Origins TheologyForum for the discussion of Creation Science (Young/Old) vs Theistic Evolution. Discussion of Atheistic Evolution should be taken to the Discussion and Debate forums.
In other news, Kent Hovind was arrest on 58 federal counts of tax evasion and fraud. His wife was arrested on 44 counts. I wouldn't rely on Hovind for anything except advice on how to live in prison.
In other news, Kent Hovind was arrest on 58 federal counts of tax evasion and fraud. His wife was arrested on 44 counts. I wouldn't rely on Hovind for anything except advice on how to live in prison.
Ah, the true reason for spreading his claims come to light. Money. Let the "faith-filled" buy his books on how to not he deluded by science, or have your kids be deluded by that trip to the science museum. So Hovind raked it in on the fear he created for others.
__________________ Geology: fossils in different ages To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Paleontology: fossil sequence & species change over time. To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Taxonomy: biological relationships To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Evolution: explanation that ties it all together. To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Henry Morris is credited for the Young Earth movement with his book The Genesis Flood. Ken Ham was, at one time, one of his employees.
__________________
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear Having a good conscience; that, whereas they speak evil of you, as of evildoers, they may be ashamed that falsely accuse your good conversation in Christ.
[i]Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world,
Ah, the true reason for spreading his claims come to light. Money. Let the "faith-filled" buy his books on how to not he deluded by science, or have your kids be deluded by that trip to the science museum. So Hovind raked it in on the fear he created for others.
Based on his statements concerning the tax charges I think it is possible he beleives everything he writes.
__________________ Geology: fossils in different ages To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Paleontology: fossil sequence & species change over time. To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Taxonomy: biological relationships To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Evolution: explanation that ties it all together. To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Hm. So if I have a question about evolution, I should ask Dr. Martin, the dentist. Does this mean that if I have a toothache, I should see an evolutionary scientist?
Hmmm! Very interesting. You TEs always rant that unless a person haa some kind of biology degree that opinion is not worth two bits and now when someone does have some biology education and does not agree with evolution you through him out too. (sniff sniff)... hmmm smells like a double standard.
Hmmm! Very interesting. You TEs always rant that unless a person haa some kind of biology degree that opinion is not worth two bits and now when someone does have some biology education and does not agree with evolution you through him out too. (sniff sniff)... hmmm smells like a double standard.
BTW, dentistry is a part of biology.
BTW, Dr. Martin was at one time an evolutionist.
Well, it depends. For example, unless the dentist is doing research, I won't consider him a scientist, and I definitely wouldn't ask him questions about evolutionary biology. I would ask an evolutionary biologist that. One thing to realize is that biology is a huge field that encompasses many areas and having a Ph.D. in some area in biology doesn't mean that they know all of biology.
However, the most important thing to realize, and I'm sure other TEists feel the same way, not having a degree doesn't mean that the person's views are invalid. It just means we have to look extra carefully at their claim. Likewise, having a degree doesn't mean that a person's views is automatically correct, we still have to look at their claims.
Case and point, Behe has a Ph.D. in biochemistry. I'm sure he knows biochemistry very well. In fact, if you look, he has many papers published in biochemical journals. However, this doesn't make his views on intelligent design correct. He has no papers published in intelligent design. What it all boils down to is evidence, and that's what all the Creationists forget when they trot out all these Ph.D.'s.
EDIT: Also, we don't say that people with no degree in biology doesn't understand evolution, we take what people say in order to prove it. For example,
Martin says that the academic world knows the big and difficult questions the likes of the Bombardier Beetle ask of evolution, but conveniently ignores them. In the rarefied scientific circles most lay people don't follow or understand, he says, more and more people are admitting that, like an attractive jar with a hole in the bottom, Darwin's theory just doesn't hold water.
However, if you google scholar, you'll find hundreds of papers that discuss the evolution of the Bombardier Beetle, hardly ignoring it. On top of that, evolution doesn't produce entire systems at once, nor does it produce a bunch of useless systems until the last one is in place that makes all the other ones successful. These things that Martin doesn't know/discuss shows his lack of knowledge about evolution.
__________________ Entropy is driving the universe toward "heat death" --- Jesus is the force behind the Strong Nuclear Force that keeps the protons together - Colossians 1:17. - AV1611VET
Last edited by random_guy; 14th July 2006 at 01:59 AM.
Well, it depends. For example, unless the dentist is doing research, I won't consider him a scientist, and I definitely wouldn't ask him questions about evolutionary biology. I would ask an evolutionary biologist that. One thing to realize is that biology is a huge field that encompasses many areas and having a Ph.D. in some area in biology doesn't mean that they know all of biology.
