QUESTIONS

quote:

---

Originally posted by themediator:
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.

---

"Dr" Kent Hovind is a joke and thats the sole thing he can proove to anyone with enough time to waste to visit his website(which i did btw). I've actually looked over his entire online seminar not once but twice...the first time,it was to see what this "creationism" thigny was all about and the second time well,was for the sheer comedy value of his "theories" and "explanations". He does offer 250k$ to anyone who can prove evolution to him...250k$ which he doesn't even have BTW,and with conditions that insures that he'll never have to poney up the doe,since he gets to chose the pannel who will review the evidence presented to win the prize...pannel which will concist mostly of young earth creationists with maybe one evolution scientist who'll just be there for show.

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
"What, so basically , the more people understand science, the less people believe in creationism?"
--lol, nice try Joz, more like 'the more people understand science, the more people would be to believe in creationism', IMHO.

​

---

I get chuckles everytime i read something like that...the more science you have,the more likely you are to buy into recycled mythology,huh?

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
"I get chuckles everytime i read something like that...the more science you have,the more likely you are to buy into recycled mythology,huh? "
--I don't see the relevance of chuckling at an unsubstantiated argument.

​

---

You dont think its funny to say that the level of belief in creationist fairy tales of someone is directly proportional to their level of science? i do

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
"You dont think its funny to say that the level of belief in creationist fairy tales of someone is directly proportional to their level of science? i do"
--I could say the exact same thing in my perspective, but it would substantiate nothing, so I think it is wize for me not to bother, besides, its an unsupported assertion.

​

---

No you couldn't. There is no science to support creation belief,despite what you may wish to believe. The only place where we can get evidence of 6 day creations and biblical floods is in the Bible itself...no part of those tales is substanciated anywhere else on earth. Evolution and old earth however,is supported by tons of scientific data,even if you chose not to recognize it.

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
"here are some questions. I'd like to see if creationists can tackle them."
--If I must...

​

"1). Given that rats and rabbits are some of the most common animals in the world, shouldn’t we expect to find their remains in the same strata as some of the more common dinosaurs? The same question can be asked of whales and plesiosaurs, or of any modern mammal and any common dinosaur. Creationism has never presented a credible response to this dilemma."
--where do we find rodents and where do we find rabbits in the geo-column. I would expect them to be very close appearing in the fossil record. Also you sertainly would not see them in the same place as dinosaurs, though would appear shortly after the K-T boundary. Also I already explained the plesiosaur one, they would have died along with the rest of the dinosaurs, being forced to breath the air would have to stay considerably shallow in the water at times to breath, though it would be very cold for the top many meters of water by the effects of a slight nuclear winter. Whales are mammals and therefore produce their own body heat, being able to suffurface for breath vastly easier than the others, along with the dolphins and whales (even though they are relatives).

​

LUD:there have been many theories advanced about certain dinosaurs,including plesiosorus,actually being warm blooded. In fact,we only ASSUME the dinos were cold blooded because they resemble large lizards but there is absolutely no way for us to know this today. And if rabbits had lived at the same time as dinos,we would find some along side them in the fossil records....no hydrological sorting can be THAT perfect.

​

"2). It is probably a safe assumption that Nobel Prize winners are among the most brilliant scientists in the world. These are people who have demonstrated keen insight into some cutting edge scientific breakthroughs. If Creationism is a credible movement, then why aren’t any of these Nobel Prize winners Creationists?"
--I havent done the research, though I know the explination why it would be much more on the other side is from the history of creation and evolution, scopes (monkey trial), and the hoaxes of alleged evidences of human ancestory, etc. Refer to my previous message for a continuance.

​

LUD:there have been many hoaxes advanced by scientists on ancient men and those hoaxes have been debunked by scientists...science is a self correcting process. Incidently,there have been many hoaxes by religious groups about their religion(shroud of turin,Ron Wyatt's boat shaped mud print,ect) and those two have been debunked by SCIENTISTS...guess we have to clean up your messes as well as ours...oh well.

​

"3). Why do multiple, independent methods all agree on an estimated age of the earth at 4.5 billion years?"
--Wouldn't know enough to argue this point.

​

LUD:so you concede then....progress...

​

"4). Can you provide a good reason, using Creation Science, as to why a bird would be more closely related (genetically) to a snake than a bat?"
--Reference?

​

"5). Gallup polls have shown that the more education that a person has, the more likely they are to reject Creationism in favor of evolution. This is even more apparent if the education is specialized in the sciences. What is the Creationist explanation for this?"
--See last post.

​

LUD:the explanation is rather simple....the more educated people get,the less they believe in fairy tales,santa claus,the easter bunny,the boogy man and so on and so forth...

​

"6). Can you name a scientific advance that Creation Science has been responsible for? By this, I don’t mean something that Isaac Newton came up with long before the Theory of Evolution was proposed. I mean an advance that was arrived at using the Creationist model."
--Name something that had to be discovered under the influence of Evolution.. Evolution doesn't advance science, neither does Creation, science is advanced by knowledge through experimentation, and observation.

