The Anti-theist Thread

[Andúril]

1) Start another thread.

Done.

2) Slow down and listen when you're answered.

Slow down? Why? No one has brought up any issues pertaining to the Review, or any feedback whatsoever. I should assume people view it as a sinister fairytale story book, and the pace is just right. If you would like to bring up points of contention, perhaps you could just state this if you don't have the time at the moment to devote toward it.

1)God created the heavens and the earth.

What about the rest of the universe? And proposed metaphysical concepts, such as the soul?

2)Man is fallen and in need of serious help.

What do you mean by "fallen"? What reason do you have that is independant of biblical doctrine, that implies we (Mankind) are unable to "make it" on our own?

3)Jesus Christ was the son of God. He was both fully human and fully divine.

But they also submit that He was God in the flesh. That would be much more descriptive than saying he was the son of God. And much less misleading.

4)Christ provided paid for us all through his death and ressurection.

Whatever that means. The assumption is that we are in some or other spiritual state of "moral" debt.

5)Accepting him as your savior is the only way.

Only way for what? "Salvation"? This follows from the assumption in point 4. In fact everything here follows from assumptions...

First of all, I do think this is sort of like endorsing tolkien to someone who doesn't like books

The assumption that non-theists don't like gods is born from your own mind. I could ask someone to argue for their belief in the invisible pink flying edible unicorn, but that has nothing to so with my emotional opinion on the subject. I might like the concept, or I might not. That is totally not the point. Rather, for the sake of the exercise that AE has charged you with, assume the most intellectually honest mindset that you can, and argue your beliefs to yourself. We'll listen.

Compare this to other creation stories, for example...

Plus the ones that you haven't heard about, and the possibility that nobody has heard the "actual" account, as a result of circumstances such as inability of communication by an impersonal being. Really, showing that your doctrine is more plausible than others does not on its own necessitate the truth of it. But this is true with all things, is it not?

God simply creates matter, space, and time out of energy

So energy was just "there"? Shouldn't you say that God created energy as well?

...he just causes them to exist.

How?

If mankind can better itself...

What exactly do you mean by "better"? That Mankind is "better" if they can jump nine meters instead of eight? Or are you talking about spiritually or morally better?

Christianity makes it clear- we can't do it ourselves, and we need help.

And let me guess - Christianity is the only way, right?

...but it certainly makes more sense, doesn't it?

Only if you presuppose the existence of a deity and you think you owe it/him/her something. Or if you fear that the deity will smite you if you don't.

I have a problem with your attempts at showing the plausibility of your religion. It's not necessarily the technical aspects, even though I did bring up some issues. No, it's the necessity of religion. You need to show why any religion is necessary, before you show which one is the most plausible.

[afro-elf]

Hey AE, how is "The Satanic Verses" coming? Is it worth reading?*

after I encountered a sentence on page 5 that was about 90 words long i had my doubts

I made it to the beginning of section 4 i believe but i stopped after that.

.

[Cirdan]

Originally posted by afro-elf


after I encountered a sentence on page 5 that was about 90 words long i had my doubts

I made it to the beginning of section 4 i believe but i stopped after that.

.

I'm reading "Treasure Island" to my son. He writes just like that. It's nested as though he couldn't wait until the next sentence to and another thought... and another... It's like the stories one's grandmother might tell; endless tangential references.

[Blackheart]

Originally posted by Wayfarer

Here you go:

1)God created the heavens and the earth.
2)Man is fallen and in need of serious help
3)Jesus Christ was the son of God. He was both fully human and fully divine.
4)Christ provided paid for us all through his death and ressurection.
5)Accepting him as your savior is the only way.

Now, there are those who would argue with my phrasing (I do disdain theobabble) or who would say that there's more to it (the virgin birth, baptism, etc) but those are the basics of christianity, and a substantial majority of those who call themselves christians hold them.

Are you absolutely sure all of those 5 points are the "basic" points?

Very well.

1) What do you mean by "created"? Some sects accept the idea of evolution by design. Does it have to be in 7 days? In other words, is this strictly bound to Genisis?

2) Pass! But then there is the entire question of why a nearly omnipotent being would create such a creature capable of failing, and them tempt him by placing him in a position to fail.

