Dr. Dino (Hovind) exposed?

[obediah001]

The Mammoth claim you make is news to me. As for C-14 he states C-14 can not be used for long age dating as the half life is too short; Hovind knows this, if it is as you say on his website point it out to him he will thank you & have the problem fixed. I hope you do not see this textual problem as a proof of Evolution, do you ?

 

[Vance]

The article points out that it *was* brought to his attention and he has failed to correct his error.

And what about the rest of the errors described by AIG? Do you think AIG is simply wrong about the falsification of these arguments? Can you defend Hovind's insistence opon continuing to use them without even explaining the doubts about them?

 

[Meatros]

Um...Hovind isn't what I'd call credible at all. Aside from the inaccuracies he has yet to retract from his website, that Vance and other's have pointed out, he's also a one world government conspiracy theorist.

IIRC he believes that the Federal Government blew up the Oklahoma City building, and not Timothy Mcvay.

Also, check out this:

"I believe the real purpose of the environmental propaganda is to fulfill the first plank of the Communist Manifesto;: the abolishment of private property. While there is no question man has abused the environment, there is a hidden agenda behind the modern hype. (See Facts Not Fear for information on environment.)"

Taken from: http://www.drdino.com/?pg=faq&specific=33



Check this site out: http://www.geocities.com/kenthovind/
For a full analysis.

Hovind isn't operating with a full deck.

 

[Saint Philip]

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

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?

 

[Vance]

Phil, weren't you just warned not to be making personal attacks?

Anyway, getting back to the point, the reason for the post was that Hovind has been used as a source here by YEC's.

You said:
"You should notice that Creationists don't feel a need to resort to combing through Evolutionist material looking for little errors. "

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.

 

[notto]

Kent? Could it be?

 

[Saint Philip]

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.

What are you talking about? Here we have a post pointing to some alleged mistakes by Hovind vs. what? Provide an example of what you're talking about.

 

[Vance]

Look at Hovind, AIG and ICR. They spend most of their time trying to poke holes in the theory of evolution and the idea of an old earth. They spot what they deem to be errors and write articles on them or, in Hovind's case, make simple conclusory statements about them. They attack the dating techniques and point to dozens of "problems" with the positions they are against.

A long list of their attempts to poke holes is listed here:

http://home.earthlink.net/~misaak/guide/list.html

(which, btw, has a refutation of each attempted "poke"). This list is the very definition of "combing through the material looking for little errors".

By comparison, they have done very little in presenting convincing analysis of the whole of the evidence in favor of the Creationist concept. They are better at finding flaws that providing scientifically sound theories, which is what they are all claiming to be attempting.

 

[Saint Philip]

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.

 

[Plan 9]

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.

Phil, the link in the OP isn't about typos. It's about Hovind misrepresenting parts of several different animals as one in order to discredit carbon dating methods.

If it's all a mistake and Hovind is honest, then he was unable to read and understand the paper he used as the basis for his refutation.

Either way, Hovind's conclusions can't be trusted.

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

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?

Yes.

Does Creationism rise or fall on the accuracy of some of Hovind's statements?

It depends on the accuracy of creationists' statements in general. But this thread is specifically about the credibility or otherwise of Hovind.

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?

Nope. Mainstream science reacts defensively to the attacks of fringe pseudo-scientists - moon landing deniers, "ancient astronaut" theorists, creationists, flat earthers, what have you, but the real work of science is not involved with "attacking" them. Just something we have to do when mainstream science is attacked by self-righteous pseudo-scientists.

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?

List the errors.

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?

Can you explain why moths have to have naturally settled on a branch to be photographed to demonstrate that pale moths are harder to see on pale surfaces, and dark moths on dark surfaces? That's all the photographs demonstrate. They are illustrations, not part of the evidence. The evidence is the relative numbers of melanistic forms in different environments.

Or, that the variation of peppered moths does not represent any new information that could lead to transformation of species?

It's not meant to. It demonstrates change in allele frequencies. Nothing more.

You should notice that Creationists don't feel a need to resort to combing through Evolutionist material looking for little errors.

Nonsense. Where did you get the moth business from if not (ultimately) from Wells' "Icons of Evolution" which is exactly that - a comb through mainstream material looking for points to attack?

Nor do Creationists feel a need to continually point out what commies, socialists, and atheists most of the vocal evolutionist advocates are.

There's a laugh. There's a page on the alleged social evils of evolution on every creationist site I've ever read. However, the political system that most resembles Darwinian evolution is actually unrestrained Capitalism.

