Originally posted by Evolution Cruncher

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.

Yet you've been willing to use 'facts' from Dr H.. claiming he is a scientist.

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....

Prove that they've been debunked.

my theory on creation has an eye witness account that God created everything.

Or it's a fairy tale.

what does evolution have?

THOUSANDS of pieces of scientific evidence supporting it and the backing of the entire scientific community.. and of course actual logic.

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

Firstly.. religion by definition requires an actual deity.. and death? No. Evolution comes about through life reproducing.

Originally posted by Evolution Cruncher
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.

And similarly evolution is a fact and there are theories that describe it. Gravity is not a law, there are no physical laws, they are all violated at different scales and times. The Theory of Gravity fails to predict the behaviour of subatomic particles, for example. Gravity obviously exists, evolution obviously exists, but we need theories to understand them. No theories are ever 'proven', they can only be refuted; demonstrated to not hold true, or to stand unrefuted so far.
Evolution has never been refuted.

evolution is a religion, it requires faith to say that we came a from rock 4.6 billion years ago.

These are scientific hypotheses about the course of the evolution of organisms on the planet. They are well supported by reason and the evidence. They are science, not faith.

[edit on 4-8-2005 by Nygdan]

OK, I'll try to explain the biggest difference between the scientific community and the creation fanatics in terms that the most hard-core fundies can completely understand:

1) Vanity

2) Money

3) Ego

4) Power

See, it's like this - scientists compete with each other. They are in fierce competition for funding for both themselves and their research. If a scientist can prove that some well-accepted part of science is wrong, that scientist becomes very famous and then very rich! There is not some great secret brotherhood of scientists because they basically all want to kill each other - not literally, in most cases. Everyone of them would LOVE to be able to prove that XYZ theory is wrong. And, the stronger and more well-respected that the XYZ theory is, the more desirable it would be to be the one to disprove it. Any acredited scientist who could disprove the theory of evolution would be the most celebrated, famous, and rich scientist in the world!

Religion is pretty much the opposite. Adherents and professionals working in religion don't get rich and famous and powerful by trying to prove the bible is wrong or that some story in the bible is wrong. They pretty well have to stick together and attack anything that tries to prove them wrong.

So, here we are today - some religious fanatics attacking science; scientists not really paying much attention to them unless it interrupts their work.

Those who say "evolution is a religion" are simply trying to define EVERYTHING in religious terms without noticing that the rest of us don't think like that and, most of the rest of us, don't even think of them unless they begin intruding into our lives.

It's really pretty simple, I think.

[edit on 4-8-2005 by Al Davison]

AlDavison I also notice in some research I have been doing that they only way to realy attack science in a way that doesn't necesarily takes "brains" and "education" is linking science and evolution with "Religion"

But the biggest mistake creationist make is that instead of proving a point they are actually showing the degree of ignorance when it comes to scientific research.

If you look at the meaning of faith you will see that all the work you have to do to prove creation is just to sit back and believe that is true.

Meanwhile scientist has to work their butt off and be educated enough with prestigious degrees to show the results of their work.

That is why scientist disregard the efforts of creationist and keep with their work as usual because is not competition when it comes to who is the profesional.

Meanwhile scientist has to work their butt off and be educated enough with prestigious degrees to show the results of their work.

that is what ive been saying. scientists do work their butts off. but those are scientists. the evolutionist has to have faith that a big bang even happened. all they have to say is, oh we have proof. but they never show anything scientific. its all based on faith.

I rely on the bible, just like I rely on the history books that say that george washington existed. we dont know that for sure. we dont know that anyone before him existed, we rely on what has been handed down.


EC

Originally posted by Evolution Cruncher

Meanwhile scientist has to work their butt off and be educated enough with prestigious degrees to show the results of their work.

that is what ive been saying. scientists do work their butts off. but those are scientists. the evolutionist has to have faith that a big bang even happened. all they have to say is, oh we have proof. but they never show anything scientific. its all based on faith.

I rely on the bible, just like I rely on the history books that say that george washington existed. we dont know that for sure. we dont know that anyone before him existed, we rely on what has been handed down.


EC

But there are several sources that were contemporary to washington. There are several accounts of washington. There are no accounts, nor any contemporaries of people such as adam and eve nor noah. It's a story. This doesn't mean that certain aspects can't be used to analyze the time periods the bible chapter were written in or assembled, and get a look at early societies., but there is no evidence anywhere that makes the biblical creation MYTH any more realistic than any other religion and it is arrogant to suggest differently. Also evolution is not a religion.

Also like to add that the bible was written to control people, where history occurs and the outcomes effect people but people are not controled by it.

Also Evolutionary Biologists ARE scientists. I guess you will be saying next that Geologists aren't scientists because they prove the earth was formed more than 6000 years a ago and there was no catadtrophic flood that covered the world

Originally posted by Evolution Cruncher
evolutionist has to have faith that a big bang even happened.

An evolutionist is no more reliant on the universe having began than any other scientist. Biological evolution is independant of how the world came about. THe world obviously exists. Biological evolution is the study of the living things that are on earth.

all they have to say is, oh we have proof. but they never show anything scientific.

You are not familiar with the evidence for inflation theory?

its all based on faith.

How can you say its faith based if you have not seen the evidence for it?

I rely on the bible, just like I rely on the history books that say that george washington existed. we dont know that for sure. we dont know that anyone before him existed, we rely on what has been handed down.

