Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
7 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Evolution is a Religious Issue
Asgara
Member (Idle past 2302 days)
Posts: 1783
From: Wisconsin, USA
Joined: 05-10-2003


Message 46 of 303 (185293)
02-14-2005 7:37 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by sog345
02-14-2005 5:40 PM


The thing with Kent Hovind is that whenever someone doesn't like what he says they try to discredit him by talking about his PhD or where he went to school. You know I wouldn't get on here and talk about where any of you all went to school. Those that throw dirt lose ground. Whenever anyone starts throwing dirt it just shows they are loosing the battle.
It isn't necessarily "where" he went to school, it is the deceit. He claims a PhD but did not do any of the mind-boggling work involved in researching and writing a PhD quality thesis. The paper he claims to be that PhD was issued by a non-accredited split level.
He repeats arguments that he has been shown repeatedly are wrong. He has been shown not just by evos but by the mainstream, fundamentalist, creationist organizations.
He posts a "challenge" to science that by his rules is impossible. He not only demands evidence of biological evolution but of abiogenesis, the big bang and every conceivable scientific area he can throw the word evolution onto. He claims the evidence will be looked at by an unbiased group. He is the one to decide if the evidence even gets as far as this group, he is the one who chose the group, he refuses to even give any credentials for any member of this group.
He has been charged with tax evasion and has refused to follow the law of the land when it pertains to getting building permits for his "museum/playground".
Please tell me this charlatan is NOT someone you are basing any scientific qualms on.
If Kent Hovind has ever had an idea worthy of scientific perusal please find it and start a thread on it. I'm sure many here would love to hear it.

Asgara
"Embrace the pain, spank your inner moppet, whatever....but get over it"
select * from USERS where CLUE > 0
http://asgarasworld.bravepages.com
http://perditionsgate.bravepages.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by sog345, posted 02-14-2005 5:40 PM sog345 has not replied

AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 47 of 303 (185304)
02-14-2005 8:14 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by sog345
02-14-2005 5:58 PM


A suspension warning for sog345
You have been given several posts with specific evidence. You have been asked more than once what is wrong with this evidence.
You will have to answer that or you will get a 24 hour suspension to think it over. Your ignorning what has been supplied and questions being asked of you is not debating in good faith.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by sog345, posted 02-14-2005 5:58 PM sog345 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by TrueCreation, posted 02-14-2005 8:18 PM AdminNosy has replied

TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 48 of 303 (185307)
02-14-2005 8:18 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by AdminNosy
02-14-2005 8:14 PM


Re: A suspension warning for sog345
quote:
You have been given several posts with specific evidence. You have been asked more than once what is wrong with this evidence.
You will have to answer that or you will get a 24 hour suspension to think it over. Your ignorning what has been supplied and questions being asked of you is not debating in good faith.
--I don't want to be challenging evcforum law-enforcement, but I think he should get a little more time. For all we know, he may not even understand the concept of 'evidence', let alone what can appropriately be considered science..
--Although I think I was a bit more open-minded, there was a time when I was something of a Hovindite.
This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 02-14-2005 20:19 AM

"...research [is] a strenuous and devoted attempt to force nature into the conceptual boxes supplied by professional education. Simultaneously, we shall wonder whether research could proceed without such boxes, whatever the element of arbitrariness in their historic origins and, occasionally, in their subsequent development." Kuhn, T. S.; The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, pp. 5, 1996.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by AdminNosy, posted 02-14-2005 8:14 PM AdminNosy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by AdminNosy, posted 02-14-2005 8:24 PM TrueCreation has not replied
 Message 53 by Chiroptera, posted 02-14-2005 10:22 PM TrueCreation has not replied

AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 49 of 303 (185311)
02-14-2005 8:24 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by TrueCreation
02-14-2005 8:18 PM


Re: A suspension warning for sog345
This is a warning; not a suspension.
He has time to look over what has been posted and think about what is unacceptable. If he continues to say that no evidence has been supplied he will be given 24 hours to think about it.
He may honestly believe that it isn't good evidence but he needs to take each piece of evidence and point out what is wrong with it not simply say there has been none supplied.
He also needs to explicitly respond to what others are asking. He has been asked to acknowledge that something as been supplied and to comment on it. He has avoided doing that. To continue to avoid it will result in a suspension.
Whether there will be one more warning or not depends on the nature of his next posts.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by TrueCreation, posted 02-14-2005 8:18 PM TrueCreation has not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 50 of 303 (185329)
02-14-2005 9:18 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by sog345
02-14-2005 5:58 PM


