The number one bugger for creationists: C

[Dale]

w81minit in post #452:
<< The bible is a text that claims it. I would call that evidence. >>
<< Well, I see your point. If one does not accept that God has chosen to reveal himself through Jesus Christ and the Holy Bible, and that his word is accurate and faithfully recorded truth, then what you are left with is believing that there is nothing to believe in, because they are all men's ideas - all of them. There is no absolute authority - no cornerstone on which to build your life and the guiding principles of generations and kingdoms and countries. >>
*
I don't think you do see my point. What you are saying only makes sense if there is ONE and only ONE interpretation of the Bible, an interpretation which is instantly obvious to everyone. Considering the thousands of controversies, past and present, about what the Bible means, this is nonsense.
*
Most Christians solve the problem of how to interpret the Bible by believing that their pastor understands the Bible. When they say, "I believe the Bible," they really mean "I believe what my pastor says about the Bible." I don't find this to be a reliable guide.
*
I don't see how you can claim that a religious doctrine is better than a theory. A religious doctrine is a human understanding about what God wants from us.

 

[Dale]

physics_guy in post 538:
<<

Quote:

I have no idea why you keep saying there is no law of conservation of matter, or mass. Although incomplete, it is a useful concept.

Only if you are considering non-nuclear processes. As soon as you add in nuclear processes into the mix (which dominate the Universe, BTW), the Conservation of Matter becomes useless. This has been explained to death however. >>
*
*
Life is a chemical process. If chemical processes are insignificant and not worth discussing, them I guess life is also not worth talking about.

 

[Amalthea]

Life is a chemical process. If chemical processes are insignificant and not worth discussing, them I guess life is also not worth talking about.

The point is that when discussing cosmological scale processes chemistry is for the most part of negligible importance.

 

[aeroz19]

Creationists do this dance all too often. They'll insult non-creationists, libel scientists, cut'n'paste arguments that have been invalid for longer than I've been alive, and ignore any information that would correct their misunderstandings.

That is exactly what they do, and it makes me angry. And then they think they are being discriminated against when they aren't allowed to publish a paper the wrong way.

It is sort of unfair though, because if they try it the right way they will run into roadblocks. However, the roadblocks are slightly due to discrimination on the basis of believing in YECism, but mostly due to the fact that they are trying to mix supernatural with natural (God and science) in scientific journal. It is simply madness to try to put supernatural into a scientific theory. It should not be done, and it is an embarassment.

Then they'll complain of "venom" and try to paint forums in which discussion is possible as snake pits.

Notice that many Calvanists were there too. A lot of them ignored notto's points, whining about how they are discriminated against for believing in God (when it was actually for believing in YECism). Such victims for good causes! The martyrs of YECism! The shining light to the world (waaaa, the evolutionists hurt me!) See that John 7:7 quote someone put in there.

lol, someone even lied by saying that the people in C&E don't even know much about science. However, we've got over 10 scientists here, and many more who know a lot from independent study.

Oh my goodness; someone in there said that Hovind is intelligent.

Quote of the year: "In reality, the Creationists win because they use science whereas the evolutionists want you to accept everything by "faith.""

Wow, that forum is a stronghold for ignorance.

 

[3Amig(o)s]

But now we leave the jurisdiction of science. It has nothing to say about the supernatural.

er... that is one of the #1 mistakes that oec and athiests use. Why does everyone think that God has to use some natural means or something 'scientifically provable' ? Why do we put him in a box and say "Well... you can't scientifically prove that so that means your theory is invalid".... HUH???? He's freaking GOD man! He can do ANYTHING! Then they have to reinterpret the Genesis account to try and make it fit 'how they think God would do what he does'... Let God be God people. I still take the litteral 6-day view. He can do anything... btw...I heard a while back that light has been slowing down a tiny bit at a time. So...I guess what that is saying is that the light back in the time of the garden of eden was going alot faster... (I don't know if it's right but...whatev.) I also heard that the rotation of the earth is slowing down also.... That's why we have leap seconds (google it) (I don't know if that's right either tho... ...)

 

[3Amig(o)s]

oh... hmm. didn't see that...

Well, I've been seeing alot of Hovind bash around these forums...

