-
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.
-
CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.
Dr. Dino
- Thread starter IamThatHero
- Start date
lucaspa
Legend
You mean his "challenge" if you prove "evolution"? The reason that isn't done is that Hovind's challenge is about proving atheism. Since evolution is NOT atheism, there isn't any point. Hovind's mistake.
As to scientific evidence for evolution (the theory, not Hovind's strawman) go to http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi and enter "evolution" as your search term.
THEN come back and try to tell us about "no truly scientific evidence for evolution".
Upvote
0
this is an interesting topic. my question is could an evolutionist please tell me how Dr Hovind is wrong?
Upvote
0
Mechanical Bliss
Secrecy and accountability cannot co-exist.
Well he claims that a global flood happened and that the earth is far younger than it can possibly be, for starters...
There's far too much material to simply sum up all the reasons he is wrong in one post. His claims are falsified by the evidence, and that's all that needs to be said. Simply by looking around at other threads on the forum you can see that for yourself.
Furthermore, he's no scientist, nor does he have a doctorate from any semblance of a reputable institution in any field relevant to the claims he tries to make (e.g., about biology, geology, etc.). He makes claims about things he knows nothing about. He is intellectually dishonest in that he omits and rejects any evidence that falsifies his claims simply because he doesn't like it--not because he can actually address it.
Upvote
0
I agree with Pete, that you should post something and we can tell you why its wrong. 
My favorite though has got to be his "Mark of the beast" FAQ. Where he claims that the numbers 666 appear in all bar codes (at the begining, middle, and end). A quick google search can get you some fun bar code generators and enough information to realize that these arent the numbers 666 or any numbers at all. They are just markers to tell the machine that its at the begining, middle and end of the bar code.
But thats just my favorite.
My favorite though has got to be his "Mark of the beast" FAQ. Where he claims that the numbers 666 appear in all bar codes (at the begining, middle, and end). A quick google search can get you some fun bar code generators and enough information to realize that these arent the numbers 666 or any numbers at all. They are just markers to tell the machine that its at the begining, middle and end of the bar code.
But thats just my favorite.
Upvote
0
ok. well i have seen him debate i have read his stuff amoung other creation scientists and i disagree with you. many secular scientists say the wold was covered in water at one time. how else do you get sedimentary rock which is found anywhere in the world?
but thats not the point. the point is that he is educated. he taught science for many years and i believe he had at least a masters in science however i cannot verify his doctorate. the government thought he knew enough to teach our youth by certifying him to be a teacher.
but please provide one concrete scientific example of something wrong with creation and we can discuss it
but thats not the point. the point is that he is educated. he taught science for many years and i believe he had at least a masters in science however i cannot verify his doctorate. the government thought he knew enough to teach our youth by certifying him to be a teacher.
but please provide one concrete scientific example of something wrong with creation and we can discuss it
Upvote
0
Unfortunatly, many creationist groups dont even agree with Mr. Hovind.
Ok, if you just want to talk about creationist claims and not wierd claims (like the stupid barcode thing, that I still think is funny )
Try this thread:
http://www.christianforums.com/threads/41209-1.html
It links to a couple threads with evidence against creationism.
then there is my thread here:
http://www.christianforums.com/threads/41844.html
Where I treated a creationist claim as a hypothesis and wanted to know if there is any evidence to support the hypothesis. Can you provide me with any?
Ok, if you just want to talk about creationist claims and not wierd claims (like the stupid barcode thing, that I still think is funny
)Try this thread:
http://www.christianforums.com/threads/41209-1.html
It links to a couple threads with evidence against creationism.
then there is my thread here:
http://www.christianforums.com/threads/41844.html
Where I treated a creationist claim as a hypothesis and wanted to know if there is any evidence to support the hypothesis. Can you provide me with any?
Upvote
0
well that nice that you gave me those threads but i would like to talk about something now, not read someone elses debate. lets try to keep it to science and not the antichrist here are some topics:
flood, creation, iridium layer, grand canyon, evolution, mutation, and anything else your heart desires.
flood, creation, iridium layer, grand canyon, evolution, mutation, and anything else your heart desires.
Upvote
0
or we could talk about why the bible is true and never contradicts itself. of course you would have to provide an example of why it is wrong. and then i could provide an example of why your wrong
Upvote
0
From this site (which was taken from a FAQ section no longer available on Hovind's site):
I took advanced math and science classes at East Peoria High School graduating in 1971. I earned my first 60 (+ or -) credit hours majoring in math and science at Illinois Central College in East Peoria, Illinois. I then transferred to Midwestern Baptist College in Pontiac, Michigan where I double majored in education and the Bible and graduated in 1974. (I took 18-20 hours each semester plus summer school to graduate in 3 years.) While I taught math and science in Christian schools for the next 15 years I took courses at several Bible colleges in my spare time. I finished my Masters (1988) and Doctorate (1991) degrees in education from Patriot University.
