Just looking for feedback on:

I tried to read this article, but my feeble mind had trouble following the gist of this argument that Hovind has made "it impossible to meet the standards to collect".

I see in his offer nothing else other than "if you can proove, PROOVE, PROOVE the fact of evolution, then you'll collect.

Since we know that there is no PROOF, just evidence that some men INTERPRET to be the result of evolution, then that's why the offer is still unclaimed.

This just validates the fact that some people would rather trust man than God. It's a faith issue in either camp! </font>[/QUOTE]I refer you to the section in the article called What Is Wrong With the "Offer"?

This is just the first paragraph. Problems with his "offer" continue on for several more pages.

 

but Gold Dragon,

he makes the distinction between macro-evolution and micro-evolution very VERY clear in ALL of his presentations....both in debates and in his seminars. So to say that that is a problem with his offer is not, IMO, accurate. He is not trying to be deceitful, as anyone who even has skimmed his work ought to be able to figure out that he makes that distinction.

 

That isn't what the paragraph was talking about. Evolution is a biological process. The first problem with his "offer" is that he tries to redefine evolution to include a whole bunch of other stuff that is not evolution. Planets, stars, time, space, matter and how they came into existence have nothing to do with the biological process of evolution.

Continue reading and there are many other problems with his "offer".

 

I think Hovind's 'offer' shows a confusion between the argument over origins and the argument over evolution. There IS a difference, and a vast one, between variation and the changes required to get from bacteria to bear, and that is a valid point he makes. It is one most evolutionists try to squish their way out of.

But neither form of change has to do with origins, and that is the part about abiogenesis and the formation of matter, etc.

What Hovind, and many others, are doing is taking the FOUNDATION of evolution, which is naturalism (everything we see and know is due to natural causes), and defining it as part of evolution. This is the wrong way round. Naturalism is the umbrella under which evolution can be found.

What further complicates matters is that there is a valid place for naturalism in science. We MUST presume natural causes if we are to work with things! For instance, ice -- frozen water -- floats because water is the only thing which expands instead of contracts when it freezes! If this were not so, there would be no life on earth.

It is when we go back to origins that the argument occurs with non-living things like this. Why is water this way? Is this a fortuitous 'accident of nature' or was it designed to be this way chemically because that is how God did it?

A pure naturalist, or atheist, will say accident of nature.

A theistic evolutionist will say God did it and then let things go as He planned them to go without interfering in the process.

A creationist will also say God did it but stayed involved with His creation.

All three of these are faiths and cannot be proven scientifically because origins cannot be repeated. For this reason, if no other, Hovind is being ignorant, if not deceptive, in his challenge.

If he wants his challenge to mean anything at all, he should get specific. "Proving" something should, first of all, mean something is actually provable! Second, he must define what would be 'to his satisfaction.' Third, he should define the parameters, which he has not done.

What kind of change is he asking for to prove evolution? How much of a genetic change? How much of a form and function change? Would he be satisfied with something in the fossil record or does he want a repeatable experiment on a living organism?

In other words, his 'challenge' is perfectly safe because it means nothing. This is one of the 'slight of hand' tricks the popularizers on both sides can pull which leave me cold.

I am a young earth creationist. I am that way because of data. From what I see, there is more than enough evidence all around us in every field to verify the Bible. But anyone who has followed an;y of the arguments ('discussion' is a polite word for how heated some of them get!) with some of the evolutionist apologists will see that debate is very much there and a good deal depends on interpretations of the data.

That's valid. Some of what Hovind is doing is not, in my opinion.

 

Just an fyi that there is nothing in theistic evolution that says God did not interfere in any processes He created. He very well could have.

 

SAMPLEWOW sez:

 

Hovind has set up a 'challenge' that cannot be taken. He has mixed his terms and not defined the parameters. This is, then, a false challenge, meant to impress creationist followers and, I'm afraid, makes him a laughingstock out of all of this to those in science on both sides of the question.

He needs to be more honest about what he presents. I don't care how he presents it, but he should make sure his science is up to date with what has been found and what has been disproved as well. He should not push conclusions farther than the data will take him reasonably. There is no need to sensationalize when God has given us plenty to go on.

