Can Evolution and Creation Co-Exist?

[EnemyPartyII]

Do you have any proof he lies to people? Unless you have proof, then I won't agree. As for proof he's telling the truth, he has evidence from the Bible, which is God's word.

Lots of proof he lies... like, some of which Bombilla just mentioned, but, just to assauge you, have a look...
http://www.geocities.com/southbeach/pier/1766/hovindlies/

or heres a movie, if you prefer... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-LaUtupx6uY

Mr. Hovind claims he taught science for fifteen years, though even the most basic of sciences he got grossly incorrect.
He attributed the "tell a lie often enough" quote to Hitler, which is not correct. He misstated the First Law of Thermodynamics. He said that the law states that "matter" cannot be created or destroyed, not energy. He got the Second Law wrong as well. He incorrectly stated that entropy always increases. This is wrong. The Law states that entropy in an isolated system within thermo-equilibrium will increase or stay the same.
Mr. Hovind also got conservation of angular momentum wrong, or was lying. Mr. Hovind said that bodies under centripetal force (in a circular orbit) will curve when released from their gravitational bonds. (He used a "merry-go-round" as an example.) He is wrong. Any body under acceleration, when they lose their gravity well, will fly off in a straight line, not a curve.
Mr. Hovind lied about the sun shrinking. It is variable, like all stars of its size, and second generation. He asserted, falsely, that the sun is steadily decreasing in size --- it is not.
He lied about population growth being geometric throughout world history; in fact, it is so only in the last 220 years, due to technology, medical sciences, and industry.
He lied about "prayer" being removed from schools --- it has not: only forced prayer. Students may pray in school as much as they please. How can one prevent another from praying?!?! It's asinine to say that is possible.
He lied about the end of coerced prayer in school being the reason for declining test scores and increasing ignorance and violence: America had Cuban missiles off her shores, the start of desegregation, extensive child population increase, economic problems, wars and protests of wars, heavily polluted air and water, and the invention of the transistor, which made TV a house-hold appliance. How does Mr. Hovind manage to dismiss all of these psychic drains on the nations' citizenry and come to his conclusion that the end of coerced prayer was responsible for increased crime, pregnancy, sexually transmitted disease, etc., when in fact America had hundreds of life-changing and life-threatening issues to deal with? He lied about "no one knowing what evolution is." It is change in a population's gene pool over time. How a science teacher could get this wrong is utterly unfathomable.
http://www.skeptictank.org/hovind.htm

 

[Bombila]

Do you have any proof he lies to people? Unless you have proof, then I won't agree. As for proof he's telling the truth, he has evidence from the Bible, which is God's word.

EnemyPartyII has kindly found you some, and frankly, thousands of refutations of Hovind's malarkey can be found with a simple Google search.

Just because someone says they are a Christian, and they say they believe in the Bible, does NOT prove they are telling the truth and are not charlatans. Call him "not a TRUE Christian", if you like.

Hovind does not have "evidence from the Bible". He takes the words of the Bible, then twists them around a bit and makes up a story that sorta fits.

As I said to AVET1611, my great objection to people like Hovind is that they make fools of people who are easily fooled by anyone who claims to be a Bible-believing Christian. I don't think that's right.

 

[Bombila]

Further information about Hovind is here:

http://www.skepticfriends.org/forum/showquestion.asp?faq=7&fldAuto=106

Some exerpts:

Now, as to your claim that Hovind has a “doctrine degree in archeology.” I assume you mean a doctorate degree. In point of fact, Mr. Hovind holds a D. Min. in education from Patriot University, a school in Colorado with no faculty and no real academic standards. The American Accrediting Association of Theological Institutions accredits it, an accreditation mill that will accredit any school for $100. The Christian Distance Learning Directory lists Patriot as a diploma mill.

Frankly, Hovind’s degree is a fraud. It isn’t worth the paper it’s printed on. It should also be noted that if Mr. Hovind held the degree that you believe he holds, it would not make his claims regarding the age of the Earth or evolution any more credible. Even Nobel Prize winners must still support their claims. The fact would still remain that Hovind’s claims, especially in the area of archaeology, are absurd and unsupportable.

