A Review of Creationist Web Sites

No oxygen: Page Not Found: 404 Error | Cal Poly Humboldt
(under "precambrian rocks and minerals")
No ozone without oxygen:
Did you say that? It's freshman chemistry, anyway - oxygen is O2, ozone O3 - they're two forms of the same element.
"Unless you have ozone, the ammonia gets destroyed."
Jupiter has ammonia but no ozone:
http://seds.lpl.arizona.edu/...nets/nineplanets/jupiter.htmlI apologize, and will post links in the future.

NosyNed wrote: "Thanks for helping though I don't think that's what you intended."It most certainly was what I intended. I know my username makes me sound like a creationist, and I do in fact believe in one God as Creator. However, science is not the source for that belief of mine. I am quite convinced that science will eventually, and accurately, come up with a good theory for abiogenesis, and "descent with modification" from a single ancestor seems to me to be far and away the best explanation for the geology and history of this planet.I do want to disagree with you a litte. Okay, I acknowledge that simple to complex is not exactly what evolution predicts, but that is the general trend we see, as far as I understand. What I thought was ludicrous was the suggestion that a one-toed horse must be less complex than a four-toed eohippus.By the way, I used to be a young earther. Evidence made a good start for turning me, but what made it easy to get past my literal Genesis One convictions was the dishonesty and the intentional ignorance of creationists. I knew there was no way God was on their side, and I've always had a problem with defending God. It seems like he ought to be able to do that himself, and my experience is that he's done a pretty good job of it.

I want to be careful in what I say. I'm afraid you could get the wrong idea or not understand how sincere I am.I am very impressed indeed that you managed to make up your own mind based on what you learned. It is easy for me to look at the evidence and follow along without any really hard emotional and intellectual struggles. It is much harder for someone with a different world view to start with.Also, though I am an atheist, I'm glad you were able to make the transition without losing your faith. I've read things and chatted with individuals who couldn't do that. This is one reason why some Christians I know or have chatted with are very incensed even angry with the "creationist cult" (and other things they are called. They can do damage to the faithful side as well as messing with the educational system.As for the apparent trend to complexity. You should read S.J. Gould's "Full House". It points out that if you start on one extreme (the bacterial world) then any change will look like it is directed. Thus if once there was only single celled life it is bound to look like there is a pressure to more complexity if you add anything to that. You can't go in the other direction so it only looks like there is a trendancy to complexity.He also points out that it was, is and always will be the "age of bacteria". From any dispassionate view the bacteria are the overwhelmingly dominant form of life on earth. All the rest are just minor statisictically flucutations. He might be being a bit facetious in this but it is a good point. I read elsewhere (can't remember the reference) that you and I are, by count, mostly not "us". By number (not mass) we are about 90% bacteria. We are outnumbered in our own bodies! An amusing view of things.

Ned,I have no problem with your original assertion that evolution doesn't predict increasing complexity. I was only trying to say that the amusing thing, to me, on the web site I mentioned was the idea that Eohippus had to be more complex than a modern horse because it had more toes.I found Lyn Margulis' point that mitochondria are really the most successful life form rather interesting. While I haven't read enough to understand all her ideas on the subject, I do find it hard to argue that if mitochondria were once a separate life form, they sure found a great survival mechanism through making almost all later life dependent on them, even most bacteria.We're off topic, but since I'm the only one who gave you another web site quote, I guess all the other posts were off topic, too.But, since I'm here, how about this one. John Woodmorappe made a list of 350 discrepant radiometric dates from published literature. Glenn Morton then answered Woodmorappe by posting a graph of Woodmorappe's dates, which show that the dates, all chosen by Woodmorappe because they are more than 20% off, still go in a generally correct linear direction by age.This is the hilarious part. Woodmorappe, in order to defang Morton, writes an entire reply attacking the data! It's Woodmorappe's own data, but one of his lines is, "Finally, it is the very selective publication of obtained isotopic dates (a fact that Morton acknowledges) that makes any would-be comparison of the numbers of good versus bad dates totally meaningless, nullifying his cheap shot argument all the more."Well, it may nullify Morton's response, but it most certainly nullifies Woodmorappe's original article. Why did he publish those dates, forcing Morton's reply, if his compilation of bad dates is totally meaningless (which was Morton's point, anyway).Sigh...Oh, Woodmorappe's article is at http://www.trueorigin.org/ca_jw_02.asp.

