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.

"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."
--For me I have found it is the exact opposite...------------------

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
For me I have found it is the exact opposite...

---

What, so basically , the more people understand science, the less people believe in creationism?

"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.------------------

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?

"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.------------------

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:
--lol, nice try Joz, more like 'the more people understand science, the more people would be to believe in creationism', IMHO.

​

---

Right so we have various Bsc`s, PHD`s, at least one professor (SLP at least probably more) and presumeably some Msc`s as well who, get this, think evolution is right and creationism wrong....Are you saying that those of us with scientific qualifications don`t understand science? If not your assertion falls at the first hurdle....

"Right so we have various Bsc`s, PHD`s, at least one professor (SLP at least probably more) and presumeably some Msc`s as well who, get this, think evolution is right and creationism wrong...."
--I don't think that that substantiates anything really, being an argument from athority, ie, saying that because the Ph.D.'s are Old earthers, that means the earth is old. I know your not directly asserting this, though its as it seems."Are you saying that those of us with scientific qualifications don`t understand science? If not your assertion falls at the first hurdle...."
--Catch Sentance Suffix, (IMHO), also, it would not be their science that is flawed if anything, it would be their interperetation of course.------------------

"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.-------------------

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:
1)I don't think that that substantiates anything really, being an argument from athority, ie, saying that because the Ph.D.'s are Old earthers, that means the earth is old. I know your not directly asserting this, though its as it seems.

​

2)...it would not be their science that is flawed if anything, it would be their interperetation of course.

​

---

1)It isn`t an arguement from authority, you made the assertion that the more people understood science the more (likely?) they would be to accept creationism, I was meerly showing you that the people here on these boards with scientific training seem to predominantly disagree with creation....I`m not saying that because they have qualifications they are right by default, rather that they have qualifications that demonstrate their understanding of science....The fact that they are predominantly evo`s seems to disproove your original assertion....2)Science is interpretation TC the rest is just data....

​

[This message has been edited by joz, 03-02-2002]

"No you couldn't. There is no science to support creation belief,despite what you may wish to believe."
--I quote mysefl:

quote:

---

--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.

---

--and nothing short of opinionated without support."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."
--Hm... I guess if I 'must' quote again:

quote:

---

--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.

---

--And again opinionated being without a supportive sentance."Evolution and old earth however,is supported by tons of scientific data,even if you chose not to recognize it."
--I do recognize it, and do date, everything it says, is in cooperation with a young earth in light of a different interperetation. Which is completely plausable, you have yet to show this as incorrect.------------------

"1)It isn`t an arguement from authority, you made the assertion that the more people understood science the more (likely?) they would be to accept creationism, I was meerly showing you that the people here on these boards with scientific training seem to predominantly disagree with creation...."
--Yes on these boards your right, though to say that that makes relevance to either interperetation being the correct one isn't the wizest conclusion. Though I know that this is not what you are asserting, I was simply making the point for someone who may thing this as a significance."I`m not saying that because they have qualifications they are right by default, rather that they have qualifications that demonstrate their understanding of science...."
--Right."The fact that they are predominantly evo`s seems to disproove your original assertion...."
--What was my original assertion?"2)Science is interpretation TC the rest is just data...."
--Science is the study of your data, interperetation is what you make of that study.------------------

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
"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."
--For me I have found it is the exact opposite...

---

Your personal experience is rather meaningless in this instance, TC.Belief in literal Biblical creation is highest in people who never finished high school.Among life scientists, belief in a literal Biblical creation is almost nonexistant.The percentage of people who believe in a literal Biblical creation goes DOWN as education levels go up.Have a looksee: http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_publi.htm------------------
"We will still have perfect freedom to hold contrary views of our own, but to simply
close our minds to the knowledge painstakingly accumulated by hundreds of thousands
of scientists over long centuries is to deliberately decide to be ignorant and narrow-
minded."-Steve Allen, from "Dumbth"