Creation Vs. Evolution

obediah001 said:

I have noted before the detractors of Hovind are only intrested in name calling & derision not hte facts & that is cause the facts (scientific) only support the creation scenario while the eviloution theory has NO facts or science behind it at all. They create scientific sounding words & wordy statements which defy esxplanation & for that matter common sense; the theory is when examined principle by principal laughable. !

Click to expand...

Please inform me of the lack of science and explain why evolution has not taken place. I would like to see a list of your explanations for why the tenets of evo do not hold true. please go ahead and try to disprove the theory. The nobel committee and I are waiting.

obediah001 said:

I have noted before the detractors of Hovind are only intrested in name calling & derision not hte facts...

Click to expand...

This is plainly a denial of any of the discussion that goes on in this forum. Hovind does get called a lot of names, but they're always because the man has been shown repeatedly to be either dishonest or incompetent.

obediah001 said:

... & that is cause the facts (scientific) only support the creation scenario while the eviloution theory has NO facts or science behind it at all.

Click to expand...

We're talking about evolutionary theory here. Perhaps there are other places to discuss "eviloution."

obediah001 said:

They create scientific sounding words & wordy statements which defy esxplanation & for that matter common sense; the theory is when examined principle by principal laughable.

Click to expand...

So, you are incapable of understanding the theory yet believe yourself expert enough to dismiss it? You do understand those two things are incompatible?

obediah001 said:

Hovind is a powerful wittness to the scientific truth of Creation, if he were not they would not attack him as they do; PRAISE GOD!!

Click to expand...

Yeah. I guess Gene Ray must be right, too.

obediah001 said:

I have noted before the detractors of Hovind are only intrested in name calling & derision not hte facts & that is cause the facts (scientific) only support the creation scenario while the eviloution theory has NO facts or science behind it at all.

Click to expand...

On the contary. Perform a search for 'Hovind' on the internet and you will find many rebuttals of his 'science'.

Here is one example: http://www.geocities.com/kenthovind/

They create scientific sounding words & wordy statements which defy esxplanation & for that matter common sense;

Click to expand...

A new kind of fallacy: The argument from illiteracy.

the theory is when examined principle by principal laughable.

Click to expand...

Care to explain how (in another thread, please)

Hovind is a powerful wittness to the scientific truth of Creation,

Click to expand...

Hovind is a powerful witness to the gullibility of the average Joe.

if he were not they would not attack him as they do; PRAISE GOD!!

Click to expand...

If Darwin were wrong, creationists wouldn't attack him so!

Satan gets a lot of stick from those Christians, I guess he must be telling the truth!

And another thing, (Listen very carefully to this next bit, It will make life a lot easier and make people on the internet like you a lot more, you'd be surprised how much difference it makes.)

T-Y-P-E M-O-R-E C-A-R-E-F-U-L-L-Y

Although this technique looks good at first, carbon-14 dating rests on two simple assumptions. They are, obviously, assuming the amount of carbon-14 in the atmosphere has always been constant, and its rate of decay has always been constant. Neither of these assumptions is provable or reasonable.

Click to expand...

In order for the rate of C-14 to be constant, the ratio in a nuceus of the nuclear-strong force to the electromagnetic-weak force would have to have changed. Not only is there any mechanism proposed by which this could have happened, but having the proportional strengths of these two forces be any different from what they are would make it impossible for life to exist. The fact that the laws of physics have to be EXACTLY the way that they are is actually used as a separate (and much more reasonable) argument for the existance of a God, but Hovind's argument cannot be reconcilded with it.

If the argument about the level of Carbon-14 in the atmosphere changing is true, then the manuscrips on which the Bible is based are probably a lot more recent than we thought they were. Carbon-14 dating is what was used to confirm that the four gospels were written within the first century after Jesus's death. I suspect that Dr. Hovind would be a lot more hesitant to fault Carbon-14 dating in this manner if he realized how much of the Bible would have to be thrown out if his claims are true.

