I stand corrected, your stated view was that it is ok to teach evolution as a theory as long as creationism is also taught as a theory.

That works for some classes but not for science class unfortunately, atleast imo. But I do think exposing kids to more ideas does nothing but help them in the long run.

I'm glad he was let in. He now has one more year to run over the Dawgs! :razz:

Politics, religion and football! Could this thread possibly get any better?!

A picture of a shapely women would be nice. ;-)

(y)

But please make sure she's highly evolved. Nothing but genetic excellence. 8-)

Evolve one from Nancy Pelosi or Helen Thomas or Orpha Winfrey... I still would not touch it with a ten foot pole. So to speak.

No, you're looking at the wrong crowd JS! Let's evolve one from one of the Victoria Secret models.

Paleontologist Pr0n

BBC NEWS | Science & Environment | Fish fossil clue to origin of sex

It's clear that Dawg got his arguments for a young earth and for a biblical flood from Dr. Hovind. Dave Matson goes over each of Dr. Hovind's 'proofs' and disputes every one of them convincingly.

The whole article can be found here: How Good are those Young-Earth Arguments

Source: How Good Are Those Young-Earth Arguments?
A Close Look at Dr. Hovind's List of Young-Earth Arguments and Other Claims
by Dave E. Matson

I thought the answer to this question was paricularly good, so I'm posting it.

General (D): Evolution is merely a theory.

Evolution (descent of life with modification) is a fact of life! That is to say, it may be deduced from the facts with near certainty. The fact of evolution is debated in the scientific community about as often as the roundness of the Earth! Both issues have been settled scientifically long ago. If you don't believe me, scan the world's leading scientific journals, such as Nature or Science, and tell me how many articles in the last 24 issues challenge the fact of evolution. After you have answered that question, then note how many articles are based on the fact of evolution. Thus, you will get some feeling as to what's going on in the real world of science. Legitimate scientific disagreement is not over descent with modification, but rather over how best to explain descent with modification. The better explanations constitute the theories of evolution. It is there we find the legitimate scientific debate which creationists are so fond of quoting, often out of context.

In the scientific world theory does not mean guesswork or speculation but rather a well tested concept which gives order and scientific meaning to a great many facts. (Reread the second paragraph of Topic "0" if you will.) Saying that evolution is only a theory is like saying that a car is only a Cadillac! It is a scientific compliment.

In the United States the chief opposition to the fact of evolution comes from a noisy, minority religious crusade cloaked in scientific jargon, whose ultimate goal is to enforce the teaching of fundamentalist doctrine in our schools.

Nice article. Add it to the fossil record. Thank God that internal fertilization evolved over time. Where would we be without that? ;-) And it occurred 365 million years ago.

This is for you djm.

Source same as above.

Let's compare real science to "scientific" creationism.

1. Real scientists, as did Darwin, usually spend some time pointing out the possible weaknesses they see in their theories. This is done not only to highlight areas which need further study but in order to strike a balanced presentation that will not mislead the reader. Truth is the overriding goal.

Creationists usually minimize or ignore the weaknesses in their theories unless the cat is out of the bag. Inserting their views into the public educational system is usually their goal.

2. Real scientists publish scientific literature, which can be very unorthodox, in refereed journals. This serves as a clearing house for ideas as well as a common testing ground.

Creationists, who apparently have nothing worth saying to the scientific community, invariably write for the layman. They have found it necessary to publish their ideas in special "creationist journals" because none of the hundreds of legitimate scientific journals find their work acceptable. Creationist journals mostly serve as a rallying point for the faithful, rarely as a means for criticizing their fellow believers.

3. Real scientists are quick to criticize their colleagues if they suspect an error. (Remember the cold fusion flap?) Catching errors improves their status in the scientific community even as it improves the level of science.

Creationists have a fortress mentality, and they are quick to circle their wagons. To admit error is considered bad form among creationists, and most of them must literally be smoked out before admitting any errors whatsoever. With no effective mechanism for weeding out error, errors are passed down like the family jewels. Today, one can buy many creationist books containing errors that should have been eliminated 20-30 years ago!

4. Real scientists are quick to test promising new ideas (however unorthodox) and those which don't pan out quickly disappear from the literature. Fame and fortune await any scientist who successfully advances a novel idea.

