Why do you believe in the evolution theory?

[AV1611VET]

And in case you did not know, Kent Hovind recently lost another court case on one charge and the jury was hung on three others. He was found guilty of criminal contempt of court, a result that will mean he will lose at the very least his "good time" on his current sentence and could add a few years on to that.

I wouldn't talk.

Scientists Jailed For Manslaughter

 

[lewiscalledhimmaster]

Hey Lewis, you think you can debate Mr. Hovind?

I have my fantasies but that is definitely not one of them. I once thought I'd like to debate Richard Dawkins, but I think I'll take Gould's advice* and rather discuss/debate evolution with people who actually understand the science. After watching how he managed chatting to Eugenia Scott, I reckon there's very little point in engaging a closed mind in discussion.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H7XUsgat1j0

* http://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/devils-chaplain-richard-dawkins/1100302476?ean=9780618485390

 

[Subduction Zone]

I wouldn't talk.

Scientists Jailed For Manslaughter

Wow! You had to go quite far afield to find a justice system that made such a big mess.

That is Italy's justice system. It is not well respected out of Italy. Kent on the other hand is a victim of his own idiocy. He would probably be transitioning right now if he had not continued to fight the IRS after he was found guilty. Too bad that he could not follow his own Bible. Or did you forget "Render unto Caesar ...."?

 

[AV1611VET]

Wow! You had to go quite far afield to find a justice system that made such a big mess.

That is Italy's justice system. It is not well respected out of Italy. Kent on the other hand is a victim of his own idiocy. He would probably be transitioning right now if he had not continued to fight the IRS after he was found guilty. Too bad that he could not follow his own Bible. Or did you forget "Render unto Caesar ...."?

Show me one person who died believing what Mr. Hovind taught.

I can show you 309 who died believing what scientists in L'Aquila said.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Show me one person who died believing what Mr. Hovind taught.

I can show you 309 who died believing what scientists in L'Aquila said.

I have not checked their work, but the odds are that the scientists were right. There probably was a very low chance of that magnitude of earthquake hitting that town. I am fairly sure that they did not say that it was impossible. There are many areas at risk and the best that can be done is that a probability can be given for certain events. Your comparison is empty and pointless. I am sure that I could point to many of the children of followers of Kent that have been harmed by Kent's idiocy. Killed, probably not, but definitely harmed.

 

[AV1611VET]

I have not checked their work, but the odds are that the scientists were right.

Then odds can take a hike.

 

[lewiscalledhimmaster]

I have not checked their work, but the odds are that the scientists were right. There probably was a very low chance of that magnitude of earthquake hitting that town. I am fairly sure that they did not say that it was impossible. There are many areas at risk and the best that can be done is that a probability can be given for certain events. Your comparison is empty and pointless. I am sure that I could point to many of the children of followers of Kent that have been harmed by Kent's idiocy. Killed, probably not, but definitely harmed.

A good point.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Then odds can take a hike.

And AV admits that he is wrong again. Thank you.

 

[lasthero]

The skulls found are not just "elongated". They were not the product of head boarding or binding as these practices do not increase the volume of the brain cavity. These skulls have a much larger brain cavity and when the skull is used to scale the body size for which they would have came from, the person would have been much larger

Really? I don't recall it saying that in the link you provided..

I know..... define "giant".... right?

That actually would be a good idea for you do.

IDK, maybe they ask an evolutionist or count the rings.....

About the non-answer I expected.

We can either date things reliably or we can't. Dating techniques don't stop working when you find them inconvenient.

I know, it's going to take more than skeleton evidence that parallels biblical documents and manuscripts

You have provided no such evidene. First off, none of your findings have faced any serious scientific scrutiny. If you think pointing to kook websites lends credence, I would remind you of the werewolf skulls we found that one time. Remember those? Did they convince you of werewolves.

Here's a vampire skull.

Better start stocking up on garlic.

Secondly, even if I accept the idea that giants once existed, the existence of giants doesn't support the Bible anymore than it does the thousands of other stories involving giants. You are making a huge leap in logic. If we found a dragon skull, it does not automatically mean that Beowulf was a real person and he slayed one.

and technologically advanced species to knock the monkey off the pedestal of evolution.

Once again, that has nothing to do with evolution.

Bring me some water when you want me to swallow that pill.

I have no problem taking placebos.

 

[lasthero]

666, that is hilarious.

By the way, I believe that the science books are going to have to be changed.

A lot of people agree with you.

