Lines of Evidence

[lewiscalledhimmaster]

I have read and listened to Hovind. Obviously, the bones aren't fabrications.

Well he doesn't think so, what makes you so sure that you're right and he's wrong?

There are many, many examples of Australopithecines alone. Relying on a world wide conspiracy to make the evidence go away is one of the weakest arguments creationists have.

Well, that's what they think about Evolution too.

The second argument, that there are no transitional fossils, can be laid bare by a simple question that I have yet to see a creationist positively answer. What features would a fossil need in order for you, the creationist, to accept it as being transitional between modern humans and a common ancestor shared with chimps? The truth of the matter is that they don't care what the evidence is or what the fossils look like. Their only play is to try and enforce a dogmatic denial of the evidence.

That's exactly what they say too.

My own struggle took years to build up enough courage to (a) begin studying Evolution, and (b) to tell other believers that I was more comfortable with the idea of Evolution now. You have no idea, how frightened some are of it. Christian love is a very strong emotion, and faithfulness and commitment to each other runs very, very deep. So if a brother or sister, might be about to harm themselves (or so they think) they will pray night and day for you. I grant you there is a fanatical side to this, which I do not agree with -- but I've been pleasantly surprised by certain pastors whom I was able to tell, who listened quietly and compassionately and then said to me that they don't agree with me, but that does not change their love for me. I have always found that a deeply satisfying response, and one that I wish others would learn.
We are not in possession of all knowledge, and certainly not in possession of all wisdom -- but one thing us humans can do well, when want to -- is to love.

 

[lewiscalledhimmaster]

go get that boring lecture at one of their priests of babel AKA the higher education of lowered learning.. do it already .

Who are you referring to?

or go promptly to an evolution site!
do not promote or prostyle that stuff on this site!
everyone has heard their nonsense in school already!
and it does make sense unless you are high on something.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ow0lr63y4Mw
"STOP IT!"

 

[Loudmouth]

Well he doesn't think so, what makes you so sure that you're right and he's wrong?

It would require a world wide conspiracy among scientists over a span of 100 years, including hundreds of thousands of christian scientists. It is a ludicrous claim. You might as well claim that the Great Pyramids don't exist.

Well, that's what they think about Evolution too.

It is the lie they tell. They have no intention of ever testing these fossils to see if they are real. They have no intention of accepting any evidence.

That's exactly what they say too.

What evidence is being denied?

Do evolutionists have to run away from the fossil evidence?

Do evolutionists have to run away from the genetic evidence?

What evidence are they saying that evolutionists are ignoring?

Where are the creationist definitions for what a transitional fossil should look like?

My own struggle took years to build up enough courage to (a) begin studying Evolution, and (b) to tell other believers that I was more comfortable with the idea of Evolution now. You have no idea, how frightened some are of it. Christian love is a very strong emotion, and faithfulness and commitment to each other runs very, very deep. So if a brother or sister, might be about to harm themselves (or so they think) they will pray night and day for you. I grant you there is a fanatical side to this, which I do not agree with -- but I've been pleasantly surprised by certain pastors who was able to tell, who listened quietly and compassionately and then said to me that though they don't agree, that does not change their love. I have always found that a deeply satisfying response, and one that I wish others would learn.
We are not in possession of all knowledge, and certainly not in possession of all wisdom -- but one thing us humans can do well, when want to -- is to love.

The problem is that creationism wants us to ignore the knowledge and wisdom we do have.

 

[RickG]

Well he doesn't think so, what makes you so sure that you're right and he's [Hovind] wrong?

The man is a habitual liar with anything he says about science for one thing. Its been a couple of years, but I one did a critique of an 8 minute video of him describing why radiocarbon dating was false. In those 8 minutes I found some 60 odd false claims. He literally makes stuff up.

 

[Loudmouth]

The man is a habitual liar with anything he says about science for one thing. Its been a couple of years, but I one did a critique of an 8 minute video of him describing why radiocarbon dating was false. In those 8 minutes I found some 60 odd false claims. He literally makes stuff up.

