Pastor’s horse ride supports creationism in schools

Arthur Dietrich

Prince of the Earth
Jul 28, 2003
659
24
41
✟934.00
Faith
Agnostic
I know "we've" (lurkers count, right? ^^;) discussed this in the Science forum a few times. I'm surprised no one's brought this up:

WHICH Creation(ism) story?

Should we teach every religions' creation story? And if we should only teach one-which and why?


Of course, Creationism doesn't belong in Science Class. Philosophy/Engish, perhaps. That's where I learned about creation stories.
 
Upvote 0

troodon

Be wise and be smart
Dec 16, 2002
1,698
58
39
University of Iowa
Visit site
✟17,147.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Libertarian
burrow_owl said:
"Teaching Creation "science" isn't legal. "

stick with science; law doesn't look like your forte.
I dare say he's right. Edwards v Aguillard; teaching creationsim is in violation of the Establishment Clause.
 
Upvote 0

Gary B

Active Member
Sep 16, 2003
185
18
62
Maine
✟417.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Engaged
Dr. Kent Hovind has a standing offer of $250,000 to anyone who can give any empirical evidence (scientific proof) for evolution. So far no one has been able to claim it. It's been a standing offer since 1990.

The hypothesis of evolution is nothing more then a religious belief. Not based in science but based in what some intellectuals would call 'emotional assumptions'.

And you secular humanists call Creation Evidence hogwash. But deny the evidence because you want to stay in your comfortable world with yourself as the center of your ring, that tries to explain everything in world by your own emotionalism. And this has nothing to do with any particular God but you therefore have become gods unto yourselves! Therefore, man has become a religion unto themselves. Looking though eyes that are blinded and you do not wish to see the scientific evidence or you just scoff at it. Unbelivable!

If it's not so, then refute it with scientific ways and claim the $250,000. Be sure to post your results here also!

http://drdino.com/cse.asp?pg=250k
 
Upvote 0

Bushido216

Well-Known Member
Aug 30, 2003
6,383
210
38
New York
✟22,562.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Engaged
Politics
US-Democrat
Post this in the Science, Creation, and Evolution forum.

See how fast Hovind is disproved.

Hovind, unfortunately, is the judge of whether or not said evolutionist can make his case. He uses several simple rules. 1st, it's much easier to create an arguement than it is to refute it. 2nd, strawman arguements work well with the uneducated. 3rd, keep shouting things at your opponent, and they won't be able to respond fast enough.

Now, my question is, how did he manage to come across $250,000 in his first years of touring the country? His teacher's pay?
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Nathan Poe

Well-Known Member
Sep 21, 2002
32,198
1,693
49
United States
✟41,319.00
Faith
Agnostic
Politics
US-Democrat
Gary B said:
Dr. Kent Hovind has a standing offer of $250,000 to anyone who can give any empirical evidence (scientific proof) for evolution. So far no one has been able to claim it. It's been a standing offer since 1990.
First of all, you can drop the honorific title. Kent Hovind is no more a "Dr." than Julius Erving.

Second, Hovind's "definition" of Evolution is completely bogus, despite numerous attempts to correct him. Hovind is either stunningly ignorant, or exploits the ignorance of his audience. And he's not ignorant...

The hypothesis of evolution is nothing more then a religious belief. Not based in science but based in what some intellectuals would call 'emotional assumptions'.
Hovind's words, without any basis in reality.

And you secular humanists call Creation Evidence hogwash. But deny the evidence because you want to stay in your comfortable world with yourself as the center of your ring, that tries to explain everything in world by your own emotionalism. And this has nothing to do with any particular God but you therefore have become gods unto yourselves! Therefore, man has become a religion unto themselves. Looking though eyes that are blinded and you do not wish to see the scientific evidence or you just scoff at it. Unbelivable!
More of Hovind's Hogwash. The man's a joke, except when we come across a poor soul who actually believes his tripe.

Have you done a websearch on Kent Hovind? Do you suppose every single site which debunks him is part of some sinister conspiracy, or that perhaps he really is a quack?

