259 replies to this topic

[Live Forever]

Here is a link to the article:
http://www.sciam.com...umber=1&catID=2

15 answers to some of the nonsense that creationists spout.

[brokenportal]

There is a creationist named Kent Hovind who has a money challenge, of 100,000 dollars or something like that to anybody who can prove that, even just one step I beleive, in evolution occured.

I dont know how we got here, I lean toward evolution, but this guy is really compelling and a genius, hasnt convinced me, but hes good.

[lunarsolarpower]

There is a creationist named Kent Hovind who has a money challenge, of 100,000 dollars or something like that to anybody who can prove that, even just one step I beleive, in evolution occured.

I dont know how we got here, I lean toward evolution, but this guy is really compelling and a genius, hasnt convinced me, but hes good.

I suggest you take a look here and here. Hovind has made claims that other proponents of the creation theory of origins have found embarrasing. Much to my suprise however, when I watched a presentation of his recorded on Google video I found him to be a very likeable speaker.

[Live Forever]

There is a creationist named Kent Hovind who has a money challenge, of 100,000 dollars or something like that to anybody who can prove that, even just one step I beleive, in evolution occured.

I dont know how we got here, I lean toward evolution, but this guy is really compelling and a genius, hasnt convinced me, but hes good.

Oh my gosh. That dude is a nut case. I have seen him before, and he is so wrong on so many things.

1st: His prize ($250,000 by the way) is structured in such a way that no one could ever win it. It is deliberately designed that way, and if you look at it you can see it is unwinnable. (I can provide the link to it if you want)

2nd: He is not a scientist, he was only a high school science teacher, and only that for a few years.

3rd: His education is laughable at best: From the wikipedia article on him (which provides references for all degrees obtained): "In 1971 he graduated from East Peoria High School in East Peoria, Illinois. From 1972 until 1974, Hovind attended the unaccredited Midwestern Baptist College and received a "Bachelor of Religious Education" (B.R.E.).[5] In 1988 and 1991 respectively, Hovind was awarded a master's degree and doctorate in "Christian Education" through correspondence from the unaccredited Patriot University (now Patriot Bible University) in Colorado."

Religious Education? Christian Education? Do those sound like degrees scientists obtain? And they were from unaccredited diploma mills at that.

4th: He has had many run ins with the law. He has been convicted of federal tax evasion and the IRS has raided his home more than once. (He has refused to pay his taxes and renounced his citizenship and all kinds of wacky things) He was charged with assault and battery in 2002 for assault on his secretary. Also, some other various zoning issues and tax related issues have been thrown at him over the years. (I can provide multiple sources if you wish)

5th: Even other creationists disagree with what he says, and think his inaccuracies undermine their creationist cause because he is such a wack job.

6th: Even if all that were just stuff surrounding him and his theories were actually good, I might give him a pass, but some of the stuff he says is so laughable that I can't believe he says it with a straight face. There are multiple sources that poke holes (some of the ones listed in the 15 above, but many more) in just about everything he says. There are multiple websites (here is one, and here is another) that argue him point by point, and there are tons of videos (here is one, and here is another) that pop up on YouTube, or Google, or anywhere else doing the same.



In summary, he is an undereducated, (I would venture to say non-educated), law breaking, deceitful person who isn't taken seriously even by people in his own circle, and is either delusional about his evidence (at best) or is lying (at worst).

As far as creationists go, he is about the bottom of the barrel, as there are some that at least know somewhat what they are talking about.

[Live Forever]

There is a creationist named Kent Hovind who has a money challenge, of 100,000 dollars or something like that to anybody who can prove that, even just one step I beleive, in evolution occured.

I dont know how we got here, I lean toward evolution, but this guy is really compelling and a genius, hasnt convinced me, but hes good.

I suggest you take a look here and here. Hovind has made claims that other proponents of the creation theory of origins have found embarrasing. Much to my suprise however, when I watched a presentation of his recorded on Google video I found him to be a very likeable speaker.

Yes, he does have a likeable personality, and perhaps that is why churches pay him to come speak to them. Unfortunately, likeability is all he has.

[lucid]

Yup hovind is behind bars, I have seen most of his videos. The trick to him is that he has a scientific approach, but the facts are just wrong. None of his sources are even close to peer reviewed. They are all from some creationist website. So yes, hovind gives a lecture where the only thing he cites is a creationist website.

I think its pretty funny, him saying there is a huge scientist conspiracy. Science is one of the few fields where if you say something is correct and you can reproduce the results, then you are correct. Well hovind does have a huge following. Just over 50 percent of the american population don't believe in evolution. Yes that is the state of our democracy. Why vote in a country where the majority of our population are idiots.

