Kent Hovind

So just who is this "Dr Warren" idiot you are referring to?

The facts concerning why we see no human apes today negates ToE to smitherins. Th eons of years are escapist slight of hand science, depending on a time factor wich does not apply in an on-going process. If apes became humans, even via a host of branchlike pauses and changes, we should see this in our midst at all times, every second, based on an on-going process. Its called MATHEMATICS - so do the math.Cherry picking of science is not science. Here is a piece from a science journal of recent vintage, which negates the premise of any missing links. Scientists negate cross-speciation: Don't believe everything you believe, applies. Unlike Genesis, ToE can see its fulcrum factors negated, contradicted or questioned. This news negates cross-speciation [read, Genesis seed factor prevails]:

quote:

---

Science stunner! 'Missing link' for 150 years and now it isn't?
Expert says Nature report highlights sands on which Darwin theory built

​

July 28, 2011
Archaeopteryx: Bird, dinosaur or what?
A fossil touted since the time of Charles Darwin as the "missing link" between dinosaurs and birds is likely just a dinosaur, scientists have admitted in a new report in the journal Nature.

---

Similarly, millions of skeletal structures which negate cross-speciation by virtue of saying the reverse concluded by evolutionists are ignored. They cherry pick a bone fossil which can fit another species and hype this up to kingdom come, quoted by all other scientists who are blackmailed in their careers if they say otherwise. But math is a most unbiased truth and it cannot be distorted. Pls display your maths which says an on-going process is impacted by time?

Sorry, no. What is so hard to understand about the concept of extinction? Your ten-times great grandfather is not still around, nor is mine. That does not mean they never existed, nor does it mean they should have continued to exist as-is. For that is the argument you are attempting to make here. I agree, cherry picking science is not science. Unfortunately, that's all creationists have.With Archaeopteryx what we have is a transitional. What is being debated is just where on the line between dinosaurs and birds that species should be placed. The previous placement was somewhere near the middle, while the new claim is that it is very close, or within, the earlier dinosaur groups. Let's wait a few years and see if that claim is accepted, and if perhaps through this ongoing debate we can better understand the placement of Archaeopteryx.I know creationists jump for joy whenever some new discovery causes scientists to reevaluate a previous understanding of some aspect of our research. But 1) that is a strength of science, not a weakness, and 2) with each new discovery and reevaluation science becomes more and more accurate. That is not something I would expect creationists to celebrate, but perhaps they don't understand the process as well as they might. Fine! Apply mathematics to the study of the past.But you might be cautioned, that doing so is not that easy. Unless you are doing something like multivariate statistics, how are you going to enumerate most fossil finds? Or are you going to try to sell us the old creationist misunderstanding of how mutations work?Here is an example of what I mean. Your task is to use 25 dice and to roll all sixes. There are two ways to do this:

--One (the creationist way) is to repeatedly roll all 25 dice until you get all sixes in a single roll. You'll be there trying this cor thousands of years, if not longer.

​

--The other way (used by evolution) is to roll all 25 dice, and then roll only those that are not sixes. Then roll again with the remaining dice. You'll be done in just a few minutes.

I am also quite skeptical of creationists' claims to use mathematics to disprove evolution. On another website a few years ago one creationist repeatedly told us that the odds against evolution were 1⁷²⁰. He couldn't understand why we kept laughing at him. (Do you?)These two problems seem to sum up creationists' understanding of both evolution and mathematics. In short, they know that evolution is wrong because their religion tells them so. There is no need to worry about the details--they aren't important anyway--so why study evolution and work at understanding what it is and how it works. Creationists know the TRVTH, and that's all that's necessary.This is the way it seems to many of us. Your post has not done anything to dissuade me from this view.