Evolutionists, particularly the ones in this forum, are among the most close-minded, biased people I've ever heard of. First off, there is no proof against the Bible, so you have no business ridiculing or otherwise tampering with the legitimacy of actual Bible-believers.
Also, Kent Hovind IS a doctor.
All the bogus riff-raff about Kent Hovind's degree is just a back-and-forth rumor between the evolutionists.
I KNOW you will disagree, but I have seen Patriot's policies, I have SEEN WITH MY OWN EYES Dr. Hovind's PhD diploma, I have talked with Dr. Hovind personally, and I have even read the 'crap' that says Patriot University is a 'degree mill.' Whether it is a degree mill or not, (you'd have to be more specific) is not your business, and you need to understand that all the anti-Hovind personnal comments are based off of a photograph of a house in Colorado, sayind "that's Patriot University."
I have read up on Patriot University (it is not a secular college but that has nothing to do with the matter) and I have seen course descriptions of their degrees in education.
Don't you remember ANYTHING from high school? Dr. Hovind has the PERSONALITY of a high-school teacher if you ever get the chance to talk with him (if you ever have the integrity or courage to call him). I'd never mistake a high-school teacher's personality for any other type of scientist!Even if Dr. Hovind WASN'T a doctor that wouldnt mean he doesn't have the righ to run CSE (which is NOT a government-controlled corporation). Also, any TRULY open-minded, educated person who is not arrogant or ignorant will admit that Dr. Hovind's degrees are legitimate.Also, if you are looking for what YOU would call a "professional" creation scientist, get Dr. Robert Gentry's book "Creation's Tiny Mystery." Or get Dr. John Morris' book "Young Earth." Of get Dr. Comninellis' book "Creative Defense: Evidence AGAINST Evolution."You always seem to have anti-creationist crap posted on the web, but I've never seen any evolutionists stand up to a publicised book by a true creation scientist--read through those three books, check their sources, AND ONLY THEN tell me that you can stand up to so-called "dumb" creation scientists!!!Booboo, (By now the furious 'booboo' because of your arrogant personal attacks against creationists) FOLLOW YOUR OWN ADVICE--most evolutionists are just full of personnal attacks and accusations against creationists, AND THEN THEY demand THE CREATIONISTS to be 'professional!!!

Evolutionists are biased the same way all scientists are biased - they're biased in favor of the evidence. (Thank you, Schrafinator.) Creationists are biased in favor of the Bible. Which of these biases is more useful in finding out how things really work is a matter for the historical record.Proof against the Bible? Can't prove a negative. There's certainly no evidence that it is a better historical account than any other period documents. There's a number of biblical events for which there is no evidence for and a weight of evidence against. (Persue the Bible: Accuracy and Inerrancy forum.)As others have pointed out, the lack of proof against somethng is not proof of it. If you make the positive claim that the bible is true it is up to you to prove it.As for "tampering with their legitamacy" or whatever, what are you so afraid of? If the bible is as true as you believe then surely it can stand against any challenge? Are you afraid to admit to yourself the possibility your faith could be misplaced? Cuz you kind of sound like it. Anyway what right do you have to protect the minds of bible-believers from our arguments? Who made you their protector? Don't you think they can make their own decisions about what to believe?

Well, booboo, before working yourself into a lather, you might want to recheck how your questions are phrased. In this case, a flippant question got an accurate, albeit short, flippant answer. Male and female are not distinct species, ergo, they evolved together. That's all the answer that your poorly phrased question deserved. Now, if you really wanted a scientific answer to how sexual reproduction evolved, for instance, then you should have asked that. Starting out multiple threads, ignoring responses, claiming you're being insulted when you start out with one of your very first posts arrogantly claiming "I've never been defeated in an argument with evolutionists", etc, doesn't lend itself to anything more that what you received. "As ye sow so shall ye reap.", right?Maybe you got off on the wrong foot here. Care to try again?You made several vague accusations concerning the Smithsonian and National Geographic (among others). No one asked for a reference, however I specifically asked you for further explanation of what you were talking about. In other words, vague accusations are meaningless. Specific statements such as "Nat Geo published erroneous information on XYZ" are checkable - and can be discussed. How about it? Are you going to discuss, or are you just here to rant?

