If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Artbell.com)   Man offers $250,000 if you can prove evolution.   (drdino.com) divider line 414
    More: PSA  
•       •       •

4864 clicks; posted to Main » on 01 Mar 2002 at 12:46 AM (12 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



414 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | » | Last | Show all
 
2002-03-01 01:11:54 AM
Well....he really isn't asking anyone to proove evolution...he is asking for someone to disprove the Existance of a god. Impossible task. I don't buy into it and feel perfectly confident in that belief, but can't proove it (hwo the hell would one do that anyhow?).

The thing I don't get about this site (and a LOT of christian groups that constantly "dis" evolution) is WHY can't someone belive in a god and evolution at the same time? Someone please explain that to me! What ever happened to the deists?
 
2002-03-01 01:14:04 AM
Fundamentalists are very, very afraid of Deism.
 
2002-03-01 01:17:12 AM
Apparently he's upped the amount that he has no intention of ever paying...

Here's some notes from somebody who tried for the prize back when it was only $10,000:

http://www.geocities.com/SouthBeach/Pier/1766/hovindlies/C.html
 
2002-03-01 01:17:20 AM
Science=Schools.
Religon=Church.

If you want your kids to learn the ideas taught in a paticular religon, that's fine! But have them do so in a church institution. And these people shouldn't be scared of their children learning evolution, it's good to have their mind open to different ideas instead of being told "this is what's right, and only this". Let them choose on their on! And if you are to teach religon in schools, teach it objectivly (and with different religions), almost like a history course. Not like "the bible/quiran/bagavad gita (sp) or whatever says 'this' so this is the truth" Open minds and open ideas are essential to a diverse and working democracy. Really people!
 
2002-03-01 01:17:45 AM
Evolutionists teach that the earth was a boiling hot, molten mass that slowly cooled down over millions of years. The Bible says in Genesis chapter 1 that "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth ... and the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters." So the surface of the earth was covered with water; it could not have been a hot, molten mass.
There is scientific evidence to support the Biblical account. Robert Gentry of Knoxville, Tennessee, does amazing research on radio-polonium halos in granite rock. Polonium is a rare element that is radioactive; it breaks down or decays like uranium. But polonium only lasts a few minutes. As it breaks down, it sends off little particles that fly a certain distance. An analogy would be a hand-grenade exploding under water that produces a sphere of fragments in the water that only lasts a fraction of a second before it collapses. Different elements have fragments that fly different distances, each radioactive element has a particular "signature" (how big a circle it can make in the rock as it decays like a more powerful hand grenade would produce a bigger sphere in the water). Radio-active polonium, when it decays in a solid rock, makes a perfect sphere as it decays because all its fragments fly about the same distance from the center. If it decays in solid rock, the circle is preserved. But if it decays in a hot molten rock, the circle disappears. All over the world radio-polonium halos exist in granite, indicating the earth was never a hot, molten mass. See Robert Gentry's book Creations Tiny Mystery, available from ICR (619) 448-0900, for much more on this subject, or www.halos.com.


That is from his site. The point he doesn't say is that scientists say that the earth was molten billions of years ago and that, because of subduction (in the mid-ocean ridge), the oldest rocks are "only" a billion years old. Farking moron.
 
2002-03-01 01:19:59 AM
Isn't it funny that this guy says that evolutioism believes the universe evolved? I though evolution applied to animals, and not the birth of the universe?
 
2002-03-01 01:20:46 AM
Organizmx: why can't creationism be taught in schools? there is enough science to make it just as valid a theory as evolution is. this is the creation of life we are talking about, why restrict kids to just one view point when there are at least 2 valid theories out there?
 
2002-03-01 01:21:38 AM
A nazi (kinda like the same type of person, but secular...) once offered a considerable amount of money for someone to prove that the holocause existed. Of course, this would all take place with handpicked jurors (members of the same nazi organization.) Apparently a Jewish holocaust survivor sent in a letter claiming that he accepted the challenge (as the offer stated a person should do) and the organization treated the letter as a joke, not having been challenged by anyone serious. Well, according to laws, the challenge had to be legally responded to by a certain date. After than date passed the Nazi group was sued for breach of contract and the Jewish guy won (and, not to mention, the Judge officially stated that, legally, the view of the US was that the holocaust did take place.)
 
2002-03-01 01:22:18 AM
Because people who believe in evolution don't fly planes into buildings, Scofield.
 
