FreeHovind - Teach the controversy

Teach the controversy

18 Comments - 3097 Views

Submitted By ben on 09/02/22

HovindtheNinny

Sadly this is exactly how it is with science vs Creationism.

» Reply to Discussion Threaded Hybrid Flat 18 Replies

bigdog

4 days - 5,621v

Posted 2009/02/22 - 1:04 GMT

Hey Ben did you see the answer for the signs over Jesus on page 12 and 13 here? Look at the signs over Jesus' head on page 12 or 13. answerhttp://apologeticspress.org/rr/reprints/Alleged-Contradictions-in-the-G.pdf

rationalist (ben)

3 days - 3,596v

Posted 2009/02/22 - 2:43 GMT

Sadly that is very off topic. It is also explained by Mark being the source document that others add to which is what fits historically as well. Then again why accept science?

9tails

2 days - 3,026v

Posted 2009/02/22 - 4:34 GMT

You mean science vs. evolutionism

bigdog

4 days - 5,621v

Posted 2009/02/22 - 6:06 GMT

Ya, did you know you're actually going against what 2/3 of scientists believe (in GOD). If the GOD of the Bible is not sientific then why do 2/3 of scientists believe in GOD?

http://www.livescience.com/strangenews/050811_scientists_god.html

Sci Borg (doctorofscience)

3 days - 4,497v

Posted 2009/02/22 - 6:51 GMT

Ya, did you know you're actually going against what 2/3 of scientists believe (in GOD).

Appeal to the majority, and of questionable relevance.

If the GOD of the Bible is not sientific then why do 2/3 of scientists believe in GOD?

False dichotomy. Religious beliefs are not fundamentally incompatible with science - the existence of the supernatural cannot be proven or disproven by science, by defintion. Look into the history of modern science, it largely developed out of something called natural philosophy (as opposed to supernatural).

It's also rather self-contradictaroy for you to chastise others for "going against what 2/3 of scientists believe" - while you're "going against what at least 95% of scientists believe:

Of the scientists and engineers in the United States, only about 5% are creationists, according to a 1991 Gallup poll (Robinson 1995, Witham 1997). However, this number includes those working in fields not related to life origins (such as computer scientists, mechanical engineers, etc.). Taking into account only those working in the relevant fields of earth and life sciences, there are about 480,000 scientists, but only about 700 believe in "creation-science" or consider it a valid theory (Robinson 1995).

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA111.html

bigdog

4 days - 5,621v

Posted 2009/02/22 - 7:17 GMT

95% of scientists say they believe in evolution so that they don't affect their careers.

Sci Borg (doctorofscience)

3 days - 4,497v

Posted 2009/02/22 - 7:25 GMT

rationalist (ben)

3 days - 3,596v

Posted 2009/02/22 - 14:27 GMT

95% of scientists say they believe in evolution so that they don't affect their careers.

92% of Christians say that they have sex with their daughters so they can be like Lot.

Sci Borg (doctorofscience)

3 days - 4,497v

Posted 2009/02/22 - 7:17 GMT

Oh, and there's one thing I'm quite curious about: in this thread, you seem to be attaching a great deal of significance to there being a large number of scientists who believe in God. But in other threads, you've claimed that there is some sort of scientific conspiracy / bias to suppress creationism.

Is there any possible way for those two ideas to not be mutually-exclusive?

rationalist (ben)

3 days - 3,596v

Posted 2009/02/22 - 14:21 GMT

You mean science vs. evolutionism

Ohhhh Burnnnnnnnnn. Your skills at debate have grown.

Ya, did you know you're actually going against what 2/3 of scientists
believe (in GOD).

It is not uncommon for people to hold the religious beliefs of their youth. This is not about the existence of a god but about teaching both evolution and that Creationism garbage.

If the GOD of the Bible is not sientific then why do
2/3 of scientists believe in GOD?

Primarily because they live in overwhelmingly Christian nations and were raised in religious homes. The reason people point out scientists that were atheists that become theists is because it is so uncommon. The reverse is not uncommon at all.

http://www.livescience.com/strangenews/050811_scientists_god.html

What does that have to do with evolution? Just curious.

rationalist (ben)

3 days - 3,596v

Posted 2009/02/22 - 14:07 GMT

For some reason the image is tiny. I guess there is an error somewhere. Here is a link to it.

http://www.partiallyclips.com/storage/20090210_Windmill_lg.png

Here are some others.

http://www.mdmorse.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/controversy1.jpg

http://www.jesus21.com/img/news/contorversy.gif

http://z.about.com/d/atheism/1/0/F/8/3/Teach-the-Controversy-Sex.jpg

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_6RO_Sj6Lf0g/SLWZoNO2deI/AAAAAAAAAP4/Uilfy_-l5Ck/s400/teach+controversy.bmp

Joe (epiclolguy)

1 day - 1,984v

Posted 2009/02/22 - 16:02 GMT

Atheism =/= evolution

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KnJX68ELbAY&feature=channel_page

Even the pope accepts evolution, i doubt he's trying to "keep his job" or some other nonsense.

bigdog

4 days - 5,621v

Posted 2009/02/23 - 3:06 GMT

This is cool.

9tails

2 days - 3,026v

Posted 2009/02/23 - 3:34 GMT

The fact that most scientists believe in god, kind of takes away the scientific endorsement of evolution. The only reason evolution remains afloat like a high-fiber turd, is that it has some generic merit.

Remember what hovind said about poison, "A lot of good food with a little bit of poison". Evolution is a cheap rip off of original creation science, with the same designs, implying very odd-ball, left field, unfounded conclusions.

rationalist (ben)

3 days - 3,596v

Posted 2009/02/23 - 3:57 GMT

The fact that most scientists believe in god, kind of takes away the scientific endorsement of evolution.

How so?

The only reason evolution remains afloat like a high-fiber turd, is that it has some generic merit.

It has the support of all of the evidence. Creationism is a belief and it can be taken on faith as there is no evidence.

Remember what hovind said about poison, "A lot of good food with a little bit of poison".

I don't recall that. Perhaps you could give some more background.

Evolution is a cheap rip off of original creation science, with the same designs, implying very odd-ball, left field, unfounded conclusions.

Evolution is the one that has the evidence. Creationism is the holdover from earlier times and should be discarded like Earth center cosmology, 4 elements, and a flat Earth.

Joe (epiclolguy)

1 day - 1,984v

Posted 2009/02/23 - 19:05 GMT

"Earth center cosmology, 4 elements, and a flat Earth."

All of which the bible supports, by the way.

Sci Borg (doctorofscience)

3 days - 4,497v

Posted 2009/02/23 - 20:17 GMT

The fact that most scientists believe in god, kind of takes away the scientific endorsement of evolution.

How do you figure that? Are you saying that if someone believes in God, then they have no credibility as a scientist?

That would be an... interesting position for a proponent of creationism.

Remember what hovind said about poison, "A lot of good food with a little bit of poison".

Was that in the same seminar where he recommended that people give themselves cyanide poisoning by eating peach pits and apple seeds?

Joe (epiclolguy)

1 day - 1,984v

Posted 2009/02/23 - 21:13 GMT

Maybe its the one where he claimed that the Jackson Chameleon is the same as a Triceratops.

» Reply to Discussion Threaded Hybrid Flat 18 Replies