Hovind's most recent position is that fossils can't be used for anything, and they can't tell us anything about the past. He knows he can't win if he has to discuss fossils, so he declares them off limits . . . because he says so.

 

[lewiscalledhimmaster]

It would require a world wide conspiracy among scientists over a span of 100 years, including hundreds of thousands of christian scientists. It is a ludicrous claim. You might as well claim that the Great Pyramids don't exist.

That's the same style Kent uses. Are you sure you've studied Kent Hovind's lecture series? I had the videos lectures and the books.

It is the lie they tell. They have no intention of ever testing these fossils to see if they are real. They have no intention of accepting any evidence.

Yeah, that won't make any impression a convinced mind.

What evidence is being denied?

Do evolutionists have to run away from the fossil evidence?

Do evolutionists have to run away from the genetic evidence?

What evidence are they saying that evolutionists are ignoring?

Where are the creationist definitions for what a transitional fossil should look like?

Are you sure you've watched the Kent Hovind series, if you had you'd know how his arguments.

The problem is that creationism wants us to ignore the knowledge and wisdom we do have.

They don't see it that way. Unless you understand that, you'll probably never be able to reach them.

 

[Loudmouth]

That's the same style Kent uses. Are you sure you've studied Kent Hovind's lecture series? I had the videos lectures and the books.

What evidence have they put forward that any of the fossils are faked? Do you really think that scientists have faked thousands and thousands of fossils?

Yeah, that won't make any impression a convinced mind.

Evidence will never convince someone who is told to ignore the evidence.

Are you sure you've watched the Kent Hovind series, if you had you'd know how his arguments.

One of the more interesting debates I watched was between a younger professor and Kent Hovind. The professor had a H. erectus skull, and asked Kent Hovind flat out if it should be considered an ape, human, or transitional, and why. Kent Hovind couldn't answer it. That's when Kent hauled out the famous, "Fossils aren't evidence of anything . . . because I say so" stunt that he uses to ignore the evidence.

Kent Hovind couldn't deal with the fossil evidence. No creationist can. If you think I am wrong, the find a single instance of creationists discussing what features a real transitional fossil would have. Find any of them trying to explain the correlation between fossil species and the radiometric dates of the rocks above and below them. They won't do it, because they can't. The evidence isn't on their side.

They don't see it that way. Unless you understand that, you'll probably never be able to reach them.

It isn't my job to make people accept the evidence. It is only my job to present it.

 

[lewiscalledhimmaster]

Hovind's most recent position is that fossils can't be used for anything, and they can't tell us anything about the past. He knows he can't win if he has to discuss fossils, so he declares them off limits . . . because he says so.

If that is so, he has pretty much put his head a noose. Or as the old saying goes, 'Cooked his goose'

Well, I shall go on studying them, but not because of what he says. It was something Carl Sagan said.

 

[lewiscalledhimmaster]

What evidence have they put forward that any of the fossils are faked? Do you really think that scientists have faked thousands and thousands of fossils?

Sure, but I was referring to human evolution.

Evidence will never convince someone who is told to ignore the evidence.

That is not even close to what people are told. Have you ever been a regular member of any denomination? In the worldview of a Christian, there is an enemy who is (a) very dangerous and (b) very deceptive. Do you understand the word 'commitment' and how it relates to being a Christian?

One of the more interesting debates I watched was between a younger professor and Kent Hovind. The professor had a H. erectus skull, and asked Kent Hovind flat out if it should be considered an ape, human, or transitional, and why. Kent Hovind couldn't answer it. That's when Kent hauled out the famous, "Fossils aren't evidence of anything . . . because I say so" stunt that he uses to ignore the evidence.

I'd like to see that video. Post it up, if you have time. The one I enjoyed was the radio interview with Dr. Eugenie Scott.

