Free Hovinds

I notice one section is dedicated to having a petition for the President to pardon DR Hovind. (after all, Clinton pardoned some really terrible people).
However, the pardons by this Administration may be used up by Scooter and possible future former administration aides and staff and officials.

This is a hovind:

http://www.evangelicalright.com/JesusDino.jpg

I think it's supposed to be something like a centaur.

Free hovinds? Sounds interesting... Even though I ain't got no purpose for one, it's free nonetheless! And even though I also don't know what a hovind is, I'll still get one, since they are (you guessed it) for free.

I think it must be something like a "free radical". As in the chant "Free (all) Radicals" in the 60s.

Is is like those free creationist textbooks put out by Harun Yahya? If so, it's grossly overpriced.

I'm curious, is the site offering these Free Hovinds in any way connected to a solicitor working for a bank in Nigeria?

For some reason, the idea of receiving a "free hovind" reminds me of a line from a Woody Allen movie. To paraphrase, "The food is terrible, but the portions are huge!"

Can anybody tell me what a hovind is before I order a free one?

— Reed A. Cartwright

Mmm. . . . What flavor of Jello?

I went to the site, and though I didn't want to register and login, I do have a great idea for their Forum:

They should immedediately start praying that Kent gets sacrificed in prison, so he can be a true martyer! Just like the saints and The Lord God too!

But seriously... If there really WERE a God, there would be a Keep Hovind In Jail Longer Site. And I would be able to click on my computer screen and send him a couple of hundred volts, just for the fun of it.

At the least, you must get the free videos from this site. I downloaded them long ago after I saw them on local TV. I couldn't tolerate an entire session on TV, so I thought if I had them on my computer, then, I would be able to manage small portions at a time. It is amazing how small those portions turn out to be. It takes but a few minutes before my brains hurt and I begin to feel nauseated. The Junior High School level ridicule, non sequiturs, completely ridiculous science, and enormous leaps of "logic" will soon leave your head spinning. Note the audience's expressions and you will see evidence of a similar problem.

Hovey you be my woman now. Just pick up the soap.

"Free hovinds? Sounds interesting... Even though I ain't got no purpose for one, it's free nonetheless! And even though I also don't know what a hovind is, I'll still get one, since they are (you guessed it) for free."

They may be free, but I hear that the upkeep is pretty expensive. Not to mention their annoying habits and potential side effects (such as causing your head to implode). Get an Irish Setter instead --- they are far more intelligent and much better company. They also leave less of a mess.

Here is another site offering free hovinds - the Norwegian telephone book

http://www.gulesider.no/tk/search.c?q=hovind

There are 792 of them with various spelling variants: Hovind, Hovin, Hofvind
etc. and including those who have Hovind as a middle name. There are
also Hovinds in Denmark but I haven't checked how common they are there.

Does Kent Hovind have his last name from Scandinavia and, if so, from which country?

Mmm.... What flavor of Jello?

— Reed A. Cartwright

I live in Canada so would I have to pay any kind of a tax on a free hovind?

Mmm.... What flavor of Jello?

— Reed A. Cartwright

I live in Canada so would I have to pay any kind of a tax on a free hovind?

No, once you are the proud owner of a Hovind, you will ever have to pay tax ever again!

I don't see why there is so much animosity towards Hovind? Maybe he's right...throw a stone up a dark alley,and if you hear a squeal,you know you've hit something.If so,he seems to have hurt many people(with his stones) who's names he's never mentioned .Maybe the thing to do is ask why? If his stones(facts&figures)had no substance...they wouldn't hurt! If they had no substance,he should have been debated into oblivion by now!!On the contrary,it seems other ways had to be proposed to stop him.I've heard a lot of ad hominid attacks on Hovind,but not many concerted efforts to address the points he makes(albeit..some of the points he makes,have been picked up from dubious interpretations)
As far as his humor...well he says his seminars are for all ages,so its to hold their attention.
I don't think Hovind utters absolute truth...but then who does?? He condenses quite alot of important information from professional academics,and i think that instead of ridiculing the messenger,the focus should be on addressing the message.

Hovind is a shameless liar and cheat. Why shouldn't that make honest people angry?

I've heard a lot of ad hominid [sic] attacks on Hovind,but not many concerted efforts to address the points he makes

— bill

"... the day before my thirty-third anniversary, my wife and I were arrested without notice or warning that the IRS thought we were doing something unlawful. We were shocked to say the least."

"Eric has done a great job managing things in my absence. He continues to do creation seminars as well. Dinosaur Adventure Land is still open for Winter Park hours, Thursday through Saturday, 10:00 - 5:00. The park hosted about 80 this past Saturday."

I followed their link to the site they acknowledged as the source of their dinosaur images.

Strangely enough, the artist sorts his work by the Era, Period and Epoch they come from. He also gives dates like "270 million years ago (Early Permian)".

You have to admire the flexibility of a mind that can rationalise away such facts in order to hold on to concepts that amount to nothing more than wishful thinking.

Reminds me of exactly the same joke, some years ago, concerning the song Free Nelson Mandela by the Specials AKA.

Mind you, I'm certainly not doing any sort of comparison between Hovind and Mandela...

I don't see why there is so much animosity towards Hovind? Maybe he's right...throw a stone up a dark alley,and if you hear a squeal,you know you've hit something.

— bill

If so,he seems to have hurt many people(with his stones) who's names he's never mentioned .Maybe the thing to do is ask why?

If his stones(facts&figures)had no substance...they wouldn't hurt! If they had no substance,he should have been debated into oblivion by now!!

On the contrary,it seems other ways had to be proposed to stop him.I've heard a lot of ad hominid attacks on Hovind,but not many concerted efforts to address the points he makes(albeit..some of the points he makes,have been picked up from dubious interpretations)

As far as his humor...well he says his seminars are for all ages,so its to hold their attention. I don't think Hovind utters absolute truth...but then who does??

He condenses quite alot of important information from professional academics,and i think that instead of ridiculing the messenger,the focus should be on addressing the message.

Funny site. They have only 6 signatures on the petition so far. You think we could name them? Were YOU one of them, bill?

I got a grin out of an apparent creationist ignoramus using the word "hominid". Thanks, bill.

The substance of his stones is, like i said, his facts and figures...and he certainly was not debated into oblivion. He was still debating (if he could find someone who would debate him)up until his problems.
There are plenty of people who understand science&logic who refute Darwinism!!
And if you want to talk about logic...If you believe the Big Bang theory (in a Darwinian sense).Then you believe all the matter&energy (as well as space and time) came into existence out of nothing, from nowhere & for no reason! Breaking at least two very fundamental laws...Cause&Effect and the first law of Thermodynamics (energy can neither be created or destroyed).Then you have to believe that instead of exploding and expanding "forever", it "arranged" itself into matter, then "arranged" the matter into a clockwise Universe (a neat trick!) just right for humans. Breaking the second Law of Thermodynamics (Entropy: every thing breaks down into less complex forms).All without outside intelligence!....Does that seem logical to you??! These LAWS have never being observed to have been broken, so it takes assumption to believe otherwise. Of course you have to except it weather it seems logical to you or not, because you have a bias's toward the idea of a Creator. Just like i, as a Christian, have a bias against a theory that excludes design by a Creator. The trick is(and no i haven't succeeded in accomplishing it yet)is to set the bias aside, and look at the facts. Like those mentioned above, which without a prior bias would be inconceivable to believe they happened by pure random chance. Not just the insurmountable odds (probability weighs heavily against evolution)it has to overcome, but also with the breakdown of reason needed to believe it.
You can start with those two Brian (matter from nothing & and complexity from chaos)....but Please, before you start with multi-universes,bubble-universes,and all the rest of the contorted logic needed to escape the conclusion of a Creator...Be aware in your examples of what can be SHOWN to be true, and what is ASSUMED to be true

The substance of his stones is, like i said, his facts and figures...and he certainly was not debated into oblivion. He was still debating (if he could find someone who would debate him)up until his problems.
There are plenty of people who understand science&logic who refute Darwinism!!
And if you want to talk about logic...If you believe the Big Bang theory (in a Darwinian sense).Then you believe all the matter&energy (as well as space and time) came into existence out of nothing, from nowhere & for no reason! Breaking at least two very fundamental laws...Cause&Effect and the first law of Thermodynamics (energy can neither be created or destroyed).Then you have to believe that instead of exploding and expanding "forever", it "arranged" itself into matter, then "arranged" the matter into a clockwise Universe (a neat trick!) just right for humans. Breaking the second Law of Thermodynamics (Entropy: every thing breaks down into less complex forms).All without outside intelligence!....Does that seem logical to you??! These LAWS have never being observed to have been broken, so it takes assumption to believe otherwise. Of course you have to except it weather it seems logical to you or not, because you have a bias's toward the idea of a Creator. Just like i, as a Christian, have a bias against a theory that excludes design by a Creator. The trick is(and no i haven't succeeded in accomplishing it yet)is to set the bias aside, and look at the facts. Like those mentioned above, which (without prior bias) would be inconceivable to believe they happened by pure random chance. Not just the insurmountable odds (probability weighs heavily against evolution)it has to overcome, but also with the breakdown of reason needed to believe it without that bias.
You can start with those two Brian (matter from nothing & and complexity from chaos)....but Please, before you start with multi-universes,bubble-universes,and all the rest of the contorted logic needed to escape the conclusion of a Creator...Be aware in your examples of what can be SHOWN to be true, and what is ASSUMED to be true

opp's....sorry about the double posting

Reminds me of exactly the same joke, some years ago, concerning the song Free Nelson Mandela by the Specials AKA.

IGNORAMUS!!....I see the personal attacks have started already....very mature!!

IGNORAMUS!!....I see the personal attacks have started already....very mature!!

I never got around to answering the original question "What is a hovind?" The answer is: Being a Young Earth Creationist in the time of the Intelligent Design Creationists, he is living proof that dinosaurs and modern creationists co-existed at the same time.

"There are plenty of people who understand science&logic who refute Darwinism!!"

Name them. :)

"Big Bang theory (in a Darwinian sense)."

Huh?

Heh, anybody want to point out to Bill WHEN the Big Bang hypothesis was proposed and WHEN Charles Darwin died, and the relative order in which these events occurred?

Bill,

Calling a female dog a bitch isn't an attack, it's an appropriate descriptive term in. An ignoramus is defined as one who is ignorant. In light of some of your statements, is it an attack or a description?

For anyone who's read bill's posts, I offer:

FREE DUCT TAPE

to be used to securely wrap the skull, so that the head does not explode. Wow...just, wow.

Okay, bill:

In what sense is the big bang theory "Darwinist"?

How, exactly, do you define "Darwinism"?

What does the birth of the universe have to do with biological evolution?
Current theory says we're made of natural chemical elements formed from fusion in imploding stars.
Where the stars come from is cosmology, not biology.

"Does this seem logical to you?" is the classic argument from incredulity and explains nothing.
What explanation(s) do you have?

If you believe the Big Bang theory (in a Darwinian sense)

— Bill

Then you have to believe that instead of exploding and expanding "forever", it "arranged" itself into matter, then "arranged" the matter into a clockwise Universe (a neat trick!)

— Bill

Breaking the second Law of Thermodynamics (Entropy: every thing breaks down into less complex forms).All without outside intelligence!

— Bill

You can start with those two Brian (matter from nothing & and complexity from chaos)

— Bill

Don't go giving the biologists all the credit for hundreds of years of physics research. If you wanna debate common ancestry and the like fine, but don't go lumping the big bang in there with it.

It's interesting to me now to hear the Big Bang theory attacked; when Einstein was first formulated the theory of relativity, he added a term to his field equations to account for a static universe, something he ended up regretting in the long run. He had always felt that universe was something that had always been, intuitively. Most of the Christian community embraced the big bang theory when it was first put forth because it meant that the universe had a definite beginning. This lasted up until they actually started assigning dates for this initial inflation, which tended to be much older than any date derived from the bible.

The field of inflationary cosmology has only really been a subject in the last 40 years or so. The cosmic microwave background had been predicted in the late 40s but not really studied until the 60s. When the microwave background was finally discovered by Penzias and Wilson, the field finally could start refining and creating new science. 40 years and numerous satellites later, we're closer to understanding the dynamics of the expansion and composition of our universe.

