Evolution Types

[logicalmind4]

cont....assemble. Recently, there has now been an experiment that successfully demonstrated how a full self replicating RNA molecule can assemble. Even if that last experiment hadn't happened, abiogenesis would still be a completely valid and more supported than creationism. We know that abiogenesis is completely possible, we're just at the stage of working out exactly how it happened.

[logicalmind4]

cont...fact that a mass of fossils appear in chronological order with increasing complexity as time progresses is predicted by and supports evolution. the fact that over extended periods of time, a sufficiently complete fossil record may not be available to determine how something evolved is irrelevant since the claim being made is that it did evolve, in whatever manner.

[logicalmind4]

Also, define kind. I want a specific definition, as specific as a definition of species. Furthermore, what you call organic evolution, which I presume refers to abiogenesis, has been demonstrated to be able to occur by purely natural means. Indeed, sutherland successfully demonstrated how self-replicating RNA could assemble from non-living precursor materials.

[ericinnit1]

@logicalmind4

Kind is generally family of animal. Look up baraminology. Animals who can mate and have offspring together are of the same kind.

Nobody has demonstrated how abiogenesis can happen. All experiments have failed, or used the wrong conditions and elements.

[logicalmind4]

@ericinnit1

You've essentially defined species there. Does the offspring have to be fertile? Because if it does, then you have exactly defined species. Are horses and donkeys the same kind for example?

No, there have been many experiments that followed from the first main successful one, the miller-urey experiment. It demonstrated that organic material can arise from non organic precursor material. There have been many subsequent experiments demonstrating exactly how different DNA bases.cont

[logicalmind4]

Regarding abiogenesis, it has been successfully demonstrated that life can come from non life by purely natural means. To add to this, Sutherland successfully demonstrated and created RNA from precursor non-living materials in an environment replicant to that of early earth (as it is best estimated to be).

[logicalmind4]

there is such a complete fossil record (for our own evolution) that is predicted and confirmed by evolution is such that you would not even need to observe speciation. The mechanism for evolution has been demonstrated and all life on earth has characteristics and genetics that match a nested hierarchy, as do all fossils. Indeed a way to falsify evolution would be to find just one of the millions of new species being discovered that does not have DNA based around the four nucleotides.

[logicalmind4]

Right, let me address concern about evolution first. We have observed so called "macro-evolution." It has given rise to new species of finches and culex molestus, which can no longer bread with it's close relative, colex pipiens. We've also forced it upon countless bacteria and other lower organisms. Even if we hadn't observed this, the fact that we are so closely related to other primates on a varying degree, (to the point which we even have the full DNA to grow tail) and the fact that....cont

[ericinnit1]

@logicalmind4

Speciation is micro evolution. There are different species within animal kinds (families).

Macro evolution has never been observed.

The fossil record is not complete. Where are the millions of transitional fossils in the Precambrian and Cambrian layers?

[logicalmind4]

@ericinnit1

No, I'm pretty sure most people define micro evolution as variation within a species. Macro evolution, as I have come across the term, is speciation. In any case, we know that species evolve, we have an extraordinarily complete fossil record of recent human evolution, and any other evolutionary progression we speculate on, we only make the claim that they evolved, not that we necessarily know exactly what they gradually evolved into, but it is compelling evidence of the process.

[logicalmind4]

@ericinnit1

It's amazing that we have a fossil record as complete as we do. Fossils are very difficult to create, but, the most important bit is, that it simply supports the overwhelming genetic evidence and observed evolutionary process to establish that the process itself occurs and has occurred. Now, we have an exceptionally complete primate fossil record concerning our own evolution that we find it difficult to come up with classifications for all the discovered species. Then the......cont

[ericinnit1]

@logicalmind4

Yes it is amazing how we have so many fossils. They were all made at the same time during the global flood. But it's not a complete "fossil record" in evolutionary terms. Nobody knows what bats evolved from for example. What did dinosaurs evolve from? Scientists say there are no direct ancestors for ANY species of dinosaurs. Scientists don't agree on what whales evolved from either. The record is NOT "exceptionally complete" at all!

[Peregrineeagle]

Let me just take a second to address variation/speciation (not macro/micro evolution, despite what you think).