Basically, the extent of his science education are some first-year (and maybe second-year) college science courses. He certainly does not have a PhD or even a Masters in science.
Upvote
0
OK, let's talk about the possibility of a worldwide flood. For your perusal, mjiracek, I've examined the models that young-earth literalist websites propose:
From AIG:
"In their peer-reviewed article 'Flood models: the need for an integrated approach', Andy McIntosh, Tom Edmonson and Steven Taylor concluded that 'only as there is greater interaction between the relevant scientific disciplines will some of the unanswered problems of the biblical Flood models be solved'... In principle, we agree that there should be interaction between the relevant scientific disciplines in discussing how Genesis relates to the geological record... " Interaction between the relevant scientific disciplines... is this author referring to the scientific disciplines of floodology and theology? He couldn't possibly mean geology, paleontology, anthropology, physics, and other such disciplines, because these do not have unanswered problems concerning the biblical Flood models. They thoroughly falsify a global flood, for reasons I have stated before, and reasons I will get into.
This article does not even discuss a flood model. It conludes with, "None of us is satisfied with the model that we proposed in 1996. In the light of the problems encountered, our thinking has moved on, albeit not in a direction that McIntosh et al. would approve of. On the other hand, we remain convinced that Genesis preserves a trustworthy historical record of a global Flood." In other words, Answers in Genesis as an organization has no answers for a global flood model, because as of late 2000? (according to the citations in this article) they haven't developed a flood model that even they accept. But, just for fun, let's examine the various unaccepted models proposed in their cited article, Flood models: the need for an integrated approach:
The vapor canopy model:
"The vapour canopy model of the Flood is the one that has held greatest sway in scientific creationism since serious research began in the 1960s. The book The Genesis Flood by Whitcomb and Morris,1 first published in 1961, and Whitcomb's later The World that Perished (1996) explain this view.2 The vapour canopy theory is that the Earth's atmosphere was surrounded by a water vapour blanket that collapsed at the onset of the Flood. Dillow has extensively explored this concept theoretically.3 This model has led the field for a number of years, but has difficulties in accounting for the large amount of catastrophic upheaval in the Earth at the beginning and through the Flood year."
Other than the doubts concerning this theory that the authors of this article hold themselves, this model has been shown to be physically impossible. The graphic from the site partially explains why.
I do not know how valid these calculations are, but according to Answers in Genesis, the mere addition of a mysteriously-suspended 50 cm of water to the upper atmosphere would result in extreme increases of temperature at the surface of the earth. Since much more water needs to be accounted for in order to flood the higher mountains of the world, the effect of surface temperature would only be more profound, resulting in heat that would eliminate all life. The transfer of energy from vapor canopy to falling water would have also superheated the atmosphere. Furthermore, the pressure experienced on earth is due to the force of all the air molecules in the atmosphere pushing downwards. The addition of a significant amount of water to the upper atmosphere would compress the air, resulting in toxic concentrations of oxygen. Furthermore, if this water were to be released over a short period of time, all the organisms already killed by toxic oxygen concentrations may experience dissolved gases boiling out of the blood, internal rupture, and hemmorhage, resulting in a very unhappy situation for anything that somehow had managed to survive. Being on a boat will not save anyone from incredible temperatures and vast changes in pressure.
Conclusion: The vapor canopy model holds no water.
The hydroplate model:
"The hydroplate theory has the advantage of explaining great devastation in the first 40 days." Indeed. In fact, it explains devastation that is so great, not even a well-built wooden ark would have survived.
Assuming that the earth's tectonic plates can somehow float on water, which they can't, and assuming that this water burst out suddenly, consider the implications that this would have on the surface of the earth. The more massive earthquakes of today (e.g., Turkey) are caused by relatively small peturbations in the crust compared to the sudden rearranging of every tectonic plate. Even if Noah had managed to sail his ark out to the middle of an ocean before all this began, the resulting shockwaves would have created tsunamis large enough many times over to smash his ark to pieces. Furthermore, a calculation of the energy that would be released by enough water to flood the globe trapped near the superheated mantle would show that the atmosphere would heat up into the range of hundreds of degrees C, killing everyone instantly, boat or no boat.
Conclusion: Hydroplate model is not feasible.
