Every evolutionist has a chance to win $250,000

"Don't blame science for Christians losing their faith. Blame the religious leaders for forcing people to choose between reason and logic, and blind adherence to rigid dogmatic fundamentalism that doesn't allow them to think intelligently and use their (God-given?) reason."
--Reason and logic go together, and tie with the theological doctrine of the biblical scripture, which I will continue to propose to be astonishing. To blame science is an ignorant assertion on anyone's part, to blame the Theory of 'E'volution is opinion, and to blame the way people teach this theory is what is to blame. To teach the ToE free of bias is the realization of truth because you know what in the ToE is scientific observation, theory, fantasy, conjector, assertion and, assumption.--------------

"You got that round the wrong way bud the Doppler effect causes the red shift...."
--Yes I am aware of that, I should have emphesized, I was making you aware that I am familiar with the red shift as well as the existance of the blue shift."Any idea where I can read a good scientific account of this stretching of the heavens?"
--What would you mean? This was a reference from the bible as it says all through it that when God created the heavens he 'streched' them. I guess a scientific account would be the theory of an expanding universe.------------------

"In this way, regular consumption of beer eliminates the weaker brain cells, making the brain a faster and more efficient machine.That's why you always feel smarter after a few beers."
--LOL ------------------

​

[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 01-21-2002]

"LOL!!!"
--This is how you people attempt to get a higher post count isn't it, cheaters! ------------------

---

This message is a reply to:
	Message 130 by nator, posted 01-22-2002 2:27 PM		nator has not replied

---

Peek

"The problem is that $250k is not enough to pay the court fees it would take to get Mr. Hovind to pay up *after* you prove evolution is a fact."
--The point being simply, Evolution by common descent is not fact, it can only be theory, it 'can only be' theory.
--I also have always wondered, why if there is such valuable evidence for common descent and even increases in information, why has none ever attempted to present it to him in one of his debates? And don't say something out of ignorance such as 'it would be to complicated for his pewny mind'.------------------

​

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

"In the same way as gravity can only be a theory...."
--Not exactly, because Evolution by common descent, has not been observed, gravity can be observed to its fullest at any time, without waiting thousands of years to see changes. Evolution does have evidence, but most of its most valuable evidence are indirect evidences.-------------------

"I must admit that Hovind certainly brings a unique perspective to everything he touches. "
--Sure does, after reading considerably through some text-books on astrophysics and cosmology, the guy's Hovind theory is a bit..out-of-wack, sure does put a unique touch to it.------------------

"First, Hovind is not a "Dr." He is a fake who got his degree from a degree mill (input the three search terms: hovind AND creationism AND creadentials, and you can track the info for yourself). As to debating him, it is done to demonstrate the man for the liar that he is."
--I believe he is having one of his seminars down close by where I am. If I get the chance to go, I'd sure have to ask him this one! Along with his questions on the Pangean continent and the evidence he ignores and sure puts that 'unique perspective' on.------------------

"Be prepared - and don't take him lightly. He is VERY good at what he does. He's also a total crank. You wonder why scientists don't take creationism very seriously? He's a prime example of why not. One of the "leading creationists" indeed."
--I must say I feel rather sorry for the guy and the rest of his ilk, (much of my youth group and my assistant pastor for one ), I must realistically admit that he proposes very little data if any at all, I would have to call him one of the greatest Creationist parroters in the world. My views on his arguments are vividly tansmutating significantly rapidly, though of course I deal with his type and a vast amount of others on a regular basis. Direct conversation is tough, and he sure has his 'pre-concieved ideas' mastered and ready to just pop out of his mouth. I began months ago encouraged and almost in 'awe' of how he 'defeated Evolution', his arguments are extreamly eloquently given and accepted to the untrained eye, readilly unknowingly avoiding looking for the specifics. If I were to ask him I would avoid any ad hominim though he may give just that to me If I set him in his place, even being a creationist . I think that realtively confidently I have a rather eloquent style of getting into the debate and softening the barriers so that when I am settled in I can attempt unexpected 'smacks' and really use that oh so classic Joz rutine . I found his arguments on geomagnetism very much avoiding what is observed and going right into everything that seems irrelevent as he again so persuasively has the opponent follow him right along, analogous to the bundles of other Hovind-Packaging he will lovingly gift-wrap in Hovind paper.
--I should hope that the fequent participants on this board see given stand-points in creationism, whether arguments may be correct or incorrect. The scientific mind-set should be the mind-set inside any such scientific argumental approach in the EvC debate. As long as this is stressed in any thinking, it can be very enjoyable to work with the scientists and be taken seriously in the sharing of ideas whatever the difference, just based on the science and a realization of what can and cannot be observed/tested.
--Mabye that TC revolution in the realm of Creationism isn't such a bad idea after all ------------------

​

[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 04-26-2002]

​

[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 04-26-2002]

"There is a very good reason that they will not agree to submit their "quotes" and statements beforehand in any debate with a scientist, it is because many of them (the "quotes" ect) are false, and they do not want their statements looked up prior to the debate because then they would be easier to take to task for the misstatements, half-truths and outright lies."
--Looks like Hovind's screwed. [Pun intended, hopefully I'm not doing to much Hovind-bashing or degrading any Creationists thoughts on Creationism, there is a more realisic approach]------------------

