|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
 Posted - 02/26/2005 : 12:58:00 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by pspano58
Boy, you guys really hate Hovind, don't you?
Maybe because his evidence proves macro-evolution is a fairy tale at best and a lie at worst, with absolutely no proof whatsoever except what evolutionists "assume" or "hope" may have happened, and an old earth is BS at best because the bottom line is, you don't really know jack shit, do ya?
When confronted with evidence from him, all you do is call him a liar, but you never address the claim directly, or disprove it, you simply say "he is a liar". At least be honest and admit that you are not open-minded about it, you want and hope and pray that macro-evolution is true and any evidence to the contrary must be attacked and ridiculed because it shows that you may actually be wrong.
You're joking, right? Seriously-- did you even read any of the posts above? We call "Dr" Dino a liar not because we're afraid of his "facts" but because, he is, in fact, a liar. For instance, you wrote (i.e. copied from Hovind) earlier-- in an attempt to show how flawed 14C-dating was-- thatquote:
"One part of Dima [a baby frozen mammoth] was 40,000, another part was 26,000 and the "wood immediately around the carcass" was 9-10,000. --Troy L. Pewe, Quaternary Stratigraphic Nomenclature in Unglaciated Central Alaska, Geological Survey Professional Paper 862 (U.S. Gov. printing office, 1975) p. 30
However, Dave linked a site where we find thatquote:
the data in USGS Professional Paper 862 . . . is [from] a 1975 paper by Troy Pewe entitled “Quaternary Stratigraphic Nomenclature in Unglaciated Central Alaska”. It is a description of stratigraphic units in Alaska, but does contain more than 150 radiocarbon dates. Many of these dates are from the 1950's and 60's. There are three references to mammoths: hair from a mammoth skull (found by Geist in 1951 in frozen silt); “flesh from lower leg, Mammuthus primigenius” (found by Osborne in 1940, 26 m below the surface); and the “skin and flesh of Mammuthus primigenius[”] [baby mammoth] (found by Geist in 1948 “with a beaver dam”). The dates given are, respectively, 32,700; 15,380; and 21,300 years BP BUT the last is thought to be an invalid date because the hide was soaked in glycerin.
NOWHERE IN THE PAPER DOES IT SAY, OR EVEN IMPLY, THAT THESE SPECIMENS ARE PARTS OF THE SAME ANIMAL. They were found in different places, at different times, by different people. One is even termed “baby”, and the other is not.
In other words, Hovind distorts the information.
In my earlier post, I address the first of your claims (again, copied from Hovind):quote:
Shells from living snails were carbon dated as being 27,000 years old. Science vol. 224, 1984, pp. 58-61
I actually looked at the reference in question. Read it here-- it's the 7th post on the page. Even a cursory glance of the article shows that the authors in no way refute 14C-dating. Indeed, they even go as far as to say that "Carbon-14 dating is a useful and precise technique" when certain materials are used. Their point was that other materials can skep results, and they show how such problems ca |
 |
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 02/26/2005 : 14:01:54 [Permalink]
|
Kent Hovind is an outrageous fraud, even an embarrassment to other Creationists. He is no better than a carny barker and even less honest. I suggest that you research him for yourself, rather than parrot his nonsense.
I agree entirely that all religiln should be barred from the classroom, except in comparitive superstition religion classes. However, the ToE belongs in science class just as much as creationism belongs out of it.
Here's something you might find interesting.
quote:
Introduction
volution, the overarching concept that unifies the biological sciences, in fact embraces a plurality of theories and hypotheses. In evolutionary debates one is apt to hear evolution roughly parceled between the terms "microevolution" and "macroevolution". Microevolution, or change beneath the species level, may be thought of as relatively small scale change in the functional and genetic constituencies of populations of organisms. That this occurs and has been observed is generally undisputed by critics of evolution. What is vigorously challenged, however, is macroevolution. Macroevolution is evolution on the "grand scale" resulting in the origin of higher taxa. In evolutionary theory it thus entails common ancestry, descent with modification, the genealogical relatedness of all life, transformation of species, and large scale functional and structural changes of populations through time, all above the species level (Freeman and Herron 2004; Futuyma 1998; Ridley 1993).
Common descent is a general descriptive theory that concerns the genetic origins of living organisms (though not the ultimate origin of life). The theory specifically postulates that all of the earth's known biota are genealogically related, much in the same way that siblings or cousins are related to one another. Thus, macroevolutionary history and processes necessarily entail the transformation of one species into another and, consequently, the origin of higher taxa. Because it is so well supported scientifically, common descent is often called the "fact of evolution" by biologists. For these reasons, proponents of special creation are especially hostile to the macroevolutionary foundation of the biological sciences.
