Why won’t creationists participate in open and honest debate?

[Wiccan_Child]

You're forgetting our motto --- The Bible says it, that settles it.

Not in a scientific discussion it doesn't. If that is your mentality, then you have just rid yourself of whatever credibility you had left. Your only hope, then, is to prove that the Bible (whichever translation you choose) is infallibly correct. Personally, I'd love to see that proof.

Not hardly --- the poetical books are to the left of Jeremiah.

A figure of speech, mon ami. A figure of speech.

Depends on the phone your using, and who's paying the bill.

Hardly. Have you ever seen a phone that does not use numbers? And what does the billpayer have to do with anything? You claimed that you had a phone number, and gave us a biblical verse with no such number. You claim A contains B, but it quite evidently does not.

Does the similarity in reptilian scales and avian feathers prove that birds evolved from reptiles?

No. It is in the genetic analysis that we find evidence of avian descent from reptiles. Note also that the Archaeopteryx fossils are the quintessential transitional species Creationists often clamour for.

In a lab test they were found to be very different. The only similarity found between scales and feathers is that they are both made out of the protein keratin, what our hair, skin, and nails are made from. Later tests showed that even this was biochemically different; scales are made from a-keratin and feathers are made from f-keratin. Feathers and scales are different in development, morphogenesis, gene structure, protein shape and sequence, and filament formation and structure.

You must remeber that we are dealing with the evolution of an entirely new subgroup of Archosaurs. Such a transition is not going to be without some biochemical changes.
Also, what is this 'lab test'? Another abstract pseudo-science?
Scales and feathers are not the only thing that links Aves as a subgroup of Archosaurs. The entire of their physiology, genomes, cranial development, their behavioural and reproductive patterns, etc.

That is just the way it is right now. But that can change over time. In the past this was a good place to learn about evolution and get answers to your questions about it. But right now it seems like there are not very many people here that know much about it at all.

That is because noone is willing to learn. You Creationists post and repost your garbage (and yes, Hovind and his ilk are garbage) over and over, without any heed to correction. I wonder: would you be willing to have a formal, albiet public, debate?

 

[Edx]

No. It is in the genetic analysis that we find evidence of avian descent from reptiles. Note also that the Archaeopteryx fossils are the quintessential transitional species Creationists often clamour for.

And Archaeopteryx is just one of many feathered dinosaur fossils thats been found.

 

[shernren]

Please note that I qualified that this was the case with many of the TofE supporters and non-theists I had personally dealt with. I did not attribute this to evolutionists as a whole group. Could you guys please read the entire post before you blow a gasket and start making accusations.

I don't think anybody here has blown any gaskets or made any accusations. Let's look back at the history of the conversation:

You started it with:

Realistically, I've had some piecemeal information and findings thrown at me thus far and to me that doesn't constitute much in the way of proof. While it's a bit of a favorite pastime here to ridicule creationists for their lack of "evidence" I'm not getting a great deal of most of the TofE crowd either. That's not to say that their aren't some of the evidenciary crowd on both sides but it mostly seems to degenerate into little more than a finger pointing and name calling session.

[snip]

What I want from the TofE crowd is the admission that they cannot, despite their arduous research and mountains of empirical evidence, disprove the existence of God.

That's simple enough. I won't (an never have actually) call science a joke and you won't say, as though it were some undeniable fact, that there isn't a God. I figure that's a pretty good starting point for a mutually respectful and intellectually honest discussion.

We respect you for not calling science a joke, and at the same time regret that all you see is "ridiculing creationists for their lack of evidence". The most logical thing to do is to supply evidence for creationists so that we would not be able to further ridicule them.

Then Ondoher responded:

What an odd request. Certainly you understand that one need not be atheist to accept evolution. Further, it is pretty clear that science itself doesn't address the supernatural. And as a final point, the premise that god exists is not falsifiable.

So, as one who accepts evolution, I will proclaim that nothing disproves the claim that god exists. It is utterly untestable.

