Evolution Officially Debunked!!!

Originally posted by Allred5923
Well, if there ever was a time to just say "The heck with it!" I would have to say it is about "Now."
There is way to many arguments that can be contested from either side of explanation. As one of the posters had stated, "It is pretty much all an 'Acceptance' of a belief."
I for one don't buy into the whole "Creator" scam, or the Bible is a "Divine" book from a higher power. Though I do lean towards the "Sciences" of this issue, it is only my part of the analogies, they are not for sale and I am not giving them as a force fed food for thought.
The title of this thread is totally misleading and it was the reason why I even posted here, hoping it would be some kind of "New" found evidences of this being factual and respectable. It was neither.
ferociousracer313 has a different frame of thinking than myself, and there will always be another question to a very appropriate and widely accepted scientific finding, because it is not what the OP "Wants" to hear.
As like a majority of you posters of this particular thread, "There nothing to be seen here, move along." Is the exact feeling I get with all the rebutting with nothing more than "He said/She said" accusations and finding's that aren't proven one way or the other.
If you are a "Skeptic" of the Bible, you more than likely favor the "Evolutionary" points of views for topical conversation, and if you are the religious type, you will automatically and adamantly defend your personal faiths and beliefs of what is written in the Bible and what you have been brought up to accept as fact.

Arguments don't produce anything but a major headache, and trying to conclude things as a "Factual" basis without proofs is an argument in the making, which is the vicious cycle now taking place here.
Though it does deserve to be discussed and pondered on, it is an "Unaccepted" science for the facts, none provable by Biblical explanations, that are currently out there. It will only be answered one of two ways , "We create a time machine and go back to the beginning of it all." or "God all mighty comes down for a visit and puts it all to rest." Which, no stretch of the imagination, will probably never happen, well, not in my life time any way.

We are getting blue in the face from lack of "Oxygen" so, "take a breath and be content with your own thoughts of what is what." For now, it is a moot point of topical discussion and will be argued for years to come from both or either side when the questions and issues a rise.

You see the reason u cant find God is the same reason a thief cant find a cop. Its because u dont want to. You dont want to give it a chance. When u die, and face God, u will know u were wrong along with all the other evolutionists. Open ur mind and go research. The Illuminati put lies out there like Evolution and that there is no God because the Illuminati work for satan. and they have stated this before. It was quoted by Rothchild himself that they worship and serve satan. Ever herd of Bohemian grove? Come on now, if they serve Satan and make it clear that they do. Then there CLEARLY is a God. The greatest lie satan has ever made people believe is that he himself doesnt exsist. I suggest u and everyone watch the video i recently posted called "A Trip into the Supernatural". You will learn alot...

Originally posted by vasaga
Two centuries later, that belief came up again but with bacteria and algae. A scientist came along again, and he showed that life only comes from other life, including large animals and also algae and bacteria. That is basic biology.

and life can only arise from organic compounds

which occur naturally, form all by them selves, and can replicate them selves

please if you insist on using outdated science to back your claims theres no hope

Actually no. It was thought it was a scientific fact, just as the flies, but then proven to be wrong. And i did say they debunked it in my explanation. .. yes you did and i agreed it had been debunked and added it was done so by science

The point is, primordial soup will also be debunked. Actually already is but they still persist

except it hasnt and all the evidence just keeps building a stronger and stronger case for it

we have found NOTHING that discredits it, NOTHING that proves it wrong

we HAVE found lots that give it greater credit, LOT that do prove it correct

dont just give me words give me some evidence, some actual research

Yes really. They made it up and then started testing it.

and did the testing show we were on the right track? yes

and how did they make it up as you put it? they looked for evidence of how the earth was and formulated and idea from what they found, it wasnt made up it was a best guess explanation for what had already been found

Well, there is still no proof. If you have proof you can make some of the compounds with a soup,

thats becasue you didnt read those links

you didnt did you? be honest? there are a couple in there that explain instances where we have seen organic compounds self form, then combine with others to make more complex molecules

and some of those already observed are part of what makes dna and rna

if we already know how and why most of rna can make its self and how the other esential proteins make them selves

that pretty dam fine evidence that its the hypothesis to stick your hat on

it does not mean life derived from it. You know why? If you take a cell, you poke it, every ingredient flows out. You take all those ingredients, put them in the soup, they will not form back to a single cell. EVER.