3) Well I know some sects who go both ways on this question. Some sects claim that he was not fully divine, merely first among men. Other sects claim he was god incarnate, none of this mucking around with a seprate entity thing. In fact, it's one of the more contentious "points" and that's surprising, since it would also SEEM like it would be the central point.

4) Odd. I've seen interpretations that he only paid up front for 144,000. I'm also curious as to how being resurrected would pay for anything, since it goes contrary to the idea of sacrifice.

5) Well now that's something that the various sects DO seem to be in agreement about. Except that they all wish for you to do it in a particular way. WHich also seems to coincide with joining a particular organization, which also then usually involves adhering to a particular leadership, and giving money.

However, If I may point out, it's not the "only" way. It's pointed out that if one were capable of following the "Law" (presumably as handed out in the Torah and by Moses) then that too was also permissable. Just highly unlikely anyone could follow such a convoluted arrangement.

Then there are other outs, such as the questions posed about those "heathens" who had never heard "the word" etc.

That's one of the problems with trying to boil down a belief system with such wide ranging and contrary beliefs. Still it wasn't a bad list, given the difficulty. However I might also point out that:

#1 Is unsupported by empirical evidence, and if you posit a non-genisis creation, it becomes metaphysical.
#2 Is unsupported by empirical evidence (though if stupidity were specifically listed as a sin, I might be more inclined to agree), and is therefore a metaphysical point.
#3 There is some evidence that a historical figure did exist. But the manifestation of divine is definately a metaphysical point.
#4 Again a purely metaphysical assertion.
#5 And again, another metaphyscial assertion.

At which point I have to bring up the idea that in the realm of the metaphysical, all assertions have equal merit. If you choose these based on emotions and subjective reaction, then by all means do so. However I don't see why it's any more "rational" than a voudon sacrificing a chiken to Damballa, or a Pagan dancing in the moonlight.

Why indeed? Amen, Brother Wheeler!

Careful who you identify as your brother. I wouldn't want you to call anything down on yourself

Let it never be said that I want anybody to become a Christian 'just because'. Or accept it without really looking a it. The only thing I find more irritating than that is people who decide something is false and then go trying to prove it. So I ask that you look at it seriously, but with an open mind.

How can you fault someone for deciding something is false and trying to prove it, and not fault someone for deciding something is true, and trying to prove it? Especially when dealing with assertions about the non-empirical?

I'm tempted... Very tempted... Ok, spill it. If I can answer you, good and well, but in any case it will give me something to think about.

At the risk of being woven into a belief system, temptation is my game.

I understand how you can wonder about that. It does seem rather odd that they didn't name themselves in their writings, but I have been told that this was a peculiarity of arabic writings.

Yes it is odd. It's even odder that the earliest copies of the new testament (that we know of) are Greek. And it's quite likely they were composed in Greek.

However...

When one looks at some of the claims made by the authors, it does give one pause- the authors claim to have an eyewitness account of the things that they tell. But the really shocking claim comes from some of the corrospondance. The author actually tells the intended recipient of his letter what they have seen. Now, considering that the earliest manuscripts found have been less than 100* years after the events, and christianity had been very active for long before that, aren't there grounds for surmising that there would have been eyewitnesses left? And if these writings are that erroneous, wouldn't it be reasonable to assume that there were plenty of people who would have known it? And if there were, wouldn't we expect them to say something?

*"We can already say emphatically that there is no longer any solid basis for dating any book of the New Testament after about A.D. 80" -Dr. William Foxwell Albright

80-100 years is quite long enough for oral tradition to become garbled. Not to mention that the average life expectancy of the time was around 35. The correspondance however may be actual extant copies available to the composers. But it's doubtful in any case, that the gospels were composed by any of the apostles.

If there were hundreds and possibly thousands of eyewitnesses who could have nipped christianity in the bud. Why didn't they? I think it's because the text of the new testament was and is substantially correct.

Erg. So by your logic, the Reverand Sun Young Moon must be the new messiah. Lots of eyewitnesses there. Christainity would have failed, except for the fact that the Romans got involved.

