Evolution is a religion. Creation is a religion.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Christian1:
Creation is a religion, Evolution is a RELIGION, Science is what we can observe and test to be true. My religion is proved over and over and over and over and over and over and evolutionists cannot offer even an shred of solid proof. Yet they call evolution "science". Please do not get this mixed up.

​

If you have proof of evolution "a scientific experiment, in a complete form with facts and without doubts or other theories" I'm going to tell you where you can get $250,000 for it. Please visit http://www.drdino.com to collect.

​

Those of you who believe in God and Evolution should watch Dr. Hovind's videos which can be found on the "money link" or even read and understand the bible. The mear fact that evolutionists chalk their religion up as being "science" is painfully mistaken, there is no proof or science experiment that supports the theroy of evolution. I've seen the bible proven to be acurate time and time again and untill it is proven wrong, I will continue have my beliefs as a True Christian and creationist. And keep in mind that God created "TIME" as well, proof is spoken in the book of genius.

​

[This message has been edited by Christian1, 02-12-2002]

---

Not that prick Hovind, AGAIN? Tell me, using cytochrome c similiarities, what is the closest organism to humans, according to Hovind? Sorry to everyone else who've seen this before, but this is a favourite of mine.Don't give him any clues!!OK, Hovind aside, give me evidence of 6 day genesis, please, since you claim the bibles been proven over & over.Regarding lack of evidence, how do you explain molecular phylogenies derived from genetic evidences, such as amino acid similarities (see cytochrome c), retroviral insertions, pseudogenes, MITEs, & other transposable elements?I'm pasting this from another post of mine, it was originally in response to Cobra_Snake claiming that the theory of evolution was contrived, & that the evidence was shoehorned in after the theory had been made. This shows the evidence of evolution BEFORE Charles Darwin. (message 20 http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=page&f=1&t=80&p=2 ) http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/history/buffon2.htmlGeorges-Louis Leclerc, Comte de Buffon (1707-1788)Sometimes it is hard to imagine how revolutionary an idea was, especially when that idea is currently accepted as common knowledge. Many such ideas appear simple and are often taught at the elementary school level, yet the simplicity of these ideas belies the complexity involved in their origins.
During the eighteenth century, two church doctrines provided sweeping biblical explanations for most questions about biological diversity: Separate Creation, the idea that all creatures have been created independently of one another by God and organized into a hierarchy ("chain of being") with Man occupying the most elevated rank beneath God; and the 6,000 year limit on the age of the planet.
It is not the average person who questions two thousand years of dogma, but that is what Buffon did: 100 years before Darwin, Buffon, in his Historie Naturelle, a 44 volume encyclopedia describing everything known about the natural world, wrestled with the similarities of humans and apes and even talked about common ancestry of Man and apes.Evidence : Morphological similarity between organisms. Heritable traits. http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/history/Edarwin.htmlErasmus Darwin (1731-1802)Charles Darwin's grandfather, Erasmus Darwin, was one of the leading intellectuals of eighteenth century England, a man with a remarkable array of interests and pursuits. Erasmus Darwin was a respected physician, a well known poet, philosopher, botanist, and naturalist.
As a naturalist, he formulated one of the first formal theories on evolution in Zoonomia, or, The Laws of Organic Life (1794-1796). He also presented his evolutionary ideas in verse, in particular in the posthumously published poem The Temple of Nature. Although he did not come up with natural selection, he did discuss ideas that his grandson elaborated on sixty years later, such as how life evolved from a single common ancestor, forming "one living filament". He wrestled with the question of how one species could evolve into another. Although some of his ideas on how evolution might occur are quite close to those of Lamarck, Erasmus Darwin also talked about how competition and sexual selection could cause changes in species: "The final course of this contest among males seems to be, that the strongest and most active animal should propogate the species which should thus be improved". Erasmus Darwin arrived at his conclusions through an "integrative" approach: he used his observations of domesticated animals, the behaviour of wildlife, and he integrated his vast knowledge of many different fields, such as paleontology, biogeography, systematics, embryology, and comparative anatomy.Evidences : paleontology, biogeography, systematics, embryology, and comparative anatomy. http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/history/lamarck.htmlJean-Baptiste Lamarck (1744-1829)While the mechanism of Lamarckian evolution is quite different from that proposed by Darwin, the predicted result is the same: adaptive change in lineages, ultimately driven by environmental change, over long periods of time. It is interesting to note that Lamarck cited in support of his theory of evolution many of the same lines of evidence that Darwin was to use in the Origin of Species. Lamarck's Philosophie zoologique mentions the great variety of animal and plant forms produced under human cultivation (Lamarck even anticipated Darwin in mentioning fantail pigeons!); the presence of vestigial, non-functional structures in many animals; and the presence of embryonic structures that have no counterpart in the adult.Evidences : Vestigial structures, & embryo developemental structure.We haven’t even reached his nibs, Charlie Darwin yet, & we already have :Morphological similarity between organisms, heritable traits, paleontology, biogeography, systematics, embryology, vestigial structure, and comparative anatomy.All these observations BEFORE Charles Darwin came along with natural selection, & the seed of the modern ToE.Now, what had the bible got at the same period in history? Alleged divine revelation.Charles Darwin based his theory on EVIDENCE.EVIDENCE FIRST, THEORY LATER. The scientific method, no less.It really is intellectually bankrupt to try to claim evolutionary theory is based on pure faith & bias. The theory has had prediction after prediction come true, this is not faith or bias.Now, Christian 1, if you are claiming that the theory of evolution doesn't meet the standard of the scientific method, let's hear it. Please, none of the usual evasive bull, your answer to this should start "The theory of evolution doesn't meet the standards set by the scientific method because................".In summary, to back up your claims, you need to :1/ Give me proof of the divine nature of the bible. 6 Day Genesis would be nice. Since it has been "proved over and over and over and over and over and over", it shouldn't be too tricky.2/ Explain the genetic evidences in a way that fits creation, not the scientific consensus.3/ Explain why the Theory of Evolution isn't science, & how it doesn't meet the scientific method.4/ Lastly, since you hold Hovind in such high regard, explain Hovinds ridiculous claims about cytochrome c, & what organism is allegedly closer to humans, instead of a chimpanzee. Giving the reason he makes his conclusions. If you can do this & make sense, you'll get a nobel prize.Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Christian1:
[b] My telling you that Evolution is a religion irritates you? You say that Creation cannot be proven. You say that Evolution can be proven, and yet evolutionist's offer more theories which they "believe" support thier original theory.

