Ross vs. Hovind Debate

[quantumfaith]

Hamm, of Creation Museum fame, is very liberal in his creation theology.
I have yet to find a point that he has made, that I would side with him against Hovind.
I was raised by a Microbiologist, with an earned doctorate from the U.I.C., and have been instructed thoroughly in the 6 steps in making scientific law.
Hypothesis cannot become theory until it can be proven to show the exact same results in the exact same set of circumstances, 100% of the time. If there is any variation, in testing, the hypothesis must be restated and tested again.
Much of scientific' theory' is actually hypothetical, and predicated on the 'overwhelming evidence' that 'everyone' is repeating it, and not that it has been tested properly.

http://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/howscienceworks_19

 

[quantumfaith]

Hamm, of Creation Museum fame, is very liberal in his creation theology.
I have yet to find a point that he has made, that I would side with him against Hovind.
I was raised by a Microbiologist, with an earned doctorate from the U.I.C., and have been instructed thoroughly in the 6 steps in making scientific law.
Hypothesis cannot become theory until it can be proven to show the exact same results in the exact same set of circumstances, 100% of the time. If there is any variation, in testing, the hypothesis must be restated and tested again.
Much of scientific' theory' is actually hypothetical, and predicated on the 'overwhelming evidence' that 'everyone' is repeating it, and not that it has been tested properly.

Science uses specialized terms that have different meanings than everyday usage. These definitions correspond to the way scientists typically use these terms in the context of their work. Note, especially, that the meaning of “theory” in science is different than the meaning of “theory” in everyday conversation.

Fact: In science, an observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and for all practical purposes is accepted as “true.” Truth in science, however, is never final and what is accepted as a fact today may be modified or even discarded tomorrow.

Hypothesis: A tentative statement about the natural world leading to deductions that can be tested. If the deductions are verified, the hypothesis is provisionally corroborated. If the deductions are incorrect, the original hypothesis is proved false and must be abandoned or modified. Hypotheses can be used to build more complex inferences and explanations.
Law: A descriptive generalization about how some aspect of the natural world behaves under stated circumstances.

Theory: In science, a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses.

I might add, LAWS are most often, if not always, validated by consistent and valid mathematical relationships. ( Equations and Formulae)

 

[Winman]

Hamm, of Creation Museum fame, is very liberal in his creation theology.
I have yet to find a point that he has made, that I would side with him against Hovind.
I was raised by a Microbiologist, with an earned doctorate from the U.I.C., and have been instructed thoroughly in the 6 steps in making scientific law.
Hypothesis cannot become theory until it can be proven to show the exact same results in the exact same set of circumstances, 100% of the time. If there is any variation, in testing, the hypothesis must be restated and tested again.
Much of scientific' theory' is actually hypothetical, and predicated on the 'overwhelming evidence' that 'everyone' is repeating it, and not that it has been tested properly.

So, you are saying that evolution rises only to a hypothesis??

And what do you consider creationism?

 

[quantumfaith]

So, you are saying that evolution rises only to a hypothesis??

And what do you consider creationism?

WM, that depends. It depends if you are going to address it in the domain of "faith" or the domain of science.

In the domain of faith "creationism" is fact. In the domain of science I think it would probably not even rise to the level of hypothesis, but that would of course depend upon the definitions and parameters of "creationism" itself.

 

[Yeshua1]

One of Calvinism's finest minds.

thanks, we both agree that paul was one of the finest calvinistic minds God ever made!

Are you saying that you would place evolution and creationism on same levels of "proof" then, even though jesus was the creator?

 

[Winman]

thanks, we both agree that paul was one of the finest calvinistic minds God ever made!

Are you saying that you would place evolution and creationism on same levels of "proof" then, even though jesus was the creator?

I believe there is much evidence for creation, especially the Cambrian Explosion.

That said, there is much evidence for evolution, because "micro" evolution is true as any educated creationist would tell you. There are wide varieties within kinds.

You must understand the evolutionists are usually speaking of micro-evolution when they say there is evidence for evolution. They are absolutely correct, there is.

But there is no evidence for macro-evolution where one type of animal turns to another, such as this teaching that dinosaurs evolved into birds.

 

[Yeshua1]

I believe there is much evidence for creation, especially the Cambrian Explosion.

That said, there is much evidence for evolution, because "micro" evolution is true as any educated creationist would tell you. There are wide varieties within kinds.

You must understand the evolutionists are usually speaking of micro-evolution when they say there is evidence for evolution. They are absolutely correct, there is.

But there is no evidence for macro-evolution where one type of animal turns to another, such as this teaching that dinosaurs evolved into birds.

Agree that the lord designed and used micro in his creation of life forms, but isn't the real truth that when we see the term evolution, it really means Billions of yeras, Macro, species transformation, mankind evolved from primates etc though?

 

[quantumfaith]

Agree that the lord designed and used micro in his creation of life forms, but isn't the real truth that when we see the term evolution, it really means Billions of yeras, Macro, species transformation, mankind evolved from primates etc though?

Why, if you are willing to accept micro, are so "adamantly" opposed to even the mere mention of macro? If macro happened, it happened first at the micro. That is where all the action is.

 

[Yeshua1]

Why, if you are willing to accept micro, are so "adamantly" opposed to even the mere mention of macro? If macro happened, it happened first at the micro. That is where all the action is.

3 main reasons!

The bible in genesis VERY clear that God made all things in original creation"after their own kind," so no species changing into another one going on there

Macro evolution preassumes extreme aging, which is NOT proven, nor even really verifiable, and also assumes man end product of macro process, not creastion of God!

Finally, there have NEVER been found ANY fossils in the records that support inter species transformations, and even Darwin himself said that was biggest achilles heel to his theory!