If it's not so, then refute it with scientific ways and claim the $250,000. Be sure to post your results here also!
Read his challenge yourself.
No, really read his challenge.
Tell us if anything mentioned in it has anything to do with biological evolution.

And don't forget, any results sent in will be reviewed by a panel hand-picked by Hovind himself.

So, it's his prize, his ball, his court, his rules, and his referees.
Oh, that sounds perfectly fair to me...
 
Upvote 0

Gary B

Active Member
Sep 16, 2003
185
18
62
Maine
✟417.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Engaged
Ok, fair enough. My last post may have been a bit harsh but I can't understand why the evolutionist is so bent on his ideas. Is it because he doesn't want to admit that there could be a God, any God who created the universe and if He created the universe, then it could be also assumed that He created man.

But the evolutionist would rather believe that we came from a spontaneous generation with nothing acting upon it. I'm not talking about “microevolution'. I'm talking about How we all got here. Couldn't that spontaneous reaction be caused by an outside force? If so, then what caused that outside force. Notice, I didn't say God then, but if there is an outside force then it would seem that it would be really great to know what that outside force is.

But since Creationism is a Theory just like Evolution is a Theory, why not teach it, just because there could be a creator that created everything. Who's to say what that creator could be? It could be just a force acting upon the universe and everything in it. Man may call him God but who's to say what 'the force' acting upon the universe calls itself?

Please keep the 'Luke - Use the Force' jokes down. :|

As I said in another post. Maybe man hasn't invented an instrument to detect a Creator yet.

Just some food for thought. I digress from the topic. :idea:
 
Upvote 0

Mechanical Bliss

Secrecy and accountability cannot co-exist.
Nov 3, 2002
4,897
241
43
A^2
Visit site
✟21,365.00
Faith
Atheist
Politics
US-Democrat
Gary B said:
My last post may have been a bit harsh but I can't understand why the evolutionist is so bent on his ideas.
The reason is because the theory of evolution is the best explanation of all available data. Creationists deny this and then misrepresent the theory of evolution (like Hovind and his phony offer that has nothing to do with evolution) and pretend like their theory is equal to evolution when it was proven false over a century and a half ago. Creationism is an emotional attatchment, where as the only attatchment evolution has is to the facts.

Is it because he doesn't want to admit that there could be a God, any God who created the universe and if He created the universe, then it could be also assumed that He created man.
Of course it's not because evolution does not equal atheism. In fact, the majority of Christians accept the theory of evolution.

But the evolutionist would rather believe that we came from a spontaneous generation with nothing acting upon it.
Spontaneous generation is not abiogenesis and abiogenesis has nothing to do with the theory of evolution.

But since Creationism is a Theory just like Evolution is a Theory, why not teach it, just because there could be a creator that created everything.
Creationism is false, and the theory of evolution has been substantiated beyond reasonable doubt and no one has yet been able to provide any reason why it should be invalidated. Creationism has numerous lines of evidence that show it to be false. That's why it shouldn't be taught as valid science--that would be lying.
 
Upvote 0

Philosoft

Orthogonal, Tangential, Tenuously Related
Dec 26, 2002
5,427
188
50
Southeast of Disorder
Visit site
✟6,503.00
Faith
Atheist
Gary B said:
Ok, fair enough. My last post may have been a bit harsh but I can't understand why the evolutionist is so bent on his ideas. Is it because he doesn't want to admit that there could be a God, any God who created the universe and if He created the universe, then it could be also assumed that He created man.
Most people who accept evolution also believe in some God.
Couldn't that spontaneous reaction be caused by an outside force? If so, then what caused that outside force. Notice, I didn't say God then, but if there is an outside force then it would seem that it would be really great to know what that outside force is.
There's some weird stuff that goes on when all matter gets jammed into a really small, hot space. Suffice to say your assumptions of classical physics and causation are at least insufficient.
But since Creationism is a Theory just like Evolution is a Theory, why not teach it, just because there could be a creator that created everything. Who's to say what that creator could be? It could be just a force acting upon the universe and everything in it. Man may call him God but who's to say what 'the force' acting upon the universe calls itself?
You have unwittingly discovered the problem with teaching Creation - what do we teach? That, because we don't fully understand X, X might have been poofed into existence by someone or something at some time using some method? That's the extent of our knowledge of general creation without unpacking some specific religion's creation ideas.
 