My point again:
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.It would be the wisest decision (on my part) to just get off this stupid forum (evolutionists are using the same arguments against the Bible: "you can't prove a negative.") Well, then, why CAN'T you prove evolution--because that would PROVE the Bible is lying.
Why CANT you prove the earth is billions of years old?
Why CANT YOU prove Jesus was lying?
Why CANT you prove that stars can form?
Why CANT you prove Hovind isn't a real doctor?
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 (afterall, a canopy of water around the earth has evidence supporting it, AND that would have blocked out solar radiation).
Also, when you said that there is evidence against the Bible, I HAVE NEVER HEARD A BIGGER LIE!
The Bible is what guided many modern discoveries and advancement in Science! In the book of Job (1400 B.C.) God asks Job about the 'springs of the sea.' Did you know that oceanic springs were not even discovered until 1977?
The book of Isaiah (700 B.C.) mentions God 'stretching out the heavens.' SO, the fact that we document the universe expanding could be proof for the Bible JUST AS easily as it could be proof for the Big Bang.
The Book of Revelation (70 AD) mentions God sitting upon the 'circle of the earth.' Did you know that most non-Christian and non-Jewish scientists in those days thought the world was flat, when the Bible knew it was round all along?

I have asked you before, and repeat it now: bring to this board any ONE single, specific argument/research/statement or even quotation for that matter from any creationist you think represents the epitome of creation science and I'll be happy to deconstruct it for you. I HAVE read a number of so-called creation scientists - from Wells to Dembski to Johnson - and am thoroughly unimpressed. You, on the other hand, are thoroughly impressed. Thus, we have a basis for discussion right off the bat.Tell you what - I'll read Gentry's "Creation's Tiny Mystery" if you read Futuyma's "Evolutionary Biology". Fair deal? Want to make a bet which one contains the better science?

Circles are flat. Spheres are the three-dimensional ones.Stars are being observed in the act of forming. The Hubble Space Telescope has seen a few hundred: look up "proplyd".[This message has been edited by Coragyps, 04-24-2003]

quote:

---

Well, then, why CAN'T you prove evolution--because that would PROVE the Bible is lying.

---

It is as proven as anything can be, but you ignore and continue to ignore the evidence in favor of the lies spread by your creation science heroes. As long as you accept their lies, the truth cannot be proven to you.That last phrase about the Bible is quite diagnostic of the state of your brain.

quote:

---

Why CANT you prove the earth is billions of years old?

---

All of the evidence-- ALL OF IT-- puts the Earth at billions of years old, but you ignore this evidence. If you are content to ignore all that which contradicts your beliefs and accept only what ad hoc arguments fit your bill then there is nothing that can be done. You will die in your willful ignorance. Produce an argument that has not been refuted a hundred times. See, in science, when an argument is refuted a hundred times by as many peers, that argument is dropped.

quote:

---

Why CANT YOU prove Jesus was lying?

---

We don't even know what Jesus said, but only what a few people who never met him, and who were living long after his death, say he said.

quote:

---

Why CANT you prove that stars can form?

---

hmmm... you aren't terribly up to date in astronomy are you? There are good models for stellar formation and those models match the observations.

quote:

---

Why CANT you prove Hovind isn't a real doctor?

---

The degree is from Patriot University. It is not an accredited school. The end.

quote:

---

Why CANT you prove we evolved, or are still evolving

---

We can prove, as per the scientific definition, that we evolved but you ignore the evidence. Evolution has been observed countless times. You have been given links to such evidence and if you read much of the forums on evolution you'll find many more links. But you'll ignore those too.

quote:

---

the variations in modern species might just be the result of radiation from the sun following Noah's Flood

---

You have got to be joking!!! Hyper-evolution due to exposure to the Sun's radiation which began after a water canopy that never existed collapsed to cause a flood that never happened!!!! Talk about things that cannot be proven!!!

quote:

---

Also, when you said that there is evidence against the Bible, I HAVE NEVER HEARD A BIGGER LIE!

---

There is evidence, and plenty of it, against many of the events in the Bible. It is no lie. The lies come from the Biblical apologists.

quote:

---

In the book of Job (1400 B.C.) God asks Job about the 'springs of the sea.'

---

Where did the nomadic herding Isrealites get thier water? Ans: form springs. Where did the ocean get its water? Ans: From springs. Nothing here strikes me as profound. It doesn't even strike me as all that accurate, as much water in fact comes from rivers.

quote:

---

Did you know that oceanic springs were not even discovered until 1977?