Essentially, as variation among a species increases, it will become harder and harder for the newly varied strains of that species to reproduce with each other. short version: pile on enough variation and they can't have babies any more. It's really that simple. This is why Huskies can breed with wolves, but chihuahuas can't. Or you could Google "observed instances of speciation".

[infideluxe]

Every reality converges on evolution,. Every ignorance on creationism. By positing with no proof that your opponent is making fraudulent claims, by providing only "I believe the word of god" as your evidence, you corner yourself .

You are a dolt.

[ericinnit1]

I understand many Christians do believe in evolution, the thing is, you can't believe in evolution and the bible.

Evolution says dinosaurs evolved into birds. The bible says birds were made the day before dinosaurs.

Jesus says He made us male and female, not as a bunch of single celled organisms floating around in pond scum.

As for evidence, I cannot post links in these chat boxes.

[infideluxe]

The bible says....

Jesus says....

Do you even know what science is? You depend on it for your daily transportation, information, health, communication. You rely on scientific research in every aspect of your life.

Science works.

But you've decided that regarding evolution, where science has already provided the only explanation for speciation and has successfully built thereon, you're going to dismiss all evidence as fraud because evolution contradicts your myth story.

You are a hypocrite.

[ericinnit1]

I'm for truth, against lies. I don't believe in myths, not am I a hypocrite.

I believe in science, not outlandish theories made up by man. I don't believe we evolved from pond scum, just as much as I don't believe the Earth is flat.

[Peregrineeagle]

@ericinnit1

we didn't evolve from pond scum, but we do share a common ancestor with it. However, our evolutionary paths split from pond scum so long ago, that the common ancestor is probably an extremely simple form of an early eukaryote. Science, it works.

[ericinnit1]

@Peregrineeagle

I know we didn't evolve from pond scum, but that's where life starts in abiogeneisis theory if you discount the creator God. And where did this pond scum come from? Rocks.

I believe in the beginning God, secular evolutionists believe in the beginning rock.

[Peregrineeagle]

@ericinnit1

If that's actually what you think the accepted theory of abiogenesis states, then you either have been misinformed, have never taken the time to actually find correct information, or have no business arguing about this topic.

I'll make this one quick: organic molecules, especially simple ones, exist throughout our solar system. These are the first building blocks of life, and they did not come from rocks. They are made from heavy elements that occur naturally in the solar system.

[infideluxe]

Dude, you are hilarious! In the most conspiracy-theory-laden, paranoid manner I've ever witnessed, you and your ID proponents have decided that all scientists (Christian ones included) who have contributed to research providing proof of evolution are so concerned with disproving the creationist account that they are all making fraudulent claims. And that by finding a weakness or two in the whole of scientific research, you are somehow able to disprove the entire theory. LOL! Just pathetic.

[infideluxe]

You suggest that there is a conspiracy among palaeontologists. You think that it's reasonable to assume that all palaeontologists are trying to trick you into believing in evolution? Are you thinking that only a minority of fossils represent transitional forms, and those ones are fake? Then you're mistaken; you have overlooked the simple fact that all fossils are transitional, just like all living organisms are transitional.

[ericinnit1]

As for paleontologsists, their funding relies on finding new species etc and to tie it in with evolution. It is known that many skeletons that look similar and could easily be the same animal as each other are named as different species. Frauds.

[infideluxe]

The theory of evolution has been changed and added to countless times since Darwin first proposed it; it will be changed and added to countless times in the future, the day may come when many of Darwin's ideas will be seen as absurd by the scientific community; but at this moment, the theory of evolution is the only scientific theory that explains all the observable data we have in our hands right now. (talkorigins)

Evolution is a triumphant theory. "Goddidit" is not even close.

[ericinnit1]

The theory of evolution is not the only explanation that explains all the observable data we have, the creation account of Genesis explains it all and does a much better job at that.

Gravity is a scientific theory and can be proved, molecules-to-man "evolution" is not a scientific theory. It cannot be tested or proved. It is based on faith.

[infideluxe]

You certainly do have the creation account of Genesis, and you are welcome to attempt to prove that it's a valid model using the same standards by which we accept other facts of nature: the scientific method.

