Evolutionist Bashing Creationist Science

I have to admit some of the stuff that I have read about on some of their sites is ridiculous. It appears as though the people writing the site are deliberately misleading people about their findings, putting forward rubbish science just so it fits in with whats in the bible.

Now dont get me wrong, people can follow whatever they want, and they should be allowed toas well. The problem is when religion crosses into an area like science it really p*$^es me off, due to the fact that they try to discredit all other scientific findings and disprove anything to do with evolution, and in some cases go about bashing people who have different opinion

According to their "findings" dinosaurs walked the earth with humans, in fact apparently they were even on Noahs Ark....the wesbite then goes on to explain to christian parents to make sure their kids learn this theory instead of "the fallacies of evolutionary explanation"

And check out this ridiculous quote

It has been estimated by evolutionary anthropologists that the earth could have easily supported 10 million hunter/gatherer type humans. To maintain an average of 10 million people, spread over the entire planet, with an average life span of 25 years, for the last 100,000 years . . . .would mean that 40 billion people had lived and died. Archeological evidence clearly shows that these "stone age" people buried their dead. Forty billion graves should be easy to find. Yet only a few thousand exist. The obvious implication is that people have been around for far less time.

Seems like the creationist scientists missed a point there didnt they?

And another thing, apparently the grand canyon wasnt created by water erosion from a river, appraently (bear in mind that the guy that wrote this isnt actually a scientist) it was created by a world wide flood. He goes onto explain:

How truly sad that a person could look at that evidence of the great worldwide flood that the Bible tells us about, and to walk away from it spouting a fairy tale about great ages of the earth.

If you want a laugh (or inaccurately learn) check out more of the articles here

www.drdino.com...

Lastly,I just want to add, respect each others beliefs and dont stoop to the level of the people on this website

Heh, Hovind is the ultimate creationist. Daft as a brush, and one of the most intellectually disabled out there.

He has a good well-learned patter in debates. But it's basically a gish-gallop - spout as many BS arguments in as short a time as possible. The opponent would have to take a day to adequately take apart each segment. Which is why it's better to assess it in writing. Easily shown to be specious.

[Is it a coincidence that a non-creationist found the correct forum for this stuff?]

Originally posted by melatonin
Heh, Hovind is the ultimate creationist. Daft as a brush, and one of the most intellectually disabled out there.

He has a good well-learned patter in debates. But it's basically a gish-gallop - spout as many BS arguments in as short a time as possible. The opponent would have to take a day to adequately take apart each segment. Which is why it's better to assess it in writing. Easily shown to be specious.

[Is it a coincidence that a non-creationist found the correct forum for this stuff?]

Does Hovind actually have any real credentials or is he just writing all this crap based on faith

One section I didnt check out (which i will be doing now) is the critic response section. I wonder how many "real" scientists wrote to them

[edit on 15/6/2008 by OzWeatherman]

Oh, looks like they wont let real scientists write on this site :shk:

[edit on 15/6/2008 by OzWeatherman]

I couldnt believe this one

Two people can often look at the same thing and come to opposite conclusions. The Grand Canyon is a perfect example. Evolutionists use it as proof that the earth is billions of years old, claiming that the Colorado River carved the canyon over millions of years. Bible-believing Christians interpret the canyon as a spillway from Noah's Flood. One believes it formed slowly, with a little water and a lot of time. The other believes it formed quickly, with a lot of water and a little time. What a stark difference.

If the Bible is true, and the earth is only about six thousand years old, we should find evidence that debunks the evolutionist theory about the Grand Canyon. We do. For example, the top of Grand Canyon is over four thousand feet higher than where the Colorado River enters the canyon, meaning it would have had to flow uphill for millions of years. Additionally, in contrast to all other rivers, we do not find a delta (a place where washed-out mud is deposited). This alone makes the evolutionist interpretation impossible.

The evidence does, however, point to Noah's Flood. Today, we see two beach lines from what used to be two large lakes near the Grand Canyon. Creationists believe that after Noah's Flood, the lakes got too full and spilled over the top. When water overflows a dam, the weakest point is instantly eroded. Thus, the Grand Caynon would have been formed quickly, supporting the creationist interpretation.

So, which interpretation is right? Knowing that rivers don't flow uphill and no leftover sedimentary deposits are found, evolutionists have a lot of explaining to do when it comes to the Grand Canyon. The Bible, however, says that a flood covered the whole earth (see Genesis 7:18-20). This means we should find places where the water drained. The Grand Canyon is one of those places. It is a washed-out spillway and provides great evidence for Noah's Flood.

Thats is absolutely hilarious, i cant believ people believ this crap, lol

reply to post by OzWeatherman


How do you see that as not possible?
Geological changes through massive water deposit,
WITHOUT needing thousands of years to form.