​

People discuss Hovind's offer as though it is a fake offer, though as you misunderstand the bible, which I don't fully understand the bible, you misunderstand Hovidn's offer, and twist his words and try to make him look like a fool as he has done to many Evolutionist's in many of his debates. Hovind's offer simply states to show him proof of evolution as he has shown you proof of creation, and he also shows you proof that evolutionist's hide eveidence of creation or excuse it as inacurate.

​

When I speak to you I don't try to deter you or lie to you, I am simply posting one fact. To add upon it, Evolution, Creation, and Science are three differnt things. Evolution is often mistaken as science, when it can not be proven. If you can't prove it, what makes it science? Creationis't do not claim that Creation is science, Creation is not science it is a religion. Again, Science is what we can observe and test to be true/fact.

​

When you say that God did not create the heavens and the earth, were you there? I know I wasn't, but I do believe that God created the heavens and the earth. The book of God's word said so. Were you there when your car was created? NO? Does that mean in evolved? Do you believe that it evolved? Everything was created by something somewhere. When? Where? I guess, only God knows. He tells you.....in the bible.[/QUOTE]I, & others have asked questions pertaining to your opening statement.For myself, I would like the questions I pose in message 3 answered, specifically :"In summary, to back up your claims, you need to :1/ Give me proof of the divine nature of the bible. 6 Day Genesis would be nice. Since it has been "proved over and over and over and over and over and over", it shouldn't be too tricky.2/ Explain the genetic evidences in a way that fits creation, not the scientific consensus.3/ Explain why the Theory of Evolution isn't science, & how it doesn't meet the scientific method.4/ Lastly, since you hold Hovind in such high regard, explain Hovinds ridiculous claims about cytochrome c, & what organism is allegedly closer to humans, instead of a chimpanzee. Giving the reason he makes his conclusions. If you can do this & make sense, you'll get a nobel prize."I'll even make the cytochrome c question easy for you. Hovind claims that sunflowers are more closely related to humans, if cytochrome c similarities are used, & not chimpanzees after all. http://home.mmcable.com/harlequin/evol/HovindLie.html"Well, now, hold it. If you want to just pick one item and that's supposed to prove relationship, did you know that human Cytochrom [sic] C is closest to a sunflower? So really the sunflowers are our closest relative folks. It depends what you want to compare. If you want to compare the eyes, we are closest to an octopus. Not a chimpanzee. Pick something. What do you want to compare? Human blood specific gravity is closest to a rabbit or a pig. Human milk is closest to a donkey. It depends on what you want to compare. Pick something. If there were not some similarities between us and other animals we could only eat each other. So God designed all animals from the code so we could eat other plants and animals and digest them. Not proof for evolution. It's proof of a common Designer! "Care to comment?Have you read the replies that people took the time to write? You have had Jeff/Schraf question your use of the word proof, the inerrecy of the bible questioned, your understanding of what science does & doesn't do questioned, & yet here you are again, with the same old bumf.So, instead of surmising how worried & irritated we all are, you might want to respond substantively to people, or we'll just think your full of hot air making baseless assertions, heaven forbid.Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Christian1:

Why do you insist that I prove my belief? When others ask you and other evolutionist's to prove evolution, why is thier answer so incomplete and full of more beliefs? My proof is in the bible, if you want specific proof, ask Dr. Hovind, heh, if you dare or read the bible which others have taken the time to study. Dr. Hovind is much better at specifics than I am. And the bible has already been written. If you don't believe him, the bible, and God, why don't you prove me, Dr. Hovind, and the bible wrong? And I do urge you and other evolutionist's to be truthful and not work around the questions as though they are not there. I would like an answer on if we evolved, why are we not evolving? If it is science, why can't you prove it? Do I need to prove that the Earth is there, here, everywhere? Do I need to prove that we exist? If my beliefs are wrong, why do so many people swear and take the lords name in vein? Who is your lord? I can't rationalize that "we JUST exist" or "evolved from nothing", there had to be something not nothing. If you give nothing, you get nothing, that is a fact.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Christian1:

My religion is proved over and over and over and over and over and over

---

So prove it. You made the claim, now back it up.The inerrancy of your bible is in question, see Schrafinators post. If your bible contains errors, then it can not be considered an authority on its own divinity.You are a transmitter, not a reciever, aren't you? As has been pointed out to you more than once, science doesn't "prove" anything. Science makes hypothesis from observations, these hypothesis contains predictions (I won't go into falsifications now), which, in the case of evolution, many have been born out. A prediction of cytochrome c amino acid sequences, for example, would be that it is similar to chimps (based on other anatomical similarities), & that sunflowers would contain dissimmilariteis, & guess what? This is called the scientific method (very basic).Evolutionary theory meets the standard of the scientific method, & is therefore science.Now, I have asked relevant questions pertaining to your opening statement, in message 3 :"In summary, to back up your claims, you need to :"1/ Give me proof of the divine nature of the bible. 6 Day Genesis would be nice. Since it has been "proved over and over and over and over and over and over", it shouldn't be too tricky.2/ Explain the genetic evidences in a way that fits creation, not the scientific consensus.3/ Explain why the Theory of Evolution isn't science, & how it doesn't meet the scientific method.4/ Lastly, since you hold Hovind in such high regard, explain Hovinds ridiculous claims about cytochrome c, & what organism is allegedly closer to humans, instead of a chimpanzee. Giving the reason he makes his conclusions. If you can do this & make sense, you'll get a nobel prize."I'll even make the cytochrome c question easy for you. Hovind claims that sunflowers are more closely related to humans, if cytochrome c similarities are used, & not chimpanzees after all. http://home.mmcable.com/harlequin/evol/HovindLie.html"Well, now, hold it. If you want to just pick one item and that's supposed to prove relationship, did you know that human Cytochrom [sic] C is closest to a sunflower? So really the sunflowers are our closest relative folks. It depends what you want to compare. If you want to compare the eyes, we are closest to an octopus. Not a chimpanzee. Pick something. What do you want to compare? Human blood specific gravity is closest to a rabbit or a pig. Human milk is closest to a donkey. It depends on what you want to compare. Pick something. If there were not some similarities between us and other animals we could only eat each other. So God designed all animals from the code so we could eat other plants and animals and digest them. Not proof for evolution. It's proof of a common Designer! "Care to comment?"Failure to comment substantively on the points means your engaging in handwaving bluster, making claims, & then avoiding backing them up. I have shown you evolution is science, I've even shown you genetic science that backs up evolution. Here are two papers :
http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/96/18/10261"Phylogenetic relationships among cetartiodactyls based on insertions of short and long interpersed elements: Hippopotamuses are the closest extant relatives of whales." http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/96/18/10254"Constructing primate phylogenies from ancient retrovirus sequences."Now, there's PLENTY more evidence. What is required of you is to explain ALL of these evidences away, in a manner that fits into the so called "creation model". Failure to do so means there is evidence of evolution, & a lot of it. Please spare me your ideas that it must be proven in lab to be science, it doesn't. It has to be backed up with evidence, have predictions be born out, & have potential falsifications. It has all three. The ToE hasn't been proven, nor can it be. It is, however, a scientific theory with a lot of evidence in support of it.Hovind is a fraud, & if you try to answer point 4/ , you will see why. You have been lied to, I'm showing you one example of why you shouldn't waste any more money on him.So, please answer points 1-4Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