Creationists are largely concerned with protecting their dogma, not advancing new ideas that might question that dogma. Rejection is the likely lot of any creationist who questions the central dogma. Creationist arguments having serious errors, including arguments based solely on obsolete data, circulate indefinitely in the creationist literature.

5. Real scientists are often involved in meaningful laboratory and field work. They are looking for new data which might clarify, overturn, or confirm their views.

Creationists spend most of their time combing through books and technical journals for quotes with which to snipe at evolution, geology, astronomy, and other areas of science which challenge their central dogma. When they're not doing that, they can usually be found out on the stump drumming up support among the uneducated public.

6. Real scientists base their theories on the available evidence. They are not immune to the effects of prejudice, but they all understand that the facts dictate the conclusion. Conclusions are subservient to the data; data are not subservient to conclusions.

Creationists take their science straight from the Bible. Many creationist leaders have publicly stated, often in print, that any evidence at variance with their literal interpretation of the Bible should be rejected out of hand. Their a priori conclusions dictate what data are acceptable. That's not science!

7. No self-respecting scientist would ever think of signing an oath of allegiance to Darwinism as a condition for employment. Evidence is "king" in good science, and there is no room for competing loyalties.

Many creationist societies actually require a "loyalty oath," which is tantamount to an admission that their minds are closed! Such minds are slammed shut and rusted tight!

8. All good scientists admit that they might be wrong, that absolute certainty is not part of science. Scientists long ago recognized that our knowledge of the physical world is largely a product of inductive reasoning. In principle, inductive reasoning can yield a high degree of confidence, but it can never confer 100% certainty. The uncertainty of inductive reasoning follows from the fact that any set of observations can be explained, in principle, by an infinite number of hypotheses! One can never rule them all out no matter how much data one has. Thus, the proper scientific attitude includes a touch of humility no matter how great one's success.

Except for trivial details, creationists cannot conceive of the possibility that they are in error as that would take down their concept of biblical inerrancy. Since "scientific" creationism is really a branch of Bible apologetics, there is no room for compromise. "Scientific" creationism is there to defend the faith, not to probe the unknown.

9. Real scientists are often found in the great universities, where real science is done and advanced. None of those institutions take creationism seriously.

Creationists are usually associated with creationist societies. Those few "universities" where creationism is featured have either failed to get full accreditation or have done so only through the pulling of political strings. What discoveries have they made? Name their Nobel laureates!

10. Scientists build upon previous knowledge accumulated over the years, and only rarely participate in great, revolutionary breakthroughs.

Creationists fancy that they are in the process of overthrowing modern biology, geology, astronomy, anthropology, linguistics, paleontology, archaeology, oceanography, cosmology, physics, and numerous other branches of science. Some creationists (the flat-earth societies) would add the "grease-ball" theory of round-earth geography to that list. Anything that doesn't conform to their interpretation of the Bible is suspect and in need of revision.

lol, so you have an article scientist wrote to give pats on the a$$ for scientists and criticize Creationists. Big deal.

Besides most of the ten points are lies and fantasist thinking.

Oh, you forgot 11:

Real scientists have big butts and big heads and often suffer from the God complex, thinking as well they have it all figured out, when they really are ignoring the big picture, or in layman's terms, they can't see the forest for the tree.

Creationists may have the faith of a child, but they are a lot happier in life knowing their Father created them in His own image, each different and unique just as His snowflakes are unique.

There, see.

I knew it you would do that! You simply cannot make one post in these sensitive discussions threads that is not smug and condescending. So typical.

OH not at all, as long as you people post that dribble like you list of TOP TEN STUPID SCIENTIST EGO TRIPPERS list. You might as well be smoking crack to think that holds any water.

My #11 is just as salient and enlightening as your ten all thrown together.

See? You can't do it. You can't make one serious post in this thread. And that post was clearly aimed at djm as I thought he would appreciate it. I knew you wouldn't. And now it's my turn to be smug. You have no training in science so how do you know that list is wrong? What's wrong with it? Every scientist I know would agree with it 100%. Thank God people like Pastuer followed it's examples.

Whether you admit it or not, science runs your life, making it much easier to live in this day and age. Keeping you healthy and safe every day. Protecting your children from disease. Yet you are so venomous when it comes to acknowledging their hard work. I just don't understand it.

