If evolution is not valid science, somebody should tell the scientists.

[Scholar in training]

Why exactly are YECists in this thread getting annoyed with a "slamming" of Hovind's credentials but have no problem calling people unbelievers who don't agree with their interpretation of Genesis? I think my irony meter just exploded.

 

[KerrMetric]

I think my irony meter just exploded.

Good job it wan't a dad-o-meter model. We'd all be done for.

 

[Gwenyfur]

Why exactly are YECists in this thread getting annoyed with a "slamming" of Hovind's credentials but have no problem calling people unbelievers who don't agree with their interpretation of Genesis? I think my irony meter just exploded.

I never called anyone an unbeliever over their interpretation of Genesis...just told 'em they're wrong

 

[Scholar in training]

From page 27:

I'll put my faith in the Living G-d of Israel, and when the time comes I won't be left stammering excuses about believing His word to be "allegorical" or "mythical", I will be able to say Yes, L-rd, Thy words are true!

 

[Gwenyfur]

From page 27:I'll put my faith in the Living G-d of Israel, and when the time comes I won't be left stammering excuses about believing His word to be "allegorical" or "mythical", I will be able to say Yes, L-rd, Thy words are true!

And how did you get that I was calling TE's or anyone for that matter an unbeliever from that???

TE's often say "it's allegorical" or "it's mythical" meaning the story in Genesis...no where in that quote do I say "you're an unbeliever" But again I say: they're wrong

Try again!

 

[KerrMetric]

And how did you get that I was calling TE's or anyone for that matter an unbeliever from that???

TE's often say "it's allegorical" or "it's mythical" meaning the story in Genesis...no where in that quote do I say "you're an unbeliever" But again I say: they're wrong

Try again!

I think he meant your use of "stammering excuses".

 

[Dannager]

Wow...it's a fact....

So...then why are chimpanzees and apes still having chimpanzees adn apes...why don't they make another human so we can "observe" and "test" it this time???
Hrmmm????

Because this would disprove modern evolutionary theory were it to happen. You still don't understand evolutionary theory. Why are you arguing against something you do not yet grasp?

 

[Gwenyfur]

I think he meant your use of "stammering excuses".

Well...that's not an excuse that's a fact

 

[Gwenyfur]

Because this would disprove modern evolutionary theory were it to happen. You still don't understand evolutionary theory. Why are you arguing against something you do not yet grasp?

I was actually being facetious...

after all...if a theory cannot be proven...how in the world can we claim it to be "fact"

I warned you about my warped sense of humor

 

[Dannager]

after all...if a theory cannot be proven...how in the world can we claim it to be "fact"

I hope that was facetious, too.

 

[Gwenyfur]

I hope that was facetious, too.

Nope...it wasn't

I've read it so many times here it's rediculous...

"a theory is a theory simply because it will never be proven!!!!"

well...if it's a theory that cannot be proven because it's a theory...then it most certainly is not a fact...

facts are proven!

 

[Dannager]

Nope...it wasn't

I've read it so many times here it's rediculous...

"a theory is a theory simply because it will never be proven!!!!"

well...if it's a theory that cannot be proven because it's a theory...then it most certainly is not a fact...

facts are proven!

You're right, but you're still missing the distinction. When people use the word "evolution" they're really not being specific enough because a lot of the time they mean "evolutionary theory". Evolutionary theory is not the same as evolution itself. Evolution is an observed fact. We know that things evolve. We've witnessed speciation in our lifetimes. We know that, even if we hadn't witnessed speciation in our lifetimes, there is no barrier preventing it from occuring as a natural progression of mutation and natural selection. Evolutionary theory is a well-established theory that seeks to explain why we observe the facts that we do. No one is claiming that evolutionary theory is fact. They are claiming that evolution itself is fact, which is true. This is the same relationship gravity has. Gravity is a fact - we observe things falling. Gravitational theory is a well-established theory for why we observe things to fall. All theories work this way.

 

[Willtor]

Nope...it wasn't

I've read it so many times here it's rediculous...

"a theory is a theory simply because it will never be proven!!!!"

well...if it's a theory that cannot be proven because it's a theory...then it most certainly is not a fact...

facts are proven!

Certain facts may never be proven. . . at least, not until we're with the Lord. We may suspect that they are facts, and build theories around them, but that doesn't mean they are proven.

 

[shernren]

I really don't know how to compose a coherent reply to this. A few comments:

1. Henceforth the statement "AiG slams Hovind" or anything similar is a lie. AiG does not dislike Hovind. In fact, it seems that AiG may have been formed with a specific initial purpose of not disliking Hovind (on the surface).

Creation Ministries International has an article slamming Hovind. AiG had one, but retracted it. ICR probably don't think him worth an official statement, because I've never seen one about him from them. Carl Baugh's one, can't remember what'sisname, has enough obviously fallacious arguments of its own to worry about. And Wikipedia obviously has something against the guy (an entirely valid something, IMHO).