quote:

---

Originally posted by KingPenguin:
ey go christian!!! woooo.
look at it this way evolutionists, God and the bible have been around in all of civilized society and are accepted as fact, we dont need evidence; you need to disprove it, good luck with that (contradictions in the bible dont prove anything other than bad story telling). Evolution is very new theory and has to be proven and still fit in with the facts already layed down, it also cant be made on any assumptions or guesses. it has to be 100% pure evidence otherwise it isnt science, even according to yourselves. we dont really need to show whats wrong with evolution, but where being nice and showing you the faults.

​

---

LOL!!!! If I asserted that the sun was pushed around by a galactic goat, it would be incumbent on me to provide some sort of evidentiary support, non? Same goes for the bible. Christian 1 claimed it has been proven over & over & over, so I merely ask him to back up his claims.I assert the universe was born out of a sneeze of the Galactic Goat. Disprove it. Or would that be a silly thing to ask?While your at it, you could disprove all the other religions, norse mythology, babylonian, egyptian etc.....Perhaps you could actually reply with some substance for once, & tackle the questions (1-4) in post 3,11, & 14. I've posted them 3 times & not got a response from Christian 1, in all probability he has nothing of substance to add, either. Continually bleating "the bible is my proof", without demonstrating the nature of that proof, doesn't do much to convince.Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

​

[This message has been edited by mark24, 02-13-2002]

​

[This message has been edited by mark24, 02-13-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Christian1:

Creation is a religion, Evolution is a RELIGION, Science is what we can observe and test to be true. My religion is proved over and over and over and over and over and over and evolutionists cannot offer even an shred of solid proof. Yet they call evolution "science". Please do not get this mixed up.

​

If you have proof of evolution "a scientific experiment, in a complete form with facts and without doubts or other theories" I'm going to tell you where you can get $250,000 for it. Please visit http://www.drdino.com to collect.

​

Those of you who believe in God and Evolution should watch Dr. Hovind's videos which can be found on the "money link" or even read and understand the bible. The mear fact that evolutionists chalk their religion up as being "science" is painfully mistaken, there is no proof or science experiment that supports the theroy of evolution. I've seen the bible proven to be acurate time and time again and untill it is proven wrong, I will continue have my beliefs as a True Christian and creationist. And keep in mind that God created "TIME" as well, proof is spoken in the book of genius.

