Dr. Dino

[Dutchunter]

It does NOT show they hav are transitional! They could be something that's extinct or a whatever! Good grief, other animals that even evolutionists don't say are related to humans have features similar to ours!

I will call Evolution a lie as long as I live. Whether or not you think it's your being called a liar is up to you. Immature arrogance is saying YEC's are damaging our faith, when it's a FACT it's just the opposite.

 

[Vance]

Karl, while you will NOT get a serious adult debate, remember the damage Dutchunter does to the cause of YEC'ism with each post. That alone is worth it. Think of all the lurkers who come in here (usually outnumbering the members), reading through these threads. They see the arguments made by the YEC's like this one, both in tone and substance, compared to the tone and substance of the non-YEC presentations and there are only a couple of possibilities:

1. If they are not yet sure of which view of origins is correct, they will be quickly steered away from YEC'ism.

2. If they are already YEC's, they will be mightily embarassed by their representative and may even doubt they are on the right side.

 

[Dutchunter]

Gee Vance.....I was the one who came here and first started asking for evidence. That didn't happen.

Here's your mirror again..............

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

You don't get it, do you?

This is how science works.

Hypothesis -> Prediction (null hypothesis)

The null hypothesis is that result or observation that proves the hypothesis is false.

You look for the null hypothesis. If you find it, you reject or modify your hypothesis. This is called falsification.

When a particular hypothesis gains a strong corpus of observation and result that does not falsify it, it becomes a theory.

Now.

My hypothesis is that the intermediate skulls are just that - intermediates. I cannot prove that they are, but what I can do is devise potential falsifications and test them.

Potential falsification - skulls from wrong geographical region - nope, they're from Africa where the hypothesis expects

-skulls from wrong time period - nope, exactly the right age.

And so on. This is how we test the theory. It passes the tests. Coupled with the other evidence here http://christianforums.com/t40560 for example, you can see it's a whole load more than "lies and wishful thinking" - unless you're really suggesting scientists falsify that DNA analysis?

 

[Dutchunter]

Flexibility. Since you can't prove it, you just assume it. If it turns out THOSE are frauds as well.....just toss them out. So flexible.

Speaking of DNA....how about that Wollemi pine?

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

No. Since it has not been falsified despite the fact it easily could be, and since it is the best explanation we have for the observed facts and since it accurately predicts observations we later make we consider it the best current model. This is how science works.

Do you have a better model that predicts, for example, that an animal like Ambulocetus should be found in the strata in which it was?

And what about the Wollemi pine?

 

[Vance]

Karl, shouldn't we let Dutch actually address all the evidence we have given him rather than play his silly game of "you can't prove it"?

I have posted three threads which contains a LOT of evidence to support transitional forms and he has yet to respond to any of them with any substance. He asks for evidence, I give him evidence, he ignores the evidence.

He has no clue how science works and even his AIG gurus would wince at his posts and plead with him to stop embarassing the cause.

 

[Dutchunter]

Sounds pretty flexible to me, Karl.

Vance....are you that pathetic that you claim you're not going to respond to me but you do so in response to Karl? I did respond to your posts. You still have yet to respond regarding the Wollemi pine. Or you could just hand brush(or whatever term he uesed) it off like Karl does.

 

[Vance]

I don't remember anything about a pine tree, but I will look into that.

In fact, make a list of questions you would like us to answer and we will. As soon as you provide a substantive response to the evidence I have presented. I doubt seriously if you will be able to do it. You talk big and spout excuses, but in the end, you are an empty bag without any real arguments to make other than repeating "it's a fairy tale!".

Read the evidence and respond to it. That is why we are all here.

 

[Dutchunter]

I have provided substantive responses to a # of things. To once again make a demand "or I'm not gonna do it *pout*" is pathetic. I already have the answers. If I want evolution type answers I could go to an atheist type evolution forum. The responses would be the same with regards to the "evidence".

I don't think you are all here to read the evidence and respond to it. Some of you have an agenda of falsely saying "YEC's destroy our faith". AIG proves that wrong time and time again.

 

[Vance]

Please point me to your substantive scientific responses to the scientific points we have raised.

We are all Christians, and the point of this forum is for Christians to debate and discuss the evidence and arguments for Creation Science AND Theistic Evolution. That means that there are two different viewpoints (3 if you add in OEC) which Christians around the world consider. In fact, YEC'ism is still in the minority, so to act as if Theistic Evolutionists are just atheists dressing up as Christians is not only ignorant, it is in violation of the rules of this forum.

If you don't want to discuss these issues seriously, what are you doing here?

And, yes, I believe that YEC'ism is a great danger to Christian Faith. I have even shown you the proof of this point and provided the arguments regarding why this is so.