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.)

In the US, there is no state religion. In the UK, it is Anglicanism. Do you have a point here?

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.

Really? Find an error I've made 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.

Ha bloody ha. Up on another thread some creationist was whining (quite untruthfully) that we don't support our debunking of creationist nonsense - now you're whining that we do! How can I possibly demonstrate that there are transitional fossils without pointing you to evidence for them? You'll just whine "you made that up!"

Pathetic, pathetic, pathetic, pathetic, pathetic, pathetic, pathetic...

Projection.

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?

We'd like to do that. But you'll whine if I post links to some material we can do that to, won't you?

 

[lucaspa]

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!

We need to draw a distinction between frauds and hoaxes and simply falsified claims. Fraunds and hoaxes are deliberately constructed untruths.

1. Not all the "missing links" have been shown to be mistaken. We can discuss other individuals in detail whenever you are ready, Obediah. Nebraska Man was an honest mistake. And the mistake was discovered by the same man who made it in the first place. Whereupon he promptly admitted the mistake. No fraud here.

2. Archeoraptor was a fraud that was attempted on scientists, not by scientists. The fossil collector put the bones of two different animals together. It was discovered by evolutionists and promptly acknowledged as such.

3. The Mars meteor is still under dispute. It was never a hoax. The people who first looked at it found organic compounds that were not from earth and which they concluded were leftovers from life. Other investigators disputed that conclusion and said there were other non-life reactions that could have produced the compounds.

4. Haeckel did indeed doctor the drawings of the embryos. It was detected at the time, but thru an incredible number of slip ups were included in textbooks. Mostly because they were the only set of easily reproducible comparison of embryos. But they were not used as evidence for evolution, just as illustrations of development. Those drawings have been withdrawn from all textbooks.

Now, if you really want to look, go to http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi and enter the search term "evolution". Just look at the number of papers. By all means, please go thru and point out to us which are frauds and hoaxes.

 

[lucaspa]

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?

This site is linked on the Hovind site and the Hovind site says to come here to discuss creationism. It's how I found this forum. So yes, we get a lot of people here who come from Hovind's website and do cite Hovind as an authority. 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.

Creationism rise or fall on the accuracy of some of Hovind's statements?

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? Since Hovind claims to be a Christian, isn't he bound by the moral code and the Ten Commandments? Shouldn't he have more care than anyone else not to violate the 9th Commandment?

Therefore it is very disturbing to us on an emotional level that Hovind is so loose with the truth. What is our responsibility as Christians in regard to blatant untruths by Hovind? Should we remain silent?

Are Evolutionists free from error?

That's not the issue here. If you feel evolutionists (however you define the term) have erred, please feel free to start a thread on the topic.

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?

Sounds like you have been reading Wells' Icons of Evolution.

However, can you be more specific about that information that is "false or misrepresented"? We can then discuss it.

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. However, peppered moths are very poor posers for photographers. They simply are not cooperative to hang around while the photographer checks the light, his exposure, adjusts the focus, and adjusts the frame. By the time that is all done, the moth has moved. So, dead moths are placed where the live ones rest but they are more cooperative and don't move.

The only reason you would object is because you think the photos misrepresent what the living moths do. But they don't, so there is no need to spend money (at 10 cents a letter) to say this.

Or, that the variation of peppered moths does not represent any new information that could lead to transformation of species?

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.

You should notice that Creationists don't feel a need to resort to .

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?

Nor do Creationists feel a need to continually point out what commies, socialists, and atheists most of the vocal evolutionist advocates are.

LOL! You said that with a straight face? Amazing! Philip, every major creationist website has a prominent section stating this. After all, where did you see it? Certainly not in Origin of the Species or an evolutionary biology textbook! Scientists discuss science, not irrelvant political positions.

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?

That's right, not only do Evolutionists spend time looking for trivial errors, they sometimes make them up.

Then feel free to start a thread on this. I would think that you would keep track of them.

 

[Saint Philip]

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.

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. That is nothing less than pathetic. On the other hand, Hovind could have really botched things up here, it still doesn't mean that he is a liar.

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?

I'm thinking about what accusing Hovind of being a liar says about you. Even if he were a liar, the trouble with ad hominem attacks is that they do nothing to address the evidence.

Sounds like you have been reading Wells' Icons of Evolution.

Nope, never read it.

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.

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.

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.

