Slashdot Mirror

We get creationists here, too. http://drdino.com/

Ok, so just to make sure I understand you right, creationists really *do* believe there's a massive conspiracy behind the theory of evolution? Running from every physicist geologist and astronomer who does the experiments to let us date the fossil evidence, to the geneticists lying to us about DNA, the doctors lying to us about diseases developing resistance to drugs (that one I might buy...), every mathematician whose studied mutation+natural selection properties, everyone who ever dig up homo habilis skull, all of these people are lying to us?

Hmm, how do they embed the fossils I've dug up into the rock like that? It's a neat trick.

If you are really interested. I would like to show you this: http://www.drdino.com/downloads.php Believe me, this is worth watching and thinking abut. You are free to decide.

>Refute one of Dr. Hovind's claims with actual scientific proof From http://www.drdino.com/articles.php?spec=79 [drdino.com] For example, consider that it is essentially accepted that an antediluvian water canopy existed surrounding the earth; How about he support some of his claims?

>Refute one of Dr. Hovind's claims with actual scientific proof

From http://www.drdino.com/articles.php?spec=79
For example, consider that it is essentially accepted that an antediluvian water canopy existed surrounding the earth;

How about he support some of his claims?

An there is scientific evidence that the earth is only 6000 years old. A great website with free vids on the info http://www.drdino.com/downloads.php [drdino.com]

I am curious as to why the claims of a known liar should be considered.

An there is scientific evidence that the earth is only 6000 years old. A great website with free vids on the info http://www.drdino.com/downloads.php The artical doesnt even state what kind of testing was done to say it is 25 million years old they just throw out some random number for all we know it could have been done last week in a lab.

Carbon dating is not reliable at all. It was a mistake for it to be used and trusted so much. Now all these assumptions of age are base on flawed data. http://www.drdino.com/articles.php?spec=79

I've done a fair bit of reading on the subject, actually. (Although I do admit I'm not as inspired to read any "new proof" considering the trend the old proof follows.)

We don't have a complete fossil record. Heck, the pieces of the *incomplete* fossil record is generally explained away (the Nebraska Man, the Piltdown man, etc, etc, etc). Yes, any conclusive evidence would be lost to time, but that doesn't lend any credence to that conclusion.

The DNA evidence really doesn't prove anything at all. Yes, it's similar. Most creatures have DNA that is strikingly similar, and considering how similar humans and apes are, it would be a surprise if it were drastically different.

I'm interested in the source of this - surely noone can prove that they really know what they are talking about on Slashdot except through discourse. No one is going to look up my degrees, no one will check to see if I'm on the board at the Fed, etc. So here on Slashdot, logic (and showing sources, I guess) must rule.

Here are some more questions to answer: http://drdino.com/articles.php?spec=105/ I appreciate it.

Before you just write it off because it's from a man who deeply believes in the Bible and in God, read it and look at what he puts forth from a scientific perspective. http://drdino.com/articles.php?spec=73

Let me say one more time: evolution happens, we know it happens, we see it happening, it is not theory.

Evolution is not a proven fact.

If you think there is scientific evidence backing evolution, you can claim a $250,000 reward at http://www.drdino.com/articles.php?spec=67.

SCIENCE requires EVIDENCE for CONCULSIONS

Natural evelution is basically one kind of animal giving birth to another. Natural selection is basically weaker animals dieing off.

Natural selection is only part of an equation (figurative, not mathmatical). Other factors weigh in more heavily than natural selection. Survival of the fittest is the catch phrase for natural selection. But does the fittest bird in a flock survive the huricane, or the one that wasn't strong enough to be that far south? Does one strength save it from all dangers? No, it's far more complex. You need to be strong in a way that helps when you need to "survive".

Natural evolution is most notably not proven true. It just takes one repeatable event to prove it true. Monkeys can't give birth to cats, or the other way around. And Religious Evolutionist will tell you we all came from the same primortial soup. They say animals of one kind gave birth to animals of another kind. You rarely if ever hear them say "a lot of animals of one kind gave birth to a lot of animals of another kind at the same time" so they could actually propogate, even though it doesn't even happen when it's one in a generation either.

They preach that it rained on the rocks for thousands of years, and the wet rocks came to life. That life gave birth to other kinds of life, and so on until monkeys gave birth to humans. Only problem is, monkeys can't give birth to humans. Not to be disgusting, but there are enough freaks practicing beastiality to prove that several kinds of animals can't give birth to humans. And I'm sure no other kind of animal can give birth to a kind that isn't the same as itself. KIND is broader than SPECIES and differs, so don't try to think of them as the same. A dog could possibly successfully mate with any other dog(opposite sex), but not a cat. The factors that seperate one SPECIES from another are theoretical as evidenced by the constant redefining of the theory of evolution since it's inception. The theory predates Darwin, but he's credited with gathering many of the ideas and formalizing them into one "super theroy" for lack of a better term.