The $$$$ behind getting recognition for alternative theories is monstrous, so that
you only have evolution and MILLIONS AND MILLIONS of years as an official explanation.

Just another creationist-bashing thread, I see.


:

reply to post by Clearskies


Well first of all it implies that the canyon existed before the colorado river, which makes no sense at all, then it starts talking about river deltas not being at the grand canyon

River deltas occur at the mouth of rivers, last time i checked, the colorado river mouth flowed out somewhere in california, which is what, a few hundred miles away from the grand canyon?

I take it that erosion caused by rivers doesnt exist either

reply to post by OzWeatherman

If the Flood filled the area of the canyon, and the waters receded, it would MAKE a river.

More later, hopefully.



[edit on 15-6-2008 by Clearskies]

Originally posted by Clearskies
If the Flood filled the area of the canyon, and the waters receded, it would MAKE a river.

Here's a site I enjoyed;
www.grandcanyonflood.com..."" target="_blank" class="postlink" rel="nofollow">Grand canyon

Ok, I get what ya mean

I believe the river was a product of runoff from precipitation at the source, which happens to be the rocky mountains. The runoff cuts through soft rock, eroding it meaning that more runoff will follow as a channel is cut through the rock. This is what formed the canyon.

Originally posted by OzWeatherman
Does Hovind actually have any real credentials or is he just writing all this crap based on faith

He has a Xmas cracker PhD. Some have seen his 'thesis' - full of typos and half complete with sellotaped diagrams, heh. Bit like a child trying to imitate his parents work.

Oh, looks like they wont let real scientists write on this site :shk:

Aye, they consistently whine about academic freedom, but are the first to want to restrict proper discussion. Dembski's site - uncommon descent - is another place of essentially closed discussion. They want echo-chambers not intellectual enquiry.

It's apologetics, not science.

[edit on 15-6-2008 by melatonin]

reply to post by OzWeatherman
[more

How does a bird fly?

also how do "scientist" know what they are on about?

learned?? from who and what?? what they are told, the rest is could would might may should

science fact?????? science "could be" more like


***
yeah thats true cos he said so...i have no scientific background of my own i just read it so its true..... cobblers

my last point is that this is so boring a thread its been done to death

why not take ONE single topic rather than a blanket and talk about the science for and against??

***
Notice my rant at the top thats what you sound like at the moment, no cohesion just mud slinging

both sides should be taught and let people make up there own mind

cheers though

david

Originally posted by drevill
reply to post by OzWeatherman
[more

***
yeah thats true cos he said so...i have no scientific background of my own i just read it so its true..... cobblers

Yeah, I have no science background, I didnt study Environmental Science at college and I dont work in meteorology.....didnt know that they weren't classed as science

both sides should be taught and let people make up there own mind

cheers though

david

Hey I never denied both being taught. I agree. The thing that gets me is that they should teach evolution as well as what the bible says. Not just straight out lie like that. There is no point in them teaching science if they are going to use it to prove evolution wrong and the prove the bible right.

You cant use science to prove creationism, its just not possible

And I was picking on this site because every article they write manages to have a nasty word about evolution in it. Its just uncalled for

hello

frankly that argument can be made for evolution, i comes down to a matter of opinion, i see the evidence for evolution a something with gaping holes and something that has been shouted so often people accept it (most of which never look into it) whilst its isn't proven.

re your training, that is what is is, you study/train what someone is telling you.

If i draw you a map and ask you to plot a course, from A to B, what are you going to use? In most cases, if not all, it would be that map.

if you understand my meaning.

david

reply to post by OzWeatherman

Disclaimer: I'm a theist but not of the Abrahamic faiths. I have minor biblical scholar and scriptural skills. Also I am not a scientific/legal or medical expert in any field. Beware of my Contagious Memes! & watch out that you don't get cut on my Occams razor.All of this is my personal conjecture and should not be considered the absolute or most definitive state of things as they really are. Use this information at your own risk! I accept no liability if your ideology comes crashing down around you with accompanying consequences!

Explanation: You state and I quote "You cant use science to prove creationism, its just not possible " and on just a religious basis I agree to a certain extent but I suggest that Science can be used to prove a scientific Creationism and I offer up the Cosmic Microwave Background radiation as proof of a Big Bang and therefor THE CREATION of the universe some 13.7 billion years ago. If you follow that logic even NASA are Creationist Scientists (just not in a religious sense!).

Personal Disclosure: This is my pure speculation, but I would say most (non religious) Creationist scientists believe in evolution. Evolution and Creationism hand in hand! who'd of thought it??? LOL