Since it sounds like you're looking at the thermodynamics of the big bang, it might be more useful to see what scientists think the big bang predicts:

1. The inflation was adiathermal and adiabatic, no net heat flow in a symmetric fluid, so entropy must also be conserved and hence the process is reversible(1st and 2nd law) The caveat being quantum fluctuations tend to be irreversible, but are overwhelmed by radiation

2. The densities of matter and radiation crossed-over during inflation, resulting in backgrounds of thermal radiation and neutrinos (the thermal radiation has been observed by numerous satellites: BOOMERANG, COBE, WMAP, and soon PLANCK)

3. Due to the isotropic and homogeneous nature of the radiation, we can conclude that on average the universe is homogeneous and isotropic (no net angular momentum despite what you claim)

You asked how matter can arrange itself, into galaxies and clusters if everything is expanding. In this instance I could guide you to the literature on the subject, suffice to say it depends very much on the nature of quantum fluctuations during the initial inflation and gravity. Gravity tends to "sort things out".

Matter and energy are interchangeable, and are most likely a product of symmetry breaking. (See standard model of particle physics)

If you need a reason for all of this to happen, fine, go read some philosophy. Personally, I do. I won't abide by this Chewbacca defense of Creation because you don't fully understand and keep up with the science.

"Bill" -- when was the last time a debate settled a scientific question? The only real possibility is a written debate, and no creationist who seeks debate will ever accept a challenge to an on-line written debate. If they do, they'd get their head handed to them.

I think a free hovind would be an excellent choice with a nice complimentary wine.

Complimentary wine? When you pop the cork it says "Nice shoes"?

Hi fnxtr,

Bill doesn't seem to be able to articulate clear answers to your questions. As an ex-fundie, I feel that I may be able to approximate how he would respond:

fnxtr: "In what sense is the big bang theory "Darwinist"?"

Answer: Its all about evolution --- stars or people, there's no difference!!!

fnxtr: "How, exactly, do you define "Darwinism"?"

Answer: Exactly the way I define it!

fnxtr: "What does the birth of the universe have to do with biological evolution?"

Answer: Its all about BIRTH --- stars or people, there's no difference!!!

fnxtr: "Current theory says we're made of natural chemical elements formed from fusion in imploding stars."

Answer: More ungrounded Darwinistic dogma!

fnxtr: "Where the stars come from is cosmology, not biology."

Answer: The difference being????

fnxtr: ""Does this seem logical to you?" is the classic argument from incredulity and explains nothing."

Answer: Exactly! It proves that I am right(ous)!

fnxtr: "What explanation(s) do you have?"

Answer: I don't have explanations, I have the TRUTH!

"I think a free hovind would be an excellent choice with a nice complimentary wine."

Yes, but what style of wine to have with a free hovind? Thunderbird? MD20-20? Do I need to spend more than $5.00?

The substance of his stones is, like i said, his facts and figures...

— Bill

and he certainly was not debated into oblivion. He was still debating (if he could find someone who would debate him)up until his problems.

There are plenty of people who understand science&logic who refute Darwinism!!

And if you want to talk about logic...If you believe the Big Bang theory (in a Darwinian sense).Then you believe all the matter&energy (as well as space and time) came into existence out of nothing, from nowhere & for no reason!

Breaking at least two very fundamental laws...Cause&Effect and the first law of Thermodynamics (energy can neither be created or destroyed).

Then you have to believe that instead of exploding and expanding "forever", it "arranged" itself into matter, then "arranged" the matter into a clockwise Universe (a neat trick!) just right for humans.

Breaking the second Law of Thermodynamics (Entropy: every thing breaks down into less complex forms).All without outside intelligence!....Does that seem logical to you??!

These LAWS have never being observed to have been broken, so it takes assumption to believe otherwise.

Of course you have to except it weather it seems logical to you or not, because you have a bias's toward the idea of a Creator. Just like i, as a Christian, have a bias against a theory that excludes design by a Creator. The trick is(and no i haven't succeeded in accomplishing it yet)is to set the bias aside, and look at the facts.

Like those mentioned above, which without a prior bias would be inconceivable to believe they happened by pure random chance. Not just the insurmountable odds (probability weighs heavily against evolution)it has to overcome, but also with the breakdown of reason needed to believe it.

You can start with those two Brian (matter from nothing & and complexity from chaos)....but Please, before you start with multi-universes,bubble-universes,and all the rest of the contorted logic needed to escape the conclusion of a Creator...Be aware in your examples of what can be SHOWN to be true, and what is ASSUMED to be true

Shenda:

Thanks for clearing that up. I feel so ashamed...

"Free Hovind"

A new family friendly adventure about a young boy who befriends Hovind, a mythical transitional form between land mammals and whales. Evil evolutionary scientists want to hold Hovind captive to conduct immoral experiments...

1)
Bill, there's no need to apologise for the double posting. You could, of course, apologise for the single postings.

2) I'm amazed nobody came up with the other old joke...
"Free Hovind"...
... "while stocks last".

Seems pretty clear to me from the photo that Ken Hovind is none other than Ron Howard in a toupee.

You can start with those two Brian (matter from nothing & and complexity from chaos)....but Please, before you start with multi-universes,bubble-universes,and all the rest of the contorted logic needed to escape the conclusion of a Creator...Be aware in your examples of what can be SHOWN to be true, and what is ASSUMED to be true

— bill

Systems or processes left to themselves invariably tend to move from order to disorder.

That the claim is false is not theory. Exceptions happens [sic] all the time. For example, plants around my house are left to themselves every spring, and every spring they produce order locally by turning carbon from the air into plant tissue. Drying mud, left to itself, produces orderly cracks. Ice crystals, left to themselves, produce arrangements far more orderly than they would if I interfered. Freeze-thaw cycles naturally sort stones into regular patterns (Kessler and Werner 2003). How can a trend to disorder be invariable when exceptions are ubiquitous? And why do creationists argue at such length for claims that they themselves can plainly see are false?

Ben...ignoramus is a derogatory term when used against someone, in the same way bastard is a legitimate (excuse the pun) word, but is derogatory when used against someone. And i ran my spelling through Microsoft word...So it must be you who can't spell. And its pretty obvious why people use extra question & exclamatation marks! Its to show that the person is either more confused or annoyed about something...like your comments!!
Its an informal discussion site not an English languish class.
First of all let me clear this up...when i said "if you believe in the Big Bang in a Darwinian sense", I meant in the sense of it being a freak accident(not planned),followed by a random process. I believe in a Big Bang, God created the universe(which incidentally means single spoken sentence.. God said let their be...) in an instant. Intelligent designers believe in a Big Bang, Theistic Evolutionists believe in a Big Bang, etc. The one thing we have in common is that there was an intelligent first cause to the universe(hence it was planned).I wasn't saying the Big Bang was part of Darwinism. You can be a Darwinian and believe in an intelligent first cause to the universe. I thought you would have known what i meant by "Darwinian sense"...I'll try to explain myself better next time.
The reason i started with the Big Bang is because Brian asked me to produce some examples from Kent Hovint...So i started from the beginning. Those arguments about the Big Bang where more for those "true" Darwinists, who believe there was no intelligent first cause to the universe(Atheists).
There's an awful lot of talk about BIOLOGY...but i haven't even got that far yet! Im still at the beginning waiting for an answer! You can't just believe in Biological Evolution and ignore the rest!!
I have no problem with evolution at the species level(although i think there is a bit of a problem with the definition)because it is observed. Of coarse God would put in the ability to adapt to the environment, or their would be few animals left, because of changing climates...Including humans. A black man in Africa has that color pigmentation to protect his skin, wide nostrils to help breath in such a dry climate. Eskimos have the shortest limbs in the world, to help them cope with the cold(as that's where we lose most heat).Its scientists extrapolating that to ASSUME that we evolved from bacteria...or worse nothing! That i have a problem with.
And there's no problem with us being made of the same substance as the stars...As the Bible says God made Adam from the dust of the earth.
Bill Creationist are begging for a public debate, and have been for 20 years. It seems like its the secular scientific community who don't want to bring it all out in the open...Using the same old tired argument that its "Religion verses Science". But its not, i'v read a lot of books by Creation scientists and most of them don't even mention God. Just science.
Vyoma...
You have to believe matter & energy came from nothing, if you allow for no intelligent first cause...that's a matter of common sense.
Asking in what discipline cause & effect is a law...is like asking in what discipline is cavity is a law. Its a law because its never been observed to be broken.
I have no problem with energy turning into matter, we witness it every day in plants. My argument is...how does gas compress itself enough to form matter. It takes a powerful amount of energy to compress gas until it bonds into matter, and it is the net universal entropy i was talking about, hats all there was!
I meant a clockwork universe...sorry. I have no problem with it expanding(the Bible says God stretches out the heavens).
Entropy only decreases in Biological systems! And only because we feed of plants that use chlorophyll to convert the Suns energy. Its not a reversal...that's just a play on words...we still die ,no matter how many plants we eat!
You obviously haven't looked into any probability to do with Evolution. Heres an example for you...Thomas Huxley worked out(himself)the probability of just a horse evolving at..10/2000,000,a one with 2 million nougats after it, yet he went to his death believing it. That's what i call illogical!!
Brian...Arguing that simple repetitive laws that form ice crystals, stone sorting, and using random cracks in mud...is a pretty dam weak argument for the creation of the universe...I did ask you to be aware of what is are assumed (out of necessity),and what can be shown.

Here is a list of scientists for Darth: All these believe in special Creation...from the Answers in Genesis website.

Note: Individuals on this list must possess a doctorate in a science-related field. If you would like to be included on this list, please see our inclusion procedure.

