QUESTIONS

Interesting I would have thought that the government would want to promote any worldview that promoted a sense of responsibility for ones actions, it would make it easier to enforce law and order....Must be GEC TM in action again....Oh and if you think separation of church and state is "bunk" try going and living in a theocracy some time Iran for example...Also how would you feel about a state church if that church were not christian? Probably the same way a non christian would feel about a state sponsored christian church..... i.e not very happy church state separation is a good way of avoiding this issue...

​

[This message has been edited by joz, 03-01-2002]

No, and due to the fact that evolutionists outnumber creationists on judicator teams because of a bias, many evolutionists come to disprove these creation scientists who come forth. As I said before, evolution is being taught so much more than creationism because of the whole separation of church and state deal, so there is many more evolutionists than there are creationists. There is few people who know God's word and firmly stand behind what they say. www.drdino.com is a site of Dr. Kent Hovind who has not been disproved by any evolutionist who has questioned him. He knows so much, and knowledge is power so he disproves all theories of evolution (to my knowledge). He even has a bet, for 250,000 dollars if you can prove evolution to him he'll give you 250k.

He is also an idiot, he thought that a decomposing basking shark was a plesiosaur....And the "challenge"?Read these and tell me if you can honestly say its not spurious... http://home.austarnet.com.au/stear/kent_hovind's_bogus_challenge.htmhttp://home.austarnet.com.au/stear/kent_hovind's_phony_challenge.htmhttp://www.nmsr.org/HOVIND.HTM#Proverbs

The Dr. Dino challange has its own topic:Topic: Every evolutionist has a chance to win $250,000at:
http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=page&f=1&t=48&p=17It's currently running 10 pages long."Moderator" Moose------------------
BS degree, geology, '83
Professor, geology, Whatsamatta U
Old Earth evolution - Yes
Godly creation - Maybe

quote:

---

Originally posted by themediator:
3)That's the best estimate that evolutionists can come up with. If it's any longer it disproves a large portion of evolution. If its any shorter, it disproves a different large portion of evolution. Even now, it disproves some of evolution. The truth is, there is no time that is perfect that doesn't disprove some portion of evolution. It all depends what you believe. Every evolutionist believes something a little different than another. Kinda like politics, people can be republican but one is pro-life and one is pro-choice. There has never been any evidence that any kind of plant or animal has ever been able to create itself or produce any other kind of plant or animal. We have seen thousands of changes within the created kinds but that is not evolution.

---

There are several flaws in your arguement. I readily admit that that a 4.5 billion year age of the planet is an estimate. However, even with a 10% margin of error ( which is a huge error standard by scientific standards) the earth's age fall's within an age rang of 4 to 5 billion years. This "disparity" of time in no way invalidates evolution. True, evolution takes eons to diversify life, but nowhere does Darwin's TOE say " for evolution to occur, we need a 4.5 billion time frame or the theory is invailidated." There are competing views about some of the mechanics of how evolution occurs ( ie slowly over time, in rapid bursts of diversification,etc. None of these Theories ivalidate TOE, they merely try to find the best model to describe how TOE occurs over time.)
Secondly, estimates of the earth's age are not derived by biologists. The estimate is derived from geological and astropychsical disciplines of science. If you don't like the estimate, let's at least blame the right people for messing it up. ; )
Also, evolution never says anything about "life" creating itself. TOE actually depends on life begetting life ( and passing on their genetics) to new generations. If you are interested in various theories about the genesis of life, see the abiogenesis thread. Its creationsim that demands that life be "created".
And then we come to the word kind. In the context you use it in, it is wonderfully vague. Are we talking about species? Genus? Family? Please be more specific in your definition of kind. Additionaly , what do you think evolution is, other than the change of species over time. Your very own words "We have seen thousands of changes within the created kinds" fits within the TOE. Your comment at the end, "but that is not evolution" seems to indicate to me that you don't really understand the basics of evolutionary theory, considering the first part of that statement lends support, not refutation, to TOE.
Also, the diversification of species takes large amounts of time, and as such, would not be visible to an observer within our lifespans, or even a few thousand years. However, fossil records and genetics both support TOE , and the diversification of species. Even in short periods of time, evolution can be seen ( ie thousands of years) . Mankind, through specific breeding programs ( ie pressure on a population via selective breeding for various traits) has led to modern corn, large cows, and various dog breeds as a few examples. Without the benefit of understanding TOE, we still were able to use the princicples behind it to change various species. If you find wild corn, you will note that it is much smaller and radically different than the corn we grow commericially. Likewise, farm cows are much larger than their wild cousins. Farmers have long understood that if you breed your best crops, or animals, their offspring would be better than if you were to breed your worst crops and animals. Just like gravity, evolution can be utilized even without a firm understanding of its mechanic (ie macroevolution, genetics , ect.) Dogs breeds are another interesting example. Dogs are the descendants of wolves, but by selective breeding, we have developed a wide range of dogs. Some only remain within the same species because the can breed with intermediary dogs. For example, a Saint Bernard isn't going to breed with a teacup poodle, but since they other breeds with which they can mate, they remain the same species. However, if you put both of these breeds in a geographically isolated region without intermediary breeds, they could no longer breed. If left alone , both populations would change due to pressures on both populations ( which would not be the same due to different sizes, ecological niches, ect) and over time grow farther and farther apart genetically. Without genetric drift, eventually there genetics would differ enough that even with intermediary breeds, they wouldn't be able to interbreed. Then they would no longer be seperate species by morphological and geograhical forces, but by genetic barriers.
An example would be horses and donkies. While they can breed, their offspring are infertile. Since they can't share genetics between themselves (between horses and donkies) they are considered different species. If mules were fertile, then horses and donkies wouldn't be different species, just different looking realitives of the same species.