​

[This message has been edited by Christian1, 02-12-2002]

​

---

Sigh, this is getting frustrating, the usual bluster & runaround.I have asked you to answer four points, no less than FOUR times in message 3, 11, 14, & in this message. I shall again summarise :"1/ Give me proof of the divine nature of the bible. 6 Day Genesis would be nice. Since it has been "proved over and over and over and over and over and over", it shouldn't be too tricky.2/ Explain the genetic evidences in a way that fits creation, not the scientific consensus. Here are two papers : http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/96/18/10261"Phylogenetic relationships among cetartiodactyls based on insertions of short and long interpersed elements: Hippopotamuses are the closest extant relatives of whales." http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/96/18/10254"Constructing primate phylogenies from ancient retrovirus sequences."I ask only that you deal with one.3/ Explain why the Theory of Evolution isn't science, & how it doesn't meet the scientific method.4/ Lastly, since you hold Hovind in such high regard, explain Hovinds ridiculous claims about cytochrome c, & what organism is allegedly closer to humans, instead of a chimpanzee. Giving the reason he makes his conclusions. If you can do this & make sense, you'll get a nobel prize."I'll even make the cytochrome c question easy for you. Hovind claims that sunflowers are more closely related to humans, if cytochrome c similarities are used, & not chimpanzees after all. http://home.mmcable.com/harlequin/evol/HovindLie.html"Well, now, hold it. If you want to just pick one item and that's supposed to prove relationship, did you know that human Cytochrom [sic] C is closest to a sunflower? So really the sunflowers are our closest relative folks. It depends what you want to compare. If you want to compare the eyes, we are closest to an octopus. Not a chimpanzee. Pick something. What do you want to compare? Human blood specific gravity is closest to a rabbit or a pig. Human milk is closest to a donkey. It depends on what you want to compare. Pick something. If there were not some similarities between us and other animals we could only eat each other. So God designed all animals from the code so we could eat other plants and animals and digest them. Not proof for evolution. It's proof of a common Designer! "Care to comment?"Now, the reasons I asked those four questions are :1/ You said the bible has been proved over & over. You have made an extraordinary claim. So I am asking you to back up the divine nature of the bible with those proofs. Failure to do so means you are lying. Has that got your attention?2/ You have claimed evolution is belief. I am showing you it is evidence based, & not belief in the religious sense that you are trying to imply. So, I have presented you with the evidence, along with the conclusions. If you cannot refute that evidence, then the claim that evolution is belief (in the religious sense that you are attempting to imply) is false.3/ You have claimed evolution isn’t science, it has been pointed out to you that evolution fits the scientific method, & is science. If you want to discuss this, & what science does & doesn’t do, please do. Failure to discuss this means your words are empty.4/ You have held Dr Hovind up as being of good enough character to take on his word. I have asked you to explain one of his lies, so as to show you he is an out & out intellectual buffoon. Failure to discuss the good doctors claims means you are simply believing what you want because it fits your world view, & not because of any evidential basis. You are, of course, free to believe what you want, but Dr Hovind claims evidence that he cannot provide. This is the nature of his lie.I have asked four things of you, & given four reasons for doing so.Are you going to respond?Can you?Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

​

[This message has been edited by mark24, 02-13-2002]

Percy,Indeed, I alluded to this in message 32 "You have claimed evolution is belief. I am showing you it is evidence based, & not belief in the religious sense that you are trying to imply. So, I have presented you with the evidence, along with the conclusions. If you cannot refute that evidence, then the claim that evolution is belief (in the religious sense that you are attempting to imply) is false."This is the problem. Two meanings of belief are taken, & only one is used in relation to evolution.1/ Belief in the religious, sans evidence sense.2/ Belief in the evidence sense, as one of likelyhood, based on weight of evidence.Too many creationists try to get away with 1/ , when 2/ applies to evolution. If evolution was religion, there would be no weight of evidence.Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Christian1:

1/ Belief in the religious, sans evidence sense.
Do you have evidence that there is no eveidence of creation or that the bible is right? If you can't prove evolution, why do you disprove creation?

---

1/ How can I have evidence that there is no evidence?2/ I never claimed to disprove creation.3/ I never claimed to prove evolution.What I do claim is that extant organisms are MUCH better explained by evolution, than 6 Day genesis. Now, if you have evidence of genesis, then fire away. I have provided you with TWO scientific papers, either you show me why the conclusions are wrong, or I have evidence of evolution.If I have two evidences of evolution, that’s two more than for 6 day genesis, right?So, which is evidentially better supported?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Christian1:

2/ Belief in the evidence sense, as one of likelyhood, based on weight of evidence.