2002-03-01 01:22:20 AM
Scofield: Because Evolution is a scientific theory, with evidence lending it lots of credence, and Creationism is religious dogma masquerading as such. "Creation Science" is an oxymoron.
 
2002-03-01 01:25:47 AM
actually I think that kid in Florida was a pagan BornAgainPagan
 
2002-03-01 01:26:26 AM
you peoples are usin big words that dont make no sense to me.
 
Kiz
2002-03-01 01:26:56 AM
Don't forget the theory that the universe was sneezed out of God's nose. That one's just as valid as creationism.

What I like is how he defines "evolution" as including about 5 different theories (like the Big Bang theory), only one of which actually has anything to do with evolution.
 
2002-03-01 01:27:43 AM
Here is little tip: To grind one of these arguments to a halt just give the creationists the benefit of the doubt. So okay, evolution is totally false so we can forget about it. Let's learn about our new idea, creationism. What are the basic premises of this theory and what facts do we have that support them? Pretty hard question because different creationists believe many different things. The most you could expect is some information about the Bible and that is pretty much it. 99% of a creationists memorized information (memorized not _learned_) are rants against evolution, most of which are false and don't take great knowledge to see through. So the conversation can't really last very long, without evolution creationism can't stand on its own feet. And hopefully after just a few minutes and maybe a pamphlet you can gracefully excuse yourself and walk away.
 
2002-03-01 01:27:58 AM
BornAgainPagan -
"Because people who believe in evolution don't fly planes into buildings, Scofield."

religious wackos have killed their tens of thousands, but evolutionist wackos have killed their tens of millions

ADOLPH HITLER: (b. Adolph Schicklgruber, 1889; d. 1945.) It can be said without fear of contradiction that this man singlehandedly came pretty close to turning the world upside down for a few years. But what high test philosophy fueled Hitler's cerebral engine? In short, what fundamental belief did he have about his own and all of mankind's origins?

Dr. Jerry Bergman, a college professor somewhere in Ohio the last I heard, put together information from various authorities showing important connections between Hitler's Nazism and Darwin's Evolutionism. A few quotations will make the accepted but rarely discussed point that Hitler's Nazism was a calculated and deliberate plan to apply evolutionary "science" to government policy. Indeed, Darwinism was the heartbeat of Nazism as Hitler conceived it. Note Bergman's findings:

"Adolph Hitler's mind was captivated by evolutionary teaching--probably since he was a boy."

"One of the central planks in Nazi theory and doctrine was...evolutionary theory...", we read in another place.

The whole Hitlerian idea of the "master race" of "supermen" was based on the Darwinian principle of "survival of the fittest" which Hitler proposed to speed up by various policies. Jews and Blacks were singled out as retards on the evolutionary scale who must not be allowed to contaminate the more evolved, i.e., the more advanced "aryan master race". (This was the ultimate effrontery, the unpardonable sin, as far as the Talmudic Jews were concerned. How dare he appropriate THEIR position on the subject of superiority and inferiority! That blankety-blank paperhanger--and the whole German people--will find out who is superior and who isn't! They are going to pay and pay, and then pay some more for this effrontery!)

Dr. Bergman's conclusion: "The evidence is very clear that Darwinian ideas had a tremendous impact on German thought and practice.... In fact, Darwinian ideas had a tremendous influence on causing WWII, the loss of 40 million lives, and the waste of about 6 trillion 1945 dollars. Firmly convinced that evolution was true, Hitler saw himself as the modern savior of mankind.... By breeding a superior race, the world would look upon him as the man who pulled humanity up to a higher level of evolution."

Vot more can ve zay? The interminable vengeance exacted on the Germans by the Jews in particular is partly due to their Holocaust experience, which was bad to be sure, but admitted by many Jews themselves to be highly exaggerated. (The Zionists declared war on Hitler in 1939 [a little publicised fact somehow].... He [thru Goebbels chiefly] got rough with them after that, no doubt about it. Maybe a million died in the camps of all causes, and another million during the invasion of the Soviet Union.) The Holocaust Industry, as many are calling it (including those reading Finklestein's hot new book by that title) has served the Zionists in particular wonderfully well, not only as an immense source of revenue, but also as an unfailing psychological club to beat off any post-war inclinations anywhere to expose their multi-faceted dark side. This ceaseless retribution and hair-trigger labeling of "anti-Semite" and "Nazi" has gotten the Zionists a lot of mileage in the post-war world.