Read the book:

Talk about a long title! Darwin's book was a bullet from the smoking gun of RACISM!
-
On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life.
-

Read it for yourself here:
http://www.literature.org/authors/darwin-charles/t he-origin-of-species/

If you don't understand how this title speaks of RACISM then read the book and it won't take you long to see why evelution is favored by RACISTS world wide.

Funny thing about the title is that the book never actually covers where "Species" origionally "Origionated" from.

THE LIE: Religious Evolutionist will tell you that animals change because of their environment and they call that "Micro Evolution". Which they say proves animals change into other animals.

Before wide spread Evolutionary Evangelism that kind of change was called "Adapting" and it was commonly knows that animals would not give birth to animals that were so adapted that they were a different kind of animal.

SCIENCE requires EVIDENCE. Evelotionary conculsions are not Scientific conclutions. At best they are Scientific theories, and many Evolutionary theoryies are far from Scientific in so much as they directly contradict the evidence.

DARWIN OF CREATIONISM: http://www.drdino.com/

I'm not affiliated with this group of scientist/preachers, but I've listened to a lot of their materials and I find them to be far more Scientific in their aproach.

Wm

P. S. I'm a White Male Bible Believing Christian in my early 30s, just so you know where I stand. And so you know where I'm coming from, I was an Athiest raised by a single mother with 2 brothers who are both agnosti

Here is an article from one of us "maybe they're not ancestors" camp. Something else you might find interesting. There has been evidence of man co-existing with dinosaurs. So my explanation is that birds and dinosaurs can easily have co-existed. I cannot point to evidence right now, so will not state it to you as proven fact.

Firstly, how do we conclusively prove said fossil is actually 3million years old?

Radiometric dating. Sedimentation. Comparing results obtained through different methods. Nature leaves its clues. Science is used to figure them out.

Why is it that all /.ers will fill up a thousand comments on something concerning ID or Evolution (which most have a vague concept of anyway). But they have nothing to say when a new discovery is made in robotics, or the new PERL 6, or hydrogen powered vehicles. People don't care about it unless there is flame behind it. People love conflict. If you didn't have conflict over one thing it would be another. People that make the assumption that ID or Evolution are mindless, moronic concepts are in grave error. Chritian ID advocates BELIEVE that evolution is a dumb and mindless concept. It is not so. Alot of thought went into it. Evolutionist BELIEVE that ID is a dumb and mindless concept. Again, it isn't dumb and mindless. Alot of thought went into it. Both of these extreams have very intellegent (more so than us /.ers) people that believe in them. And both concepts are a BELIEF. If you look at the whole picture, evolution is unprovable and ID is unprovable, which means that to whichever wing you choose, you choose so on a BELIEF. ID vs Evolution is not about proving the origin of man anyway, its about TRYING to prove that there is or is not a God. And that battle rages on, just as it always has in the past, and just as it will continue to in the future. For those that think that ID is a dumb idea, why not do a little research instead of being so left winged. http://www.drdino.com/ But again, this whole battle is about a belief so there will never be a resolution. Flame On!

I'm not even going to get in to a serious discussion about whether or not Noah some how fit two of every animal and bacteria on his boat while God destroyed everything on Earth (except the fish and other sea creatures - God thought they were cool I guess). That's complete nonsense, we had best agree to disagree on that one.

Soooooooooo.... Do you or do you not think that homosexuals should be put to death, and that women should be servants of their husbands? Or that rebellious kids should be dragged to city limits and stoned to death? Should we also be killing people for adultery? Or don't you think it's much more likely that those things didn't originate from any devine authority at all, but from men? Or do you believe that is the will of God, and you just choose not to obey? Deuteronomy is full of that kind of stuff.

1) Cosmic evolution: the origin of time, space and matter. Big Bang.
2) Chemical evolution: the origin of higher elements from hydrogen.
3) Stellar and planetary evolution: Origin of stars and planets.
4) Organic evolution: Origin of life from inanimate matter.
5) Macroevolution: Origin of major kinds.
6) Microevolution Variations within kinds: Only this one has been observed, the first five are religious.

For those into an enlightening multimedia experience, try watching these seminars.

FYI, I am a Catholic that was taught evolution and creation in school. I am not affiliated with the Dr. Dino site in any way. These videos absolutely blew me away. If you're a Christian, watch them. If not, watch them anyway just to see both sides of the Evolution/Creation issue so that you may intelligently debate with cold, hard facts.

1) Cosmic evolution: the origin of time, space and matter. Big Bang.
2) Chemical evolution: the origin of higher elements from hydrogen.
3) Stellar and planetary evolution: Origin of stars and planets.
4) Organic evolution: Origin of life from inanimate matter.
5) Macroevolution: Origin of major kinds.
6) Microevolution Variations within kinds: Only this one has been observed, the first five are religious.

For those into an enlightening multimedia experience, try watching these seminars.

FYI, I am a Catholic that was taught evolution and creation in school. I am not affiliated with the Dr. Dino site in any way. These videos absolutely blew me away. If you're a Christian, watch them. If not, watch them anyway just to see both sides of the Evolution/Creation issue so that you may intelligently debate with cold, hard facts.

1) Cosmic evolution: the origin of time, space and matter. Big Bang.
2) Chemical evolution: the origin of higher elements from hydrogen.
3) Stellar and planetary evolution: Origin of stars and planets.
4) Organic evolution: Origin of life from inanimate matter.
5) Macroevolution: Origin of major kinds.
6) Microevolution Variations within kinds: Only this one has been observed, the first five are religious.

For those into an enlightening multimedia experience, try watching these seminars.

FYI, I am a Catholic that was taught evolution and creation in school. I am not affiliated with the Dr. Dino site in any way. These videos absolutely blew me away. If you're a Christian, watch them. If not, watch them anyway just to see both sides of the Evolution/Creation issue so that you may intelligently debate with cold, hard facts.

1) Cosmic evolution: the origin of time, space and matter. Big Bang.
2) Chemical evolution: the origin of higher elements from hydrogen.
3) Stellar and planetary evolution: Origin of stars and planets.
4) Organic evolution: Origin of life from inanimate matter.
5) Macroevolution: Origin of major kinds.
6) Microevolution Variations within kinds: Only this one has been observed, the first five are religious.

For those into an enlightening multimedia experience, try watching these seminars.

FYI, I am a Catholic that was taught evolution and creation in school. I am not affiliated with the Dr. Dino site in any way. These videos absolutely blew me away. If you're a Christian, watch them. If not, watch them anyway just to see both sides of the Evolution/Creation issue so that you may intelligently debate with cold, hard facts.

No no no, none of this is adding up...

I'm glad someone said it! This is all a load of bologna! http://drdino.com/

When everything else fails, talk.origins prevails - at least as far as creationist arguments are concerned: http://talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind/

Geology and paleontology being my specific field of study, it's not hard to see that the faults in Hovind's arguments are countless. One of these is the tired old "polystrate trees" argument. Hovind claims that "The evolutionist has only two choices to solve this dilemma: 1.The trees stood upright for millions of years while the sediment layers formed around them. 2.The trees grew through hundreds of feet of solid sedimentary rock looking for sunlight." After this he says the only plausible explanation is a huge flood.
What the heck? There are no fossil trees growing through sedimentary layers hundreds of feet thick. And I definitely haven't heard any "evolutionist" claiming something like that. A flood is a very bad explanation for this. A huge single-event flood wouldn't form several delicate, separate layers of sediments. Instead we'd get a mishmash of all kinds of stuff. Even right now there are millions of tree trunks getting buried in sediments in rivers, lakes and dry-land sedimentation basins etc. And it doesn't even take that long. At different times (seasonal fluctuation etc.) the rate of deposition is slower, at times faster, and this, among with other processes like changes in flow speed, causes the layered structure and the varying thickness of the strata. The tree gets buried in the process. Poof, the mystery is gone!

When somebody like Hovind the Fraud still uses old, refuted arguments to back up his case, what else can you think that either 1) the man is a loonie or 2) he's lying. That he isn't a real doctor even though he claims to be one doesn't make him much more trustworthy.

For some reason you're concentrating on the tax issue. Any comments on the fact that Hovind isn't actually a doctor?

I might adopt this as my sig:
"In all of these efforts, the creationists make abundant use of a simple tactic: They lie. They lie continually, they lie prodigiously, and they lie because they must." -William J. Bennetta

It supports the 6000 year old Universe theory!

The only way in which I was surprised was how blatantly stupid this website is. I would hope that most middle schoolers could pick this page apart. At least Intelligent Design has _some_ infintesimal philosophical merit, your drdino site is just absurd.

IF everyone who is responding to this with som much "everyone knows that..." flavored smugness would like to actually learn a bit about the vast scientific evidence in support of the "Creation" theory, check out the video seminar series (free downloads) at http://www.drdino.com/Downloads/Seminar/vids/index .jsp. Be forewarned that the commentary in these is heavily biased toward Christianity. But that doesn't invalidate the science, so just expect it, and just ignore that part if you're not interested. Also note that Dr. Hovind is willing to debate anyone, anytime, anywhere on the topic. There are downloads available of previous debates of that sort.

Bah, we all know the earth is only 6000 years old! Science is made up by a bunch of anti-god atheists who are conspiring to steal our tax dollars! Or, so says Dr. Kend Hovind. Debunking of all his arguments from his many video tapes and debates may be found here.

So first of all, you already have your mind made up, and then second of all, you pull up an article and act as if it's some sort of counterargument.

Yes. It's my belief. You have yours and I have mine.

There's nothing in evolutionary theory that is incompatible with this religious belief.

Sure there is. Genesis says God created the heavens and the earth. Nothing is said about God creating some creatures and they evolved into other species or into enhanced versions of their own kind better to weather the climate.

Worse, it simply does not fit with the natural world we observe, and to insist upon a literal reading of Genesis makes the book look utterly absurd.

But you have to understand that if I think the universe was created by God, why would I want to believe in the ever-changing scientific beliefs of the day? Like I pointed out to someone on another topic, scientists discovered in 1975 that the earth was cooling. Now it's warming. My God is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow. If I'm going to believe, I'm not going to do it buffet-style.

Unfortunately, for the Biblical literalist, the evidence keeps confirming the predictions.

If you're so convinced that evolution has been observed, why don't you try to win the $250,000 prize offered for proof of evolution?

Atheism is the most fashionable belief, but in the end it just rejects every concrete point of view without actually explaining anything.
And thats infinitely better than wrong explanations.

There is even a school of thought that says without Christianity a lot of Scientific discoveries would have been a really late in coming

Like heliocentricism, for example? Oh, wait.. wrong way round, the church battled that one for 300 years, finally pardoning Galileo for his 'crimes' in 1992.

How about evolution.. oh, wait, no.. the fundamentalists and literalists won't have any of that.

Okay, how about something really simple - the lightning conductor. Oh, no, wait.. churches originally considered lightning conductors blasphemy as they attempted to counter god's will - some went as far as to blame them for earthquakes.

Dr. Hovind's $250,000 Offer
Formerly $10,000 offered since 1990

I have a standing offer of $250,000 to anyone who can give any empirical evidence (scientific proof) for evolution.* My $250,000 offer demonstrates that the hypothesis of evolution is nothing more than a religious belief.
Put your money where your mouth is.

T-Rex's teeth were not deep enough into his gums to support eating flesh (someone doesn't know the facts here) without having them fall out. He liked his vegs, fruit, etc. Perhaps he looked for the most stinky bushes and purposely ate from them to scare off any nearby meat-eaters!!! T-Rex had brains alright ^_^

it was at 250 million years ago not 2 Billion

But Kent Hovind says the Earth is only a few thousand years old!

Even putting him on the first manned mission to Mars, to see the 'Mars Face' up close, still wouldn't be enough to convince him that he's talking bollocks .

The institute for creation research (icr) is a place that has nothing to do with science. They just try to claim they do.

...there's no mention of this at Dr. Dino, clearly this is a clever hoax... It's impossible anyhow since we all know the earth (and therefore the universe) is only 6000 years old!

(humor folks, humor)

Please feel free to show us your calculations regarding abiogenesis

Just more proof for Creation and teh Flood.

Chalk one up for the baby Jeebus!

I didn't come from no monkey!

God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve!!

INFORMATION LINKS:

Institute for Creation Science

Stephen J. Gould is burnin' HELL, getting stabbed in the ass by some impish ghoul.

Stephen J. Gould is burnin' HELL.

Stephen J. Gould is burnin' HELL.

Stephen J. Gould is burnin' HELL, getting stabbed in the ass by some impish ghoul.

say it with me!

Stephen J. Gould is burnin' HELL.

Stephen J. Gould is burnin' HELL.

Stephen J. Gould is burnin' HELL.

Stephen J. Gould is burnin' HELL, getting stabbed in the ass by some impish ghoul.

I have an important announcement to make.

ahem...

Most users of this web-site are homosexual.

This message was brought to you by the Institute of Creation Science.

God made Adam and Eve, not Adam & Steve!!

Thank you.

Hello, I'm Dr. Kent Hovind, head Creation researcher at the Institute of Creation Science. I recently funded an extensive statistical survey of approximately 20,000 Slashdot users. My team of Christian programmers wrote proprietary Pearl code (the only Godly computer language; Lenny Wall, its author, is a Christian) that extracted email addresses from users' comments over a four-month period, and e-mailed them a simple questionaire.

The results are astonishing.

Among the 20,000 users surveyed:

74% are Atheists
95% are Evolutionists
83% are Communists ("open source" software users)
67% (!!) are Homosexuals (including 6 editors)

Hello, I'm Dr. Kent Hovind, head Creation researcher at the Institute of Creation Science. I recently funded an extensive statistical survey of approximately 20,000 Slashdot users. My team of Christian programmers wrote proprietary Pearl code (the only Godly computer language; Lenny Wall, its author, is a Christian) that extracted email addresses from users' comments over a four-month period, and e-mailed them a simple questionaire.

The results are astonishing.

Among the 20,000 users surveyed:

74% are Atheists
95% are Evolutionists
83% are Communists ("open source" software users)
67% (!!) are Homosexuals (including 6 editors)

I have an important announcement to make.

ahem..

this web site is homosexual.

thank you.

this announcement was brought to you by the Creation Science Institute.

The fact that living "fossils" have pretty much no change says something important.

It does indeed. It shows that a species may be able to fill it's ecological niche so well as to prevent competition significant enough to make it change. Evolutionary theory doesn't state that species will change at some rate over time but that they change in response to selective pressure. There are other examples of "living fossils" amongst certain species of sharks. The explanation is that they haven't had to change in order to survive so they haven't. At least beyond the standard genetic drift. There are small differences. The presumed extinction was ~70 million years ago, btw.
We are the same the whole world over. Where is the evolution in progress?

We lack the isolation we once did in order to speciate and our brains have allowed us to relieve ourselves of many if not most of the selective pressures faced by our ancient ancestors. Now let there be a world war that sends us back to the stone age and have 9/10'ths of the world's population die and you might see some movement. But maybe not even then. It could be the mere existence of our higher reasoning allows us to alleviate the majority of the selective pressures on our species. I predict we'll be evolving ourselves with genetic engineering long before we significantly change due to 'mere' genetic drift.

How is that possible if recessive traits don't express themselves until the point when a host of harmful mutations have the chance to express themselves?

I'm not sure I understand your question. Why does the expression of a recessive have to wait for a mutation? If the recessive exists in population it just has to wait for two organisms with the same recessive to breed.

I'm sorry, have you looked at all the date samples done by creation scientists (sent off to official, well respected laboratories for testing) and the samples show wildly innacurate dates? I have read many examples of this.

Care to share a few? Something other than this one?

As for using outdated arguments, from what I can see creationists have rejected the idea of the speed of light slowing.

Those were just a few of many and not all creationists have given up the changing speed of light argument. Many Young-Earth Creationists still cling to it in some form or fashion.

I don't know what the moon dust argument is, could you please tell me? I think I can guess.

That the cosmic dust accumulation on the moon should have built up into a layer 20 feet deep (or whatever) if the moon were really 5 billion years old. Long and short, the calculation was based on erroneous suppositions.

Creationists are nowhere near as bad as evolutionary textbooks publishing information long ago demonstrated to be false or a hoax. The peppermoths is a great example.

I beg to differ. Creationists are called to the carpet on a daily basis for some of the things they try to get away with. Peppermoths should have only ever been used as an example of natural selection. If there ever was a textbook that said it was proof of macroevolution, it was wrong. All 3 textbooks I've seen and all I've ever heard of use it as an example of natural selection. Unless you can come up with scores more examples, you don't have a leg to stand on by saying creationists are nowhere near as bad.

If you'd like some reading material, check some of these out. A couple of visits to the ICR museum and some of the inaccuracies and falsehoods contained therein. Take a look at the Creation Research Society's creed that members must adhere to. A list of "distortions" of truth by ICR founder Duane Gish.

I am going along, aren't I? :)
Btw, Kent Hovind still sports the light speed decay theory. You might want to check out Answers in Genesis and TrueOrigins and see if you can spot more errors on your own ... I'd help but it's really getting late and it's not as fun as it was when I started ... :)

For those of you with proof that evolution does take place, theres a creationist guy offering $250,000 for it. Enjoy.
http://www.drdino.com/cse.asp?pg=250k

Fire breathing too when they burped :)

Some creationist morons take the fire breathing dragons = Dinosaurs stuff seriously.

And, no, I'm not joking.

There's a neat site pertaining to this topic over here that has a lot of stuff online, with transcripts, mp3 audio, slideshows, etc.