your absolutley right

if i blow you up with a large explosive would i expect you to rebuild your self?

but as the component parts of the cell break down they begin to form organic compounds and complex molecules again

what an absurd argument to make, if they did all form back and go for a jesus style reserection then evolution would be WRONG

I just gotta react to this one separately. And they wan't us to believe there's no life out there??

who does?

never heard of panspermia? scientific thoery that states life was seeded by meteorites

Rna world the best most proven and most accepted model of abiogenesis clearly includes panspermia as a possible origin

seti are looking for it

the planetery version of the anthropic principle says its almost certain theres life out there somewhere

if science thought it couldnt happen why would so many people work on it and so much money be spent on trying to prove and find it? saturns moons may have liquid water were designing and building probes to go there bore down and test the water for traces of life

Oh really? Here's my answer:
news.bbc.co.uk...
If they are willing to do that, how reliable is that whole evolution thing? Really..???? Be honest with yourself here.

its still undisputed

science didnt fake it a chinese farmer did

Archaeoraptor liaoningensis is a hoaxed fossil that linked dinosaurs to birds. It was allegedly found in China in the 1990s and was described in the November 1999 issue of National Geographic as “a true missing link in the complex chain that connects dinosaurs to birds.” The specimen is actually a composite of two dinosaur fossils.

Xu Xing, a Chinese scientist who had initially helped to identify the fossil, was the one who eventually blew the whistle on it. He announced that he had found a second fossil containing an exact, mirror-image duplicate of the Archaeoraptor's tail, but attached to a different body. Fossil stones, when taken from the ground, often cleave in two, producing two mirror-image sets of fossil slabs. Evidently someone had taken one of the slabs bearing the tail fossil and affixed it to a fossil of a bird, thereby producing a hybrid dinosaur-bird creature. (Museum of Hoaxes)

The Archaeoraptor hoax is an example of how science works. When an error is made or fraud is committed, it is discovered and dealt with publicly. Science is self-correcting, unlike creationism. If this case was unusual it was due to the hoax being discovered almost immediately after the National Geographic article appeared. The Archaeoraptor fossil only had a few months of glory as the missing link between dinosaurs and birds before it was exposed as a composite. We now know that the head and body of a primitive bird and the tail and hind limbs of a dromaeosaur dinosaur were glued together by a Chinese farmer.*

skepdic.com...

did you even READ the story you linked?

Dr Timothy Rowe, of the University of Texas at Austin, told BBC News Online: "Now that we know which pieces really do go back together properly and which do not, we can see that there is a new species of extinct bird present in the forgery and that it definitely deserves to be studied and described.

"The tail came from a different animal altogether, and it has already been described and named Microraptor. We may never know where the legs came from."

the second scientists actually got thier hands on it they proved it was a fake, and even better then that the tail was of an unknown disnosaur species

when they knew where to look they went and found the creature it really belonged to and guess what the tail actually belonged to a new species called Microraptor zhaoianus

which actually was a flying bird dinosaur link www.dinosaurfact.net...

science correcting a chinese farmers mistake and national geo getting silly without science's support doesnt disprove science, scinece condemned the actions of national geo becasue it was suspected to be a fake before they went and shouted about it

Oh come on... This sounds like Pokémon. Everyone can make that up.

I could but I DONT MAKE THIS UP,

just becasue you dont understand it doesnt mean its not real

The origin of whales (order Cetacea) is one of the best-documented
examples of macroevolutionary change in vertebrates1–3.
As the earliest whales became obligately marine, all of their organ
systems adapted to the new environment. The fossil record
indicates that this evolutionary transition took less than 15
million years, and that different organ systems followed different
evolutionary trajectories. Here we document the evolutionary
changes that took place in the sound transmission mechanism of
the outer and middle ear in early whales.

www.clt.astate.edu...

a case study on timpanic and other ear structures as shown by the fossil record in Cetaceans and thier ancestors

i bring more then just pretty words and verbatum copy posting of others words

Yeah of which they usually only have 20-30% of the bones................