Kent Hovind couldn't deal with the fossil evidence. No creationist can. If you think I am wrong, the find a single instance of creationists discussing what features a real transitional fossil would have. Find any of them trying to explain the correlation between fossil species and the radiometric dates of the rocks above and below them. They won't do it, because they can't. The evidence isn't on their side.

I see now, how you are tying that up. Yes, that is something that really makes sense. Of course, I'll probably get around to studying that closer as I get better at understanding Evolution. Quite a lot for a novice, such as I, to process.

It isn't my job to make people accept the evidence. It is only my job to present it.

Then you are at a distinct disadvantage, for you're only coming to the party half-cocked. Understanding how someone thinks, is very important.

 

[lewiscalledhimmaster]

The man is a habitual liar with anything he says about science for one thing. Its been a couple of years, but I one did a critique of an 8 minute video of him describing why radiocarbon dating was false. In those 8 minutes I found some 60 odd false claims. He literally makes stuff up.

Or does he? Isn't he just trying to fight off, what sees is a very evil thing? I mean you know how poisonous the Zeitgeist movie, Ancient Aliens and a lot of the ultra-liberal stuff by Bart Ehrman, Elaine Pagels and co. is? He probably sees himself as a sort of modern day prophet, trying to stay the forces of darkness from demolishing Christianity.
He is so mixed up, in so many ways -- but he's no different to so many people out there who really think that Aliens have invaded the White House. it's complicated, but I do think that he's obviously very set in his way and cannot see himself the way that say, you and I do.
I'd hate to try and help a guy like him, I think I'd lose my temper -- not good for my blood pressure! BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOM!!!!

 

[Loudmouth]

Sure, but I was referring to human evolution.

There are hundreds of samples between Australopithecines and H. erectus.

That is not even close to what people are told. Have you ever been a regular member of any denomination? In the worldview of a Christian, there is an enemy who is (a) very dangerous and (b) very deceptive. Do you understand the word 'commitment' and how it relates to being a Christian?

I was the member of a church for the first 22 years of my life, and I was the 4th generation to be raised in that church. Trust me, I know what goes on inside of a church and inside of congregations. I was well aware of the nutty creationists in that congregation, and the outright nonsense that they tried to push in Sunday School class. Some leaders in the congregation at least had the wisdom to pull those teachers out of those classes. They preferred the congregation to be "neutral" on the topic.

I'd like to see that video. Post it up, if you have time. The one I enjoyed was the radio interview with Dr. Eugenie Scott.

I haven't seen that video in years. If I happen upon it, I will definitely post it or send you a link in a PM. If you are interested in Kent Hovind's rather unenlightened view of fossils, read here:

Fossils don’t talk! | Creation Today

I see now, how you are tying that up. Yes, that is something that really makes sense. Of course, I'll probably get around to studying that closer as I get better at understanding Evolution. Quite a lot of a novice, such as I, to process.

You will sometimes hear creationists trying to claim that geologists use fossils to date the rocks. This isn't true, except in very limited cases. Radiometric dating is used to measure the age of rocks. That uses the ratio of isotopes in the rocks, and is completely independent of the fossils found in and around those rocks. So how is it that you can't find a human below rocks that date to 100 million years old? No creationist can explain that. They don't even try. They can not explain the evidence. Evolution does explain the evidence.

Then you are at a distinct disadvantage, for you're only coming to the party half-cocked. Understanding how someone thinks, is very important.

I have the facts on my side. I have the ultimate advantage. If the only way to argue against my position is to ignore the evidence, then I have won.

 

[Loudmouth]

Or does he? Isn't he just trying to fight off, what sees is a very evil thing?

I have no doubt that he views science as something evil. The problem is that he uses lies to combat what he sees as evil.

 

[lewiscalledhimmaster]

There are hundreds of samples between Australopithecines and H. erectus.

Yes, I've begun exploring that here and also at three websites -- other than the Berkeley website. ( Understanding Evolution; Charles Darwin & Evolution; Becoming Human and Human Evolution Research )

I was the member of a church for the first 22 years of my life, and I was the 4th generation to be raised in that church. Trust me, I know what goes on inside of a church and inside of congregations. I was well aware of the nutty creationists in that congregation, and the outright nonsense that they tried to push in Sunday School class. Some leaders in the congregation at least had the wisdom to pull those teachers out of those classes. They preferred the congregation to be "neutral" on the topic.