This article directly addresses the scientific evidence in favor of common descent and macroevolution. This article is specifically intended for those who are scientifically minded but, for one reason or another, have come to believe that macroevolutionary theory explains little, makes few or no testable predictions, is unfalsifiable, or has not been scientifically demonstrated.
You obviously don't know what a scientific theory is. Not to worry, few creationists do and even fewer bother to find out. Hovind might or might not know, and if he does, it means nothing to him. Fortunatly, we are here to guide you.
In science, a 'theory' is simple an explanation for certain facts that are support by evidence so positive that it would be illogical to deny them.
quote:
hen non-biologists talk about biological evolution they often confuse two different aspects of the definition. On the one hand there is the question of whether or not modern organisms have evolved from older ancestral organisms or whether modern species are continuing to change over time. On the other hand there are questions about the mechanism of the observed changes... how did evolution occur? Biologists consider the existence of |
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist! 
|
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 02/26/2005 : 14:47:57 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Boy, you guys really hate Hovind, don't you?
Maybe because his evidence proves macro-evolution is a fairy tale at best and a lie at worst, with absolutely no proof whatsoever except what evolutionists "assume" or "hope" may have happened, and an old earth is BS at best because the bottom line is, you don't really know jack shit, do ya?
When confronted with evidence from him, all you do is call him a liar, but you never address the claim directly, or disprove it, you simply say "he is a liar". At least be honest and admit that you are not open-minded about it, you want and hope and pray that macro-evolution is true and any evidence to the contrary must be attacked and ridiculed because it shows that you may actually be wrong.
That's got to be about the most amusing thing ever posted to the SFN.
We call Hovind a liar, because he is a liar.
We can, and will again I'm sure, demonstrate that Hovind's claims are not only factually erronious, but deliberately distorted.
So, why don't you pick a claim of hovind's, any one will do. State it here, and we'll provide the evidence to show you that he is not only wrong, but lies to promote his ridiculous claims.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 02/26/2005 : 15:27:44 [Permalink]
|
Hovind's wet dream fufilled.
quote:
At Dinosaur Adventure Land, visitors can make their own Grand Canyon replica with sand and read a sign deriding textbooks for teaching that the Colorado River formed the canyon over millions of years: "This is clearly not possible. The top of the Grand Canyon is 4,000 feet higher than where the river enters the canyon! Rivers do not flow up hill!"
There is a movie depicting the creation, the flood and the fall of man, which fast-forwards from a lush Garden of Eden to a New York City traffic jam.
There are no mechanized rides at Dinosaur Adventure Land - no creationist-themed roller coasters, scramblers or even a ferris wheel - but instead, a simple discovery center and museum and about a dozen outdoor games, each of which has a "science lesson" and "spiritual lesson" posted nearby. A group of about 60 parents and home-schooled children who visited Wednesday, including the Passmores, spent all afternoon trying the games, which promote religious faith more than creationist tenets.
Take Jumpasaurus, which involves jumping on a trampoline while trying to throw a ball through a hoop as many times as possible in a minute. The science lesson: "You will use coordination in this game, which means you will be doing more than one thing at once." The spiritual lesson, according to Mr. Johnson: "You need to learn to be coordinated for Jesus Christ so you can get more things done for him."
Somewhat more creationist in approach is the Nerve-Wracking Ball: a bowling ball on a rope, dangling from a tall tree branch. A child stands before the ball, and then a park guide gives it a shove from a specific angle, so that it comes careering back at the child's face only to stop just in front of it. The child wins if he does not flinch, proving he has "faith in God's laws" - in this case, that a swinging object will never come back higher than the point from which it took off.
Eugenie Scott, executive director of the National Center for Science Education, which tracks creationist programs, said traditional creationists like Mr. Hovind had in fact given up on building intellectual credibility years ago.
Emphasis mine.
Sounds like a real fun place for the kids to spend a day. On the way home, they can read Chick Tract comics.
 |
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist!
|
| Edited by - filthy on 02/26/2005 15:29:53 |
|
|
|
furshur
SFN Regular
USA
1536 Posts |
Posted - 02/26/2005 : 19:38:44 [Permalink]
|
pspano58 said:
quote:
If anybody wants this "stuff" to be taught, fine, start your own school and have people pay for it. Don't force ME and millions of others who do not agree with you, to fund your "religion".
You and your millions are going to have a very short school day.
Geology can't be taught since it conflicts with Hovind's religion.