Hi Sog,
I noticed the warning from AdminNosy. It might have caught you by surprise, so maybe I can help you understand.
EvC Forum is a science site, and discussion in the science forums (this is one them) is supposed to be based upon evidence and reasoned argumentation. Broad declarations with no supporting evidence or argumentation are acceptable as a starting point, but once the discussion is engaged then they must be followed with evidence and argumentation.
I think AdminNosy may be concerned that your recent declarations (I'm paraphrasing since this is from memory) that "Evolution has no evidence" and "Evolution is not testable and therefore not science" may indicate a retreat from evidence-based discussion into unsupported assertions. As long as you proceed on to provide evidence and/or reasoned arguments for your position I'm sure he'll be happy.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by sog345, posted 02-14-2005 5:58 PM sog345 has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 51 of 303 (185341)
02-14-2005 9:38 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by sog345
02-14-2005 5:50 PM


You say there is evidence in all these places, but I have still not seen any evidence for Evolution yet.
Well, then why are you still sitting at the computer? I can't fax you a copy of the fossil record through your computer screen. I can only tell you where the evidence is; I wasn't aware I was under an obligation to FedEx it to your living room.
It's here, it's there it's everywhere; the Biologist has it, the chemist has it, but none of them can come up with any evidence.
Have you asked any of those people to show you the evidence? Or did you just demand that they deliver it to your doorstep for free?
At this point, sog, your ignorance is willful. You're not going to see anything but descriptions of the evidence on the internet, because the evidence is in the physical world.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by sog345, posted 02-14-2005 5:50 PM sog345 has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 52 of 303 (185342)
02-14-2005 9:40 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by sog345
02-14-2005 5:58 PM


Evolution is not testable.
It actually is testable; for instance my wife's research currently has the side-effect of "testing" evolution. If evolution isn't true, then she won't be able to detect what it is she's trying to detect.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by sog345, posted 02-14-2005 5:58 PM sog345 has not replied

Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 53 of 303 (185357)
02-14-2005 10:22 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by TrueCreation
02-14-2005 8:18 PM


Re: A suspension warning for sog345
quote:
...he may not even understand the concept of 'evidence'....
I am very certain that he doesn't understand the concept of evidence. But until he is willing to engage in an actual discussion on the topic we can neither know as a fact what he doesn't understand, nor can we try to clear up any misunderstandings he might have. Of course, it is always possible the we may be the ones with the misunderstanding, but he doesn't appear to be very concerned about helping us out on this.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by TrueCreation, posted 02-14-2005 8:18 PM TrueCreation has not replied

Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 54 of 303 (185428)
02-15-2005 3:36 AM
Reply to: Message 43 by mikehager
02-14-2005 7:00 PM


Re: Troll
Why did you reply to my post? You should probably redo this reply and hit the reply button at the bottom of his post.

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)
"...don't believe I'm taken in by stories I have heard, I just read the Daily News and swear by every word.."(Steely Dan)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by mikehager, posted 02-14-2005 7:00 PM mikehager has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by mikehager, posted 02-15-2005 10:31 AM Silent H has not replied

mikehager
Member (Idle past 6466 days)
Posts: 534
Joined: 09-02-2004


Message 55 of 303 (185505)
02-15-2005 10:31 AM
Reply to: Message 54 by Silent H
02-15-2005 3:36 AM


Re: Troll
Sorry. Aggravation often causes me to makes mistakes.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by Silent H, posted 02-15-2005 3:36 AM Silent H has not replied

Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 56 of 303 (185852)
02-16-2005 11:48 AM


bump
Forgive me, but I would like to bump this thread. A recent poster claimed that there was no evidence for evolution. In response, I posted what I feel to be one good piece of evidence. If sog is still around, I would like to read a post where he says what he thinks "evidence is" and why he doesn't think there is any for the theory of evolution.

