Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Vance said:For those who seem to swallow the claims of this "doctor", please read the following link:
http://members.cox.net/ardipithecus/evol/lies/lie001.html
Vance said:Are you joking? That is almost all they do! If you look at any YEC source, you will find about 95% of it is made up of attempts to find errors in the scientific findings.
Saint Philip said:Vance, those aren't examples of Creationists trying to find petty mistakes made by individaul Evolutionists. That's just a list of Creationist arguments about evidence. It appears to me that you are conflating the concept of typos with claims about evidence. I hope that's just a petty mistake on your part.
Saint Philip said:This is not the "Bash Hovind" forum, is it? So, why are you doing it? Did someone cite Hovind as an authority to back up some statement?
Does Creationism rise or fall on the accuracy of some of Hovind's statements?
Are Evolutionists free from error? Or, is Evolution such an embarrassingly bankrupt theory that attacking people and other fits of illogic are a necessary central strategy of Evolutionists?
Vance, how come mainstream school textbooks are so full of errors? These things are peer reviewed ad nauseam and they're frequently updated with new additions. Yet, so many errors remain? Why is that?
Even worse, why are the textbooks so full of lies, especially whenever they touch on Evolution? Even the newest additions of biology texts contain information on Evolution that is known to be false or misrepresented. Why don't any biology text I've ever seen pointed out that those peppered photographed on tree bark were artificially placed there?
Or, that the variation of peppered moths does not represent any new information that could lead to transformation of species?
You should notice that Creationists don't feel a need to resort to combing through Evolutionist material looking for little errors.
Nor do Creationists feel a need to continually point out what commies, socialists, and atheists most of the vocal evolutionist advocates are.
The patheticness of Evolutionists doesn't end here. Why Hovind? He's pretty much a one-man operation without the resources to be as rigorous as groups like the AiG or ICR. You might as well be combing over my posts for typos. (Of course, the AiG and ICR don't have the resources of taxpayer fed Evolutionists practicing the State religion.)
Wait, Evolutionists are more pathetic yet! The times I have gone to the trouble to research these alleged errors pointed out by volutionists, such as those you linked to, I sometimes find the charges are false or misleading. That's right, not only do Evolutionists spend time looking for trivial errors, they sometimes make them up.
And, it is pathetic of Evolutionists in these forums to depend on links to do their talking for them (are you unqualified to speak yourself?) If I want to show why Hovind is right, you are not the one I should be replying to, but the person you linked to.
Pathetic, pathetic, pathetic, pathetic, pathetic, pathetic, pathetic...
Hey Vance, I have an idea, how about you stick to applying logic and reason to the evidence and the issues rather than showing us your skills in illogic and desperation?
obediah001 said:As for examples of Evolutionary frauds well all the supposed misssing links which have been claimed i nthe past have been proven documented frauds or wildly fanciful. e.g. Nebraska Man turned out to be created soley from hogs teeth; in recent months a # of claimed discoveries were shown to be frauds, the one from China, forget title; or the life from mars rock ultimately a complete hoax. There are books written full of the frauds,....... how about hekel's fraud, which by the way is still used in school texts despiteits proven fraud status. comeon now you can find all these facts, LOOK!
Saint Philip said:This is not the "Bash Hovind" forum, is it? So, why are you doing it? Did someone cite Hovind as an authority to back up some statement?
Creationism rise or fall on the accuracy of some of Hovind's statements?
Are Evolutionists free from error?
Vance, how come mainstream school textbooks are so full of ... Even worse, why are the textbooks so full of lies, especially whenever they touch on Evolution? Even the newest additions of biology texts contain information on Evolution that is known to be false or misrepresented. Why don't any biology text I've ever seen pointed out that those peppered photographed on tree bark were artificially placed there?
Or, that the variation of peppered moths does not represent any new information that could lead to transformation of species?
You should notice that Creationists don't feel a need to resort to .
Nor do Creationists feel a need to continually point out what commies, socialists, and atheists most of the vocal evolutionist advocates are.
That's right, not only do Evolutionists spend time looking for trivial errors, they sometimes make them up.
lucaspa said:They are quite shocked when they find that this is not a creationist haven and that people do not hold Hovind in high regard. Every now and then it is necessary to put out the facts about Hovind in an attempt to counter Hovind's brainwashing.
No. Creationism is falsified by the data. However, as a Christians-Only part of the forum, we also have to consider the theological ramifications of Hovind's behavior. What does it say about Christianity when Hovind markets his positions, claims, and arguments as Christianity and they are nothing but false witness?
Sounds like you have been reading Wells' Icons of Evolution.
Now, the reason the textbooks don't mention that the photographs are staged is because it is not relevant. The photos have the peppered moths where they are observed to rest.
Because that isn't true. The peppered moths do represent the shift allele frequencies in populations. As new alleles replace old alleles, the population is indeed transformed to a new species. However, I have only seen the peppered moths used as an example of natural selection, not speciation.
ROFL! Sorry, but that is SOOO wide of the mark. Are you aware the ICR has two CDs entitled "Use their own words against them" that are nothing but "combing through Evolutionist material looking for little errors" that are taken out of context?