[brokenportal]

Im not a creationist by any means, but Ive watched tons of his videos and even seen him speak at a church in my state. It was all to educate myself more so I could better try to prove to my christian friend that beleiving in god isnt a very good idea. I argue that we dont know and should keep all options open.

Anyways, I could be wrong, but there seems to be a little bit of mud slinging, or however you put it going on with you guys toward Kent just as much as there may be of him toward evolution. Kent Hovind is in jail for standing up for his beleifs, I dont find much wrong with that, its a lot like any protester who goes to jail for their beleifs. Thats not to say that I support his beleifs, Im just saying.

Then theirs the education thing. A person doesnt have to go to a huge college to read up on subjects and be thoughtful and intelligent and know how to use peer reviewed journals and do interviews and examine evidence and stuff. Im not saying he is smart and accurate, Im must saying that that arguement is whats the word... Ad Hominem. I mean, I understand I could be misunderstanding you but this is how it looks to me.

When people view your cause, dont you want them to stick to the facts and not present fallacies to the public to take shots at them?

I havent listened to this guy in years. One thing I can remember is how we cant prove that an animal has ever morphed or evolved or changed into another animal, and that there arent even bones found that could prove even one instance of this. Im not saying thats true, but, well, what do you think of that whole topic?

I skimmed through the links, I know they are there but I want to know the summary of it in any bodys words if they would care to give it.

[Shepard]

I agree that the education argument isn't that valid, but the guy is the same kind of religious swindler we've been seeing for decades. Although, the crazy occultist in me wanted to believe his whole "man had electricity before the Flood" theory.

[xanadu]

I believe in both. I see no contradiction and don't understand what the controversy is about. Creationism is just a kid's parable way of explaining what happened. It doesn't mean the earth and universe were created in a day such as we think of a day. Science is just a way of looking at things which has brought us benefits. The first scientists were alchemists, astrologers and magicians. Modern science has brushed aside much of the knowledge gained by ancient man and is struggling to relearn it.

[Live Forever]

Im not a creationist by any means, but Ive watched tons of his videos and even seen him speak at a church in my state. It was all to educate myself more so I could better try to prove to my christian friend that beleiving in god isnt a very good idea. I argue that we dont know and should keep all options open.

Anyways, I could be wrong, but there seems to be a little bit of mud slinging, or however you put it going on with you guys toward Kent just as much as there may be of him toward evolution. Kent Hovind is in jail for standing up for his beleifs, I dont find much wrong with that, its a lot like any protester who goes to jail for their beleifs. Thats not to say that I support his beleifs, Im just saying.

Then theirs the education thing. A person doesnt have to go to a huge college to read up on subjects and be thoughtful and intelligent and know how to use peer reviewed journals and do interviews and examine evidence and stuff. Im not saying he is smart and accurate, Im must saying that that arguement is whats the word...  Ad Hominem. I mean, I understand I could be misunderstanding you but this is how it looks to me.

When people view your cause, dont you want them to stick to the facts and not present fallacies to the public to take shots at them?

I havent listened to this guy in years. One thing I can remember is how we cant prove that an animal has ever morphed or evolved or changed into another animal, and that there arent even bones found that could prove even one instance of this. Im not saying thats true, but, well, what do you think of that whole topic?

I skimmed through the links, I know they are there but I want to know the summary of it in any bodys words if they would care to give it.

Yes, as I said, if he actually used facts that were true I could give him a pass on the other stuff (getting a degree from a diploma mill, slapping around his secretary, not paying taxes, etc), but he is so far off base with his claims that it is almost comical. I could write a whole book on the stuff that he says that is categorically false. Watch a couple of the videos that I posted if you don't have time to read through the tons of material out there showing him to be a farse. It really is astounding that someone can get up and blatantly lie about scientific facts and be considered an "expert". It goes to show how little science and reasoning matter to people when they just want to believe one thing.

I believe in both. I see no contradiction and don't understand what the controversy is about. Creationism is just a kid's parable way of explaining what happened. It doesn't mean the earth and universe were created in a day such as we think of a day. Science is just a way of looking at things which has brought us benefits. The first scientists were alchemists, astrologers and magicians. Modern science has brushed aside much of the knowledge gained by ancient man and is struggling to relearn it.

