Kent Hovind

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?

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.

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!

OK. Perhaps my writings is too capsulated and requires better and expanded clarifications.

I think this claim is not well thought of or analysed:

quote:

---

That was the situation in the beginning of the creationist "debates" in the 1970's. Those poor scientists went in thinking that the debate would be about what science is and says and shows us. Instead, they got hit by an avalanche of creationist bullshit the likes of which they had never seen before and could have never imagined in their wildest nightmares. They were totally unable to deal with the mass of misrepresentations, misquotes, and outright lies that was being thrown at them.

---

Can we see some examples of what is called BS in the Hebrew bible - whether from a view of science, history, geography, math or anything which has been disproven - none were given?

quote:

---

This isn't a thread where you can show how little you know about any and everything. You can try that in other threads.

---

I quoted a statement made by the thread starter which appears deficient. You seem to have a problem with that. It is not how the term BS can be evidenced.

quote:

---

Hows about the flood, the exodus, the leprosy cure, talking animals, the sun stopping, shadow of a sundial going backwards ...... i could go on forever

​

As for the creationist claims cmmon just look at why do people laugh at creationists on youtube 34 episodes of pure bullshit and explenations why it is bullshit.

---

With respect to Hovind and not disrupting his subject, there is no issue with the flood, which contains the first reference to actual geographical sites and reports of a huge flood. The exodus is also not without evidences: we know that the ancient Israelites were in a war with Egypt [A stelle confirms this], and that they later settled in Canaan till 70 CE: it proves they got from one place to another, and that the human count was 3 M - aka an exodus. Yes, the text for leprosy represents the first initiation of medicine as a faculty of science. The talking animals is a tricky one, but this is posed as a miraculous FX, not another daily occurence. Not bad for an ancient writings - which other can compete?

quote:

---

Ple ase present the evidence of the creator or the method used by that critter to influence evolution.

---

While this requirement is neutralized by no proof or disproof either way by both premises, there is indisputably more scientific vindication of a Creator than not so. The denial of this is hardly an intelligent or scientific disposition. Creationism, whether provable or not, remains the greatest mental thought ever concieved or proposed by the human mind's pondering, followed in turn by Monotheism. The Hebrew bible changed the universe for humanity, then and now; this should be the preamble in any rational thinking.

1. Cause and effect.2. Complexity and random are mutually exclusive.3. In a finite realm, the alternative causative factors do not apply: they never existed at one time.4. There has never been an alternative answer to Creationism from any scientific sector.The scientific evidence [as opposed hard proof] for a Creator is greater than its antithesis; the Hebrew bible does cut it and is vindicated by a ratio of substantial scientific premises VS nothing [zero?]. Chanting against Creationism per se does not win any points other than displaying unscientific phobia issues.

quote:

---

There is evidence of natural causes.

---

Absolutely not! All that is observable is an intelligent mechanism; the who-done-it or what-caused-it is absolutely vacant. There is no such thing as an old man with a white beard called NATURE; thus no such thing as natural causes; this is just a metaphor for the inexplicable.All that is being said is the observance of a car manual denies a car maker. The precise reverse applies - actually.

quote:

---

Until you present evidence equal to the evidence of natural causes you have nothing.

---

The evidence of naural causes begin at a later mid point, namely of the observance of an already operational process, not its causes. This does not constitute evidence. The observance how a pineapple can be produced has no relevance or alignment of what caused the mechanism which allows what you call 'natural'; it is NOT a natural phenomena that a pineapple is produced how it is, nor is its precise and critical interaction with the sunlight, earth and environment 'natural' - these are totally un-natural phenomena outside of a precedent and premptive input. A far better explanation is the seed follows its kind, which points to a program and a programmer. Science and logic says don't believe everything you believe!

quote:

---

Ok, instead of just repeating this, provide the evidence.

---

Knock-knock! I did: # 140. Its your turn.

quote:

---

There is evidence of natural causes.

---

Negative. You are confusing actions and occurences as a result of fictional, never witnessed phenomena. Pls tell us where your deity NATURE resides, what colors does he/she come in and who is the last person it spoke with?

quote:

---

Please present the evidence of the creator or the method used by that critter to influence evolution.

---

There is heaps of evidences in wholly scientific reasoning and premises, and expressed by the world's greatest minds. There is nothingness in your claims.