What he is doing is almost like forming a personal cult following -- people presuming he is right about what he is saying because of the way he says it and his personal charisma, which is significant. But then when these believers go out to present the evidence he has given them to others, if those others know much about science at all, the believers find themselves being made fools of -- either that or simply trying to defend an indefensible position.

Granted many of his points are accurate, but just enough are not that people who are impressed are believing it all and not knowing they need to know more to know what is correct and what is partially correct and what is incorrect in his presentations.

This may sound funny, but real science demands a sort of conservativism and subtlety missing from many involved in various fields today. Money for grants or donations is so needed/desired that claims are made which cannot be substantiated by the data used, and sometimes which are false and ignoring data. I am NOT talking about Hovind here as something personal. I am talking about science itself and the scientists working in various fields right now. It like, with evolutionists, how every 'hominid' find is 'the missing link' -- or something superlative, like the 'earliest' this or that. That guarantees funds.

But real science is much more cautious, much more hesitant to trumpet its conclusions.

On both sides of the fence.

So, for me, having been involved for as many years as I have been, as soon as I see someone trumpeting conclusions which are 'astounding' I figure they have gone way past the data (which are probably interesting enough!) and into philosophical territory supporting their presuppositions.

On the creation side, I started researching a number of the so-called evidences that creationists use (and remember, I am a creationist) and found, much to my disappointment and disgust, that the gun had been jumped a number of times and that corrections not duly noted later.

Here is some of what I have found that we have partially written up for a chapter in our book:

------------

1. “Footprints in the Sands of Time” – this is supposed to be a trilobite fossil found within a sandal print in the Wheeler Formation in the House Range east of Antelope Springs in Utah. This we are still willing to put a question mark after instead of discarding completely. The shape certainly fits that of a sandal, and there is certainly a trilobite right there in the heel! BUT, there is a type of rock fracture called a spall, in which a part of the rock face cracks and falls away. This can take a variety of shapes, and the claim has been made that this is simply a spall exposing a trilobite. Without evidence of actual tracks (And the state of Utah would probably rather preserve the cliff formation than chip sections away looking for tracks!) going in a left-right pattern, the most that can be said for this piece of evidence is that it is very questionable.

2. The Iron Hammer – all the evidence we were able to accumulate is that this is an artifact that started out as an innocent mistake in the late nineteenth century and gradually got promoted to the ranks out outright fraud. (The problem with evidence that seems this exciting is that it very easily can be promoted without a thorough checking of the facts first. That appears to be what happened here where some creation magazines were concerned. They might take some comfort in knowing that even National Geographic has fallen victim to fraudulent stories in the past, as have other magazines and journals. But if we are going to be credible, it is essential that those of us who publish this material make every effort to research and validate it for ourselves. The old adage about “if it seems to good to be true, it probably is,” is a good warning flag for anyone considering new ‘evidence’.)


3. Modern pollen in the Hakatai Shale of Grand Canyon – evidence here points to the fact that there was probably contamination of the samples. Those who have attempted to repeat the find under sterling conditions have not been able to find the claimed pollen. Nevertheless, the following from Chadwick, should be noted:

Although there may not be evidence for Precambrian pollen in the Grand Canyon, there is one thoroughly documented report of the occurrence of pollen and vascular tissue of higher plants which does support the existence of angiosperms earlier in the fossil record. The story surrounding the discovery of authentic higher plant remains in the Saline series of the Salt Range in Punjab, India, and its subsequent elaboration is anecdotal but nevertheless is worth investigating. Although the subject of the Salt Range beds is proscribed among Indian and many western paleontologists today, the case rests precisely where it did 30 years ago (Ghosh et al. 1951). The fossils are modern in aspect (“Eocene” according to Sahni 1944) yet the beds containing the fossils are overlain conformably by early Cambrian sediments (Coates et al. 1945). Creationists who wish evidence for the existence of angiosperms early in the fossil record should cite this well-known case.
http://www.grisda.org/origins/08007.htm

4. There is, however, also evidence of other items in out of order strata in other places in the world which have been verified and published:

a. Spores belonging to the Tertiary era were found in Permian Strata in New Zealand (Wilson, G.J. 1976. Permian Palynomorphs from the Mangarewa Formation, Productus Creek, Southland, New Zealand, New Zealand Journal of Geology and Geophysics 19:137).
b. Foraminifers belonging to the Tertiary were found in the Cretaceous Strata in North Italy (Alvarez W. and W. Lowrie. 1981. Upper Cretaceous to Eocene pelagic limestones of the Scaglia Rossa are not Miocene Turbidites Nature 294:246-7).
c. Palm wood associated with the Tertiary was found in the Jurassic strata in Utah, U.S.A. (Scott, R.A. Willians W.L. Craig L.C., Barghoorn E., Hickey L.J., and U.D. MacGinitie. 1972. American Journal of Botany 59:886-96).