shall we have a look? lets pick just some of the know

Osteolepis macrolepidotus
this one even shows its scales

eusthenopteron


Tiktaalik the one fossil we have found has over 50% of its body, and luckily its the front end the bit we really need

even from a 20-30% fossil you can learn a lot, and when you have a few 20-30% fossils you have most if not all the skeleton allowing you to accurate reproduce the fossils

It doesn't matter which one.

it really does matter

www.youtube.com...

nice shirt whats this guys qualifications? ahh doctorate in bible studies. he seems to think the ape to human image was drawn to support evolution, it was originally drawn to mock Darwins orgins but was such a good image it was adopted and updated

he lists some fakes that SCIENCE POINTED OUT WERE FAKE

hahahha this video is hilarious, lucy is make believe?

yes very make believe and this is just 1 of the many individuals of astrolopithicus we have, remeber many semi complete fossils give us an understanding of the whole

(not by a scientist but i like the music)

(doctorate in geology)

(university lecturer on anthropology)

(the same lecturer above ripping apart a creationists claims)

and another video showing the same

and another

sorry a degree in bible studies and not understanding or knowing the evidence doesnt make it wrong, it makes him wrong


why doesnt our video friend touch on the comparative dna evidence? the atavistismic evidence? the endogenus retro virus evidence? the comparative anatomy evidence? the brain capacity evidence? the phylogenetic evidence?

does he even know they exist?

all he does is say umm its wrong becasue they made it that way becasue i dont believe it




[edit on 14/12/08 by noobfun]

Originally posted by vasaga
So the flood is true? Anyway, that's the whole problem right there. Something miles away is certainly not a guarantee it's from the same species, let alone the same being.

a flash flood is not noahs ark what kind of idiot jumps to that sort of conclusion?

well lets see the fact that all 20 individuals when compared to lucy werefound to be the same species kinda proves they were

they actually check things before they say them, maybe you should try it

Not really. First, i'm not a christian or anything, and second, the artists make up a lot of stuff about the fossils and the fact that they do that is already proof that they know there's no true evidence.

my god its getting worse, you do realise the artists interpretations arnt used as evidence

they are a way for the general public to get an understanding of what the scientists have found

they dont peer review papers saying well i drew a nice picture so it must be right, they use photos of the actual fossils

That great weight of evidence your talking about is not great at all..

how would you know? you havnt even looked at it

and when you class 7 or 8 peer reviewed scientific papers written by scientists for scientists as *some links* and refering to things as sounding like pokemon instead of trying to understand them you truley are showing ignorance

the evidecne is overwhelming for anyone that cares to step up and actually learn about it

You really think they want to challenge it officially so their career would end? They only say it in private, and when they come with another theory, like Behe, they get ridiculed.

actually Behe gets ridiculed not becasue he believes ID but becasue his work is shoddy incomplete and generally useless

isnt it handy that they only talk about it in private, quit making rubbish up bring facts figures scientific literature or find somthing else to do

Except positive mutation are not possible and never have been observed.

really?

so the family in america with a mutation leading to massive bone density to the point its almost impossible for them to break a bone dont exist?

yalemedicine.yale.edu...

Family members, according to the investigators, have bones so strong they rival those of a character in the 2000 movie Unbreakable. “If there are living counterparts to the [hero] in Unbreakable, who is in a terrible train wreck and walks away without a single broken bone, they’re members of this family,” said Lifton. “They have extraordinarily dense bones and there is no history of fractures. These people have about the strongest bones on the entire planet.”

Members of this family carry a genetic mutation that causes high bone density. They have a deep and wide jaw and bony growth on the palate. Richard P. Lifton, M.D., Ph.D., chair of the Department of Genetics, along with Karl L. Insogna, M.D., professor of medicine and director of the Yale Bone Center, and colleagues, traced the mutation to a gene that was the subject of an earlier study.

how about diseases becoming resistant to the drugs used to kill them?
insects becoming resitant to the chemicals used to kill them?

all posative mutations that have been observed

Yeah like i showed, that evidence isn't really evidence.

you do realie theres an extreme differance between saying it isnt and proving it isnt?

you havnt proven anything just said it isnt, bring facts data and evidence not copy pasted wording