* Dr. Paul Ackerman, Psychologist
* Dr. E. Theo Agard, Medical Physics
* Dr. James Allan, Geneticist
* Dr. Steve Austin, Geologist
* Dr. S.E. Aw, Biochemist
* Dr. Thomas Barnes, Physicist
* Dr. Geoff Barnard, Immunologist
* Dr. Don Batten, Plant physiologist, tropical fruit expert
* Dr. John Baumgardner, Electrical Engineering, Space Physicist, Geophysicist, expert in supercomputer modeling of plate tectonics
* Dr. Jerry Bergman, Psychologist
* Dr. Kimberly Berrine, Microbiology & Immunology
* Prof. Vladimir Betina, Microbiology, Biochemistry & Biology
* Dr. Raymond G. Bohlin, Biologist
* Dr. Andrew Bosanquet, Biology, Microbiology
* Edward A. Boudreaux, Theoretical Chemistry
* Dr. David R. Boylan, Chemical Engineer
* Prof. Linn E. Carothers, Associate Professor of Statistics
* Dr. David Catchpoole, Plant Physiologist (read his testimony)
* Prof. Sung-Do Cha, Physics
* Dr. Eugene F. Chaffin, Professor of Physics
* Dr. Choong-Kuk Chang, Genetic Engineering
* Prof. Jeun-Sik Chang, Aeronautical Engineering
* Dr. Donald Chittick, Physical Chemist (interview)
* Prof. Chung-Il Cho, Biology Education
* Dr. John M. Cimbala, Mechanical Engineering
* Dr. Harold Coffin, Palaeontologist
* Dr. Bob Compton, DVM
* Dr. Ken Cumming, Biologist
* Dr. Jack W. Cuozzo, Dentist
* Dr. William M. Curtis III, Th.D., Th.M., M.S., Aeronautics & Nuclear Physics
* Dr. Malcolm Cutchins, Aerospace Engineering
* Dr. Lionel Dahmer, Analytical Chemist
* Dr. Raymond V. Damadian, M.D., Pioneer of magnetic resonance imaging
* Dr. Chris Darnbrough, Biochemist
* Dr. Nancy M. Darrall, Botany
* Dr. Bryan Dawson, Mathematics
* Dr. Douglas Dean, Biological Chemistry
* Prof. Stephen W. Deckard, Assistant Professor of Education
* Dr. David A. DeWitt, Biology, Biochemistry, Neuroscience
* Dr. Don DeYoung, Astronomy, atmospheric physics, M.Div
* Dr. David Down, Field Archaeologist
* Dr. Geoff Downes, Creationist Plant Physiologist
* Dr. Ted Driggers, Operations research
* Robert H. Eckel, Medical Research
* Dr. André Eggen, Geneticist
* Dr. Dudley Eirich, Molecular Biologist
* Prof. Dennis L. Englin, Professor of Geophysics
* Prof. Danny Faulkner, Astronomy
* Prof. Carl B. Fliermans, Professor of Biology
* Prof. Dwain L. Ford, Organic Chemistry
* Prof. Robert H. Franks, Associate Professor of Biology
* Dr. Alan Galbraith, Watershed Science
* Dr. Paul Giem, Medical Research
* Dr. Maciej Giertych, Geneticist
* Dr. Duane Gish, Biochemist
* Dr. Werner Gitt, Information Scientist
* Dr. Warwick Glover, General Surgeon
* Dr. D.B. Gower, Biochemistry
* Dr. Dianne Grocott, Psychiatrist
* Dr. Stephen Grocott, Industrial Chemist
* Dr. Donald Hamann, Food Scientist
* Dr. Barry Harker, Philosopher
* Dr. Charles W. Harrison, Applied Physicist, Electromagnetics
* Dr. John Hartnett, Physicist and Cosmologist
* Dr. Mark Harwood, Satellite Communications
* Dr. George Hawke, Environmental Scientist
* Dr. Margaret Helder, Science Editor, Botanist
* Dr. Harold R. Henry, Engineer
* Dr. Jonathan Henry, Astronomy
* Dr. Joseph Henson, Entomologist
* Dr. Robert A. Herrmann, Professor of Mathematics, US Naval Academy
* Dr. Andrew Hodge, Head of the Cardiothoracic Surgical Service
* Dr. Kelly Hollowell, Molecular and Cellular Pharmacologist
* Dr. Ed Holroyd, III, Atmospheric Science
* Dr. Bob Hosken, Biochemistry
* Dr. George F. Howe, Botany
* Dr. Neil Huber, Physical Anthropologist
* Dr. Russell Humphreys, Physicist
* Dr. James A. Huggins, Professor and Chair, Department of Biology
* Evan Jamieson, Hydrometallurgy
* George T. Javor, Biochemistry
* Dr. Pierre Jerlström, Creationist Molecular Biologist
* Dr. Arthur Jones, Biology
* Dr. Jonathan W. Jones, Plastic Surgeon
* Dr. Raymond Jones, Agricultural Scientist
* Prof. Leonid Korochkin, Molecular Biology
* Dr. Valery Karpounin, Mathematical Sciences, Logics, Formal Logics
* Dr. Dean Kenyon, Biologist
* Prof. Gi-Tai Kim, Biology
* Prof. Harriet Kim, Biochemistry
* Prof. Jong-Bai Kim, Biochemistry
* Prof. Jung-Han Kim, Biochemistry
* Prof. Jung-Wook Kim, Environmental Science
* Prof. Kyoung-Rai Kim, Analytical Chemistry
* Prof. Kyoung-Tai Kim, Genetic Engineering
* Prof. Young-Gil Kim, Materials Science
* Prof. Young In Kim, Engineering
* Dr. John W. Klotz, Biologist
* Dr. Vladimir F. Kondalenko, Cytology/Cell Pathology
* Dr. Leonid Korochkin, M.D., Genetics, Molecular Biology, Neurobiology
* Dr. John K.G. Kramer, Biochemistry
* Prof. Jin-Hyouk Kwon, Physics
* Prof. Myung-Sang Kwon, Immunology
* Dr. John Leslie, Biochemist
* Prof. Lane P. Lester, Biologist, Genetics
* Dr. Jason Lisle, Astrophysicist
* Dr. Alan Love, Chemist
* Dr. Ian Macreadie, molecular biologist and microbiologist:
* Dr. John Marcus, Molecular Biologist
* Dr. George Marshall, Eye Disease Researcher
* Dr. Ralph Matthews, Radiation Chemist
* Dr. John McEwan, Chemist
* Prof. Andy McIntosh, Combustion theory, aerodynamics
* Dr. David Menton, Anatomist
* Dr. Angela Meyer, Creationist Plant Physiologist
* Dr. John Meyer, Physiologist
* Dr. Albert Mills, Animal Embryologist/Reproductive Physiologist
* Colin W. Mitchell, Geography
* Dr. John N. Moore, Science Educator
* Dr. John W. Moreland, Mechanical engineer and Dentist
* Dr. Arlton C. Murray, Paleontologist
* Dr. John D. Morris, Geologist
* Dr. Len Morris, Physiologist
* Dr. Graeme Mortimer, Geologist
* Stanley A. Mumma, Architectural Engineering
* Prof. Hee-Choon No, Nuclear Engineering
* Dr. Eric Norman, Biomedical researcher
* Dr. David Oderberg, Philosopher
* Prof. John Oller, Linguistics
* Prof. Chris D. Osborne, Assistant Professor of Biology
* Dr. John Osgood, Medical Practitioner
* Dr. Charles Pallaghy, Botanist
* Dr. Gary E. Parker, Biologist, Cognate in Geology (Paleontology)
* Dr. David Pennington, Plastic Surgeon
* Prof. Richard Porter
* Dr. Georgia Purdom, Molecular Genetics
* Dr. John Rankin, Cosmologist
* Dr. A.S. Reece, M.D.
* Prof. J. Rendle-Short, Pediatrics
* Dr. Jung-Goo Roe, Biology
* Dr. David Rosevear, Chemist
* Dr. Ariel A. Roth, Biology
* Dr. Jonathan D. Sarfati, Physical chemist / spectroscopist
* Dr. Joachim Scheven Palaeontologist:
* Dr. Ian Scott, Educator
* Dr. Saami Shaibani, Forensic physicist
* Dr. Young-Gi Shim, Chemistry
* Prof. Hyun-Kil Shin, Food Science
* Dr. Mikhail Shulgin, Physics
* Dr. Emil Silvestru, Geologist/karstologist
* Dr. Roger Simpson, Engineer
* Dr. Harold Slusher, Geophysicist
* Dr. E. Norbert Smith, Zoologist
* Dr. Andrew Snelling, Geologist
* Prof. Man-Suk Song, Computer Science
* Dr. Timothy G. Standish, Biology
* Prof. James Stark, Assistant Professor of Science Education
* Prof. Brian Stone, Engineer
* Dr. Esther Su, Biochemistry
* Dr. Charles Taylor, Linguistics
* Dr. Stephen Taylor, Electrical Engineering
* Dr. Ker C. Thomson, Geophysics
* Dr. Michael Todhunter, Forest Genetics
* Dr. Lyudmila Tonkonog, Chemistry/Biochemistry
* Dr. Royal Truman, Organic Chemist:
* Dr. Larry Vardiman, Atmospheric Science
* Prof. Walter Veith, Zoologist
* Dr. Joachim Vetter, Biologist
* Dr. Tas Walker, Mechanical Engineer and Geologist
* Dr. Jeremy Walter, Mechanical Engineer
* Dr. Keith Wanser, Physicist
* Dr. Noel Weeks, Ancient Historian (also has B.Sc. in Zoology)
* Dr. A.J. Monty White, Chemistry/Gas Kinetics
* Dr. John Whitmore, Geologist/Paleontologist
* Dr. Carl Wieland, Medical doctor
* Dr. Lara Wieland, Medical doctor
* Dr. Clifford Wilson, Psycholinguist and archaeologist
* Dr. Kurt Wise, Palaeontologist
* Dr. Bryant Wood, Creationist Archaeologist
* Prof. Seoung-Hoon Yang, Physics
* Dr. Thomas (Tong Y.) Yi, Ph.D., Creationist Aerospace & Mechanical Engineering
* Dr. Ick-Dong Yoo, Genetics
* Dr. Sung-Hee Yoon, Biology
* Dr. Patrick Young, Chemist and Materials Scientist
* Prof. Keun Bae Yu, Geography
* Dr. Henry Zuill, Biology

You have to believe matter & energy came from nothing, if you allow for no intelligent first cause...that's a matter of common sense.

Asking in what discipline cause & effect is a law...is like asking in what discipline is cavity is a law. Its a law because its never been observed to be broken.

I have no problem with energy turning into matter, we witness it every day in plants. My argument is...how does gas compress itself enough to form matter.

It takes a powerful amount of energy to compress gas until it bonds into matter, and it is the net universal entropy i was talking about, hats all there was!

I meant a clockwork universe...sorry. I have no problem with it expanding(the Bible says God stretches out the heavens).

Entropy only decreases in Biological systems! And only because we feed of plants that use chlorophyll to convert the Suns energy. Its not a reversal...that's just a play on words...we still die ,no matter how many plants we eat!

You obviously haven't looked into any probability to do with Evolution. Heres an example for you...Thomas Huxley worked out(himself)the probability of just a horse evolving at..10/2000,000,a one with 2 million nougats after it, yet he went to his death believing it. That's what i call illogical!!

If something can't come from nothing, where did this god thing come from?

Are you there Bill?

Ben...ignoramus is a derogatory term when used against someone

Its an informal discussion site not an English languish class.

I've heard a lot of ad hominid attacks on Hovind

How about: "Free Hovind! With two boxtops or proof-of-purchase seals!"

You have to believe matter & energy came from nothing, if you allow for no intelligent first cause...that's a matter of common sense.

It should surprise no one that 'Bill' copied his list of Big Sciency Creationists from here:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/bios/

I like all the dentists and engineers in there, as well as the names that repeat several times.

I like all the dentists and engineers in there, as well as the names that repeat several times.

My argument is...how does gas compress itself enough to form matter.

— bill

I meant a clockwork universe...sorry. I have no problem with it expanding(the Bible says God stretches out the heavens).

Brian...Arguing that simple repetitive laws that form ice crystals, stone sorting, and using random cracks in mud...is a pretty dam weak argument for the creation of the universe...I did ask you to be aware of what is are assumed (out of necessity),and what can be shown.

— bill

Free Hovind inside specially marked boxes... that is, the box in Cell Block C (or whatever), marked "Fraud".

Fnxtr...Although the argument from credulity would like to be laughed of the playing field by evolutionists,(because of the impossible odds and REASON BREAKING involved in believing in them).It can't be so easily dismissed. We use the credulity factor all though are lives, it a big part of logic...if you go for a walk in the woods and find a stick carved into the shape of a fish lying on the ground, you automatically know that its been done by an intelligence. Partly because you have experience of such things as carvings, but mostly because your brain has already worked out that there's no way that could have happened by chance. And that ability is so finely tuned that it can even pick up something as simple as the end of the stick being carved into a point. And that type of reasoning is just as relative to science as any other part of life, especially when those probabilities can be put down on paper.
That's part of what Bill Debmski calls specified complexity (see: The Design Revolution for an explanation...and an answers to his critics.

Although the argument from credulity would like to be laughed of the playing field by evolutionists,(because of the impossible odds and REASON BREAKING involved in believing in them).It can't be so easily dismissed.

— Bill

Bill blathers: Although the argument from credulity would like to be laughed of the playing field by evolutionists

Oh, and Bill, extra points if you can tell me the originator of the example you just used. (Hint: it isn't Dembski and he used a watch in his example.)

Concerning the list that Bill copied from AiG and pasted over here.

Bill, nobody here finds an argument from authority convincing. Has anyone from that list published anything that relates to any of Hovind's "points"? Have their ideas been submitted to peer review, or undergone any sort of critical analysis? If not, what they think matters not one whit.

We deal in evidence, not belief.

But Bill, even as an argument from authority, the list is pathetic. It is claimed that those on the list must possess a doctorate in a science-related field. And yet it has a Dr. Noel Weeks, Ancient Historian (also has B.Sc. in Zoology). Perhaps he also stayed at a Holiday Inn Express? And what relevance do most of these "science-related fields" have to evolution?

Bill's pathetic list has fewer than two hundred names. Using the standards for that list (and even excluding Ancient Historians) there are millions in the world with doctorates in science-related fields.

