Every SINLGE time you post something against me, you focus on ONE part. (I doubt you even read my whole comment, for you would have surely taken an interest in what else I had to say). Kent Hovind is the source of a lot of evolutionists' anger and prejudice, but when I rebuked your anti-Hovind crap you IGNORED IT in your next comment.
I never said that his degree was fake, so I didn't respond to that because I didn't think it was directed at me. I have said that his arguments are easily refutable, because I've refuted them before on the board, and I'm not even a biologist.
I don't know if his degree is fake or from a degree mill. That depends on the accredations of "Patriot University" or whatever. Anyway I don't even have a degree so I don't go around challenging the degrees of others. So that's why I ignored that part of your post.
Well, then, why CAN'T you prove evolution--because that would PROVE the Bible is lying
You're clearly pretty ignorant about what science can and cannot do. In the strictist sense of the word, you can't prove that you even existed yesterday. You can, however, provide evidence and a rational argument that the hypothesis "I existed yesterday" is the simplest hypothesis that explains the data (all your posts on this board dated yesterday, for instance).
That's how science works. Making tentative models to explain data. And I and others can argue pretty well that the theory of evolution is the best, most robust, simplest explanation for the vast amounts of scientific data that exist. If you want to prove creationsim (which you can't do by disproving evolution, BTW) then you have to show how it explains all the data evolution explains, plus data that evolution can't seem to explain. This is how theories are replaced in science.
Why CANT you prove the earth is billions of years old?
I can demonstrate evidence that is best explained by a theory that the earth is 4 billion years old.
Why CANT YOU prove Jesus was lying?
I've never said he was lying. I'm not familiar with anything he's written, can you point me to something? I do think plenty has been written about him that's not true, but that's a topic in another section.
Why CANT you prove that stars can form?
Stars are just balls of gas so massive that their gravity causes such intense pressure at the center that fusion occurs. Since we see stars in varying degrees of collapse, density, and energy output (including stars that we couldn't observe before) there's no reason to assume that some mysterious force prevents the formation of stars. If you would have us believe they can't form, what mechanism do you propose that prevents them?
Why CANT you prove Hovind isn't a real doctor?
I'd have to know the cirumstances under which his degree was granted. Certainly institutions exist that serve no purpose than to exchange degrees for money. At any rate he doesn't conduct himself as a man of learning. The arguments of his that have been presented (by himself as well as others on his behalf) do not suggest a man of genuinely inquisitive intellect but rather a man twisting science and logic to support dogma.
Why CANT you prove we evolved, or are still evolving--the variations in modern species might just be the result of radiation from the sun following Noah's Flood
We're not talking about variations in species. We're talking about new species altogether that can't breed with their original populations. And your solar radiation theory doesn't explain observed speciation in controlled,
indoor lab envrionments.
(afterall, a canopy of water around the earth has evidence supporting it, AND that would have blocked out solar radiation).
I'm not familiar with any evidence for this, could you post some? (This would be a topic for the geology section.)
™ Version 4.2