The world has had enough of evolution … In the future, evolution will be remembered only as the crowning deception which the arch-enemy of human souls foisted upon the race in his attempt to lead man away from the Savior. The Science of the future will be creationism. As the ages roll by, the mysteries of creation week will be cleared up, and as we have learned to read the secrets of creative power in the lives of animals and plants about us, we shall understand much that our dim senses cannot now fathom. If we hope to continue scientific study in the laboratories and fields of the earth restored, we must begin to get the lessons of truth now. The time is ripe for a rebellion against the dominion of evolution, and for a return to the fundamentals of true science," Back To Creationism. - Harold W. Clark

Oh, wait, he said that in 1929. Let me see if I can find something more recent.

"The Bible is the one foundation on which all true science must finally rest: because it is the one book of ultimate origins. Science established on this foundation will endure. In fact, there can be no true science without this foundation. False science must fall. Already, its decline is evident." L. Allen Higley, Science and Truth,

Gah, 1940. I'll try again.

"Even scientists are leaving Darwinian evolution in droves, recognizing that strictly natural processes, operating at random on inorganic chemicals, could never have produced complex living cells. They have grown weary of arguing how random mutations in a highly complex genetic code provide improvements in it." ~ John D. Morris,

1994. Getting closer...

"Today, at the dawn of the new century, nothing is more certain than that Darwinism has lost its prestige among men of science. It has seen its day and will soon be reckoned a thing of the past. A few decades hence when people will look back upon the history of the doctrine of Descent, they will confess that the years between 1860 and 1880 were in many respects a time of carnival; and the enthusiasm which at that time took possession of the devotees of natural science will appear to them as the excitement attending some mad revel." Eberhard Dennert, At the Deathbed of Darwinism

Oops! 1904! My bad, my bad.

 

[JacksBratt]

Originally Posted by lasthero

Why do you keep referencing the Paracas skulls? Even if they weren't giant hoaxes (they are) the being they belonged to wouldn't be giants. Do you understand the different between 'elongated' and 'giant'?


Originally Posted by JacksBratt

The skulls found are not just "elongated". They were not the product of head boarding or binding as these practices do not increase the volume of the brain cavity. These skulls have a much larger brain cavity and when the skull is used to scale the body size for which they would have came from, the person would have been much larger

Originally Posted by lasthero

Really? I don't recall it saying that in the link you provided...

So sorry, was I not allowed to tell you what I know about these skulls? Did it have to be in the article? We cannot post information outside of the original source?

Originally Posted by JacksBratt

I know..... define "giant".... right?

Originally Posted by lasthero

That actually would be a good idea for you do.

I posted that as a joke. It is one of the deflections used by evolutionists. It's either "where is the evidence"? or "how do you define xxxxxxxx"? or "that was debunked" or "that guy is a quack".

It's such a pattern.


​

​

 

[JacksBratt]

Originally Posted by lasthero

How do you know it's 5,000 years old?



I apologize for the sarcastic answer. How about this....

Pottery excavated at the structure indicates the monument dates to between 3050 B.C. and 2650 B.C., meaning it is likely older than the pyramids of Egypt. It was also built before much of Stonehenge was constructed.

​

 

[lasthero]

So sorry, was I not allowed to tell you what I know about these skulls? Did it have to be in the article? We cannot post information outside of the original source?

If you're going to make outlandish claims, it would help.

I posted that as a joke. It is one of the deflections used by evolutionists. It's either "where is the evidence"? or "how do you define xxxxxxxx"?

Yes, because asking someone to clarify on what they mean is such a burden. Heaven forbid we actually have a debate where people use terms they agree. People should be free to use words with meanings that only they know, and if people ask them what they mean, well, tough. It's their fault for not being able to read minds.

 

[lasthero]

Originally Posted by lasthero

How do you know it's 5,000 years old?



I apologize for the sarcastic answer. How about this....

Pottery excavated at the structure indicates the monument dates to between 3050 B.C. and 2650 B.C., meaning it is likely older than the pyramids of Egypt. It was also built before much of Stonehenge was constructed.

​

Now, here's the problem for you. That pottery did not come with a label that would tell you how old it is. They had to date it. That means dating techniques, which I seriously doubt you accept. If you don't accept techniques, how do you figure using them to support you theories?

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Note the bold "worshiped and served the created things rather than the creator"

This is speaking directly to those who believe in Him but not that He created the universe the way it is described in the bible.
.