Since creationists love probability arguments, here's one for you Bill. If we selected at random a person with a doctorate in a science-related field (as defined by AiG), the probability that he/she would be on your list is about the same as the probability of being dealt a straight flush in a single poker hand. (That's assuming a population of about 12 million. Actual answers may vary!)

And you expect us to be impressed?

Bill writes.... Here is a list of scientists for Darth: All these believe in special Creation...from the Answers in Genesis website.

"Here is a list of scientists for Darth: "

Sorry, everybody. Guess I should have kept my big mouth shut (feeding the troll).

And i ran my spelling through Microsoft word...So it must be you who can't spell.

Of coarse God would put in the ability to adapt to the environment, or their would be few animals left, because of changing climates...Including humans. A black man in Africa has that color pigmentation to protect his skin, wide nostrils to help breath in such a dry climate.

hats all there was!

...if you go for a walk in the woods and find a stick carved into the shape of a fish lying on the ground, you automatically know that its been done by an intelligence. Partly because you have experience of such things as carvings, but mostly because your brain has already worked out that there's no way that could have happened by chance.

To keep the record straight, FreeHovind is not offering "Free Hovinds", but rather "Free Hovind materials".

As it says on the site,
"FreeHovind.com is dedicated to Kent Hovind - A well known Creation Science speaker, debater, and evangelist. On January 19, 2007, Hovind was sentenced to 10 years in prison for tax related charges. This site was created by a fan of Kent Hovind to distribute his creation seminars and other materials to as many people as possible.
By spreading the Creation message, we can help Free Hovind!"

Once the petition is opened, the "free" might take up another meaning as well....

They've altered it since I first saw it, check the bottom of this screenshot

http://i16.photobucket.com/albums/b24/Mongrel01/KHpetition.jpg

Wolf:
Your right mate...I've realized that. (Clicking and typing to fast I think) Apologies to BEN as well there, that's what he was probably talking about to! I've only been using a computer for a year, and very rarely type. .I only bought it to look through estate agents web sites. I'll pay attention to that in future. And im surprised I didn't hear a "law of Cavity" joke in there from someone. 
Stervaroni:
Bill Dempski has a mathematical model for distinguishing between intelligent causes & random effect.
Brian:
I haven't moved the goal posts Brian...You just haven't keep your eye on the ball! My two questions were: matter from nothing (how the universe came into being from ABSOLUTE nothing) & complexity from chaos (how a clockwork universe can be built up from the chaos of a super explosion like the Big Bang).Those two questions are still out there...I don't think Creeky, your hypothetical theory "no net heat flow"(then assuming that would automatically lead to a reversal... I take it that's to allow complexity to be built up) and gravity "tends to sort things" doesn't quite do it for me! Creeky, from a chaotic explosion then a homogeneous expansion, a system of some sort would have had to emerge to start condensing the "gas" into complex structures, and then arrange those structures into an orderly arrangement of planets & stars. Then out of that complexity building, another system would have had to emerge that reverses the first system (what reverses a universal "law"?) to give us entropy! And where did it get the information to build up this complexity in the first place?...Information isn't a property of matter, matters just a transmitter for it. I don't expect you to go into a long explanation on what happened between the Big Bang and an ordered universe, but if you can suggest any books giving a run down of the different, popular theory's on the subject? I haven't read an in depth evolutionary explanation of this yet. (Semi-technical.....And there's probably going to be loads of math's....so more semi than technical!)

VYOMA:
I think your vacuum energy theory is laughable! Is this a proposed mechanism for bringing into being a universe full of matter & energy...from something, I take it, that has no substance, or structure, uses no energy of any kind,(or where did they come from) exists in no time or space...quite frankly, doesn't exist at all! And im supposed to except this or some other wild theory over commonsense!! Science works as the best NATUREAL theory wins. Well its possible to come up with any theory to fill a gap if it can't be verified. That's why there's so much assumption in origin science. Assumption seems to be sciences secrete word. In fact, origin science is built on one great assumption...Uniformitarianism! And like it is said...Assumption is the mother of all mistakes!
You already have a materialistic mind, so any event that's happened or likely to happen in the history of the Universe, you have to apply a materialist/naturalistic assumption to it. You already live in a paragin of : nature is all there is, or there ever was, or ever will be...but im not stuck in that box! If there's observable evidence for design in the Universe (mathematical as well as visual).Then I am open to investigating that evidence wherever it leads. Not to bind myself in the materialist box, shut out any conclusions that lead to a design inference...And just except the most popular naturalistic theory up to date! I accept natural causes and natural explanations when they are called for. I don't think God individually freezes every snowflake...But I do believe the laws that control natural events, need a better explanation than the events they control. So don't be so surprised when I reject your hypothetical theories. I did ask that the explanations you use be distinguished between what can be shown and what is accepted on assumption (ie: because it's the best naturalistic theory to date)
Vyoma:
I think my grasp of entropy is good enough to get me by...But I don't quite think you've got a grasp of the problem that its proposing. After the Big Bang, the gas was homogeneous, there where no localized systems! We only have localized systems now that they've been built up! We're still left with the problem of how those systems where built up in the first place. And please don't keep using the "your ignorant" excuse, I think better than I type,(or spell...fortunately).
Now onto your golf analogy ...Which was very misleading!! Your analogy of the ball(hydrocarbon chain) landing on the dandelion(protein molecule) being of evens probability is wrong . It's true that random mutation & environmental pressures have little care in the resulting phenotype. But to get to that phenotype in the first place, their needs to be RAMDOM point mutations, and for those random mutations to lead to a complex organ they have to follow the same direction. Out of all the countless points that mutation can happen, for it to keep mutating at the same point to build up a complex organ, goes against measurable, statistical odds... specified complexity! Your leaf wasn't a specified target, that's why the probability was 1...every where on the ground was 1! Then by your own understanding of probability... An "event" can only be improbable if it's been specified before hand or, retrospectively, shows signs of specification,(like a flint, or a roman vase...specified for a job).Well in recognizing that, you've just highlighted one of Dempski's criteria for empirically testing SPECIFIED COMPLEXITY(intelligent cause).The complexity part refers to the probabilities involved. If you don't mind me carrying on using your analogy. To build up complex organs through random mutations, once you've hit that leaf the first time, that would then be the mutation specified in a certain direction(say the eye. its always a good one).Well to build up complexity on that mutation(the leaf),you would have to hit it every time with the ball (possibly hundreds) by pure random chance(spinning around blindfolded, and throwing the ball up into the air).Like I said, although you think the incredulity argument("wow that's to incredible to be true") is laughable. I think the real joke is on someone who is prepared to put their FAITH in such incredible improbability's & wildly theoretical explanations, like I said, ....Just to escape the conclusion of a Creator!
And speaking of the incredulity argument...Do you even know what that is??! It simply means that a person finds something to be to incredible to be true. And that type of reasoning like I said belongs in all walks of life. It is used everyday, even in science, the only reason DNA evidence is so conclusive is because there is such a low probability that its a coincidence (to incredible to be true/incredible not to be true) Archeologists & anthropologists use it everyday to decide whether an artifact is intelligently caused, or of random causes, especially flints ie: the structures to "incredible" to be random natural forces. The legal system uses it every day to decide objectively on circumstantial evidence (ie: the circumstantial evidence against a defendant is to "incredible" not to be true. And in fact it's the mark of a good defense lawyer to bring those odds down so far that the defendants alibi doesn't seem to "incredible" in the light of the circumstantial evidence. I don't know where you got your 2000 year old definition from...but there's it defined for you. And when I related my example to Dempski's specified complexity, it was the probability factor I was talking about. The incredulity factor is a visual way of recognizing specified complexity(intelligent causes).But Dempski's mathematical model is used to detect design at an empirical level...You should maybe read some of his work, instead of just arguing from ignorance! As well as Lee Spetner's - Not by chance: Shattering the modern theory of Evolution.

While im at it, here's another couple of titles that you should read the argument from, instead of just clicking onto Talk origins and getting answers for arguments you've never even heard:
Micheal .J. Behe-Darwins black box: A Bio-chemical change to evolution(And Behe isn't a Creationist, but a dismayed evolutionist, he believes in a long age for the universe, and that animals have a common descent...just not by any theories proposed at the moment)

Philp Johnston- Darwin on trial
Philp Johnston- Reason in the balance

William.A.Dempski- The Design Inference
William.a.Dempski- the Design Revolution

Bill Dempski has a mathematical model for distinguishing between intelligent causes & random effect

Bill, dude.

Check out that little key labelled "Enter" over on the right side of your computer keyboard.

Hit it twice.

See the nice space it leaves between paragraphs?

Cool, huh? Also, it forces you to organize your "thoughts" into paragraphs.

Which, incidentally, forces you to organize your thoughts in the first place. Cool, huh?

This simple "Enter" key thus has the side benefit of allowing you to look over the organization of your thoughts before you send them out for the world to read.

Which, maybe, will help you avoid content-free, evidence-free statements like "X just doesn't do it for me...".

Not exactly a compelling argument, entraining evidence in logic chains, huh?

"Enter." A truly amazing invention, all under one little plastic push key.

J.Biggs:
It was my own example!...So I'm not sure where your going with that?? And Dempski uses multiple examples. He used the watch to reinstate Paley's argument, because it is a good analogy of specified complexity.

Brian:
That list was because Darth asked for one (sorry Darth) & because Vyoma ridiculed the idea of there being anybody who is familiar with science, who would disagree with Evolution (actually I believe you called them dishonest, without even knowing them...THAT'S bias). I wasn't trying to claim anything from showing the list! Im sure there are plenty of practicing scientists who believe in special creation who have never even heard of AIG. As far as arguing from authority...Did you not point me to answers from the Talk origins list of authorities?...Is that not arguing from authority??...Do we not know most of what we know from authority? Or do you mean arguing from numbers?...
A poll of scientists(I think it was 10,000) was carried out in America to see how many believed in God or another entity .Over 45% believed in a personal God, over 75% (if I remember right) believed in some type of higher intelligence. I think Atheists got about 8%.But polls show that polls show nothing.
Your calculations are insignificant.
You say you only deal in evidence! There is no evidence when dealing with origins!! There's only INTERPATATION of results in the light of a metaphysical structure (materialist naturalism).

As far as arguing from authority...Did you not point me to answers from the Talk origins list of authorities?...Is that not arguing from authority??

— Bill

Bill?

His name is Dembski. Not Dempski. Dembski.
And I think he'd be very annoyed that you put him and God in the same argument here. Other places, okay, but not here, 'cause you see, when he's arguing with us, ID isn't about religion. Honest.

Kia:
I clearly stated that I was not claiming anything about the list! I WAS ASKED TO PRODUCE ONE!
And creationists can't get their papers published, if there is an "other than natural" conclusion to their results (although there are plenty of scientists who are Creationists, and publish standard papers within their own field). Evolutionists run the journals, Any papers Creationists submit are excluded, because by evolutionists own definition, no "supernatural" conclusions are part of science. And even when the conclusions are left out of the paper, if the review body even suspect that the content of the paper leads to a "supernatural" conclusion it gets rejected. So evolutionists have it all wrapped up nicely with their circular reasoning, namely: "creationists can't publish any papers, because religion isn't part of science"....Then "Creationists don't publish any papers, so there's nothing to their science"
This can be shown. One good example is Robert.V.Gentry.Although Gentry had some papers published in some major journals, Science, Nature, Journal of Geophysical Research, etc, showing his work to be accurate, he only accomplished this by hiding his conclusions. But once his conclusions where realized, he never got to publish again). ...He is recognized (by his staunchest critics) to be the worlds leading authority on radio halo's (the elements escaping from decaying radio active material, surround the material like a halo).
He studied & examined these halo's for years, in particular polonium 18.The halo's of the polonium 18 only last for about 3 mins. But yet there are polonium 18 halos trapped in the granite foundation rocks of the earth. Concluding that the rocks either hardened within 3 mins....or else there has been an extremely significant difference in the decay rate of radio active material. (Meaning the methods used for testing rocks to find the age of the Earth would be highly inaccurate.)
What did he get for his troubles...He got his grant stopped, told to stop researching it, and his collages who he had worked with for years froze him out!...All in the name of science! And all this , even though they can't fault his work...or refute it.(He was very meticulous because he knew what he would be up against)They called it a "tiny mystery" yet to be solved...Very scientific!
Science doesn't deal with future conclusions or results or with unknown laws yet to be discovered. It deals with what's in front of us, and what we know. Gentry spent years trying to get the scientific establishment to recognize and publish his work...But to no avail. Instead he had to finance the rest of his own work (with help from friends) and publish his work in a book! The book is fully referenced with the rejection letters, and corresponding mail. And there are Creation science journals: Creation Research Society Quarterly and the Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal.