Still, the Holocaust is only the most visible and effective tool used to establish once and for all who is superior and who is inferior. Bombing Hitler and Nazism off the map didn't touch the root of evolutionism! Indeed, pruning the Nazi limb off the evolution tree just made the other branches (Communism, Socialism, Humanism) grow stronger and bear more fruit of an equally, if not more poisonous variety than Hitlerism! All four of these big "isms" of the 20th century (Fascism, Communism, Socialism, Humanism) are rooted and grounded in Darwinian and neo-Darwinian evolutionism. I find that a rather interesting fact, don't you? Hitler was totally persuaded that evolutionism was a scientific fact. Ernst Haeckel's recapitulation nonsense aided the Darwinian conquest of the Life Sciences in Germany early on. Hitler was also deeply convinced by the theories of Eugenicist Francis Galton (Darwin's cousin) and others about improving the quality of the human race by careful selection of parents in the breeding process. Nordic stock was preferred for achieving the best evolutionary results. Hitler concluded that this was the best way to thin out the weak and propagate the strong. As far as can be determined Hitler retained a belief in God...as did Galton. He just added Darwin in the mix and adopted one of the different shades of belief open to the theistic evolutionist. This seems to be a pattern for deep dyed evolutionists who lean toward Fascism, i.e., they do not officially promote atheism, they are ardent nationalists, and, to a degree, they favor a substantial element of capitalism in the economy.

Deep dyed evolutionists who embrace Communism and Socialism and Humanism, on the other hand, tend to officially promote atheism, seek to get rid of nationalism and install globalism, and ostensibly denounce capitalism while using it for their own ends in an otherwise government run economy. The "fall" of Soviet Communism, by-the-way, effected nothing as far as the evolutionary underpinning of these non-Fascist isms is concerned. Everybody just became Socialist-Humanists, which sounds a lot better, and the march away from nationalism toward globalism has now gone to afterburners. Globalism is the "ism" of the day and--being evolutionist to the core--it bloody well means to get rid of that pesky competition from Biblical Creationism and proceed quickly to the main order of business, i.e., finishing off Jesus and the New Testament foundation for Christianity.

So, while all the big talk from world leaders goes on about politics, economics, environment, nuclear proliferation, etc., the real culprit is what has been implanted in man's mind about his origin and purpose in the world. And this offender (evolutionism cleverly disguised as "science") remains as effectively hidden as a rabbit in a brush pile. False science, and those who knowingly use it, has been Satan's major weapon in the world--at least since the Copernican fiction paved the way for the Darwinian fiction--and is no more suspected of being behind all this misery than is Donald Duck.

Hidden and unsuspected or not, it is absolutely clear that evolutionism is that mind warping concept that has been (and now is!) a key ingredient in modern history's greatest blood baths, its interminable racial turmoil, and the most terrible economic waste in the history of the world. Hitler--being totally persuaded that evolutionism was a scientific fact--simply turned out to be one of--if not the--most impassioned promoters of that theory about man's origins in the 20th century. As with hundreds of millions of others, Hitler perceived that here was a scientific fact which basically demanded that all previous concepts about mankind be thrown out the window. Being the white supremacist concept that Darwinism is, Hitler made this idea his guiding principle. With "scientific truth" on his side, he set about to further the "Master Race" concept. The rest is history.

But there were other equally persuaded and zealous devotees of Darwinism in Hitler's time. These also were men who have had a powerful influence on modern history, an influence heavily weighted on the destructive side of the balance. These men (Lenin, Stalin, Mao Tse-tung, Marx) were globalists, rather than nationalists, and they openly mocked God and set about to rid the world of His influence on mankind....



NIKOLAI LENIN: (b. Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov,1870; d. 1924.) Lenin, the first murderous communist dictator of the USSR said: "Darwin put an end to the belief that the animal and vegetable species bear no relation to one another, except by chance, and that they were created by God , and hence immutable." (The heart of this statement is: "Darwin put an end to the belief that the animal and vegetable species..were created by God....")

Lenin was "...a confirmed atheist, dedicated to the destruction of...all religious worship...he regarded Christ with undisguised hatred."

On his desk Lenin had a statue displayed in a "prominent position for all to see...its vivid presence dominated the room." (What kind of statue?)

It was a "...bronze statue of an ape gazing at an oversized human skull." This symbolized the evolutionary core of Lenin's atheism. It further symbolized the core of Marx's Communism which Lenin set about imposing on Russia and much of the rest of the world. When Lenin died in 1924, control of the Soviet Union passed to Joseph Stalin.

