100 Reasons Why Evolution Is Stupid (Part 1 of 11)

[Olowkow]

Now it is believed that all the matter in the universe started out as being no bigger than a period at the end of this sentence. Eventually all the matter in the universe will be compacted down to the size of a period again and that this cycle happens every 80 to 100 billion years. They call this science and they teach it to children in schools.

No. It has been discovered that the universe is accelerating in its expansion, and will most likely expand forever. A bunch of really smart guys figured this out, while Hovind is languishing in jail.

 

[Simon39759]

Lately I have discovered that I seem to have developed an interest in science as presented by guys like this (Dr. Kent Hovind) who seem to me, to have a good understanding of science but not so much the Bible,

His understanding of both is actually quite terrible.
And, considering that he lies like he was completing is tax form, his understanding is pretty irrelevant.

so I'm interested in what "evolutionist" have to say about that more than his religious beliefs. What interests me is that he sees evolution as a religious belief, and so this thread is in religion rather than science.

Nope, it's not.
The theory of evolution (by means of natural selection) is using the methodology of science.

Personally I disagree with his modern day Christian perspective, such as the Bible being inerrant, as well as his position on the universe being only 6,000 years, dinosaurs existing with alongside humans and - well, his views on returning that which belong to Caesar to Caesar, aside, the main points in this video (part 1 of 11) which make sense to me are as follows.

1. Evolution is a slippery word. His definition allows for 5 unscientific and purely theoretical possibilities, namely; Cosmic evolution (the origin of time, space and matter), Chemical evolution (The origin of higher elements from hydrogen), Stellar and planetary evolution (Origin of stars and planets), Organic evolution (origin of life), and Macro-evolution (Changing from one kind into another), as well as 1 possibility which is scientific (observed) and in harmony with the Bible and that is Micro-evolution (variations within a kind).

And, there it goes down to hell.
Evolution is a slippery word and, indeed, the theory is not just named 'evolution', it is the 'theory of evolution by means of natural selection'.
This term encompass both micro and macro-evolution that are, really, the same thing.
Scientists sometime make the distinction, but not a particularly useful one, in general.
Creationist use this distinction and really emphasis it as a mean to move the goalposts. Basically, they finally realized that they could not longer argue against the theory of evolution and now make an arbitrary distinction within it and pretends it to be significant...

Regarding cosmic evolution he uses the unscientific Big Bang. He asks "What exploded?" He points out that according to Isaac Asimov, Georges Edward Lemaitre's notion of the big bang was that it was a mass of "no more than a few light-years in diameter." (about twelve trillion miles). In 1965 this was reduced to 275 million miles, in 1972 down to 71 million miles, 1974 down to 54 thousand miles, 1983 down to a trillionth the diameter of a proton. Now they say that nothing exploded.

Now it is believed that all the matter in the universe started out as being no bigger than a period at the end of this sentence. Eventually all the matter in the universe will be compacted down to the size of a period and that this happens every 80 to 100 billion years.

That is the end of part 1.

Yes, our understanding of the Big-Bang has improved. Basically, because light travels at given speed, looking further in space allows us to look back in time. As our technology improved, we were able to look further and further back.
In addition, our calculations and model were refined, partly based on these new observations.

By the way, our model only go back to a few fraction of a second after the BigBang. So, either the author was wrong, or Hovind misquoted him. Remember, the guy is a liar.

But, if you look at the video, his whole stuff is an argument by incredulity, it's not only a logical fallacy, it's also incredibly arrogant. Yes, the BigBang was found convincing for generations among the smartest, best educated scientist of the planet, but, me, Kent Hovind, decided it was stupid! So, shame on them!

 

[paximperium]

Yeah, I wanted you to say something other than that that which you don't agree with is stupid. I wanted you to tell me why.

Hovind does that in the video himself. Hovind's version of evolution is stupid and he takes a long time debunking his own made up fantasy thing which he calls "evolution".