Then:

I understand your statement but by and large the evolutionists tend to perceive that the mere existence of the theory somehow negates any possibility of the divine. I qualify that this is the case with those I have met and/or interacted with.

Congratulations on your reasonable admission.

Peace Be With You

The Common Patriot

Then a few evolutionists responded:

Odd, I've found this to be the case with the majority of Creationists I've interacted with -- often it's their sole reason for challenging TofE in the first place.

You need a good dose of Origins Theology: http://www.christianforums.com/f143 By and large the evolutionists here have no problem with God, myself included.

From my point here, at least, this seems a bit of a misrepresentation. A large number of people here on this board are theistic evolutionists, who do not state such.

Yes, there are people who will argue differently, Dawkins is an example. But I really cannot find much fault in their position either, given that nowhere does any evidence indicate that God would be a necessary entity for certain explanations. But to attribute such a stance to 'evolutionists' as a whole group rather mischaracterizes the diversity that is present within that group. I think one should be very careful with such generalizations, lest one forgets the diversity that is present within these groups.

[snip]
The Theory of Evolution has nothing to do with God one way or the other. Darwin based the original draft of the Theory of Evolution on evidence. But he also assumed that life was created by God. From my perspective, his work was best when he based it on evidence and lacking when he based it on assumption.

Science also has nothing to do with God. Science is the process of following evidence to likely conclusions. There is no credible evidence of God and therefore, nothing for science to follow. Trying to use science to find God is like trying to operate a train without tracks to follow. No evidence = No science.
[snip]

I doubt that any of these were in any way harsh or unmerited. They don't seem in any way to ridicule you, and of them the most strident was probably mine with its "you need a good dose of ... " but I've been known to be far harsher. So tell me, of all the evolutionist responses above, just which one merited this?

Please note that I qualified that this was the case with many of the TofE supporters and non-theists I had personally dealt with. I did not attribute this to evolutionists as a whole group. Could you guys please read the entire post before you blow a gasket and start making accusations.

Just which evolutionist was blowing gaskets and making accusations up there? There were many evolutionists here who didn't even respond to what you put up.

I'm not ordinarily this naggy but I just don't like it when people start losing the train of thought a thread was headed on, or start throwing martyr complexes. Pathologically obsessive-compulsive.

 

[Paulos23]

What an odd request. Certainly you understand that one need not be atheist to accept evolution. Further, it is pretty clear that science itself doesn't address the supernatural. And as a final point, the premise that god exists is not falsifiable.

So, as one who accepts evolution, I will proclaim that nothing disproves the claim that god exists. It is utterly untestable.

I will second this and further say that the EoT neither excludes or includes God. It is just trying to explain an observed natural process in nature.

It is just that some people really get in an uproar that the EoT doesn't fit the bible.

 

[Tomk80]

Please note that I qualified that this was the case with many of the TofE supporters and non-theists I had personally dealt with. I did not attribute this to evolutionists as a whole group. Could you guys please read the entire post before you blow a gasket and start making accusations.

I had read your whole post. I did not accuse you. That is clear from my sentence structure. Words like "it seems to me" and "I think that" indicate that this is how the post appeared to me and giving you a way to respond. Nowhere did I accuse you of anything. I would have used a lot stronger language then. Please do not feel attacked too soon. I usually do not do that in my first post aimed at new people on the board. For that, I'll at least wait three post

edited to add: I also don't think that pointing out the diversity within the 'TofE-crowd' is wholly unjustified if you apparantly (by your own words) have generally met mostly a certain subset of this 'crowd'.

 

[Phred]

No, but I know Someone Who was.

No... you don't. If you can use the argument that science is invalid because no one was there to observe it first hand then that argument applies to you as well. Claiming a deity was there is fun and all, but it's not a reasonable response.

 

[Handmaided]

I’ve gotten every excuse from “I don’t have time” (even though they are here every day) to prophesizing about how their opponent will conduct themselves (even though they have never tried). Since every reason they give, from A to Z is obviously false then what could the real reason be? The only difference is that they are going to be held accountable for backing up their claims and can’t run away. Is that enough to being the entire creationist argument to it’s knees?