Silly Evolutionist, there are no new alleles in the peppered moth example.

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?

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.

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?

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? You so funny.

 

[lucaspa]

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.

So it is not intolerance to exclude homosexuals and "evolutionists" from Christian churches? I thought God and Jesus loved everyone. Am I mistaken? Who exactly do you think are "Christians"?

The Bible and Science are squarely against Evolution, so Evolutionists must resort to censorship and such things as the ad hominem attack against Hovind.

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?

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).

I'm afraid it's not. 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.

Yet, the Evolutionist wants to extrapolate a single typo out into proof that Hovind is a conartist.

Please, Philip, the articles discussing the problems with Hovind's claims discuss far more than this single example.

[/quote] On the other hand, Hovind could have really botched things up here, it still doesn't mean that he is a liar.

I'm thinking about what accusing Hovind of being a liar says about you. [/quote]

Do you notice how you make the discussion personal? Do you see that I have been careful to say "Hovind's claims"? In the post you are resonding to I said "Hovind markets his positions, claims, and arguments as Christianity and they are nothing but false witness" Notice that I am saying the claims, positions and arguments are false witness. I am not calling Hovind "a liar". Ideas and claims are independent of the person advocating them. You are trying to make them the same. This gets you away from discussing the nature of the claims, because then you say I am attacking Hovind personally. I didn't.

Stating that Hovind's claims are false witness makes me a person concerned very much about the truth. Even in the name of Christianity, I don't want untruths told to people.

Even if he were a liar, the trouble with ad hominem attacks is that they do nothing to address the evidence.

It has everything to do with the evidence. 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.

I asked this before. I'll ask it again and this time hopefully you will respond: What is our responsibility as Christians in regard to blatant untruths by Hovind? Should we remain silent?

See? We are talking about the UNTRUTHS. What are we supposed to do about those?

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.

Here's the data:
" [font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Here are the data I presented (from Majerus, 1998, Industrial Melanism: Evolution in Action, page 123):

[/font]

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Resting positions of moths found in the wild in studies between 1964 and 1996[/font]​

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Exposed trunk:[/font]​

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]6[/font]​

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Unexposed trunk[/font]​

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]6[/font]​

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Trunk/branch joint:[/font]​

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]20[/font]​

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Branches[/font]​

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]15[/font]​

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Summary: 32 of 47 moths (68%) were found on tree trunks[/font]​

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Resting positions of moths found in the vicinity of traps between 1965 and 1996[/font]​

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Exposed trunk:[/font]​

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]48[/font]​

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Unexposed trunk[/font]​

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]22[/font]​

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Trunk/branch joint:[/font]​

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]66[/font]​

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Branches[/font]​

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]20[/font]​

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Foliage[/font]​

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]22[/font]​

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Man-made surfaces:[/font]​

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]25[/font]​

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Summary: 136 of 203 moths (67%) were found on tree trunks[/font]​

http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/wells-april-2002.html

Silly Evolutionist, there are no new alleles in the peppered moth example.

yes, there are.

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.

Do you condone false witness? Do you condone taking a person's words out of context to make it seem that they said something completely opposite to what they really said?

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?

Gould is agnostic and argues for the validity of religious knowledge. Silly you. 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."

Sauce for the goose.

 

[wblastyn]

Philip, why are you filled with so much venom? Could you image Jesus talking to people like that, "silly fishermen" "pathetic harlot" "stupid mother"?

 

[Saint Philip]

I thought God and Jesus loved everyone. Am I mistaken?

You are wrong. But, this is not the place for that discussion.

1. I agree that Biblical literalism is against evolution, but that is a man-made interpretation, so "the Bible" is not against evolution.

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?

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.

There is little, if any, published research on Evolution. Rather, we have many examples of studies put into the context of the Evolution religion.

3. Are the attacks ad hominem or is pointing out his claims are in error?

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.

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.

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.

[/quote]Do you notice how you make the discussion personal?[/quote]

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.

I am not calling Hovind "a liar".

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.

claims are independent of the person advocating them.

That's a difference without distinction. If you say his claims are nothing but lies then you are calling him a liar.

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.

Unfortunatly, the link that supposedly is Hovind's reply does not work. So, I do not know Hovind's reply.

Reasing positions of moths found in the wild in studies between 1964 and 1996

"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.

Gould is agnostic and argues for the validity of religious knowledge.

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.

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.

Okay, you 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 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.

 

[Vance]

Lucas:

Don't waste your time anymore, read JetBlack's sig line for the reason.