Jman267
Inactive Member


Message 57 of 303 (202386)
04-25-2005 7:42 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by crashfrog
02-14-2005 3:27 PM


quote:
We believe its an accurate model of the development of life on Earth. And we don't need faith for this position, because we have evidence, instead.
Well, that's just ridiculous. Evolution is ABSOLUTELY, POSITIVELY based on faith. You have NO PROOF whatsoever of evolution, that is true vertical evolution or macro-evolution. Micro-evolution, however, is true, but that in no way explains how the universe got here. Dogs reproduce dogs, cats reproduce cats, etc... dogs do NOT reproduce cats. And, it should really not be called evolution. It should be called Bible(oh you just hate that don't ya) which says that "each would produce after its/his kind". It's simple.
What's your proof of true vertical evolution? Show me a man evolve from an ape, star evolve from hydrogen, life evolve from chemicals or anything of the sort? You can't. You have no proof. In fact, we see just the opposite: stars explode, comets and meteriorites disintegrate, the biosphere deteriorates and EVERYTHING eventually dies which PROVES the Second Law of Thermodynamics or the the Law of Increasing Entropy in Complexity. So nothing has EVER evolved into higher complexity because of this Law. My wife doesn't get younger and prettier, my car doesn't get better over time, my clothes don't evolve into something better and better.....they DETIORORATE. Do you have a freezer at home? Why? Just leave the filet mignons out for a few days so they will EVOLVE and get better and better right? Didn't think so..... The theory of evolution(macro) is DUMB and DANGEROUS and has NO PROOF whatsoever. You accept it on faith.
quote:
"Faith" is when you believe without evidence, like having faith in the existence of God or His authorship of the Bible. Evolutionists have evidence for evolution, which is why they accept it; hence they do not have faith in the theory.
That is NOT true. Show me a man evolve from an ape or star evolve from a hydrogen let's see you reproduce it. That's science! I can SHOW you stars explode, people die, animals go extinct everyday in this world. That's science...it's provable, observable and testable.
Furthermore, explain to me how nothing plus nothing equals everything when it doesn't even equal 1? That's not science, that's your imagination. If it came from nothing how can something come from nothing? Isn't that faith?
How did the bombadier beetle evolve? How did the woodpecker evolve? What are the transitional forms for these creatures? In fact, where are any transitional forms for any species? There should be billions of them! And, there aren't any. You give me facts not lies like the Nebraska man.
And, what Bible are you referring to? Be specific. Because whoever wrote the AV1611 is the God (Jesus Christ) of Mathematics. And, that's simple. There are 48 prophecies about a specific man before He even shows up on earth and they are given from 400 years to 1,000 years prior. And, all 48 come to pass literally. Do you know what the odds of that are? How about 1 X 10 to the 150th power. There is not enough room in this univers for that many protons! So, that's impossible. There isn't a man or COMPUTER in existence today that could predict that.
quote:
No faith is needed in science.
What's obvious is that evolutionists need to go back to the beginning and explain how the universe got here. Can you do that? And, don't waste my time with the Big Bang Theory. That's how it's gonna end not how it started. Where did the hydrogen come from then to start this Big Bang? How did the hydrogen get here (law of causality)? How can an explosion create anything but chaos? Are you saying a gigantic explosion will not kill? Big Bang Theory is just too funny for words!
So, how did the planets, sun, moon, stars, house, wife, mom, dad, car, cat, yard get here? There are ONLY 4 possibilities.
1. The Universe got here accidentally.
2. The Universe got here supernaturally.
3. The Universe has always been here.
4. It's not here.
There aren't any other possibilities. Which one do you choose?
Quotes from evolutionists:
1.) Dr. Theodosius Dobzhansky was alive he said, "The occurrence of the evolution of life in the history of the earth is established about as well as events not witnessed by human observers can be." 1 Quoted in "Evolution: The Challenge of the Fossil Record" by Dr. Duane T. Gish, Creation-Life Publishers, El Cajon, CA, USA, 1991, p 11. His quote is from original quote found in "Science", T. Dobzhansky, 127:1091 (1958).
2.) The famous evolutionist, George Gaylord Simpson, said, "It is inherent in any definition of science that statements that cannot be checked by observation are not really about anything . . . or at the very least, they are not science." 2 Quoted in "Evolution: The Challenge of the Fossil Record" , by Dr. DuaneT. Gish, Creation-Life Publishers, El Cajon, CA, USA, 1991, p. 12. His quote is from original quote found in "American Science", R.B. Goldschmidt, 40:84, (1952).
3.) Even Dobzhansky, as quoted earlier, who is totally committed to faith in evolution has said, "Evolution has not been witnessed by human observers." 3 Quoted in "Evolution: The Challenge of the Fossil Record", by Dr. Duane T. Gish, Creation-Life Publishers, El Cajon, CA, USA, 1991, p. 13.
4.) Another rabid evolutionist, Richard B. Goldschmidt said, "It is true that nobody has thus far produced a new species or genus, etc., by macromutation. It is equally true that nobody has produced even a species by the selection of micromutations." 4 Ibid. p. 13.
5.) The very item that the evolutionist claims the Creationist cannot prove, is also the item that proves evolution cannot ever be a proven fact! That item is: To be a scientific fact it must be demonstrated! Evolution cannot possibly qualify as a scientific fact. This is admitted by Dobzhansky when he says,
"These evolutionary happenings are unique, unrepeatable, and irreversible. It is impossible to turn a land vertebrate into a fish as it is to effect the reverse transformation. The applicability of the experimental method to the study of such unique historical processes is severely restricted [ Personal note: I'll say! A real understatement!] before all else by the time intervals involved, which far exceed the lifetime of any human experimenter. And yet it is just such impossibility that is demanded by anti-evolutionists when they ask for 'proofs' of evolution which they would magnanim- ously accept as satisfactory." 5 Ibid. p. 14.
6.) Matthews, a British biologist and evolutionist, in his introduction to a 1971 publication of Darwin's "Origin of Species", says,
"The fact of evolution is the backbone of biology, and biology is thus in the peculiar position of being a science founded on an unproven theory - is it then a science of faith? Belief in the theory of evolution is thus exactly parallel to belief in special creation - both are concepts which believers know to be true but neither, up to the present, has been capable of proof." 6 Quoted in "Evolution: The Challenge of the Fossil Record", by Dr. Duane T. Gish, Creation-Life Publishers, El Cajon, CA, USA, 1991, p. 15.
7.) Many famous scientists are now openly expressing their doubts concerning evolution. "Dr. G. A. Kerkut, Professor of Physiology and Biochemistry, University of Southampton, England, is one of the Professors who has questioned the old Neodarwinian transformism. Professor Kerkut writes:
'The attempt to explain all living forms in terms of an evolution from a unique source, though a brave and valid attempt, is one that is premature and one that is not satisfactorily supported by present-day evidence.'" 7 "The Natural Sciences Know Nothing of Evolution", by A. E. Wilder-Smith, Master Books, A Division of CLP Publishers, San Diego, CA, USA, 1981, p. viii.
8.) Creationist: Scott M. Huse B.S., M.S., M.R.E., Th.D., and Ph.D. in his book "The Collapse of Evolution" has this to say,
"The irony of this whole situation is that the very concept of organic evolution is completely absurd and impossible. It is ab- solutely astonishing that an idea which is so devoid of any legit- imate scientific evidence could have attained a position of such prestige in the name of science." 8 Scott M. Huse, "The Collapse of Evolution", Baker Book House, Grand Rapids, MI, USA, 1991, p. 2 of preface.
This message has been edited by Jman267, 04-25-2005 06:58 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by crashfrog, posted 02-14-2005 3:27 PM crashfrog has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by Coragyps, posted 04-25-2005 8:00 PM Jman267 has replied