Physics can't be taught since it conflicts with Hovind's religion.
Astronomy can't be taught since it conflicts with Hovind's religion.
Biology can't be taught since it conflicts with Hovind's religion.
You will have to stick to reading - the bible and religious Christian books.
Writting - only on religious Christian topics.
Math - do not try to apply the math or you may stray into one of the unforgivable fields of study.
This is just plain silly..
The "stuff" you want to learn is only taught in your own fundie schools that you pay for, which is where it should be.
It is your choice - but what a piss poor education your kids are going to get. Not to mention that with the poor use of logic that must be used in those schools, they will not be able to tell fact from fiction after they get out.
You appear to be a result of that type of education - a wealth of information has been supplied in this thread and you have completely ignored it. You have not even acknowledged any of the discussion about Hovind and have gone as far as to act as if the discussion had not even occurred. Amazing!
|
If I knew then what I know now then I would know more now than I know. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26031 Posts |
Posted - 02/26/2005 : 21:51:35 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by pspano58
Boy, you guys really hate Hovind, don't you?
I don't even know the man, why should I hate him?quote:
Maybe because his evidence proves macro-evolution is a fairy tale at best and a lie at worst, with absolutely no proof whatsoever except what evolutionists "assume" or "hope" may have happened, and an old earth is BS at best because the bottom line is, you don't really know jack shit, do ya?
When confronted with evidence from him, all you do is call him a liar, but you never address the claim directly, or disprove it, you simply say "he is a liar". At least be honest and admit that you are not open-minded about it, you want and hope and pray that macro-evolution is true and any evidence to the contrary must be attacked and ridiculed because it shows that you may actually be wrong.
You owe me, pspano58, for the cost of a new hypocrisy meter, as mine just exploded. Because after we addressed the evidence directly, and used the evidence to demonstrate Hovind's fabrications, you deny all of it.quote:
I'm still waiting for scientific, indisputable, observed facts that macro-evolution occurred...
There are millions of such observed facts which, taken together, build the evidence for evolution. Where would you like to begin? After all, biology is extremely complex, it's going to take much more than one post. Have you seen the size of biology textbooks these days?quote:
...and until it is proven, it should NOT be taught in our schools at taxpayer expense. Period.
It's the best explanation for life's diversity that we have. It will never be "proven" in the sense that you use the word. But that's not the point...quote:
You want to teach it as a theory that many scientists believe in, okay. That is fine. Creation should be taught as well because most people actually believe in it. But that's not the point.
I believe that NEITHER should be taught because either way it is not relevant to a normal education for children.
Neither is basketball, since fewer than one-in-a-million kids will ever become a professional basketball player. Where is your rant against teaching basketball, football, baseball and - forcryingoutloud - field hockey?quote:
Teach them to read, write and do math. Leave the "religions" out of the schools, leave the politically correct doctrines out, stop giving them condoms and teaching them about alternative lifestyles.
Biology isn't a religion, and the other bits are irrelevant.quote:
If anybody wants this "stuff" to be taught, fine, start your own school and have people pay for it. Don't force ME and millions of others who do not agree with you, to fund your "religion".
Again, biology isn't a religion. Public school exists to give a highly generalized education to everyone. And that includes a very glossed-over discussion of biology and it's primary theories. You want an even crappier education, with just reading, writing and 'rithmatic? Fine, you go set it up. The funny part is, the Southern Baptist Convention rejected a call for all Southern Baptists to homeschool, as many people could not afford it, or handle the basic legal requirements.quote:
Nice try.
Indeed, it was a nice try for you to equate evolution with religion. It was a nice try for you to simply deny that Hovind is a liar, despite the evidence. Nice try. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
belt
New Member
USA
17 Posts |
Posted - 02/26/2005 : 21:59:03 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Geology can't be taught since it conflicts with Hovind's religion.
Physics can't be taught since it conflicts with Hovind's religion.
Astronomy can't be taught since it conflicts with Hovind's religion.
Biology can't be taught since it conflicts with Hovind's religion.
Good Lord (figure of speech, and pun intended of course), after reading this, I'm quite upset. My entire college course work (except electives) was just wiped out!
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26031 Posts |
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 02/27/2005 : 03:24:07 [Permalink]
|
I still wanna know how this doofus manages to speak publicly 700 times a year, as he claims. Or could it be that he's lying again? My money's on the lying.....
But still, a great many people take him at face value. Perhaps it because he tells them what they want to hear, whether he believes it or not.