Some of his claims:


Continental drift never happened! Plate tectonics is accepted on religious faith! (What, then, triggers earthquakes?)
Combined dosages of vitamin B-17 with vitamin C cures cancer! See canceranswers.com and worldwithoutcancer.com. (The FDA warns consumers to shun quacky medical sites.)
Noah’s Ark was equipped with a big “moon hole,” and required 12 anchors to secure it. The ark rests in the Durupinar site in Turkey. Just ask Ron Wyatt, who has some of its iron rivets. (Iron rivets? Genesis 6:14 says the ark was constructed of gopher wood and pitch! What’s this about twelve anchors and a moon hole? Is any of this Biblical?)
Dragon myths of yore describe actual dinosaur encounters! In medieval times, people killed tyrannosaurs by tearing off their puny arms, thus bleeding them to death! (Maybe Hovind could demonstrate that technique by tearing a limb off a live crocodile?)
People use only ten percent of their brains! (That’s actually a myth, but I suspect Hovind uses less than ten percent of his brain.)
Dinosaurs are still alive! One eyewitness saw a yellow dinosaur with a beard!
Dinosaurs inhabit the world’s rivers and lakes! Hovind has photographs to prove it! (Marine reptiles aren’t dinosaurs, but don’t confuse Hovind with the facts.)
The Leviathan described in Job 41 was a fire-breathing dragon! (Leviathan was actually a seven-headed sea monster from Caananite myth. Hovind should consult the original Ugaritic text.)
Pterodactyls were spotted in Papua, New Guinea! Just ask the Reverend Carl Baugh. He saw one that glowed in the dark! That’s right… I said, glowed in the dark!
A fisherman caught a small dinosaur in Lake Erie near Lakewood, Ohio. The Reverend Carl Baugh has it on display in his creation science museum near Glen Rose, Texas. (Alongside his petrified finger and Ordovician hammer?)

 

[HumbleServant94]

And how do you know Buddika isn't lying? I'm a creationist. My whole school's creationist. My school doesn't lie.

 

[Matthewj1985]

And how do you know Buddika isn't lying? I'm a creationist. My whole school's creationist. My school doesn't lie.

Creationist as in "God kick started it and let it go" or creationist as in "Jesus rode dinosaurs". If it is the latter then yes, your school is lying to you. Do the research yourself and you will come to one of 2 conclusions. One being that these people have not ever published a legitimate scientific paper....ever, simply because nothing they produce can stand up to anyone with a basic course in college biology. Or that there is a global scientific conspiracy to make you hate God and that this small group of un or under educated folks are the only ones who have figured it out.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

And how do you know Buddika isn't lying? I'm a creationist. My whole school's creationist. My school doesn't lie.

When you have to start claiming that there is a massive conspiracy hiding the truth to support your position, I think its time to re-evaluate

 

[HumbleServant94]

Creationist as in "God kick started it and let it go" or creationist as in "Jesus rode dinosaurs". If it is the latter then yes, your school is lying to you. Do the research yourself and you will come to one of 2 conclusions. One being that these people have not ever published a legitimate scientific paper....ever, simply because nothing they produce can stand up to anyone with a basic course in college biology. Or that there is a global scientific conspiracy to make you hate God and that this small group of un or under educated folks are the only ones who have figured it out.

I believe what is in the Bible. That's it. Literalist. I find the Bible more accurate because it's God's Word. Scientific theories can be disproven at any time.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

I believe what is in the Bible. That's it. Literalist. I find the Bible more accurate because it's God's Word. Scientific theories can be disproven at any time.

You say you're a literalist, but the Bible persists in saying things that the creationists, who claim to take it as literal truth, have to admit are metaphorical (like the "doors" in the firmament that let the rain through). That means, of course, that they have to arbitrarily decide which parts are literally literal, and which are only metaphorically literal (and can't they twist the English language!). I've never yet read a justification for who gets to make that determination and how, so I'll summarize it thus: Everything is literal except things that even we creationists can't stomach.
Even worse, the "scientifically accurate" Bible reveals not a single fact about nature that wasn't commonly known at the time. If only it had revealed the atomic structure of matter, or the inverse square law, or the existence of bacteria--or even the heliocentric solar system!