I'd like to introduce you to my good friend Paul... I think you'll find you have much in common...

Somehow I doubt it. I've read him. He didn't sound like he was very objective. Also if you will note, I do not persecute. I present information, and point out the unreliability of certain information.

I suppose it's sort of pointless to quote your last two paragraphs just to agree, but I do. Off the top of my head, I can't think of one christian who I look up to who hasn't had to actually look at what it means before deciding that it's correct.

Unfortunatly there are a great many more who deserve the appelation "sheep", and not in the good sense. That is the danger inherant in such a system, and I would have a great deal less objection to christendom if it were not led by an entrenched theocracy bent on the primary goal of all power structures, maintaining it's primacy.

[Blackheart]

Originally posted by Wayfarer

I think that's simple and pretty straightforward. God, who is all powerful, and who has always existed, created everything else.

Compare this to other creation stories, for example:

All of these suffer from certain problems- We have gods spontaneously appearing out of nothing, the earth and sky being formed from eggshells and the body parts of giants. We have pantheons springing from the armpit, thigh, mouth, breath, and all parts of giants. At every point we come up against difficulties.

What difficulties? I fail to see why the concept of creating something from something, is more problematic than creating something from nothing.

On the other hand, the hebrew, christian, and muslim story is profound in it's simplicity. God simply creates matter, space, and time out of energy. He doesn't create the sun and moon out of infants or body parts, he just thinks them up and sticks them there. He doesn't make the plants and animals from blood or sweat, he just causes them to exist.

See previous point.

--The state of man:

Most religions take a rather humanistic look at man. Islam, for example, teaches a man needs to do X and not do Y. Buddhism and hinduism teach that a man can gradually obtain something like perfection through effort. A number of the other, legend-oriented religions don't even bothet, sticking instead to stories about men.

Not so christianity. The bible makes very clear what we all knew anyway- that man is fallen and unable to make it on his own. If mankind can better itself, why don't they? Christianity makes it clear- we can't do it ourselves, and we need help.

Again, these are assertions. I disagree that man is fallen. I think he was primarily stupid to begin with, and is (hopefully) begining to extricate himself from a miasma of self absorption, self pity, and irrationality. Of course, I despair of it ever becoming apparant in my lifetime.

--Directives for living

Religious thought almost invariably sets up two lists: one of things to do and another of things not to do. Islam, as I have mentioned, does this. And yes, christians have a tendancy to do this as well.

But when asked what the most important thing to do, Christ himself replied 'Love God" and "Love your neighbor as yourself". This is admittedly much harder than not eating beef or covering your face, but it certainly makes more sense, doesn't it?

Actually, it goes a lot farther, in Corinthians. In that nothing is proscribed, as long as guilt isn't involved. Which makes me wonder what the difference is between this and moral relativism?

--The Criteria

Most world religions, in addition to having lists of rules, say something along the lines of 'if you do this you'll get into heaven'. Christianity, well, yes, it does do something along those lines. But the big difference is that rather than asking you to make it on your own, it says that the issue has been completely taken care of. All you have to do is ask. And once you're certain to get into heaven, then god helps you out with living correctly here on earth. But you never have to do it alone.

On the contrary. The decision has to be made alone. As for whether or not any actual empirical benefits arise from this decision, that is debateable. Any metaphysical benefits are unfortunately subject to bias, and while it is acceptable to choose them based on subjective criteria, such as aesthetic preference, saying that accepting them is a rational decision stretches the meaning of rational. The farthest you can go along the lines of accepting a metaphysical assertion in a rational manner is to admit up front that the criteria the decision is based upon are subjective.

[Blackheart]

Originally posted by Cirdan

Anyway, I tried, and of course, failed (BH) to be objective, but i did my best. I hope your happy with christianity as a social group if you're only interested in the basics. I'm going to keep seeking a nice set of "truths" to live by that don't require me to stop thinking, doubting, and questioning, posting, sleeping.....

What makes you think you failed to be objective?

[Cirdan]

Originally posted by Blackheart


What makes you think you failed to be objective?

The feeling of clarity is a sure sign that one has forgotten something. It was a tangential reference to the subjectivity discussion.