I agree totally with you xanadu. If they took the meaning of "creationism" to mean that God guided the process of evolution, I would have absolutely no problem with them, but they believe in the actual, literal truth if the Bible. They actually think that the Earth is literally less than 6,000 years old, and try to justify that with a bunch of hogwash theories. This is nothing new, there is a Flat Earth Society where people believe the earth is flat, and scientists are in a giant conspiracy to deceive us, there are people that think the Earth is hollow, or any of a ton of crazy ideas. The reason that creationism is so widespread is because it is tied to Christianity. People don't understand (apparently) that you can be a Christian and believe in evolution.

That being said, I don't really know how much it matters. 99% of scientists believe in evolution, so those are the people that you really want to believe it. When someone studies to do something in science, they are presented with all the evidence, and they overwhelmingly see that evolution is true. (it is proven in so many ways by so many different branches of science)

[eternaltraveler]

I agree totally with you xanadu. If they took the meaning of "creationism" to mean that God guided the process of evolution, I would have absolutely no problem with them, but they believe in the actual, literal truth if the Bible

bleh, intelligent design is just as bad. I believe in the flying spagetti monster who guides us all with his noodly apendage. And I demand this theory be taught in classrooms.

RAmen

Attached Files

•  250px_Touched_by_His_Noodly_Appendage.jpg   26.25KB   0 downloads

[Live Forever]

bleh, intelligent design is just as bad.  I believe in the flying spagetti monster who guides us all with his noodly apendage.  And I demand this theory be taught in classrooms.

RAmen

I agree that intelligent design is just as bad, but that is because the term "intelligent design" has come to mean the same thing as creationism. If fundies subscribed to evolution fully (and the science behind it), I wouldn't have any problem with them believing that it was "God's instrument" or whatever else. (a fair compromise I think) As long as they don't discount good science, they can believe whatever they want to believe. (those are things that are outside of the ability for science to prove or disprove, so I could care less what they believe about them as long as they aren't throwing out good science)

[lucid]

brokenportal,
I just watched one of the links. I didn't know there were videos out (I had read written critiques in the past). The summary of the videos:
1: Everything that made you queasy when you watched the hovind video's is researched:
Well the critique here goes out and looks at hovind's 'facts'. Just one example: Hovind talks about a plane that crashed during world war II that was excavated from under the ice. It was 250 feet under the ice (there abouts). It came out to about 5 feet a year from the time when it crashed. Hovind used this fact to insinuate that the ice fell rapidly thereby discrediting the ice core method of dating. Hovind conveniently leaves out the fact that the plane was found under a moving glacier. Additionally hovind rarely mentions data which complicate his very simple theories: such as precipitation in the area of greenland where the plane was found are reasonably small (no where close to 5 feet/ year) and that the plane was found (i forget how far) but a LONG way from where it was believed to crash.

I will repeat myself. Hovind's approach is scientific as in he talks about things in a scientific way, however his facts themselves are wrong in so many cases. Most of his 'facts' come from creationist websites (a very unbiased source). The few that do come from anything resembling a peer reviewed source are usually taken out of context.

I'm not sure I would call him a scam artist, but I have no qualms calling him a spin artist. He is not there to inform anyone, he is there to misinform them. I think there should be discussion of what should be taught in schools (thats one of the reasons I like the voucher system: you get to pick where your children go to school). While I personally believe humans evolved from single celled organisms, I'm not 100% sure. There are some pretty big evolutionary hurdles to be jumped over. Evolution is an emergent property, and the truth is we don't know enough to know if our reality is the result these emergent phenomenon. But we can speculate and evolution seems like a good bet.

So in conclusion, I approve of discussions about what should be taught in our school system and about the legitimacy of evolution; I disapprove of Hovind's spin and misinformation.

[william7]

Below is what a former atheist turned theist said about the possibility of the evolution of life without a God or Creator.

"I have been persuaded that it is simply out of the question that the first living matter evolved out of dead matter and then developed into an extraordinary creature."

http://www.wnponline.org/wnp/wnp0702/

Professor Flew's statement here makes logically good sense to me. To believe otherwise is to believe in something fantastic or incredible without evidential support.

I agree totally with you xanadu. If they took the meaning of "creationism" to mean that God guided the process of evolution, I would have absolutely no problem with them

It's nice to hear you guys have no problem believing that God guided the process of evolution. That's my belief too. God could have very easily created everything in His mind in seven days then permitted it to unfold over a much longer period of time that agrees with the scientific account.

I also believe the creation versus evolution controversy is a big waste of time about nothing. For sincere Bible believers, the big focus of the Scriptures should be on how to put God's law and Christ's teachings into practice to the fullest extent possible to achieve a higher quality of life. The creation versus evolution debate is nothing but a distraction from the true purpose of the Scriptures.

