Will answer almost all questions evolutionists have

Originally posted by Evolution Cruncher
the thing with God is, he is eternal. if you know what that means, you will know that God was not created by anyone or anything, he is unlimited and unefffected by all things. God wouldnt be God if he had to have someone create him. also, if the infinite God could fit in my little three pound brain, he wouldnt be worth worshipping.

you can't fit god in to your brain, as he would not be worth worshipping, yet you can fit him in to a book of finite pages, and then he's worth worshipping?

I think that the concept of God is well understood by three pound brains all around the world and throughout history. You should give man more credit. Whether or not he created the Judeo-Christian God with his resources of creativity and imagination, it is indisputable that he created at least some of the other, competing Gods that exist and have existed throughout history (in the inventive sense).

Zip

This thread has gotten severly off topic, its supposed to be about Kent Hovind's 'dr dino' website. Lets try to re-focus on that specifically.

Just because an answer to almost all questions evolutionists have is provided, does not make the explanation palpable. For once, explain something useful in terms of the creationist position. But of course, every effort (read some of the literature) to prove details of a position is made by science, which you are claiming for creationism. Now, this is simplistic, not even dealing with the complexities of life.

To Wit:

A snowflake is perfectly explicable in terms of natural phenomena, of natural science. And the process of its formation is replicable in the laboratory and explained in terms of intermolecular forces and meteorology. Certainly, the order observed in such an ice crystal is often remarkable. Yet it is not necessary to invoke an intelligent creator to explain the crystallization process in the atmosphere.

If ID or CS is actually science, then explain the role of the creator and the effects of a creator's presence on snowflake formation. What is the evidence for your conclusions? How do snowflakes form in such a disordered environment as the interior of a cloud? And why is it that the weather that produces snow is ordered, yet chaotic enough to often defy prediction? Of course not only must the design be proved, but also define the mechanisms from the creation through to the final fall of the flake (in terms of intelligent design only). That is, explain every step of the process of the intelligent design of a snowflake by a creator and exactly what the creator does at each part of the process. Why? Compare your results with the meteorological explanation.

reductio ad absurdum

Why the hell do you care? Answer that [pls

LOL. You've just been waiting for an excuse to use that picture. I suspect it might have been photoshopped though. I reckon before it was altered those young muslim women were in fact reptilians and the sign they were carrying said "Nygdan is our leader" - conspiricy!

Ah yes, the topic. The unlikely named Kent Hovind is full of crap. His site is a deluge of lies and misrepresentation. I think other posts have demonstrated this beyond any reasonable doubt.

I have yet to meet a scientist that isn't an evolutionist.

I have yet to meet a creationist that isn't trying to be a scientist.

Here is the sublink of how to collect $250,000 if you can prove to these idiots that evolution exist:

www.godrules.net...

I love the fact that TWO THIRDS of the challenge are revisions

I have yet to meet a scientist that isn't an evolutionist.

I have yet to meet a creationist that isn't trying to be a scientist.

well you might need to look a little harder, as far as I know, 45% of the scientists in america are creationists. (im pretty sure it was just america, if not than the whole world)

and only 55% are evolutionists.
and just because everyone believes a certain theory does not make it true. most people dont understand that statement.

EC

Originally posted by Evolution Cruncher

I have yet to meet a scientist that isn't an evolutionist.

I have yet to meet a creationist that isn't trying to be a scientist.

well you might need to look a little harder, as far as I know, 45% of the scientists in america are creationists. (im pretty sure it was just america, if not than the whole world)

and only 55% are evolutionists.

Can you prove this statement? [bare in mind 'creationalist scientists' don't count as most don't seem to even have their degrees- which includes hovind.]

Originally posted by Evolution Cruncher
well you might need to look a little harder, as far as I know, 45% of the scientists in america are creationists. (im pretty sure it was just america, if not than the whole world)

and only 55% are evolutionists.
and just because everyone believes a certain theory does not make it true. most people dont understand that statement.

if that statement is true then perhaps its because around 75% are brought up with some sort of christian/religious background, perhaps an even higher percentage. 55% would still be a high figure, afterall evolution has only been around for 150ish years. christianity has been around for almost 2000, yet only 45% of scientists (according to you) believe in their creation theory. before darwin, almost all scientists would have believed in creation, yet that doesn't make it any more true. if anything it goes to show you what an impact evolution has had on the scientific community and shows its more than 'lies' or 'blanks'. there has to be some if not a lot of truth to evolution, as 55% (the majority) of scientists believe in it. evolution isn't 'that' important to science, that's not what scientists base their whole lives on. it's but one tiny fragment of science.

the springbok antelope has a warning/defence against predators. when a predator is near their warning sign to the rest of the antelope is to spring in to the air, hence their name. however, surely if god made everything to be vegetarian, then there is no need for the spring/jump, as the antelope would have had no predators. apparently animals only became non-vegetarians after 'sin', and in which case means god did not give that 'jump/spring' technique to the antelope as it would have been completly unnecessary. therefore, over time it is more logical to believe that the antelope developed this spring technique to warn others of predators. also it is also more likely that at one time all animals were not vegetarian, and that the antelopes technique is honed over time, of which is now a distinctive part of them.

so i guess my question to the non-evolutionists out there is:

why, when god created an animal kingdom of pure vegetarians, does an antelope develope a distinctive hallmark that tells others of their species that there is a predator (a non-vegetarian) nearby?