Specifically which, you mean? I'll take the bait. Point #10 is both wrong and right.

Omg, I appreciate science so much. I use it every day of my life. I get up and go to bed using science and its benefits. Its just that your stupid list there is so laughable, it is nothing but ten attacks on creationists. It reads like something someone wrote drunk one night to read at the local "Scientist Club" meeting.

No scientist worth his weight in test tubes would write that crap.

lol, read my prior post, but that ^^ is a flat out lie.

Ok, so take the creationist information out of the list. Is it still a bad list? The list was specifically written to refute creationists. That's why it's there. It was part of a document written to refute Dr. Hovines stuff on why the earth is young (younger than 10,000 years). It's a list that at it's very core is an explanation on why creationism shouldn't be allowed to be taught 'as science' in school. I like the list. I think it captures the frustration of biological scientists perfectly. If not a little smugly. Sure did get you going, though didn't it. The writer would appreciate that.

Doesn't seem that way in this thread JS, it really doesn't.

It was specifically written to mock, not refute.

Seems you know the difference.

I did in fact get some of my stuff from Dr. Hovind, but not all of it. So keep searching. even though I thought you and I were going to let it lie. Yet you had to bring me back didnt you.

I have attended many of the good Doctors seminars. I think he is a great man and knows his stuff and is willing to go head to head with anyone who wants to debate him.

He has asked many evolusionist to debate him in a public forum but they refuse.

WRONG. The information I found is FROM a debate with the good Dr. Interesting that all four of your points are directly from his list of 'proofs'. And I don't have to search anymore. There's nothing to find. And you really don't have to come back Dawg. You can do whatever you want to in this thread. Come in. Leave. Whatever.

What difference does it make. Mock and refute in this case turns out to be the same thing. It is what it is. Read it if you want to. Skip it if you don't. Comment on it if you want to. Don't if you don't want to.

And feel free to post your own lists. Post all you want.

Oh I already did. And I mocked it back!

I have been a bit out of the loop today as I have had to take care of some medical stuff, but I have to say that the list that mriff posted regarding the differences between science and pseudo-science is spot-on accurate. In fact, I see the response that it triggered in the list -- circle the wagons and denounce.

Most telling to me is the portion of the list that talks about scientists reviewing/critiquing their colleagues work subject to open debate. When a colleague screws up and publishes something that is fundamentally hosed -- that is blood in the water time. And being willing to look at unorthodox ideas if given a chance. I can state with absolute certainty (a statistician saying that!) that if someone was able to come up with some creation/intelligent design research that met normal standards of scientific rigor (a key requirement) and found data consistent with the intelligent design model that they would get immediate tenure and big bucks. In academia, the novel idea that explains conventional wisdom but trumps the explanation -- think theory of relativity and what that did to Newtonian physics -- is the holy grail. Look at Einstein's status after that earth-shattering discovery; Newton had reigned for years, but was ultimately overthrown in terms of the underlying theoretical explanation. Note, however, that his fundamental teachings were so spot-on that his approach to physics is still the first thing that is taught before the complexity of relativity is introduced to the budding physicist.

Anybody who reads this thread can obviously see who the major advocates for both sides are. That is quite clear. Are both sides guilty of hyperbole and excess? In my opinion we probably are..

At any rate, mriff you were correct. I found that list to be fascinating.

And dogs like to chase to their tails. No surprise at either. ;-)

Oh, right you did. Not a bad effort. But let's break it down a little bit.

Real scientists have big butts. Nope, not this one. I work out and run every day.

And big heads. Nope again.

and often suffer from the God complex. I don't know one scientist who does, and I know a lot of them.

thinking as well they have it all figured out. Real scientists NEVER think they have it all figured out.

when they really are ignoring the big picture, or in layman's terms, they can't see the forest for the tree. It is to their credit that scientists labor over the details. It's a good thing that scientists look at the tree. That helps them stay focused on the research at hand. It's those small contributions to a body of knowledge that makes a difference in the long run. I don't think Pastuer was looking at the forest, do you?

I'll go you one better. I would bet that a Nobel prize would be in this scientists future.
Hey, speak for yourself! :razz:

Hmm, the Good Doctor Dawg? Seems your Dr. Hovind is a tax cheat.

