Creationist Website Challenge

Why is that a challenge? And what will it prove? The lack of a such a site proves nothing because the truth of creationism is not measured by the purity of its proponents.

You cannot even find an evolutionist website that would meet this criteria.

You are misguided in your attempt with this thread.

 

Here’s a couple of Creationist websites.

Whadduya think? Do they qualify?

http://www.kjvbible.org/

http://emporium.turnpike.net/C/cs/

http://www.answersincreation.org/about.htm

http://www.drdino.com/cse.asp

http://www.creationscience.com/

http://www.nwcreation.net/

http://www.sixdaycreation.com/

http://emporium.turnpike.net/C/cs/links.htm

 

Dr.Dino.com is excellent.
I have heard Dr. Hovind teach several times and own his lecture tape and several of his debate tapes. I never even knew how much evolution I was taught in public school, until my eyes were opened to it! He is very well informed and knows what he is talking about.I highly recommend his material!
In Christ,
Peggy

 

Your sweet response is such a blessing to the Body of Christ, you should post more often.

 

It always seems strange to me that someone with a degree from bible college, or even an M Div can readily find flaws in the scientific systems devised by thousands of scholars over hundreds of years. Evolution is NOT a proven theory but science has showed us that a young earth screation scheme is unlikely. That does not make science evil - it makes it useful. It helps us to interpret some of the difficult passages of the bible.

Besides, the whole push for a young earth creationism is founded upon the (fundamentally flawed) assumption that all of the bible should be interpreted literally.

Genesis 1 is intending to show the nation of Israel that YHWH created all and that the pagan creation myths are baloney. It was not intended to give us a literal description of how long it took God to make everything.

 

Hey Precepts,

Your profile looks like none other than QS!

 

While I don't honestly believe that Paul of Eugene is seriously considering any acceptance of the young Earth position, He should at least look at the work of Dr. Henry Morris who has earned the title, "The Father of Modern Creationism." He is a respected scientist (having taught at Virginia Polytechnic for several years), and has written a number of textbooks in his own field. His magnum opus is probably "The Genesis Record," but one would also do well to read some of his other books, such as "The Biblical Basis for Modern Science" and "Biblical Creationism." His son, Dr. John Morris, is also very active in the field of young Earth creationism and has published a very user friendly book entitled "Young Earth." And as you will also remember Paul, I called your attention to a book entitled "Grand Canyon: A Different View" in a previous string - did you ever even take the time to look it up? It is filled with great science taken from the Canyon itself - science that disproves the whole theory of macroevolution. One critique you may have of the aforementioned works is that they are written from the perspective of those who are young Earth creationists, but that is exactly why I list them. If you really want to learn the science of young Earth creationism, you should read it from the scientists themselves.

Personally, I don't put a whole lot of trust in info I gather from websites - many times because the info is not backed with references or works cited. Book research is nearly always much better than web research.

 

It is not even a theory. It is a hypothesis.

According to the scientific method, a hypothesis has to have stood up to independent testing in order to become a theory. There is no way to test the hypothesis of macroevolution, since you'd have to test it by reproducing the process over millions of years.

Evolutionists normally react one of two ways when they are confronted with this challenge.

1. It is impossible to test it over millions of years.

2. The scientific method doesn't require testing as in actual testing or reproducing the process, all it requires is the power of prediction, which is what one tests.

My answers:

1. Too bad. So it's impossible? Does that mean you can eliminate some of the requirements of the scientific method just because it's too hard to do it the right way?

2. Apparently, the answer to #1 is "yes", because this is precisely what one has done when one relies on the "predictive power" argument. It arbitrarily removes the requirement for independent testing in order to make it possible to call evolution a "theory". In short, it redefines the requirements to get the desired results.

 

npetreley

There is a problem with your logic. We do have the ability to go out and perform experiments and observations to support evolution. One of the best things we can observe is the fossil record to see if the the predictions that come from the theory (hypothesis to you) are actually found. The fossil record has so far been found to be in step with the TOE. In our own lifetimes, we have observed speciation, the origin of new species. We have observed new traits deveoping and watched new metabolic pathways form. There are also other observations that can be made, such as the twin nested heirarchy. In short, there are observations that have been made to test the hypothesis and allow it to become a well respected, well supported theory.

 

Since Paul took the first in the list of websites posted, I will take the second.

http://emporium.turnpike.net/C/cs/

I go there and I go straight to the heading labeled "Top Evidences Against the Theory of Evolution." The very first "evidence" listed is

"There are no transitional links and intermediate forms in either the fossil record or the modern world."

Some transitionals for you: Archeopteryx, Ambulocetus, Homo ergaster, Acanthostega, Thrinaxodon, Hylonomus, Diacodexis, Tristychius, Ichthyostega, Pholidogaster, Elpistostege, Dimetrodon, Procynosuchus, Proconsul, Sivapithecus, Dryopithecus, Pakicetus, Ambulocetus, Caudipteryx, Unenlagia, Protarchaeopteryx, Confuciusornis,...

Oh well, you get the picture. No need to fill a page.

 

People,

I'm not here to bad mouth anyone but I do feel concerned with the credibility folks are awarding Dr Kent Hovind on these pages.

Please consider the following

Kent Hovind 1

http:// Kent Hovind 2

http:// Kent Hovind 3

http:// Kent Hovind 4

best wishes
Doug

 

PS Look at his 'Patriot University' ! and draw your own conclusions.

 

In light of this

"You cannot even find an evolutionist website that would meet this criteria."

and this

"Now you're talking! And in the spirit of fair play, here's an old universe site:"

I had meant to add my own site to be scrutinized, but I forgot. I wasn't going to bother after the fact, but since this thread has new life, here goes.

http://www.eso.org/outreach/press-rel/

It is all the press releases for the Very Large Telescope project. The press releases contain a wealth of science.