Here's another site that shows Hovind to be no more than another common blatherskite.
quote:
I'd like to start out by saying that it is obvious Dr. Hovind is a very intelligent man. However, his essay is full of inaccuracies. Some of these inaccuracies even seem intentional, which leads me to call Dr. Hovind's ethics into question. My purpose here is to disprove Dr. Hovind's claims. I'm not about to prove or disprove either Creation or Evolution, although I think it is clear that I am on the side of Evolution.
Dr. Hovind does have some interesting theories, specifically his comet theory. It's too bad that it's buried inside all the Bible-quoting and attempts at disproving Evolution. I'm not here to comment on his own theories, though. I'm here to contest his claims against Evolution. So read on. It's quite long, I admit. It gets off to a slow start, only because Hovind gets off the a slow start. The juicy bits are in the middle. Then it slows down again at the end, following the pace of Hovind's essay.
I especally liked this bit; Hovind's remark is in italics:
quote:
If you want to tell me that the dinosaurs lived 70 million years ago, they would have fried. They would have been charbroiled. They would have been inside the sun. The world cannot be millions of years old. You will have to alter your theory to fit within a shorter timeframe than that.
LMAO is all I can say, and I feel sorry for the people who didn't check his numbers and actually believed this junk.
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist!
|
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13481 Posts |
Posted - 02/27/2005 : 08:33:40 [Permalink]
|
I really don't know if Hovind believes in his own bullshit or not. I suspect that he is one of those creationists who believes that in doing a bit of adjusting to the facts (lying) he is furthering the evangelical imperative of proselytizing. A liar for Christ, if you will. Or he sees all the evidence for evolution as wrong simply because it threatens his literalist view of the bible. Still, if it is the later, he is still telling some whoppers, so, probably he fits best in the liar category. The end justifies the means. And If he can bring some over to God, he is doing the good work. God won't mind a few lies if he can deliver him some souls. (Not much different than what they say about how the devil works, eh?)
To people who do not know shit from shinola about science and evolution, ( pspano58) Hovind talks a great talk. He sound all scientific and everything. Pithy statements go a long way with these folks. Humor trumps facts. Etc. Hovinds target audiences are ill equipped to evaluate what he is saying. And Hovind is so obviously invested in keeping that way.
Hovind claims to have no time for a written debate due to his hectic schedule. What I would really like to see is for those who are truly interested in bringing this guy down is to simply refuse to do live debates with him. As a showman, Hovind has his thing down and will be the audience pleaser, as the scientist vainly attempts win his case using boring facts while visibly sweating under the lights. (Hovind never seems to sweat.) Enough already. Do not debate Hovind live, should be a rule. Flush the prick out. Leave written debate as his only option. Demolishing Hovind in a written debate would be easy to do. If he actually had to defend his version of the facts with citations and such, he would be cooked meat and he knows it. To some degree, those who meet Hovind for a live debate must accept some responsibility for allowing him his favorite and most effective venue. They keep him in business, and that suits Hovind just fine…
I'm tired of our willingness to enable these guys.
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 02/27/2005 : 09:05:45 [Permalink]
|
I hear ya, Kil. And you are absolutly correct, except:
Refusing to debate the scoundrel would have him crowing from the rooftops of how formidable he is, and how all the secular scientists are afraid of him. I would rather see him ridiculed every time he opens his cretinous mouth. Nothing wins like laughter; nothing loses like the object of it.
And I'm sure you know the really sad part of it all, yes? In a written debate, he'd be so easy that even a semi-educated ignoramus such as I could take him to school. And put him in detention. And on Double-Secret Probation. 
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist!
|
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13481 Posts |
Posted - 02/27/2005 : 09:27:27 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Filthy:
Refusing to debate the scoundrel would have him crowing from the rooftops of how formidable he is, and how all the secular scientists are afraid of him.
Sure, but for how long? And we in turn could crow from the rooftops that he refuses to engage in a written debate. Let him crow. The only ones listening to him will be his own chickens. No debate= a much smaller audience for his personal appearances. And that means less invites. What will become of his ministry that is based so heavily on his live debates? It might take a while, but eventually, if he wants to keep playing, he will have to play on our field…
quote:
Filthy:
I would rather see him ridiculed every time he opens his cretinous mouth. Nothing wins like laughter; nothing loses like the object of it.
In live debate, it is usually he who wins the laughter war. He has a gift for live debate. Sure, we can show what a fool he is on sites like ours and he will still have his site to make foolish statements and lies, but it is in the area of live debate that he really thrives…
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 02/27/2005 : 12:06:09 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kil
quote:
Filthy:
Refusing to debate the scoundrel would have him crowing from the rooftops of how formidable he is, and how all the secular scientists are afraid of him.