Kent Hovind, xxx8216;Dr. Dino,xxx8217; guilty on all counts

From the article:

A 12-person jury deliberated for 21/2 hours on Thursday before finding the couple guilty of all counts in their tax-fraud case.

Kent Hovind, founder of Creation Science Evangelism and Dinosaur Adventure Land in Pensacola, was found guilty of 58 counts, including failure to pay $845,000 in employee-related taxes. He faces a maximum of 288 years in prison.

Jo Hovind was charged and convicted in 44 of the counts involving evading bank-reporting requirements. She faces up to 225 years in prison but was allowed to remain free pending the couple’s sentencing on Jan. 9.

You are WRONG the only thing that came from his site was the first stuff I posted back on page one or two About the Dinasours

Further on the 'Good Doctor':

Kent Hovind, who often calls himself "Dr. Dino," is a charismatic proponent for young-earth creationism who enjoys enormous popularity with audiences (and web forums participants) from around the United States. He runs Creation Science Evangelism and offers (U.S.) $250,000 to anyone who can prove to his satisfaction that evolution happened. It should be noted that many of his fellow young-earthers consider him to be an embarrasment and that many of his arguments can be found in Arguments we think creationists should NOT use published by the young-earth creationist organization Answers in Genesis. Nevertheless, many people are directly or indirectly getting their facts on evolution from him and his influence among "rank and file" creationists cannot be doubted.

Ok, but your four points from your ealier post are specifically listed in his 'proofs'. Coincidence? I suspect these 'proofs' are passed around by the creationists.

He is still a good Christian man.

Gee they fail to pay taxes and get charged but Obamas Cronies get a slap on the wrist and get to remain in office wow. Just goes to prove the Demorats and Obama is crooked thanks for proving that fact Mr Scientest.

This is what I said you were wrong about Dawg. They don't refuse to debate him. The information that I posted was from a debate with the good doctor.

LMAO! Man, I just can't keep up with you Dawg. Your logic (?) prevails yet again. :?

Source: Debating Dr. Dino -- Debunking Kent Hovind

A good summary of why most scientists won't debate 'the good doctor'.

snip

I am embarrassed by the invitation by anyone in any way associated with USAO to Kent Horvind, a “young-earth creationist” who calls himself “Dr. Dino.” I am proud of the fact that no one at USAO accepted the “challenge” to engage him in a debate. Allowing oneself to be drawn into a debate with someone who claims to be a scientist but argues that the earth is 6000 years old gives a stamp of legitimacy to the promulgation of nonsense and is as absurd as offering a platform to a member of the Flat Earth society. I believe that legitimate cases can be made both for an accidental origin of the universe and a so-called “intelligent design,” and that listening to Richard Dawkins (The Blind Watchmaker) or Stephen Gould and Carl Sagan – were they still alive – debate John Barrow and Frank Tipler (The Anthropic Principle), or Paul Davies (The Mind of God) would be a valuable learning experience. I am also convinced that evolution need not be viewed as incompatible with creation (why should God not be considered capable of creating through natural processes???). I have published articles on the compatibility of evolution and Christianity both in the U.S. and in Germany, and have lectured at the Zygon Center for Religion and Science at the Lutheran School of Theology in Chicago.

Ken Hovind, alas, is neither a scientist nor a scripture scholar. He bases his hypotheses concerning the origin of the cosmos and life on earth not on anthropology, astronomy, chaos theory, microbiology, paleontology, quantum physics, or the study of mitochondrial DNA but on a literal interpretation of the account presented in the Judeo-Christian Book of Genesis which reflects a common-sense pre-scientific paradigm of interpreting observed phenomena and explaining the unknown in terms of inferred supernatural agency. By accepting the a priori TRUTH of that which he is trying to establish and arranging data to support the biblical account, his argument becomes circular and hence, fallacious. I am tempted to point to Galileo who cited the astute observation of the sixteenth century cardinal and church historian Cesare Baronius that "the Bible was written to show us how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go." Clearly, some four hundred years ago, Baronius would have rejected Hovind’s approach. He understood, even then, that scripture is not a science text!