Please by all means do this very thing. Please however, remember the principle of brevity. No lecturesYou havent even paid attention to the fact I have not said evo is not true, its doubtful if youll be able to represent me accurately anywhere else.Lets see, this will be funGeeeeez I didnt know you were going to kill me, my days are numberedYour a funny guy dwise, an amature debater, but a funny guyDawn Bertot

The issue here is that we have soundly refuted your repeated empty incantations to "logic". When we actually asked you about logic, you fled.You fucking liar!PS
So just who the hell is this "Dr Warren" idiot you brought up?Edited by dwise1, : PS

Do you have brain damage or something? Again, making assertions is not the same as referencing an argument in a post, then attempting to refute itPlease quit throwing out insults and assertions, present the argument where I have fled or I am a liarIf this was myself or some other believer here, doing what you are doing we would have already been suspended very quicklyPlease present the arguments from my post pleaseIf you cant do this, then simply admit itDawn Bertot

I remember the posts quite well. Of course it will take me some time to hunt down those posts, but I will indeed hunt them down and I will post them here.You are indeed a fucking liar and you will indeed be exposed. Yet again.PS
Yet again, just who the fuck is this "Dr. Warren" idiot you metioned? You really want to hide that, don't you?Edited by dwise1, : No reason given.

quote:

---

The facts concerning why we see no human apes today negates ToE to smitherins. Th eons of years are escapist slight of hand science, depending on a time factor wich does not apply in an on-going process. If apes became humans, even via a host of branchlike pauses and changes, we should see this in our midst at all times, every second, based on an on-going process. Its called MATHEMATICS - so do the math.

​

Sorry, no. What is so hard to understand about the concept of extinction? Your ten-times great grandfather is not still around, nor is mine. That does not mean they never existed, nor does it mean they should have continued to exist as-is. For that is the argument you are attempting to make here.

---

Its not about extinction or what once existed. Its about a process which claims to be on-going; here, the tme factor cannot be used to prove or disprove what once existed. If the on-going process is still active or it never ceased, it must be evident in our midst and time.

quote:

---

Cherry picking of science is not science. Here is a piece from a science journal of recent vintage, which negates the premise of any missing links. Scientists negate cross-speciation: Don't believe everything you believe, applies. Unlike Genesis, ToE can see its fulcrum factors negated, contradicted or questioned. This news negates cross-speciation [read, Genesis seed factor prevails]:

​

Science stunner! 'Missing link' for 150 years and now it isn't?
Expert says Nature report highlights sands on which Darwin theory built
July 28, 2011
Archaeopteryx: Bird, dinosaur or what?
A fossil touted since the time of Charles Darwin as the "missing link" between dinosaurs and birds is likely just a dinosaur, scientists have admitted in a new report in the journal Nature.

​

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

​

I agree, cherry picking science is not science. Unfortunately, that's all creationists have.

​

With Archaeopteryx what we have is a transitional.

---

Transitional does not negate an on-going process; in fact it must afirm is continuance in our midst. It does not.

quote:

---

What is being debated is just where on the line between dinosaurs and birds that species should be placed. The previous placement was somewhere near the middle, while the new claim is that it is very close, or within, the earlier dinosaur groups. Let's wait a few years and see if that claim is accepted, and if perhaps through this ongoing debate we can better understand the placement of Archaeopteryx.

---

Its NOT about which came first; its about doctored, improvised reading of fossil bones, and why we do not see cross-speciation in our midst, when we should witness this as an on-going process. Its about the distortion of fossil similarities not being proof of speciation; its about the seed factor following their kind which is the winner here!

quote:

---

I know creationists jump for joy whenever some new discovery causes scientists to reevaluate a previous understanding of some aspect of our research. But 1) that is a strength of science, not a weakness, and 2) with each new discovery and reevaluation science becomes more and more accurate. That is not something I would expect creationists to celebrate, but perhaps they don't understand the process as well as they might.

---

It becomes a strength if the original claim was bona fide. Otherwise it becomes an embarrassment - mainly we saw no such re-evaluation in Genesis' mode of species - these are vindicated in our midst everywhere we look. If the seed factor previals, it also says that a dinosour or bird could not reproduce accept of the data transmitted by the host.

quote:

---

Similarly, millions of skeletal structures which negate cross-speciation by virtue of saying the reverse concluded by evolutionists are ignored. They cherry pick a bone fossil which can fit another species and hype this up to kingdom come, quoted by all other scientists who are blackmailed in their careers if they say otherwise. But math is a most unbiased truth and it cannot be distorted. Pls display your maths which says an on-going process is impacted by time?

