Do You Believe In Evolution?

[Bill]

Bill just seems to be better at memorizing. Message boards are always filled with "arm chair" Biologists convinced of their own brilliance.

Personally, I have seen guys like Ken Hovind, Arlo Moehlenpah, Morris and Ham completely dismantle evolutionary Biologists with all their awards and PhD's in debate. Message board debate is pointless about 99.5% of the time. It gets far too broad, far too loose and you rarely get either side cornered to nail down one issue at a time. You ask one hard question and the opposing side wants to change gears and go a different direction.

Well, I never claimed to be a biologist, but I can easily point to message boards full of them so that you can get schooled properly there. I doubt you'd take the challenge though, and this "armchair biologist" will tell you why.

Kent Hovind isn't a biologist and his doctorate (in Bible education) is from a degree mill that he founded. Henry Morris and Ken Ham haven't debated or even won a debate in years since scientists caught on to their tactics of filling debate halls with the holy converted. Once they started getting into balanced venues, they lost. These days they're little more than footnotes and examples of what not to say to evolutionists during a debate. Answers in Genesis, a thinktank for Creationists, make note of Morris, Ham and Duane Gish's arguments as what not to say during a debate. They have disowned Kent Hovind. I've read a page on Arlo, where he fumbles SLOT, invents laws which have no scientific basis and validity. He sounds good, if you don't know a damn thing about science. His degree is in chemical engineering, not biology. Interesting.

Personally, the minute you mentioned Kent Hovind, you lost this discussion. He has less credibility in the world of science than the average 8th grader.

The evolution idea is beyond even my faith from the word go. The Big Bang says that everything that is in the known universe came from the explosion of a "singularity" that was the size of the period at the end of this sentence. Hmm. And yet that say we Christians are teh crazy ones for having faith. It takes more faith to believe the evolution joke than anything in the Bible.

Hey, maybe you should take the advice from this "armchair biologist" and accept that Evolution and the Big Bang are two different ideas.

You see, you came into this thread hoping to make a big splash, and you ended up getting muddy because you don't know what you're talking about, and you've listened to other people who don't know what they're talking about. I suggest memorizing a lot of science, just like I do(forget all the geology, biology and archaeology classes I took), so you can come back and restate your arguments. Okay?

If not, you might want to put on some waders next time, you're all wet.

 

[knowsbleed]

EvolutiOWNED.

 

[Majic Walrus]

Jesus did that because He was going to use it as a lesson for the disciples. Peter said, "Lord, if it's you, call me to come to you on the water." That's a pretty bold move, considering thier fear in thinking Jesus was a ghost.

In response, Jesus simply said, "Come." So long as Peter's eyes remained on Jesus, he walked on water as well. But the moment he fixed on the wind and waves, his fear took over, and he began to sink. Jesus pulled him back up to the surface, saying, "Why do you doubt?" He was teaching His followers to trust Him more than their circumstances.

Couldn't he teach me to believe in him by performing a miracle?

Salvation is already offered, completely free to you or anyone else; no money or payment is required. All God asks is that you believe in your heart that Jesus is the Son of God, that He was crucified, and confess with your mouth that God raised him from the dead as payment for your sin. That's it. Everything else in Scripture is about living the most God-honoring life possible while on Earth.

If he wants me to be saved he should make a little more effort than just standing over there far away being ambigious right?

 

[Majic Walrus]

Bill just got promoted to my new hero!

 

[Darthphere]

Well, I never claimed to be a biologist, but I can easily point to message boards full of them so that you can get schooled properly there. I doubt you'd take the challenge though, and this "armchair biologist" will tell you why.

Kent Hovind isn't a biologist and his doctorate (in Bible education) is from a degree mill that he founded. Henry Morris and Ken Ham haven't debated or even won a debate in years since scientists caught on to their tactics of filling debate halls with the holy converted. Once they started getting into balanced venues, they lost. These days they're little more than footnotes and examples of what not to say to evolutionists during a debate. Answers in Genesis, a thinktank for Creationists, make note of Morris, Ham and Duane Gish's arguments as what not to say during a debate. They have disowned Kent Hovind. I've read a page on Arlo, where he fumbles SLOT, invents laws which have no scientific basis and validity. He sounds good, if you don't know a damn thing about science. His degree is in chemical engineering, not biology. Interesting.

Personally, the minute you mentioned Kent Hovind, you lost this discussion. He has less credibility in the world of science than the average 8th grader.




Hey, maybe you should take the advice from this "armchair biologist" and accept that Evolution and the Big Bang are two different ideas.

You see, you came into this thread hoping to make a big splash, and you ended up getting muddy because you don't know what you're talking about, and you've listened to other people who don't know what they're talking about. I suggest memorizing a lot of science, just like I do(forget all the geology, biology and archaeology classes I took), so you can come back and restate your arguments. Okay?