I think because most Christians, like myself are so happy and grateful that God saved us, that we know God is true and real. If the Bible says that’s the way it happened then that’s the way it happened. It’s called faith. I am not a scientist nor even versed well enough to debate, I do know a little though, but if a sword is a sword it does seem pointless to argue that fact. And the two debates that I have seen regarding Creation, the creationist made the scientists look silly. Do you know why the String Theory, the Theory of Relativity, and the Theory of Evaluation are all called theories because they can’t be proven, they are just theories. These scientists have taken a giant leap of faith so to speak, so to belittle Christian's for faith is really silly. We have facts on our side Jesus lived and died no doubt about it’s recorded fact, the faith part is we believe He rose on the 3rd day. But if you really want to debate and maybe make a lot of money, DrDino.com - Creation Science Evangelism - Lively creation site that highlights Dr. Hovind's offer of a $250,000.00 award to anyone who presents credible proof of evolution.

In Christ,
Handmaiden

 

[Edx]

I We have facts on our side Jesus lived and died no doubt about it’s recorded fact. But if you really want to debate and maybe make a lot of money, DrDino.com - Creation Science Evangelism - Lively creation site that highlights Dr. Hovind's offer of a $250,000.00 award to anyone who presents credible proof of evolution.

His challenge is a scam, and he is a proven liar and a fraud. He is also being sued for tax evasion, and he is, just like he does everything else, lying through his teeth trying to get out of it.

 

[Handmaided]

Hey if he is a liar then you can prove it. I mean that's what you want right? To prove all the Creationist /Christian’s are silly and on the opioid of religion for believing in God. But it's interesting that you didn't reply to the main point of my post that the Theory of Evaluation is just that a theory because it can’t be proven. If you want to go to the fact men can do wrong whether they are Christians or Atheist. Well Darwin was a wife beater, beat the living tar out of her, but I wasn't dragging him in as the greatest evil lying bastard... I just feel he was lost, not evil just lost.

“While secretly developing his theory of natural selection, Darwin even wrote of religion as a tribal survival strategy, though he still believed that God was the ultimate lawgiver.[4] His belief continued to dwindle over the time, and with the death of his daughter Annie in 1851, Darwin finally lost all faith in Christianity. He continued to give support to the local church and help with parish work, but on Sundays would go for a walk while his family attended church. In later life, when asked about his religious views, he wrote that he had never been an atheist in the sense of denying the existence of a God, and that generally "an Agnostic would be the more correct description of my state of mind."[5]”

Darwin the founder of what you follow was a man who lost his child and then his way.

In Christ,
Handmaiden

 

[Edx]

Hey if he is a liar then you can prove it. I mean that's what you want right?

Its not about what I want, its a fact.
http://www.kent-hovind.com/

Theres all the information you need right there. You may want to start here as this section was written by an Evangelical Christian.

But if you want my short assessment of his "challenge" its that its wholly dishonest nonsence and he knows it. He's being doing this too much and too long to not know what Evolution really is. Example: Evolution is biology, but in order to get the money you need to also prove abiogenesis (chemistry). You need to prove cosmological theroies like the Big Bang and the formation of galaxies and the solar system, and last of all you also need to actually prove god had nothing to do with any of it!

So not only does he strawman what evolution is, not only does he lump absolutely all these other sciences and theories together as "evolution" but on top of that says you must prove there is no God! Its totally dishonest. And lets not get onto the existence of the money and these unnamed adjudicators all picked by Hovind that will supposedly judge the claiments.

To prove all the Creationist /Christian’s are silly and on the opioid of religion for believing in God.

On the contrary. This has NOTHING to do with Christianity. There are many Christians on this board that will agree not only that Kent Hovind is a liar and a fraud but that Creationism is false.

That, and even many Creationists themselves disown Hovind. Answers in Genesis themselves had a whole section on him and why many of his arguments were so wrong even they couldnt bring themselves to support them.