In addition, Hovind, and the “young-earthers” in general are not even accepted by other representatives of so-called “creation science” (often, alas, not in fact, a science, but an attempt to pass religious dogma off as science), because they are so devoid of professional scientific integrity that they make even academically legitimate attempts to reconcile scripture and contemporary cosmology suspect.
/snip

How does him getting convicted of paying taxes affect his being a good Christian man.

hell your President appointed two seperate tax evaders to public office. They are still considered good men and can hold office.

Your Pope was part of the Nazi youth and hes still the Pope.

Waht makes Dr. Hovind any different, Ill tell you what it is, he doesnt agree with you. So that in turn makes him a bad guy.

Hahaha I love it. Do I need to start posting about scientest that have done wrong or do you want to just go on and on.

So lets do this again.
Do you believe the flood happened?
Do you believe the Bible is Gods word?
Do you Believe that Jesus Rose from the dead?

Do you believe God has anything to do with evolution.

If he was a good Christian man, he would obey the laws.

I don't consider them good men. I consider them tax cheats.

I've said that I will not comment any further with you on anything about the Catholic church. Bait me all you want.

He's a dishonest whack job who (as stated above) lacks professional and personal integrity.

No, let's don't do it again. It is tiresome.

From the same article as above:

There is NO EVIDENCE that Kent Hovind has more than a college sophomore level of course work in ANY science. There is NO EVIDENCE from his thesis that he is widely-read in the areas of evolution, astronomy, geology, paleontology or even the history of science beyond what is written in a few young-Earth creationist books. There is ABUNDANT EVIDENCE that the requirements for a Ph.D. degree from Patriot University fall far below those of typical secular or religious institutions. Ask yourself whether you would visit a medical doctor, an auto mechanic, a plumber, or an investment counsellor with similar dubious credentials. If so, then Hovind is your science guy! Or see him for what he is, the snake-oil salesman, peddling salvation and pseudo science in the late 20th century and even unto the 21st century.

What ever Riff Ill just say this until you decide to answer my questions I wont answer anything you say ask either.

Its a pity you're so ashamed of your faith and God.

HAHAHA Sounds kinda like your President But yet you voted for him.

How do you know who I voted for Dawg?

Perfect! Sounds good to me Dawg. Debating biology with a YEC is excrutiatingly dull.

Not ashamed at all Dawg. Not sure where you get this. But I will say this about Jesus. He came to take away our sins, not our minds.

True, Nobel or better would be in their future. However, pigs will probably fly before that will ever happen because the logical/philosophical structure of the pseudo-science is so weak that it couldn't hold a glass of water.

And yeah, I was in a weak moment trying to be conciliatory. I then saw the jackass response to my post and thought that we should just pour some chlorine in the freaking gene pool. Unfortunately he's already reproduced.

Unfortunately, irrationality appears to be a conserved trait.

Some of us believe that both sets of scum bags should be flogged. Where did mriff justify the behavior of the Obama appointees? Where? You won't be able to find it because you are flailing about for an argument..

I'll fall for your bait puppy dog. Here we go:

Do you believe the flood happened? Don't know -- no conclusive evidence.

Do you believe the Bible is Gods word? I think it is a collection of tales designed to communicate the philosophy of what constitutes living an ethical life, and as such is a prescription repeated in many documents with more variations on the theme than differences between them. Having said that, I live my life according to the prescriptions of the Judeo-Christian ethic, and believe that a supreme being will view the totality of my life's work when I am dead, and I am happy to live with the risk that some parts of my life may have been flawed.

Do you Believe that Jesus Rose from the dead? Again, don't know but rather doubt it. Also am not worried about your claims of blasphemy, because the God that I know will focus on how I live and how I treat my fellow man, not whether I am an obsequious and slavish devotee of the world according to Puppy. My God is understanding of the frailties of mankind, and not a vindictive SOB like you portray him/her to be.

Go ahead, condemn me to hell.

Hahaha love the puppy comments. And love how you called someone a jackass with out actually saying it. Very clever. Not sure if that was directed at me or Jsanders was a little crass talking about whom ever reproducing thought I think that was alittle low insulting their children though. I am sure you wouldnt like it if someone was insulting your children. Also if it is directed at me then be a man and direct your comments towards me not under your breath like a spineless twit. But I know that would be impossible to over come.