Let's glance at the role evolutionism played in Stalin's mind (a mind, all agree, which conceived and carried out the calculated murder of at least ten--and more likely--twenty to thirty million people, mostly Christians):



JOSEPH V. STALIN: (b. IOSIF VISSARIONOVICH DZHUGASHVILI, b.1879; d. 1953; Following Lenin, Stalin ruled the Soviet Union with an iron fist for thirty years. From Landmarks in the Life of Stalin we read:

"At a very early age, while still a pupil in the ecclesiastical school, Comrade Stalin developed a critical mind and revolutionary sentiments. He began to read Darwin and became an atheist."

G. Gludjidze, a boyhood friend of Stalin's relates: "I began to speak of God. Joseph heard me out, and after a moment's silence said: 'You know, they are fooling us, there is no God....'"

Gludjidze reported: "I was astonished at these words. I had never heard anything like it before. How can you say such things, Soso?" he asked Stalin, who replied:

"I will lend you a book to read: it will show you that the world and all living things are quite different from what you imagine, and all this talk about God is sheer nonsense."

"What book is that?" his friend inquired.

"Darwin. You must read it,' Joseph impressed on me."

A few pages later, another person who was in school with Stalin, said of what they were taught:

"...in order to disabuse [i.e., free from deception or error] the minds of our seminary students of the myth that the world was created in six days, we had to acquaint ourselves with the geological origin and age of the earth, and be able to prove them in argument; we had to familiarize ourselves with Darwin's teachings."

So, in plain words, the church school Joseph Stalin attended labored to get the Bible's explanation for origins out of kid's heads and fill those same heads with the evolutionary explanation for origins. And that was church school over a hundred years ago! Education--public, private, church, TV, whatever--is THE tool for getting the evolution explanation for the origin of man and all else into peoples heads.

A quick note on how Mao Tse-tung made indoctrination into evolutionism his very first priority after the Communist victory in China in late 1949 is of interest, I think. See if you agree:



MAO TSE TUNG: (b. 1893; d. 1976) In a graduate school paper about the way the communists dealt with the 85% illiteracy problem in China, I found two things that stuck with me:

1) Mao's method was quite resourceful given what he had to work with. He called it "Each One Teach One". It was basically the idea that every literate person would teach an illiterate person and, as soon as the pupil learned enough to read and write he would then teach what he had learned to another illiterate person. Within a few short years the 85% figure was totally reversed.... It was quite an accomplishment given all the obstacles.

2) Being a Marxist and an atheist and a firm believer in evolutionism himself, Mao mandated that the reading material used in this early day "Great Leap Forward" in literacy would be the writings of Charles Darwin and other materials supportive of the evolution paradigm. Understanding modern China of necessity includes an understanding of the transference of this state mandated indoctrination into evolution-based atheism from one generation to another for more than a half century. The fact that Mao's regime was responsible for the out-and-out murder of somewhere between 30 and 60 million people...many of them Christian missionaries and their flocks...does not suggest that all evolutionists are potential mass murderers, of course. However, it does strongly suggest that a passionate belief that man is just another evolved animal is a conviction that is fully capable of creating a mind-set which cheapens life and excuses whatever behavior and policies individuals may pursue, no matter how hurtful and even deadly that behavior and those policies may be to millions of other people. Indeed, one abiding result of this passionate belief in the evolutionary origins scenario--a result more evident in the lives of the Lenin, Stalin, and Mao than in Hitler--is an utter disdain--often escalating to outright hatred--of Christians in particular. One can see the source of this malevolence in a few facts about modern communism's founder:......

KARL MARX: (b. 1818; d. 1883) When Darwin's book came out in 1859, Marx read it and exulted: "Darwin's book is VERY important and serves me as a BASIS for the class struggle in history." "Basis", as we know, is a strong word meaning "the foundation" or "underpinning" upon which something is built. In other words, we learn from the horse's mouth itself that the very foundation of Marxist Communism--the one thing that underpins the whole concept and holds it up--is an all-out belief in the evolution of man and everything else out of energy and matter, and a corresponding all-out belief that whatever teachings there are that God Created everything are teachings that must be purged from peoples minds.

In all the 70 tumultuous years of Soviet Communism and the 45 years of the "Cold War" between Soviet Communism and the West, and the half-century of the no longer sleeping giant of Chinese Communism, and all the incidental "little" Communist states of Cuba, N. Korea, and Viet Nam still with us, and the wars, etc., this central fact that the very foundation of the system of communism, its very BASIS, is a belief in Darwinian evolutionism, is a huge FACT that is scarcely if ever heard. Does that strike anyone as just a little bit of an oversight on the part of "International Relations Experts" and a lot of world leaders et al who were making "Cold War" policy for the West??