Yes, that's the same stance our little group took -- top-down organizations tend to adopt that strategy to avoid flare-ups.
When I moved away (early 2008), I thought I'd just slot in with same group (they work like a franchise) only to find myself sitting through one of most disappointing Sunday sermons. The pastor who was anti-Darwin and Evolution, went on and on and on -- not offering the tiniest fragment of actual substance. Synthesizing archaeological, anthropological, biological, Phyics and historical ideas with one's spirituality is a challenge -- I've listened to some great lectures by Dr. David Lahti (he's studying bird and human evolution) via Faraday, and enjoy the way they mix it up.

I haven't seen that video in years. If I happen upon it, I will definitely post it or send you a link in a PM. If you are interested in Kent Hovind's rather unenlightened view of fossils, read here:

Fossils don’t talk! | Creation Today

Thanks, I'll look forward to that. I think I'll pass on the link, as I had an overdose of Hovind's style of 'teaching', that is why I refer to myself as a recovering ex kjo-yec.

You will sometimes hear creationists trying to claim that geologists use fossils to date the rocks. This isn't true, except in very limited cases. Radiometric dating is used to measure the age of rocks. That uses the ratio of isotopes in the rocks, and is completely independent of the fossils found in and around those rocks. So how is it that you can't find a human below rocks that date to 100 million years old? No creationist can explain that. They don't even try. They can not explain the evidence. Evolution does explain the evidence.

Thank you for explaining that. I'm not sure now, but I think that what's Glenn Morton stumbled upon too. He's a Geologist (retired now), and I enjoyed reading his story -- though I do so much prefer Karl Giberson's writing in SAVING DARWIN. I identify very strongly with his faith-journey, but then that's only because I'm exploring Evolution, my real area of interest is Anthropology and though I'm less interested now days (I dabble with Philosophy) - but the Arts are my passion.

I have the facts on my side. I have the ultimate advantage. If the only way to argue against my position is to ignore the evidence, then I have won.

It always get complicated when one is talking to an unresponsive person, student or teacher. Getting past the blocks, be they mental or emotional -- is the true challenge, for me.

Thanks for the chat.

 

[Gracchus]

The problem is that creationism wants us to ignore the knowledge and wisdom we do have.

They don't see it that way. Unless you understand that, you'll probably never be able to reach them.

Many of us do understand it. And we do know that we will never be able to reach them. I have worked in mental wards. Paranoid delusions arise from fear, and from the need to feel important, denying the certain knowledge of mortality and insignificance. They cannot be shaken by rational arguments or evidence until brain chemistry is altered, and sometimes not even then.

Reality is: I am a speck among billions of human specks on a speck of dust circling a speck of dust that is one of hundreds of billions in our galaxy, which is a speck among hundreds of billions of galaxies. That is how significant I am.

Reality is: The tiniest speck of dust, is mostly emptiness, the most solid, densest matter is almost completely empty space.

Reality is: I am not a separate thing, I am a conscious pattern of the universe aware of myself. That is how significant I am.

Reality is: God exists as patterns in the human brain, in my brain. That is how significant I am.

Reality is: There is one reality, and I understand some of it, and so, something of myself. That is how significant I am.

Reality is: My life is as a single photon, emitted into a great dark, sometimes not visible, echoing in harmony and cacophony from the boundaries of space-time, but imperishable. That is how significant I am.

Crystal Cabinet

by Julian Huxley

The world of things entered your infant mind
To populate that crystal cabinet.
Within its walls the strangest partners met,
And things turned thoughts did propagate their kind.
For, once within, corporeal fact could find
A spirit. Fact and you in mutual debt
Built there your little microcosm - which yet
Had hugest tasks to its small self assigned.

