Skip to comments.
Creation evangelist derides evolution as ‘dumbest’ theory [Kent Hovind Alert!]
University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee Post ^
| 17 December 2005
| Kayla Bunge
Posted on 12/17/2005 3:58:48 AM PST by PatrickHenry
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 561-580, 581-600, 601-620 ... 2,121-2,129 next last
To: Ichneumon
Ahh the the evos unleash the Ichy weapon ;)
Thanks for your work there.
Wolf
581
posted on
12/17/2005 5:46:45 PM PST
by
RunningWolf
(Vet US Army Air Cav 1975)
To: andysandmikesmom
Better late than never, and with a very good post. Welcome!
582
posted on
12/17/2005 5:47:48 PM PST
by
Coyoteman
(I love the sound of beta decay in the morning!)
To: bobdsmith
"you mean like his "theory" that the grand canyon was created in a 30 minute flashflood?"
Thirty minutes, perhaps. It could have taken several hours. The waters from the deep (Genesis chs. 6 and 7) completely deluged the earth in 40 days.
You do not even desire that God speak to you, do you? The same God that cut the Grand Canyon in 30 to 180 minutes wants you to know Him.
Something taking place in a 30 to 180 minute time span within 10,000 years ago...God. Not difficult to comprehend.
Something happening in a 10 million year period, billions and billions of years ago...Darwinian evolutionist. Wild guesses.
To: darbymcgill
Actually, I was not addressing his tax returns when I mentioned the strawmen that creationists like to make, so your reply to me is nonsensical. Next time try not making things up. :)
584
posted on
12/17/2005 5:48:28 PM PST
by
CarolinaGuitarman
("There is a grandeur in this view of life...")
To: Ichneumon
585
posted on
12/17/2005 5:48:43 PM PST
by
PatrickHenry
(... endless horde of misguided Luddites ...)
To: longshadow
For all we know it could be Hovind himself with a dozen different screen names. If you checked his schedule, you'd know where he was and what he was doing almost 24/7.
And he wouldn't waste time arguing with a bunch of evo's who are too chicken to debate him in person while all they can do is copy and paste from internet sites.
586
posted on
12/17/2005 5:48:46 PM PST
by
Full Court
(Keepers at home, do you think it's optional?)
To: andysandmikesmom
Better late than never, and with a very good post. Welcome!
587
posted on
12/17/2005 5:49:02 PM PST
by
Coyoteman
(I love the sound of beta decay in the morning!)
To: darbymcgill
" Oh, you mean like this one... see posts leading up to 180.."
The origins of life are not a part of the theory of evolution, no matter how many times you say it.
588
posted on
12/17/2005 5:51:24 PM PST
by
CarolinaGuitarman
("There is a grandeur in this view of life...")
To: RunningWolf
The problem with Hovind's offer is that he gets to choose the judges and includes his 'six forms of evolution' most of which have nothing to do with biological evolution. Simply put, his challenge is rigged.
We want him to participate in a written debate where his sound bites and appeals to emotion will hold no sway and where the debate follows the evidence.
589
posted on
12/17/2005 5:52:10 PM PST
by
b_sharp
(Science adjusts theories to fit evidence, creationism distorts evidence to fit the Bible.)
To: b_sharp
The ToE does not say that any organism from one Class would ever evolve into an organism from another Class in one generation.Right, I don't think you fully grasped my point. Evolution has to be a belief, it has to be a theory in even laymans terms because science can not show it happening, they can not demonstrate it, nor recreate it in a labratory...You can not say we have a theory that man evolved from a fish and call that fact without obsevervable proof, like say gravity, that works everytime it's tested. Evolution at best, is ONLY speculation.
You're the one creating a strawman by ignoring the fact that evolution is NOT fact, but only a guess. Yeah, evolution collects what evidence from different fields? Maybe a PIG BONE and points to it as evidence of a man's? You mean surefire evidence like that?
And let me add, Evolution is not only speculative, it's an illogical conclusion to most of the evidence.
590
posted on
12/17/2005 5:52:38 PM PST
by
sirchtruth
(Words Mean Things...)
To: Coyoteman; eleni121
The responses of the "evolutionists" also employ much better spelling. Be fair. It could be an artifact of having a working "s" key.
