What about the evidence against evolution?

I have just joined this site and what I have seen so far is a lot of one-sided debate. I really don't want to give you the idea that i'm here to cause problems but instead to actually have good discussion about this.I have seen many times the idea that Creationists shrug off the evidence seeming not to heed it at all. I can understand where that frustration comes in. I know many creationists who are passionate about what they believe but do not really know how to argue for it.I think, though I am certainly not an expert, that I have a general grasp of a lot of the things talked about on here. I would just like to ask, for the purpose of better debate, that you take a serious look at both sides. I know that most of you think that you know exactly what creationists think and that all of it is baseless and absurd. This is the exact same mindset that creationists have about you. They think they know what you believe and why and that is why nothing ever gets accomplished in these debates.I think that to better understand one another we must be open to looking at the evidence/inferences of the other side.I have recently seen several debates featuring a man named Kent Hovind. I figure some of you have already heard of him so I won't talk too much about what he has to say. However, some of the information that he presents...I have never heard an answer for. I really advise supporters of evolution to take a look at some of the debates (link at the bottom) and give me an answer to the questions brought up or tell me why the information has been ignored. I would appreciate it if this would not turn into a brawl and if we could keep this thread at an even disscussion. Thanks... http://video.google.com/videoplay...ps: i know this video is pretty long but it is really worth it; if for no other reason than to better understand the other side.Edited by Admin, : Shorten link.

Internet videos are not the best way to gather information. If you really want to discuss some of the claims made by Kent Hovind then you should explicitly state them.I think I should warn you, however, that using Hovind as a source rather suggests that you haven't looked very far into even the case for creationism. Hovind, with his diploma mill "Doctorate" is one of the least credible advocates for creationism around.

Hovind's in jail, see Hovind's solitary considerations.I concur with AdminPaul - if there are Hovind positions you'd like to discuss, just describe them.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

Okay, I see how this works.What do y'all think about the hundreds of petrified trees found standing straight up through many strata layers. It seems to me that this does not jive with the idea that these layers formed over millions of years. It does seem to flow with the Christian model of creation and a global flood, which would have created the layers very quickly.And just a note, Hovind's personal position does not invalidate the information that he presents. He is not the one going out and digging up these things. He also cites many sources during his presentations/debates referring to articles he did not write. To use his personal status as a way to ignore his information is, it seems to me, ignorant and a bad decision if the point is to truly find answers and look at all the evidence.

Message 1In this thread you will find a lot of discussion on polystrate trees.In fact, you can bet that a n y t h i n g that you bring up will have already been discussed here more than once. You will see if you do a small amount of research that the Hovind explanation of polystrate trees is hookum. I think most here will agree with this statement in general. However, once someone has made as many ignorant or dishonest statements as Hovind has I think, after awhile, it is ok to start dismissing anything he says without digging too deeply into it. Hovind has been so bad he is even discredited by some major creationist organizations. Unfortunately, for the creationist model (not the Christian model since most Christians disagree with the young earth creationists) we can see the same kind of deposits occurring today so we know that they can form through well understood processes. And unfortunately for your model when all the facts are taken into account the flud model is shown to not explain them.Edited by NosyNed, : correct the author

First of all, whenever I say Christian model, I mean the biblical model and how the Bible describes what happened. As for Christians who have their own ideas about what happened, they can believe what they want, but the Christian model is not necessarily defined by the majority and I believe the Bible is very clear.Anyways, the reason I asked this question, and really the reason I joined this site, was to get actual answers; not 'well we've disproven that' or 'we already know how that works'. Please tell me what you actually know about it. That fact that you have an answer will not change anybody's mind. You have to tell me about it first.I would also remind you that you are following a dangerous path if you start to pick people who you will omit information from. I stress again that the information that Hovind presents is almost always not of his own insight/creation. You CANNOT discount this information simply because he said it. A ton of the evidence that he uses comes from experiments performed by scientists who believe in Evolution. To discredit the information brought forward by him is to discredit the work of the scientists he is citing which is hard to justify.

But have you read the thread on polystrate trees yet. When you have seen what the facts are then come back and ask more questions. Do you expect someone to type the whole thread again? As you might see if you actually look at the available evidence Hovind lies and distorts and omits. No one is discrediting the evidence gathered by geologists. It is not dangerous to omit the testimony of a liar. Hovind is one.Learn about the facts about polystrate trees then you can bring up another argument of Hovind's and see the same thing happen to that too. You haven't started to learn yet.

Hi AF,Because we constantly draw new members, EvC Forum discusses the same topics over and over again, usually with new participants. But the Polystrata fossils thread is only about 1-1/2 months old and only has 50 posts. There seems little point to opening up yet another new polystrate fossil thread so close on the heels of the previous one. If you'd like to discuss polystrate fossils, just post a reply to that thread, it'll very likely draw responses.The general information about Hovind was provided not to save us the trouble of rebutting his views, but to save you the torment of taking on a hopeless task, namely providing scientific support for Hovind's views. He is as childlike in his views of science as he is in his views of tax laws and laws in general. But if that's what you'd like to do then you're perfectly welcome to do that.We try to avoid getting into a discussion of the actual topic in a thread proposal. The goal for a thread proposal is just to make sure a moderator has the opportunity to review the proposal for clarity and focus, to make sure it is actually about the creation/evolution debate, and to insure that the thread is placed in the proper forum. But the attempt to discourage you from taking on Hovind issues has already caused us to deviate from standard practice, so let me say one more thing about Hovind, and then you can decide what you'd like to do.EvC Forum is a site dedicated to exploring creationism's claim to be every bit as much science as evolution. That means this is a science site. Science is empirical in that it studies evidence from the real world. But Hovind believes that Biblical interpretations take priority over scientific evidence. In other words, he holds his views regardless of the presence or absence of supporting or contradicting evidence, and for this reason Hovind's views are overtly religious and not scientific.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

I did a general search for this topic and couldn't find it. If there is a thread already, just let me know.Okay...where to begin. I just want to start this off kind of basic. First of all, how can this geologic column be of any use today when it was created using none of the dating methods that are wholly, if not unfortunately, accepted today? It's not like they looked at each layer they found and dated the things they found in it. They didn't have those methods then.Second, the geologic column, which seems sketchily created, is used to edit science. I believe that Hovind was previously credited with omitting information earlier in this thread but it appears that evolutionists would be guilty of the same thing. It seems fairly well covered that dates found using various dating techniques that do not comply with the geologic column are commonly thrown out. Does that sound like science to you? If you edit out all the information that does not flow with your theory, you have left the realm of science.Now, this is an idea that I have not read up on a whole lot but is interesting to me. Please tell me otherwise if I'm mistaken. The geologic column is based on circular reasoning. The organisms, or the fossils of organisms, are dated by which geologic layer that they are found in. It also turns out that the geologic layer is dated by what kind of organisms they find in it. Now wait a minute. If that is true than you are proving a theory with itself. It's like using a word in its own defintion. Tell me how this makes sense or point me in the right direction if I'm wrong.Edited by Admin, : Promoted by Admin from the last message of the [thread=-25,-3251] thread.Edited by Admin, : No reason given.

Thread copied to the What about the evidence against evolution? thread in the Geology and the Great Flood forum, this copy of the thread has been closed.