 

[prophet]

Micro evolution is a misnomer. I am the son of a microbiologist with and earned Dr. If an organism will react the same way every time, to external stimuli, it isnt evolution, it is mutation. If it were, the original organism would cease to exist in the generation that evolved. The subsequent offspring would never again be able to reproduce a dna pattern that matched their parent's pre-evolution pattern.
This is over simplified, but to call it evolution is to admit ignorance of science.
Dont expect the educaters to help, either. I remember my Mother's doctoral dissertation on gene mutation in e coli. The questions asked by the committee that reviwed here presentation had my sister and I giggling. They had been asked and answered by Dr. Mom, in the dissertation. She was gracious, we laughed out loud.

 

[quantumfaith]

Micro evolution is a misnomer. I am the son of a microbiologist with and earned Dr. If an organism will react the same way every time, to external stimuli, it isnt evolution, it is mutation. If it were, the original organism would cease to exist in the generation that evolved. The subsequent offspring would never again be able to reproduce a dna pattern that matched their parent's pre-evolution pattern.
This is over simplified, but to call it evolution is to admit ignorance of science.
Dont expect the educaters to help, either. I remember my Mother's doctoral dissertation on gene mutation in e coli. The questions asked by the committee that reviwed here presentation had my sister and I giggling. They had been asked and answered by Dr. Mom, in the dissertation. She was gracious, we laughed out loud.

evolution v mutation...... I assume you understand the definition of evolution. It is quite simply change over time. Evolution is simply a generic term to describe how such stimuli perhaps affect mutations in a genetic code. Michael Behe has done great work to demonstrate evolution as defined by naturalists suggests very specific boundaries and parameters. The is absolutely no doubt that micro evolution occurs, even measurably in our world.

 

[prophet]

evolution v mutation...... I assume you understand the definition of evolution. It is quite simply change over time. Evolution is simply a generic term to describe how such stimuli perhaps affect mutations in a genetic code. Michael Behe has done great work to demonstrate evolution as defined by naturalists suggests very specific boundaries and parameters. The is absolutely no doubt that micro evolution occurs, even measurably in our world.

Zzzzzzzzzzzz.

 

[quantumfaith]

Zzzzzzzzzzzz.

Sorry, don't understand your intent.

 

[prophet]

Sorry, don't understand your intent.

The genes of one generation do not conspire with the genes of another, to continue a trend, or direction.
Pure rubbish!
Within a specific species, the same response to the same stimuli affects every generation individually.
If a genetic response to stimuli is not a permanent change within that species, it isn't evolution, it's mutation. Mutation in one generation isn't necessarily going to carry into subsequent ones.
Mutation of the permanent nature will likely cause sterility.
There is no such thing as interspecial mutation, hence mutation cannot be "evolution", or a conspiracy between generations in a species to become another, separate species over time.
Any attempt to explain otherwise is boring old tripe from the ignorant, God denying, falsely-so-called sciences/scientists. So they call gene mutation "micro evolution", cute, zzzzzzz.

 

[Sapper Woody]

Mutation in one generation isn't necessarily going to carry into subsequent ones.

Right. But if it does, that's micro evolution.

Mutation of the permanent nature will likely cause sterility.
There is no such thing as interspecial mutation, hence mutation cannot be "evolution", or a conspiracy between generations in a species to become another, separate species over time.
Any attempt to explain otherwise is boring old tripe from the ignorant, God denying, falsely-so-called sciences/scientists. So they call gene mutation "micro evolution", cute, zzzzzzz.

How do you explain the butterflies that changed to blend in with smog? A mutation. That carried over. From generation to generation. They evolved. But only on a small (or micro) level. Micro-evolution. You do realize that gene mutation that stays IS micro evolution, right?

You are arguing a non position. You are allowing in your arguments exactly what you are arguing against. It's pure semantics. "They didn't evolve, they just passed on a mutated gene." That's evolving.

 

[prophet]

Right. But if it does, that's micro evolution.


How do you explain the butterflies that changed to blend in with smog? A mutation. That carried over. From generation to generation. They evolved. But only on a small (or micro) level. Micro-evolution. You do realize that gene mutation that stays IS micro evolution, right?

You are arguing a non position. You are allowing in your arguments exactly what you are arguing against. It's pure semantics. "They didn't evolve, they just passed on a mutated gene." That's evolving.

You are trying to argue over your own head, parroting others who were doing the same.

 

[Yeshua1]

You are trying to argue over your own head, parroting others who were doing the same.

the simple truth on this is that there has NEVER been evidenced achange in species, as all changes have been within a species to adapt/evolve/mutate, but never been changed to a new and different species as Evoultionary process demands!

 

[Sapper Woody]

You are trying to argue over your own head, parroting others who were doing the same.

Wow, an insult to intelligence and a post not furthering the thread all in one. Not that I have to give any answer to your insult, but I've been studying creation and evolution since I fell in love with the argument at the age of 10. I am parroting no one, simply stating facts that you somehow think are inferior to acknowledge.

 

[quantumfaith]

Right. But if it does, that's micro evolution.


How do you explain the butterflies that changed to blend in with smog? A mutation. That carried over. From generation to generation. They evolved. But only on a small (or micro) level. Micro-evolution. You do realize that gene mutation that stays IS micro evolution, right?

You are arguing a non position. You are allowing in your arguments exactly what you are arguing against. It's pure semantics. "They didn't evolve, they just passed on a mutated gene." That's evolving.

Thank you bringing a bit more clarity than I could manage. It truly is semantics.

 

[quantumfaith]

the simple truth on this is that there has NEVER been evidenced achange in species, as all changes have been within a species to adapt/evolve/mutate, but never been changed to a new and different species as Evoultionary process demands!

So all the different skeletal finds of hominids are what? All just a well designed hoax?