[eternaltraveler]

science vs faith

Attached Files

•  sciencevsfaith.JPG   51.6KB   0 downloads

[Live Forever]

science vs faith

[Sarcsm]
See, faith is so much simpler, so it must be true!
[/Sarcasm]

[lucid]

hahaha.
You left out my favorite part of faith: Financially supporting your organized religion!

Religion is good for the world. It has lots of good values, and the world is probably better than without it. No religion = Existential Crisis. Simple people need simple rules. (Not all religious people are simple but there are some pretty hardcore bible thumpers).

That said, faith seems to not integrate so well with the scientific method. Cheers.

[Aegist]

Grrr. I thought the critical thought factor on this forum was better than this.

Creationism is rubbish. Intelligent design is rubbish. Absolute and utter rubbish. They are both complete NON-theories. And I mean that in a very litteral sense. They both 'explain' the solution to the problem by ignoring it.

Creationism
Where did life come from? 'God made it'.
Intelligent Design
Where did life come from? ' The universe, but God did all of the important bits'

Try getting more details out of that theory. 'How exactly did God initiate life?' for instance... "Oh, he just did". It's BS and I implore all of you to drop this 'we should be open to teaching either in the class rooms. YOU ARE BEING SOLD BS. 100% without a doubt Propoganda smear campaign launched by the discovery institute to make people hate science. Thats all it is.

I know I haven't presented any actual argments for evolution here, or any actual arguments against ID either. But that is because I have done it THOUSANDS of times already and there are too many for me to just pick one out of the air.

As someone who revels in a solid understanding of evolution (not a dogmatic religious one, but a true understanding of its implications and power), I can without a doubt say that evolution is fact, and it almost certainly created the variety we see in life all around us.

[Aegist]

It's nice to hear you guys have no problem believing that God guided the process of evolution. That's my belief too. God could have very easily created everything in His mind in seven days then permitted it to unfold over a much longer period of time that agrees with the scientific account.

I have no problem with a religious person believing that, but it is along the same lines as believing that I received my email because God guided the processes involved. Sure, believe that if you want, but the simple fact is that the mechanisms involved are enough to result in me receiving my email, with or without God. Similarly the mechanisms involved in evolution (hereditary information, small error rate, natural selection) are enough to give the results we have with or without God.

When you understand that fact, you are further able to understand why ID is a non-theory.

[caston]

Imagine how weird it would be if it turned out a religion was actually correct.

[Aegist]

Imagine if that religion was norse mythology.

I'd laugh and laugh and laugh....

[william7]

I can without a doubt say that evolution is fact, and it almost certainly created the variety we see in life all around us.

But this a leap of faith without any solid proof isn't it?

What if a religious understanding of God as the master of evolution is an absolute necessity for obtaining long life and immortality as the Scriptures say? You could lose out because your focus on what is necessary to obtain long life was directed by a false theory of evolution without a God. If I was you, I would give God and the Scriptures a fair hearing as many a scientist and philosopher has done. You want to be in the right position to catch the next big evolutionary wave don't you?

[Aegist]

But this a leap of faith without any solid proof isn't it?

No.

What if a religious understanding of God as the master of evolution is an absolute necessity for obtaining long life and immortality as the Scriptures say? You could lose out because your focus on what is necessary to obtain long life was directed by a false theory of evolution without a God. If I was you, I would give God and the Scriptures a fair hearing as many a scientist and philosopher has done. You want to be in the right position to catch the next big evolutionary wave don't you?

I have. It's all wishful thinking based on perpetuated myths which play on our natural psychology.

[caston]

Surfs up!

[william7]

Imagine how weird it would be if it turned out a religion was actually correct.

Be prepared for a shock then. Organized religion is wrong in many areas, but when it says there's a creator God it's correct. The big question shouldn't be does God exist. It should be how do we put His instructions found in the Scriptures to full use in order to improve the human condition.

[Aegist]

Imagine how weird it would be if it turned out a religion was actually correct.

Be prepared for a shock then. Organized religion is wrong in many areas, but when it says there's a creator God it's correct. The big question shouldn't be does God exist. It should be how do we put His instructions found in the Scriptures to full use in order to improve the human condition.

Wow, well if that isn't a narrow minded dogmatic response, I don't know what is! i mean, I know I have been pretty out and to the point so far, but thats because I can back up what I say with evidence...but I've had thousands of these sorts of discussions before, and everytime someone suggests that God is actually real..LOL...its always just because they want to God to be real.