You are speaking of abiogenesis, or the beginning of life from non-life. Evolution is not about abiogenesis. Abiogenesis is under study. Science will tell.

Not yet having an answer gives no merit to "god did it." History should teach you that. "I don't know" is the correct answer here

[ericinnit1]

Well look at what it says in Genesis. All animals were created after their kind. What do we see today? They all reproduce their own kind. No creature has ever created anything other than it's kind. Never have humans ever reprodcued anything other than a human.

No I'm nt talking about abiogenesis. I'm talking about molecules to man! So the first living cells are already in place.

Though abiogenesis is also impossible and provides more problems for your precious theory.

[infideluxe]

The discovery of human ancestors, the DNA & anatomical connections between humans & other animals (& even plants), & the use of animals in medical research falsify the hypothesis of a God who created humans as a distinct life-form. The fossil record, the existence of transitional species, and the actual observation of evolution in the laboratory falsify the hypothesis of a God who created separate "kinds" or species of life forms at one time in history and left them unchanged since."

—Stenger

[infideluxe]

"Evolution is eminently predictive and falsifiable. Darwin specifically predicted that recognizable human ancestors would be found in Africa. Many how have been. Evolutionary theory predicted that the use of antiviral or antibacterial agents would result in the emergence of resistant strains. This principle is, or course, a mainstay of contemporary medicine. Paleontologists correctly predicted that species showing the evolution from fish to amphibian would be found in Devonian strata." (cont'd)

[ericinnit1]

"Darwin specifically predicted that recognizable human ancestors would be found in Africa"

And that's why secular scientists today specifically interpret them as such. Never once do they ponder that humans could have ever been deformed, or slightly different looking. Look at today's aborigines, their bone structures are different from western people. They also mix in monkey bones so they can say they've found a "missing link".

[infideluxe]

Come now! Now your just making baseless accusations. All you really have is a finger-pointing "liar, liar!" technique going for you, with absolutely no good theory of your own.

You are only making poor guesses now and making the rest up as you go along. This is an absolutely absurd conclusion at which to arrive. What you really want to say is, "Never once do they ponder Genesis." But you cannot, thus an attempt at sounding scientific and reasonable.

[ericinnit1]

What have I made up? What have I guessed at? My words are from years of research thanks.

My theory is not only my own but the whole world's. God has told us what He did. If you choose to ignore it and listen more to fallible man's ideas, then that's your decision. But when the time comes, don't say nobody told you.

[infideluxe]

The fact that science, even without Stenger, bears out the evidence I mentioned below shouldn't get in your way, mind you. Michael Behe, in the Dover Trial, didn't let evidence get in his way, either. Quite embarrassing for him when he was presented with a stack of research refuting his argument from irreducible complexity. You could learn something from Behe's excessive pride and intellctually bankrupt claims.

[ericinnit1]

Where was the evidence Darwin had for that? Erm, he had none.

Many scientists believe in what you do because it's what they are taught at uni, regardless of it's validility. Some fortunate ones come to discover the truth though (that God is the creator and told us how He did it).

I'm not the one to decide where you end up.

Medicine isn't based on macro evolution at all. It doesn't help any part of society. In fact it hinders it by causing racism.

[infideluxe]

You are lost in your delusion. You've drunk the Kool-aid and no amount of evidence will convince you that you are wrong.

Unable to think clearly, you are unable to hold a dialogue with any amount of intellectual honesty. I leave you to your ramblings.

You will no doubt claim, "Victory!" But this is the same cry as the chess player who upsets the board and spills the pieces on the floor,.

[infideluxe]

When the time comes, huh? Gracious, you're scaring me! Am I going to hell!?

When the time comes that your prayers aren't able to cure a sick loved one, and you depend on evolution-based science, don't say nobody told you.

[infideluxe]

This example, among many, refutes the frequently heard creationist claim that "transitional forms" (presumably meaning transitional species) do not exist. Paleontologists had expected to find transitions from land-based mammals to whales for years. In the past decade, sicence journals, as well as the media, have been full of these finds.....The failure many of these predictions would have falsified evolution. They did not fail."

—Victor Stenger

[infideluxe]

"'m talking about molecules to man! "

I'm pretty sure you don't actually know what you're talking about.