If not, you might want to put on some waders next time, you're all wet.

One of the best ownings I've read on here in a while, it reminds me of my glory days.

 

[Nitehawk013]

Spare me junior.

Hovind's only lack of credibility is that he is in jail for tax evasive practices. That doesn't take away from the fact that the man has spent more time refuting evolution with research than most "scientists" have spent in their own research.

Gish/Morris/Ham filling halls with believers has no bearing whatsoever on the information and evidence put forth in the debates. A large cheering section doesn't have any effect on the facts. Nice try at a demonization though.

Arlo is a Chemical engineer. Funny how you would be so quick to discredit a chemical engineer when EVERYTHING about life can pretty much be broken down to chemical reactions and connections.

And the Big Bang has everythign to do with Evolution. It is the theorized starting point for the process of evolution itself. If you can't grasp that, then you are dumber than a bag of hammers. If you ignore the origin of the process, then how do you embrace the process?

Convenient stance you folks take. Anyone who disagrees with your point is in junk science no matter how many degrees or years of study. No matter how smart or studied the person is, if they don't agree then they aren't acceptable scientists. I'll take Hovind, Morris, Behe, Lubenow, Berlinski, Barr, etc over most of the robots who never challenge anything but just repeat the evolution mantras over and over.

 

[psychocheeseman]

I'd like to apologise in advance if this post seems a little rude - i'm just so shocked at how dumb some posters ideas are (not the posters themselves they seem fine - they just believe some really stupid things)

Bill just seems to be better at memorizing. Message boards are always filled with "arm chair" Biologists convinced of their own brilliance.

Personally, I have seen guys like Ken Hovind, Arlo Moehlenpah, Morris and Ham completely dismantle evolutionary Biologists with all their awards and PhD's in debate. Message board debate is pointless about 99.5% of the time.

Sorry i'm gonna have to call you on this one... where and when did these magical debates take place with Hovind making valid arguments? Please post a link if you can find one. If evolutionary theory was capable of being disproved so easily it wouldn't be taught. Persuasive language and good debating skills don't necessarily make an argument correct - if you have any examples of rational and scientifically valid arguments used by these cretins please share it.

It gets far too broad, far too loose and you rarely get either side cornered to nail down one issue at a time. You ask one hard question and the opposing side wants to change gears and go a different direction.

The evolution idea is beyond even my faith from the word go. The Big Bang says that everything that is in the known universe came from the explosion of a "singularity" that was the size of the period at the end of this sentence. Hmm. And yet that say we Christians are the crazy ones for having faith. It takes more faith to believe the evolution joke than anything in the Bible.

- You're talking about the problem of these boards being too broad, but you aren't even sticking to the topic yourself...Big Bang theory has nothing to do with the theory of evolution!

More examples of crazy ideas...
When asked if moviefan needed to see a fish give birth to a cat...moviefan replied:

Such a visually-referenced phenomena would be required to conclusively prove the existence of evolution.

Dude! He was making a joke - A fish giving birth to a cat would totally disprove evolution as we know it-

Both of these species were still fish though, correct? That's micro-evolution, not macro. I'm all for animals bringing forth new species, but therein lies another problem.

"micro evolution" as you call it IS evolution -
Answer me this - IF micro evolution occurs why, in your opinion, couldn't "macro evolution" occur. What's stopping these small changes from occuring again and again over time until new species are formed?
I'm guessing the only argument you have is the pathetic notion that the world hasn't been around long enough - which is, firstly not only ******** and an utterly foolish thing to believe - But also, even if the world was as young as you "young earthers" claim Then how could you possibly claim "kinds" evolved as much as they did in such a short time? 4000 years is not enough time to account for the diversity of species within the "kinds" you describe.

See, Darwin fooled a lot of people by substituting the word "species" for "kinds" in his writings. In the strictest sense, a true kind is a particular type of a certain animal. Look at dogs, wolves, and coyotes. Each of these creatures share a ton of similarities, suggesting that they likely came from an older, dog-like ancestor. Variations within the kinds can occur, resulting in new species of dogs, coyotes, or wolves. I don't have any objections to that, because it's perfectly reasonable. The changes are confined to the kind of animal, but not the exact species.

How devious of Darwin to use a scientifically valid taxonomic term...
like i said before - 4000 yrs is not enough time for all doglike cretures to evolve from the "kind" you say was on Noahs Ark...
This "Kinds" analysis solves nothing - how wide do you cast this "kind" net anyway. Are gorilla's and monkeys and human's the same kind? if not why not? are all fish one kind?

What's not reasonable is science's current theories that say animals change from kind to kind (which no one has ever observed). You've never seen a horse give birth to anything but a horse. A bird has never reproduced anything but another bird. There are variations within the kinds, but that's the limit of it.