Originally posted by vasaga
No it isn't. It's obvious you didn't watch the video at all looking at all that crap you just posted. THEY DO PROVE IT SCIENTIFICALLY, but i guess you turned it off after one minute and didn't bother..

actually i did watch it

a guy misrepresenting someone elses actual results and then some how trying to to infer what happens to be how everything works is dishonest

the sediment may sort acording to size but when compressed into rock all that sediment will form 1 layer of a specific rock type that is distinguishable from layers that were put down when it was no longer formed in the sea

you didnt watch those videos i posted did you,

www.youtube.com...
www.cnt.ru...
Watch this whole part, till they show you the experiments, or read the document below the video, including the two sources. If you don't bother doing any of those two, i won't bother discussing with you. Is that clear?

i bring you acurate up to date scientific papers and you ignore them but insist i watch poor quality misrepresentational videos?

hypocrisy my friend, willing ignorance

the video also fails to explain how mixed layers of sea and land based sediments happen, it explains how deposits sort themselves by weight but then think this somehow explains how layers of differing rock types form

they take 1 instance which geologists know about and take into consideration and think it explains every single rock formation which is dishonest misrepresentation

See the sources above. They debunk those two videos already.

no they dont

the first image showing the mixed rock size and strata level were he talks about

part 3

4:50 in clay limestone sandstone have to form seperatley to stack, they are formed by different things

5:26 not how each layer has varied size stones inside each one, if they all formed at exactly the same time all over the world as he states his picture would be very different as all the large stones of every rock type would all be at the bottom

No it isn't. See the sources above and what i explain below.

they all use exactly the same methodology argon argon c12 and the many others

if 1 is accurate they all are

If every duck i see is brown all ducks must be brown. Formal fallacy.

o_0

if every element decays at a constant rate which they have been tested and proven, and every test used to date check is tested against material of a known age to check accuracy

and they all use the same methodology

what your analogy should say say

if i see brown ducks then all brown ducks are ducks

You do if strata are no time indication.

theres a difference between radioactive decay rates and actually bieng classed as radioactive material

as you kept banding uranium around and uranium leekage

its not its actually radiation that gets tested its hopw much it has decayed into its next form

The argon-argon dating they use is based on radioactive argon... Check wikipedia... Now we already know you don't really know what you were talking about here...

everything is intrinsically radioactive

but argon is not classed as radioactive material like uranium that you kept giving as an example

its not my ignorance but your faulty examples

This make the rock appear a lot older than it actually is.[/

no it doesnt they arnt checking how much lead the rock contains

only if they were using how much lead is there would extra lead screw up the results, they are checking how much isnt lead

Stop making excuses you have no backed up evidence for.

no evidece and making up excuses?

you have read the title of the paper?

'Radiogenic helium and argon in ultramafic inclusions from hawaii'

ultramafic inclusions bieng xenoliths, as i say the study was to show that if xenoliths in lava flows were tested they would give inaccurate dates to the rocks age, when they retested it and choce spots of the rock not from xenolith they got a consitant and acuurate age of 200 years

read the paper its scientific literature so youll probabily just class it as *some links* again and ignore it rather then read it

That video is false. It does not matter if the argon-40 has a parent or not.It's still the same type of matter and there is no difference between one that came from potassium and one that was already there.

argon can escape from the liquid lava so it has none as it all escapes

when the lava forms a solid rock the potasium that decays and becomes argon is trapped

the argon to potassium rate is whats counted, as the argon removes its self while in a liquid state the only argon found in the rock is what has decayed from potasium

If you make hydrogen with chemical processes it does not make the hydrogen different than any hydrogen found in nature..

i agree

and that is not what the video is saying either

THAT IS ASSUMING THE RATE STAYED THE SAME, which is unlikely.

no it isnt its tested

multipul elements have fast decay rates they were tested and showed a constant rate of decay, longer elemenets were tested their decay rates were worked out and then this was used to predict and test the rate of decay over several time periods the experiemnts were redone as well

its not assuming its tested and proven fact

If it does that now does not mean it was so in the past. And they don't guess, they make assumptions. A LOT of assumptions..

and then go out and prove it or throw it away as an idea

its only an assumption until they start working on it to prove it

What you are saying is plain false...

no its imperically tested to a level well beyond reasonably dought, if this was a court case all 12 memebers of the jury would reach the same conclusion is they payed attention to the evidence

an out of date misrepresentaional video will never win out against piure tested and confirmed fact

the very fact i bring you scientific data that you dismiss without reading or understanding and call it made up pokeymon sounding and dismiss it without any evidence says alot

Mod Edit: Fixed external quote tags

[edit on 14-12-2008 by GAOTU789]

Click here for more information.

