Creation evangelist derides evolution as ‘dumbest’ theory [Kent Hovind Alert!]

University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee Post ^ | 17 December 2005 | Kayla Bunge

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"Uhhhhhh. Do most people who believe in evolution who also believe in God believe God is a supernatural Being?"

Uhhhh, yes. But they don't include God into their explanations of scientific theories. How could they? How do you test for the supernatural? You can't. It's a theological, not scientific, question.

[Thatcherite]

Oh. Quantum mechanics isn't really science. My bad.

Where did I say that, or even remotely imply it? In fact in what way is your response in any way germane to the debate? Another attempted sidestep on your part. Are you always this disengenuous?

[CarolinaGuitarman]

He doesn't go into details about how he created each living thing.

[Uri’el-2012]

XS>A Jewish Historian named Josephus.

Josephus was an ex-Jew,

He sewed his Bris back on?

the passage mentioning Jesus was inserted much later by someone else.

You know? How do you know?

b'shem Y'shua

[Texas Eagle]

I'm out till the evening. Later all!

Off to continue your search for those missing links I take it.

[Baraonda]

Amen to that post.

[Alter Kaker]

I looked up that quote, and found a source that suggests that Pasteur did in fact accept Darwinian evolution, at least in his later years. This...this would mean that creationist sources are lying! My whole view of the world has been shattered!

A dishonest creationist? Imagine!

Someone quick -- look up the Ninth Commandment.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"Off to continue your search for those missing links I take it."

Actually, stepping out now to my nephew's 4th birthday party.


Later people!

[b_sharp]

My favorite subject, you posted it at 6:00 am my time, I didn't check back until 2:15pm my time and I don't have the time to really get into it today. This is a cruel world. :(

[Coyoteman]

Off to continue your search for those missing links I take it.

Why, here's one now!

---

Fossil: KNM-ER 3733 Site: Koobi Fora (Upper KBS tuff, area 104), Lake Turkana, Kenya (4, 1)

Discovered By: B. Ngeneo, 1975 (1)

Estimated Age of Fossil: 1.75 mya * determined by Stratigraphic, faunal, paleomagnetic & radiometric data (1, 4)

Species Name: Homo ergaster (1, 7, 8), Homo erectus (3, 4, 7), Homo erectus ergaster (25)

Gender: Female (species presumed to be sexually dimorphic) (1, 8)

Cranial Capacity: 850 cc (1, 3, 4)

Information: Tools found in same layer (8, 9). Found with KNM-ER 406- A. boisei (effectively eliminating single species hypothesis) (1)

Interpretation: Adult (based on cranial sutures, molar eruption and dental wear) (1)

See original source for notes:
Source: http://www.mos.org/evolution/fossils/fossilview.php?fid=33

[Thatcherite]

I'm not saying there was no macro evolution, just that there's no direct evidence... it's a matter of faith.

Most scientific evidence in all fields is inferential rather than direct. For example no-one has visited those little lights in the night sky to check that they are suns like our own, yet few seriously doubt that fact, derived from copious inferential evidence. The inferential evidence supporting evolution is at least as abundant. What mechanism do you believe prevents lots of microevolution from adding up to macroevolution? No creationist AFAIK ever suggests how this works.

[Alter Kaker]

He sewed his Bris back on?

He worshipped Roman Gods.

You know? How do you know?

Because despite many Christian commentaries on Josephus, not one writer -- Christian or otherwise -- made any reference to Josephus' mentioning of Jesus before the fourth century. That's a rather glaring ommission. The 3rd century Christian scholar Origen, for example, pours over Josephus' text looking for indirect evidence of Jesus -- but fails to mention that paragraph. Ooops! Maybe he wasn't looking hard enough.

[wireman]

"It will eat at your heart for the rest of your life not admitting to the error."

Don't count on it - Oh great self righteous one.

[rollo tomasi]

Tacitus was born 20 odd years after the cruxifixtion took place not over a hundred. Heck the Annals were written around 109AD. The cruxifixtion took place around 30 AD. 109-30 does not equal over hundred years.

Why would a Roman Emperor commission someone to write a biography about a person who claimed He was the Son of God? Do you understand Jesus teachings ran contrary to the Roman Empire. Again why would the Romans want to market Jesus Christ message? Romans were trying hard to suppress Jesus not give His followers ammunition.

[Thatcherite]

Apparently if bar makes points by quoting passages we aren't allowed to respond. Quoted passages carry the power of Holy Writ and are not to be debated, even when the poster forgets to indicate clearly what he is quoting and what he isn't.

[longshadow]

Who knew Hovind had such a fan club here?

For all we know it could be Hovind himself with a dozen different screen names.

[Dimensio]

That's DOCTOR Hovind to you!

[Stultis]

He was??? So when he said, "God doesn't roll dice with the universe" he, in fact, believed God DID roll dice with the universe?

Apparently you are totally unfamiliar with the context (or willing to engage in willful equivocation for rhetorical value).

Einstein, in the "dice" quote, was suggesting that the most fundamental principles of physics could not be probabilistic, and therefore arguing (unsuccessfully then and to date as it turned out) that some more fundamental, and deterministic, theory must underlie quantum dynamics.

This has not a thing to do with evolution because all the principles relevant to evolution are several levels of explanation removed from the most fundamental principles of physics. E.g.: FUNDAMENTAL PHYSICS (relativity, QD, unified theories, fundamental forces, etc) ---> ATOMIC AND MOLECULAR PHYSICS ---> CHEMISTRY ---> BIOCHEMISTRY & FUNDAMENTAL BIOLOGY, biological process like respiration, replication, etc ---> GENETICS, population dynamics, etc ---> EVOLUTION.

Einstien was obviously aware that lower level, more fundamental, principles could underlie higher level principles that were propabilistic. After all, this was precisely what he was arguing wrt Quantum Dynamics. IOW he accepted that QD was valid in it's own right, and recognized that it was genuinely probablistic (i.e. not just misinterpreted that way), but thought there was a deterministic theory "beneath" it.

As another example Einstein himself proposed a probablistic theory in his explanation of Brownian Motion, which is at what I'm calling the "atomc and molecular physics" level.

[stormer]

LOL - as you may guess by reading my tagline, I have some trouble with his credentials.

[b_sharp]

Just so there is no doubt where I stand, Kent Hovind is a snake oil salesman. I spent 6 hours listening to his sermons, which he calls seminars, and found absolutely no science in them. I did, however, hear many half truths and outright misrepresentations. He 'misspoke' frequently. The man's grasp of science, particularly physics, is nonexistent. A comet hit the Earth hard enough to cause a tilt in the axis but soft enough to flash freeze mammoths without flattening them. This comet apparently hit the Earth hard enough to cause a tilt but soft enough to not cause a crater, throw material into space or leave any other evidence.

This man is the main reason I use the tagline I use.