Evolution thread.

I gave you a link as to why radio metric dating isn't valid.

 

For this discussion an evolutionist is someone who believes in macro evolution. Also I would like you to prove that Kent Hovind is a lier.

- - - Updated - - -

And where do we see this?

 

Yet you didn't disprove the science with your link. It has been scientifically proven and challenged and continues to be used today. One person claiming its ineffectiveness should go the lengths necessary to discredit and disprove the science, all via published data that can be peer reviewed and further challenged. It's easy to say something doesn't work, or works differently than assumed, but it's quite another to actually prove it.

 

Those who do not walk into this with pre-conceived notions (like a YEC) can clearly note the species adaptation (evolution) in the fossil record, which is the ONLY way to note it and thus the primary source....Whale evolution is an extremely well defined example.

For additional support we simply look at the vestigial leg anatomy found in modern whales, snakes.....etc. Unless you think God in his infinite wisdom decided to put a few useless bones inside animals where no one can see them?

 

98% of scientists connected to the American Association for the Advancement of Science
say they believe that humans evolved over time
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/02/12/darwin-day/

 

Well, can't say I would refute somebody who is pointing out that the nonsensical pseudoscience of creationism has no place in any science class.

But here' is a scientific debunking of the polonium halo "evidence" concocted by Gentry.

http://ncse.com/rncse/30/5/origin-polonium-halos

I don't understand what you are asking. what "axis of evil"?
As of right now, there is NO EVIDENCE found that is inconsistent with BB. Zero, zip, nada.

 

I can say the same thing about evolution. Those who do not walk in the pre-conceived notions (like evolution) can clearly note the creation of this world. Btw, the whale evolution is debunked.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Zio1ttlDjlM

Those bones are not useless. The whale uses his "leg" bones to attach special muscles to help the whale reproduce. The snake need his "legs" to help position himself during breeding.

- - - Updated - - -

So? The majority of scientists though small rocks fall slower than big rocks.

 

Here's 600 pages disproving the validity of radioisotope dating.

https://www.icr.org/i/pdf/research/rate-all.pdf

I'm not gonna ask you to disprove each and every page but you can read it on your own time.

 

Gentry has a whole page dedicated to the critics.


http://www.robertgentry.org/reports/

This axis of evil.

http://www.davidicke.com/headlines/...n-big-bang-proof-that-shakes-core-hypotheses/

 

You won't need me to. This is one paper/document by 3 authors. Seems the old earth guys don't even agree with these young earth folks. http://www.oldearth.org/ratedeception.htm

 

The federal courts proved it. He just got out of federal prison for trying to defraud the government. He lied on numerous tax documents.

http://www.pnj.com/story/news/2015/03/12/hovind-trial-deliberations/70205932/

- - - Updated - - -

David Icke believes that lizard creatures rule the earth. Anything he says is automatically discounted. You need to be more careful about your sources. You seem to believe a lot of fraudulent people.

 

Of course he does. That doesn't make his hypothesis any stronger, since he formulated it by ignoring certain obvious conditions contributing to formation.

Yes, an interesting anomaly that at this point we don't have all the answer for. OTOH, Planck did confirm the basic model of BB.

https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn23301-planck-shows-almost-perfect-cosmos-plus-axis-of-evil/

there hasn't been a SINGLE "creationist science" hypothesis that has stood up to "peer review". OTOH, creationists ignore such "scientific" necessities, in their desire to find even the smallest scrap of evidence to support their cockeyed beliefs.

 

We can discuss how accurate radiometric dating is.

But, saying it isn't valid is absolute nonsense.

 

I didnt really saw any debunking, just rambling about how the RATE project isn't peer reviewed. Can you give specifics.

 

He was arrested for structuring, something you are probably guilty of all the time. You can read his case here.

http://freekenthovind.com/kent-hovinds-case/

I don't care if he says that animals can secretly talk, what matters is whether he's right on this particular subject. If he said 2+2=4 would you automatically dismiss that?

 

At least look at his responses.

Maybe if a theory goes against what we observe then its time to re-think the theory.

Maybe because the peer review is biased. That would be like saying during the time of communist Russia that no one has given proof that communism doesn't work.

- - - Updated - - -

Fair enough.

 

No, he intentionally defrauded the government claiming he didn't have to pay FICA for his workers (and then, of course, not paying FICA for his workers). Again please use relevant sites, not outright propaganda, again. I used a neutral news source.

It was his wife who was arrested for structuring (i.e. taking out money in amounts under the IRS radar). I don't structure in order to avoid paying taxes, so no, I'm not guilty of trying to defraud the federal government. Do you do stuff like that all the time? If so, then you need to be looking at your own honesty before you worry about evolution.

As I said, he's a liar. You should be trying to discredit him as part of your movement, instead of defending him. Do you remember hearing "Thou shalt not bear false witness" and "Give unto Caesar what is Caesar's"

Hovind is a crook, and IMHO, shows how dishonest the creationist movement is.

I'd double check it with other sources before I believed it.

 

Most of the problem comes in the form of the very definition of science.

The rules of science state that a scientific hypothesis (and thus a theory as well) must be falsifiable. That is, it must be constructed such that if it is false it can be proven to be false.

That lets out references to god, since there is absolutely no way of proving that god didn't do something.

This is a big hurdle for "creation science", since creationists would like to propose that god did something AND to use science, which precludes them from proposing that god did something.

 

Evolution is a foundational principle of all modern biology.

You can be assured that it is being thought about constantly.

If someone could come up with an alternative theory, they would become at least as famous as Einstein, whose fame stemmed from correcting physics as understood previously.

 

No
But i would automatically dismiss it if he were to claim that 2+2=13.6359267

 

Kent Hovind got his doctoral "degree" from an unaccredited diploma mill so I sure accept him as an expert against proper scientists with proper academic research doctorates.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriot_Bible_University

The only reason his degree can legally be used is its a religious institutions degree and has an exemption in every state.

 

Specifically, they make claims without evidence/proof, and they didn't present it for the scientific community to evaluate/debate/test/analyze. That's not how science works, yet you rely upon it to discredit science.

 

Academics discredit absolutely all evidence that doesn't fit into their little scientific theories.... If evidence contradicts their theories that are agreed upon they laugh at it... It's (*)(*)(*)(*)ing gross...

Perhaps scientists should really start practicing science instead of promoting stupid (*)(*)(*)(*)?

 

My friend even popes subscribe to evolutionary ideas. Even if you are a theist you can still believe in evolution. Now it has been so true that in most debates even diehard creationists also believe in evolutionary theories. Yes you have the right to raise debates and it is your birthright to question it. I appreciate your concerns to put it on the forum to take different views in order that we can come closer to truth,