But it's interesting that you didn't reply to the main point of my post that the Theory of Evaluation is just that a theory because it can’t be proven.

Oh? You think thats a smart point? NOTHING in science can be "proven". Something can only be well supported. Evolution is one of the most well supported theories in science. Nothing is absolute in science.

Perhaps you want to say Evolution is "only a theory" next? Or shall I just answer that one right now? All science is "theory". Atomic theory is a theory and there is no time in the future where they will change it to Atomic fact no matter how many A-bombs we let off. Facts arent better than theories, theories encompass facts and explain them. This is another reason why Hovind is so dishonest. He preys on the scientific ignorence of his audience. "Its only a theory!!", he says. And all his audience thinks that makes sence. Why would they call it a theory unless they werent sure, right? Its just a good guess, right? Wrong, thats just not what the word means. Hovind knows this, but he says it anyway, because he is dishonest but wants to lie to people as thats the only way he can make people believe him.

If you want to go to the fact men can do wrong whether they are Christians or Atheist. Well Darwin was a wife beater, beat the living tar out of her, but I wasn't dragging him in as the greatest evil lying bastard... I just feel he was lost, not evil just lost.

What on earth are you talking about?! As if Darwins personality or actions could have any bearing on the validity of science, but I demand that you substantiate this slander .

“While secretly developing his theory of natural selection, Darwin even wrote of religion as a tribal survival strategy, though he still believed that God was the ultimate lawgiver.[4] His belief continued to dwindle over the time, and with the death of his daughter Annie in 1851, Darwin finally lost all faith in Christianity. He continued to give support to the local church and help with parish work, but on Sundays would go for a walk while his family attended church. In later life, when asked about his religious views, he wrote that he had never been an atheist in the sense of denying the existence of a God, and that generally "an Agnostic would be the more correct description of my state of mind."[5]”

Darwin the founder of what you follow was a man who lost his child and then his way.

Why are you telling me this?

 

[Aron-Ra]

I think because most Christians, like myself are so happy and grateful that God saved us, that we know God is true and real. If the Bible says that’s the way it happened then that’s the way it happened. It’s called faith. I am not a scientist nor even versed well enough to debate, I do know a little though, but if a sword is a sword it does seem pointless to argue that fact. And the two debates that I have seen regarding Creation, the creationist made the scientists look silly. Do you know why the String Theory, the Theory of Relativity, and the Theory of Evaluation are all called theories because they can’t be proven, they are just theories.

It might be a good idea to look up what a theory is. A theory is a study of a given phenomenon, and it is an explanation of how and why it works. It can also be described as a collection of testable hypotheses which have consistently withstood all critical analysis in the scientific application of peer-review. But more than that, it also needs to include a set of verifiably correct natural laws; general predictive statements shown to be consistently accurate under described circumstances.

Of course, evolution also works in concert with every other law of nature too. There can be no conflict between general theories in different fields of study either, and in general, there is an exclusivity in each case where only one theory sufficiently covers the whole field.

Gravity too is "just" a theory -as creationists would apply the word, and it is a demonstrable fact with a set of associated laws. Biological evolution is also an easily-demonstrable fact with a set of associated laws including (but not limited to) those of population genetics and reproductive development. Evolution is an exemplary theory, being even better-supported, -and much better understood- than the theory of gravity.

Lest we forget, the theory of gravity has already been significantly modified at least once, and is still known to be an imperfect even now. Yet nothing is floating away impatiently awaiting us to work out those details.

At some point, when a field of study includes a body of explanative hypotheses which consistently survive all critical analysis in peer-review, and are associated with a set of verifiable laws that are so verifiably accurate that it becomes perverse to doubt their collective implication anymore, then the field is elevated to the level of theory. In science, there is no higher level of confidence than that. So its a nothing short of silly to say its "just" a theory. That's exactly like saying its "just" as well-supported as anything can be.

Remember, even atomic theory has never been proven, not even in Hiroshima. By definition, no theory can ever be proven in the positive sense. But that doesn't mean there's any serious doubt that matter is made of atoms, and there is no doubt that life evolves. There is no contest to that in the realm of science. The only objection is exclusively religious, and comes from a perspective which most Christians consider to be only a fringe minority.