Robert.V.Gentry: Creations Tiny Mystery

Fnxtr:
Well actually Dembski makes no secret of the fact that he's a Christian. All he is saying is that his model for testing intelligent causes in the universe has nothing to do with his Christianity...And as he clearly states, you could believe the designer of the universe to be an unseen, un-testable "force" if you wanted to. It wouldn't matter. His model detects design in the universe...it doesn't give any insight into the designer. His model only discriminates blind random chance....But deciphers necessity (natural law)

Bill says: It was my own example!...So I'm not sure where your going with that?? And Dempski uses multiple examples. He used the watch to reinstate Paley's argument, because it is a good analogy of specified complexity.

"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy."

If his stones(facts&figures)had no substance...they wouldn't hurt!

Lies have no substance, but that doesn't stop them from hurting a lot of people, in a lot of ways, throughout the entire course of human history.

Bill, your polonium halos argument is also addressed here. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/po-halos/gentry.html

Not that I expect you to really believe what the actual evidence says. By the way, you still haven't come up with a single argument that hasn't been refuted at TO. That is, unless you include your invalid straw-man arguments that don't really represent a scientific viewpoint. (Matter and energy from nothing, complexity from chaos, "Darwinism", etc...)

Bill, writing of Dembski, says "His model detects design in the universe".

First, how can a 'model' detect anything?

Presumably you are talking about his 'explanatory filter'. Please could you do something Dembski has always avoided and walk us through (baby steps, please!) two applications of the filter, once with something that is designed and once with something that is not designed. I am sure I am not alone in failing to understand how it could possibly be put into practice.

Creeky, your hypothetical theory "no net heat flow"(then assuming that would automatically lead to a reversal... I take it that's to allow complexity to be built up) and gravity "tends to sort things" doesn't quite do it for me! Creeky, from a chaotic explosion then a homogeneous expansion, a system of some sort would have had to emerge to start condensing the "gas" into complex structures, and then arrange those structures into an orderly arrangement of planets & stars. Then out of that complexity building, another system would have had to emerge that reverses the first system (what reverses a universal "law"?) to give us entropy! And where did it get the information to build up this complexity in the first place?...Information isn't a property of matter, matters just a transmitter for it. I don't expect you to go into a long explanation on what happened between the Big Bang and an ordered universe, but if you can suggest any books giving a run down of the different, popular theory's on the subject? I haven't read an in depth evolutionary explanation of this yet. (Semi-technical.....And there's probably going to be loads of math's....so more semi than technical!)

— Bill

Thanks Creeky.

J.Biggs:

It wasn't intentionally a paraphrase of anybody's analogy...just a silly little example to give people an idea of what I was talking about!
Science as a concept might be methodologically materialistic ...But the minds behind it are philosophically materialistic. And it is those minds that interpret the data.
You say there is no observable intelligent designer here to take the credit for the design...But then, there are no roman artists left either, but we observe their design in the sculptures they left behind. And we also have no problem equating those sculptures to a designing intelligence.(if a simple stone sculpture, or better, a simple flint!...why not all the more ,a DNA strand?...or a solar system?
Besides, I beg to differ. He is about. I have quite a good personal relationship with him.

I didn't conflate cosmology & biology; I started with cosmology, everybody (exceptions) else jumped straight to biology. I explained what I meant by "Darwinian sense" and admitted I should have explained myself better. You said I conflated biological Evolution with abiogenes.I don't remember talking about abiogenesis, maybe I did? But even if I didn't,I would say abiogenesis means a lot to biological evolution. Maybe not to a Biologist...But then I did say you can't just hide in biology, show me variations of a species and say "there you go, there's evolution all wrapped up for you." You can't believe that the universe had no intelligent agent involved (which most Evolutionary Biologists do, I believe), hide in Biology, and dodge the rest of the issues involved in it.

You say talkorigins "provides science based refutations to creationist arguments". But that's what Creation science organizations do as well, refute Evolutionary arguments. But I wouldn't expect you just to believe what they say.
When you're talking about anything to do with testing theories of origins, it comes down to interpretation of the evidence. That's why there are so many conflicting theories in origin science. Any theory (sometimes, no matter how wild) will be held, even if it's only until another one comes along. As long as it's a natural (theoretically, at least) explanation. That's philosophical, materialist naturalism.

I am planning to look through the talkorigins site, but remember there is usually a reason opponents get two rebuttals in a debate...so make sure you read the rebuttals of both sides.

Thanks for your time everyone...Bye for now!

We know who the Romans were, bill... oh, never mind. It's hopeless.

Re "We know who the Romans were, [...]"

Trying to resist the obvious punchline. Resist... Resist...

Henry

I think your vacuum energy theory is laughable! Is this a proposed mechanism for bringing into being a universe full of matter & energy...from something, I take it, that has no substance, or structure, uses no energy of any kind,(or where did they come from) exists in no time or space...quite frankly, doesn't exist at all! And im supposed to except this or some other wild theory over commonsense!! Science works as the best NATUREAL theory wins. Well its possible to come up with any theory to fill a gap if it can't be verified. That's why there's so much assumption in origin science. Assumption seems to be sciences secrete word. In fact, origin science is built on one great assumption...Uniformitarianism! And like it is said...Assumption is the mother of all mistakes!

— Bill

You already have a materialistic mind, so any event that's happened or likely to happen in the history of the Universe, you have to apply a materialist/naturalistic assumption to it. You already live in a paragin of : nature is all there is, or there ever was, or ever will be...but im not stuck in that box! If there's observable evidence for design in the Universe (mathematical as well as visual).Then I am open to investigating that evidence wherever it leads.

Not to bind myself in the materialist box, shut out any conclusions that lead to a design inference...

I accept natural causes and natural explanations when they are called for. I don't think God individually freezes every snowflake...But I do believe the laws that control natural events, need a better explanation than the events they control. So don't be so surprised when I reject your hypothetical theories. I did ask that the explanations you use be distinguished between what can be shown and what is accepted on assumption (ie: because it's the best naturalistic theory to date)

I think my grasp of entropy is good enough to get me by...

But I don't quite think you've got a grasp of the problem that its proposing. After the Big Bang, the gas was homogeneous, there where no localized systems!

I think better than I type,(or spell...fortunately).

Now onto your golf analogy ...Which was very misleading!! Your analogy of the ball(hydrocarbon chain) landing on the dandelion(protein molecule) being of evens probability is wrong . It's true that random mutation & environmental pressures have little care in the resulting phenotype. But to get to that phenotype in the first place, their needs to be RAMDOM point mutations, and for those random mutations to lead to a complex organ they have to follow the same direction.

Out of all the countless points that mutation can happen, for it to keep mutating at the same point to build up a complex organ, goes against measurable, statistical odds... specified complexity!

Your leaf wasn't a specified target, that's why the probability was 1...every where on the ground was 1! Then by your own understanding of probability... An "event" can only be improbable if it's been specified before hand or, retrospectively, shows signs of specification,(like a flint, or a roman vase...specified for a job).Well in recognizing that, you've just highlighted one of Dempski's criteria for empirically testing SPECIFIED COMPLEXITY(intelligent cause).

To build up complex organs through random mutations, once you've hit that leaf the first time, that would then be the mutation specified in a certain direction(say the eye. its always a good one).Well to build up complexity on that mutation(the leaf),you would have to hit it every time with the ball (possibly hundreds) by pure random chance(spinning around blindfolded, and throwing the ball up into the air).

Like I said, although you think the incredulity argument("wow that's to incredible to be true") is laughable. I think the real joke is on someone who is prepared to put their FAITH in such incredible improbability's & wildly theoretical explanations, like I said, ....Just to escape the conclusion of a Creator!

You've been conned, Bill.

I can't believe the time you invested in poor old bill, Vy. I'm sure he won't appreciate it.

— Sir_Toejam

i is liek caek :D
is u want caek wit me bill?
I LUV JEESUS!!!!!1

Dear Dr. J.M.:

Eternal life is free in Christ Jesus. Otherwise, you'll have to pay your own way.

Dear BlackCat:

Yes, exactly! It's just like trying to explain light to a blind man, or explaining algebra to a dead man, or trying to explain common sense to an over-educated stooge.

i think that you should free Hovind because he is doing far to much good in jail.

I once considered the possibility of evolution, even bothered reading the book "The Rise of Life". I'm very well familiar with the Theory of evolution. After seeing Kent's seminars and views of contemporary scientists who increasingly doubt the evolution notion with more new discoveries, I now realize what an elaborate fairy tale evolution really is.
It's not science, just pure science fiction. All evolution teaches is shape shifting in real super slow motion from one life form to another more complex life form. Sounds like a scenario from Harry Potter. The Creation Account immensely makes better sense. Not just scientifically, but in terms of common sense. I've alwayS believed in God, though evolution shook my faith a little, but always knew man's flawed reasoning doesn't compare to God's infinite wisdom. Kent Hovind cleared up a lot of nagging questions I had of the creation vs. evolution account.

I'm very well familiar with the Theory of evolution.

All evolution teaches is shape shifting in real super slow motion from one life form to another more complex life form.

Moreover, all scientists in biology support evolution, a 150 year old theory that has proven its worth time and again. (All, with the usual exceptions of nutcases that you see in all walks of life.)

And saying that it isn't science doesn't make it so. All scientists support that biology is a science. (Again, with the usual exceptions. :-P)

The Creation Account immensely makes better sense. Not just scientifically, but in terms of common sense.

I've alwayS believed in God, though evolution shook my faith a little, but always knew man's flawed reasoning doesn't compare to God's infinite wisdom.

Kent Hovind cleared up a lot of nagging questions I had of the creation vs. evolution account.

[quote]Common sense also told us that the earth was flat and that everything in the universe revolved around it. Both of those assertions also supported by a literal interpretation of the Bible were also proved incorrect.
[/quote]

You're wrong in your assertion. The Bible has always asserted that the Earth was round. Go to Isaiah 40:22 and read it for yourself. It says that "He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth,[...]". You should check the KJV from 1611.

[quote]I don’t believe you really ever considered the scientific explanation for anything that contradicted your presupposed belief in the inerrancy of the Bible.[/quote]

Here's something for you to consider. This book explains the Hydroplate Theory. www.creationscience.com

BTW, the author (and K.Hovind as well) have offers to debate evolutionists in their fields (even more than 1 at once) and they refuse. Why would that be..? And there're money offers for *real* scientific evidence (you know, observation, experimentation, or proposed mechanisms that go along with the laws of physics in order to try to explain the theory (which the theory of evolution lacks...mechanisms) and they dont have them).

[quote]Correction, Kent Hovind lied about, distorted, and misrepresented evolution and you bought it all hook, line, and sinker.[/quote]

The theory of evolution has not been misrepresented. Having my degrees in science, I obviously had to go through the theory of evolution myself at college campus. The did not distort, nor lie about the theory. I respect your beliefs...but your assertions are uninformed.

-xGhost

Free Hovind? Must be in the same category of a "Thinking Liberal" Heard of, but never actually seen.

Kent Hovind and his family is a dick.

Kent Hovind is my personal Hero who stands for what is right. His current situation with the I.R.S. and the very questionable court is unfortunate not only for him but for all America. Its another horrible action done by our very corrupt, runaway government. I will personally be glad and thankful when this unlawful institution (IRS) is finally abolished. I believe I speak for most all Americans in this regard. Look up and study the tax laws and you'll find the shocking truth that we are indeed supposed to be the land of the free, not the land of the taxed. Don't believe the politicians when they say we can't survive without the income tax....they are actually saying "they" can't keep spending the way they do without the income tax!!! Anyway, say what you will...Kent is a good man and knows his stuff. Its hard to debate someone who is as well educated in science as Kent Hovind. I for one, do enjoy his tapes and debates. They make so much common sense...and fit into normal reasoning whereas evolution does not. For those who enjoy name calling I challenge you to get to know the Hovind's. I guarantee when you do that you will see, these people are honest and true (unlike our federal government). So I leave you with this...more name calling??? Or will you take up the challenge and see what all the talk is about???