​

LUD:genetic science comes to mind here.

​

"8).There would be no segregation of fossils. If all organisms lived at the same time, we would expect to see trilobites, brachiopods, ammonites, dinosaurs, and mammals (including humans) all randomly mixed together in the worldwide blanket described in point #1. This is not what is observed. The fossil record exhibits an order consistent with the theory of evolution (but inconsistent with creationism), from simple forms to more complex forms, and from creatures very unlike modern species to those more closely resembling modern species. There is not one instance of any fossils that have been deposited "out of order"."
--This is fully consistant with Deposition theory as is being discussed in 'Falsifying Creation'.

​

LUD:no its not because the segregation is too perfect and uniform....that makes the hydrological sorting theory completely questionable.

​

"9). No varves, ice cores, tree ring ensembles, coral cores, or other examples of periodically accumulated accretion should be found to extend back beyond the time of the Flood. They do. Ice cores, drilled from stable ice plains, show 40,000 years of annual layers. Varves, which are mineral deposits, show millions of years of annual layers."
--Varves - There are many problems with varves, mainly being that fossils exist in such amazing form. Varves are easilly deposited by the Flood.

​

LUD:explain.

​

--Ice cores - Ice cores vary greatly by conditions and environment, location and elevation, etc. In some places you may find that there is a layer is created every season, in others, every year, in others, every month, etc.

​

LUD:the only variation occurs depending on local environement and those environement are concistant (i.e.:the ice cores of one region may accumulate sheets every season while for the ice cores of other regions,that accumulation is annual. Those are consistant enough of the time to be depended upon)

​

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
"I suppose it depends on how you want to define "Christian", but I would say that only a small percentage of Christians are brought up as Biblical fundamentalists. Far fewer than half."
--Thats because of the statment I just made, if they have the interest, they are going to get sucked into what they are teaching them.

​

LUD:TC,young earth creationism was thought to be the truth for the better part of the last 2000 years...yet today,only a small minority in the US heartland still adere to it. Are you telling us that evolutionists are powerfull enough to reverse the mentality of an entire planet? No...of course no. People simply realized that YEC makes no sense and,aside from a few die hard fanatics,nobody seriously believes that anymore and they still believe that the earth is flat or that the earth is the goe center of the universe.

​

"Creation science isn't science, TC, no matter how much you want to be."
--If you wan't to make a relevant statement, I have given you the way that creation science is, if your going to argue with me, you must argue with that model.

​

LUD:the reason why creation science isen't actual science is because it starts with the conclusion allready defined,then goes to look for evidence it can interpret as supporting said conclusion and ignore evidence that opposes it(radiomatric dating,complete absence of any evidence whatsoever of 6 day creation/world wide flood/arks filled with all the land animals on earth,ect). Science has no moral attached to it...as soon as you attach a moral judgement,it cease to be science,period. Creation Science requires the WHY of everything....TRUE science just concentrate on the HOW.

​

"Why is it bad to be biased in favor of the evidence?"
--This is not what I have said, I said that to most people a naturalistic explination is more attractive than a supernatural explination, and I have made the assertion that there is much les of the supernatural than one would think. This is because everything can be explained in naturalistic terms accept say, the origins, or the resurrection, or something of that likeness.

​

LUD:It wasen't always like that TC. Primitive civilisations kept looking for supernatural hands behind every natural occurences...especially natural disasters. They kept looking for culprits in their society who may or may not have offended the Gods and punished them for every flood,earth quake,volcanoes,storms,and so on. Only the advant of science has quelled much of this superstitious nonsense because people were finally getting an explanation for what happened to them. Naturalistic aren't more attractive TC...you can blame or try to appease a God who "sends" a quake your way...But who can you blame/appease when you know that the quake occurs because of shifting tectonic plates due to a random geological mechanism? Many people prefer to believe that there is a guiding hand behind everything that occurs around them,mainly because the alternative,that we are actually on our own down here,just scares the living crap out of em. But most people are realising that we need to grow up as a race,which is a good thing.

​

"Really? Attention from whom? The public or scientists?"
--Both.

​

"Poor, maligned Creationists.

​

They say they want to do science but can't seem to stop referring to their Christian Bibles."
--This is science. By your logic, if there even was evidence of a young earth, it would not be plausable because of your pre-conceived idea that it is not possible because we cannot give god a foot-hold.

​

LUD:wrong...i give God ample foot hold. I'm convinced that God exists and that we all come from God...but not that God fashioned the earth 6000 years ago from nothingness...there's too much evidence against that,even though YECS choose to disreguard it and its not necessary either. I see no reason to be amazed at a God that throws a hissy fit and murders an entire planet simply because it didn't turn out the exact way he want it to. I do,however,find much more magnificiant a God that caters from afar and discretely over the course of billions of years,giving a poke here,a nudge there,patiently watching over us,waiting for the day when we are done learning all we can learn from this universe and are ready to rejoin with IT

​

---