Archaeology and the science of historical studies do not, however, blindly accept that what is written is true. It uses the methodology and rationale of science to demonstrate these things. We can find evidence for the revolutionary war, washington's spy rings, his commisions, his acts as president, etc etc. We do not find evidencefor a garden of eden, a global flood, a tower of babel, or a 6,000 year old age of the earth.

Getting back to the start of this thread, I've just finished reading pretty much everything on Kent Hovind's site and, all I've got to say is: FRAUD!
I wish I had read it all before I read all the comments from people on this thread because I would have thought it was really funny. But, after reading that there are people who can read/write/type/use a computer that actually believe in this guy, it's just scary and sad.

If you start with the premise that everything in the bible is true, then you don't need science - he should have stopped himself right there! But, when he starts trying to debunk scientific evidence, he is so far out of his field that he may as well be discussing cooking shows.

If you want to believe in the bible, then I have no problems with that. I will never make fun of someone's sincere religious beliefs.

If you want to believe in "Dr. Dino" then, please post all your credit card numbers, bank account info, SSN, date of birth, mother's maiden name, etc. because you are obviously enjoying being defrauded and there are thousands of people out there in cyberspace who would love to satisfy your every desire.

Dr. "Dino" as any other creationist and so call expert has followed the foot steps of Ussher and Lightfoot, which rely in bible data alone to explain creation.

So if we are to follow any of them we most conclude that by Archbishop Ussher that creation took place in 4004B.C.

Dr. John Lightfoot, after profound studies concluded that creation was performed by the Trinity on 23 October 4004 B.C. at 9:00 A.M., 45th meridian times.

I guess that will be the subject of studies in the classroom when creationism takes over.

"Creationist" like any other fundamentalist reject the view that aim to education like evolution and sciences that also allowed children to think independently.

In the pursue of making education for inculcation and indoctrination.

What are creationists’ afraid off.?


[edit on 5-8-2005 by marg6043]

This has turned out to be a great thread exposing a fraud perpetuating disinformation.

Originally posted by Jakomo
Josh:

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

How does protein form? How long does it take to have the perfect confluence of events on a molten rock of a planet to allow it to produce a single bacteria? We don't know. Maybe God, billions of years ago, started the ball rolling and planted some primordial soup. We don't know. But we know it happened. The planet was molten rock for billions of years before life formed.

No. We dont know. Were you there? Do you have a home video of it?

I have already done the thread that shows the dating methods are not in compliance with the Scientific Method. I have already gone round and round the tree where we learn that the dating methods are based on ASSumptions. Whats worse, those results are plugged into other ideas that are based on ASSumptions. There are ASSumptions all over the evolution and billions of years ideas, and far to few facts that lead to any real conclusions.
When it comes down to it, evolution is the result of a bunch of assumptions.

[edit on 5-8-2005 by jake1997]

Thanks for those references!

I think we can now conclude that Hovind is actually a stand-up comedian rather than any kind of intellectual! This guy is just plain funny!

Maybe he's like the Bill O'Reilly of stand-up comic "science"... LOL!

Originally posted by Nygdan

jake1997

Do you have a home video of it?

Lots of things that we don't have on video we know still happened.

Evolution is not one of them

I have already done the thread that shows the dating methods are not in compliance with the Scientific Method

I don't know if you noticed or not, but you didn't demonstrate that the methods are not incompliance. Infact, they are thoroughly scientific.

I did demonstrate that they are based on assumptions and not the Scientific Method. In the above quote you only say scientific, so I guess we can leave it at that. My point is made.

Jake:

I have already done the thread that shows the dating methods are not in compliance with the Scientific Method. I have already gone round and round the tree where we learn that the dating methods are based on ASSumptions. Whats worse, those results are plugged into other ideas that are based on ASSumptions. There are ASSumptions all over the evolution and billions of years ideas, and far to few facts that lead to any real conclusions.
When it comes down to it, evolution is the result of a bunch of assumptions.

Wrong! Evolution is BACKED UP by other different sciences. GEOLOGISTS don't use carbon dating to determine the age of various strata of the earth's crust.

ASTRONOMERS don't use carbon dating to figure out a red dwarf star that they see is 3 billion years old.

You don't need carbon dating to determine how old a piece of radioactive rock is when you know what the half-life and decay rate of the isotope is.

Evolution does NOT rely on assumptions to prove its' veracity. Scientific discoveries made AFTER Darwin proposed it have backed it up rather than challenged it.

Though I wonder why I'm arguing, the fact that you seem to like to say the word ASS so much points to my assumption that you're probably about 13.


I mean, do you HONESTLY believe that the planet and the cosmos and the firmament were ALL created in 7 days? Why 7? Why not instantly, if the Lord is omnipotent? Why slack off? Does it take longer to create a rhinoceros than a fieldmouse?

Religions don't compete for money? Sure, and the pope don't live in a huge castle called the Vatican, Benny Hahn ain't rich, and preachers don't make a living talking fairy tales and other garbage that only a manipulated and corrupt child could believe when evidence of evolution exist. There are many fossil records to back evolution.

Creationist have had thousands of years to make their claim. Over the last 150 evolutionist have amassed believers at a much higher rate than creationist. Give us another thousand and there will only be small bands of nomadic tribes believing in creationism.