Look this is getting out of hand so lets make this quite clear.

The title of your thread is "Evolution Officially Debunked!!!". So if this was any other topic the administrators would put the words [HOAX] in front of the title. Why? Because you, nor Kent Hovid, officially debunked evolution.

Evolution is science's best possible answer for our being here.
Religion is this nut-job's best possible answer for our being here.

Pick one and put up your dukes, right?

The problem with religion's argument is that we are supposed to listen to someone who believes the bible word for word from cover to cover? That means that this man believes we should...

- Stone our wives to death if they are not virgins
- Use slaves
- Beat our Children
- Be Homophobic

Let's have a look at his credentials too shall we?

He holds three degrees in Christian education (1974, 1988, 1991) from unaccredited institutions.

After receiving his first correspondence degree, Hovind started the Creation Science Evangelism ministry (CSE) in 1989. The ministry aims to evangelize people by teaching them creationism. During Hovind's trial the prosecution said the ministry does not have the proper licensing nor is it registered as a nonprofit, which resulted in legal troubles.

Now here's the fun part...

Kent Hovind had been charged with falsely declaring bankruptcy, making threats against federal officials, filing false complaints, failing to get necessary building permits, felony assault and battery (charges later dropped),[120] and various tax-related charges. He was convicted of federal tax offenses and related charges, for which he is currently serving a 10-year sentence.

Hovind was charged on September 13, 2002, for failure to observe county zoning regulations with respect to Dinosaur Adventure Land.[31] Despite arguments that the owners did not need a permit due to the nature of the building, the park was found in violation of local regulations.[121]

en.wikipedia.org...

[edit on 14-12-2008 by Yoda411]

Mod Edit: New External Source Tags – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 14-12-2008 by GAOTU789]

Originally posted by furiousracer313
i support the most selling, most accurate book ever, The Holy Bible...

Popular doesn't make it correct...

lets take the #2 bestseller of all time: the Little Red Book (Quotations from Chairman Mao)...

reply to post by noobfun


I say the same to you:

Originally posted by vasaga
I won't bother commenting on you because we keep discussing in a circle anyway. I have better things to do, like reading earths forbidden history, a book that appeared in another thread. Have fun proving evolution, don't get a heart attack when you get old and they say it was false after all.

Originally posted by vasaga
Learn to read buddy. He did not say the same. He said it didn't get a chance to become a scientific fact, while i say, it was a scientific fact until proven wrong. That's very different.

it was a hypothesis as it had remianed unproven

when tested it failed miserably and got discarded it didnt get to be a theory

maybe you should learn to read, and maybe larn the differance between hypothesis and theory and law in scientific terms

spontanious appearance may have been accepted but it was not a proven theory

Yes i do know. "the perfect atmospheres,

there was practically no oxygen perfect atmosphere?

buildings blocks,

no

primordial soup has nothing to do with the building blocks bieng there, they formed as a result of it

pressure and temperatures,

organic chemcials can form it a wide variuety of temperatures and pressures that why we find them in space

in a nut shell? its nothing like it

As long as they can't do that, it's not proven.

what make our own cells? we can www.newscientist.com...

its the natural causes we are looking for, we have found out most of the natural mechanisms but your insisting its all wrong becasue we havnt reached a specific point which is throwing the baby the bathroom and the bath water out

the fact we can prove some but not all says were on the right track and mostly proven

what your suggesting is tantamount to saying i cant be climbing mount everest until im stood on top of it

You can say we're getting closer, but as long as it's not done, it's no proof. Period. If you try to headshot someone in call of duty, and you missed by one pixel, but you were soooooo close, you still did not hit him. Period.

great analogy but flawed

its more comparative to shooting the guy, not a head shot, that the eventual purpose is to kill him with a headshot but if everytime you hit him it gets closer to a head shot without diverting and without having to start all over again every shot is a proven step in the right direction

every shot proves it further

Originally posted by noobfun

Yes i do know. "the perfect atmospheres,

there was practically no oxygen perfect atmosphere?