Originally posted by Esoteric Teacher
Here is the sublink of how to collect $250,000 if you can prove to these idiots that evolution exist:

www.godrules.net...

I love the fact that TWO THIRDS of the challenge are revisions

Hee! That's because he doesn't understand the scientific process and he's trying to weasel out of a badly designed first rant-y statement.

I think it might be challengeable from all the BAD design features in the known parts of the universe and various inefficiencies. But I bet the moment someone comes up with that, he'll amend his page yet again.

Originally posted by shaunybaby
the springbok antelope has a warning/defence against predators. when a predator is near their warning sign to the rest of the antelope is to spring in to the air, hence their name. however, surely if god made everything to be vegetarian, then there is no need for the spring/jump, as the antelope would have had no predators. apparently animals only became non-vegetarians after 'sin', and in which case means god did not give that 'jump/spring' technique to the antelope as it would have been completly unnecessary. therefore, over time it is more logical to believe that the antelope developed this spring technique to warn others of predators. also it is also more likely that at one time all animals were not vegetarian, and that the antelopes technique is honed over time, of which is now a distinctive part of them.

so i guess my question to the non-evolutionists out there is:

why, when god created an animal kingdom of pure vegetarians, does an antelope develope a distinctive hallmark that tells others of their species that there is a predator (a non-vegetarian) nearby?

i take it no one can actually answer? maybe from a creationist point of view there is no answer, the only way to explain is evolution.

Originally posted by Evolution Cruncher
as far as I know, 45% of the scientists in america are creationists.

This is absolutely and completely incorrect.

Creationists are a very very small percentage of actual scientists, and even then we're almost allways talking about people who still beleive in an extremely old earth and that evolution occurs for the most part and that there is merely divine help at sticking points or something. The '44 percent' ish number is probably from a relatively recent poll that showed that that percentage of americans were 'quasi-creationists', (ie not even necessarily literal 6 day creationists).

[edit on 28-8-2005 by Nygdan]

Cruncher, you may not knowingly be posting false information, but that doesn't change the fact that you are posting false information. There is no excuse for not verifying your claims with sources when you are posting on the same Internet that publishes such sources.

LEADING SCIENTISTS STILL REJECT GOD.

In 1998, only 7 percent of scientists believed in a personal God, down from 27 percent in 1914. 93 percent of scientists either disbelieve in a God or doubt the existence of a God or are agnostic.

Excuse my straightforwardness, but I think that if you want to retain the respect of your peers on this board, you must stop posting blatant misinformation.

Zip

Originally posted by shaunybaby

Originally posted by shaunybaby
the springbok antelope has a warning/defence against predators. when a predator is near their warning sign to the rest of the antelope is to spring in to the air, hence their name. however, surely if god made everything to be vegetarian, then there is no need for the spring/jump, as the antelope would have had no predators. apparently animals only became non-vegetarians after 'sin', and in which case means god did not give that 'jump/spring' technique to the antelope as it would have been completly unnecessary. therefore, over time it is more logical to believe that the antelope developed this spring technique to warn others of predators. also it is also more likely that at one time all animals were not vegetarian, and that the antelopes technique is honed over time, of which is now a distinctive part of them.

so i guess my question to the non-evolutionists out there is:

why, when god created an animal kingdom of pure vegetarians, does an antelope develope a distinctive hallmark that tells others of their species that there is a predator (a non-vegetarian) nearby?

i take it no one can actually answer? maybe from a creationist point of view there is no answer, the only way to explain is evolution.

for the third time i will ask this question:

are there no creationists who can explain to me why, when god created a vegetarian kingdom of animals, does an animal proceed to develope a certain aspect that allows it to warn others of a predator's presence?

my answer would be evolution. perhaps there will be a creationist along soon and will just say 'god allowed them to do it', even though prior to this he created all things to be vegetarian. seems like someone couldn't make there mind up, and had to keep going back to 'alter' his designs

Originally posted by Evolution Cruncher

I have yet to meet a scientist that isn't an evolutionist.

I have yet to meet a creationist that isn't trying to be a scientist.

well you might need to look a little harder, as far as I know, 45% of the scientists in america are creationists. (im pretty sure it was just america, if not than the whole world)

and only 55% are evolutionists.
and just because everyone believes a certain theory does not make it true. most people dont understand that statement.

EC

If 45% of American Scientists believe the Earth is not older than 7,000 years, then 45% of American scientists are the stupidist scientists in the world.

I have yet to meet a scientist that went to college as an evolutionist and through earning the degree in science, decide that creation was the better of the two options when it came to looking at the imperical data.

we can visually measure erosion.
we can see how slow/fast the Niagra falls carves into the rock.
we can see that it would have taken 160,000 years to do what's been done.
we can still find people who say the Earth is not older than 7,000 years.

Well this is very dumb, I MEAN VERY DUMB. But Maybe God did create everything just he summed it down to people in the Bible cause he thought they would be too dumb to reckonise evoulution and stuff....ya...man i feel stupid right know your all talking about like...things that arent guns or beer or things that i know of...but ya just a though i wanted to post. And why are you ridiculing each other..i mean just be more freindly like this BIG SMILES