[ericinnit1]

As for the "transitional forms" between land mammals and whales, there's no agreement as to which animal type it was. Which I can demonstrate if you wish me to.

No point quoting secular scientists. The one I looked up (Stenger) is a staunch atheist, he has an agenda. Of course they'll support evolution, it's what pays them. If any evolution scientist speaks out against it, they lose their job and funding.

[infideluxe]

All you're doing is trying to find gaps and filling them with god. You have no argument.

Science is the most effective way of understanding our universe. Scientists follow the evidence, perform blind studies, create replicatable experiments.

Darwin was studying for the clergy. His discovery caused him much grief. It's a great example of a scientist following evidence whatever the consequences.

A majority of scientists are secular because they understand more. They do not begin with a bias.

[ericinnit1]

No not at all. I start with God's word, I don't use it to fill in gaps. If things contradict it, they are not true. This has always shown to be the case.

I'm not suprised he caused himself grief. He still does. Thing is, he didn't actually have evidence. All he did was see different types of animals at the Galapagos and came up with an idea that animals change. This I agree with. But then he went too far in coming up with the crazy idea that all living things are related. cont..

[infideluxe]

Starting with God's word is your problem, since it is by definition unchanging, and since it by definition holds itself as the only truth.

You are trapped in the circular reasoning of God's word, and that is not my problem, nor is it my place to educate you about reality. You apparently missed that boat long ago.

The evidence is there for you if you care to see it. Denying it will not make it go away. It will only continue to stunt your intellect. I'm truly sorry.

[ericinnit1]

Don't be sorry, I've found the truth and information that debunks macro evolution theory and old earth theory. We don't even need to look into the big bang theory, secular scientists debunk that for us lol.

[infideluxe]

Nope. You've found an excuse to justify the Bronze-age concept of human centrality in the universe through superstitious thinking and denial of all the evidence presented.

It's okay - you still have lots of company, though not as much as before.

[ericinnit1]

Because it was written a long time ago, doesn't make it false. If anything, it makes it more trustworthy and correct.

I'm not here to make friends. I know I'm in the minority. I just stand up for truth. You just keep following the flock of sheep and not bothering to look into it eh.

[infideluxe]

Because it is mythology makes it false. Just like Zeus, Thor, Mithra, and I'm sure you're an atheist with respect to the mythologies of Islam and Judaism.

What makes something reliable in the real world is the ability to test it.

I love how religious people take their own attributes—"flock of sheep" in this case—and use them in an insulting manner to label others. If that's not telling, I don't know what is.

"I start with God's word"

Oh, so you haven't bothered to "look into it"?

[ericinnit1]

Christianity isn't part of mythology though. It's history that archaeologists prove time and time again.

You said I have stunted intellect, you insult first, then accuse me of being insulting? Hardly insulting though.

You claim your belief is in the majority (in regards to evolution), which I agree with. So that constitutes the flock. Does it not?

If we were all sheep, I'd be the odd black one.

[infideluxe]

The flock follows blindly, all about obedience without question to an alleged unchanging truth. Science welcomes change and challenges; that's one of its greatest strengths.

Islam makes the same claims about its "proof", knowing, just as you "know", that it is the one truth to the exclusion of others. Christianity hijacks science when it is convenient, now, doesn't it?

Your intellect is stunted because you've given up reason for blind faith. That includes "starting with God's word."

[ericinnit1]

It's not "blind faith". I would be stupid to just follow a religion blindly.

More than 99% of muslims are born into it. Their parents are muslims, so they are too. If they attempt to convert to a different religion, they are put to death. It's also against the law in muslim countries.

Christianity doesn't hijack science anymore than people trying to prove evolution. There's science in the bible what your scientists have only just come to realise in recent times. We're way ahead.

[infideluxe]

There's your misunderstanding. People aren't trying to "prove evolution." Evolution theory is based on evidence. It has not been falsified, despite your best (and that's being polite) efforts.

The Bible is not a scientific book. It is only the gullible theist's "open-minded" interpretations that lead him to buy this.

Science does not operate on confirmation bias. Religion does. That is why scientists are open to any evidence that disproves them. Theists are not. That's dogma.