I think that it is diffucult, on an emotional level versus a cognitive, to discuss religious tenets. Since most cultures begin the indoctrination so early in life, the sudden feeling of possibly having been "hoodwinked" may cloud the issue. The other issue is life's occasional serving of "a steaming pile" leaves one thinking that somehow this benevolent, mythical being you were taught to believe before you were capable of periods of rational thinking, has let you down. The simple reality is much easier to reconcile. There is no system to regulate the spq (steaming pile quota). "Believing" helps some people shovel; it helps others (the sheep) stand around in it without thinking about the smell as much. The rest of us just need boots and a lot of rain. So much for beating the analogy to death.

[BeardofPants]

Creationist misquotes:

This book should be read almost as though it were science fiction. – Richard Dawkins.

Creationist spin: Dawkins is "admitting" that his evolutionary theories are uncertain and should be treated as "fiction". – How Did It Get Here?

What he really said:

This book should be read as though it were science fiction. It is designed to appeal to the imagination. But it is not science fiction: it is science. Cliche or not, "stranger than fiction" expresses exactly how I feel about the truth.

In another piece of creationist literature: Zoologist Richard Lewontin said that organisms:

… appear to have been carefully and artfully designed. – Richard Lewontin.

And that he views them as:

the chief evidence of a Supreme Designer. – Richard Lewontin.

From popular Jehovah’s Witnesses literature.

However, Lewontin himself refuted this misquote with:

The point of my article, 'Adaptation' in Scientific American, from which these snippets were lifted, was precisely that the 'perfection of organisms' is often illusory and that any attempt to describe organisms as perfectly adapted is destined for serious contradictions. Moreover, the appearance of careful and artful design was taken in the nineteenth century before Darwin as 'the chief evidence of a Supreme Designer.' The past tense of my article ('It was the marvelous fit of organisms to the environment ... that was the chief evidence of Supreme Designer') has been conveniently dropped by creationist Parker in his attempt to pass off this ancient doctrine as modern science.

In a private letter to creationist Luther Sunderland, (who had asked Dr. Colin Patterson why no transitional fossils were illustrated in his book):

I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them. I will lay it on the line, There is not one such fossil for which one might make a watertight argument.

However:

In mammals, for example, the gap between horses, asses and zebras (genus Equus) and their closest living relatives, the rhinoceroses and tapirs, is filled by an extensive series of fossils extending back sixty-million years to a small animal, Hyracotherium, which can only be distinguished from the rhinoceros-tapir group by one or two horse-like details of the skull. There are many other examples of fossil 'missing links', such as Archaeopteryx, the Jurassic bird which links birds with dinosaurs (Fig. 45), and Ichthyostega, the late Devonian amphibian which links land vertebrates and the extinct choanate (having internal nostrils) fishes. – Patterson.

Furthermore, the REST of the Patterson quote:

... a watertight argument. The reason is that statements about ancestry and descent are not applicable in the fossil record. Is Archaeopteryx the ancestor of all birds? Perhaps yes, perhaps no: there is no way of answering the question.

For all its acceptance in the scientific world as the great unifying principle of biology, Darwinism, after a century and a quarter, is in a surprising amount of trouble. – Francis Hitching.

Creationist spin: The implication being that evolutionary theory is being rejected by biologists.

However, the next part of the quote omitted by the creationists:

Evolution and Darwinism are often taken to mean the same thing. But they don't. Evolution of life over a very long period of time is a fact, if we are to believe evidence gathered during the last two centuries from geology, paleontology, molecular biology and many other scientific disciplines. Despite the many believers in Divine creation who dispute this ..., the probability that evolution has occurred approaches certainty in scientific terms.

What was edited out:

…evolution is a fact.

…approaches certainty in scientific terms

Thus in full context of the quote it can be seen that the prevalence of the Darwinian mechanism in evolution is being questioned, not the validity of evolution itself.

*************************

[BeardofPants]

Emplynx said:

Anyway, I have heard that there is a $1,000,000 reward for accurately disproving the bible that has been set up for along time. I can't find it on the 'net. Anyone know anything about it?