Sincerely,
Michael Sherman

this is sort of like a debate between the 7 days and millions of years. For more info go to

www.youtube.com/group/evolutionvscreation

http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2007/03/free-hovinds.html#comment-141948

Its funny to see evolutionists engaged in name calling as a defense for their weak arguments. I think the reason they hate Hovind so much is because his material *is* the truth and they feel impotent to do anything about it. It could also be because Hovind has, quite successfully, taken evolution from the science department, and placed it where it should be, in the religion department. Even if they choose to scientifically debate him or his son Eric, they would loose miserably. Its unfortunate how a nation is destroyed from within because of people like these...or it may be that evolutionists havent evolved far enough for their brains to notice the facts of what they believe, on purpose.

~xghost();

No matter how old the "Free Hovinds" post gets, it still attracts a steady flow of of wingnuts out there googling "Hovind" in he middle of the night.

I wonder what Kent was doing while you were reading this thread, ghost. Oh wait, I know what he was doing--rotting in a jail cell for lying and cheating. Of course to the fundie fanatics, lying and cheating is the "truth" you refer to.

BTW, how exactly would "they" go about debating Kent Hovind, assuming "they" wanted to debate a raving loony? On the phone? Through 4 inches of bulletproof glass in the visiting room? Who might this debate convince of anything? The sex offender in the next cubicle, getting his monthly visit from his mother?

ben: No matter how old the "Free Hovinds" post gets, it still attracts a steady flow of of wingnuts out there googling "Hovind" in he middle of the night. I wonder what Kent was doing while you were reading this thread, ghost. Oh wait, I know what he was doing--rotting in a jail cell for lying and cheating. Of course to the fundie fanatics, lying and cheating is the "truth" you refer to. BTW, how exactly would "they" go about debating Kent Hovind, assuming "they" wanted to debate a raving loony? On the phone? Through 4 inches of bulletproof glass in the visiting room? Who might this debate convince of anything? The sex offender in the next cubicle, getting his monthly visit from his mother?

ohhhhhh THAT'S what it is!

a TAX EVADER!

lol

I've read that kent Hovind has been sexually abused in jail repeatedly.. Is that true? I hope not.. Haha!

if you belive in creationism then your dumbbbbbbbbbbbb

aint no god, we just came from nothin broo'ss

Free Hovinds? Heck, you couldn't pay me to take either of them... Oh, that wasn't what the title here meant, was it?

Never mind.

:p

I am not a scientist, I am not a theologist, nor a doctor, or a dentist. I am a simple person with a simple IQ and all I want is truth. I do know one thing, that in the very little bit of research that I have done, people state too much theory as fact and fabricate too many pieces of evidence in order for me to make an informed decision.

Someday when I have the knowledge that everyone here seems to have, I will be happy to debate with all of you. But, what do I do in the meantime? I think I will continue to be a frog. Does anyone here know what a frog is? I would be happy to share it with you, but I don't have time for the ridicule I would recieve. It has nothing to with human intelligence! But it has everything to do with intelligent design. LOL! I have better things to do than to engage in name calling and derogatory remarks. Oh! If any of my words are mispelled, I am not a scholar anymore than I am scientist.

I am a single mother of 5 kids. The only thing I have time for is to simply trust that there is more to this life than just chance. Yes! Some things do happen by chance, but in my world, if I don't have a real foundation with a real purpose. What the hell am I doing here?? I know the answer to that question, but I am wondering if you do.

What do you see when you look at the earth? When you look at the wonders of the world, or as some would call, creation. What do you see? How do you think it got that way, and how do you think it manages to regenerate itself year after year? I am sorry that I don't have any scientific answers for you, but I do know what I see, and I don't need tests or evidence to verify it for me. Keeping it simple is a lot less stessful.

How did anyone manage before progress?

I think everyone needs to lay off on the attack against Kent Hovind. Isn't he in jail?? He is being held accountable. When many criminals are not. He has every right, just as any american citizen, to appeal his case. If he has been charged wrongfully, then he has the right to file charges. I know people who have murdered people and charges were dropped because they filed cases against the authorities in the case. This is a tax evader we are talking about, not a murderer. Yet murderers and sex offenders walk free on a technicallity. WOW! Our judicial system is as mixed up as the debate about evolution and creation. Would the person with all of the real answers please come forward?? :-)

Glenda said: “I am not a scientist, I am not a theologist, nor a doctor, or a dentist. I am a simple person with a simple IQ and all I want is truth.”

Glenda said: “Oh! If any of my words are mispelled, I am not a scholar anymore than I am scientist.”

Glenda said: “I am a single mother of 5 kids. The only thing I have time for is to simply trust that there is more to this life than just chance.”

Glenda said: “..but in my world, if I don’t have a real foundation with a real purpose. What the hell am I doing here?”

Glenda said: “What do you see when you look at the earth?”

Pope John Paull 2nd said: “Today, more than a half-century after the appearance of that encyclical, some new findings lead us toward the recognition of evolution as more than an hypothesis.* In fact it is remarkable that this theory has had progressively greater influence on the spirit of researchers, following a series of discoveries in different scholarly disciplines. The convergence in the results of these independent studies—which was neither planned nor sought—constitutes in itself a significant argument in favor of the theory.”

Glenda said: “How do you think it got that way, and how do you think it manages to regenerate itself year after year?”

Glenda said: “I am sorry that I don’t have any scientific answers for you, but I do know what I see, and I don’t need tests or evidence to verify it for me.”

Glenda said: “I think I will continue to be a frog. Does anyone here know what a frog is?” ... “Keeping it simple is a lot less stessful.”

J. Biggs said: Common sense also told us that the earth was flat and that everything in the universe revolved around it. Both of those assertions also supported by a literal interpretation of the Bible were also proved incorrect.

He kicks your butt in the debates.There is so much evidence against you. If your right he has nothing to worry about. If he is right you do have to worry. More and more people are learning about creation vs lies and fairytales.Are you scared your little theory is about ready to go up in flames. I personally will tell as many people as I can.

What happens when you die? Is that all there is? If evolution is true why do we go on. What is the point of all this destruction and chaos we call life? If there is a god why so much death,pain,suffering?

That question comes up often about death and chaos in this fallen world.The best thing I can tell you do you blame the manufacturer of a car that was totaled by a drunk driver. God did not intend for this world to be like this. But he did find a way to redeem it. There is a point to all this chaos.To make a choice.

Please, it's useless arguing theology. Stick to the facts.

There is no truth in Tricia's assertions. There is no respectable evidence for separate creation. There is bountiful evidence for an ancient Earth in an ancient Universe and the common descent of all life.

A hundred and fifty years of attacks on the Theory of Evolution have only left it stronger. Every successive advance in that time has confirmed and reinforced it. In its modern synthesis - which takes in the discoveries of the last century - it is the only tenable explanation for the origin of the species.

Anybody who denies these facts is ignorant by definition. Refusing to carry out the honest study that will confirm them only makes the ignorance culpable.

There was a "debate" once, back when the evidence was only scant. But that was over a century ago, and the debate has long since been decided. Evolution won, and it won on the evidence. Hovind's rhetorical tricks are useless in the face of that evidence. He relies on friendly audiences who are ignorant of the facts, a rapid patter of false assertions or non-sequiturs - too many to refute in the time available - combined with the thoroughly dishonest claim that if evolution doesn't explain everything to his satisfaction, it explains nothing.

But the truth of a scientific theory is not decided by "debate" in the form that Hovind and others use so cleverly. Scientists "debate" the evidence in writing and in precise technical language, using mathematical treatments, and following their "debate" requires precise and full knowledge of the field. Often the evidence and the conclusions gained from it simply cannot be laid out in half an hour for those who don't understand the technicalities. It takes years of honest nuts and bolts study.

That's Hovind's advantage, and he uses it remorselessly. A fool - or in his case, a rogue - can produce more damnfool falsehoods in a minute than a scholar can refute in a year. A lie can be half-way around the world before truth can get its boots on. But the truth will catch up eventually, and it has.

Get used to it. The debate is over. Creationism lost, over a century ago. Deal with it.

Mr.Luckett,I am not ignorant. Please lets stick to the facts. There is no need for insults. We can be two people discussing what are beliefs are without tearing one another down. I have some legitimate questions for you. If evolution is true where are your transitional forms? I'm not talking about adaptation. I want evidence of one species evolving into another. Why no peripheral populations? Explain the fossilization of sponges. How did something as complicated as the human eye evolve by trial and error? Even Darwin shuddered to think of it. Here is a question that might not be that scientific Why? Why? did evolution even happen. What made that primordial slime aspire to be what we are now? If you are right there is no point to any of this.Why didn't the slime stay slime?

And the Gish gallop is in full swing...

Tricia said: Mr.Luckett,I am not ignorant.

How did something as complicated as the human eye evolve by trial and error? Even Darwin shuddered to think of it.

Here is a question that might not be that scientific Why? Why? did evolution even happen. What made that primordial slime aspire to be what we are now? If you are right there is no point to any of this.Why didn't the slime stay slime?

Tricia said: Mr.Luckett,I am not ignorant. Please lets stick to the facts. There is no need for insults. We can be two people discussing what are beliefs are without tearing one another down. I have some legitimate questions for you. If evolution is true where are your transitional forms? I'm not talking about adaptation. I want evidence of one species evolving into another. Why no peripheral populations? Explain the fossilization of sponges. How did something as complicated as the human eye evolve by trial and error? Even Darwin shuddered to think of it. Here is a question that might not be that scientific Why? Why? did evolution even happen. What made that primordial slime aspire to be what we are now? If you are right there is no point to any of this.Why didn't the slime stay slime?

SPROING!!!!!

Guess what that was. Go on, guess.

whew! I must have said something that struck a nerve! I'm not going anywhere. I am not a educated idiot. I intend to check out and research all of this. I want to learn! That is why I am not ignorant. Go ahead mock me.Go ahead call me names. I wont stop my questions. Ill keep right on blogging. Because someone out there is questioning their own Darwin religion. Ill be back. Oh and at no point will I call anyone names or make fun of them for having a thought or opinion.

Tricia said: whew! I must have said something that struck a nerve! I'm not going anywhere. I am not a educated idiot. I intend to check out and research all of this. I want to learn! That is why I am not ignorant. Go ahead mock me.Go ahead call me names. I wont stop my questions. Ill keep right on blogging. Because someone out there is questioning their own Darwin religion. Ill be back. Oh and at no point will I call anyone names or make fun of them for having a thought or opinion.

Tricia said: whew! I must have said something that struck a nerve! I'm not going anywhere. I am not a educated idiot. I intend to check out and research all of this. I want to learn! That is why I am not ignorant. Go ahead mock me.Go ahead call me names. I wont stop my questions. Ill keep right on blogging. Because someone out there is questioning their own Darwin religion. Ill be back. Oh and at no point will I call anyone names or make fun of them for having a thought or opinion.

Rebuke me huh? Does it not take faith to believe what you do? Are you saying there are NO assumptions to your theory. Ill admit there are in creation.So if what you believe takes faith and you defend it so vehemently why do you rebuke me?

tricia said: He kicks your butt in the debates.There is so much evidence against you. If your right he has nothing to worry about. If he is right you do have to worry. More and more people are learning about creation vs lies and fairytales.Are you scared your little theory is about ready to go up in flames. I personally will tell as many people as I can.

Tricia said: Mr.Luckett,I am not ignorant... I want evidence of one species evolving into another.

Tricia said: Rebuke me huh? Does it not take faith to believe what you do? Are you saying there are NO assumptions to your theory. Ill admit there are in creation.So if what you believe takes faith and you defend it so vehemently why do you rebuke me?