---

But you just said Job knew about them. Both statements can't be correct.

quote:

---

The book of Isaiah (700 B.C.) mentions God 'stretching out the heavens.'

---

So does virtually every mythology on the planet.

quote:

---

SO, the fact that we document the universe expanding could be proof for the Bible JUST AS easily as it could be proof for the Big Bang.

---

... or for any other mythology which uses this, or a similar, turn of phrase.

quote:

---

The Book of Revelation (70 AD) mentions God sitting upon the 'circle of the earth.'

---

Circles aren't spheres.

quote:

---

Did you know that most non-Christian and non-Jewish scientists in those days thought the world was flat, when the Bible knew it was round all along?

---

Did you know that it wasn't the Jews and Christians who discovered that the earth is a sphere? In the west, it was the Greeks and this was 3-4 years BC. The Christians suppressed the information for 1500 years or so.What you've done is create a false distinction. Too be fair, you'd have to add that most Christian and Jewish scientists also thought the world was flat.------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

Where is your evidence against the Bible?
Next, I'm not going to open up a creationist geology 101 course for you, but read Gentry's book: "Creation's Tiny Mystery"
His book is thorough and sound.
Where is the evidence against the Bible? I have read BOTH sides of almost EVERY SINGLE argument about the origin of the earth--his book is more sound than you know. He has done up-to-date and thorough research on radiopalonium halos. Where is the evidence against the Bible?
By the way, don't bother telling me about the 'contradictions' in the Bible--I can take apart that crap from the atheist websites in a few minutes, they are really ignorant, and they only pay attention to what jumps out in front of them and not reading the WHOLE Bible.
Also, the Bible DID know the earth was a circle (again your speedy anti-booboo comments lack research).In Revelation the Bible says that the angels "traveled to the four corners of the earth" Circles AND shperes are circular, IN FACT: the Hebrew word used for 'Circle' in the original text simply meant 'round object'
So how would a round object have FOUR corners? Simple: North, South, East, and West. Don't try to analize that for mistakes, I have had endless Biblical discussion on these topics with a number of Christian doctors, Creationist scientists, Pastors, etc.

The topic is "A Review of Creationist Web Sites"Adminnemooseus

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. 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. I can demonstrate evidence that is best explained by a theory that the earth is 4 billion years old. 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. 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? 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. 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. I'm not familiar with any evidence for this, could you post some? (This would be a topic for the geology section.)

quote:

---

Where is your evidence against the Bible?

---

Administration is hinting that the topic is getting off target. There are plenty of topics here concerning Biblical accuracy. I have participated in most of them. Choose one, but read the thread before posting. Perhaps start here: EvC Forum: Using the Bible as fact...

quote:

---

I'm not going to open up a creationist geology 101 course for you

---

Not necessary. There are plent of topics already open. Choose one.

quote:

---

I have read BOTH sides of almost EVERY SINGLE argument about the origin of the earth--his book is more sound than you know.

---

You have given me no reason to believe that you are capable of understanding either side of the debate. Nor have you given me any indication that you understand what constitutes a 'sound' argument. Most, if not all of your arguments thus far have definitely not been sound. Yet you use them nonetheless? This makes me think you don't understand the concept.

quote:

---

He has done up-to-date

---

LOL... a book written in 1992 isn't up to date, not in today's world. And radio-halo creationist arguments have been refuted a hundred times.

quote:

---

I can take apart that crap from the atheist websites in a few minutes

---

Yet can't bother to respond to the many replies you got when you started a thread on just this topic? Curious....

quote:

---

they only pay attention to what jumps out in front of them and not reading the WHOLE Bible.

---

Actually, you don't know this. You have no idea who has read what or how many times.

quote:

---

Also, the Bible DID know the earth was a circle (again your speedy anti-booboo comments lack research).

---

Sure it did, but circles aren't spheres. I point you to: EvC Forum: There you Go,YECs...biblical "evidence" of "flat earth beliefs"And: EvC Forum: A listing of the contradictions and errors in the bible.

quote:

---

So how would a round object have FOUR corners?

---

hmmm... do you realize the contradiction here? The Earth is a circle and has four corners? This appears to be some sort of argument for a sphere instead of a flat disk, but it makes less sense to say a sphere has corners than it does to say a circle has them. There is an extra dimension of absurdity when you make the claim of spheres.------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com