It is good to recall this fact as well: Another name for Communism has always been "Scientific Materialism". This concept rests on two beliefs: First--as Friedrich Ingles (Marx's side-kick) made clear--Communist physics permits no inertia in the cosmos, i.e., the stationary earth in Bible teaching is forever anathema and the Copernican cosmology is forever true science. Second, man is an accidentally evolved animal who has no spiritual needs. His needs are only material ones, and "science", not God, will fulfill those needs. "Religion is the opiate of the masses," as Marx put it.

In his book: Was Karl Marx A Satan Worshipper?, author Richard Wurmbrand gives plenty of evidence that he was. At the very least, Marx was a hate-filled man who, from his college days throughout his life, was bent on inflicting as much grief and woe on the world as he possibly could. Those who know something about how Satan- worshippers operate can see that Marx fit all the criteria. Check some of his own words and draw your own conclusion:

"I wish to avenge myself against the One who rules above." (From a poem).

Another poem: "The hellish vapors rise and fill the brain till I go mad and my heart is utterly changed. See this sword? The Prince of Darkness [Satan] sold it to me."

From a drama Marx wrote and called "Oulanem" (an inversion and anagram for Emmanuel, a Biblical name for Jesus), is loaded with devilish stuff, including these lines:

"You will sink down and I shall follow laughing, whispering in your ears, 'Descend, come with me friend."

The Drama ends:

"If there is something which devours, I'll leap within it, though I bring the world to ruins - the world which bulks between me and the abyss, I will smash it to pieces with my enduring curses. I'll throw my arms around its harsh reality. Embracing me, the world will dumbly pass away."

Only eighteen years old when he penned those sweet uplifting thoughts, Marx found the destructive instrument he was looking for in Socialism and its most radical expression, Communism. Some of his acquaintances included Moses Hess, Bakunin, and Proudhon. Bakunin, an anarchist who quarreled with Marx (everybody did!), was supposedly a militant atheist, but actually praised Satan openly. He also longed to become the anti-Christ of the Bible. Proudhon, another anarchist, "worshipped Satan". Hess, like Marx, a Jew, inserted a racist dimension into Marx's ideas: "Race struggle is primary, class struggle is secondary," he wrote. Hess was a modern forerunner of the Zionist Movement launched in 1897 by Theodore Herzl. Hess said and Marx listened: "Every Jew has the making of a Messiah in himself...."

Marx's main writings were his three volume tomes entitled, Das Kapital. You may have three guesses as to whom he tried to dedicate this work: 1) Charles Darwin; 2) Daffy Duck; 3) The Salvation Army.

-------

Leaving aside evolutionary zealots and their records in the Political realm, we can glimpse the impact on modern man's mind stenciled there in diverse fields by other evolutionary zealots. One may have to flip a coin to determine whether these men (and a thousand like them) have had as much or more impact than Hitler, Lenin, Stalin, Mao, and Marx....

-------
 
2002-03-01 01:29:42 AM
Hitler made the German law that defined a Jew exempt himself and Jesus Christ.
 
2002-03-01 01:30:02 AM
just a random thought, lets say we created an AI like Johnny 5 from short circuit, would he believe in God or would he believe in man as god cause man created Johnny 5?

if this doesnt make any sense sorry
 
2002-03-01 01:32:24 AM
And Karl Marx wasn't evil, neither was Darwin. Their words were warped but, those days are over. People have been abusing religion since time began. A higher percentage of the population of (what would be) Germany died in the 30 years war (a religious conflict) than died in WWII. And yes, that includes the German Jews.
 
2002-03-01 01:32:28 AM

I think we all came from Mars. Millions of years ago, small organisms traveled from Mars on a rock that broke off of the planet after some huge colision that wiped out all of the life there. The rock carrying the microrganisms landed in Antarctica, and life evolved from there.


But that's just my opinion, I could be wrong.

 
2002-03-01 01:33:48 AM
Total flamebait...move on please, nothing of substance here.
 
2002-03-01 01:35:17 AM
Testiculus, hey I think my tip is pretty substantial. If you've ever had to talk with one of these people you know that the shorter the conversation the better :)
 
2002-03-01 01:35:32 AM
Actually, people like to forget that Darwin was a devout Christian.
 
2002-03-01 01:35:51 AM
The only time I believe in God is when really fvcked up sh.it happens. Then I think God is one evil mofo who is bored with humans and is just trying to amuse himself.
 