Tricia said: Rebuke me huh? Does it not take faith to believe what you do?

Then show me this data.Show me a new mutation. Shouldn't there have to be some transitional character like a catdog to make your theory more substantial. Is it possible in your vast intelligence to make your case without calling me names I'm sorry if I offend you but i am not trying to attack you. I want to understand you.

Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he hold to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods and on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason? Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion.

Tricia said: Then show me this data.Show me a new mutation. Shouldn't there have to be some transitional character like a catdog to make your theory more substantial. Is it possible in your vast intelligence to make your case without calling me names I'm sorry if I offend you but i am not trying to attack you. I want to understand you.

I will look into this. What about polystrate fossils?

If you are a christian explain in your fossil record why so much death and destruction before the fall?

Tricia said: I will look into this. What about polystrate fossils?

Tricia said: I will look into this. What about polystrate fossils?

As far a resistance to aids. What new info is added?

Tricia said: If you are a christian explain in your fossil record why so much death and destruction before the fall?

Tricia said: If you are a christian explain in your fossil record why so much death and destruction before the fall?

Tricia said: As far a resistance to aids. What new info is added?

Tricia said: As far a resistance to aids. What new info is added?

What NEW information? How can you call this evolution if new information is not added?

Tricia said: What NEW information? How can you call this evolution if new information is not added?

YEC as you call it makes more sense.It is about interpretation of the same evidence. I will very carefully consider what you have said. Point by point I will research it. I enjoy this discussion.I will probably have many more comments and questions.I want to teach my nine year old aspiring scientist to be prepared to study and obtain knowledge along with his faith.

Tricia said: I will look into this. What about polystrate fossils?

Tricia said: YEC as you call it makes more sense.It is about interpretation of the same evidence. I will very carefully consider what you have said. Point by point I will research it. I enjoy this discussion.I will probably have many more comments and questions.I want to teach my nine year old aspiring scientist to be prepared to study and obtain knowledge along with his faith.

Actually I was specifically referring to the fossilised trees going through many layers of strata.I believe there has also been a discovery of a human footprint going through several layers. I know I should be more specific this is just from memory. I can find the actual resource if you like. Forgive me I am just learining all of this. I fully intend to learn the evolution theory inside and out.

Tricia said: YEC as you call it makes more sense.It is about interpretation of the same evidence. I will very carefully consider what you have said. Point by point I will research it. I enjoy this discussion.I will probably have many more comments and questions.I want to teach my nine year old aspiring scientist to be prepared to study and obtain knowledge along with his faith.

Tricia said: Actually I was specifically referring to the fossilised trees going through many layers of strata.I believe there has also been a discovery of a human footprint going through several layers. I know I should be more specific this is just from memory. I can find the actual resource if you like. Forgive me I am just learining all of this. I fully intend to learn the evolution theory inside and out.

Tricia said: What NEW information? How can you call this evolution if new information is not added?

Tricia said: (clip) I fully intend to learn the evolution theory inside and out.(clip)

Ooops! Sorry about the double post.

Tricia said: Actually I was specifically referring to the fossilised trees going through many layers of strata.

Have you watched Kent Hovind's creation series? He brings up a lot of good,valid points. I have read many new discoveries supporting creation.I just don't understand how all this world is is random chance.For instance the panda's thumb might seem useless to us but the panda needs it to strip bamboo.I have thrown a lot of questions at you.Again I will ask the question evolutionists wont answer WHY? I have a answer to it.
Where is yours. Why did evolution happen?

Tricia said: Have you watched Kent Hovind's creation series? He brings up a lot of good,valid points. I have read many new discoveries supporting creation.I just don't understand how all this world is is random chance.For instance the panda's thumb might seem useless to us but the panda needs it to strip bamboo.I have thrown a lot of questions at you.Again I will ask the question evolutionists wont answer WHY? I have a answer to it. Where is yours. Why did evolution happen?

Tricia said: Have you watched Kent Hovind's creation series? He brings up a lot of good,valid points. I have read many new discoveries supporting creation.I just don't understand how all this world is is random chance.For instance the panda's thumb might seem useless to us but the panda needs it to strip bamboo.I have thrown a lot of questions at you.Again I will ask the question evolutionists wont answer WHY? I have a answer to it. Where is yours. Why did evolution happen?

Tricia said: Have you watched Kent Hovind's creation series? He brings up a lot of good,valid points.

I have read many new discoveries supporting creation.I just don't understand how all this world is is random chance.

For instance the panda's thumb might seem useless to us but the panda needs it to strip bamboo.I have thrown a lot of questions at you.Again I will ask the question evolutionists wont answer WHY? I have a answer to it. Where is yours. Why did evolution happen?

Tell us what points Hovind makes that you think are valid.

We've looked at "polystrate" fossils of trees. Trees can be found right now growing through several different strata - putting down roots is what trees do, after all, and they can push through multiple layers of soft sediments, that later - much later - become compacted into stone. Animal burrows, ditto. There's nothing there to upset the observation that sedimentary strata are laid down gradually over immense amounts of time, an observation that comes direct from measuring sedimentation rates in seabeds and studying populations of the marine molluscs and other animals whose shells make the limestone layers we see today.

So, what else does Hovind say that you find persuasive? I assure you, every single thing he says against evolution or an ancient earth is either irrelevant or false or both.

Tricia wrote:

"Again I will ask the question evolutionists wont answer WHY? I have a answer to it. Where is yours. Why did evolution happen?"

Because it could. It didn't have to and it certainly didn't have to happen exactly the way it did. The exact process that happened and continues to happen is just one of many different possibilities.

Why in the world would anyone think that a convicted criminal with no training in biology would be a good source of information about evolution? You really should get a real education before letting con artists try to dupe you.

On "why".

The short answer is that nobody can tell why, from the evidence. If there is a reason why, it has to be found by faith, not by reason, not by evidence. I regret that I have no faith.

No, I'm not being sarcastic. I really do mean that I regret it. It's something that keeps me awake nights. But it's still the fact. There is no answer to that question that satisfies me.

I'm glad that you have an answer that satisfies you. I do know that there is nothing in all the known evidence that need detract from that answer. The evidence clashes only with a literal reading of scripture. If your faith insists that a literal reading of scripture must be accepted and the contrary evidence discarded, then you would be better not to go further. You will not gain any satisfaction here.

PvM said: Hovind is wrong and was wrong and his wrongness led him to a choice which ended him in prison. Sad but true. Do we want our children to follow a similar path because of ignorance of science and a dogmatic view of Christianity?

Thank you for all your comments you have given me a lot to study and learn. But my faith wont waiver. Because I have see evidence that you haven't and could not explain.I have see what accepting Christ has done in my life. It has truly changed me to know that I am not just a bunch of chemicals that were thrown together by mistake. There is a God and he cares about everything that happens to me.Just because I believe this doesn't make me blind or stupid or foolish. I know some of the men and women you have been bashing have also studied for many years. I want to study more on what you both say.Is that wrong? Isn't that what students should do? First I will start by reading through this website. In the meantime Mr.Luckett I will pray for you about what keeps you up at night. Please don't take offense to that.It wont hurt anything if your right and I am wrong. But maybe just maybe if I am right and you are wrong it might help. Thank you again for so much information.

A thing that should be kept in mind here is that the theory of evolution does not address the same questions as faith in God (or Jesus). Things that don't address the same questions can't contradict each other. Ergo there is no reason to think that one must choose between them.

Henry

Sorry Henry, but saying words like ergo does not make you correct :P
But seriously, evolution does address the same questions, in fact, that's all it does. where did we come from? How did we get here? etc? Ergo there is no reason to think that one mustn't choose between them.

The God you speak of is obviously the God of the bible, since you mentioned Jesus. Ergo to believe this God you must believe all that comes with Him. Including a 7 day creation. Ergo you cannot believe in evolution [specifically this change over billions of years] and a 7 day creation [creation in 7 days] at the same time. You must choose one or the other.

On the other hand, you can choose to create some god for your self which allows you to believe in such a god while also believing in evolution. But not the God of Jesus [,Abraham, Issac, Jacob, the list goes on I'm sure.]

Steve

Steve said: Ergo to believe this God you must believe all that comes with Him. Including a 7 day creation. Ergo you cannot believe in evolution [specifically this change over billions of years] and a 7 day creation [creation in 7 days] at the same time. You must choose one or the other.

On the other hand, you can choose to create some god for your self which allows you to believe in such a god while also believing in evolution. But not the God of Jesus [,Abraham, Issac, Jacob, the list goes on I'm sure.] Steve

The message is a steaming pile of manure delivered by an individual whose ethics have landed him a decade-long prison sentence. He applies the same ethical standards to his arguments regarding evolutionary biology. Just as he withheld money owed to the government, he withholds facts from his audiences. He doesn’t condense any “important information from professional academics.” Not a shred of it. What he does is attempt to advance a long-disproven idea (I won’t even stoop to calling it a hypothesis, since it can’t be tested) through the most disreputable of methods.

Hovind is nothing more than a common criminal and liar. It speaks volumes about his remaining supporters that they’re willing to give him a pass on this when the man essentially made his living by making promises in the first place. One thing I will say for him; as con-men go, he has a tremendous talent for picking out his pigeons.

I agree 100% with this statement, he is nothing but a cad, and a fool and to top it all he is according to me a raving idiot.

Darth Robo said: "There are plenty of people who understand science&logic who refute Darwinism!!" Name them. :)

Patrick D. Koen said: he is nothing but a cad, and a fool and to top it all he is according to me a raving idiot.

Stanton said:

PvM said: Hovind is wrong and was wrong and his wrongness led him to a choice which ended him in prison. Sad but true. Do we want our children to follow a similar path because of ignorance of science and a dogmatic view of Christianity?

Mr Hovind chose to use his faith in God as an aegis for his love of money. And look where that got him.

Dan said:

Darth Robo said: "There are plenty of people who understand science&logic who refute Darwinism!!" Name them. :)

----snip---- 8. Ken Hsu, Geological Institute at Zurich, former President of the International Association of Sedimentologists– We have had enough of the Darwinian fallacy. It’s about time we cry “the emperor has no clothes.” (“Darwin’s Three Mistakes” Geology, Vol. 14 (1986) p. 534

10. Arno Penzias, Nobel Prize for physics– Creation is supported by all the data so far.22:83

Dan said:

Darth Robo said: "There are plenty of people who understand science&logic who refute Darwinism!!" Name them. :)

1. Christian B. Anfinsen, (Ph.D. biochemistry, Harvard University, Nobel prize for physics)– I think only an idiot can be an atheist. 22:139 ... etc.

Louis Neel, Nobel Prize for physics – …the progress of science, no matter how marvelous it appears to be, does not bring science closer to religion but it leads to dead ends and shows our final ineptitude at producing a rational explanation of the universe.22:73

I should add that the physicist "Dan" who wrote the above message is different from the "Dan" who cut and pasted the original quote mine.

Incidentally, I'd like to see Dan's (not Dan the physicist, but Dan the creationist) response to Dan the physicist's, and my, demonstration that at a minimum some of the quotes he used are dishonest quotemines.

Dan, do you agree that the 3 quotes we discussed (by Hsu, Penzias, and Neel) do not, in fact, support your contention that these researchers "refute Darwinism"?

If so, then why did you use them?

My guess is that you did not look these quotes up yourself, but just used the quotes from the talkjesus website that Dan the physicist mentioned. Not necessarily your fault, but I'd suggest that you might question your trust in what's written on that particular website.

If it is your contention that although the 3 quotemines discussed by us are not valid but the others are, then why does the talkjesus website feel it necessary to include them, if there are so many researchers that refute "Darwinism"?

Finally, as someone who probably considers himself to be a devout Christian and thus feels that lying is a sin, will you be contacting the talkjesus website to tell them that the use of at least those 3 quotes is invalid?

Given when you originally posted your comments (i.e. very early in the morning) I don't expect an immediate reply, but I do expect a reply.

Abcnews.com: “Pending Senate approval, Geithner will take over one of the most important cabinet positions as the country struggles through a financial crisis and what could be a lengthy recession” http://abcnews.go.com/Business/Economy/story?id=6196682

Maybe if we sign a petition for a top leadership spot instead of “Free Hovind” he will be pardoned and allowed to handle the money problems of the country!

