Evidence for God from Science

via google search out [What are your children being taught today] in USA and UK - click on creation today and be amazed and surprised - twinc

Oh goodie! Eric Hovind. I can't wait to see what he has to say.

not a lot, it is Paul Taylor as highy qualified science teacher who does most of the saying - comments - twinc

twinc wrote:not a lot, it is Paul Taylor as highy qualified science teacher who does most of the saying - comments - twinc

Oh joy! I just happened to post an article by Paul Taylor in another thread. Here's the article that made me want to choke my dog:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/article ... 4/six-days

Yeah, but I have never heard someone emphatically say "wooow" as many times as Hovind does in this video.

There are quite a few mistakes they make (likely intentionally) regarding science and science teaching in general. The most glaring to me was the assertion that evolution follows a "conclusion first, evidence later" approach. I couldn't disagree more. Evolution began as a collection of hypotheses developed mainly by Charles Darwin. The overarching Theory of Evolution was set, though it lacked a large amount of fossil evidence and the understanding of hereditary traits from genetics. Nevertheless, Darwin did predict that such things would be found.

As scientists discovered genetics and inheritance of traits, this wasn't "evidence after the conclusion" in the sense that Hovind and Taylor make it out to be. While a conclusion had already been reached many years earlier, hardly anyone regarded it as a fully-formed theory of science. Only after genetics and fossil evidence turned out to back the proposed mechanisms and conclusions of evolution was it fully accepted. As far as fossil evidence today goes, they say that when scientists say it is "reasonable" to expect transitional forms to be found, they are wrong in saying that is bad science. It is a prediction, not hard evidence. Darwin and other scientists predicted that fossils would be found that back evolution. So far, they haven't really been wrong.

And yeah, I almost felt like hurting myself after he started talking about the "evidence" for a global flood and a young Earth in the video and the article rick posted. ou want bad science? That's what you should be looking at.

Ivellious wrote:Yeah, but I have never heard someone emphatically say "wooow" as many times as Hovind does in this video.

There are quite a few mistakes they make (likely intentionally) regarding science and science teaching in general. The most glaring to me was the assertion that evolution follows a "conclusion first, evidence later" approach. I couldn't disagree more.

I am turned into a sort of machine for observing facts and grinding out conclusions. (Charles Darwin)

"Why, if species have descended from other species by fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms? . . . Why do we not find them imbedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth?" ( The Origin of Species, 1859, Masterpieces of Science edition, 1958, pp. 136-137).

The first quote by Darwin is actually helping me out...He bluntly states that he sees things, and concludes what they mean. Which is the proper order, is it not?

The second quote is explained in more detail if you actually read the rest of the chapter, or at least the segment on fossils, where he briefly says that he expects not to find every possible transitional state because the circumstances for creating an intact fossil from a living organism are rare. Also, since the book was written, paleontology has advanced greatly and fossil evidence has been found in droves. Just because at the time we hadn't done a ton of discovering in that field doesn't mean he was wrong to predict that more fossils would be found.

Ivellious wrote:The first quote by Darwin is actually helping me out...He bluntly states that he sees things, and concludes what they mean. Which is the proper order, is it not?

The second quote is explained in more detail if you actually read the rest of the chapter, or at least the segment on fossils, where he briefly says that he expects not to find every possible transitional state because the circumstances for creating an intact fossil from a living organism are rare. Also, since the book was written, paleontology has advanced greatly and fossil evidence has been found in droves. Just because at the time we hadn't done a ton of discovering in that field doesn't mean he was wrong to predict that more fossils would be found.

by the way according to pseudo,con,fake,fraud scientists droves = missing links are still missing - twinc

Ivellious wrote:Yeah, but I have never heard someone emphatically say "wooow" as many times as Hovind does in this video.

There are quite a few mistakes they make (likely intentionally) regarding science and science teaching in general. The most glaring to me was the assertion that evolution follows a "conclusion first, evidence later" approach. I couldn't disagree more. Evolution began as a collection of hypotheses developed mainly by Charles Darwin. The overarching Theory of Evolution was set, though it lacked a large amount of fossil evidence and the understanding of hereditary traits from genetics. Nevertheless, Darwin did predict that such things would be found.

As scientists discovered genetics and inheritance of traits, this wasn't "evidence after the conclusion" in the sense that Hovind and Taylor make it out to be. While a conclusion had already been reached many years earlier, hardly anyone regarded it as a fully-formed theory of science. Only after genetics and fossil evidence turned out to back the proposed mechanisms and conclusions of evolution was it fully accepted. As far as fossil evidence today goes, they say that when scientists say it is "reasonable" to expect transitional forms to be found, they are wrong in saying that is bad science. It is a prediction, not hard evidence. Darwin and other scientists predicted that fossils would be found that back evolution. So far, they haven't really been wrong.

And yeah, I almost felt like hurting myself after he started talking about the "evidence" for a global flood and a young Earth in the video and the article rick posted. ou want bad science? That's what you should be looking at.

naturally of course according to pseudo,con,fake,fraud evolution science droves of transitional forms = missing links are still missing and according to how I read it genetics refutes evolution that never was or could be - twinc

My science teachers in virginia were actually very good at teaching evolution. They always started with something like "i am not up here to change your beliefs or force you to believe something, i'm not challenging what you're taught on sunday". And my oceanography teacher went to my church and was a very kind godly man, teaching evolution does not make anyone less of a christian, it just means they may believe god works in different ways.

Honestly you cannot teach creation, it's largely faith with a base in some portions of science. Teaching creation would require teachers to say "god created us" which of course with school being government funded would violate the 1st amendment.