Well, what do you know, I truly am the link master.... but I'm not going to post it because my charming personality feels like being anally retentive. But here, I will post an attempt for you to nitpick at. Ain't I sweet?

ME: (This can be found on the Creation Science Debunked site.)

Dear "Dr" Hovind:

I'd like to take you up on your offer of $250,000 for anyone who can "prove evolution". I would like to do this using two of the methods you suggest:

If you are convinced that evolution is an indisputable fact, may I suggest that you offer $250,000 for any empirical or historical evidence against the general theory of evolution. This might include the following:

1. The earth is not billions of years old (thus destroying the possibility of evolution having happened as it is being taught).

2. No animal has ever been observed changing into any fundamentally different kind of animal.

3. No one has ever observed life spontaneously arising from nonlving matter.

4. matter cannot make itself out of nothing.

I propose to prove to you that number four of your assertions--"matter cannot make itself out of nothing" is in fact quite wrong. Virtual particles have been observed to from spontaneously out of the quantum vacuum. There is an enormous wealth of observed data from physics labs all over the world to demonstrate this. Please let me know when and where you would like me to submit this in writing so I can collect my check.

I would also like to take up your assertion number two: "No animal has ever been observed changing into any fundamentally different kind of animal." I would like some clarification from you first. What, precisely, is a "fundamentally different kind of animal"? Please define this rather vague and fuzzy term for me. Are horses and donkeys a "fundamentally different kind of animal"? Why or why not? Are humans and chimps a "fundamentally different kind of animal"? Why or why not? Would an animal with lungs be a "fundamentally different kind of animal" than one with gills? Why or why not? Please be as precise and detailed as possible about the boundaries between a "fundamentally different kind of animal". Tell me EXACTLY what you mean by this, so I cna go ahead and demonstrate an example of "changing into any fundamentally different kind of animal". By the way, you use the word "animal"--you are certainly aware that evolution happens in plants too. Can I presume that presenting evidence of a change to a "fundamentally different kind of plant" would qualify as well? Or is it your opinion that plants evolve but animals do not?

I look forward to hearing from you.

************************************************** ****************

HOVIND:

Where did space for the vacuum and the energy to create it come from? Please define species. Since a dog and a wolf are different species why are they inter-fertile? To make it easy and clear to all of average intelligence prove that a dog and a worm have a common ancestor and that a pine tree and a rose do also. There is no question that these are different kinds. I do not believe plants or animals evolve beyond minor adaptations within the preexisting gene pool. Because of my hectic travel schedule I only get to read and respond to e-mail a few times each week. I get too much e-mail to give long answers to each one but I would be glad to talk with you if you need a better answer. The phone is faster for me. I am normally in the office Wed-Fri from 8-4:30 CST at [**phone number deleted so nobody tries to call "Dr" Hovind**]. Some weeks my schedule is different. You can find my itinerary on my web site www.drdino.com or ask my office for one dinorder@drdino.com. I hope this is helpful. Thanks, Kent Hovind

************************************************** *******************

ME:

>Where did the space for the vacuum and the energy to create it come from?

Would you be so kind as to define "from nothing" for me, please?

>Please define species.

I'm sorry, but how again is this relevant to anything I asked?

You neglect to answer my question. No problem--I'll ask it again.

What, precisely, is a "fundamentally different kind of animal"? Please define this rather vague and fuzzy term for me.

>There is no question that these are different kinds.

How can we tell? How, precisely, can we know when or if a "kind" has changed into another "kind"? What, exactly, is the boundary between "kinds"? What criteria, precisely, can we use to determine to which "kind" any particular organism belongs? And if you can't or won't tell me, of what value is your assertion that one "kind" cnanot change into another? What value is your offer to give $250,000 to anybody who can show "change between kinds" if you can't or won't tell us what precisely a "kind" IS?

Or is a "kind" nothing more than whatever you want it to be at the moment? IS there after all no objective or testible definition of a "kind"?

>Because of my hectic travel schedule I only get to read and >respond to e-mail a few times each week. I get too much e-mail >to give long answers to each one but I would be glad to >talk with you if you need a better answer. The phone is faster for >me.

