Creationists are hard to come by around here, lately. It seems like there used to be a few more discussions but I can’t remember the last time we got a YEC that was willing to stick it out and have a real debate.
Well, since the OP doesn’t appear to be interested in debate…
It’s obvious there are a lot of people out there who don’t understand scientific methodology. How can fix this?
That should be “How can we fix this?”
I’m going out on a limb here, but you didn’t read all the replies or the link you provided, did you?
Also, you don’t have to say you are a creationist; most IF NOT ALL evolution-deniers are creationists of some flavor.
BTW-do you think that Hovind is an actual ‘Dr’ or ‘scientist’ or is actually credible?
I really like the way that you linked to a page that demonstrated that Hovind is a charlatan and a liar in an effort to avoid responding to legitimate science regarding the fact of evolution and the theory of its mechanism.
(And had you actually read the replies, you would note that there have not been “73 repliers,” but that a somewhat smaller number of posters had provided 73 replies. So it appears that you not only have not read your own thread, you have dismally failed to read your own “evidence” and you really have nothing to contribute to the topic.)
Oh, I think his theory about earthworms and soil formation has been proven to the satisfaction of even the most ardent Anti-Evolutionist. (Not “Scientific Creationist”, please – that’s not only a misnomer but an insult to both elements of the name. I am a scientific creationist in the way the term ought to be used – I believe that God called the Universe into being by His Word, and that modern science gives us a pretty clear idea of how He did it.)
But in case you have any problem with this, Darwin’s theory of evolution is foundational, rather than dogmatic, for modern evolutionary biologists – much as Newton’s theory of gravitation is. Despite the fact that Einsteinian physics has replaced Newtonian gravitation with a somewhat different concept, the Newtonian version is still accurate within a certain frame of reference, and provided the framework on which Einstein built.
Likewise, DeVries, Eldridge, Gould, Dawkins, and other theorists have worked from the Darwinian concepts to come up with clearer, more elegant answers to how evolution works.
Finally, Dubois, who discovered the remains of Java Man, got into a strange mindset before his death, where he used numerology on measurements of the fossil remains to “prove” that it was a giant gibbon. Despite this aberration, we look at his work before he went off the deep end.
You have several options as a believer confronted with the mass of fossil evidence excavated over the last few hundred years. The only one that I find intellectually sound and spiritually beneficial is to presume that whatever Genesis 1-11 were intended to be, it was not a treatise on God’s methodology in Creation. In fact, if you read it in conjunction with the Babylonian creation myth, you see where it’s intended as a corrective for that piece of naive mythology.
If one presumes Him to have in fact created the world as we know it, and to have a hand in the creation of the Torah, then any other application than reading Genesis 1 as accurate myth – the truth, but told in mythopoeic style, memorably driving home important points about the relationship of God and His Creation – makes Him into a liar. Either He misrepresented the way in which He created in inspiring Genesis, or He buried false evidence, or misled every human being from third grade up in such reasonable conclusions as “in undisturbed strata, the upper layer was laid down on top of the lower one at a later time” and “things that look like fossilized bones and shells are in fact what they appear to be.”
In short, the so-called “Scientific Creationist” is saying that his own incredulity that God might be capable of something as intricate and subtle as modern cosmology and evolutionary biology suggest that He was, lead Him to ascribe foul motives not only to his fellow man but to His Creator as well.
I would actually like to see a debate between theists/gnostics/deists and their support/lack thereof of evolution.
I’m a believer in God. I also believe whole heartedly in science and the scientific process, as they are the means by which man progresses and discovers the universe. The two beliefs are not at odds in my mind.
Many years ago I worked alongside a born-again who was very “into” science and technology. When I asked how he balanced God and science, he said that it was easy - God says “you will come to know Me.” Science is, IMHO, our endeavor to understand, and thus, come to know God.
Dan Brown’s Angels and Demons deals with this subject directly.
JustWrightin
That link you gave basically criticizes an offer of Kent Hovind’s and you’re saying that link has “all” of his arguments that supposedly refute everything said in this thread.
In big bold letters on that link it says:
What Is Wrong With the “Offer”?
and
Other Problems With the Offer
In the top-right corner of the page there are links to other sites which criticize Hovind.
That link also says:
The way you just scoffed at all of what was written here, with your only counter-argument being a link to an anti-creationist site shows that you have little respect for the time of the people on these boards, and it would drive people away from creationism.
If the OP would like to learn about the mechanism of evolution, he should check out this site. Although the site says it’s a Web site for teachers, the info is pitched at such an elementary level that it serves as a decent primer for the uneducated layman to learn about the basics of evolutionary theory.
I find the the most ardent critics of evolution usually know nothing about it.
I believe you misunderstood his point, which was that time began counting at the moment of the Big Bang so there couldn’t be a “before” if there wasn’t time with which to measure it.
I think the OP basically wants absolute proof of evolution, and is also pointing out how they are sick of learning about it at school and think they should learn other theories about origins at school. (e.g. creationism)
If the OP doesn’t understand what the theory of evolution actually is, how is he going to understand the data that supports it?
I think the OP has simply ben spoon fed some Hovind-type nonsense that prevented him from ever actually studying anything about science or the Theory of Natural Selection and has simply been throwing out argumentative chaff without considering either the points presented or even the “points” he has offered.
I find his use of the TalkOrigins refutation of Hovind in an attempt to “present” the YEC blather delicious, of course.
This could very well be the case and if it is, the OP should first learn about science before learning about the theory of evolution.
That way the OP would be able to tell the difference between a scientific theory (such as evolution) and a pseudoscientific “theory” (creationism), which actually isn’t a scientific theory at all.
Dude, I am SO stealing that!
I’m thinking the OP should perhaps stay out of Great Debates until he has looked up the word “debate” in a dictionary.
You’re making quite a big assumption there, I think.
I’m not sure who originally said this quote, but I first heard it here in Great Debates. If anyone can give me this quote’s origin, I’d be most appreciative.
“It’s just as honorable to be a modified monkey as it is to be modified dirt.”
I was being charitable.
No. It was e. e. cummings.
Wait a minute…