2002-03-01 01:37:14 AM
RageX: Longest... post... ever! (a word count of 2954 for anyone interested)
 
2002-03-01 01:38:12 AM
Folks, try actually reading all of his articles. Really read the whole thing on evolution. Whether you believe in Creation or not, you have to agree that belief in Evolution is as much about faith as any religion. This guy is not the first to show that there are a lot of really gray areas in the THEORY of evolution. Remember the name? THEORY? That's what they call things that haven't been proven to be 100% true. So stop making fools of yourselves saying that creation is nonsense.

If a scientist tells you that we evolved, and you believe him without really understanding ALL of the science involved, that is FAITH. Just like believing ing a God we can't see directly, it's FAITH. Even a scientist has to believe some of what he learns on gut reactions, or FAITH, becuase he has to fill in some gaps. I'm an engineer, I have to do it all the time.

I find it hard to believe that everyone sneering at how creationsists "blindly" believe in creation all know everything about evolutionary science. Get over it, folks. Evolution is a religious belief just as much as Creation.
 
2002-03-01 01:38:16 AM
ARG I hate this man... all he does is spread stupidity. Go here and scroll to the bottom to see where he got his degree
Here

Some farking "doctor"
 
2002-03-01 01:40:11 AM
Read mein Kompf. Hitler believed in god.
 
2002-03-01 01:41:23 AM
Mugen: I like your argument, but it is based on the assumption that God (if one exists) is all-powerful and omnipotent. In contrast, the Greek gods had their weaknesses (though they were very, very powerful), and their own squabbles. One could argue that they were (or are) not perfect.

Assuming that God (if one exists) is omnipotent, can he create a rock that he is unable to lift? I believe that, yes, it is possible. An omnipotent God can create anything. Therefore, an omnipotent God can create laws, and can repeal them just as easily. As well, an omnipotent God can choose whether or not to follow those laws himself. An omnipotent God, then, can create a great stone, create a law that says it cannot be lifted, and choose whether or not to obey that law himself. Even if he chooses, at first, to obey his law, then he will be unable to lift the stone, but he then can choose to ignore the law, and lift the unliftable stone. In this way, God could create a stone that he, temporarily at least, is unable to lift.

Does that make any sense??

Exick: Thanks. ^_^ I'm glad someone caught it.
 
2002-03-01 01:44:01 AM
Holy good god Jer780! Post a link next time! Only Harmonia is allowed to cut and paste!
 
2002-03-01 01:45:01 AM
Mugen, you mean this post 03-01-02 01:27:58 AM Jer780?

Yeah just imagine what it would be like if you had to listen to someone spew this stuff at you!

MedicineMan, you're an engineer so you must know how annoying it is to work inefficiently, having to redesign things a million times because the customer doesn't know what they want or having to have parts remade because the vendors are stupid and never read your print and so on and so forth. I'm not going to sit here and tell you why you're wrong because someone has already done it for me. If it maters to you at all there are great resources you can find yourself either on the internet or in your local library or bookstore. Please feel free to use them and not an internet forum where I hang out and look for fun/funny/interesting things ;)
 
2002-03-01 01:46:05 AM
03-01-02 01:38:12 AM MedicineMan
Folks, try actually reading all of his articles.


Ok, and then go read debunking of pretty much anything he has to say here.
 
2002-03-01 01:49:50 AM
That's what they call things that haven't been proven to be 100% true.

Yes. Gravity hasn't been proven to be true, either. There's quite a lot of evidence, but who's knows if it will ever be proven.

If a scientist tells you that we evolved, and you believe him without really understanding ALL of the science involved, that is FAITH.

That's why I like to read up about it. It's not about simply believing a scientist/biology teacher "because he said so".

Evolution is a religious belief just as much as Creation.

Yes, because there's SO MANY FACTS to back up creationism. Let's hear some of them! All I've seen is Hovind trying to "debunk" evolution, while not offering a whole lot of proof towards Creationism. It seems like he thinkis if evolution is wrong, then Creationsism MUST BE RIGHT, which is a logical fallacy.
 
2002-03-01 01:50:11 AM
YodaTuna...

Don't forget that the guy in your link (the one disputing the Creation Science guy) does the same thing all evolutionists do. He plays the "no I'm not, you are" game.

He says you can't prove creation by science, so it must be wrong. That assumes all science is right. He assumes evolution is right and creation is wrong. Why? How is that different that assuming the opposite?