There is but One God. It has nothing to do with your works on earth, it has to do with accepting Jesus Christ as your personal savior. Works wont get you into heaven. But seeing as you don't believe in Jesus Christ then this is a useless arguement and Ill just treat you as I do dmead not worth talking to as a non believer.


And I don't condem anyone to hell, thats your own choice. I don't want anyone to go to hell.

I think it's clear that it was all aimed at you Dawg. He was, after all, answering your questions.

Now here's another question (not aimed at you Dawg, but at anyone who cares to answer). Is ocular structure in living organisms irreducibly complex?

Hmm. 13,000 years ago? Nope, could not have happened for a YEC. Damn scientists must be wrong again.

Ice-Age Tools Unearthed In Boulder - Denver News Story - KMGH Denver

Wrong there buddy -- just don't believe in him the same way that you do. Work a bit on the reading comprehension.

Free will exists for a reason.

djm, here's one for you. I haven't read it yet, but will on the plane next week. A quick scan and it looks pretty interesting. It's a pdf document. You might also like the website it comes from.

http://www.centerforinquiry.net/uplo...st_Paper_1.pdf

Comprehension is fine. You believe in Jesus a man, not Jesus as Christ. And I am not your Buddy at all.

And Riff I am sure it was aimed at me hes just not man enough to admit it.

Dawg knows all, he can tell you what you believe.

I don't think he has to admit it. It was implied. As he was answering your question directly.

I have never said I can do any such thing, so unless you can contribute to the conversation please just shut up. All you have posted lately is random statements meant to stir the pot.


Implied doesnt mean crap to me. But I am glad he has you to defend him. Since he cant or wont man up.

Don't shut up test. I like your contributions.

I'm sure djm will comment on your slights Dawg. Can't see him missing out on that.

But no comment on this post Dawg? How does a YEC get past stories like this that hit the press so often?

Dawg, this is not you telling him what he believes?

What I find frightfully fascinating is that Dawg and others in his thread are quite willing to engage in significant amounts of passive-aggressive name-calling, etc., as he has done throughout this thread, but when someone else returns the "favor" (which I did) he gets upset. Reminds me of the schoolyard bully who gets confronted.

And I know you're not my buddy -- ever hear of sarcasm. You used it earlier when you called me "Skippy." Remember that???

Test, no matter what I believe until I accept his definitions and his logic I will by definition be wrong. But I think that you know that. Which is why he can never be a scientist -- he simply has little curiosity unless things fit into his restricted world view.

Thank you. Sent to printer.

Sorry that I wasn't around to reply on your schedule -- given that you are so f------ important. I had some client work to take care of for them.

Let me be direct: I don't think much of your thought processes or your emotional maturity. I won't say anything more than that to avoid being completely rude.

A clade of living organisms in the animal kingdom. Kind of shows where we all fit in.

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3393/...410a0b96_o.gif

From the article:
And our backs have been hurting ever since! :cry:

No it was not. It was me confirming what he had already said.


I don't think I have called anyone a name in this thread. If I have it was probably deserved but I don't recall doing it and I am not going to go back through all the pages to find out. I am sure test will do that for me. He seems good at digging but not contributing.

You can say what you want about me I am a grown man and can handle it. What I can not and will not accept is you bringing my children into the mix.

I am not passive aggressive, I am aggressive in my stances I fight for what I believe is right. I have not ever wanted to be a scientist so no I wont ever become a scientist.

So if you want to want to call my anything fine go ahead. But do not ever bring my children up again. Because that is where I will draw the line.

and riff I never said there wasn't and ice age did I? It could have every well happened during the 6000 year time frame. Hell where I live in Atlanta was once shore line so anything is possible. I have never denied dinosaurs. I have never denied cave men. You and the others in this thread are the ones denying the existence of things.

The reason I didnt get back to you on your time frame is because I was busy with my children at the indocterine camp called school.

dawg, my contributions were in the beginning of the thread. I think everything should be open to being explained or taught in schools. That opinion was not popular with either side. That was my response to the OP, since then I have merely been entertained.
To post things that you feel are noteworthy would be the last thing on my to-do list around here.