You pose good questions Joz. You'd think that people would widely accept something that has a moral base, but when people are doing things that are immoral, they don't want to take responsibility. Also, the fact that the U.S. today is so liberal, everything goes. People go to a place and kill their children before they are born and they justify it as it wasn't born yet. That's dumb. It still has mental abilities. It knows whether to suck its thumb or not, etc. Not really developed mental processes but it's less than 9 mo. old. I have no idea what the "GEC TM" is. I've never heard of that before. ah, I said the separation of church and state is bunk to the fact that 1)this country was founded on God, 2) I didn't say that the church and gov't should be dogmatic in supporting the church, I'm saying that christians,mormons, and all religious groups should not be discriminated against. I'm not asking the gov't to pontificate with the church or with what they believe, I just think that a church should get the same amount of funding a public school does.
The world is 4.5 billion years old, yes that's an estimate, an educated guess. Prove to me that that's the truth. Prove that the world is in actuality 4.5. As I said, different evolutionists believe different things. Some evolutionists believe that the world is spinning down and slowing down. well 4.5 billion years ago, it would have been spinning so fast that all life on there (if any) would be flung off the earth. The "Big Bang" theory states that the dirt hit bumps in space, have you ever seen a bump in space? The earth is in the 5th limb of the Milky Way galaxy. It's so small that it would have had to have been spinning in one direction, same with all the other planets. Well 3 of the planets spin "backwards." So that couldn't have happened. The earth (in creationist terms) is 8,000-10,000 years old. Based on geneologies and ages of people stated in the Bible. Humans and chimps have some of the same DNA because humans have 4 limbs and chimps have 4 limbs, Humans have 5 fingers and toes, chimps have 5 fingers and 5 toes, Humans have 2 eyes, 1 nose and 1 mouth, chimps, the same. Humans have hands, a gerbil has paws. humans have only hair on their head and some on their body, gerbils have hair all over their body, Humans don't have a tail, gerbils do. Created kinds, or in other words, species _created_ by God. Not that hard to understand. Ah, Dr. Hovind _thought_ that it may have been, he surmised. At the time that he said that, he could have been mistaken. "To err is human..." These web sites are premature assumptions. They say that evolution is a religion. And you bring him something and he'll disprove it. The reason that Dr. Hovind doesn't have 250k is because he hasn't needed it. No one has ever proved evolution. Evolution is not scientific, because, Science is 1)observable, 2)repeatable and 3)measureable. You can't do any with evolution. In the NMSR.org site, Hovind simply states that he doesn't have time. Go to his site and look at his Itinerary. He's booked until January 2004. All this NMSR society has to do is call and make an appt, but he's quite busy. @ the NMSR.com, Dave Thomas shows his cowardice by saying, "...If it's a real debate you want, we'll be happy to debate you, point-by-point, on the pages of our monthly newsletter (and also our web-site). Simply send an essay of 750 words or less to me at..." So in other words, give us a heads up so we know what to study up for. Dave Thomas being the heavily biased person that he is (by the way, everyone is biased in some way or another), pontificates and uses weak arguments to try to downplay Dr. Hovind, when in actuality, he has no footing. He won't agree to a public debate. He keeps asking for an essay. A public debate challenges what people think and how well they know it. Dr. Hovind just says, "...schedule an appointment..."