He's actually stupid enough to say that if you can't prove creation without "resorting" to divine intervention, you are wrong. ??? Brain dead, or just hard-headed? Divine action is the whole point of creation.

This creation guy might be an intellectual quack (bogus degree, maybe), but valid points spoken by a four-year-old are just as valid as those spoken by a Nobel Laureate. The rubuttal page actually contained fewer hard facts and references than the creation page. Who's making who look silly?

Boogybrown: What on earth does that have to do with anything?
 
2002-03-01 01:51:30 AM
"in the village -- the peaceful village
the lion sleeps tonight......
in the village -- the peaceful village
the lion sleeps tonight..
ahh ... eeeeeeeeee...ee. ah .eeeeeeeeeeee

ah,weeee, bah wum ah waaaaay!"
 
2002-03-01 01:54:21 AM
go ahead and trash the guy if you'd like, but a GEOCITIES site, come on guys
 
2002-03-01 01:59:01 AM
Jer, that is so stupid. That moron is totally debunked on that geocities site. Just consider in the one decent page hosted by Geocities.
 
2002-03-01 02:00:24 AM
See, there's the common fallacy: Most Creationists don't understand what a Theory is.

You see, in the scientific method, when one has an idea, it's called a Hypothesis. Once one has a Hypothesis, he sets out to find evidence to show that it is true... or false. If enough evidence is gathered through observation to lend the hypothesis a good amount of credibility, it becomes a Theory. That's as far as anything goes. There are no laws in science, because there is always the possibility that any theory can be disproven by later observations. Even gravity and thermodynamics are only theories.

Creationism is most definitely not even a theory. The only "evidence" for it is a book whose final chapter was written 2,000 years ago, which was based on hearsay, not observation and experimentation.
 
2002-03-01 02:00:48 AM
This guy is funnier than a bucket of pelicans. Dig this quote:

People believe in evolution; they do not know that it is true.

Uh, I know it's true, because there are people in the Andes who have developed enlarged hearts and lungs over generations. They live comfortably where average people would keel over from hypoxia.

I know it's true because bacteria acquire disease resistance.

However, there's a catch to the prize, and here it is:

Prove beyond reasonable doubt that the process of evolution (option 3 above, under "known options") is the only possible way the observed phenomena could have come into existence. (emphasis added)

Well, there's are possible alternatives to anything you observe. For example, "God made it that way so that it looks like evolution occured" or "Evil pixies we can't see did it."

Somehow, I don't think this prize is likely to be given out.
 
2002-03-01 02:02:54 AM
Somehow, I don't think this prize is likely to be given out.

You're right, too. People have sent valid entries, and they never get contacted again.
 
2002-03-01 02:02:56 AM
Actually, Quickl, logic says that rebuttals have the burden of proof. Creation has been around a lot longer than evolution. We've believed in God for thousands of years and evolution for a hiccup. He doesn't say that if evolution is wrong, Creation is right. He merely says Evolution is wrong. To prove that evolution is wrong (or at least unproveable, as science wants us to believe), all he has to do is show the contradictions. Proving creation and disproving evolution are not the same thing, and he doens't make that mistake.

If you "read up" on it, who writes what you read? Scientists? Telling you things you don't 100% understand? Written about things they saw, but you did not? Some of them written before you were even born? Then Quickl, you are no different than me reading a Bible and believing what a pastor tells me.

The guy had facts on his site, Quickl. Scientific data that suggests things that the bible said first. And please remember how many aspects of evolution cannot be proven either. You are doing the same thing everyone does. I say, "Evolution is wrong, prove it." You reply, "Oh, yeah? Prove Creation first!". Creation came first, friend. The new idea has to show merit before the accepted idea is thrown out.

RageX, yes, I know what it's like to screw around with dumb people. Part of the job. But no one proved anything for anyone. What literature do you suggest? May I reccomend the bible? One good turn deserves another. And, if you don't care for the posting, go surf elsewhere. I have no apology for somehow detracting from your internet experience.
 