More on the Kent Hovind front (I refuse to call him a doctor). Turns out that Mr. Hovind has been repudiated by a mainstream (and I use that term loosely) YEC group, Answers in Genesis. They wrote a document titled 'Arguments we think creationists should NOT use'. Oops, Mr. Hovind was using most of them in his arguments for creationism. In one debate with Mr. Hovind, creationist astronomer Hugh Ross, said to Mr. Hovind, 'Astronomers view the credibility of the 'Young Earth' as being much weaker than that for a flat earth.' Wow, that had to hurt.

Anyway, Mr. Hovind is now housed at the Federal Correctional Institute, Edgefield SC. His wife's address? The Federal Correctional Institution, Marianna, FL.

So how old do you think the earth is? Based on your previous posts, I thought you to be a Young Earth Creationist.

I have to say that you have better skills at flat-out denial than anyone I have seen. That is one thing that you truly excel at.

ok this thread is bordering on bull shit now. please with the personal attacks. lets get back to debating evolution and the age of the earth. lets post links and tid-bits of info that support our prospective positions on the subject and stop the outright insults at each other.

k? thnx.

and yes i remember page two or three where i started to get out of line. but seriously lets get back to the debate.

To satisfy dawg craving for me to contribute.
I feel like intelligent Design has been neglected in the thread so:

"Is intelligent design theory the same as creationism?
No. Intelligent design theory is simply an effort to empirically detect whether the "apparent design" in nature acknowledged by virtually all biologists is genuine design (the product of an intelligent cause) or is simply the product of an undirected process such as natural selection acting on random variations. Creationism is focused on defending a literal reading of the Genesis account, usually including the creation of the earth by the Biblical God a few thousand years ago. Unlike creationism, the scientific theory of intelligent design is agnostic regarding the source of design and has no commitment to defending Genesis, the Bible or any other sacred text. Honest critics of intelligent design acknowledge the difference between intelligent design and creationism. University of Wisconsin historian of science Ronald Numbers is critical of intelligent design, yet according to the Associated Press, he "agrees the creationist label is inaccurate when it comes to the ID [intelligent design] movement." Why, then, do some Darwinists keep trying to conflate intelligent design with creationism? According to Dr. Numbers, it is because they think such claims are "the easiest way to discredit intelligent design." In other words, the charge that intelligent design is "creationism" is a rhetorical strategy on the part of Darwinists who wish to delegitimize design theory without actually addressing the merits of its case. For more information read Dr. Stephen Meyer's piece "Intelligent Design is not Creationism" that appeared in The Daily Telegraph (London) or Dr. John West's piece "Intelligent Design and Creationism Just Aren't the Same" in Research News & Opportunities." Link

To me the issue has been if you believe in an all-powerful God then he could do anything including change his creations over time. The Bible talks of creatures that we know nothing about and it also leaves a lot to the imagination surrounding Earth's early times. I don't subscribe to intelligent design but if you believe in that all-powerful God then how can you truly rule it out? Why are there animals and plants that went extinct a long time ago? Certainly God's creations without a soul still mean something to him. Why create them if He was going to let them go extinct?

The Age of the Earth is another thing where why does there have to be no God if the Earth is old? Certainly their are other options, perhaps it is only 6000 years old and God created it to look old. Perhaps it is truly old and God felt there was no need for believers to know the history of the early earth.

Aw, come on! You're taking all the fun out of it! (just kidding)

I think once every 6 pages we are due to fire off some insults and then get back to business.

I disagree with this person's discussion on intelligent design being any different than creationism. Both rely on supernatural powers to achieve an understanding of how life has formed and evolved. All the buzz words are in there including 'Darwinist'. If one believes in evolution, then one should not be termed a Darwinist. Darwin lived over 150 years ago and postulated on evolution in his research and writing. But to think nothing has happened since is crazy. Scientists have had 150 years to test, research, analyze and form new hypotheses about evolution. All contributing to an ever expanding body of knowledge.

All one has to do to see how this amazing transformation from creationists to intelligent design is occurring is to read the Wedge Strategy written by the Discovery Institute. It's a conscience effort to move away from the word creationism to a term that appears more benign. And it's working.

Anyway, this is a good post test. And I'd like to reserve additional comment.

Test, I would sure like your opinion on the document mentioned in post 458. Would you mind reading that and letting me know what you think?