[ericinnit1]

Of course people are trying to prove it. Why do you think there's so many fake "transitional fossils"? Paleontologists spend their entire lives looking for bones to misinterpret and put forward for their sacred theory.

I know the bible isn't a scientific book, otherwise it would be out of date within months. But it contains science that man didn't know about when it was written, proving it is God-inspired.

[infideluxe]

When you label as "fake" the finds of paleontologists, and accuse them of incorrect interpretations, you'd better be able to back yourself up with solid evidence.

So, which transitional fossils are fake?

[ericinnit1]

Well the latest find ida, hailed as a transitional form and related to humans, was later played down as just a lemur (as creationists had already said) and is not related to humans.

Look at the others, only skulls, parts of skulls or just a few bones are supposed to be links between ape and man. Yet they never consider these are just human, deformed humans, or just a species of ape not extinct. They are clutching at straws.

[ericinnit1]

There's also been several well known accounts of skulls that were made up of some human remains and some ape remains. I can't remember their names off hand, but I'll have a dig for info.

[infideluxe]

All thanks to talkorigins, by the way. If you deny the validity of these statements, the onus is on you to rebut them point by point, rather than saying dismissing them out of hand.

Gravity is a theory just evolution. Your understanding of "theory" may be uninformed, though. Evolution is possibly the single most-supported theory in biology. The fossil record supports it, genetics supports it. The evidence for evolution is every bit as solid as the evidence for gravity.

[infideluxe]

"Religion vs religion"? I don't think so. Science does not work like religion, I'm sorry to tell you.

Every single one of your claims are false and are thoroughly debunked. No space here, but google "Index to Creationist Claims edited by Mark Isaak" and you will end up at talkorigins.

Evolution has more evidence for it than does gravity. It simply inconveniences the worldview put forth by the bible, so Christians, who, by the way, have nothing to replace it with, simply spread lies about it.

[ericinnit1]

We can test gravity, there's no scientific test for macro evolution. Therefore it's not science. It's just a hypothesis.

There isn't nay evidence for it either. All they do is find some bones and misinterpret them.

[infideluxe]

Are you aware that your denial of evolution's evidence, from all scientific branches, in order to support supernatural wishful thinking is pitiful?

[infideluxe]

We would not expect to observe large changes directly. Evolution consists mainly of the accumulation of small changes over large periods of time. If we saw something like a fish turning into a frog in just a couple generations, we would have good evidence against evolution.

The evidence for evolution does not depend, even a little, on observing macroevolution directly. There is a very great deal of other evidence (Theobald 2004; see also evolution proof).

[ericinnit1]

I know changes happen within animal kinds, that's why we have different dog breeds etc, but it's always a dog.

In order for molecule to man evolution to happen, there needs to be information added to the genes, this has never been observed. The only observed mutations is a loss of information (which rings true with science law in that everything is unravelling, nothing in nature is getting better and it's anti science to think that it does).

[infideluxe]

As biologists use the term, macroevolution means evolution at or above the species level. Speciation has been observed and documented.

[infideluxe]

Microevolution has been observed and is taken for granted even by creationists. And because there is no known barrier to large change and because we can expect small changes to accumulate into large changes, microevolution implies macroevolution. Small changes to developmental genes or their regulation can cause relatively large changes in the adult organism (Shapiro et al. 2004).

There are many transitional forms that show that macroevolution has occurred.

[ericinnit1]

There are known barriers, they become infertile (look at the mules, ligers etc).

Just because you didn't know about the barriers, doesn't mean they don't exist.

[arachnophile01]

okay, look, speciation happens and new genetic information is produced. ur denying walking and chewing bubblegum in a sense and second if u r gonna define evolution use the evolutionists definition. otherwise ur arguing a strawman

[ericinnit1]

I was right, there is confusion.

Species exist within animal kinds. I do not deny that animals change, just not beyond their kind.

[arachnophile01]

kind is a strange term.  how does one go about scientifically determining kind?

[Thothsglyphs]

Also, I have told you on your very own channel what you are feeding to the people. A person by the name of Extant Dodo makes videos about Kent Hovind. I suggest that you check it out.

[ericinnit1]

I watched one of Extantdodo's vids on Hovind yesterday. Oh the lies.