However, the most important thing to realize, and I'm sure other TEists feel the same way, not having a degree doesn't mean that the person's views are invalid. It just means we have to look extra carefully at their claim. Likewise, having a degree doesn't mean that a person's views is automatically correct, we still have to look at their claims.
Case and point, Behe has a Ph.D. in biochemistry. I'm sure he knows biochemistry very well. In fact, if you look, he has many papers published in biochemical journals. However, this doesn't make his views on intelligent design correct. He has no papers published in intelligent design. What it all boils down to is evidence, and that's what all the Creationists forget when they trot out all these Ph.D.'s.
EDIT: Also, we don't say that people with no degree in biology doesn't understand evolution, we take what people say in order to prove it. For example,
Martin says that the academic world knows the big and difficult questions the likes of the Bombardier Beetle ask of evolution, but conveniently ignores them. In the rarefied scientific circles most lay people don't follow or understand, he says, more and more people are admitting that, like an attractive jar with a hole in the bottom, Darwin's theory just doesn't hold water.
However, if you google scholar, you'll find hundreds of papers that discuss the evolution of the Bombardier Beetle, hardly ignoring it. On top of that, evolution doesn't produce entire systems at once, nor does it produce a bunch of useless systems until the last one is in place that makes all the other ones successful. These things that Martin doesn't know/discuss shows his lack of knowledge about evolution.
I appreciate your post, but it has been my experience that there are some TEs who treat anyone who has a differing opinion on creation as inferior and what is claimed is considered to be nonsense without considering evidence brought or what the Bible says on the subject. Sometimes some TEs come across as rude and arrogant.
Last edited by pastorkevin73; 14th July 2006 at 04:20 PM.
I would have thought that having peer-reviewed research papers was as important as anything. Creationists tend not to get their work peer-reviewed because they tend not to follow the scientific method.
Last edited by theFijian; 14th July 2006 at 06:43 AM.
I appreciate your post, but it has been my experience that there are some TEs who treat anyone who has a differing opinion on creation as inferior and what is claimed is considered to be nonsense without considering evidence brought or what the Bible says on the subject. Sometimes some TEs comse aross as rude and arrogant.
I have been called rude and arrogant before when I know for a fact that I was neither. Someone saying that to you puts you in a place you don't deserve to be.
The person asked a question and you answered it and did a VERY GOOD THING and provided examples so someone can spell it out for themselves and maybe build a system of thinking from it just to be called rude and arrogant.
Where does this come from and why does it happen all the time?
I'm not a big fan of Richard Dawkins at all, he hates religion and isn't afraid to admit it. I forget what I was looking up but I stumbled on a video from YouTube that had him and another man named Pastor Ted Haggard(I believe) and they were discussing Evolution. Granted this was Dawkins film so he could edit it how he wants but it came off to me that Ted Haggard was the rude and arrogant person WHILE HE WAS CALLING DAWKINS RUDE AND ARROGANT. You should see the look on his face. It really looked like a man that was scared to represent his position and more willing to intimidate his way out of the situation. I would encourage you all to see the short clip.
The thing is.....it was there too. I remember seeing this "rude and arrogant" bit AGAIN and just wondering to myself, "is the vain attempt at self-justification so strong in all of us that we'd rather subjugate than investigate?" I think now that it might be the case.
I think, Pastor Kevin, that you should give us the benefit of the doubt here. I didn't see anything rude with his post, he was just stating it as fact, which was contrary to your current belief system. Is it possible that when something starts to make sense to you but goes against what you've established as truth you fight without even realizing? You really need to think we are rude and arrogant? Those are ?'s I'm asking....
Now that I've taken some away from you, let me give some back.
As a TE there are times where I do rack my head wondering at literalists. I sit here, confident that if I had a face to face with any of them where I could sit down and show them examples of survival in play over enormous amounts of time, with 20 minutes I'd have them sold. Not because I'm a good salesman, because Evolution is SO EASY TO UNDERSTAND.
Last question: Prose: You find that arriving at 4 for, "what is 2+2" is pretty easy. What would you think of someone who thought it was 5 and showed no sign of wavering? You think that person would think you "rude and arrogant" when you showed no hostility, but just a look of unbelief when you talk to them.
Arrogance isn't hostility, it's a look like you are below me and someone that thinks 2+2=5 might think YOU THINK you are above them.
My prayers are with you. 
Linear Mode