quote:

---

Originally posted by themediator:
2)Ya see, brilliant scientists are everywhere. The fact that one person won the nobel peace prize means absolutely nothing. The fact that most evolutionary scientist get nobel prizes is true, but that doesn't devalue creation scientists discoveries at all.

---

What would some of these discoveries be, exactly ? Wouldn’t someone have to make such a discovery, or technical breakthrough in the first place, to be recognized as a Nobel candidate ? [b] [QUOTE]Originally posted by themediator:
The creation scientists just are disproved and shown prejudice when attempting to go for a peace prize have been met with hostility by judicators in the Nobel Peace Prize council(for lack of a better word) because people don't want to accept the truth that there may be a God. That would mean that there would be judgment day and people would have to atone for their sins, and people don't want to take responsibility for their actions. So people will try everything to disprove creation so they can sleep at night believing that they don't have to atone for the wrongs they did. That's why.[/b][/QUOTE]HHhhmmm.So you’re asserting that Scientists obstruct YECism and promote science because THEY like to sin ? and you know all these conspirators personally and can verify this ?
Do you have ANYTHING in the way of quotes or publications that support your claim ? ANYTHING ??
What about those scientists who ARE Christians ? How can you determine the veracity of their beliefs ? Did you somehow get veto power over whether someone qualifies as a Christian or not ?And another thing:
How does the theory of evolution negate the existence of God ?
What does the theory of Plate Tectonics negate ? the existence of BigFoot ??
Perhaps you might post a sequential breakdown of how the two are related and how this might happen.Regards,jeff