[Atriviality]

Yeah. Kent had a tendency to do that. You get used to it.

[Thothsglyphs]

Do you even check to see if it's real or not?

[Atriviality]

I'll make this really simple for you. Evolution means 'progressive change'. It doesn't, nor has it ever, meant 'origin'.

In science, there is only 1 theory of evolution. It is the unifying theory of biology that studies how organisms have changed, are changing, and might change. It is used (among other things) to trace genealogy, manage food production, and develop new medical treatments.

[ericinnit1]

Well I believe that changes happen within animal kinds, that much has been observed. That's why we get mutations in viruses, new dog breeds etc. But I don't believe animals can evolve into different kinds, such as monkeys into humans etc or that we shar common ancestors. Nor do I believe in cosmic, chemical or stellar evolution.

Now you tell me, do I believe in evolution?

[Atriviality]

So scientifically speaking, what's the difference between a monkey kind, and a human kind?

So you don't believe the universe is changing (cosmic), chemicals can change (chemical), or stars can change (stellar), even though we have observed all 3?

"Now you tell me, do I believe in evolution?"

- Well you probably do to some extent, but you'd never admit it.

[ericinnit1]

I believe the universe is changing in the sense that it's running out, winding down, stars are blowing up, never forming, not evolving.

Big Bang theory says the universe started as hydrogen and some helium, where did all the other elements come from?

I find it shocking you even need to ask for differences between monkeys and humans.

[Atriviality]

"stars are blowing up, never forming, not evolving."

- Actually star formation has been observed for decades. At least since the 60s.

"Big Bang theory says the universe started as hydrogen and some helium, where did all the other elements come from?"

- Nucleosythesis. Again, we've seen it and have known about it since the 20s.

"I find it shocking you even need to ask for differences between monkeys and humans."

- Then please define SCIENTIFICALLY the difference between the 2 kinds.

[ericinnit1]

Nobody has ever seen a star form. That is just their interpretation. My interpretation of these "observed formations" is space dust moving out of the way of stars that were already there.

So scientists can form uranium from hydrogen?

Monkeys are not of the same intelligence as humans. They cannot learn speech, or know God, or design and build a machine, it's a very long list.

[Atriviality]

The unfortunate flaw with your interpretation is that they're watching the the stars grow with infrared cameras that the dust can't obstruct.

Scientists can't directly form uranium from hydrogen because hydrogen is a very light element, and uranium is a very heavy element. However it is possible to build up many hydrogen atoms to form uranium through nucleosynthesis.

So learning speech, knowing God, and building machines is the scientific difference between human kind and monkey kind?

[Thothsglyphs]

Actually, they have. By the way, what does it matter? Do you know how long it takes pluto to orbit the sun?

[arachnophile01]

your now talking about socialogical evolution instead of biological evolution. and so what if we have more dexterous tongues than monkeys. peoples tngue dexterity differs. lastly how do you know monkeys do not have some form of communicating with a higher being? did god tell you this

[ericinnit1]

Some monkeys do communicate to a higher being - us.

[quedorf]

Lawilison is correct. All these in this video are silly things creationists bring up to confuse the situation.  Also learn the difference between a theory and a actual process.

[ericinnit1]

It wasn't the creationists who came up with all these terms. Why would we when we only agree with the Micro one? All the others are fairytales.

[quedorf]

Simply because creationists are the one who came up with micro and macro, and try to distinguish between the two. And yes creationists did make the others up. And to be honest none of what you mentioned are theories.

[ericinnit1]

Russian entomologist Yuri Filipchenko (or Philipchenko, depending on the transliteration) first coined the terms "macroevolution" and "microevolution" in 1927 in his German language work, "Variabilität und Variation".

So there we have it. A secular scientist coined the terms.

[lawilson200]

I thought this was a video to end some "confusions" with evolution. But, you were already failing within the first 21 seconds of the video.

I will make this simple for you and your audience. How many theories of evolution are there? One. And it deals with changes in allelles in a given population through time. There, was that answer so hard. End of any possible confusion.

[ericinnit1]

Wrong. You have just confirmed what I accuse evolutionists of doing.

[lawilson200]

And this is why your side will never win.

[ericinnit1]

We already know who wins in the end, God and His followers.