Um...Just out of curiosity....what is everyone's take on Dr. Kent Hovind??? (here it comes.... "The Hovind Bash")


I'll be waiting....

oh, btw. I want to here what is in his THEORY's that you guys dissagree with. NOT: (for example) 'duh...he's stupid' etc...

thanks.

 

[Physics_guy]

Um...Just out of curiosity....what is everyone's take on Dr. Kent Hovind??? (here it comes.... "The Hovind Bash")

Well, for one, calling him a "Dr." is an insult to all the people that actually earned such a title.

 

[Amalthea]

I also heard that the rotation of the earth is slowing down also.... That's why we have leap seconds (google it) (I don't know if that's right either tho... ...)

Yes we have leap seconds but it's indirectly related to the Earth slowing down. By the way making a mistake on this one is a classic Hovindism.

 

[3Amig(o)s]

It is sort of unfair though, because if they try it the right way they will run into roadblocks. However, the roadblocks are slightly due to discrimination on the basis of believing in YECism, but mostly due to the fact that they are trying to mix supernatural with natural (God and science) in scientific journal. It is simply madness to try to put supernatural into a scientific theory. It should not be done, and it is an embarassment.


Oh my goodness; someone in there said that Hovind is intelligent.

Quote of the year: "In reality, the Creationists win because they use science whereas the evolutionists want you to accept everything by "faith.""

Wow, that forum is a stronghold for ignorance.

Who is the master-mind behind EVERYTHING that comes to mind when we hear the word 'science'? Who created the world 'supernaturally' ? Who performed the 1st successful surgery? Who is the great physician? Who commandeth the storms and the wind and the tornados? who sends the lightnings? WHO SUPERNATURALLY created EVERYTHING we study in science? WHO?

oh wait...lol. are you an athiest evolutionist? or oec? cause if you are an athiest then never mind....lol. bUT, if you are an oec... how the heck CAN you separate the supernatural from the natural? you can't separate them because God made everything in science 'SUPERNATURALLY"....lol....sigh.

 

[3Amig(o)s]

Well, for one, calling him a "Dr." is an insult to all the people that actually earned such a title.

THIS is EXACTLY WHAT I WAS TALKING ABOUT! jeez...when will they learn.

ok im sry. I had to get that out. WHAT I WANTED WAS FOR YOU TO TELL ME WHAT THEORY's of Dr... sry, I mean MR. Hovind that you dissagree with. THAT's ALL. not: 'I think he's stupid'...ok ...WHY?!?!?!?!

 

[Arikay]

1) The cross next to peoples names means they are christian.

2) You could always read the forum a bit, here is a recent thread about Hovind,
http://www.christianforums.com/t796091

It is among many threads here refuting his theories and evidence. Even AiG (another YEC group) has refuted his work.

oh... hmm. didn't see that...

Well, I've been seeing alot of Hovind bash around these forums...

Um...Just out of curiosity....what is everyone's take on Dr. Kent Hovind??? (here it comes.... "The Hovind Bash")


I'll be waiting....

oh, btw. I want to here what is in his THEORY's that you guys dissagree with. NOT: (for example) 'duh...he's stupid' etc...

thanks.

 

[ForeRunner]

Does it bother anyone else that there is a forum specifically devoted to lying. It seems so remarkably Unchristian to me, and I am an Atheist.

 

[Mistermystery]

Does it bother anyone else that there is a forum specifically devoted to lying. It seems so remarkably Unchristian to me, and I am an Atheist.

I feel exactly the same.

 

[aeroz19]

Who is the master-mind behind EVERYTHING that comes to mind when we hear the word 'science'? Who created the world 'supernaturally' ? Who performed the 1st successful surgery? Who is the great physician? Who commandeth the storms and the wind and the tornados? who sends the lightnings? WHO SUPERNATURALLY created EVERYTHING we study in science? WHO?

oh wait...lol. are you an athiest evolutionist? or oec? cause if you are an athiest then never mind....lol. bUT, if you are an oec... how the heck CAN you separate the supernatural from the natural? you can't separate them because God made everything in science 'SUPERNATURALLY"....lol....sigh.

Please ask Vance. At this point I am leaning toward OEC...

 

[nyjbarnes]

You are so right, God made the earth appear spherical and God made it appear to orbit the sun to shame the wise. But we all know that people of true faith believe the truth, that the earth is flat and the sun orbits it.

