Well lets start with the flood shall we? Modern geology, and its sub-disciplines of earth science, geochemistry, geophysics, glaciology, paleoclimatology, paleontology and other scientific disciplines utilize the scientific method to analyze the geology of the earth. The key tenets of flood geology are refuted by scientific analysis and do not have any standing in the scientific community. What are you talking about exactly and where are these actual "scientists" that are on board with Noah's Flood? I would like to do a little background checking on their academic qualifications. Im sure you dont mind.

The key tenets of flood geology are refuted by scientific analysis and do not have any standing in the scientific community.

The Supreme Court already ruled against Creationism for two reasons: 1. It is not accepted science 2. It is a veiled way to slip religion into the classroom. It would be ok to teach in philosophy, but it is not a science. Wait... wait, let me check my calendar... ok yeah it is 2009, not science.

Prove that statement.

Krimsa said:



I guess its another one of those "well known facts" like Hitler was not a Catholic.

Prove what statement? That your claim that the "scientific community" has facts that the Biblical Flood did not occur? Of course they don't. There's no empitrical evidence to demonstrate this "fact" - as you claim. My proof is in the fact that there is no proof to substanciate what the "scientific community" to which you refer claims (by your assertion). In addition to this - there is a Scientific Community of Creationist which has laboratories and offices in countries all around the world.

But - we all know that if someone is a believer - they can't be a Credible Scientist according to your world view.

What makes the people who disagree with Dr. Hovind's "Theories" right is scientific fact. And what would have really happened, had his "theories" actually happened.

ELJAY



Hi doll




ok carry on.

Why no, in fact one of the founders of creationism says so himself:
Even prominent creationists like Henry Morris and Duane Gish (who pretty much created scientific creationism) admit that creationism is not scientific in creationist literature. In Biblical Cosmology and Modern Science, Morris, while discussing catastrophism and the Noachic flood, says:

“We cannot verify this experimentally, of course, any more than any of the various other theories of catastrophism [e.g. Velikovsky], but we do not need experimental verification; God has recorded it in His Word, and that should be sufficient.”

This is a statement of religious faith, not a statement of scientific discovery.

Even more revealing, Duane Gish in Evolution? The Fossils Say No! writes:

“We do not know how the Creator created, [or] what processes He used, for He used processes which are not now operating anywhere in the natural universe. This is why we refer to creation as special creation. We cannot discover by scientific investigation anything about the creative processes used by the Creator.”

So, even leading creationists basically admit that creationism is not testable and clearly state that biblical revelation is the source (and “verification”) of their ideas. If Creationism is not considered scientific by the movement’s own leading figures, then how can anyone else be expected to take it seriously as a science?

Anyhow, I like the irony of the Church (one man in a robe) throwing people in jail for scientific heresy and now the chicken has come back to roost.

Now where is the documentation done to verify that Hovind has been "proven" wrong?

And don't presume because I ask this question that I assume he's right, because I make no claim to that effect.

That is a cop out plain and simple. You stated that my assertion was a fallacy. I made a point of quoting myself to demonstrate the exact sentence that you were claiming was fallacious.

So, what’s the hold up here?

No it isn't - because "scientific fact" means that if can be either verified of disproved through experimentation.

Now where is the documentation done to verify that Hovind has been "proven" wrong?

And don't presume because I ask this question that I assume he's right, because I make no claim to that effect.

Yes. I make this claim that you cannot support your assertion without demonstrating that the scientific community to which you refer shares the same world view, and by comparison - you will find as many scientists who disagree with your statement than you do who agree.

Therefore - this "Community" to which you give such high reguard - is split along "Party lines" as it relates to world view.

Is this clear?

Hovind has been criticized by other creationists, including young earth creationists and old earth creationists who believe that many of his arguments are invalid and, consequently, undermine their cause. Disagreements over how to respond to Hovind's claims have themselves contributed to acrimony between creationist organizations. The Australian and U.S. arms of Answers in Genesis (AiG) were critical of Hovind after he had criticized an AiG position document "Arguments we think creationists should NOT use". In particular AiG criticized Hovind for "persistently us[ing] discredited or false arguments".

The U.S arm of AiG, led by Ken Ham had an acrimonious split with its Australian parent in 2005. The Australian organization then split itself entirely off, now styling themselves as Creation Ministries International. Material critical of Hovind was no longer available on the U.S Answers In Genesis website, whereas the Australian CMI website still chose to retain the critical material. The CMI article written by Carl Wieland and Jonathan Sarfati stated that the claims made by Hovind are "fraudulent" and contain "mistakes in facts and logic which do the creationist cause no good." CMI also criticized Hovind for using "fraudulent claims" made by Ron Wyatt in his claims.

Creationist astronomer Hugh Ross, of Reasons to Believe, debated Hovind on the age of the Earth during the John Ankerberg Show, televised nationally on the Inspiration Network in September through October 2000. Ross said Hovind was "misrepresenting the field" of different sciences, and Ross told Hovind: "Astronomers view the credibility of the 'Young Earth' as being much weaker than that for a flat earth." Hovind and Ross previously debated in July 1999 on the Steve Brown Show.

Hovind has stated that carbon dating — a method used by scientists to estimate the age of various objects and events — is unreliable. He has been criticized by Greg Neyman of Answers in Creation (an old Earth creationist group), who says that in Hovind's statements "Hovind goes on to show that he knows absolutely nothing about the science of Carbon Dating." Neyman says that Hovind's claim that "scientists assume the amount of carbon-14 is constant" is wrong, and Neyman writes "there are many periods of decreasing C-14, which disproves his theory that the earth is young based on C-14 equilibrium."

This guy is a nutcase.

huge ross has done many great things for CHRIST but he is a heiritic for saying the earth is millions of years old.how do you believe the bible and put death before sin?