Of course no one has ever personally observed changes that occur over thousands of years. But people have observed changes in fossil records - the adaptation of animals to specific niches, and countless other forms of evidence for evolution. What no one has observed was the creation of all animals at once by some magical old man. Evolution is the best explanation we have - it has the most evidence and doesn't bring up the ton of unanswerable questions the alternative does.

And finally, this idea that commonality proves a "common creator" is about as ******** as the idea that bananas were designed as they are - just for us. If i point to the pentadactle limb as i sign of common ancestory between mammals - and you say no that's merely a sign that they had a common creator - why the **** doesn't everything have the pentedactle limb then? If everything is made by the same creator any signs of a common creator would be present in all things.

 

[Nitehawk013]

I don't know that there are online links to the debates. I have them on DVD at home.

And again, Big Bang theory is the origin of the evolution process. Itis a bit impossible to seperate them. One leads to the other.

 

[psychocheeseman]

Spare me junior.

Hovind's only lack of credibility is that he is in jail for tax evasive practices. That doesn't take away from the fact that the man has spent more time refuting evolution with research than most "scientists" have spent in their own research.

wow... his only lack of credibility is the fact that he's a convicted liar...
i can't imagine how that could possibly give him a bad name...

Gish/Morris/Ham filling halls with believers has no bearing whatsoever on the information and evidence put forth in the debates. A large cheering section doesn't have any effect on the facts. Nice try at a demonization though.

No, but it does show you how they can win a debate without having needing the evidence to back up their arguments.

Arlo is a Chemical engineer. Funny how you would be so quick to discredit a chemical engineer when EVERYTHING about life can pretty much be broken down to chemical reactions and connections.

but he's not a biologist - it's not his area - it's like going to a taxation lawyer for a family law matter, he's not qualified in the area. The fact that he's a scientist doesn't make everything he says true. If he had any strong evidence against evolution he'd have successfully debunked it by now. He applies made up "laws of science" and misused others in order to dispute
evolution. he is a hack. read his material carefully and you might see it too. (provided you have some understanding of scientific terminology and concepts)

And the Big Bang has everythign to do with Evolution. It is the theorized starting point for the process of evolution itself. If you can't grasp that, then you are dumber than a bag of hammers. If you ignore the origin of the process, then how do you embrace the process?

They're different theories - the big bang has nothing to do with life - the theory of evolution doesn't come into play until life exists. explaining anything else is up to other areas of study.
Just as the theory of gravity doesn't need to explain how planets got where they are...

Convenient stance you folks take. Anyone who disagrees with your point is in junk science no matter how many degrees or years of study. No matter how smart or studied the person is, if they don't agree then they aren't acceptable scientists. I'll take Hovind, Morris, Behe, Lubenow, Berlinski, Barr, etc over most of the robots who never challenge anything but just repeat the evolution mantras over and over.

If their reason for disagreeing with evolution as based on misunderstandings of science then of course we are going to disagree.

Hovind, Morris, Behe, Lubenow, Berlinski, & barr aren't looking for answers - they believe they already have the answer, they're merely looking for whatever information might back up their version of events - however hard they have to skew it in oirder to do so.

 

[Majic Walrus]

I don't know that there are online links to the debates. I have them on DVD at home.

And again, Big Bang theory is the origin of the evolution process. Itis a bit impossible to seperate them. One leads to the other.

This is a false statement. What if God created the universe but then left it alone and evolution took the rest? What if the big bang created life as we know it without evolution? Evolution is not dependant on The Big Bang, and vice versa. They just work really well together.

 

[squeekness]

The evolution idea is beyond even my faith from the word go. The Big Bang says that everything that is in the known universe came from the explosion of a "singularity" that was the size of the period at the end of this sentence. Hmm. And yet that say we Christians are teh crazy ones for having faith. It takes more faith to believe the evolution joke than anything in the Bible.

What if it was the spoken "Word" of God that caused that single, period sized dot of whatever to explode into becoming the known universe? The Big Bang theory does not eliminate the idea of a Creator at all. It just sorta explains a tiny bit about how it was done.

This is a false statement. What if God created the universe but then left it alone and evolution took the rest? What if the big bang created life as we know it without evolution? Evolution is not dependant on The Big Bang, and vice versa. They just work really well together.

I agree with this, that they are separate complimentary ideas. The Big Bang was the start of everything and evolution is something that happened here, locally (though probably on other planets as well).

 

[chaseter]

Alright, we found a new whacko to entertain us!

 

[Hotwire]

Fossils are completely unreliable in proving macroevolution, for one reason more than most: it's dead. Fossils cannot be used to prove evolutional theory, because in truth, all you can conclusively prove by looking at a fossil is that it died. You can't prove it had any offspring at all.

And a book of stories cannot prove it's own truth, simply by having one of the sotries say the book is truth.

