I have read their material, and can see how their "evidence" could influence people. They bend the facts just enough to make their argument. Is this what keeps people believing fairy tales?
2006-06-12 10:15:42 · 14 answers · asked by bc_munkee 5 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
sparky: check out drdino.com and you will see exactly what I am talking about.
2006-06-12 10:20:27 · update #1
dmd: I challenge you to name one credible scientist who fully supports the idea of intelligent design.
2006-06-12 10:30:36 · update #2
Yes of course they are! They and the suckers they mislead.
The brilliance of the charlatans of our day can be seen in the postings of many of their followers to yahoo answers. These charlatans have convinced the ignorant that not only is their opinion just as good as the opinion of experts (people who have spent their entire life studying a subject) it's actually better, because it's not based on unapproachable 'egghead' stuff, but on a child-like faith in sweet Jesus that even an idiot can have.
Crooks like Stroebel and Hovind are lying to this crowd and they mostly know it too.
Just one example of this is their treatment of radioactive dating. When creationists say that dinosaur bones have been found that radio-carbon date to a few thousand years old, this leads their readers to assume that the dinosaur bones are only a few thousand years old, but surely the creationist know that carbon14 has a half-life of only of 5730 years. Potassium-argon dating is used to date anything over a million years old, and using that dating method, dinosaur bones date from between 140 and 65 million years. The creationists must know a simple fact like that. They complain about the unreliability of radioactive dating methods but see no problem with setting their clocks to standards based on radioactive decay. It's extremely reliable as a method of setting chronology.
There is a vast array of intertwining evidence that supports evolution, and the extremely old age of the universe and of the earth. Fields as diverse as biology, chemistry, geology, geography, nuclear physics, and astronomy, have given humans a wonderfully coherent and comprehensive picture of the universe we live in, of what it used to be like, and of what it most probably will be like in the future. It is a picture based on theories with not just great, but astonishing, predictive power.
Creation science proves nothing, does not explain existing evidence, and has astonishingly poor predictive power. This is why no one at all, except Christian Fundamentalists, believes in creationism.
Unfortunately creationists sound impressive to the ignorant and the gullible, and the English speaking world has both these types in abundance.
2006-06-12 12:21:05 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 7⤊ 2⤋
Probably. I don't know about Lee Stroebel, but, Kent Hovind is a great speaker and he's pretty convincing. I personaly think he's better at disproving evolution than he is at proving creation. He's probably wrong about the evolution stuff too, I just don't know enough about it to defend it. Most people would see him as a very likeable guy. The title "Doctor" he gives himself makes him seem like a much more credible source. "Oh, if a doctor wrote this, it MUST be true!" (Well in many cases doctors are right, but, Hovind ISN'T a doctor) In reality, he's full of crap and getting rich.
I'll have to look up Lee Stroebel, I don't know who he is.
2006-06-12 17:28:07 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
My faith keeps me believing the truth. Why do you consider these authors as bending the facts? Evolution is only a THEORY, every argument by Darwin has not been proved as fact, in matter fact, some of his theories have been disproved. Most scientist now days agree with Intelligent Design. To have Intelligent Design, you need a Creator. The Creator is God.
2006-06-12 17:21:04 · answer #3 · answered by Gardener for God(dmd) 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Stroebel and Hovind, are most likely making a sizable income, with their theories.
I however would get more joy from adding feet and a spine to the Jesus logo. Or whatever the Darwin logo looks like.
What I think, really is that man is vibrating at a level that is much lower than we are capable of.
We are constantly being bombarded with information to save our soul.. Well, I think we have two spirits. I don't need anyone to tell me how to house mine, and constantly threaten me with Fire and Damnation. I have my own matches.
The whole World vibrates.
Whatever we send out, effects the whole Universe.
Bob Marley sang it so.......
And, I believe in Fairy Tales, and Myself.
I hope this spelling check is correct. My lovely Yahoo mail tried to have me change, ooooooooh, to pooh....Winnie I hope....
2006-06-12 17:59:17 · answer #4 · answered by gypsyworks 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The dismal state of public education is a big factor in their success. Too many people have an incomplete understanding of how science actually works.
But primarily, I think the Stroebels and Hovinds mainly convince those who already believe them, or are prepared to believe them, or aren't in a position to know better, such as the unfortunate high-school kids that Hovind once taught.
2006-06-12 17:23:28 · answer #5 · answered by ? 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Check this out, I found it rather interesting:
String theory debunked!
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2102-2214707,00.html
Apparently physicists have been supporting string theory on shaky grounds for decades virtually blind to the theory's faults.
I found this article's arguments against string theory eerily similar to arguments against evolution.
1) An explanation is scientific, according to Popper, only if it can be used to make predictions of a kind that can be falsified: in other words, can be checked to be right or wrong.
Like string theory, evolution cannot be falsified. It either happened or it didn't, and scientists say we cannot observe macroevolution, that it happens over "millions of years" so it is not a scientific theory in this sense.
2) Woit’s second main objection is that string theory offers no possibility of producing experimental evidence.
The same is true for macroevolution - we have experimentally observed microevolution (evolution within a species) but we have no possibility (aside from waiting millions of years) of producing experimental evidence of macroevolution (evolution to a new species).
3) the domination of string theory in universities has stifled progress in alternative research programmes within theoretical physics.
Look at the angry backlash against anyone who dares to express less than complete alliegence to Darwinism... (If you doubt such backlash exists, take a look at your own question)
Check out the article for more - it may give you something to think about.
2006-06-12 17:29:23 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
so are you saying that evolution is a fairy tale and creationism isnt? mkaaayyy.
update: bc_munkee, i checked out the website and take back my snarkiness and apologize. :) so, now that i have pulled my head out of my butt, i will have to say that i agree with you in part, but i also think the evolution/creation debate would rage even without these people.
2006-06-12 17:18:41 · answer #7 · answered by sparkydog_1372 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Lack of proof keeps the debate going.And don't say there is tons of proof,if there was any evolution would not be a theory.The scientists do not accept it as fact why should we?
2006-06-12 17:34:30 · answer #8 · answered by Tommy G. 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Alrighty then!
No! Wouldn't it be the Word of God that keeps the truth out ? The Word of God has always been here so it must really be the evolutionists who are doing this!
2006-06-12 17:20:53 · answer #9 · answered by Jen 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Because you choose not to have Faith, and turn your life over to the LORD, that doesnt mean that others will pass up this chance of living forever!
Each of us is given a choice, to accept JESUS CHRIST as our Saviour, or not...
I pray that you choose wisely, and dont pass up the chance at immortality...
I wish you well
Jesse
2006-06-12 17:18:26 · answer #10 · answered by x 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