slu_clarkinator
04-06-2006, 08:50 AM
Links to the news story:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/story/0,,1747926,00.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/06/science/06fossil.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/05/AR2006040502369.html

http://www.nature.com/news/2006/060403/full/060403-7.html


Apparently if you assert something strongly and often enough, it becomes true. They've found another supposed missing link, this time between fish and reptiles. Take a careful look at the picture they made up for the New York Times and tell me that looks like something that could move on land, because I don't see how it could move out of the water. I find it interesting how willing they are to come out and say that this is the missing link, we now know that evolution is true, because we found a fossil that we can make fit our ideas.

skynes
04-06-2006, 10:01 AM
*sigh* so pathetic.

I find it fishy (pun intended) that they're willing to post pics of all these models and artists renditions, yet not a photo of the ENTIRE skeleton...

...unless of course that flat head with squashed body IS the entire skeleton, if it is, well then you can't argue with that kind of evidence can you?

somasoul
04-07-2006, 08:22 PM
I don't really care about evolution. It doesn't threaten my faith in the least.

Still, these 'scientists' are always out looking for the newest thang, probably to advance their own careers.

What I learned about was simple. If I take a white dog and a brown dog and mate 'em they might have white puppies. They might have brown puppies. They might have puppies that are white with brown spots. But there ain't no way they're having puppies with wings. Ain't gonna happen.

asparagus
04-07-2006, 10:01 PM
They've found another supposed missing link, this time between fish and reptiles. Take a careful look at the picture they made up for the New York Times and tell me that looks like something that could move on land, because I don't see how it could move out of the water. I find it interesting how willing they are to come out and say that this is the missing link, we now know that evolution is true, because we found a fossil that we can make fit our ideas.In the article I read, there was nothing that said anything along the lines of, "Now we know evolution is true."

I've read creationist writings and I've read their rebuttals. The creationist writings tended to be more along these lines of attacking elements that weren't at issue.

In creationist journals, I've found some interesting patterns:
+ An interesting lack of research. Every other scholarly journal I've read has new research being published. However, in creationist journals, there is a surpising lack of new research being published. Instead, it seems, the journals are nothing more than position papers or rebuttles to research published by other publications.
+ A splintering of organizations. At first I was familiar with just the organization of Answers in Genesis. But then there was Kent Hovind, which was in sharp disagreement with Answers in Genesis; AIG at one point tried to warn against Kent Hovinds Ministries. But Answers in Genesis also doesn't get along with the Discovery Institute, the most prominent intelligent design organization. And finally, the Discovery Institute is against the most recent intelligent design court cases... So even if you believe in young earth creationism, which type do you believe in? While there is certainly disagreements in science (indeed it is somewhat the nature of science!), the divisions found in these organizations are similar in theme to some of the divisions I see in conservative Christian cults like LDS and JW.
+ An us vs. them attitude that I think is neither respectful, Christian, nor scholarly. It is an attitude that assumes the worst in anyone who dare challenges young earth creationism. One recent article in Creation Journal that I read labled Christians who disagreed with their position as "wolves in sheeps clothing." Under this kind of paradigmatic mindset, there is no conversation, no openmindedness.
+ Name calling and extremist labels. They make non-Christians sound always terrible, and they make Christians who disagree with them sound even worse.
+ They're always on the defensive and everything is a war that must be fought and won. Sure they talk about changing people's hearts and minds and turning them toward God, but I've yet to see it. What I do see instead is abundant hypocrisy, a fear of honest conversation, a defensive attitude, and a lack of respect for those that they want to share God's "love" with.
+ A lack of integrity.
Here is an excerpt from Kent-Hovind.com that explains how this prominent creationist scientist recieved his doctorates.

Does Kent Hovind have a valid PhD?

Yes and no.

Yes, Hovind acquired a religious based PhD in "Christian Education" from Patriot University. "Christian Education" is an evangelism course. Patriot University has since changed its name to Patriot Bible University.

Many have claimed, usually repeating what the claim made by Vickers [5], that Patriot Bible University is a diploma mill. This claim is false. Whatever critics may think of its course standards, Patriot Bible University has been authorized by the Colorado Commission of Higher Education as a "seminary or Bible college" [6] since 1988 [7] but only "to grant religious degrees" [10]

However, Patriot University also claims to be accredited [10] by the unrecognized American Accrediting Association of Theological Institutions which operates from the same PO Box as Christian Bible College [8][9]. Both AAATI and CBC are run by Cecil Johnson and CBC is only accredited by, you guessed it, AAATI. This blatant conflict of interest could be a litmus test for the quality of AAATI.

No, Hovind inflates his title to apply to fields he did not study. As a citizen of Florida, under Florida State law Hovind can only claim his title if he "clearly identifies the religious character of the educational program"[1] . Hovind rarely does so. For example, the promotional material for a debate video produced by Hovind claims he is "a well-known creation speaker with a PhD in education" [2] Hovind and his staff repeatedly remove the "Christian" part from his degree title. Either he is embarrassed by the term "Christian" (very unlikely) or his is attempting to make his PhD appear to be something it is not.

How does Hovind use his title?

This is where the problem of Hovind's inflated title begins to show. His own promotional material boldly describes him as;

"a well-known creation speaker with a PhD in education"[2].
"shortly after finishing his Ph.D. in education" [3]
"Doctor Hovind taught science for fifteen years. Then he got his PhD in Education. He's always had a love for teaching."