[b] [QUOTE]Originally posted by themediator:
ah, I said the separation of church and state is bunk to the fact that 1)this country was founded on God,
[/b][/QUOTE]Not true. The United States of America is a government founded on LAW, not somebody’s god. [b] [QUOTE]Originally posted by themediator:
2) I didn't say that the church and gov't should be dogmatic in supporting the church, I'm saying that christians,mormons, and all religious groups should not be discriminated against.
[/b][/QUOTE]And you are correct. But why do you bring it up ? Are these groups being discriminated ? [b] [QUOTE]Originally posted by themediator:
I'm not asking the gov't to pontificate with the church or with what they believe, I just think that a church should get the same amount of funding a public school does.
[/b][/QUOTE]Why ?
Why should your tax money be diverted to religions that you do not support ? Did you know that in this country, our freedom of religion permits us to INVENT religions at will ? legally recognized as tax free ??
I could invent a religion a week and suck the federal coffers dry. Is this what you recommend ?
I don’t see this as a very good idea. [b] [QUOTE]Originally posted by themediator:
The world is 4.5 billion years old, yes that's an estimate, an educated guess. Prove to me that that's the truth.
[/b][/QUOTE]I’m sorry, I presumed we were discussing science.
Where does YOUR particular subjective version of ‘truth’ come into the subject ? [b] [QUOTE]Originally posted by themediator:
Prove that the world is in actuality 4.5.
[/b][/QUOTE]I’d rather discuss the topic at hand. Science doesn’t deal in ‘proof’. Science presents evidence and makes logical deductions to explain the evidence. Theoretical science is not in the ‘Proving’ business. You’ve mistaken it for mathematics, evidently. [b] [QUOTE]Originally posted by themediator:
As I said, different evolutionists believe different things. Some evolutionists believe that the world is spinning down and slowing down. well 4.5 billion years ago, it would have been spinning so fast that all life on there (if any) would be flung off the earth.
[/b][/QUOTE]Do you have any support for that claim ? This sounds like the stawman stuff that Hovind tosses around — it doesn’t sound like anything a scientist would assert. I’ve read that long ago the terrestrial day was about 17 hours. I don’t recall the alleged dates when this was occurring but it is no where near enough to fling all life off the Earth. [b] [QUOTE]Originally posted by themediator:
The "Big Bang" theory states that the dirt hit bumps in space,
[/b][/QUOTE]References please. Your portrayal of science is absurd in the least and slander at most. Before today, I’ve never heard anyone use the words ‘Big Bang’ & ‘Dirt’ in the same sentence. Perhaps these words deserve at least a paragraph between them.
^
=o) [b] [QUOTE]Originally posted by themediator:
have you ever seen a bump in space?
[/b][/QUOTE]Have you ever seen a proton ? [b] [QUOTE]Originally posted by themediator:
The earth is in the 5th limb of the Milky Way galaxy. It's so small that it would have had to have been spinning in one direction, same with all the other planets. Well 3 of the planets spin "backwards." So that couldn't have happened.
[/b][/QUOTE]And you can demonstrate this impossibility ? Do you have all the pertinent facts at hand ? There are several RATIONAL hypotheses that can explain these phenomena. Collisions DO occur and energy is imparted.
There may be better theories, but that one came to mind first. [b] [QUOTE]Originally posted by themediator:
The earth (in creationist terms) is 8,000-10,000 years old. Based on geneologies and ages of people stated in the Bible.
[/b][/QUOTE]Whoa ! Gotta reel you in a little here. What does an ancient text have to do with science ? [b] [QUOTE]Originally posted by themediator:
Humans and chimps have some of the same DNA because humans have 4 limbs and chimps have 4 limbs, Humans have 5 fingers and toes, chimps have 5 fingers and 5 toes, Humans have 2 eyes, 1 nose and 1 mouth, chimps, the same. Humans have hands, a gerbil has paws. humans have only hair on their head and some on their body, gerbils have hair all over their body, Humans don't have a tail, gerbils do.
[/b][/QUOTE]Was there a point to this ? You brought up DNA similarities ( I presume so you could oppose it ) and then you sorta babbled on briefly.
Gerbils are cute, aren’t they ? Do you like woodchucks ? [b] [QUOTE]Originally posted by themediator:
Created kinds, or in other words, species _created_ by God.
[/b][/QUOTE]Created Kinds. .okfor some reason, biologists do not find any useful classification for ‘Created Kinds’ at least not from the definitions presented by the more high profile YECies — but you may be on to something.You mean likewolves, foxes .and dogs ?
Horses, zebras and Burros ?
Lions, Tigers and House cats ? (Oh my!!)Oddly enough, there is more genetic difference between Wolves and dogs than between humans, chimps and gorillas. So according to this reasoning, humans and apes are the same ‘Created Kind’. Shouldn’t we pass out Bibles to the Bonobos ? [b] [QUOTE]Originally posted by themediator:
Not that hard to understand. Ah, Dr. Hovind _thought_ that it may have been, he surmised. At the time that he said that, he could have been mistaken. "To err is human..." These web sites are premature assumptions. They say that evolution is a religion. And you bring him something and he'll disprove it.
[/b][/QUOTE]That’s not factual. No, he hasn’t disproven anything. His proposition is for scientists - or whomever - to ‘prove’ evolution to his ridiculous and non-scientific standards. Einstein couldn’t ‘prove’ starlight to this idiotic standard.
The words ‘Hovind’ and ‘science’ should ALWAYS have several pages between them. [b] [QUOTE]Originally posted by themediator:
The reason that Dr. Hovind doesn't have 250k is because he hasn't needed it. No one has ever proved evolution.
[/b][/QUOTE]Nor has anyone 'proved' gravitation, quantum physics or the germ theory of disease. Do you have a point ? Should we discount these theories as well, even though they work ? Boy, would health care costs go up ! [b] [QUOTE]Originally posted by themediator:
Evolution is not scientific, because, Science is 1)observable, 2)repeatable and 3)measureable.
[/b][/QUOTE]Really ? Sowe must presume god makes volcanoes since science has never repeated one in a lab ?
Your definition of science is convenient but erroneous. That’s what can happen when you refer to Hovind as, ‘Dr’. [b] [QUOTE]Originally posted by themediator:
You can't do any with evolution.
[/b][/QUOTE]It should be quite easy to falsify evolution. There are so many ways. Why hasn’t it happened ?
How would YOU falsify the ToE ? [b] [QUOTE]Originally posted by themediator:
In the NMSR.org site, Hovind simply states that he doesn't have time.
[/b][/QUOTE]-*sniff*- That’s too bad. But I’m sure he’s too busy, running from the IRS, to be bothered.