​

[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 04-26-2002]

"But what would you accept as proof?? I a very curious about that. "
--Someone build me a time machine, or atleast give me a multi-billion year recorded video-tape of the ToE. That would be 'proof'."And how come christian YECs have no problem believing ancient scriptures telling about miracles and supernatural beings when not a shred of evidence supports their existence while they dismiss a scientific theory which has been supported again and again and has been generally accepted in the scientific world?? Something is wrong here, I think."
--By my knowledge, the ToE is relatively well founded. Its just a scientific theory and explination for compiled evidences on Earth history (biologically, geologically, or astronomically). I also get rather annoyed when people explaim it to be more than that or say that people are 'stupid' if they do not believe it. Statements of that likeness readilly admit ignorance. Its like a creationist asking 'If we evolved from apes, why are there still apes today!'. Just thought I would give my 2 cents with that comment."I am convinced that the majority of "anti-evolutionists" take that position on the grounds of faith and not science!"
--I must be a new breed in the evolution of YEC's.------------------

"No TC you have yet to support any of your beliefs with a well reasoned internaly consistent theory complete with evidence..."
--I was not addressing what the conclusions were, I was addressing my scientific mind-set, from which I am consistant. And I have supported many of my assertions and completed some specifically. Obviously this is an extreamly small amount of the scientific world and progress is to be made.------------------

​

[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 05-08-2002]

"So, basically you cannot be persuaded!?"
--Unless you can do any of the items I listed Please see post #2 by compmage in this link, do you see what is wrong with your question yet? Message 168:"The ToE is more than just a theory, something you creationists have a hard time accepting. ToE is a theory as well as a fact. This dualism is very important. Let me illustrate it with an example:For instance, there is a great similarity between the ToE and the theory of gravitation. Based on observed phenomena we have deduced their existence and characteristics. Even if we do not fully comprehend all mechanisms involved both phenomena (biological evolution and gravity) are facts of life and we have theories to explain and understand them. In fact, I believe that it is time we officially upgraded ToE to a natural law like gravitation.One main argument voiced by creationists is that gravitational effects can be observed in real-time while evolution has never been observed, just inferred. This is wrong. Evolution can be observed by studying the fossil record, changes in populations over time, in the lab and so on.You, TrueCreation, obviously belong to the surprisingly large group of people who has to see to believe. Does this mean that you will never believe something you have not witnessed in first-person? If so, I guess Hitler and Elvis may still be alive to you!?Or if you are willing to believe historical fact you have not witnessed yourself, how far back in time are you willing to go. I do not mean to ridicule you, but your point of view is a major obstacle to many in accepting evolution so it would be interesting to learn more of your position."
--I see what you mean, however, you did not see my point. I was correct say that the ToE is only theory, though this will depend on your defintion of the Theory of Evolution. In a nutshell define it as the theory in which todays phylogenetic observations and the effects of population genetics is applied in a uniformitarian assumption that everything has a common ancestor. This is only theory that everything has a common ancestor. However, evolution is fact when placed uppon what happens today, you no longer have a uniformitarian assumption but an observed direct evidence whose only obsticle is by discrediting human intelligence in observation and understanding. What is happening today is a different concept and question to what has happend throughout all earth history, no matter the support."If you are not religious, what are your reasons for believing in creation?"
--By my current knowledge and how through my scientific studies there is so much which can be explained by catastrophic events, while others with my current knowledge cannot yet. Though in this I find when I see what I know, that I find that where the problem is that I also see, always tends to be where I do not have much knowledge in the area. Through my time in my research, I have better refined my understanding of science and it is looking quite well, but again, for myself it has cracks which need to be dealt with.------------------Edited by Admin, : Rerender to have correct link to message.

"JM: Young earth, global flood ideas would not exist without the bible. So, how about answering the question. What is your religious background? What influence does it have in your 'scientific' thinking?"
--Well that may be true, though I would think that that would be the cause since if the bible didn't exist the flood of Noah would not have happened (young earth may have still been in place though, and technically the global flood may have as well, there are many parallels within different cultures). As for my religious background and your question on my influence, it is Christianity, and its influence? That would be the thinking that if the bible is right, then there should be no worries in going gung-ho into science, as science should complement the bible if indeed the bible is right.------------------

​

[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 05-13-2002]

"Well, I can agree that nothing can be absolutely proven in this sense, but if gravity cannot be proven I hope you would still acknowledge that there is a prosess working there? I take "proven" to mean that the theory holds up to scientific srcutiny, whcih is does."
--Maybe it would be better to say that it 'holds up to scientific scrutiny' rather than 'proven'? They don't seem to synonymous and it may be misleading to use them interchangebly."I.m not sure if I understand you correctly, but evolution put simply is change in allelic frequensies over time. You cannot deny that, or...?"
--Right, this is fact, we observe it directly. Whether this process has gone throughout uniformitarian earth history with every living organism decending from a common ancestor, is an entirely different question."Do you mean to say that catastrophism is a better explanation for many observed phenomena than geology, evolution and so on?"
--'Better' is opinionated, I merely state that it is another feasible explination.------------------