Catastrophic plate tectonics and runaway subduction:
This article, in addition to expounding on the other models proposed, does a better job in explaining the problems with this theory than I could:
"Runaway subduction: John Baumgardner created the runaway subduction model, which proposes that the pre-Flood lithosphere (ocean floor), being denser than the underlying mantle, began sinking. The heat released in the process decreased the viscosity of the mantle, so the process accelerated catastrophically. All the original lithosphere became subducted; the rising magma which replaced it raised the ocean floor, causing sea levels to rise and boiling off enough of the ocean to cause 150 days of rain. When it cooled, the ocean floor lowered again, and the Flood waters receded. Sedimentary mountains such as the Sierras and Andes rose after the Flood by isostatic rebound. [Baumgardner, 1990a; Austin et al., 1994]
* The main difficulty of this theory is that it admittedly doesn't work without miracles. [Baumgardner, 1990a, 1990b] The thermal diffusivity of the earth, for example, would have to increase 10,000 fold to get the subduction rates proposed [Matsumura, 1997], and miracles are also necessary to cool the new ocean floor and to raise sedimentary mountains in months rather than in the millions of years it would ordinarily take.
* Baumgardner estimates a release of 10^28 joules from the subduction process. This is more than enough to boil off all the oceans. In addition, Baumgardner postulates that the mantle was much hotter before the Flood (giving it greater viscosity); that heat would have to go somewhere, too.
* Cenozoic sediments are post-Flood according to this model. Yet fossils from Cenozoic sediments alone show a 65-million-year record of evolution, including a great deal of the diversification of mammals and angiosperms. [Carroll, 1997, chpts. 5, 6, & 13]
* Subduction on the scale Baumgardner proposes would have produced very much more vulcanism around plate boundaries than we see. [Matsumura, 1997]"
From AIG:
"In their peer-reviewed article 'Flood models: the need for an integrated approach', Andy McIntosh, Tom Edmonson and Steven Taylor concluded that 'only as there is greater interaction between the relevant scientific disciplines will some of the unanswered problems of the biblical Flood models be solved'... In principle, we agree that there should be interaction between the relevant scientific disciplines in discussing how Genesis relates to the geological record... " Interaction between the relevant scientific disciplines... is this author referring to the scientific disciplines of floodology and theology? He couldn't possibly mean geology, paleontology, anthropology, physics, and other such disciplines, because these do not have unanswered problems concerning the biblical Flood models. They thoroughly falsify a global flood, for reasons I have stated before, and reasons I will get into.
This article does not even discuss a flood model. It conludes with, "None of us is satisfied with the model that we proposed in 1996. In the light of the problems encountered, our thinking has moved on, albeit not in a direction that McIntosh et al. would approve of. On the other hand, we remain convinced that Genesis preserves a trustworthy historical record of a global Flood." In other words, Answers in Genesis as an organization has no answers for a global flood model, because as of late 2000? (according to the citations in this article) they haven't developed a flood model that even they accept. But, just for fun, let's examine the various unaccepted models proposed in their cited article, Flood models: the need for an integrated approach:
The vapor canopy model:
"The vapour canopy model of the Flood is the one that has held greatest sway in scientific creationism since serious research began in the 1960s. The book The Genesis Flood by Whitcomb and Morris,1 first published in 1961, and Whitcomb's later The World that Perished (1996) explain this view.2 The vapour canopy theory is that the Earth's atmosphere was surrounded by a water vapour blanket that collapsed at the onset of the Flood. Dillow has extensively explored this concept theoretically.3 This model has led the field for a number of years, but has difficulties in accounting for the large amount of catastrophic upheaval in the Earth at the beginning and through the Flood year."
Other than the doubts concerning this theory that the authors of this article hold themselves, this model has been shown to be physically impossible. The graphic from the site partially explains why.
I do not know how valid these calculations are, but according to Answers in Genesis, the mere addition of a mysteriously-suspended 50 cm of water to the upper atmosphere would result in extreme increases of temperature at the surface of the earth. Since much more water needs to be accounted for in order to flood the higher mountains of the world, the effect of surface temperature would only be more profound, resulting in heat that would eliminate all life. The transfer of energy from vapor canopy to falling water would have also superheated the atmosphere. Furthermore, the pressure experienced on earth is due to the force of all the air molecules in the atmosphere pushing downwards. The addition of a significant amount of water to the upper atmosphere would compress the air, resulting in toxic concentrations of oxygen. Furthermore, if this water were to be released over a short period of time, all the organisms already killed by toxic oxygen concentrations may experience dissolved gases boiling out of the blood, internal rupture, and hemmorhage, resulting in a very unhappy situation for anything that somehow had managed to survive. Being on a boat will not save anyone from incredible temperatures and vast changes in pressure.