Did i say oxygen? No i didn't. Don't put words in my mouth ok?

buildings blocks,

no

primordial soup has nothing to do with the building blocks bieng there, they formed as a result of it

Go nitpick someone else.

pressure and temperatures,

organic chemcials can form it a wide variuety of temperatures and pressures that why we find them in space

Yeah and that's why they're so successful at creating the first living cell.

Screw this. This is pointless.

Originally posted by furiousracer313

I just watched the debate. Thanks for posting it.. I like how Dr. Kent Hovind destroyed Dr. Michael Shermer.. Didnt u?

then maybe you should listen to him being absolutley destoryed by a molecular genetacist and a grad student







not how after the caller is gone he still mumbles on and its still the same stuff the guy already shattered

owned again

Originally posted by furiousracer313
Evolution Offically Debunked!!!

Do you even know what the meaning of the word "Offically" means?

It's clearly seen you do not! There was no "Offically" to your "debunk" and this resignates as false and misleading.

It becomes painfully clear to anyone that knows the true meaning to the term "Offically" that you don't know what you're talking about.

Using such terms to sound Offical doesn't make your statements have more weight. In fact it makes what you have to say worthless.

Originally posted by furiousracer313

Originally posted by nj2day

Originally posted by Xtrozero
The evolution of man is a theory… this is a belief or faith of how man evolved. Creationism is also a belief or faith of how man evolved…

If you're going to describe evolution as a belief or faith... than you must describe creationism as a fairy tale...

No my friend EVOLUTION is a fairy tale...

I personally just do not see God doing cheap parlor tricks with some kind of magical wand. POOF…man is on the planet.

If God is the creator of the universe then he also created the laws of our universe and could easily make man within those laws. The guy has billions of years to do what he wants… he could start a ball of dust to form our solar system while making sure earth was placed in the right spot with everything needed for life, and man to evolve from. To imply God simply popped man on the planet doesn’t give him much credit in his abilities and that he doesn’t operate on the same timeline as we short lived humans.

The bigger question is whether man is here from random events or is he the product of intellectual design.

How it was done is really a moot point, and small thinking on everyones part…

Originally posted by cautiouslypessimistic

Originally posted by vasaga
reply to post by cautiouslypessimistic

 

True. Evolution is true to some extent, but that a bacteria became a fish which became an amphibian which became a reptile which became a bird or anything like that is just far fetched.. There's no proof for that. They only see evolution in small stages, and they say, oh, it must be for all life at all times..

You are absolutely correct. People have taken the idea of evolution and turned it into a faith, just the same as christianity, when in actuality, it is miniscule, to the point where most evolutions cannot even be detected on the surface level.
To say it doesnt exist, though, is folly.

The proof we did come from lower lifeforms on Earth is written in our DNA, along with fossil record and other sources. Like with any good science, there isn't just one place from which to draw facts.

Originally posted by vasaga
Did i say oxygen? No i didn't. Don't put words in my mouth ok?

they form in space in no atmosphere, so your still wrong

Go nitpick someone else.

no im enjoying this

its not nitpicking its the fact you dont know what your trying to debunk in the first place

Yeah and that's why they're so successful at creating the first living cell.

yes ^_^

Screw this. This is pointless.

ba-bye

[edit on 14/12/08 by noobfun]

The title of this thread, "Evolution Officially Debunked!!!".

If this wasn't a religious thread the Mod's would put [HOAX] tags around your title.

In fact, not only was Evolution not officially debunked, this man provides no evidence against Evolution besides making you feel stupid and threatening you with Hell Fire.

This is the problem with Christians. Their single goal is to push their beliefs on every possible human they can until the day they die.

Originally posted by Yoda411
The title of this thread, "Evolution Officially Debunked!!!".

If this wasn't a religious thread the Mod's would put [HOAX] tags around your title.