​

You claim there is evidence when all there is are beliefs and guesses.

---

The evidence in the two papers is provided by repeatable experiment.See above.Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

​

[This message has been edited by mark24, 02-13-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Christian1:

After reading all your counters and beliefs. I still draw the same conclusion.

​

---

But you haven’t entered into a debate. I’ve posted four questions four times & not got a response, (five times now).Your main contention is that evolution isn’t science. There are many definitions of science, of course, & all of them are correct, in their contexts. What goes on in a science classroom is science, even if it isn’t using the scientific method. However, what YOU mean science to be, uses the scientific method. The definition of science that uses the scientific method, is in fact the most difficult definition for something to attain, to be considered science. It is NOT the easy way out.

quote:

---

Originally posted by mark24:

Using the same online dictionary you yourself have used.

​

http://www.m-w.com/

​

Science.

​

3 a : knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through SCIENTIFIC METHOD b : such knowledge or such a system of knowledge concerned with the physical world and its phenomena : NATURAL SCIENCE

​

Scientific Method.

​

Function: noun
Date: 1854
: principles and procedures for the systematic pursuit of knowledge involving the recognition and formulation of a problem, the collection of data through observation and experiment, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses

​

That was 1854, this is now (very simply):

​

http://teacher.nsrl.rochester.edu/phy_labs/AppendixE/AppendixE.html

​

The scientific method has four steps

​

1. Observation and description of a phenomenon or group of phenomena.
2. Formulation of an hypothesis to explain the phenomena. In physics, the hypothesis often takes the form of a causal mechanism or a mathematical relation.
3. Use of the hypothesis to predict the existence of other phenomena, or to predict quantitatively the results of new observations.
4. Performance of experimental tests of the predictions by several independent experimenters and properly performed experiments.
(To this I would add peer review)

​

---

Every scientific theory that we have today has been through the scientific method wringer. When I say evolution is science, this is what I mean. This is what Gravity, Relativity, Boyles Law, Newtons Laws Of Motion, (& NONE of them have been "proven" 100%, they are all tentative to some degree) have been through to be considered scientific, & for the purpose of this discussion it is the definition we must use. I repeat : It is the definition you yourself are inferring, & I maintain that the Theory of Evolution meets that criteria.Now, this is one of the points you need to debate. If you don’t think that evolution meets the scientific method, & is therefore unscientific, then present your argument why. Just handing me your conclusion is not good enough. These are forums for debate, not unsubsatiated conclusions, OK?Now, on to the continued lack of substantial answers to messages 3, 11, 14, 32.

quote:

---

Originally posted by mark24:
FROM MESSAGE 32

​

1/ Give me proof of the divine nature of the bible. 6 Day Genesis would be nice. Since it has been "proved over and over and over and over and over and over", it shouldn't be too tricky.

​

2/ Explain the genetic evidences in a way that fits creation, not the scientific consensus. Here are two papers :

​

http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/96/18/10261

​

"Phylogenetic relationships among cetartiodactyls based on insertions of short and long interpersed elements: Hippopotamuses are the closest extant relatives of whales."

​

http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/96/18/10254

​

"Constructing primate phylogenies from ancient retrovirus sequences."

​

I ask only that you deal with one.

​

3/ Explain why the Theory of Evolution isn't science, & how it doesn't meet the scientific method.

​

4/ Lastly, since you hold Hovind in such high regard, explain Hovinds ridiculous claims about cytochrome c, & what organism is allegedly closer to humans, instead of a chimpanzee. Giving the reason he makes his conclusions. If you can do this & make sense, you'll get a nobel prize."

​

I'll even make the cytochrome c question easy for you. Hovind claims that sunflowers are more closely related to humans, if cytochrome c similarities are used, & not chimpanzees after all.