 

[EnemyPartyII]

"In our image"
That's how God made man, according to Genesis, and therefore according to creationists. But every moderately bright 8-year-old immediately comes up with two questions which are never satisfactorily answered. If any answers are offered, they are usually cobbled-up rationalizations from outside the Bible. Generally, the kid gets the message that he's better off not asking such things.
The first is whom the One and Only God meant by "our"--but that's really a theological question, not related directly to creationism. The second question, however, is right on target: If man was made "in [God's] image," then Adam must have looked just like God--right? But wait--it gets more confusing. Man is immediately referred to as "them," so maybe it's not just Adam who looks like God. Then to further confound literal-minded youngsters, "..in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them." If God is male (the assumption of 97.83% of all creationists), then how could a female be made in His image?
Let's grant the general creationist assumptions (correct me if I'm wrong): God is male; men are made "in [His] image" in only a general way (maybe even Adam didn't look exactly like Him); and women were made with necessary differences to enable reproduction. Still a load of embarrassing questions arise. Much has been made of Adam's navel, and why he would have one, having never been attached to a placenta. I want to know if God has one. I want to know if He has a digestive tract. If so, why? Does He eat? If so, what, and why would He need to? Does He excrete? Where? What happens to it? Does He have lungs? Why would He need them? Does He have sweat glands? And naughty stuff: does He have genitals? Why would He need those? (And that nasty Paul Yost wants to know if He is circumcised! I figure He is, since He ordered his chosen people to be, presumably to make them more like their God. So who did it?) Does He even have two legs, and feet, and toes? Why would He need them, unless He's bound by gravity, as we are?
Childish questions? Of course, but only because they arise from a literal (i.e., childish) reading of Genesis. But the point is profound: either God has human-like organs and glands and body parts, or He doesn't. If He does, why, and what does He use them for? If He doesn't, then made "in [His] image" has no literal meaning. (For those creationists tempted to inform me that the human soul was what was made in God's image, let me save you the trouble and thank you ahead of time for backing up my point: the phrase has no literal [physical] meaning. I would point out that a great many generations of Judaeo-Christians have taken the phrase to mean physical resemblance, and that most fundamentalist believers still do. Ever see a painting that showed God with anything but a human form? Let me also direct you to the section of Exodus wherein Moses is covered with God's hand, and then allowed to view His backside. Note also numerous other biblical references to God's hands, face, and other apparently human-like body parts. One of my favorites is Jacob's wrestling match with God, in which Jacob didn't recognize the Lord of All Creation until later, and God couldn't win until He cheated by using magic!)

 

[TeddyKGB]

Enough's enough --- /thread.

Hey, dude with 260,000 posts.

You have no business telling anyone else ever when a thread should be over.

 

[SiderealExalt]

I believe what is in the Bible. That's it. Literalist. I find the Bible more accurate because it's God's Word. Scientific theories can be disproven at any time.

Science being self correcting is a strength. The Bible wasn't correct about these sort of things in the first place, regardless of if you think it's God's word, or word of random Hebrew or Christan author X.

 

[Matthewj1985]

I believe what is in the Bible. That's it. Literalist. I find the Bible more accurate because it's God's Word. Scientific theories can be disproven at any time.

That is fine, stay out of the science forums then, also stay away from modern medicine, computers and cars, wouldn't want to anger God right?

 

[Bombila]

And how do you know Buddika isn't lying? I'm a creationist. My whole school's creationist. My school doesn't lie.

Perfect example.

This is what these fanatics are doing to students in religion-segregated schools in the US. They are being brainwashed into not believing what is right in front of their own eyes, and paving the way for them to be hornswoggled by the Hovinds and Hamms and even the Phelpses of their generation, not to mention reducing their education and career opportunities in the future.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

Perfect example.

This is what these fanatics are doing to students in religion-segregated schools in the US. They are being brainwashed into not believing what is right in front of their own eyes, and paving the way for them to be hornswoggled by the Hovinds and Hamms and even the Phelpses of their generation, not to mention reducing their education and career opportunities in the future.

What do you mean? I'm looking forward to being prescribed appropriate anti-biotics for VRE and MRSA by humbleservant and his ilk when they graduate med school!

And being prescribed a bronze snake on a stick for snakebites, apparently.

 

[Bombila]

What do you mean? I'm looking forward to being prescribed appropriate anti-biotics for VRE and MRSA by humbleservant and his ilk when they graduate med school!

And being prescribed a bronze snake on a stick for snakebites, apparently.