[lawilson200]

Speaking as a Christian, the day when Christ returns is a day we look forward to. Scripture contains everything necessary for salvation. The problem with those who insist nature conform to Scripture have lost sight on the duty we have as Christians and actually elevated worshipping the text of Scripture. This is idolatory You may think the path you are on is the way to salvation, but in the end, you are following a false prophet.

[ericinnit1]

Who is my false prophet? The Bible claims to be the word of God and I believe that. If you don't believe it is true, then you don't believe the word of God. You accuse God of lying.

[lawilson200]

And you are blind, I see. Scripture contains all thing necessary for salvation. But Scripture is not a science book and to treat scripture as such is idolatry. This a false teaching.

[ericinnit1]

I'm glad it's not a science book. Science books are constantly revised. Read a science book from 200 years ago and you'll see a lot of false information in there, whereas the Bible remains true. Although the Bible does contain some science, history, drama. But I do not idolise the Bible, God Himself is above His word.

The scripture isn't only for salvation, there's also instruction and important information, some of which modern science is only just discovering.

[lawilson200]

That is the difference between dogma and science. Dogma is unchanging. Science grows as our understanding of the natural world grows.

You had placed scriptures above nature. This is idolatry. I noticed you used material sourced to Kent Hovind. This is a prime example of you following a false prophet. God has ways of exposing false prophets. Kent placed himself above God and this is how he landed himself in prison. God exposed him for his falsehoods.

[ericinnit1]

So following and believing God's word is idolatry? No it's not. I do not worship a book.

Kent Hovind is not a false prophet, all he does is put information out there and expose lies. US law states that ministries are expempt from tax, which is why he wasn't paying it. Being in prison doesn't discredit his work, just as Paul's books are in the Bible despite being written whilst he was in prison.

[lawilson200]

Following and believing God's word is not idolatory. Demanding that nature act in accordance to your interpretation of Scripture is.

Hovind is not an ordained minister. He used his business for personal gain and tried to shield his business from the taxes he owed through illegal means.

He placed himself above God's word and was burned for it. Remember what Christ said, "Give to God what belongs to God and give to Ceaser what belongs to Ceaser."

[ericinnit1]

Good job I don't demand that nature acts in any way then eh.

CSE is a ministry and therefore doesn't require to pay tax. Go read the FAQ on their website regarding the incident.

He isn't in it for the money. CSE is the only creation ministry I know of who don't copyright their material. He wants the information to reach the masses. It's all about reaching out to poeple with the truth.

Watch the end of his videos and you'll see how sincere he is and that he just wants people to know God.

[lawilson200]

Hovind business was not sanctioned by any established religious organization. which is why his request for tax exemption was denied.

He conducted his operations illegally by commiting fraud through various acts, including paying his employees only in cash and by refusing to deduct taxes from that pay, to avoid lawful efforts to monitor and audit the functions of the business.

Hovind is no martyr for the cause. He is in prison because he was found guilty of committing crimes by a jury.

[ericinnit1]

From the start of the ministry, Dr. Hovind sought legal counsel on the proper way to compensate those who would serve with him in the ministry. He was told by several attorneys that as a 508 organization, CSE was not required to withhold taxes and that each person serving would be responsible for paying their own income taxes. For seventeen years the ministry operated without incident, and no notice was ever given to CSE or Dr. Hovind that the IRS wanted any changes made on this issue until the

[ericinnit1]

day the charges were brought.

Up until 2003, CSE withdrew cash in order to compensate those who served at CSE. There was no knowledge of bank secrecy laws and never any intention of evading Internal Revenue Service regulations.

Because Dr. Hovind filed papers questioning actions of the IRS, which was his legal right, he was charged with "impeding" the agency. They also believed he "threatened agents with bodily harm" by praying for those involved on public radio.

[lawilson200]

Ignorance of the law is no excuse.

Hovind could not claim ignorance of the law because this was an ongoing issue for 10 years prior to his indictment.

Hovind's counterargument constituted an illegal defense, which his attorney wisely chose not to present.

Telephone conversations made from jail and posted on You Tube showed Hovind making physical threats to the judge, his family and law enforcement officers to sentencing.

The more you try, the more you lose.