Thanks but I prefer a written record and would prefer that we communciate by email. I understand you are a busy man and am in no hurry. I've been waiting for 15 years for a creationist to give me an objective testible definition of a "kind". I can wait a little longer.

Please email me your definition at your earliest convenience.

[BeardofPants]

HOVIND:

Sorry for the generic response but the volume of mail and e-mail we receive here prevents individual personalized responses to each one. I do, however, read all mail that comes to me, though it may take me a few days to get to it.

Answers to Commonly Asked Questions about the Offer

Many have responded to my offer of $250,000 for scientific proof for evolution. The terms and conditions of the offer are detailed very clearly on my web site Error! Bookmark not defined..

1. The offer is legitimate. A wealthy friend of mine has the money in the bank. If the conditions of the offer are met, the money will be paid out immediately. My word is good.

2. The members of the committee of scientists that will judge the evidence are all highly trained, have advanced degrees in science as well as many years of experience in their field. For example: there is a zoologist, a geologist, an aerospace engineer, a professor of radiology and biophysics, and an expert in radio metric dating to name a few. They are busy people and do not wish to waste time on foolish responses. Nor do they wish to waste time arguing with skeptics and scoffers who seem to have nothing else to do than ask silly questions when they really don't want answers. I will not reveal their names for this reason. Any legitimate evidence will be forward to them and they will respond to you. At that time they may identify themselves if they choose. The merit of the evidence presented and the reasonableness of their response does not depend on who they are.

3. Evidence of minor changes within the same kind does not qualify and will not be sent to the committee. For example, doubling the chromosome number of a sterile hybrid does not add additional genetic information; it duplicates what is already present in the parent plant. Because of the absence of additional genetic information the resultant plant can't be classified as different or new species. The plant may differ in a number of ways - bigger, vigorous as observed in any polyploid plants. Such easily recognizable phenotypic changes have confused many. Some evolutionists have jumped to the conclusion that a new species has been evolved. The key is that no new genetic information has been added. Even a new "species" is not evidence for macro-evolution as the offer calls for. See the conditions of the $250,000 offer.

4. The idea that the majority of scientists believe in the theory is not evidence either. Majority opinion is often wrong and must be corrected. History is full of examples.

5. Anonymous letters will be ignored.

Rather than simply sending in scientific evidence for evolution, some have wasted lots of their time and mine sending letters demanding to know who is on the committee, what bank account the money is in, asking Bill Clinton type questions about the definition of words like "is", etc. When I do not respond the way they want me to they post notices on their web sites claiming that I owe them the money! It is obvious they are using the Red Herring tactic to draw attention away from the fact that they have no evidence to support the religion of evolution. I tell everyone who inquires, if you have some evidence, send it in, don't beat around the bush. Give us the best you have on the first try please to save time.

Nearly all responses to my $250,000 offer go something like this: "Of course no one can prove evolution, can you prove creation?" This response is what I expected and wanted. Neither theory of origins can be proven. Both involve a great deal of faith in the unseen. So my next logical question is: "Why do I have to pay for the evolution religion to be taught to all the students in the tax supported school system?" Evolution should not be part of science curriculum. It has nothing to do with the subject of science. Students are deceived into thinking all types of evolution have been proven because evidence is given for minor variations called micro-evolution. "Evolution" as presented in the textbooks involves several steps, only the last of which is scientific.

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.

5. Origin of major kinds. Macro-evolution.

6. Variations within kinds. Micro-evolution. Only this one has been observed.

I do not have time or interest in getting involved in long e-mail debates, but I will talk to anyone by phone or debate with any qualified scientist in a public forum at a university, on radio or TV, even a panel of evolutionists against just me as long as there is equal time for each position not each person. If you call, please have a list of topics to discuss or questions to ask and feel free to record the conversation if you like. Just inform me that you are recording and remind me what the questions are, please. I hope this response is satisfactory.