 

[chaseter]

^The quote you quoted is epic sig material. This just in...flora and fauna fossils were a joke by God and only Pat Robertson knows the truth!

Moviefan...do you go to college or have you been and gotten a degree?

 

[Spidey-Bat]

Evolution in a Nut Shell

 

[Moviefan2k4]

Hovind's only lack of credibility is that he is in jail for tax evasive practices. That doesn't take away from the fact that the man has spent more time refuting evolution with research than most "scientists" have spent in their own research.

Exactly; I'll freely admit that Kent Hovind made what appears to be a huge mistake in not paying taxes. To his credit, he did agree to comply, so long as the federal government could show him exactly what part of the U.S. Tax Code he actually broke, and how. Rather than proving their point (which would be justly necessary to keep him behind bars), they simply chose to lock him up.

These events may serve to damage the man's public reputation...however, they do not automatically impede or invalidate the scientific findings he and others have spoken about. There is plenty of verifiable evidence to suggest the possibility of Earth only being around 6,000 years old; evolutionists simply choose to reject it, because it conflicts with their beloved theory.

And the Big Bang has everythign to do with Evolution. It is the theorized starting point for the process of evolution itself. If you can't grasp that, then you are dumber than a bag of hammers. If you ignore the origin of the process, then how do you embrace the process?

Excellent point, Nitehawk.

Convenient stance you folks take. Anyone who disagrees with your point is in junk science no matter how many degrees or years of study. No matter how smart or studied the person is, if they don't agree then they aren't acceptable scientists. I'll take Hovind, Morris, Behe, Lubenow, Berlinski, Barr, etc over most of the robots who never challenge anything but just repeat the evolution mantras over and over.

It always amazes me that when pressed, evolutionists always fall back to the tired statement of, "But we know the Earth is billions of years old." Baloney; they may believe that, and they're perfectly free to do so...but they don't know it for certain. And since they're the ones bent on disproving Scripture, the burden of proof lies on their shoulders, not ours.

 

[Moviefan2k4]

Where and when did these magical debates take place with Hovind making valid arguments? Please post a link if you can find one.

Try this website; you can watch and/or download many of Hovind's seminars, debates, and college lectures. Examine his evidence for yourself.

 

[Darthphere]

Exactly; I'll freely admit that Kent Hovind made what appears to be a huge mistake in not paying taxes. To his credit, he did agree to comply, so long as the federal government could show him exactly what part of the U.S. Tax Code he actually broke, and how. Rather than proving their point (which would be justly necessary to keep him behind bars), they simply chose to lock him up.

Yeah, because you're supposed to know how you ****ed up. And I'm sure the government was happy to show him where broke the tax code...at his trial. Do you not know how the Criminal Justice system works in America?

 

[Spidey-Bat]

Yeah, because you're supposed to know how you ****ed up. And I'm sure the government was happy to show him where broke the tax code...at his trial. Do you not know how the Criminal Justice system works in America?

He doesn't know how anything works.

 

[Bubonic]

It never ceases to amaze me how some people talk about Jesus and the things he did in a way that makes it seem like they were there and witnessed it.

 

[Majic Walrus]

It always amazes me that when pressed, evolutionists always fall back to the tired statement of, "But we know the Earth is billions of years old." Baloney; they may believe that, and they're perfectly free to do so...but they don't know it for certain. And since they're the ones bent on disproving Scripture, the burden of proof lies on their shoulders, not ours.

What? You are saying that people who believe the Earth is billions of years old don't know it so it must be baloney?

I have news for you, you don't know that the Bible is true you simply believe it.

People who believe the Earth is billions of years old are using evidence from seperate parts of the Earth at seperate times that have been tested and retested to come to the conclusion that the Earth is probably really old.

You are coming to the conclusion that the Earth is 10,000 years old based on ONE book.

The burden of proof lies one ANYONE who wants to claim knowledge one way or the other. You say you know something you'd damn well better be able to prove it too.

 

[Bubonic]

Walrus, don't you understand that of course he knows the Bible is true because his faith tells him so, and faith is not to be questioned, whereas countless amounts of hard sought and corroborated evidence isn't worth anything because it is simply a bunch of mere mortals trying to question the almighty word of God?

Sheesh, some people.

 

[The Apocalypse]

EvolutiOWNED.

 

[Sentinel X]

One quick question I always had about evolution, to anyone who has studied the subject:
Why are ALL human beings classified as Homo Sapien...why aren't there different names for different races?

I KNOW we are all one (so save that speech for me, please ) and that we all share a common ancestor, blah, blah, blah however each race is different from one another...is it just to be politically 'correct' or is there actual distinct names but I just cant find them?

 

[Danalys]

the variance in genetic information in humans is alot less than most species actually. and also we can all mate and get viable offspring.