Evolution doesn't require any lack of faith in gods or any other spiritual beliefs you want to believe in. Nor does evolution require [or desire] faith in evolution. In fact, the scientific method prohibits it. Its just that according to all the available data, evolution happens to be the truest, best explanation there is for the origin of species via naturally selective environmental pressures, and evidently stemming from a common ancestor.

Darwin predicted something akin to genes passing ancestral 'information' through the next generation, and a Christian monk named Gregor Mendel soon provided the proof of that. So now evolution is now understood to be a synthesis of selective pressures acting on population genetics with reproductive development showing strong parallels to genetically-traced derived traits of common inheritance.

But it still only deals with the diversity of life, not its origin, nor the origin of the universe, and certainly can't comment on any supernatural things. Evolution is only an aspect of the study of biology. It is a fundamental one, but one which cannot be extended beyond that realm, and doesn't warrant any of the criticisms creationists on this board are pleading for.

These scientists have taken a giant leap of faith so to speak, so to belittle Christian's for faith is really silly. We have facts on our side Jesus lived and died no doubt about it’s recorded fact,

It is highly-disputed how he died, and still possible that he never lived at all.

the faith part is we believe He rose on the 3rd day. But if you really want to debate and maybe make a lot of money, DrDino.com - Creation Science Evangelism - Lively creation site that highlights Dr. Hovind's offer of a $250,000.00 award to anyone who presents credible proof of evolution.

If Hovind got any of his money from your donations, you should feel violated and used for that man is a snake-oil salesman who isn't honest enough to sell used cars even in a pyramid scheme.

 

[Loudmouth]

Darwin the founder of what you follow was a man who lost his child and then his way.

In Christ,
Handmaiden

I accept the Germ Theory of Disease. Does this make me a follower of Koch?

Accepting a theory does not make you a follower of the person who first proposed it. Koch could have been a wife beating, racist, puppy eating pagan, but guess what? Germs still cause disease.

If you think that the theory of evolution is wrong then please provide evidence that falsifies the theory.

 

[Ondoher]

I think because most Christians, like myself are so happy and grateful that God saved us, that we know God is true and real. If the Bible says that’s the way it happened then that’s the way it happened. It’s called faith. I am not a scientist nor even versed well enough to debate, I do know a little though, but if a sword is a sword it does seem pointless to argue that fact. And the two debates that I have seen regarding Creation, the creationist made the scientists look silly. Do you know why the String Theory, the Theory of Relativity, and the Theory of Evaluation are all called theories because they can’t be proven, they are just theories. These scientists have taken a giant leap of faith so to speak, so to belittle Christian's for faith is really silly. We have facts on our side Jesus lived and died no doubt about it’s recorded fact, the faith part is we believe He rose on the 3rd day. But if you really want to debate and maybe make a lot of money, DrDino.com - Creation Science Evangelism - Lively creation site that highlights Dr. Hovind's offer of a $250,000.00 award to anyone who presents credible proof of evolution.

In Christ,
Handmaiden

Let me paraphrase: "I don't really understand what evolution claims, or how science works, but I know that tens of thousands of scientists, each having decades of education and research experience, are wrong."

 

[Handmaided]

Its not about what I want, its a fact.
http://www.kent-hovind.com/

Theres all the information you need right there. You may want to start here as this section was written by an Evangelical Christian.

But if you want my short assessment of his "challenge" its that its wholly dishonest nonsence and he knows it. He's being doing this too much and too long to not know what Evolution really is. Example: Evolution is biology, but in order to get the money you need to also prove abiogenesis (chemistry). You need to prove cosmological theroies like the Big Bang and the formation of galaxies and the solar system, and last of all you also need to actually prove god had nothing to do with any of it!

So not only does he strawman what evolution is, not only does he lump absolutely all these other sciences and theories together as "evolution" but on top of that says you must prove there is no God! Its totally dishonest. And lets not get onto the existence of the money and these unnamed adjudicators all picked by Hovind that will supposedly judge the claiments.