Dead men can live there, and converse with stars:
Equator speaks with pole, and night with day;
Spirit dissolves the world's material bars -
A million isolations burn away.
The Universe can live and work and plan,
At last made God within the mind of man.

 

[JacksBratt]

Originally Posted by Loudmouth

The problem is that creationism wants us to ignore the knowledge and wisdom we do have.
​

They don't see it that way. Unless you understand that, you'll probably never be able to reach them.

This statement, in bold to highlight what I'm talking about, confuses me very much.

Firstly, what are they trying to reach me for? Are they worried for me? If so, what am I to be avoiding? Am I in danger?

I can understand a Christian being concerned for a "non believer" because they believe that the unsaved will spend eternity in separation from God. A spiritual death and punishment for their sins. This is their commision from Christ Himself. To tell people the good news so they can accept the gift of salvation.

However, an atheist has no reason or event to save Christians from. Why would they care? We die, that's it, we disagreed, who cares, it's over.

A theistic evolutionist, who believes the Gospel, is child of God and has no worries about God using evolution as a "creation" method, also has nothing to fear for us. We are all saved, RIGHT? We just disagree on an insignificant, mythical, non literal book in the Bible where God tells us, through a man's writings, how He created the universe and everythin on it. So we disagree. It's all good. We'll set by the river of living water in heaven and laugh about it some day.....RIGHT?

SO... why are you trying to "reach them" All this arguing and debating and trying to convince us that God doesn't exist and there was no six day creation...... WHY?

 

[Kylie]

According to your biased source.....

Are you aware that after mount st Helens blew her top that layers of mud formed near by with similar strata of evolutionists evidence. And in these newly formed strata there are trees, standing upright, roots down and it all happened in one event. Similar to a world wide catastorfic event that ended with the earth flooded. Also, at Mt. St. Helens, there was a canyon formed not unlike the grand canyon but in smaller proportions.

I could give you the webpage of evidence but it's a "biased" source.

If it is true, then you should be able to find an unbiased source.

 

[JacksBratt]

If it is true, then you should be able to find an unbiased source.

Where is your unbiased source?

All sources will be either from sites based by people trying to prove something other than creation or creation sites.

They will al be "biased"

 

[JacksBratt]

Many of us do understand it. And we do know that we will never be able to reach them. I have worked in mental wards. Paranoid delusions arise from fear, and from the need to feel important, denying the certain knowledge of mortality and insignificance. They cannot be shaken by rational arguments or evidence until brain chemistry is altered, and sometimes not even then.

Are you calling Christians, the ones of a Young Earth persuasion, mentally ill? Paranoid?Fearful?Needing to feel important? etc??

Firstly, I am not "paranoid" of anything. Most Christians are not even close to fearing death or what happens after. Same goes for fear.

As for feeling important? Christianity is all about being humble and searving. You know? The first will be last sort of thing?

What is the "knowledge of certain mortality and insignificance" all about? I don't understand this.

Neither evolutionis or Christain is easily shaken from their belief by "rational arguments or evidence". Altering brain chemistry? really?

The satement I placed in bold could be stated by an evolutionist or a Christian, both about the other.

 

[Kylie]

Where is your unbiased source?

All sources will be either from sites based by people trying to prove something other than creation or creation sites.

They will al be "biased"

The fact that you don't like that my source is able to explain why we have polystrate trees does not make it biased. If it is biased, please feel free to point out where that bias makes it wrong. If you cannot point out where it is wrong, then agree that my source is unbiased.

Bias comes from deciding on your conclusions BEFORE examining the evidence. If you examine the evidence and let that evidence lead you to conclusions, and then get lots of other people to do it and see if it leads them to the same conclusions, then you can be fairly sure there is no significant bias in your conclusion.

But like I said, show me where my source is wrong or agree that it's accurate.

 

[Kylie]

The satement I placed in bold could be stated by an evolutionist or a Christian, both about the other.

Are you suggesting that scientists cannot be swayed by a rational argument or evidence? Because it happens all the time.