​

http://home.mmcable.com/harlequin/evol/HovindLie.html

​

"Well, now, hold it. If you want to just pick one item and that's supposed to prove relationship, did you know that human Cytochrom [sic] C is closest to a sunflower? So really the sunflowers are our closest relative folks. It depends what you want to compare. If you want to compare the eyes, we are closest to an octopus. Not a chimpanzee. Pick something. What do you want to compare? Human blood specific gravity is closest to a rabbit or a pig. Human milk is closest to a donkey. It depends on what you want to compare. Pick something. If there were not some similarities between us and other animals we could only eat each other. So God designed all animals from the code so we could eat other plants and animals and digest them. Not proof for evolution. It's proof of a common Designer! "

​

Care to comment?"

​

---

Now, you have made claims, I have challenged those claims, & your faith in Kent Hovind. I think I can reasonably ask for a substantial reply to those four points, & the one I make regarding the nature of science (point 5, if you will). Again, I don't want "After reading all your counters and beliefs. I still draw the same conclusion". I want to know WHY you disagree. This is the nature of debate, & you are on a forum for debate, OK?Now, regarding my first post, I said :

quote:

---

Originally posted by mark24:

Not that prick Hovind, AGAIN?
Tell me, using cytochrome c similiarities, what is the closest organism to humans, according to Hovind? Sorry to everyone else who've seen this before, but this is a favourite of mine.
Don't give him any clues!!

​

---

I don’t retract the Hovind comment, but I do concede the rest of it was hasty, & not a little childish.In message 32, I said :

quote:

---

Originally posted by mark24:

1/ You said the bible has been proved over & over. You have made an extraordinary claim. So I am asking you to back up the divine nature of the bible with those proofs. Failure to do so means you are lying. Has that got your attention?

---

Now, in calling you a liar, I was wrong.Now, there, I’ve said it. Two retractions in one post.Do you wish to retract any claims, that on second thought may have been rash? I’m referring particularly to point 1/ , but conceding Hovind lied would be good (or at least addressing the contention). If you could do that, then, if nothing else, we’re among friends. That then leaves points 2/ & 3/ , but one thing at a time..Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

​

[This message has been edited by mark24, 02-14-2002]

​

[This message has been edited by mark24, 02-14-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Christian1:
TrueCreation,
Do you have a website? I'd like to check it out.
Email me, amk_tfc@hotmail.com.

​

Evolutionist's,
You have seen the science that supports creation, I don't need to stick it back under your nose. The science that you claim supports evolution does not support anything to do with your belief. My intentions were not to enter into debate. It's not my fault that you are too "smart" to believe the bible, and too "smart" to interperate it correctly. If you were really interested in other solutions, you would read the bible with out skepticism and interpret it your self. As TrueCreation said, if you studied the Bible, there would be no debate.

---

More substance-less nonsense. You would be taken seriously if you actually addressed the issues people had to your posts, instead of just saying we're wrong, & not giving reasons.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Christian1:

My intentions were not to enter into debate.

---

LOL, so tell us something we don't know!If you have nothing to say other than I'm right, your wrong, then go someplace else.As i have asked previously FIVE TIMES!!!!!!!!! (now SIX!) Present the evidence of creation, stick it under my nose, Please do. I've yet to see ANY evidence that supports special creation.You won't of course, because you've proven yourself unable to reply to ANYTHING with reasoned argument.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Christian1:

"If you were really interested in other solutions, you would read the bible with out skepticism and interpret it your self."

---

Well, I only "believe" things for reasons, so this is your big chance to convert me. Give me this evidence of creation.This preaching has gone on long enough.CHRISTIAN 1, PUT UP OR SHUT UP.Markps SIX times now I have asked you for evidence of creation. Good grief.------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Christian1:
The Great Debate,

​

If you read, study, and undestand the bible, there would be no debate. Why am I going to debate you, when you've been debated time and time again. You still pretend to understand the mumbo jumbo you call evidence, where there is no evidence that eveolution ever occured. What amazes me is that you find evidence of thing the bible has already talked about, and try to roll it all up to support evolution. There really is no debate and you can't prove evolution.

