Posted on 03/12/2006 1:58:44 PM PST by balch3
(AgapePress) - A Christian evangelist known as "Dr. Dino" advocates a three-pronged approach to countering public school textbooks that use faulty evidence for Darwinian evolution.
Dr. Kent Hovind says instead of trying to get intelligent design or creationism taught in public schools, the main objective of critics of evolution should be requiring accuracy in science textbooks. Hovind, the founder of Florida-based Creation Science Evangelism, notes many states already have laws requiring textbooks to be accurate -- and if they do not, he says, teachers should have the right to correct any inaccuracies in those books.
"Jesus lived in the Roman Empire and did not spend any time trying to change the Roman Empire. He just changed people, one at a time," Hovind points out. "And I think the grassroots approach of changing people is bulletproof -- I mean, there's nothing you can do to stop that."
He continues, saying the "second level of attack" would involve changing teachers. "Get the teachers converted or at least knowledgeable on the topic, where they know what the truth is," he suggests. "Then it doesn't matter what the textbook says, because the teacher's not going to teach it anyway -- or the teacher's going to teach it and expose the error."
Hovind says a third and more difficult plan of attack would be to change existing textbook requirements at the state level. But in that aspect, he laments, Darwinists are beating Christians to the punch.
"The atheists are really good at getting involved in the committees that select the state standards for education," he says. "Now, you can get five or ten atheists in your state that actually control what everybody is taught."
Once those individuals get on the committee, he says, "They'll vote -- they'll lobby the senators and representatives, and they'll say, 'We want you to vote in this legislation that requires the following things to be our state standards for education.'"
Later this month, Hovind will be holding a two-day seminar at the Pennsylvania high school a federal judge recently barred from mentioning intelligent design in biology class.
Pointing out that Hovind's degree is completely phony is not an answer to his arguments (easy as it is to show that those are completely phony too).
However Hovind makes a great deal of his degree, e.g. in the appelation "Dr. Dino". IOW Hovind is putting forward an argument from authority when ever he cites his credentials, and an Ad Hominem IS an appropriate (indeed the only possible) response to an argument from authority.
Also in calling Morris "the founder" of modern Creation Science, without noting, for instance, the vast extent to which he ripped off George McCready Price.
The link I saw said 1996. Thinking this one event as multi events seemed not mentioned I stopped looking at that point
Well, you know how these things go. God knows you're a big fan of Morris, so one day maybe you're in your office, sharpening pencils or licking stamps or doing whatever it is you do, when the secretary buzzes in and says God is on line 3 for you....
Also in calling Morris "the founder" of modern Creation Science, without noting, for instance, the vast extent to which he ripped off George McCready Price.
The whole site looks someone's first personal Internet home page from about a dozen years ago. The kind people created the first time they ever got Internet access and their ISP gave them a megabyte of storage space to create html pages that other people could view over the Internet.
...when the secretary buzzes in and says God is on line 3 for you...
...and you are not surprised because you were expecting a call.
whatever lol
Poor you!
Nah... I'm just here for the show.
How does the physical position and proximity of fossils correlate with the geological time scale? First I hear it asserted that dinosaurs and primates, if the theory of evolution is true, will not be found "in the same rocks." I am asking what "in the same rocks means." You say doesn't correspond to any particular physical position. Well ain't that handy! Do you mean to tell me geologists operate with a presupposed geological time scale that does not correlate with the physical location of fossils?
And then I am asking why the theory of evolution is bound to predict such a thing. How do we know that primates and dinosaurs were simply not designed to be found "in the same rocks?"
The show ... just take a look at the keywords this thread has engendered.
Unless you were expecting Cthulhu.
Thank you. I figured the principle of superposition would be the predominant assumption as to how the fossil record was formed. But what I am asking is why we would predict a find of dinsosaurs at (I presume) a lower level of the fossil record than primates. Why does the theory of evolution "predict" this?
almost to one thousand posts! Don't quit now! Let's go Freepers!
It depends. If a series of strata was originally laid down conformably, and not rearranged by geologic forces subsequently, then the location of fossils and geologic time correspond simply: The lower the fossil is in the series of strata, the older it is; a given stratigraphic layer (with the fossils it contains) is older than the stata above it and younger than the strata below it.
First I hear it asserted that dinosaurs and primates, if the theory of evolution is true, will not be found "in the same rocks."
Yes, that happens to be true. But as I explained twice now, and I thought very carefully, it is true incident to the fact that, to all appearances, dinosaurs did go extinct before primates made their first appearance. It would have been possible, even though it didn't happen to turn out that way, for dinosaurs to have continued in existence long enough to be around at the same time as primates.
As I'm now explaining for the second time there may be any particular temporal relationship between organisms that belong to distinct lineages. The only inherent prohibition is that an organism may not appear before it's own ancestors.
So, to put this together, it is not absolutely prohibited (even if by now HIGLY unlikely) that primates and dinosaurs might be found in the same rocks, but that is only allowed if be because dinosaurs appear "too late," that is if it turns out that some dinosaurs managed to stick around much longer than currently/previously known.
It is at the same time absolutely prohibited that dinosaurs and primates appear in the same rocks if it be because primates appear TOO EARLY. If primates were to show up during the time period that dinosaurs are currently known to have lived, they would then ALSO be appearing before their own ancestors, which is what is prohibited by evolution.
This distinction is academic because, from the way that dinosaur fossils gradually "peter out" in number and diversity near their end, and the abruptness with which they finally disappear from the record entirely, it's pretty clear they really did go extinct when they appear to. Still it is a real distinction based on the principles which, however elementary, I feel I need in your case to repeat yet again:
- a taxon (a species or larger group) cannot appear before its own ancestors, that is before branching nodes in its own lineage, but
- taxons on different lineages, that is where the last common ancestor they share appeared well before either taxon itself first differentiated, may have any temporal relationship between them as the case may be.
I am asking what "in the same rocks means." You say doesn't correspond to any particular physical position. Well ain't that handy!
Actually it's not particularly "handy". It would be much easier for geologists if strata always remained conformable and undisturbed. However, handy or not, it's just the way the world works that strata do get overturned and rearranged. I mean there's simply no doubt about that: unless you want to argue that grass and trees sometimes grow upside down; that rain can fall "up" (from inside the earth?) and leave splatters, mudcracks, etc, on the underside of strata; that animals can do the same thing with their footprints; that the laws of gravity can be reversed so that streams flow upside down; etc. There are many, many methods of determining the ways that strata have been rearranged. Obviously the fossils they carry must be rearranged along with them.
The rest of your message I'm not sure what you're complaining about. Well, in truth I'm not sure about that with respect to any of your message, but I hope I've been patient.
coming up ...
1000
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.