quote:

---

Originally posted by themediator:
Go to his site and look at his Itinerary. He's booked until January 2004. All this NMSR society has to do is call and make an appt, but he's quite busy. @ the NMSR.com, Dave Thomas shows his cowardice by saying, "...If it's a real debate you want, we'll be happy to debate you, point-by-point, on the pages of our monthly newsletter (and also our web-site). Simply send an essay of 750 words or less to me at..." So in other words, give us a heads up so we know what to study up for.

---

??? huh ?
Perhaps you would rather have a debate with a Ficus tree. THAT’s how you conduct a debate with integrity. We don’t want to be enlightened, or educated. We ‘re not concerned with science or accuracy or evidence or reason & ration. We just want to WIN
Yes, those are fine ethics and morals.Hovind displays his cowardice by fleeing from this format — where he cannot dupe an audience. If he is left with just facts and evidence in a vacuum to debate and demonstrate his grasp of the subject — he KNOWS he’s lost before it begins. So if he avoids a written debate, he can keep his $$ right up to the moment he’s audited.
Why do you suppose he avoids written debates ? I see them all over the web. You don’t NEED an empty personal schedule to conduct this. Hovind could prepare his 750 words — in between speaking engagements — jot down notes during meals, on flights etc. That’s the advantage of a WRITTEN debate. The time constraints are less demanding and conducive to a person’s busy schedule.So, you can’t claim Hovind is too busy for a written debate. It’s a LAME EXCUSE. So why would a ‘Doctor’ be reduced to resorting to a LAME EXCUSE ?
Please, Tell us why. [b] [QUOTE]Originally posted by themediator:
Dave Thomas being the heavily biased person that he is (by the way, everyone is biased in some way or another), pontificates and uses weak arguments to try to downplay Dr. Hovind,
[/b][/QUOTE]Really ? What would some of those be ? [b] [QUOTE]Originally posted by themediator:
when in actuality, he has no footing. He won't agree to a public debate.
[/b][/QUOTE]Perhaps he’s too busy for a public debate. A written debate would suit a busy person’s schedule much better than a public forum. [b] [QUOTE]Originally posted by themediator:
He keeps asking for an essay. A public debate challenges what people think and how well they know it.
[/b] [/QUOTE]Perhaps you could explain how a public debate, with normal time constraints and limited research - could be more exhaustive than a written debate with looser time constraints and UNLIMITED research ?
How is that possible ? You have made more obviously absurd claims than Hovind has YEC rallies. [b] [QUOTE]Originally posted by themediator:
Dr. Hovind just says, "...schedule an appointment..."[/b][/QUOTE]Well, when you have an untenable position to maintain, you can’t just face the opposition and demonstrate how wrong you arecan you ?
"...schedule an appointment..." is just a nicer way of saying Talk to the hand .
Who could blame him ? He’d be out of business if he had to back up his hallucination.
Then he couldn’t deceive the nave and exploit the beliefs of sincere Christians like yourself.
He’d probably have to do something productive thenlike shutting up.Regards,jeff

​

[This message has been edited by Jeff, 03-01-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by themediator:
Dr. Kent Hovind

---

You seem really impressed by that doctorate...Its from patriot university do a web search and see what you find....

[QUOTE][b]Humans and chimps have some of the same DNA because humans have 4 limbs and chimps have 4 limbs, Humans have 5 fingers and toes, chimps have 5 fingers and 5 toes, Humans have 2 eyes, 1 nose and 1 mouth, chimps, the same.[/QUOTE][/b]I'm not going to answer your other points but you can find rebuttals to the Creationist Laundrey List quite easily. I choose this one because it's a less common criticism and it gives me an excuse to bring up a remarkable principle of genetics most people don't know about it. The DNA code is degenerate (you can designate the next amino acid to be inserted into the polypeptide chain using more than one sequence). If I were writing a code to build a new protein, I could build exactly that same protein hundreds of different ways using different codons and get the same results. The same protein would come out the end, but there are thousands of different genetic codes I could have used to make exactly that protein.In fact, if we had the technology and the inclination, there is no known reason why we could not build an entire living human being that is chemically identical to the rest of humanity but with DNA that shows essentially no similarity to any other human. He would be more different from other people than a chimp is from us.Considering this, even if we were the product of special creation, we're still modified chimpanzees. Therefore the "moral difference" between Creationism and Evolution boils down to whether there is a direct birth lineages to chimpanzees, or a direct "birth lineage" to a clump of dirt instead.