I have taught for years that evolution is nothing but a religion mixed in with real science. Many have been duped into believing in it. There is no evidence that any plant or animal ever can or did change to any other kind or creature. It is time that intelligent people the world over began to admit that the king has no clothes! There is no evidence for changes between kinds of animals. The Bible teaches that God made them to "bring forth after their kind." This is all that has ever been observed. The same Bible teaches that everyone will face the Creator one day to be judged for everything they have said, done or thought. I recommend that everyone prepare for that day by taking advantage of God's mercy and forgiveness afforded through the free salvation offered to any who will confess their sin and receive Jesus Christ as their Lord. If you are interested in learning more about becoming a Christian, please call me. I travel a lot but always take time for calls when I am in the office. I am most often in Wednesday through Friday at 850-479-3466.

Sincerely,

Kent Hovind

[BeardofPants]

ME:

Thank you for your long and irrelevent file which didn't answer any of the questions I asked. I'll ask again. And again and again and again, if necessary. Here we go again:

> What, precisely, is a "fundamentally different kind of animal"?

> Please define this rather vague and fuzzy term for me.

> There is no question that these are different

> > kinds.

> How can we tell? How, precisely, can we know when or if a "kind" > has changed into another "kind"? What, exactly, is the boundary > between "kinds"? What criteria, precisely, can we use to > determine to which "kind" any particular organism belongs? And if > you can't or won't tell me, of what value is your assertion that one > "kind" cannot change into another? What value is your offer to give > $250,000 to anybody who can show "change between kinds" if you > can't or won't tell us what precisely a "kind" IS?

> > Or is a "kind" nothing more than whatever you want it to be at the > moment? IS there after all no objective or testible definition of a > "kind"? >

> Please email me your definition at your earliest convenience.

I look forward to a responsive response this time.

************************************************** *********************

HOVIND:

The $250,000 offer is not just for kinds, it is for proof of the entire evolution religion. Please re-read my offer. Also, what exactly is a definition of species? Also please define evolution.

************************************************** *********************

ME:

> The $250,000 offer is not just for kinds, it is for proof of the entire

> evolution religion.

Umm, your offer seems to be getting more and more evasive. Why would THAT be, I wonder . . . .

Would not establishing change "between kinds" establish that evolution occurs? Why or why not? That, after all, was YOUR suggested approach.

Also, what exactly is a

> definition of species? Also please define evolution.

Umm, sorry, but once again I fail to see how this is relevant to ANY of the questions I asked you. No problem. I'll just keep right on asking until I get an answer from you.

What is a "fundamentally different kind of animal"? What, precisely, is the dividing line between these "kinds"? How, precisely, can we determine whether or not change "between kinds" has or has not occurred?

I am of course quite sure that your continuing refusal to answer this simple question, or your efforts to "respond" with nonsequiteurs like "define evolution" is NOT simply a dishonest attempt on your part to avoid answering the question. I am quite sure that you DO have a testible and objective definition of a "created kind", amd am quite sure that you will provide it to me sooner or later if I just keep asking often enough.

I look forward to your testible and objective definition.

************************************************** ************************

ME:

Hi, "Dr" Hovind.

It's been a while since I've heard from you. Have you had time yet to prepare an objective testible definition of a "fundamentally different kind" for us yet?

I'm sure you can understand that we wouldn't want people to get the impression that you are avoiding answering this question.

I look forward to your response.

************************************************** *************************

HOVIND:

The exact definition of a kind would be a worthy goal for science. They now waste lots of time trying to convince people that we all came from a rock over 4.5 billion years.

************************************************** ************************

> The exact definition of a kind would be a worthy goal for science. They now

> waste lots of time trying to convince people that we all came from a rock

> over 4.5 billion years.

>

How dreadful. However, since YOU are the one who is stating that evolution cannot occur between "fundamentally different kinds", we may at least presume that you know what a "kind" is. If you do NOT know what a "kind" is, then upon what basis is your statement made that evolution between "kinds" cannot happen?

It is beginning to look an awful lot as though you don't really know what a "kind" is, and therefore can't really say that evolution between "kinds" is not possible. I am sure you wouldn't want people to think this.

Fortunately, you can dispell any such notions simply by telling me clearly, concisely and cleanly--what is a "kind", and what objective testible criteria can we use to determine to which "kind" any particular organism belongs? How, exactly, can we determine if evolution between "fundamentally different kinds" has or has not occurred? What, exactly, is the borderline between "kinds" than cannot be crossed? And if, as you NOW seem to be saying, there IS NO clear definition of a "kind", then upon what basis do you make the claim that evolution from one "fundamentally different kind" to another is impossible? How, exactly, can we determine if such evolution is or is not possible?