Sorry, you are speaking to someone who actually knows how to read, so I can tell your conclusion does not follow from what was written.

Here's a video on fake giant skeleton discoveries you might enjoy:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yrxhAg762OI&feature=player_embedded

 

[Davian]

Stories of giants are a huge part of the Biblical account of the history of this universe. They are also paralleled in other ancient texts such as The Book of Enoch, The Book of Jasher, The Jubilee, the writings of Josephus.

Giants are Biblical and not just Goliath. There is ample and remarkable archeological evidence, but the biggest reason I see it as more acceptable truth is that evolutionists want it to go away so badly. It's hitting too close to the heart of this farce.

When a religion like the TOE
Religion, bad!
that is so interwoven into our societies educational system, our scientific practitioners, and a cacophony of baffle-gab

can be heard world wide any time that this golden calf is threatened with a melt down, is so nervous of something else being proven true that they have to dismiss it, debunk it, crush it, chastise it at it's very moment of presentation lest it be real truth....

Indeed. All of mainstream science must be wrong, because it conflicts with your beliefs.

In that presented data, I will believe, has more weight than the TOE and all its assumptions, speculations, extrapolations and contrived hoaxes combined.

You will need to do a lot more than just believe it.

 

[Davian]

I have my fantasies but that is definitely not one of them. I once thought I'd like to debate Richard Dawkins, but I think I'll take Gould's advice* and rather discuss/debate evolution with people who actually understand the science.

You feel that you have a better grasp of evolutionary biology that Dawkins? You should publish something on it.

After watching how he managed chatting to Eugenia Scott, I reckon there's very little point in engaging a closed mind in discussion.
...

Are you open to the idea that gods are simply characters in books, inventions of human imagination?

 

[lewiscalledhimmaster]

You feel that you have a better grasp of evolutionary biology that Dawkins? You should publish something on it.

No. I was thinking back to a time, when I was closed minded. Yet, even since I've begun studying Evolution and have a more open minded approach to what that is all about -- there are certainly times when I felt (a) he was misrepresenting Christianity and (b) pushing too hard against naysayers.
Do you remember his encounter with Prof. Weinberg, Prof. Neil DeGrasse and also some comment passed between Dembski and Scott about how dialed up he gets. We are back to my earlier point, before I got banned last month. He's softened quite a bit now days, but his stance as a New Atheist -- with his numerous attention getting angry slogans, did not wash well with many in the universal science forum. It's nice to have heroes, but not when they take "cheap" shots at the human race. As I said, the Old School Atheists have much to teach these wet behind the ears New Atheists about decorum.

Are you open to the idea that gods are simply characters in books, inventions of human imagination?

This is outside the scope of this thread.

Off-topic (if you wish to continue responding to this, do so from your private mail box)

However, to answer as I have before. I am not a Biblicist. I think that there is much to be gleaned from seeing things the way they are, but there are many things that the 'blind' will not to see.

 

[Davian]

No. I was thinking back to a time, when I was closed minded.

Except in matters of religion, it would seem.

Yet, even since I've begun studying Evolution and have a more open minded approach to what that is all about -- there are certainly times when I felt (a) he was misrepresenting Christianity

It surprises me when I see two religionists agree on aspects of their religion.

and (b) pushing too hard against naysayers.

It *is* few against many.

Do you remember his encounter with Prof. Weinberg, Prof. Neil DeGrasse and also some comment passed between Dembski and Scott about how dialed up he gets. We are back to my earlier point, before I got banned last month. He's softened quite a bit now days, but his stance as a New Atheist -- with his numerous attention getting angry slogans, did not wash well with many in the universal science forum. It's nice to have heroes, but not when they take "cheap" shots at the human race.

I m not a fan of Dawkins, but I do appreciate his ability to explain the science.

As I said, the Old School Atheists have much to teach these wet behind the ears New Atheists about decorum.

This is outside the scope of this thread.

Not at all. I was only querying as to qualify what you meant by "open-minded".

Off-topic (if you wish to continue responding to this, do so from your private mail box)

Dodge, if you like.

However, to answer as I have before. I am not a Biblicist. I think that there is much to be gleaned from seeing things the way they are, but there are many things that the 'blind' will not to see.

They will not see things that are not there.

 

[lewiscalledhimmaster]

I m not a fan of Dawkins, but I do appreciate his ability to explain the science.

I'm reading his biography. (also enjoyed 'The Greatest Show On Earth'}

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kYe1VJW9z4g