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.