So I'm willing to bet that you reason for asserting that God is real, is because that is what you want to be true. And no other justifiable reason.
2. Even if there was a God, I'm still wondering why you assume 'the scriptures', a man made document written in human language, has ANYTHING to do with said God.

Seriously, where do you religious-types get this ridiculous leaps of logic from? Sorry, forget that question, rephrase as statement. "Seriously, can you please stop making unreasonable assertions with no basis in logic or reality!"

[eternaltraveler]

"Seriously, can you please stop making unreasonable assertions with no basis in logic or reality!"

this is the religion forum. That means it is a repository for "unreasonable assertations with no basis in logic or reality" by definition. Think of it like the catcher. )

[william7]

Imagine how weird it would be if it turned out a religion was actually correct.

Be prepared for a shock then. Organized religion is wrong in many areas, but when it says there's a creator God it's correct. The big question shouldn't be does God exist. It should be how do we put His instructions found in the Scriptures to full use in order to improve the human condition.

Wow, well if that isn't a narrow minded dogmatic response, I don't know what is! i mean, I know I have been pretty out and to the point so far, but thats because I can back up what I say with evidence...but I've had thousands of these sorts of discussions before, and everytime someone suggests that God is actually real..LOL...its always just because they want to God to be real.

So I'm willing to bet that you reason for asserting that God is real, is because that is what you want to be true. And no other justifiable reason.
2. Even if there was a God, I'm still wondering why you assume 'the scriptures', a man made document written in human language, has ANYTHING to do with said God.

Seriously, where do you religious-types get this ridiculous leaps of logic from? Sorry, forget that question, rephrase as statement. "Seriously, can you please stop making unreasonable assertions with no basis in logic or reality!"

I could say your belief in evolution without a creator God being involved is narrow minded as well - if not more so considering the facts of the matter. You say you can back up your assertions with evidence. I would like to see this evidence you have. All I see so far is an emotional response with ridicule as so frequently happens when a person can't prove their point.

Scientists generally admit that they can't prove or disprove the existence of God. In the World News and Prophecy article I quoted from above, Martin Rees, president of the Royal Society, stated: "The pre-eminent mystery is why anything exists at all. What breathes life into the equations; and actualized them in a real cosmos. Such questions lie beyond science, however; they are the province of philosophers and theologians" (The Sunday Times, Dec. 24, 2006).

[brokenportal]

"I also believe the creation versus evolution controversy is a big waste of time about nothing."

I cant see how that could be any farther from the truth.

I want to respond to everything else too, but no time at the moment.

[stephenszpak]

Science has serious problems making any progess in physics.
Someone posted a flowchart on page 1 of this thread.

Start>Get an Idea>Experiment can not be perfomed

is where superstring theory is now.

I've posted this before:

------------------------------------------------------------------------

To probe the realm superstrings are thought to inhabit,
physicists would have to builld a particle accelerator 1,000
light-years around. (The entire solar system is only one light-*day*
around.) And not even an accelerator that size could allow us to see
the extra dimensions where superstrings dance.

The End of Science page 62
---------------------------------------------------------------------

Why are scientists even looking at string theory. Cause what they
have doesn't work. They just can't figure out the basics of reality.
Not that much of a surprise. It is doubtful anyone anywhere can
comprehend a grain of salt. That is, totally comprehend.


=======================================================================

Although often overlooked, how we know is a very interesting subject for reflection. The idea is best illustrated with an example, and we'll use one from Carl Sagan's essay "Reflections on a Grain of Salt", published in Broca's Brain.

Sagan asks if we can know a grain of salt. Let's see.

In a typical salt grain, there are about 10,000,000,000,000,000 atoms of sodium and chlorine. We'll make the problem easier and not worry about chemical bonding and other interesting details, but we must acknowledge that to truly understand a grain of salt, we must at least know the positions of the atoms in the grain. How much information can we store?

Our brains have about 10^11 neurons, each with about 10^3 dendrites. Using these numbers to represent how much information our brains can store; we find that we really can only retain the positions of 1% (10^14 / 10^16 x 100%) of the atoms in a single grain of salt. If we needed to store our understanding of nature in this manner, we would be in deep trouble since we couldnt handle a grain of salt!



http://eqseis.geosc....C...How We Know
=======================================================================
Science can't explain it all. You can't understand it all.

We always seem to come back to the "BIG" questions here.
Did time create itself? How?
Did non-living materials come to life? How?

More basic and personal questions that only God can answer would
be best asked of God.
===============================================
God are you real?
God if you're real, please do whatever you have to do to make
sure I know you're real.
===============================================

I know God is real but I can't transfer this knowledge to anyone.

-Stephen