I look forward to a responsive response from you.

************************************************** **************************

I've not received any further response from "Dr" Hovind. I suspect that I won't. But "Dr", if you are out there reading this, please feel free to email me your verifiable and objective definition of a "created kind" any time you like. I'm still waiting.

[Lizra]

Ugh! This is so hard to follow, I really can't digest what all is being said here! I have struggled with this topic my whole life, and unfortunately am still struggling. I absolutely hate it that I can't be a Christian. The nicest people I've ever met have usually been Christians. They are so happy too. It would be so wonderful to have it all in black and white. This is the way it was/is and this is how you lead your life. All you have to do is work on being a good person. That is the appeal I guess. I hate it that I'm wasting my lfe struggling with this issue, but I love the truth and I love science. That hurts the Christian thing. For a while after I read "The Case for Christ" by Lee Strobel, I believed. I was so Happy, it was like a weight had been lifted from my chest. Then I read "Stealing Jesus" byBruce Bawer and the old doubts crept up. Darn, I envy young people that are raised with faith. My parents are aethiest so here I am. I love to go to church, It is so wonderful. But I struggle so, I just go and listen and take what good I can get from it. My life's half over as it is, I don't care anymore. By the way, B of P, if I knew how to make that smiley face thing at you, I would

[Rána Eressëa]

I'm just fine and dandy with my atheism! I'm a chipper little person my friends tell me.

[afro-elf]

hey BH

your thoughts on this


Science offers proof without any certainty. Creationists offer certainty without any proof.
Ashley Montagu (Anthropologist)


The invisible and the non-existent look very much alike.
Delos McKown (Ph.D. philosopher and former clergyman)

[afro-elf]

a blurp on the brain and god


http://www.freethinkerscs.com/articl...sitybrain.html

[Rána Eressëa]

It was always the other way around for me: religion always confused the hell outta me. It only made me more depressed and mean and all that other bad stuff. Freedom from religion made me a happier, nicer, more understanding person. I'm better off without it.

[BeardofPants]

Originally posted by Lizra
By the way, B of P, if I knew how to make that smiley face thing at you, I would.

You mean this one: ?

It's in the smiley menu on the left hand side of the reply window.


RE - I'm with you on that one! Hasn't caused me anything but misery.

*Shudder.*

[afro-elf]

SCREAM

By James A. Haught

Did you ever hear a rabbit scream?
Bunnies make a heart-rending shriek
when pierced by fangs of a fox
or talons of a hawk.

Did you ever see a child dying of leukemia
trying to understand
trying to be brave
but doomed?

Did you ever see families killed by a twister
or an earthquake
or a monsoon flood
or a volcano?

Did you ever watch a fawn in the jaws of a lion
or a piglet coiled by a python
or a seal ripped by a shark?

Did you ever see the eyes of a woman when she's told
she has breast cancer?

All these horrors are nature at work
And nature, you say, was designed by an all-loving
all-merciful
all-benevolent
all-compassionate
all-kind
God.

You want me to worship this designer?

Are you crazy?

[Cirdan]

Originally posted by BeardofPants

I've not received any further response from "Dr" Hovind. I suspect that I won't. But "Dr", if you are out there reading this, please feel free to email me your verifiable and objective definition of a "created kind" any time you like. I'm still waiting.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!

BoP, you really rule! I could hear the sound of hot air rushing from the "Dr. H" blimp. Obviously he's trolling for "lost souls", or maybe willing to pay $250,000 for someone to penetrate his impregnable barrier of ignorance. Hey, maybe the DoD could use it for the "star wars missle shield". We could hire David Copperfield to make it look like he changed a fish into a bird.

Isn't "microevolution" a concession anyway? Then all you have to do is prove the age og the earth. Given several billion "microevolutionary" steps would be full scale evolution.

I want ten percent if it works.

[BeardofPants]

Ack.

I might really rule, but that wasn't me.

I should have made that more clear when I posted it.