In summarizing my general feelings, if the truth is on your side, you have a certain attitude about you. The creation science organizations don't have this. If truth is on their side, they don't need to be on the defensive, they don't need to lie to make themselves look smarter, they don't need to degrade their oppenents, and they don't need act desperate and divisive.

skynes
04-08-2006, 02:15 AM
^ Which is why I dislike a lot of the Creation organisations as much as the Evolutionary ones.

disciple
04-08-2006, 10:25 AM
Very well done post, Alex. I agree with it totally. This is why I tend to avoid getting any sort of information from places like those -- you never know when it could be true or false. Also, I believe Jesus spoke against people like those in the Bible, and back then they were called Pharisees.

slu_clarkinator
04-08-2006, 07:39 PM
Excellent ad hominem asparagus.

Reeper
04-10-2006, 04:31 AM
All I have to say is wow!!! Alex while a few points are valid in your post the vast majority are not. When I have more time I'll try and reply to it better. All I will say now is that AIG and Kent Hovind are not in sharp disagreement. They disagree about a few minor points, and the only reason why Ken Ham originally was going to warn against Kent Hovind is because of those points. A meeting between the two showed that they were not in strong disagreement. Secondly, we are at war. There is a spiritual war going on constantly. That is why they act like we are at war. Cause we are. Third, no where in that part about Dr. Hovind "inflating" his title did I see him lie once. Every time he says that his degree is in education. I agree with ^ this is an ad hominem argument. Again you are attacking the conveyor not the actual argument. Finally, and this is just my opinion, maybe the reason why you are bothered so much by the arguments and the positions these people present isn't because they are lieing, but because in your heart you see the truth they present. I'm not saying I always agree with what they say either, or that people who believe in evolution and are christians are "wolves in sheeps clothing," but I do believe they are mislead, and that they need to examine all the aspects of what they believe. I don't think most people do this, including you. Love you man. No offence meant, just trying to do what I feel is best for you.

Peace

unshakeable15
04-14-2006, 12:17 PM
As a citizen of Florida, under Florida State law Hovind can only claim his title if he "clearly identifies the religious character of the educational program"[1]. Hovind rarely does so.
Third, no where in that part about Dr. Hovind "inflating" his title did I see him lie once. Every time he says that his degree is in education.
There is a big difference between a degree "education" and a degree in "Christian education." The first is a degree in how to teach and best present the material at hand; the second is a degree is presenting materials consistent with Christianity. Just like taking English at a college in North America is different from taking English at a college in France. The first will teach you writing, literature and the like; the second will teach you the English language and a bit of writing and liturature. They are not the same degrees.

And, according to Florida which Alex quoted (from where?), he can only claim his title if he is using it in reference to material with religious bent. He isn't even using his full title! He's dropping the "Christian" from it.

aliengurl7
04-23-2006, 09:38 PM
I bet its just human bones mixed up with monkey remains, like they did last time and they built themselves a missing "link."

Reeper
04-24-2006, 09:18 AM
There is a big difference between a degree "education" and a degree in "Christian education." The first is a degree in how to teach and best present the material at hand; the second is a degree is presenting materials consistent with Christianity. Just like taking English at a college in North America is different from taking English at a college in France. The first will teach you writing, literature and the like; the second will teach you the English language and a bit of writing and liturature. They are not the same degrees.

And, according to Florida which Alex quoted (from where?), he can only claim his title if he is using it in reference to material with religious bent. He isn't even using his full title! He's dropping the "Christian" from it.

K. I agree there is a big difference between a degree in "education" and a degree in "christian education," however neither really has anything to do with what Alex is talking about. He said that Doctor Hovind is using his title to make himself seem smarter. First off, I just want to ask why someone with a degree in "education" is any smarter than a person with a degree in "christian education?" But that's besides the point. Neither a degree in "education" nor in "christian education" have anything to do with science. As you stated education degrees have to do with how to teach and present material. Christian education has to do with evangelism and learning how to properly interpret and teach the word. So neither degree has anything to do with him understanding scientific matter, therefore has nothing to do with him claiming to be smarter than he is.

In my opinion, first, Dr. Hovind taught science for 15 years, so I think he knows how to teach. Second, who would I trust more? Someone who has no training on biblical matters or someone who has been trained in how to interpret and teach scripture. I would definitely trust the second person's opinion more on biblical matters. So perhaps, maybe, just maybe he is including his doctoral title for those who may doubt his understanding of biblical authority.

As far as the fact that he can only claim his title in reference to material that is religious... The quote Alex used is from a liner note of a DVD of a debate he did, sold by his foundation Creation Science Evangelism. I'm pretty sure it is religiously bent, and not only that but overtly religiously bent.

Finally, as I stated before this is a simple ad hominem argument. If you want to debase the creation science foundations debase what they are saying, not who they are or the approach they take. As far as I know no one on here has met any of the people we are talking about. I've met Kent Hovind once and trust me he is the nicest, most sincere guy in the world. He certainly exuded the correct attitude in my opinion. Does that make him right? Of course not, attitude has nothing to do with the truth of your material, take Hitler for example, or the anti-christ that is to come. So, if you want to say he or anyone else is wrong attack their facts not them.

Peace