These and other examples of out of order fossils, most of which, however, are those from earlier times found in ‘later’ eras, are part of a list of more than two hundred compiled by John Woodmorappe and found on the internet in several places, including here:
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Delphi/4881/anomalies.html

5. Skeletons in the Dakota Sandstone – These were evidently Indians mining for copper when they were killed in a cave-in. The skeletons represent short adults, and are impregnated with copper minerals.

6. The Paluxy Tracks – There are tracks there. None of them are human. This has been one of the most thoroughly researched sites in the world ever since it was reported that human tracks and dinosaur tracks were found together. What is seen are dinosaur tracks. Some are bipedal. But they are not man tracks. Warnings about using the Paluxy material as evidence for a young earth creation have been published a number of times, including John Morris’ Impact articles #35 (1976) and #151 (1986). In 1998, Berney Neufeld, Ph.D., wrote the paper with the most recent research documenting the tracks, “Dinosaur Tracks and Giant Men,” available now on the internet here:
http://origins.swau.edu/papers/dinos/tracks/default.html


7. The Nampa Image – There is a possibility that this is a true out-of-order artifact. The major problem is that there is no context for it. We have the depth from which it was recovered (320 feet), which seems to indicate the Pliocene period, but we have no culture to associate it with, and thus no civilization time for a connection. Nevertheless, a search by these authors revealed an almost total lack of comment on this image, and nothing of negative nature. It seems to have been largely ignored by those who make a point of debunking evidences for creation. A thorough article was done by Robert Gentet and Edward Lain in the Creation Research Society Quarterly of March, 1999, on this image, or doll. Their findings, from the abstract and the conclusion are quoted below:


“The July 1889 find in Nampa, Idaho, of a small human figure during a well-drilling operation caused intense scientific interest last century. Unmistakably made by human hands, it was found at a depth (320’) which would appear to place its age far before the expected arrival of man in this part of the world, according to accepted evolutionary dating techniques. Although all but forgotten by the general scientific community, the evidence, when viewed without evolutionary bias, still sounds convincing over a century after its discovery.”

“…Nevertheless, the evidences for the genuineness of the Nampa Image seem weighty. The condition of the image would present a very sophisticated challenge for someone on the early frontier. And the workings of the sand pump, which was in operation at the discovery of the image, excludes it being introduced during the on-going operation from on top and surviving. Furthermore, while one might envision a motive for a hoax (though the idea of a hoax to promote the new frontier town was never mentioned by any other writer the authors researched), the people involved were always described as citizens of stature in the community and trusted in their words.
There is, however, always the possibility that all is not as it first seems to be. Perhaps we will never know for sure, but this much we do know: had the find come from a geologic horizon where man’s artifacts were expected, there would have been far less controversy involved. The current theories of evolution and the stretched out geologic timetable should not hinder acceptance of human artifacts or bones found in stratum where conventional “wisdom” prohibits. [p.210]

-------------
Take a look at the caution in this last report and you will see how I, personally, think things should be reported.

This is in stark contrast with Hovind's methods of reporting, I think you will agree.

 

Thank you Helen.

I appreciate your post.

 

that's what I thought I was doing with the long post! I don't care how a person teaches (assuming it is not illegal, immoral, or fattening!), but what they teach on an issue like this is rather important.

 

Thanks Helen; some more to digest!

 

Helen

Always alot to digest!

I would love to come over to your guys' house for just a little Bar-B-Q ... Might take a month to eat that much dinosaur ...

 

Let us know if you are ever in southern Oregon! But I'm no good a dino steaks. Never had any practice. Will salmon do?