2002-03-01 02:06:52 AM
i just can't believe someone would dedicate a whole site to kent hovind, whoever heard of kent hovind before that article was posted, that my friend is the sad part, in anycase, he doesn't debunk anything, the kent hovind is just trying to make a point, that evolution can't be proven and therefore it takes faith to believe it actually happened, just like it can't be proven that God created everything and therefore it takes faith to believe it, so he doesn't believe evolution shouldn't be taught in school's, even as a theory, i agree, i also agree that any other idea on the subject of origin should be taught in schools either, let the kids the learn and decide about such things on their own, i don't know what school's these other farkers went too, but at my school evolution was taught as if it was a fact as well as teachings that the world was billions of years old, i doubt my teachers ever had clue what they were teaching, they just believed it cause it was in the text book and since it was being taught in school i just took it as fact as well, it wasn't until i was older that i began questioning these ideas and doing my own research on the subjects to find things to be different
 
2002-03-01 02:09:09 AM
Trowshep: But the rock lifting argument is fallacious in that he *can* lift the rock if he wants to. Whether he temporarily can or not is irrelevant, as long as he has the ability to choose to ignore the law and has the ability to be able to lift it at his will. By definition, God the Creator (i.e. one God that created everything - the Conventional sense) would have (by definition) omnipotence, omniscience, etc, etc. Otherwise, he wouldn't be God. (my contigent existence argument) I imagine that even the Greek gods (despite their weaknesses) could collectivelly do whatever the hell they wanted.

RageX: I know man. It's like sitting through a philosophy lecture. I don't think I've ever stayed awake for the full 50 minutes. How can something like philosophy be so interesting, yet so boring to learn at the same time?

Quick1:
In reference to proving things:
A philosopher says, "It's impossible".
A mathematician says, "It hasn't been proven."
An engineer says, "Close enough!" :-)
 
2002-03-01 02:09:17 AM
Scientists regard evolution is a theory, albeit the leading theory and the only theory with credible evidence to support it.

Also, there is a concept in science where one may disprove all other concepts to prove the remaining one. There are no credible challenges to evolution currently.

Also, in order to further science (and refined flawed ideas) scientists need to base ideas off a current hypothesis. You can base science off of evolution, but not creationism.
 
2002-03-01 02:09:21 AM
and ending with something else that needs hard proof..
nice.
 
2002-03-01 02:11:14 AM
let me clarify as well, macro-evolution was being taught, fish turn into amphibians which turn into reptiles which turn into birds wich turn into mammals, which there are no transitional forms to prove this or has it ever been witnessed, however we all know micro-evolution to be true as we can see how different species adapt to their surrondings, such as the previous farker pointed out about the people in the andes with the enlarged hearts, they didn't turn into birds or some other creature, they stayed humans but adapted to the area
 
2002-03-01 02:12:57 AM
1) Creationism is NOT a scientific theory and thus does NOT deserve equal standing with the Theory of Evolution.
2) The misuse (and misunderstanding) of evolutionary ideas is not the fault of those ideas themselves. As biology shows, all human 'races' are of the same species and can interbreed. There is more variation among races than between them. Therefore, if a racist tries to use evolution as a justification (saying his/her race is more advanced), he or she is simply wrong.

Thanks
 
2002-03-01 02:13:31 AM
Creationists never seem to tell people that, mechanically speaking, micro and macroevolution operate on the exact same principals and, if one is possible, than the other is possible.
 
2002-03-01 02:14:07 AM
Anyone ever wonder why Eskimos are short and stocky while Africans are tall and skinny?
 
2002-03-01 02:16:57 AM
he had facts on his site

Ok, here's a nice place that debunks most, if not all of his attacks on Evolution.

rebuttals have the burden of proof.

Who said Evolution had to be a rebuttal? Only hard-core Creationists. There are quite a few people that believe it could have happened both ways.

If you "read up" on it, who writes what you read? Scientists? Telling you things you don't 100% understand? Written about things they saw, but you did not? Some of them written before you were even born? Then Quickl, you are no different than me reading a Bible and believing what a pastor tells me.


Well, see, that's the difference between science and Religion. Science produces data that is REPRODUCEABLE. You can still go and observe microevloution. You can go out and test the effects of the laws of physics. This isn't a bunch of people simply writing something they made up a while ago.

Secondly, does it REALLY matter which side I believe? After looking at the data, I currently believe evolution has the best case to be true. But really, does anyone care? Is it going to change the world? Not really. The creation of man is simply another topic that goes along with "what happens after death". Something that ultimately doesn't matter in the here and now, unless you are a scientist studying it.

And please remember how many aspects of evolution cannot be proven either.

Well duh. I believe I said that the first time I posted in the thread. You can't prove, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that evolution occured. You also can't prove gravity beyond a shadow of a doubt, either. But you sure can pile on a lot of evidence.
 
2002-03-01 02:17:22 AM
Whoopsie, forgot to close the tag.
 
Displayed 50 of 414 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report