Sure, but for how long? And we in turn could crow from the rooftops that he refuses to engage in a written debate. Let him crow. The only ones listening to him will be his own chickens. No debate= a much smaller audience for his personal appearances. And that means less invites. What will become of his ministry that is based so heavily on his live debates? It might take a while, but eventually, if he wants to keep playing, he will have to play on our field…
quote:
Filthy:
I would rather see him ridiculed every time he opens his cretinous mouth. Nothing wins like laughter; nothing loses like the object of it.
In live debate, it is usually he who wins the laughter war. He has a gift for live debate. Sure, we can show what a fool he is on sites like ours and he will still have his site to make foolish statements and lies, but it is in the area of live debate that he really thrives…
Good points and all true. But y'see, with Hovind we are at a huge disadvantage. We argue from sound science and he has no such restraints. What anyone who debates this clown should do is not try to rebut him, but attack him with his own style, straw men and all. The audiences he attracts would never know the difference, anyway. All they care about is winning/losing, not facts. Dishonest, of course, but whaddahell? To them, it's just entertainment anyway, so rub his nose in his own verbal feces.
And we've been shouting about him being too big a candyass for written debates for years. Ain't no body listenin' 'cept the echo.
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist!
|
|
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
Posted - 02/27/2005 : 12:15:41 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
quote:
Originally posted by pspano58
Maybe because his[Hovind] evidence proves macro-evolution is a fairy tale at best and a lie at worst, with absolutely no proof whatsoever except what evolutionists "assume" or "hope" may have happened, and an old earth is BS at best because the bottom line is, you don't really know jack shit, do ya?
When confronted with evidence from him, all you do is call him a liar, but you never address the claim directly, or disprove it, you simply say "he is a liar". At least be honest and admit that you are not open-minded about it, you want and hope and pray that macro-evolution is true and any evidence to the contrary must be attacked and ridiculed because it shows that you may actually be wrong.
You owe me, pspano58, for the cost of a new hypocrisy meter, as mine just exploded. Because after we addressed the evidence directly, and used the evidence to demonstrate Hovind's fabrications, you deny all of it.quote:
I'm still waiting for scientific, indisputable, observed facts that macro-evolution occurred...
There are millions of such observed facts which, taken together, build the evidence for evolution. Where would you like to begin? .........
Seems to me this kind of exchange is extremely common with people who choose to ignore science and the results of scientific process to test and verify evidence, and, derive conclusions based on rules of logic, evidence, and correct underlying premises. If pspano58 can ignore everything in the natural world that can be seen, heard, touched, verified, tested and conclusions logically derived from directly and indirectly observed evidence; yet believe everything in a book that has many basic factual errors, contradictions, and doesn't support the conclusions the typical Christian attributes to it, then Hovind could certainly do the same. They do lie, but mostly to themselves. |
| Edited by - beskeptigal on 02/27/2005 12:16:58 |
|
|
|
Starman
SFN Regular
Sweden
1613 Posts |
Posted - 02/28/2005 : 04:51:02 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by pspano58
Maybe because his evidence proves macro-evolution is a fairy tale at best and a lie at worst, with absolutely no proof whatsoever except what evolutionists "assume" or "hope" may have happened, and an old earth is BS at best because the bottom line is, you don't really know jack shit, do ya?
The key word is evidence. The evidence says evolution, common descent and a 4.5 G year old earth. quote:
When confronted with evidence from him, all you do is call him a liar, but you never address the claim directly, or disprove it, you simply say "he is a liar".
We call Hovind a liar because he lies. He makes claims that he knows is false.
Feel free to select any of his claims for scrutiny. Do you have courage and honesty enough to accept that they might be false?
quote:
At least be honest and admit that you are not open-minded about it, you want and hope and pray that macro-evolution is true and any evidence to the contrary must be attacked and ridiculed because it shows that you may actually be wrong.
You are projecting.quote:
I'm still waiting for scientific, indisputable, observed facts that macro-evolution occurred,
Evidence is available. Deal with it or stop whining.
Pretending that the evidence does not exist will not make it go away.
There are a lot of people here that can answer all the questions you might have on evolution. Attacking something that you don't understand will just make you look ignorant.
< ... Rest of uninformed opinions snipped ... > |
"Any religion that makes a form of torture into an icon that they worship seems to me a pretty sick sort of religion quite honestly"
-- Terry Jones |
| Edited by - Starman on 02/28/2005 06:24:54 |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