​

Fine! Apply mathematics to the study of the past.
But you might be cautioned, that doing so is not that easy. Unless you are doing something like multivariate statistics, how are you going to enumerate most fossil finds? Or are you going to try to sell us the old creationist misunderstanding of how mutations work?

​

Here is an example of what I mean. Your task is to use 25 dice and to roll all sixes. There are two ways to do this:

​

--One (the creationist way) is to repeatedly roll all 25 dice until you get all sixes in a single roll. You'll be there trying this cor thousands of years, if not longer.
--The other way (used by evolution) is to roll all 25 dice, and then roll only those that are not sixes. Then roll again with the remaining dice. You'll be done in just a few minutes.

​

I am also quite skeptical of creationists' claims to use mathematics to disprove evolution. On another website a few years ago one creationist repeatedly told us that the odds against evolution were 1720. He couldn't understand why we kept laughing at him. (Do you?)

​

These two problems seem to sum up creationists' understanding of both evolution and mathematics. In short, they know that evolution is wrong because their religion tells them so. There is no need to worry about the details--they aren't important anyway--so why study evolution and work at understanding what it is and how it works. Creationists know the TRVTH, and that's all that's necessary.

​

This is the way it seems to many of us. Your post has not done anything to dissuade me from this view.

---

Its got nothing to do with religion. Its also farsical to use dice - this goes against your own claims. The time factor nor the odds apply here: these still have to manifest themselves in real time and in our midst. Of note you have not referred to the only known and proven factor for re-pro: the host seed output! Are you saying a human came from a chimp because it refused to follow the seed factor and bowed to environment and evolution instead? That is a loosing case from any premise of science - nothing to do with religion, which you use here as a defense prop, when my responses were based solely on emperical and scientific countering. The math, not the theology, KO's you.

I put "host seed output" into google and only got one result: a message posted by you on this forum.
Why do you think that we will understand terminology that is not even in google?Edited by Panda, : No reason given.

I'm sorry, you just aren't making enough sense for me to continue this debate.There are so many things you have wrong that it is just not worth the effort.If you want to debate in the field of science you have to learn something about science and follow the methods of science. This includes accepting the conclusions of science or providing a well-reasoned, logical, and evidence-backed rebuttal for another viewpoint.And most of all your arguments have to make sense. Unfortunately yours generally do not.If you want to try again, pick one point in my previous post and present a reasoned and evidence-backed response. We can start there.

quote:

---

"host seed output"

---

If you have a problem deciphering those three words in the context it was written you should examine both your comprehension and your understanding of science. These faculties require one to reduce them in every day language and usages, as opposed merely recalling texts parrot fashion. So please tell me what part of the quoted three words and their assembling together do you find confusing? Did you confuse host with anything other than the parents when this is attached with the word seed output - like what else?! How would you describe it?Your confusion is confusing.

quote:

---

I'm sorry, you just aren't making enough sense for me to continue this debate.
There are so many things you have wrong that it is just not worth the effort.

​

If you want to debate in the field of science you have to learn something about science and follow the methods of science. This includes accepting the conclusions of science or providing a well-reasoned, logical, and evidence-backed rebuttal for another viewpoint.

​

And most of all your arguments have to make sense. Unfortunately yours generally do not.

​

If you want to try again, pick one point in my previous post and present a reasoned and evidence-backed response. We can start there.

---

Maybe I am making too much sense for you to debate? After all, you made the wrong assumption of confusing an on-going process not being impacted by time with other issues - which I pointed out to you. Also, your inference I was responding via a theological premise is also bogus - I gave non-theological reasoning which applied mathematics as the factor which exposes the glitch. You have not responded to the issue at all, using escapist means to make my logic as theological. It means your own science is deficient.I ask anyone else to show how an on-going process can be impacted by time - and knock-knock! - its not a theological question!

Remember, its not a troll which says there is no scientific alternative to Creationism, nor is creationism an unscientific premise. If you differ then pls enlighten via scientific reasoning how this "INFINITE" universe came into being - I'm listening. Remember Galeleo had to PROVE the earth is not flat - he never just called the flat earthers a troll!

Zeuse used his lighting to light his fart on fire that is what made the universe npw porve this wrong or teach it in the classrooms as truth or prove your version true