That's the current status of Kent Hovind within the creationist community (and Wikipedia), AFAIK. Anybody have anything to add.

2. Good grief, looking at the prolific output, you guys should discuss world hunger or African poverty or something. My guess is a good controversy and a few days would generate enough material to win the Nobel Peace Prize or something.

3. Where do I get my dad-o-meter?

4. From now on, when somebody comes in saying "evolution is just a theory ergo it hasn't been proved ergo we shouldn't teach it in schools", or some other similarly fallacious conclusion, we shouldn't bother with explanatory statements like "evolution is not just a theory it is a fact" or "evolution is both history and theory" or "evolution is theory like gravity is theory". We should bring ourselves down to the level of the poster and say:

"Evolution happens."

The more profound a statement is the more heartwrenchingly painful it is to see it twisted.

5. Sometimes people laugh at Christians for being Christian. Sometimes they laugh at Christians for being silly. My guess is with Hovind it's the latter, judging by how even fellow young earth creationists participate (admittedly genteel and polite) in the laughing.

 

[Dannager]

4. From now on, when somebody comes in saying "evolution is just a theory ergo it hasn't been proved ergo we shouldn't teach it in schools", or some other similarly fallacious conclusion, we shouldn't bother with explanatory statements like "evolution is not just a theory it is a fact" or "evolution is both history and theory" or "evolution is theory like gravity is theory". We should bring ourselves down to the level of the poster and say:

"Evolution happens."

The more profound a statement is the more heartwrenchingly painful it is to see it twisted.

Honestly, we get an opportunity for this once or twice a day. I don't know how far we'd get with that simple statement, though. It's almost as if we need something to back it up with, something that would explain why we are making that statement. Almost like the relationship between fact and theory itself.

 

[shernren]

Honestly, we get an opportunity for this once or twice a day. I don't know how far we'd get with that simple statement, though. It's almost as if we need something to back it up with, something that would explain why we are making that statement. Almost like the relationship between fact and theory itself.

We need one set wiki for it, and I've got my hands full with the Mark 10:6 one.

 

[Romanseight2005]

I really don't know how to compose a coherent reply to this. A few comments:

1. Henceforth the statement "AiG slams Hovind" or anything similar is a lie. AiG does not dislike Hovind. In fact, it seems that AiG may have been formed with a specific initial purpose of not disliking Hovind (on the surface).

Creation Ministries International has an article slamming Hovind. AiG had one, but retracted it. ICR probably don't think him worth an official statement, because I've never seen one about him from them. Carl Baugh's one, can't remember what'sisname, has enough obviously fallacious arguments of its own to worry about. And Wikipedia obviously has something against the guy (an entirely valid something, IMHO).

That's the current status of Kent Hovind within the creationist community (and Wikipedia), AFAIK. Anybody have anything to add.

2. Good grief, looking at the prolific output, you guys should discuss world hunger or African poverty or something. My guess is a good controversy and a few days would generate enough material to win the Nobel Peace Prize or something.

3. Where do I get my dad-o-meter?

4. From now on, when somebody comes in saying "evolution is just a theory ergo it hasn't been proved ergo we shouldn't teach it in schools", or some other similarly fallacious conclusion, we shouldn't bother with explanatory statements like "evolution is not just a theory it is a fact" or "evolution is both history and theory" or "evolution is theory like gravity is theory". We should bring ourselves down to the level of the poster and say:

"Evolution happens."

The more profound a statement is the more heartwrenchingly painful it is to see it twisted.


5. Sometimes people laugh at Christians for being Christian. Sometimes they laugh at Christians for being silly. My guess is with Hovind it's the latter, judging by how even fellow young earth creationists participate (admittedly genteel and polite) in the laughing.

The only elovution that "happens" is within one species. Not only can you not prove that one species evolves into something completely different, but you have to have faith to believe it. Hm, I guess that puts you on the same humble level as those of us who trust God about how we came to be.

This post seems to show more concern for what nonchristians think then what God thinks. King Saul got into big trouble over that.

 

[Scholar in training]

The only elovution that "happens" is within one species. Not only can you not prove that one species evolves into something completely different, but you have to have faith to believe it. Hm, I guess that puts you on the same humble level as those of us who trust God about how we came to be.

Repeat after me:

Evolution is a process that occurs within a group population. The theory of evolution does not say that apes gave birth and suddenly humans popped out. This is very basic. Understanding this is important for understanding the theory of evolution - if you don't agree with it, the least you can do is research it properly so that you can argue against it.

 

[Ave Maria]

Did the thought ever cross your mind that maybe, just maybe the secular scientists are wrong?

 

[Donkeytron]

Did the thought ever cross your mind that maybe, just maybe the secular scientists are wrong?

werent you a TE like last week?