Conclusion: The vapor canopy model holds no water.
The hydroplate model:
"The hydroplate theory has the advantage of explaining great devastation in the first 40 days." Indeed. In fact, it explains devastation that is so great, not even a well-built wooden ark would have survived.
Assuming that the earth's tectonic plates can somehow float on water, which they can't, and assuming that this water burst out suddenly, consider the implications that this would have on the surface of the earth. The more massive earthquakes of today (e.g., Turkey) are caused by relatively small peturbations in the crust compared to the sudden rearranging of every tectonic plate. Even if Noah had managed to sail his ark out to the middle of an ocean before all this began, the resulting shockwaves would have created tsunamis large enough many times over to smash his ark to pieces. Furthermore, a calculation of the energy that would be released by enough water to flood the globe trapped near the superheated mantle would show that the atmosphere would heat up into the range of hundreds of degrees C, killing everyone instantly, boat or no boat.
Conclusion: Hydroplate model is not feasible.
Catastrophic plate tectonics and runaway subduction:
This article, in addition to expounding on the other models proposed, does a better job in explaining the problems with this theory than I could:
"Runaway subduction: John Baumgardner created the runaway subduction model, which proposes that the pre-Flood lithosphere (ocean floor), being denser than the underlying mantle, began sinking. The heat released in the process decreased the viscosity of the mantle, so the process accelerated catastrophically. All the original lithosphere became subducted; the rising magma which replaced it raised the ocean floor, causing sea levels to rise and boiling off enough of the ocean to cause 150 days of rain. When it cooled, the ocean floor lowered again, and the Flood waters receded. Sedimentary mountains such as the Sierras and Andes rose after the Flood by isostatic rebound. [Baumgardner, 1990a; Austin et al., 1994]
* The main difficulty of this theory is that it admittedly doesn't work without miracles. [Baumgardner, 1990a, 1990b] The thermal diffusivity of the earth, for example, would have to increase 10,000 fold to get the subduction rates proposed [Matsumura, 1997], and miracles are also necessary to cool the new ocean floor and to raise sedimentary mountains in months rather than in the millions of years it would ordinarily take.
* Baumgardner estimates a release of 10^28 joules from the subduction process. This is more than enough to boil off all the oceans. In addition, Baumgardner postulates that the mantle was much hotter before the Flood (giving it greater viscosity); that heat would have to go somewhere, too.
* Cenozoic sediments are post-Flood according to this model. Yet fossils from Cenozoic sediments alone show a 65-million-year record of evolution, including a great deal of the diversification of mammals and angiosperms. [Carroll, 1997, chpts. 5, 6, & 13]
* Subduction on the scale Baumgardner proposes would have produced very much more vulcanism around plate boundaries than we see. [Matsumura, 1997]"
Upvote
0
Thats exactly what these threads discuss.
Why are you unwilling to read them?
Ok, well, im up for a go, please make a post on the flood, that seems to be my favorite thing, it will be fun.
Why are you unwilling to read them?
Ok, well, im up for a go, please make a post on the flood, that seems to be my favorite thing, it will be fun.
Upvote
0
.......You're lying, if you know it or not.
Firstly, just because sedimentary rock pretty much everywhere doesnt mean it all came from the same event.
The fact its forming a the moment is testament to that.
Secondly, Hovind is in no means a scientist, or anything close.
His PhD is in Christian studies, or something equally unrelated to science.
He got this by doing a short term course at an unaccredited university (Operated out of what appears to be a house).
He's also lied about this, and claimed he spent 9 years working towards getting his PhD. (Which, by the way, doesn't make him qualified to rant and rave about science.)
The goverment doesn't think that he knows enough to teach people, nor do any of the more reputable Creationist organisations.
Firstly, just because sedimentary rock pretty much everywhere doesnt mean it all came from the same event.
The fact its forming a the moment is testament to that.
Secondly, Hovind is in no means a scientist, or anything close.
His PhD is in Christian studies, or something equally unrelated to science.
He got this by doing a short term course at an unaccredited university (Operated out of what appears to be a house).
He's also lied about this, and claimed he spent 9 years working towards getting his PhD. (Which, by the way, doesn't make him qualified to rant and rave about science.)
The goverment doesn't think that he knows enough to teach people, nor do any of the more reputable Creationist organisations.
Upvote
0
ok well there are other argumentments on the institute for creation research website. type in worldwide flood and they will have an abundance of articles that counter what you just presented
Upvote
0
Similar threads