Well I understand that the evidence of the transformation of living things is the proof of evolution but does that mean that there is not a God who could have got the ball rolling and / or has some other involvement. To me this is where the science can only go so far as it cannot eliminate the theory of God or that God is the creator. Even with the Big Bang there is no evidence that answers all the questions let alone rules out God.

ps - i'll read 458 doc tonight.

He (dmead) has got a point.

From a practical perspective I agree with you mriff -- I think that is what is going on as intelligent design is currently phrased. But let's remove the political context for a moment -- something that I am loathe to do as I am typing this because I suspect there will be another thread-jack -- and focus on the philosophy of science.

As you well know, the advances in evolutionary theory ultimately reduce to a series of assumptions that are, given our current level of knowledge, largely untestable assumptions. A long time ago in this thread I posted that there is a critical junction point that allows many people of faith to be both superb scientists and religious, and for most of them that junction point of the assumptions represented items that they had to, for now, accept on faith. If they had to accept that on faith, could they not also accept the existence of a god -- but without all of the specific baggage that a literal interpretation of the bible brings with it. These men and women do just that.

I will also read the manuscript that you (mriff) provided. I think that would make a good discussion piece and get us back on track (hopefully). Personally, I will try my best to simply ignore any disruptive influences.

Here goes your threadjack, since you just invited it:

Your warm and fuzzy intelligent discussion can't go past six posts (since dmead's request) until you resort to your neanderthal rants again.

Your inability to have that discussion without a sparring partner just isn't possible, is it?

Sigh.

JS, why don't you read the manuscript that has been posted. And let us know your thoughts.

I'm sorry -- I simply could not resist. This comment seems to imply some acceptance of evolutionary thought.:oops:

Test, every scientist studying evolution will tell you that they are trying to understand the how. Not the why. That is a very key distinction. Science is trying to understand how evolution has occurred (not if it has occurred, since that is a given). No scientist out there, including the eminant evolutionary development biologist Sean Carroll (who happens to believe in God) will attempt to tell anyone why it has occurred. That is up to others to answer. I think that's a large part of the problem that people have in understanding why some scientists feel compelled to study our origins. They immediately resort to terms such as blasphemy. When all that is happening is that these people have a need to study and understand the natural world. To some of these scientists, studying and understanding the natural world around us is in their blood.

:razz: :razz: :razz:

lol, you did make the invitation.

I'll say this, I am certainly comforted to know that you do worship it enough for the several others of us.

And, had that evolution train ever come down the track, I am also certainly comforted in knowing that apparently my ancestors got aboard far sooner than yours. ;-)

Good enough for you?

One post on topic. Can you do that? I doubt it.

djm and others, i would encourage you to read Sean Carroll's books. Referenced earlier in this thread. Untestable assumptions are becoming fewer with new scientific thought. The science of evolutionary development is very recent. And allows specific and precise testing of various hypotheses. And not surprisingly, it ties into and adds to the evidence of evolution. The book I'm referring to is called Endless Forms Most Beautiful: The New Science of Evo Devo. This book focuses on development. And he continues to tie it all together in his second book, but on a molecular level with a very in depth analysis of all the current literature on DNA and gene research. It is called The Making of the Fittest. Trust me, it will astound you. Information on his lab can be found here:

Carroll lab

Edit: he focuses his writing on a few of the holy grails of creationism/intelligent design such as irreducible complexity. For instance, vision organs are no longer in the handbook of attacking points of the creationists. They are no longer irreducibly complex.

Link sent to me by a friend and colleague. Unbelievable. The writer fails to mention how humans murder each other every day, in untold masses. And have throughout time. We should all look to the bonobos as a basis for society. ;-) (Bonobo - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)

Is the Chimp-Mauling Darwin's Fault?

Well the bonobos do have a good relationship with sexuality, which is a big reinforcer.

On a more serious level, the linkages made by the author (McDowell) pander to fears. A significant issue in this whole debate is that fear is a bigger seller than truth. Unfortunate but true.

So what did you guys think about Barbara Forrest's position paper? I just read it. So I'm ready for your comments. I'll wait to read others comments before making any of my own.

Indeed.
A classic Wedge strategy. Although I don't think the more intelligent of the intelligent designers would resort to such nonsense. They know it doesn't help them in the long run. The more effective strategies are more nuanced. The writer of this article was pandering to the base more than anything else. But it's still shocking nonetheless.