Coragyps
Member (Idle past 734 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 58 of 303 (202389)
04-25-2005 8:00 PM
Reply to: Message 57 by Jman267
04-25-2005 7:42 PM


Show me a man evolve from an ape or star evolve from a hydrogen
Hi, JMan, and welcome aboard.
You don't keep up with science writing much, do you? Neither paleontology or astronomy, huh? No Toumai, or Lucy, or protostars in the Orion Molecular Cloud? If you'd read up on these, you might not be asking for things that are already very well shown indeed. Look around the topics here just a bit - you might avoid making yourself look silly.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by Jman267, posted 04-25-2005 7:42 PM Jman267 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by Jman267, posted 04-25-2005 8:17 PM Coragyps has not replied

Jman267
Inactive Member


Message 59 of 303 (202393)
04-25-2005 8:17 PM
Reply to: Message 58 by Coragyps
04-25-2005 8:00 PM


"You don't keep up with science writing much, do you? Neither paleontology or astronomy, huh? No Toumai, or Lucy, or protostars in the Orion Molecular Cloud? If you'd read up on these, you might not be asking for things that are already very well shown indeed. Look around the topics here just a bit - you might avoid making yourself look silly."
The only one who looks silly is you. Science writing? ROFL, you believe someone because they call it "science". And, what is science writing anyways? That's not proof of anything. First why can't you answer the questions? Secondly, why attack the poster? Because you can't answer the question?
I don't need a Bible to defeat you. You're Biblically illiterate.
I'll meet you on your own ground and defeat you. Got it? Prove your theory. Simple as that. If it is FACT then it can be proven if not, then don't be calling it science because it is not science it is your imagination. Evolution is nothing more than a fairy tale for grown-ups who don't want to answer to God for their sins. Simple as that.
Again, how did the Universe get here? Do you actually know anything about science? Like the Law of Causality or the Laws of Probablility or the First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics? The Law of Biogenesis. HOW DID THE UNIVERSE GET HERE?
Lucy? Bwhahahahahahahhahahahah don't make me laugh. In regards to Lucy what you were not told is that the knee joint end of the femur was severely crushed; therefore, Johanson's conclusion is pure speculation; guess work! Anatomist Charles Onard, using a computer technique for analysis of skeletal relationships, has concluded that Lucy did not walk upright, as least not in the same manner as humans. In this connection, it should be mentioned that the chimpanzee spends a considerable amount of time walking upright. Thus, there is no valid scientific basis for a conclusion that Lucy was anything more than some kind of monkey or chimpanzee!
Lucy has other problems:
Almost all of the evolutionists that investigated the 40% skeleton have changed their minds at least once or more times!
No one has yet found a skeleton that had a skull! Yes, parts from different areas of the dig were put together to form Lucy! She was not found with a skull that could definitely be said to be her own. How many of the tribes do you think ate and killed monkeys? This alone would disqualify this find from being given any serious accreditation because of the monkey skeletons laying around.
Drs. Stern and Susman point out the many ape-like features of Lucy such as: A. The hands and feet. B. The heavy muscled foot with the proper curve needed for climbing. C. Long curved hands with heavy muscles needed for climbing and living in trees. D. The angle of the shoulder blades showing that the muscles were attached in such a way as you would find in a tree dwelling monkey. E. The shape and angularity of the pelvic bone shows the animal to be ape, not human. 6
Question: What walks like a monkey, has heavy muscled curved hands and feet like a monkey, has shoulder blades like a monkey, and a pelvic angle showing that it lived in trees like monkeys? Well, if you are an evolutionist you might think man! Tsk, tsk! Come on, there must be a limit to how stupid a person can be!
Again, science writing is not science. That's someone's opinion which can be misrepresented or misconstrued to cover up for his/her lies. One last time, SHOW ME (that's science not imagination) an ape evolve into a man. You know apes are still here, don't ya? Why aren't any of them turning into a man? LOL. And, if apes did evolve then why are they still here? LOL.
Finally, answer the question. How did the Universe get here?
This message has been edited by Jman267, 04-25-2005 07:25 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by Coragyps, posted 04-25-2005 8:00 PM Coragyps has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by AdminJar, posted 04-25-2005 8:24 PM Jman267 has replied
 Message 62 by Adminnemooseus, posted 04-25-2005 8:36 PM Jman267 has replied

AdminJar
Inactive Member


Message 60 of 303 (202394)
04-25-2005 8:24 PM
Reply to: Message 59 by Jman267
04-25-2005 8:17 PM


Jman267
As has been said, welcome.
May I suggest you pick one of your assertions that you believe you can support and see if it stands up to even a cursory examination.
At the bottom of this message are some links to threads that will help make your stay here more enjoyable.
Again, welcome.

New Members should start HERE to get an understanding of what makes great posts.
Comments on moderation procedures (or wish to respond to admin messages)? - Go to:
General discussion of moderation procedures
Thread Reopen Requests
Considerations of topic promotions from the "Proposed New Topics" forum
Other useful links:
Forum Guidelines, Style Guides for EvC and Assistance w/ Forum Formatting

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by Jman267, posted 04-25-2005 8:17 PM Jman267 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by Jman267, posted 04-25-2005 8:33 PM AdminJar has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024