591
posted on
12/17/2005 5:53:22 PM PST
by
Gumlegs
To: Full Court
Are you going to answer my post #559. I am really curious.
592
posted on
12/17/2005 5:53:53 PM PST
by
furball4paws
(The new elixir of life - dehydrated toad urine.)
To: peyton randolph; Waywardson
has been found by the IRS to take $ 1 million + per annum Man Peyton, you are a huge liar!!!
The IRS complained that SINCE 1997 his ministry, which includes voluntary offerings taken at churches, sales from the books and other materials he writes and produces and income from his Dino Land have earned $1 million. That's in 8 years time. And of course there is no mention of the funds spent paying Staff, and plowed back into the ministry.
Why would you lie about the guy so bad????
593
posted on
12/17/2005 5:54:38 PM PST
by
Full Court
(Keepers at home, do you think it's optional?)
To: Coyoteman
No need to review ... "religious folk" clearly know where the hate lies.
More to the point is that the monopoly that evolution holds over academia warps the research that should be going on.
Evo theory has cornered the market so to speak on new ways of looking at life on earth. Further, the gaps, illogical leaps, outright lies in the field of evolution has undermined what real science - a science not cahined to secularism - could be doing. Evos have decided that undermining Christian origin beliefs is their primary mission. Very sad that science has deteriorated to this low point.
594
posted on
12/17/2005 5:55:00 PM PST
by
eleni121
('Thou hast conquered, O Galilean!' (Julian the Apostate))
To: sirchtruth
"I have no problem with people believing in evolution, but not at the expence of them touting it as fact. Also, Hovind gives just as logical explanation for life as any evolutinist I've ever heard...The problem is evo's can't stand the compitition. Hovind distorts, bends, ignores and abuses the laws of physics to develop his 'science'. He shows an incredible lack of understanding of the basics. His science is anything but science.
595
posted on
12/17/2005 5:55:15 PM PST
by
b_sharp
(Science adjusts theories to fit evidence, creationism distorts evidence to fit the Bible.)
To: RunningWolf
"Its understood just fine"
Of course it's understood. The footnote has nothing to do with the offer itself. The terms of the public offer are very specific and it deals with evolution, despite the evolutionsts denying it. The footnote(s) were added by the person attacking the offer and offeror.
It is also understood just fine that my quote at #201 was a quote and not my own writing, which I shall report here, despite all my innumerable links to the original. The quote and the precedent text to it, announcing what follow is a quote - ie, "reads" is in its entirety. The quotes lacks of the end quote, and it was attributed to me, which, as is now well known, it's not. No other text follows the quote.
Post #201 follows:
The offer reads in part: "Creationist Kent Hovind has widely publicized his "standing offer" to pay $250,000 for scientific evidence of evolution. He argues that the "failure" of anyone to claim the prize is evidence that the "hypothesis" of evolution is not scientific but religious in nature. What is the real meaning of Hovind's challenge?
596
posted on
12/17/2005 5:55:20 PM PST
by
Baraonda
(Demographic is destiny. Don't hire 3rd world illegal aliens nor support businesses that hire them.)
To: sirchtruth
597
posted on
12/17/2005 5:56:02 PM PST
by
furball4paws
(The new elixir of life - dehydrated toad urine.)
To: darbymcgill
Ah, you pinged me twice with a reply to the same statement I made about creationist strawmen.
"If you want to dance, ask someone else."
Not with you I don't. :)
"I was just asking for consistency and you and your ilk give me spin. The MSM would be proud."
We gave you consistency, but you can't handle it. :)
598
posted on
12/17/2005 5:56:26 PM PST
by
CarolinaGuitarman
("There is a grandeur in this view of life...")
To: longshadow
599
posted on
12/17/2005 5:57:50 PM PST
by
PatrickHenry
(... endless horde of misguided Luddites ...)
To: Full Court
He didn't give details on how the creation was made. And frankly, if the evidence of the physical creation contradicts Genesis, I'll believe the physical creation.
600
posted on
12/17/2005 5:57:58 PM PST
by
CarolinaGuitarman
("There is a grandeur in this view of life...")
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 561-580, 581-600, 601-620 ... 2,121-2,129 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson