Comments on: Creation: Gotta Be This or That?

By: steven kramar

steven kramar — Tue, 24 Aug 2010 15:02:56 +0000

Hey thanks for the responses. I can see you both think I’m a nut case. I just don’t yet see the reason for that. I don’t see that what Kent Hovind says is crazy in spite of the vegetarian dinosaurs thing. I can see how one who believes as fact that dinosaurs lived millions of years ago has a huge bias against this kind of thing.
I thought we already talked about the DNA evidence. It was looking to me like the “evidence” you presented is nothing more than word games where small but observable changes that are called “extensive” are used as evidence to prove obvious huge changes that are called “small.” You also provided me with information regarding the number of chromosomes and symbiotic relationship percentages. This is not compelling in light of the fact that a tobacco plant and a chimpanzee have the same number of chromosomes, yet everyone knows they are very different, therefore it should not be thought significant that chimps and humans have close to the same number of chromosomes. Furthermore, I don’t see how one can take the symbiotic relationship percentages seriously when we can plainly see that they are very different. Just because living things are made out of the same “stuff” does not force the conclusion that they must be related somehow. Now if you can give an example where scientists can use a selection process to create new information i.e. a feather on a reptile, you might have something. I started the debate giving you DNA evidence that evolution cannot happen. We know this because, while variation within animals happen, we observe that there are limits because information cannot be added using natural selection, mutation, etc… this is all repeat information so I will assume you don’t have an answer since you seem to continue the “DNA evidence” mantra without addressing my points.
The moon dust example shows that the previous calculation had to be “re-adjusted” to fit the evolutionary model. I’m not convinced that we are being to told the truth about what the evidence can logically conclude. Much in the same way that you are taking DNA evidence way to far in you conclusion and don’t seem to see the problem, the same sort of thing no doubt happens often when someone starts with the assumption the world is millions of years old and bases the calculations on the faulty assumption. The Greenland ice rings, and radio carbon dating are just a couple good examples of this same sort of thing, both of which nobody wanted to answer.
I don’t think the 650 UFO sightings every month are all crazy people who want to make things up. However it is not reasonable to think that these are space aliens in light of the fact that we have a military that no doubt tests all kinds of strange flying machines. It doesn’t make sense to say that everyone is lying when you have that many witnesses. I would refer you to your own logic about a crime scene. For example, if 100’000 people witness an airplane crashing into a building, this is compelling information in spite of a theory that it did not happen. So you are telling me that the hundreds of thousands of sightings of loch ness, or the many other eyewitnesses accounts are all crazy people and liars? Why, because it goes against the theory of evolution? I’m getting the impression that your bias is the primary reason for the disbelief on your part. Everyone has some bias but ridicule does not provide the place for a lack of answers. (please don’t take my language the wrong way. I don’t mean any disrespect.)
I’m looking forward to the Hovind video article. May I suggest you do an article on some of the Walter Veith videos as well?

By: Sara

Sara — Tue, 24 Aug 2010 12:40:28 +0000

Steven, I presented you with DNA evidence for evolution. You presented us with moon dust (debunked here http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/creation/moondust.html, here http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CE/CE101.html and even here http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v15/i4/moondust.asp. (Note, even the guys who originally put forth the moon dust argument, Snelling and Rush, have come to agree that it is not proof of a young earth–read the first link.)
Also, you gave us dinosaur sightings. So let me ask, are the 658 UFO sightings from last month alone proof of anything? http://www.nuforc.org/webreports/ndxevent.html Do bigfoot sightings prove anything? Seriously, are you saying that such sightings count as scientific evidence, even before we actually have any samples in our possession to study?

If you are sincerely trying to convince us that that there are real problems with the theory of evolution and the age of the earth, you’re only hurting your cause more with each post. Can you really not see how the arguments you submitted above are outdated and outlandish, respectively? Can you not see how this hurts your credibility? Seriously, at first I thought you were just lazy with research, but now I think you might be playing a practical joke on us…

Anyway, if you really think Kent Hovind is a voice of reason, I suggest you do a little more research on him. As for me, I’m writing an article on the Hovind video you sent over…should be up sometime this week.

By: The Monkey

The Monkey — Tue, 24 Aug 2010 04:51:49 +0000

Steve I’m not riled up (please stop thinking you’re riling us up; it’s getting annoying that you think this).

Regardless I was just a little taken aback by what you deem as good evidence. I’m sorry that you don’t see how delusional Kent Hovind is. I’m guessing you didn’t click on those links. Or view any video of him talking about vegetarian dinosaurs… I mean dragons.

Through our discussions, it’s clear that your bar it set much lower than ours when it comes to deciding what’s a valid argument or piece of evidence. If you want to have a serious debate, please make your research more critical.

By: steven kramar

steven kramar — Tue, 24 Aug 2010 04:47:11 +0000

Its not very compelling to use the mantra that pro-creation arguments have been debunked, and to call certain creationists “bat-shit crazy,” without giving any intelligent reason. At least not when you want to talk with people who think differently than you. I can see I got you riled up. I didn’t think you were going to be so sensitive about a bible verse, all fairy tails remember… If you want to combat what I said in some of your other articles, sounds interesting. Otherwise, enjoy the fodder. Thanks for your time…

By: The Monkey

The Monkey — Mon, 23 Aug 2010 00:57:29 +0000

I don't feel that I need to defend myself. In spite of your efforts, you haven't offered a good reason to consider that evolution is not backed by valid, testable science. The fact that you've referred to evolution as an atheistic pursuit, latched onto pro-creation arguments that have been debunked, and used someone as bat-shit crazy as Kent Hovind to make your points tells me we have different standards when it comes deciding what is reasonable. In my prior comment, I was trying to be polite in saying that we should agree to disagree. I am disappointed that you took another parting shot by implying we are dumb and blind. I mean you take Kent Hovind seriously? And we're dumb and blind??? Ouch. We have no interest in chasing down more outdated, already-debunked Creation arguments. We've said all we can say here but you've given us a lot of fodder. Stay tuned for an upcoming article or two...

By: steven kramar

steven kramar — Sun, 22 Aug 2010 23:36:54 +0000

So is that is your defense? You just don’t agree… ok, like i said, everyone is entitled to their religion. Makes me think of this passage in the book of romans…
18The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.

By: The Monkey

The Monkey — Sat, 21 Aug 2010 13:57:36 +0000

I thought you had something there. The beginning was spot on, but after you said “I just think the evolutionists are arriving at conclusions that go farther than the evidence can take us” it all fell apart.

I don’t agree with anything you said from this sentence on. That’s why I think we should end this now.

And the fact that we’re not discussing the original article anymore… that too.

By: steven kramar

steven kramar — Sat, 21 Aug 2010 03:13:12 +0000

yah… I can see that your having a problem with these two points. I don’t think that evolution is an atheistic pursuit. Unless you want to loosely interpret what I am saying. There are evolutionists who have a belief in god, but it cannot be the same god in the bible right? The pursuit of evolution is to explain life. The pursuit of the bible is to explain life. The main difference between the two is that evolution tries to explain it from a naturalist perspective, and the bible tries to explain it from a supernatural perspective. Both are logically difficult. But we are here, so we should let the evidence speak for itself and take us where it leads. I just think the evolutionists are arriving at conclusions that go farther than the evidence can take us. The only way i know to explain why they do this is that some people want to exclude the possibility of the supernatural. Therefore the only option left is evolution. The problem is that this also is supernatural because we don’t see evolution happen (at the level you believe) in the natural world. Therefore evolution and biblical creation are supernatural religious perspectives. If someone wants to remain purely scientific, they can at most, only say that they are agnostic and don’t know for sure how we are here based on scientific evidence.
When darwinism is taught as if it is a fact of nature, (even tho it is not) it causes an honest person who believes they are being taught facts to not believe the bible because it does not line up with the perceived facts. It is impossible to believe the bible is true and that evolution is true. Some christians therefore decide to believe that the bible has error. The christian then has a choice to either 1) invent a new version of christianity, or 2) become an atheist all together.

By: The Monkey

The Monkey — Fri, 20 Aug 2010 16:43:18 +0000

Steve, as long as you think things like…

• evolution is an atheist pursuit.

• Darwinian evolution leads to atheism in most cases

… I simply cannot take your arguments seriously. I know you want to discuss details, but I can’t expect them not to be twisted and taken out of context after hearing you say the things above. I mean check this out. This is what it sounds like in my mind. Kinda wild, right?

By: steven kramar

steven kramar — Fri, 20 Aug 2010 01:47:35 +0000

thats why i love about talking with the two of you. Did you have any thoughts on other specifics about the exchange going on? Like the DNA evidence. Do you tend to agree still with sarah that the 1.5%-3.5% difference between humans and chimpanzees is small enough that we can believe they are related ancestrally to each other? If this is true, why cant the scientists create a human out of a chimp in the lab via selective breeding, mutations, transposons, or any of the other observable means by which evolution is supposed to happen? Even if the problem is time, certainly we can make a human foot, or human brain or some other uniquely human feature in a lab out of monkeys if the genes are close enough.