GvlGeologist, FCD said: Given when you originally posted your comments (i.e. very early in the morning) I don't expect an immediate reply, but I do expect a reply.

Hovind is a liar and cheat and mostly brain dead and is right where he belongs. He has biblegod crammed so far up his ass he fails to see the light of day. Anyone that believes a T-Rex ever ate grass or that oceans were under the crust of the earth and in space or that early oceans were not salty is a complete JERK!!! I tried to e-mail him to ask if he could explain the salt deposits hundreds of ft. thick under 3 of the Great Lakes 1800 ft. below sea level and how the Grand Canyon could be carved out in 20 minutes (PLEASE) there would be Grand Canyons all over the globe if there were a flood of that size, and if all mountains were made from sediment turned to rock than explain Hawaii, it made of nothing but basalt (lava). I got no response. Another tidbit, the bible said insects and amphibs were not on the ark than how did they survive the flood? they must have evolved! Anybody that stupid belongs in prison. Bob,

lol, silly monkey worshipers............you need a new hobby.....lol.......

oh ya, I got a question, why did more then one creature on this planet evolve with not just one eyeball but two? lol, good luck

Trolls. I wonder how they evolved? What advantage is stupidity combined with aggression? Could it be that their environment selects for both?

Two eyes allows for either a wider field of vision (one on each side of the head) or stereoscopic vision (both in front). Hence, having two is an advantage. Now, a question for the serious student: why not three?

G.A.Phillips said: oh ya, I got a question, why did more then one creature on this planet evolve with not just one eyeball but two? lol, good luck

Dave Luckett said: Trolls. I wonder how they evolved? What advantage is stupidity combined with aggression? Could it be that their environment selects for both? Two eyes allows for either a wider field of vision (one on each side of the head) or stereoscopic vision (both in front). Hence, having two is an advantage. Now, a question for the serious student: why not three?

At the risk of changing the subject, which probably came first, eye(s) or bilateral symmetry?

Henry

A troll chimes in.... oh ya, I got a question, why did more then one creature on this planet evolve with not just one eyeball but two? lol, good luck

Henry J said: At the risk of changing the subject, which probably came first, eye(s) or bilateral symmetry? Henry

Dave Luckett said: Trolls. I wonder how they evolved? What advantage is stupidity combined with aggression? Could it be that their environment selects for both?

Two eyes allows for either a wider field of vision (one on each side of the head) or stereoscopic vision (both in front). Hence, having two is an advantage. Now, a question for the serious student: why not three?

Hey Mr Luckett, How are you? I'm still reading and learning. Get ready my friend

As for molluscs, well, cephalopods and gastropods appear to be developmentally limited to one pair of eyes much in the same manner vertebrates are (that is, more eyes would screw up development), while scallops, on the tentacle, decorate themselves with a huge number of eyes (20 to over 100, depending on the genus).

I took a picture to demonstrate just that on visiting the local aquarium in Auckland a few months back:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/ichthyic/3136200863/in/set-72157611652330498/

interestingly, the reflections of the flash are caused by the form of the eye itself, which contains what essentially amounts to a concave mirror like that found in a newtonian telescope.

http://www.iop.org/EJ/abstract/0031-9120/44/2/009

wow thats kinda like saying i dont see your brain so you must not have one! really if you believe things like that you should keep that as personal info cuz it shows how very bright you are!

maybe if you search for your brain you mite find God too!

Gods girl said: wow thats kinda like saying i dont see your brain so you must not have one! really if you believe things like that you should keep that as personal info cuz it shows how very bright you are! maybe if you search for your brain you mite find God too!

phantomreader42 said: It's obvious from your poorly-written bit of thread necromancy that...

eric said:

phantomreader42 said: It's obvious from your poorly-written bit of thread necromancy that...

...you are one of Dembski's students fulfilling one of the requirements of his ID course. There, fixed.

bigjohn756 said: At the least, you must get the free videos from this site. I downloaded them long ago after I saw them on local TV. I couldn't tolerate an entire session on TV, so I thought if I had them on my computer, then, I would be able to manage small portions at a time. It is amazing how small those portions turn out to be. It takes but a few minutes before my brains hurt and I begin to feel nauseated. The Junior High School level ridicule, non sequiturs, completely ridiculous science, and enormous leaps of "logic" will soon leave your head spinning. Note the audience's expressions and you will see evidence of a similar problem.

Yes your brain will hurt, u see it is all those demons inside of you that cant take the truth, pray and then watch and you will change your mind. blessings Hein , South Africa

Hein said: Yes your brain will hurt, u see it is all those demons inside of you that cant take the truth, pray and then watch and you will change your mind. blessings Hein , South Africa

Changing the subject,

Why is te earth being dated at 4.6 billion years old?

From what I understand the carbon dating that is used is very inaccurate, how can we come up with numbers?

Please don't respond in hate, just understand that I'm not very well versed in the science of carbon dating.

Officially, a no hate comment-

Whoever has given you this information about radiometric dating hasn't told you the truth. Whether they were just poorly informed or deliberately dishonest isn't something I can say right now. But consider these thoughts:

Why do you suspect that carbon dating is inaccurate? What evidence has been offered to you that this is the case?

Since carbon-14 (the radioactive isotope) has a relatively large decay constant (= short half-life), it cannot be used to date things older than about 57,000 years. And since most rocks do not contain very much carbon, carbon dating really can't be used.

Plate tectonics has caused most of the crust to be recycled, so rocks from the Earth can't tell us when the planet formed. When we date the rocks from meteorites, using a variety of different chemical systems, we get an age of about 4.57 billion years for all of them within the experimental error.

A good general reference is Brent Dalrymple's book The Age of the Earth; a serious technical book is Gunter Faure's Principles of Isotope Geology.

Mhmm said: Changing the subject, Why is te earth being dated at 4.6 billion years old? From what I understand the carbon dating that is used is very inaccurate, how can we come up with numbers? Please don't respond in hate, just understand that I'm not very well versed in the science of carbon dating.

Mhmm said: Why is the earth being dated at 4.6 billion years old? From what I understand the carbon dating that is used is very inaccurate, how can we come up with numbers?

Rilke's Granddaughter said: This: http://www.asa3.org/ASA/RESOURCES/WIENS.html is an excellent place to start.

stevaroni said:

Rilke's Granddaughter said: This: http://www.asa3.org/ASA/RESOURCES/WIENS.html is an excellent place to start.

Wow! What a refreshing document! A technical wrap up, apparently written by a practicing Christian, from a Christian point of view, that, instead of trying to pretend that the simple, objective rules of physics don't exist, acknowledges them, and then tries to reconcile external reality with internal faith. I'm impressed. It would be nice if we could have those sorts of rational discussions here once in a while.

A couple of quick notes. Stevaroni, is quite accurate in describing the carbon dating method. It used to be used for once living organisms, but only up to about 70,000, with close accuracy less than 40,000. But now it is only used for uneducated arguments from both sides. Creationists use it to show how we can carbon date blood preserved in a frozen dinosaur bone that is known to be millions of years old, and evolutionists use it to out date human tools and the "missing links." In reality, carbon dating has been debunked, since it relies on the premise that the Earth has reached equilibrium with the amount of carbon in the atmosphere. Libby mistakenly assumed this to be true, because this should have happened after about 30,000 years. Since the earth is 4.6 billion years he thought this was covered. But it is not. For some reason (that we do not understand... YET!) we have still not reached equilibrium. So any and all carbon dates, are null and void. If you are still interested in radiocarbon dating, study potassium-argon, it is the most commonly mentioned, elsewhere. Secondly, before you read the "asa3.org" post, read up on your logical fallacies that you learned from your basic English classes. This paper is a setup, it has been around for a while and the creationists love it being brought up, since it folds in on itself so quickly. I am not saying it is not well written. In fact when I debate, I use several of the similar "flashy" tactics... but they are just that, tactics. His paper actually has more holes in it that it has structure. But that is what you get for compromising, and rationalizing. Good luck in the search for truth.

"Evolutionists" do not use carbon 14 dating: archaeologists primarily use carbon 14 dating to confirm the age of organic objects that are estimated between a few hundred to 40 or so thousand years old, such as bones, or wooden objects.

That, and it is perfectly fine to use carbon 14 dating on artifacts that have been cut off from the atmosphere, i.e., having been buried or sealed away in a secure chamber.

morris said: A couple of quick notes. Stevaroni, is quite accurate in describing the carbon dating method. It used to be used for once living organisms, but only up to about 70,000, with close accuracy less than 40,000. But now it is only used for uneducated arguments from both sides. Creationists use it to show how we can carbon date blood preserved in a frozen dinosaur bone that is known to be millions of years old, and evolutionists use it to out date human tools and the "missing links." In reality, carbon dating has been debunked, since it relies on the premise that the Earth has reached equilibrium with the amount of carbon in the atmosphere. Libby mistakenly assumed this to be true, because this should have happened after about 30,000 years. Since the earth is 4.6 billion years he thought this was covered. But it is not. For some reason (that we do not understand... YET!) we have still not reached equilibrium. So any and all carbon dates, are null and void. If you are still interested in radiocarbon dating, study potassium-argon, it is the most commonly mentioned, elsewhere. Secondly, before you read the "asa3.org" post, read up on your logical fallacies that you learned from your basic English classes. This paper is a setup, it has been around for a while and the creationists love it being brought up, since it folds in on itself so quickly. I am not saying it is not well written. In fact when I debate, I use several of the similar "flashy" tactics... but they are just that, tactics. His paper actually has more holes in it that it has structure. But that is what you get for compromising, and rationalizing. Good luck in the search for truth.

John Kwok said: Sorry morris, but radiocarbon dating is still widely used, especially in archaeology to date artifacts and bones thought to be primarily 40,000 years or younger in age:

morris said: and evolutionists use it to out date human tools and the "missing links."

He tells the truth and you are defending your sick selves because even though you all know you're wrong you try to not show just how rong you are. He is an amazing man who tells nothing but the truth and he can give you all evidence and facts!! no theories. No lies. All Gods word. Your pride overcomes you and you have been brainwashed
Open your eyes before its too late

Anna said: All Gods word. Your pride overcomes you and you have been brainwashed Open your eyes before its too late

I am in the middle of writing to the white house 100 letters to ask for the pardon of Kent hovind . I live in Ireland and i only heard of kent and listened to his teaching's in the last two year's and he has helped me to develope a stronger faith in God the creator of the heaven and the earth . I am now doing my bit for Kent because he still help's me through his video's . Free Kent Hovind

Greg Hannon said: Free Kent Hovind

Boyoboy, Mr Hannon, are you ever in the wrong place here!

A "free Hovind": Yep, that is about what a Hovind is worth. At least "they" know the value of their product. It amazes me that you can get a Hovind for free, and still people are sending in money.

Seriously: I've read some of Kent Hovind's books/pamphlets, and, as a previous poster has noted; too long of a time with them makes your head hurt.

Marc said: A "free Hovind": Yep, that is about what a Hovind is worth. At least "they" know the value of their product. It amazes me that you can get a Hovind for free, and still people are sending in money. Seriously: I've read some of Kent Hovind's books/pamphlets, and, as a previous poster has noted; too long of a time with them makes your head hurt.

bill said: I don't see why there is so much animosity towards Hovind? Maybe he's right...throw a stone up a dark alley,and if you hear a squeal,you know you've hit something.If so,he seems to have hurt many people(with his stones) who's names he's never mentioned .Maybe the thing to do is ask why? If his stones(facts&figures)had no substance...they wouldn't hurt! If they had no substance,he should have been debated into oblivion by now!!On the contrary,it seems other ways had to be proposed to stop him.I've heard a lot of ad hominid attacks on Hovind,but not many concerted efforts to address the points he makes(albeit..some of the points he makes,have been picked up from dubious interpretations) As far as his humor...well he says his seminars are for all ages,so its to hold their attention. I don't think Hovind utters absolute truth...but then who does?? He condenses quite alot of important information from professional academics,and i think that instead of ridiculing the messenger,the focus should be on addressing the message.