On the contrary. This has NOTHING to do with Christianity. There are many Christians on this board that will agree not only that Kent Hovind is a liar and a fraud but that Creationism is false.

That, and even many Creationists themselves disown Hovind. Answers in Genesis themselves had a whole section on him and why many of his arguments were so wrong even they couldnt bring themselves to support them.



Oh? You think thats a smart point? NOTHING in science can be "proven". Something can only be well supported. Evolution is one of the most well supported theories in science. Nothing is absolute in science.

Perhaps you want to say Evolution is "only a theory" next? Or shall I just answer that one right now? All science is "theory". Atomic theory is a theory and there is no time in the future where they will change it to Atomic fact no matter how many A-bombs we let off. Facts arent better than theories, theories encompass facts and explain them. This is another reason why Hovind is so dishonest. He preys on the scientific ignorence of his audience. "Its only a theory!!", he says. And all his audience thinks that makes sence. Why would they call it a theory unless they werent sure, right? Its just a good guess, right? Wrong, thats just not what the word means. Hovind knows this, but he says it anyway, because he is dishonest but wants to lie to people as thats the only way he can make people believe him.



What on earth are you talking about?! As if Darwins personality or actions could have any bearing on the validity of science, but I demand that you substantiate this slander .



Why are you telling me this?

Well according to the law, Mr. Hovind is still innocent until proved guilty in a court of law. I don’t know Mr. Hovind only that he had the contest, and seemed to want to debate, but you seem to have already trialed him because you don't believe in what he believes, so he must be a liar in all that he does and says. I mean I know the government has never arrested or trailed an innocent man, I am sure Martin Luther King and Lenny Bruce are really guilty, right?

And I am not saying if he is guilty he shouldn't pay but by your own standards you shouldn't listen to Darwin because of what he did. Have you ever told a lie? Taken anything that wasn't yours? I think the answer is yes. None of us is perfect.

But what you are doing when you say is that what he is saying is not valid, because he is being accused of tax evasion. I don’t know if he is guilty of any crime, but if he is then government will make him pay.

When I home I will post that for you about Darwin and his wife it's in several bios. Slander it is not, it’s well documented because it was in the divorce papers filed with the court.

Now there you go again through everything in one pot. I never said that all science can’t be proven but certainly most of the theoretical sciences can not. The big question is if these theories are so supported by fact then why is it still a theory?

But we got off topic, so far you still haven’t proven a single theoryand don't seem to engage a man who does want to debate.

In Christ,
Handmaiden

 

[Ondoher]

The big question is if these theories are so supported by fact then why is it still a theory?

Because that's how science works. Theories are always theories. A theory is a well substantiated explanatory framework for a class of observations. A theory will never stop being that. Even if it is accepted as factual by the scientific community, it is still a theory.

 

[Handmaided]

Because that's how science works. Theories are always theories. A theory is a well substantiated explanatory framework for a class of observations. A theory will never stop being that. Even if it is accepted as factual by the scientific community, it is still a theory.

a hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation b : an unproved assumption : [SIZE=-1]CONJECTURE[/SIZE] c : a body of theorems presenting a concise systematic view of a subject <theory of equations>

 

[Ondoher]

a hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation b : an unproved assumption : [SIZE=-1]CONJECTURE[/SIZE] c : a body of theorems presenting a concise systematic view of a subject <theory of equations>

From the National Academy of Sciences:

Theory: In science, a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses.

The contention that evolution should be taught as a "theory, not as a fact" confuses the common use of these words with the scientific use. In science, theories do not turn into facts through the accumulation of evidence. Rather, theories are the end points of science. They are understandings that develop from extensive observation, experimentation, and creative reflection. They incorporate a large body of scientific facts, laws, tested hypotheses, and logical inferences. In this sense, evolution is one of the strongest and most useful scientific theories we have.

