Philosoft said:Please don't insult us.
Hey, at least he didn't refer you to a Chick tract.
Upvote
0
Philosoft said:Please don't insult us.
I dare say he's right. Edwards v Aguillard; teaching creationsim is in violation of the Establishment Clause.burrow_owl said:"Teaching Creation "science" isn't legal. "
stick with science; law doesn't look like your forte.
First of all, you can drop the honorific title. Kent Hovind is no more a "Dr." than Julius Erving.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.
Hovind's words, without any basis in reality.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'.
More of Hovind's Hogwash. The man's a joke, except when we come across a poor soul who actually believes his tripe.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!
Read his challenge yourself.If it's not so, then refute it with scientific ways and claim the $250,000. Be sure to post your results here also!
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.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.
Of course it's not because evolution does not equal atheism. In fact, the majority of Christians accept the theory of evolution.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.
Spontaneous generation is not abiogenesis and abiogenesis has nothing to do with the theory of evolution.But the evolutionist would rather believe that we came from a spontaneous generation with nothing acting upon it.
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.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.
Most people who accept evolution also believe in some God.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.
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.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.
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.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.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?
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.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.
No, it's not. It has nothing to do with the supernatural or any deity. It is the best explanation for all available evidence.The hypothesis of evolution is nothing more then a religious belief.
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.Not based in science but based in what some intellectuals would call 'emotional assumptions'.
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.And you secular humanists call Creation Evidence hogwash.
What evidence? So far, the science forum has yet to see any creationist defend their position without scrutiny that soundly disproves it.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.
Evolution is not atheism.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.
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.Looking though eyes that are blinded and you do not wish to see the scientific evidence or you just scoff at it. Unbelivable!
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.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
I agree.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.