​

[This message has been edited by gene90, 03-01-2002]

Maybe someone would like to answer my questions....

quote:

---

Originally posted by gene90:
The DNA code is degenerate (you can designate the next amino acid to be inserted into the polypeptide chain using more than one sequence). If I were writing a code to build a new protein, I could build exactly that same protein hundreds of different ways using different codons and get the same results. The same protein would come out the end, but there are thousands of different genetic codes I could have used to make exactly that protein.

​

In fact, if we had the technology and the inclination, there is no known reason why we could not build an entire living human being that is chemically identical to the rest of humanity but with DNA that shows essentially no similarity to any other human. He would be more different from other people than a chimp is from us....

---

Now that is interesting, what does that do to Dembskis concept of specified information?

quote:

---

1)You would think so, but the world wide flood upset everything. Granted it didn't move everything around, but it did do enough to blow the little bones of a rat or rabbit around. In this process, the little bones were scattered and tossed, leaving them strewn about and practically unperceivable to the untrained eye. The bones of a dinosaur are considerably larger than a rat or rabbit making those bones much easier to find.

---

WOW! this argument is really weak...a) if these smalll bones were "blown around", why do we find the fossils of things like tiny dinosaurs and small and primitive birds? weren't they "blown around"b) a flood of that magnitude would have blown everything around. Dinosaur bones are actually not that much larger or heavier than other animals. They are just larger overall... and a global flood would have blown everything around.c) These animals would not have been just bones right away... if you knew about fossilization, you would know that the bodies are buried under silt, and then put under enormous pressure. At the same time, the flesh rots away.d) WE find no evidence of fossils being blown around! If they had been, we would find random bones everywhere.you've opened up a pandora's box...

quote:

---

3)That's the best estimate that evolutionists can come up with. If it's any longer it disproves a large portion of evolution. If its any shorter, it disproves a different large portion of evolution. Even now, it disproves some of evolution. The truth is, there is no time that is perfect that doesn't disprove some portion of evolution. It all depends what you believe. Every evolutionist believes something a little different than another. Kinda like politics, people can be republican but one is pro-life and one is pro-choice. There has never been any evidence that any kind of plant or animal has ever been able to create itself or produce any other kind of plant or animal. We have seen thousands of changes within the created kinds but that is not evolution.

---

well, firstly, the 4.5 billion old planet does not disprove evolution in the slightest.secondly, you have blatantly side-stepped the question. you have told me that the evolution dates are wrong (without any evidence, i might add), but give no evidence to suggest creationist dates are right.thirdly, we have seen changes in species, very substantial ones at that. for example, look deep in the fossil strata and you'll find evidence of this. dinosaurs evolved. mammals evolved...but of course, that perfect strata was layed down in the flood. how silly of me...

quote:

---

5)That's because today's society is saturated with evolution and "evolution science." People who have gone to public schools for their entire life have been hit with evolution since kindergarten. The fact that they believe evolution over everything else is bunk because that's all that people are taught. The "Theory of Evolution" is not a theory but a religion. People blindly believe that we came from dirt. A government funded religion because (as I said earlier) people don't want to take responsibility for their actions and people will believe anything before they believe that there's a God. Also, you have to take into account the ratio of people that attend public schools and private schools. Your whole argument is invalidated somewhat due to the fact that public schools far outnumber private schools. So of course since creation has been taken out of school due to the separation of church and state (which is bunk) now evolution is taught without restraint or even giving people choice by showing both sides (creation/evolution). The children of today are being indoctrinated by evolution to the point at which they don't know what else to believe because people don't teach anything else.

---

so basically , the less people understand science, the more people believe in creationism...i have to hand it to you- you're starting to make sense.