I love it when people post verses like this and make the assumption that it doesn't apply to them. Which is even more ironic, because its as if they are above us, they are wise and strong... Now see the verse.

It's not Ironic Arikay. Here's the deal. People used science (lack of understanding) to observe those theories. In fact, if you look out in the flats of kansas or colorado...the earth...she looka flat!

Not to mention the sun...it certainly looks like it orbit's us. Used with the Bible, given that we (humans) seem to have an importance above all life it's not hard to understand how these theories came about.

What I still can't get through is why God is being called a deciever. I think I'll start a new thread.

 

[nyjbarnes]

Well, for one, calling him a "Dr." is an insult to all the people that actually earned such a title.

What do they call People that graduated med school with a c average?




DOCTORS! Don't be a geek.

 

[Polycarp1]

What I still can't get through is why God is being called a deciever. I think I'll start a new thread.

Good idea, and I second it. I mean, *I* understand why I think that would be the case, but I can completely grasp why it's leaving others confused. Sounds like something that deserves discussion at length, with mutual respect.

Go for it -- I'll be posting in it if you do!

 

[nyjbarnes]

Yes we have leap seconds but it's indirectly related to the Earth slowing down. By the way making a mistake on this one is a classic Hovindism.

Can you explain indirectly since we measure time based on how long it takes the earth to rotate?

24hours...

 

[caravelair]

What do they call People that graduated med school with a c average?




DOCTORS! Don't be a geek.

yeah, but hovind didn't even do that!

 

[Mechanical Bliss]

oh... hmm. didn't see that...

Well, I've been seeing alot of Hovind bash around these forums...

More like he's been exposed as a liar and incompetent. This should be no surprise to anyone.

Um...Just out of curiosity....what is everyone's take on Dr. Kent Hovind??? (here it comes.... "The Hovind Bash")

1. His doctorate was bought rather than earned and is essentially illegitimate and is irrelevant because it's not a science degree. He represents himself dishonestly to try to gain credibility is the point here.

2. He polarizes the issue into science = atheism vs. creationism = Christianity.

3. He misrepresents evolution using his imaginary "General Theory of Evolution."

4. He claims that "evolutionists" "worship time" as a god and therefore that is the only reason they claim the earth is billions of years old.

5. He uses false arguments to the point that he is KNOWINGLY using false arguments or simply completely incompetent:

(A) He claims that at the present rate of erosion of the continents their topography would be relatively flat in several million years, therefore the earth is young. This argument more than evidently neglects orogenies (mountain building events) whereby plate collisions produce higher topography and isostatic rebound. It's ignorance of basic geologic concepts.

(B) He claims that all meteorite craters on earth formed at the same time merely because he "believes" that a gigantic comet broke apart in the solar system. This argument neglects the fact that some craters are buried and/or more weathered than other craters. One simply has to compare Chixculub to Meteor Crater even in the most superficial manner to see that he is wrong. It's ignorance of basic geologic observations.

(C) He claims that there is no evidence for magnetic reversals. It's ignorance of basic geologic observations.

(D) He claims that geologists are in a conspiracy to get the public to believe in plate tectonics by shrinking continents like Africa on paleogeographic maps to get them to fit together as pangea. That's imply an outright lie because either he actually made the comparison and saw that it was false but still claims it anyway, or he never made the comparison at all and still but thinks he knows enough to make such a slanderous assertion anyway.

(E) He claims that the vast majority of water on earth existed below the ocean basins before the mythical global flood simply because it's what he believes. He has no evidence to support this assertion and there is ample evidence that it is false. It's ignorance of basic geologic concepts.

This list could go on forever and I'm not going to continue at this point. There simply aren't nearly enough letters in the alphabet to cover all the examples of his falsehoods.

He clearly has no idea what he's talking about, but people like him because of his personality and holier-than-thou attitude toward the educated. He makes the ignorant feel important and more powerful than the educated and people like that. He also appeals to people's religious beliefs to sway their emotions.

In summary, his arguments are extremely selective. He puts forth what he wants people to hear to support YECism and apparently deliberately leaves out important observations that he pretends like scientists have not made. Either that or he is incredibly incompetent.