I'd like to hear more about the experiment he mentioned later in the 1950's--was this done by a pair of high school students in Tennessee with a chemistry set that they bought at the flea market?

I'd also like to hear what Dr. Hovind thinks of Potassium-Argon dating, which does not rely on the proportions of substances in any material remaining constant. Because of the age limitations on Carbon-14 dating, it is this second method that is used to determine the age of fossils that are millions of years old.

Aggie said:

In order for the rate of C-14 to be constant, the ratio in a nuceus of the nuclear-strong force to the electromagnetic-weak force would have to have changed. Not only is there any mechanism proposed by which this could have happened, but having the proportional strengths of these two forces be any different from what they are would make it impossible for life to exist. The fact that the laws of physics have to be EXACTLY the way that they are is actually used as a separate (and much more reasonable) argument for the existance of a God, but Hovind's argument cannot be reconcilded with it.

Click to expand...

I just thought I would add here, that changes in the fine structure constant of this nature would also be noticeable in electromagnetic spectra. we have a number of these of several different ages which have come from the stars, and these have only changed within expected parameters as a result of red shifting, pressure, magnetic fields and so on. There is no distortion of these due to changes in alpha. We can test the nuclei more directly by looking at the spectra emitted from decaying unstable isotopes around supernovae such as SN1987A. Again these results are precisely as expected.
Some groups, such as AIG have pointed towards effects such as electron capture to increase decay rates. This is an effect that is noticed in the decay of some isotopes, however it is not many, and cannot provide us with a more general rule, since it cannot be applied to all isotopes. Jonathan Safarti of AIG suggested atoms being stripped of their electrons, since this would facilitate electron capture (and it may well do), however he forgot to check the other effects of this; Stripping one electron from one gram of uranium (the uranium is in one place) would create electrical forces far larger than the most violent of thunderstorms several kilometers away. The local effects of this trivial task would be phenomenal, and to do it for every radioactive isotope on the planet would quite literally blow the planet apart, and probably even wreak havoc on the moon, planets and sun. not only that, but the energies required to do this would be rather large.

3Amig(o)s said:

toff, would you be so kind as to EXPOUND on why yo belive what you believe?? theres no rush.

--Amigo #3

Click to expand...

Why I believe which of the above?

obediah001 said:

Hovind is a powerful wittness to the scientific truth of Creation, if he were not they would not attack him as they do; PRAISE GOD!!

Click to expand...

First of all, apologies to anyone who gets annoyed with people quoting from the Bible on these forums - I am merely trying to understand how the above statement 'makes sense'.

Hmmm...I am guessing that you are taking this as an example of John 15:18 onwards, and so that because people are 'attacking' Hovind he must be right. Can I point out the flaw (if this is what you are thinking) that this logic, by extension, means that everyone who is 'attacked' is right...which then probably means that everyone is right, which is apparently not possible.

3Amig(o)s said:

ok, I just want to know how many of you ACTUALLY read Dr. Hovinds reasoning?
Not one if you has said anything about Dr. Hovinds theory. All YOU GUYS have done is put him down, mock him, and say **** about him. If ANY of you think that he's wrong, would you be so kind to tell me WHY???? I want to hear actual proof. Not just these pitiful put downs you guys keep saying. If you REALLY think Dr. Hovind is a bogus clown, then tell me WHY.

--Amigo#3

Click to expand...

First, I'm familiar enough with Mr. Hovind.
Second, I told you what it was that led me to stop spending time on Hovind.
Third, I'm not debating you about Hovind. I personally am not involved enough in the debate to have PRATT briefs always on hand, so I typically require some kind of scientific substance before I start researching the topic.

Also, your usage of "Dr. Hovind's theory" is rather dubious. Hovind sells his ideas for profit. He does not publish scholarly work; his ideas remain not formally reviewed or scientifically supported. So thus, when speaking of scientific theories, they do not qualify. They don't even reach the starting line.

-Jon