As a modern young woman, you'll be glad to know that birth control methods will be available to you - even Biblical ones! Check out this exerpt from a longish article on ancient methods of birth control and abortion:

"I was intrigued as to why they called it the "bitter" waters. I assumed it was because the souls of those involved were bitter. In my research I came across a book called Herbs of the Bible by James A. Duke, Ph.D. In this book he lists eight herbs as being abortive, or contraceptive. The first being Bay Laurel, which in Biblical times was a symbol of wealth and wickedness. "I have seen the wicked in great power, and spreading himself like a green bay tree" Psalm 37:35. Chicory, in recent research, as been found to exhibit contraceptive activity if ingested orally one to ten days after sex. Chicory is also one of the bitter (BITTER!) herbs of Passover. Watercress is also a bitter herb of Passover which induces menstruation and interferes with the implantation of an ovum. Sodom Apple was another abortive herb mentioned. It has thorns. "In the Bible, thorns, briers or briars, and thistles tear at the body and clothes as sin tears at the soul. This herb seems to do damage to boundaries, just as an adulteress woman does damage to boundaries of her community. This seems also then to be a good candidate in the potion for the bitter waters."

http://www.drury.edu/multinl/story.cfm?ID=9891&NLID=166

 

[EnemyPartyII]

As a modern young woman, you'll be glad to know that birth control methods will be available to you - even Biblical ones! Check out this exerpt from a longish article on ancient methods of birth control and abortion:

"I was intrigued as to why they called it the "bitter" waters. I assumed it was because the souls of those involved were bitter. In my research I came across a book called Herbs of the Bible by James A. Duke, Ph.D. In this book he lists eight herbs as being abortive, or contraceptive. The first being Bay Laurel, which in Biblical times was a symbol of wealth and wickedness. "I have seen the wicked in great power, and spreading himself like a green bay tree" Psalm 37:35. Chicory, in recent research, as been found to exhibit contraceptive activity if ingested orally one to ten days after sex. Chicory is also one of the bitter (BITTER!) herbs of Passover. Watercress is also a bitter herb of Passover which induces menstruation and interferes with the implantation of an ovum. Sodom Apple was another abortive herb mentioned. It has thorns. "In the Bible, thorns, briers or briars, and thistles tear at the body and clothes as sin tears at the soul. This herb seems to do damage to boundaries, just as an adulteress woman does damage to boundaries of her community. This seems also then to be a good candidate in the potion for the bitter waters."

http://www.drury.edu/multinl/story.cfm?ID=9891&NLID=166

I have a pretty good handle on the whole contraceptive issue, my sex is the very safest, but sweet of you to be concerned for my wellbeing.

Meantime, I prefer to save Numbers 5:11-21 (The description of a bizarre, brutal and abusive ritual to be performed on a wife SUSPECTED of adultery. This is considered to be an induced abortion to rid a woman of another man’s child.) and similar for discussions on abortion. I mean, I'm pro-life, but it really irks me when people spout off about how anti-abortion is in all cases when one of the few specific (and even fewer effective) medical treatments the Bible mentions is actually an abortifactant.

 

[Bombila]

I have a pretty good handle on the whole contraceptive issue, my sex is the very safest, but sweet of you to be concerned for my wellbeing.

Meantime, I prefer to save Numbers 5:11-21 (The description of a bizarre, brutal and abusive ritual to be performed on a wife SUSPECTED of adultery. This is considered to be an induced abortion to rid a woman of another man’s child.) and similar for discussions on abortion. I mean, I'm pro-life, but it really irks me when people spout off about how anti-abortion is in all cases when one of the few specific (and even fewer effective) medical treatments the Bible mentions is actually an abortifactant.

This is actually the passage the exerpt is referring to, and speculating on what herbs exactly were used. But the whole article is quite interesting, noting various ancient world contraceptive methods.

No one's been able yet, AFAIK to absolutely conclude what plant silphium was, as it is presumably extinct, but the accounts of it suggest it was a very useful herb indeed, with none of the adverse reactions caused by the Hebrew 'bitter waters' concoction.

Fascinating stuff, but then, I'm a bit of a botany nerd.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silphium

 

[agentorange20]

I believe what is in the Bible.

ok, you believe, fair enough. But this belief requires a logical and rational explanation and one based on evidence for your stance to be justified. Just affirming 'I belive in X' and taking this as the criteria for if it's true or not isn't correct, for if it were just the mere belief in Santa regardless of contradictory evidence would also be justifiable.

That's it. Literalist.