---

Either you prove the bibles divinity, like you say you can, or I don't have to buy toilet paper for a few weeks, OK?BACK UP WHAT YOU CLAIM, OR GO ELSEWHERE.This has nothing to do with evidence of evolution, it has to do with the fact you can't back up your claims YOU made IN THE FIRST POST in this thread, GOT IT?Most people require reasons for believing things, so provide the reason to believe the bible, that can be substantiated independently of the bible. If you can't do this, you have circular reasoning. The bible proves the bible. If you think that's OK, then I'm going to say evolution proves evolution with EXACTLY the same amount of intellectual clout.Do you understand the intellectual bankruptcy of attempting such a thing?Probably not, given the quality of your "replies".Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

​

[This message has been edited by mark24, 02-15-2002]

​

[This message has been edited by mark24, 02-15-2002]

Schraf,Don't hold your breath for an intelligent response.......Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

.

​

[This message has been edited by mark24, 02-21-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Christian1:

You think that by posting really long "tiresome" answers that it makes you inteligent? If you don't have my beliefs I don't think you are stupid, I only think your belief is stupid.

---

Your position IS stupid (since you use the word) because you can’t back up your claims.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Christian1:

​

I think your belief is stupid because there is no proof only what you believe is evidence.

---

Well, it goes like this, evolution has evidence & therefore a reason to come to that conclusion.There is no PROOF (not to mention evidence) of God.Ergo, believing in something with no evidence, over something that does, is again, stupid.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Christian1:

I'm sorry that you think that my mind isn't open and that I've been brainwashed. I stringly believe that infact you are the ones who've been brain washed.

---

Since you can’t back up your claims, there is really only one conclusion. You are asking for proof of evolution, yet cannot provide proof of the bibles divinity, yet believe in the bible.Brainwashed.I have evidence to back my position. Not brainwashed.See?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Christian1:

I don't fear science. You ask me for something you your self do not provide, and then attack me when I provide you with the same as you provide me.

---

1/ Science doesn’t do proof. There isn't a single scientific theory that has been "proven".2/ You haven’t provided me with the same as I have provided you. Can you give me evidence of the bibles divinity? No, I have gone one better than you, then, as regards evolution. (message 3).

quote:

---

Originally posted by Christian1:

I actually thought I evolved because of what I was taught in school and had a belief in God at the same time. I began to read, study, and understand the bible and discussed it with friends, needless to say I realized that I was wrong for believing in evolution. I would definately say that I do have an open mind, and I also think reasonably. Evolution is based on beliefs with no proof, the fact that you believe in it makes it a religion. The fact that you cannot accept any other option makes you religious.

---

Why don’t you discuss it here with us then? Instead of just providing us with the conclusion of those discussions (see rule 3, below).Why needless to say, this is the bit you need to explain.Evolution is based on evidence, reinterpret that evidence by addressing it, or shut up.I can accept other options. Until the weight of evidence (you do understand this, don’t you?) points to another conclusion, then the current theory stands. It is incumbent upon you to either provide this new evidence (bluster & assertion don’t qualify, if they did, I’d already be a YEC), or reinterpret the entire body of evidence that supports the ToE.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Christian1:

The reason Evolutionist's refuse to admit that thier belief is religious is becase it would not be able to be taught in schools, and would be thrown out on to the street the same as you have tried to do with God. Evolution is attempting to erase God. I'm sorry, God is going to erase Evolution. ...I wouldn't recommend attempting to engage in a debate with him.

---

Evolution isn’t attempting to erase God, it is attempting to find an evidence based reason to explain extant organisms, including us.If that contradicts Christianity, tough. If God wanted to erase evolution, he shouldn’t have put all that false evidence there, to lead us astray.Now, prove you’re not brainwashed by backing up your claims in accordance with rule 3 of these forums (Assertions should be supported with either explanations and/or evidence for why the assertion is true. Bare assertions are strongly discouraged.) You can do this by answering the questions I have asked repeatedly, & are best summarised in message 32.So far you haven't adhered to rule 3, all you've done is restate your position. To be in accord with rule 3, you must give an explanation.Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

ChildOfGod2516, You mean God couldn't design people to not run into walls? Shame on him.Mark

mf,You do realise that the quote you made wasn't me but Christian1?Cheers,Mark