But for you, who knows NOTHING about evolution to say that we are not here to read all the evidence is patently absurd. We HAVE read both sides. In detail. You have not. How can you, with any honesty, either to yourself or us, argue that a theory is a lie and a "fairy tale" when you don't even know the first thing about it?

As I have said before: learning about evolution from a Creationist site is about as effective as learning about Christianity from an atheist site. Not only will you NOT learn about the intended subject, you will be given WRONG information and be misled.

 

[Dutchunter]

I have provided substantive responses to a # of things. To once again make a demand "or I'm not gonna do it *pout*" is pathetic. I already have the answers. If I want evolution type answers I could go to an atheist type evolution forum. The responses would be the same with regards to the "evidence".

I don't think you are all here to read the evidence and respond to it. Some of you have an agenda of falsely saying "YEC's destroy our faith". AIG proves that wrong time and time again.

To respond to your other point...I have too.

 

[Vance]

Wait a second, you just posted the same thing twice. I asked you to point me to where you have made substantive arguments on the scientific issues that have been raised. That should not be very hard since you have only been here a short time.

 

[Dutchunter]

No you didn't. You questioned that I had even done so.

I'll repeat:I have provided substantive responses to a # of things. To once again make a demand "or I'm not gonna do it *pout*" is pathetic. I already have the answers. If I want evolution type answers I could go to an atheist type evolution forum. The responses would be the same with regards to the "evidence".

 

[Vance]

"Please point me to your substantive scientific responses to the scientific points we have raised."

that is what I said, and that is what I want. Not a difficult or onerous task.

 

[troodon]

Oh gee...I'm not going to read and refute all those in the talkorigins links either. Darn..what will we do?

When did I say to go look at talkorigins? I said to start a thread in which we can discuss your alleged falsifications of evolution. They really have no place here because this thread is designed for discussion about Dr. Kent Hovind; not the validity of evolution.

I'm comparing the two because both are fairy tales.

Then why did you bring up your opinion that the tooth fairy cannot be falsified?

 

[creationist-Heritage]

This is what I am talking about, folks. Just in case anyone had any doubts that YEC's actually say this, here it is in black and white. It is exactly this statement which has, I am convinced, cost Christianity more souls than a teaching of evolution EVER has.

Okay. For one thing that is not my exact words. If you check on post 70 I didn't say you could not be saved. What I said was "I am not say your lost, just not a Christian. Christian means Christ-like and Christ certainly did not believe in evolution, He should know." While I am soulwinning I certainly do not tell them they need to believe in creation. I usually only talk to people who have been christians for a while and who would understand good about creation science. I believe every word of the KJV Bible from cover to cover. I don't think evolution sends as many people to Hell as other things like alchohol or drugs but it is important for a Christian to know the truth when he/she is able to understand. I am completely against evolution because it is not Biblical. And if Kent Hovind is a con-artist then take him up on his $25,000 offer for proof of evolution or get one of your professors to.

 

[Chi_Cygni]

The offer is $250,000.

And it is a fraudulent offer. Read his conditions. No one can demonstrate what he says because no one even claims that. It is a publicity stunt.

Why do you believe the KJV cover to cover? After all the KJV was just a group of guys gathered around the table in the early 17th century.

Also, how do you know Jesus was not an evolutionist?

Are you the Second Coming? So you know for sure.

I don't think you are a Christian. So don't start accusing others of not being.

 

[Chi_Cygni]

[noflame]

Jay
CF Moderator

 

[Vance]

We have already exlplained elsewhere why Hovind's offer is a fraud.

As for what you said: it is there in black and white. You do not believe a person can be a Christian and believe in evolution. I am not sure why you draw a distinction between being saved and being a Christian. I believe that if you are not saved, you are not a Christian, and if you are saved, you are seeking to be Christ-like. And you will have to back up your statement that Jesus did not believe in evolution. I do not recall him addressing the issue one way or the other. He definitely believed God (himself, of course) created the universe and all the life on it, but that is not contrary to evolution in the least. Jesus also believed in Genesis, but THAT is not contrary to evolution, only the YEC interpretation of Genesis.

You are right not to preach YEC'ism when witnessing, but you could still be doing damage to existing Christians if you convince them that evolution and Scripture are incompatible. If they come to believe this and then discover that evolution is likely true, what will that do to their faith?

Why should we be tying to the two together at all? Why not teach that there are many different viewpoints on this issue and that it is, after all, not a salvation issue. Some read the text literally and believe that God created everything 6,000 years ago over six 24-hour periods. Others believe the universe and the earth are billions of years old and that God created over that whole time using evolution. Others believe that the universe is that old, but believe that God created everything specially (without evolution) over progressive periods and that the days were really "ages", which is one definition of "yom" in Hebrew.

Wouldn't this be a safer and more honest thing to be telling people?