In fact, not only was Evolution not officially debunked, this man provides no evidence against Evolution besides making you feel stupid and threatening you with Hell Fire.

This is the problem with Christians. Their single goal is to push their beliefs on every possible human they can until the day they die.

Yoda411,

I just joined...what type of data would you like to see? What would be credible in your eyes?

Help OT out....

reply to post by Yoda411



Is all this EITHER/OR for you?

Originally posted by noobfun

Noob...whats up???????????

www.closertotruth.com...

Hey guys (Skeptics studs), Got a bit of time to join the wonderful discussion…

Found this Nuclear Physicist (Stannard, I believe)…to OT he presents a fairly balanced perspective on life, the universe and our future…no Bible Thumping (you know how OT loves the WORD) but I thought I’d mix it up a tad for fun…

Nah, I think you like his approach…no hype, no shouting, etc…he presents that probability and chance actually lend itself to a creator…

He also discusses the ROBOT thing that OT mentioned a few dozen threads ago…

Take a gander and let the ole’ guy know…

OT
Phil 1:3!!!!


[edit on 14-12-2008 by OldThinker]

Originally posted by OldThinker

Originally posted by Yoda411
The title of this thread, "Evolution Officially Debunked!!!".

If this wasn't a religious thread the Mod's would put [HOAX] tags around your title.

In fact, not only was Evolution not officially debunked, this man provides no evidence against Evolution besides making you feel stupid and threatening you with Hell Fire.

This is the problem with Christians. Their single goal is to push their beliefs on every possible human they can until the day they die.

Yoda411,

I just joined...what type of data would you like to see? What would be credible in your eyes?

Help OT out....

There is no data available in the entire world that has proven or dis-proven Evolution. There is merely a huge database of fossils and historical records that build a strong case for Evolution.

Where is the case for creationism? The man originally posted makes fun of evolutionists and tells them they are going to hell. That's not making a case, that is slander. The problem is there is NO evidence for creationism.

You can see that nobody is defending Dr. Kent Hovid himself and this is why.


Dr. Kent Hovid's Background from Wikipedia -

Kent E. Hovind (born January 15, 1953) is an American Young Earth creationist and conspiracy theorist, currently serving time in a federal prison for tax-related crimes.Since January 2007 Hovind has been serving a ten-year term in the Federal Correctional Institution, Edgefield in Edgefield, South Carolina, for 58 tax offenses, obstructing federal agents, and related charges.[5]

In 1971 he graduated from East Peoria Community High School in East Peoria, Illinois. From 1972 until 1974, Hovind attended the non-accredited Midwestern Baptist College and received a Bachelor of Religious Education (B.R.E.).

Kent Hovind had been charged with falsely declaring bankruptcy, making threats against federal officials, filing false complaints, failing to get necessary building permits, felony assault and battery (charges later dropped),[120] and various tax-related charges.

Hovind was charged on September 13, 2002, for failure to observe county zoning regulations with respect to Dinosaur Adventure Land.

Hovind's Creation Science Evangelism ministry is not listed as a tax-exempt Code Section 501(c)(3) charitable, educational or religious organization by the Internal Revenue Service[128] nor is it considered a church by people who work there.

In 1996 Hovind unsuccessfully filed for bankruptcy to avoid paying federal income taxes claiming he wasn't a citizen of the US and did not earn income.

On May 13, 1998, Hovind and his wife attempted to evade responsibility for any promises, debts, or legal agreements made prior to April 15, 1998, by filing a document called "Power of Attorney and Revocation of Signature"[135] with the Escambia County Clerk of Courts.

In 2004, IRS agents raided Hovind's home and business to confiscate financial records. On June 3, 2004, the IRS filed notices of Federal tax liens of $504,957.24 against Hovind and his son and their businesses due to previous legal maneuverings to evade taxation by moving property between himself, his son, and other legal entities.

After the conviction Hovind was incarcerated in the Escambia County Jail as a "danger to the community" and flight risk.

In addition "the government also has taken 10 properties from the Hovinds" for money owed.

[edit on 14-12-2008 by Yoda411]

reply to post by Yoda411


So you basically agree everyone keeps researching evolution because they have nothing better to go by with.