Olympus-OM
[Top] [All Lists]

[OM] Re: Scientific "theories" proposed as facts (OT- probably controver

Subject: [OM] Re: Scientific "theories" proposed as facts (OT- probably controversial)
From: Andrew Fildes <afildes@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2007 18:31:15 +1100
I don't have enough bandwidth or speed to go downloading all this so  
I went straight to the information section where I discovered that he  
has three 'Christian Education' degrees, the highest from something  
called the Patriot Bible College. That's not a good start if we're  
talking balanced views.
I can read and don't need nice little movies so if you can provide a  
url for text, I'd be grateful.
However I read the rules for 'proving evolution' according to Dr  
Hovind and I'm still laughing.
Quote - *NOTE: The word evolution Dr. Hovind is referring to is not  
the minor variations found in all of the various life forms, but the  
general theory of evolution which believes these five major events  
took place:
    1. Time, space, and matter came into existence by themselves.
    2. Planets and stars formed from space dust.
    3. Matter created life by itself.
    4. Early life-forms learned to reproduce themselves.
    5. Major changes occurred between these diverse life forms (i.e.,  
fish changed to amphibians, amphibians changed to reptiles, and  
reptiles changed to birds or mammals). - end quote.
That's as ridiculous as attempting to prove the existence of God. I  
can prove evolutionary theory to some extent with a can of fly spray,  
given a few months but he won't accept that proof.
Oh, and I'll pay more than $250K for proof of God from Dr Hovind -  
but my rules are complex, comprehensive and one of them does involve  
a personal visit from the deity for a chat and a cup of tea. Seems an  
essential par of the proof to me (as the ontological proof is  
logically nice but fundamentally flawed).

--Er, irony alert. --
Andrew Fildes
afildes@xxxxxxxxxxxxx



On 27/02/2007, at 8:38 AM, r.burnette@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:

> You might not agree with his conclusions, but he is definitely  
> thouht-provoking. He does an excellent job of exposing glaring  
> inconsistencies between certain scientific laws (i.e. Laws of  
> Thermodynamics) and many "speculative conclusions" regarding  
> evolution presently taught as scientific "facts." His treatment of  
> the Big Bang Theory is well worth the time it takes to listen.
>
> http://freehovind.com/watch-id-4308235066145651150



==============================================
List usage info:     http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies:        olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
Sponsored by Tako
Impressum | Datenschutz