Also, have your sources documented this? Have they made a list of "vocal evolutionists" and then checked on their political and religious beliefs? If so, where?
Saint Philip said:Many Christians have been so cowed by accusations of intolerance that they allow the likes of homosexuals and evolutionists to corrupt their churches. Even Christians sometimes accept these blatant lies.
The Bible and Science are squarely against Evolution, so Evolutionists must resort to censorship and such things as the ad hominem attack against Hovind.
All that link shows is a simple mistake, or two. The mistake for the 29,500 and 44,000 dates could be as simple as a single typo (the number pointing to the citation).
Yet, the Evolutionist wants to extrapolate a single typo out into proof that Hovind is a conartist.
Even if he were a liar, the trouble with ad hominem attacks is that they do nothing to address the evidence.
Nope. That is not how peppered moths are observed to rest. It was just a lie resulting from lazy researchers who wanted to set up the bait-and-switch (the calculated lie) that Evolution was observed.
Silly Evolutionist, there are no new alleles in the peppered moth example.
Why do you lamely refuse to recognize that there is a world of difference between attacking Creationists for typos and mistakes vs. quoting Evolutionists to attack Evolution.
As if you don't know the biggest names in the promotion of Evolution of the past several decades were Atheists and such. What religion was Carl Sagan, Isaac Asimov, and Stephen Gould? How about Dawkins? You want sources?
lucaspa said:I thought God and Jesus loved everyone. Am I mistaken?
1. I agree that Biblical literalism is against evolution, but that is a man-made interpretation, so "the Bible" is not against evolution.
2. Science certainly isn't against the scientific theory of biological evolution. Did you go to PubMed and look at the number of scientific articles with data supporting evolution? Or is "Evolution" something different for you? Perhaps you had better define "Evolution" (I noticed the capital E) for us.
3. Are the attacks ad hominem or is pointing out his claims are in error?
The mistake is far deeper and more sinister. We know because people have tracked it through the actual papers. Hovind took papers that clearly said they were discussing different samples and then claimed the papers were discussing one sample.
I am not calling Hovind "a liar".
claims are independent of the person advocating them.
It was the evidence that told us Hovind's claims were untrue! It is the evidence of Hovind's failure to change his claims when the error is pointed out to him that caused us to question Hovind's integrity.
Reasing positions of moths found in the wild in studies between 1964 and 1996
Gould is agnostic and argues for the validity of religious knowledge.
Why did you omit Francisco Ayala, Theodosius Dobzhansky, Davis A Young, Howard Van Till, Kenneth Miller, Michael Ruse, and Robert Pennock? Every one of them Christian! You have 3, I have 7. I win.
Now, for Sagan, Asimov, and Dawkins, how do their personal beliefs affect the truth of the evidence? Above you said "the trouble with ad hominem attacks is that they do nothing to address the evidence."
I think you're refering to this:Vance said:Lucas:
Don't waste your time anymore, read JetBlack's sig line for the reason.
Saint Philip said:You are wrong. But, this is not the place for that discussion.
If Genesis is not taken literally, what would it mean? Even something non-literal should have real meaning. What is the real meaning of the Creation account, when you're just not watering it down to fit Evolution? There are many references to the creation account through the Bible, does any of them imply a non-literal meaning?
There is little, if any, published research on Evolution. Rather, we have many examples of studies put into the context of the Evolution religion.
If I cited Hovind and told you that there is a mammoth where one part was dated at 29500 and another part at 44000. You would reply that Hovind's citation does not belong to his claim so that my claim is still without varification.
That is not clear from the the page that is linked at the top of this thred. We can only take the critic's word because he doesn't quote the original source in any way for us to see how clear the original source is.
Evolution is unscientific and blatantly false. Evolutionists seem to know this because they spend so much time trying to avoid reason and evidence.
It looks like the other Creationists here willingly play straightman to the Evolutionist insincere nonsense.
But, as long as that goes on, you're not going to be edified.
You said, "Hovind markets his positions, claims, and arguments as Christianity and they are nothing but false witness." That sounds exactly like you're calling Hovind a total liar, but you want to look more sophisticated someone who would actually use the words "Total liar." Calling him a total liar for a couple of mistakes is insincere. Denying that you called him a total liar is more insincerity.
That's a difference without distinction. If you say his claims are nothing but lies then you are calling him a liar.
"Most textbook pictures of peppered moths show specimens that have been manually placed on tree trunks. Since 1980, however, it has become clear that peppered moths do not normally rest there."
http://www.arn.org/docs/wells/jw_pepmothshort.htm
But, the important thins is that Evolutionists are total liars who pass off a shift in population as proof that humans are the children of apes. There no new information in the peppered moth example.
Agnostic is just another word for Atheist.
Gould was also a commited socialist.
Yeah, validity for religious knowledge, as long as you keep your religious knowledge to yourself.
I was pointing out that Creationists don't do much of that.
Creationists quote Evolutionists to use them as hostile expert witnesses, not to try to show that they are "total liars" (although, they are).
This whole thread is an example of an Evolutionist exercise in avoiding the real issue of the scientific quality of Evolution, rather, the lack of such.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?