 

[wblastyn]

Lucas:

Don't waste your time anymore, read JetBlack's sig line for the reason.

I think you're refering to this:

"Never argue with stupid people. they drag you down to their level and beat you through experience.
Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than speak and remove all doubt."

hehe.

I don't know how you all remain calm while people like this sit on their "holier than thou" throne and judge us all non-Christian because we don't ignore science.

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

You are wrong. But, this is not the place for that discussion.

No. You're wrong. John 3:16, 2 Peter 3:9. But you are correct that 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?

They don't specifically imply a non-literal meaning either. http://freespace.virgin.net/karl_and.gnome/genesis.htm - reasons for non-literality and what the real meanings are. Well, some of them anyway.

There is little, if any, published research on Evolution. Rather, we have many examples of studies put into the context of the Evolution religion.

Nonsense. What's Thewisson's work on cetacean evolution if it's not "published research on Evolution"? What about all the papers describing bird origins from Chinese fossils? That's just two prominent studies off the top of my head. Do you know what a Miacid is? Do you know how many papers have been published about transitionals between Miacids and the fat lazy thing dozing on top of the fish tank downstairs? (The hood's warm from the lights. )

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.

I'm not sure I can make sense of this sentence. What I would say is that study of the papers Hovind is referring to shows that there are two seperate mammoths. No sophistry about claims and citations.

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.

No. You can look up the paper yourself and see what it says.

Evolution is unscientific and blatantly false. Evolutionists seem to know this because they spend so much time trying to avoid reason and evidence.

Utter, utter codswallop. We post page after page of evidence. It is seldom addressed. I've lost count of the number of times I've invited creationist response to retro-viral insertion evidence. Never even a half-response. Putting your hands over your ears and singing "La la la can't hear you" does not make the evidence go away.

It looks like the other Creationists here willingly play straightman to the Evolutionist insincere nonsense.

No. Some are capable of sensible and rational debate. Are you willing to join them, or do you prefer your ad hom sniping?

But, as long as that goes on, you're not going to be edified.

Truth edifies. Bovine egesta does not.

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.

Can't speak for others, but actually I'll call Hovind a liar. It's beside the point. The important thing is that his statements are frequently lies, not whether he's an intentional liar or not.

"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

This has been addressed.

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.

Strawman. The peppered moths demonstrate natural selection. Evidence that humans evolved from an ape-like ancestor (no, no modern humans were ever the children of apes) is overwhelming, but it doesn't come from peppered moths. I'd present the evidence ifI thought you'd actually follow it up. But in my experience Creationists do not actually research the presented evidence. Perhaps they know deep down that they're on shaky ground - there are too many cases of creationists who've examined the evidence and realised they've been duped by the Christian equivalents of Erich von Daniken and David Icke.

Agnostic is just another word for Atheist.

Buy a dictionary.

Gould was also a commited socialist.

Meaning? You know that the British Labour (socialist) party was largely founded by Christians (Methodist in the main IIRC)?

Yeah, validity for religious knowledge, as long as you keep your religious knowledge to yourself.

You have a quote from Gould saying that?

I was pointing out that Creationists don't do much of that.

And we've pointed out they do it all the time.

Creationists quote Evolutionists to use them as hostile expert witnesses, not to try to show that they are "total liars" (although, they are).

They misquote them dishonestly. How about this?

"To suppose," he admitted, "that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances . . . could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree"

http://www.ucg.ca/gn/lit/EV/themiracle.asp

i.e. the eye is a problem for evolution.

But what Darwin actually said in full was:

To suppose that the eye [...] could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree. When it was first said that the sun stood still and the world turned round, the common sense of mankind declared the doctrine false; but the old saying of Vox populi, vox Dei, as every philosopher knows, cannot be trusted in science. Reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a simple and imperfect eye to one complex and perfect can be shown to exist, each grade being useful to its possessor, as is certainly the case; if further, the eye ever varies and the variations be inherited, as is likewise certainly the case and if such variations should be useful to any animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, should not be considered as subversive of the theory.

i.e. the eye is not a problem for evolution.

http://quotes.telemanage.ca/quotes.nsf/quotes/3965d6cd9cf7e92485256b21000ff223

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.

Nice sentence. Can I use it? This whole quote business is an example of a Creationist exercise in avoiding the real issue of the scientific quality of Creation Science, rather, the lack of such.

Difference is, I can actually credibly support my version.