Upvote 0

revolutio

Apatheist Extraordinaire
Aug 3, 2003
5,910
144
R'lyeh
Visit site
✟6,762.00
Faith
Atheist
Gary B said:
But since Creationism is a Theory just like Evolution is a Theory, why not teach it, just because there could be a creator that created everything. Who's to say what that creator could be? It could be just a force acting upon the universe and everything in it. Man may call him God but who's to say what 'the force' acting upon the universe calls itself?
Why not teach all the multitude of conspiracy theories that exist? Because they have little to no evidence backing them. Evolution has volumes, Creationism (atleast for humans) has little to none.

You should read into the Gaea Theory. Also there are people who believe complex systems are sentient. This means that the universe would be sentient. An interesting thought to say the least.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Mechanical Bliss

Secrecy and accountability cannot co-exist.
Nov 3, 2002
4,897
241
43
A^2
Visit site
✟21,365.00
Faith
Atheist
Politics
US-Democrat
Gary B said:
Dr. Kent Hovind has a standing offer of $250,000 to anyone who can give any empirical evidence (scientific proof) for evolution. So far no one has been able to claim it. It's been a standing offer since 1990.
The offer is fraudulent. What Hovind calls "evolution" is not in any way relevant to what the theory of evolution is to scientists back in the real world. Really what Hovind wants is for someone to give objective proof that no god exists. He's trying to appeal to the emotions of theists who have an extreme dislike for atheism and atheists and trying to connect that directly to the theory of evolution.

The hypothesis of evolution is nothing more then a religious belief.
No, it's not. It has nothing to do with the supernatural or any deity. It is the best explanation for all available evidence.

Not based in science but based in what some intellectuals would call 'emotional assumptions'.
Probably zero "intellectuals" would say that--reputable ones, that is. If it uses the scientific method, it's science. It has nothing to do with emotion--those are the creationists desperate to come up with a theory that actually explains evidence.

And you secular humanists call Creation Evidence hogwash.
The vast majority of scientists call creationism hogwash, because it is. And yes, the majority of Christians call creationism hogwash as well. Your fallacy here is equating the theory of evolution with atheism.

But deny the evidence because you want to stay in your comfortable world with yourself as the center of your ring, that tries to explain everything in world by your own emotionalism.
What evidence? So far, the science forum has yet to see any creationist defend their position without scrutiny that soundly disproves it.

And this has nothing to do with any particular God but you therefore have become gods unto yourselves! Therefore, man has become a religion unto themselves.
Evolution is not atheism.

Looking though eyes that are blinded and you do not wish to see the scientific evidence or you just scoff at it. Unbelivable!
All I can say is the old catchphrase, "put up or shut up." I keep hearing claims that creationism is well supported by "scientific evidence" but people are never willing to back up that claim.

If it's not so, then refute it with scientific ways and claim the $250,000. Be sure to post your results here also!

http://drdino.com/cse.asp?pg=250k
It's a fraudulent offer, and if you go over to the science forum, you can see for yourself that every single Hovind claim that comes up is easily refuted. Hovind relies on the ignorance and emotional sensitivities of his readers to convince them that young earth creationism MUST be true and evolution is a mass conspiracy on the part of atheists. The people convinced by Hovind do not have the educational background or willingness to research his claims to evaluate his site honestly. He also appeals to their emotions by convincing them that the layman can be significantly smarter than the most well qualified scientist giving a false feeling of superiority that is completely unwarranted. Of course tying evolution to atheism also appeals to the emotions of the theist searching to validate their beliefs.
 
Upvote 0

IvoryRain

Irregular Member
Oct 1, 2003
716
27
48
God Bless the USA
✟1,022.00
Faith
Non-Denom
the_malevolent_milk_man said:
Perhaps the most pointless stunt ever. If he wanted to help his cause he'd get off the horse, start digging in the ground, and prays he finds something that could actually be considered evidence against evolution.
I agree.
 
Upvote 0