From this url: http://newton.nap.edu/html/creationism/introduction.html

In general, when discussing science it is good to stick to how scientists use language, rather than common use of these terms.

 

[Handmaided]

Thank you.

 

[Edx]

Well according to the law, Mr. Hovind is still innocent until proved guilty in a court of law. I don&#8217;t know Mr. Hovind only that he had the contest, and seemed to want to debate, but you seem to have already trialed him because you don't believe in what he believes, so he must be a liar in all that he does and says.

No, I dont say he is a liar because I dont believe what he believes. I say he is a dishonest person because thats exactly what the facts show. You didnt bother to go to those links I gave you did you? Why not? Does it bother you that other Christians think the same thing? Or do you automatically defend him just because he preaches what you want to believe?

He is not only dishonest with his presentation of evolution and science but also with his Phd. Its fake. He got it from a known diploma mill - just like any good snake oil saleman fake credentials are a must. All he has is this fake PhD in "Christian Education", yet he calls himself an "expert" and Dr Dino, for which you'd think he'd at least have a degree in Palentology or something. But not only that, but becuase Answers in Genesis said some of his arguments were wrong, he mispresented them too! And AIG even say he did! So he'll misrepresent anyone, and be dishonest with everyone no matter what. All he cares about is making people believe what he believes, he doesnt care about being accurate or truthfull.

I mean I know the government has never arrested or trailed an innocent man, I am sure Martin Luther King and Lenny Bruce are really guilty, right?

The difference is we know he evaded his taxes. What he is claiming is that he is allowed to and his organisation is tax exempt, because he says its a church, that his employees that took holiday days and had time punch cards just like normal workers, were actually just volenteers been given love offerings, not payment for work. But this is not the main issue, he'd still be dishonest even without him being a tax cheat.

Have you ever told a lie? Taken anything that wasn't yours? I think the answer is yes. None of us is perfect.

What if I said Christianity is evil because Jesus sacrificed babies and drank their blood and that it teaches we should all do that too. What if I went around the world giving seminars telling people this is what Christianity was, trying to convince people Christianity was stupid and evil and should be stopped because of this? What if I kept being told over and over that this is not what Christianity is, that what I am saying is total nonsence, and I kept saying it? Well, thats what Hovind is like. And if you think I am exaggerating you need to look closer.

But what you are doing when you say is that what he is saying is not valid, because he is being accused of tax evasion.

I never said or implied that that is the reason what he is saying is not valid

When I home I will post that for you about Darwin and his wife it's in several bios. Slander it is not, it&#8217;s well documented because it was in the divorce papers filed with the court.

I've never heard it before. First, it better be credible sources. Second, it wouldnt make any difference whatsoever. Darwin could have raped small children his science wouldnt be any less incorrect because of it.

Now there you go again through everything in one pot. I never said that all science can&#8217;t be proven but certainly most of the theoretical sciences can not.

The big question is if these theories are so supported by fact then why is it still a theory?

I just answered this, thanks for showing me you ignored it all. Thats very nice of you.

All science is theory. There is no higher state in science than Theory. Facts, Laws and Theories are different things not rungs on a hierarchy running from guess up to absolute truth.

But we got off topic, so far you still haven&#8217;t proven a single theoryand don't seem to engage a man who does want to debate.

Firstly, Ive already addressed twice the fact that a theory never gets proven its only well evidenced. Secondly, Hovind does NOT want to debate. With Hovinds travelling circus act is not possible to correct all his lies and it is not possible to get accross everything necessary in the time allowed. He claims he doesnt do written debates because he doesnt type too fast. This is just a bad excuse. The reason Hovind doesnt do written debates is because all of his lies and errors can be researched and corrected and peer reviewed websites can be given as sources. Some things Hovind says as throw away comments could have an entire seminar dedicated to how wrong he is, thats why written debates are the only way to respond to every single point and with enough space to do so. So no, Hovind does not want to debate.

Ed

 

[AV1611VET]

The Bible says the Earth stands still and the sun moves. Thusly, your motto would be one of untruth.

Either that, or you need a course in hermeneutics.