This stance also requires elaboration on why a literalist stance above all others is the correct one. If you just assume a literalist stance is the only one, or preferable above all others, this must be deduced based on reasoning and not simply b/c in your minds eye metaphors and allaorgy can't work in a spiritual book

I find the Bible more accurate because it's God's Word.[/quote]

God's Word is deduced in what fasion? IE, how do we all objectively know this to be the Word of God in relation to the other supposed 3000+ other worshpied Gods and religions? Why is the biblical version any more authoritative?

Scientific theories can be disproven at any time.

In terms of philosophical falsifiacation, yes they can, though this refutation is contigent on emprical evidence, testing and logical reasoning and not the appeals to authority religions use. No science theories can technically ever be 'proven' in a philosophical sense as the scientifc method requires that all questions and evidence be continually questionable no matter how much supportive evidence is gathered.

This is a stark contrast to how religion works in not ever allowing any open critiques for its claims and generally doesn't rely heavily on evidence, but rather on faith and faith alone. Worst yet is how when contradictory evidence is found and to be inconsistent with religious claims they are often ignored for sake of belief and how believers fall back on their faith to rationalize it away.

Worst still is that most of the claims of religion fall in the supernatural realm, one in which science can't directly test at all and thus is unfalsifiable and utterly worthless to the agreeable atainment of knowledge by humannity.

These are 2 very different ways of aquireing knowledge. Religion explains by mere fiat and using authority as its alibi, while science uses empircal testing and evidence to form logical models for further explinations.

Early you stated evolution is contradicted by its own evidence, could you please provide an exmaple of this with sources? Thanks.

 

[agentorange20]

"In our image"
That's how God made man, according to Genesis, and therefore according to creationists. But every moderately bright 8-year-old immediately comes up with two questions which are never satisfactorily answered. If any answers are offered, they are usually cobbled-up rationalizations from outside the Bible. Generally, the kid gets the message that he's better off not asking such things. The first is whom the One and Only God meant by "our"--but that's really a theological question, not related directly to creationism.

'Our' seems to indicate multiple or plural Gods, and not a single one.

Also, this usage of 'our' is used countless times in the early 5 books of the OT (come, let US go down and confuse them...). This can be understood with just some familiarity on the sons of El (Elohim) and how it's viewed as a counsel of Gods, the head of which being El, while Yahew was subordordinate to in heiracrchy.

'US'? Just who was God talking with, why phrase it in this manner?

 

[Naraoia]

I'm being ignored

Could you please give some sign that you've read this post? (quoted below)

That doesn't necessarily mean they really make more sense. If you don't have much science education, many things in science can seem confusing and hard to believe. On the other hand, if you do have that education, the stuff some creationists come up with starts to look fairly...

And sometimes you don't even have to be educated in the particular field the creationist is talking about; a scientific mindset (by which I mean mostly critical examination of evidence) is often enough! I remember when ages ago I set about debunking CreationWiki's page about the moon's age. I'm an evolutionary biology undergrad, I know little about anything in that article, and yet I was able to spot massive, gaping holes in the arguments presented. They weren't holes in some highly technical subtleties of geophysics; they were general errors of reasoning and poor interpretation of data.

First, what evolution stuff have you read? Second, what contradictions have you found? I'm fairly sure that most of the "contradictions" stem from misunderstanding, and I'd be more than willing to help you resolve them.

(And, before you get scared, that doesn't mean I'm trying to take away your faith or anything. I know how much I wanted to have faith some years ago (not so sure what I want now); I wouldn't wish for anyone to lose it.)

I'd prefer that you also think about it, but who am I to ask complete strangers that.

I believe what is in the Bible. That's it. Literalist. I find the Bible more accurate because it's God's Word. Scientific theories can be disproven at any time.

What would you think about me if I told you the following:

I believe in Newton's gravity. I find it more accurate [than what?] because it's true. Einsteinian gravity can be disproven at any time.

Do you think there's anything wrong with my reasoning above?

(My example is an almost exact analogue of what you wrote. I hope you will think about it before scrolling away... And I hope you will realise that I'm not objecting to Christianity or the Bible.)

And another one where I'm too tempted to substitute words...:

And how do you know Buddika isn't lying? I'm a creationist. My whole school's creationist. My school doesn't lie.

I'm an evolutionist. My whole school is. My school doesn't lie.

Is that sound reasoning?

Look at yourself, please.