His entire premise is false. The definition of evolution is well established and Hovind is either unaware of this basic fact or purposefully lying about it.

evolution: Darwin defined this term as "descent with modification." It is the change in a lineage of populations between generations. In general terms, biological evolution is the process of change by which new species develop from preexisting species over time; in genetic terms, evolution can be defined as any change in the frequency of alleles in populations of organisms from generation to generation.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/glossary/index.html#e
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/evo_02
http://www.emc.maricopa.edu/faculty/farabee/biobk/biobookevolii.html

 

[drkitten]

1. Evolution is a slippery word.

Not really. Biologists have a very specific definition of it : "the sequence of events involved in the evolutionary development of a species or taxonomic group of organisms." (WordNet). A more technical definition (but coming under fire now) is simply "a change in the frequency of alleles of a population group.")

Neither of those definitions include "cosmic evolution," which makes the following paragraph rather irrelevant.

Regarding cosmic evolution he uses the unscientific Big Bang. He asks "What exploded?" He points out that according to Isaac Asimov, Georges Edward Lemaitre's notion of the big bang was that it was a mass of "no more than a few light-years in diameter." (about twelve trillion miles). In 1965 this was reduced to 275 million miles, in 1972 down to 71 million miles, 1974 down to 54 thousand miles, 1983 down to a trillionth the diameter of a proton. Now they say that nothing exploded.

Now it is believed that all the matter in the universe started out as being no bigger than a period at the end of this sentence. Eventually all the matter in the universe will be compacted down to the size of a period again and that this cycle happens every 80 to 100 billion years. They call this science and they teach it to children in schools.

Yes, they do call that science and they do teach it to children in schools, largely because it's supported by empirical evidence. (Although the idea that the matter in the universe will be compacted down to the size of the period again is not science; we know approximately how much mass there would need to be in the universe for this to be the case, and it's very much an open question whether there is that much mass. There's evidence for the initial explosion, but not much evidence for the Big Crunch.)

In the case of the Big Bang, Arno Penzias won a Nobel Prize for his discovery of the cosmic microwave background radiation, which had been predicted as a consequence of the Big Bang, but had never been seen. That's one of the strengths of science; scientists make predictions, other scientists run experiments, and when those experiments match the predictions, that makes us feel that the theory from which the predictions were made are likely to be true.

But this whole question of the origin of the cosmos is largely irrelevant to the question of evolution; if Hoyle's theory of "continuous creation" had turned out to be more accurate instead, that wouldn't have had any effect on "the sequence of events involved in the evolutionary development of a species or taxonomic group of organisms."

This, then, is evidence of how little Hovind actually knows about science. Aside from the fact that he gets the definition of "evolution" completely wrong, he doesn't actually seem to know about cosmological theories. For him to suggest that the Big Crunch is settled scientific fact, when in fact at the moment, the smart money is betting the other way, suggests that he doesn't actually know the science.

 

[Bill Thompson]

Lately I have discovered that I seem to have developed an interest in science as presented by guys like this (Dr. Kent Hovind) who seem to me, to have a good understanding of science but not so much the Bible...

I can probably come up with 1000 reasons why the bible is not literally factual.

I suggest you google "the brick testament" and "the skeptics annotated bible"

It is known where the Adam and Eve story came from and it is not from history. It was originally a children's story with the lesson "do what your parents tell you even though you are too young to know right from wrong". It was also influenced by the Pandora myth where the first woman unknowingly brings all the bad stuff to the universe etc. etc..

It is also known where the Noah's Arc story came from. It was from an earlier religion. The story is almost identical except there are gods instead of god.

But, on the flip side, you should know that Darwin was NOT an atheist. So don't feel too bad.

 

[paximperium]

So Dave,
Would you like the discuss the actual scientific Theory of Evolution, several Abiogenesis Hypotheses, stellar formation or the Big Bang Theory or would you like to discuss Hovind's glorious misunderstanding and strawman versions of them?

 

[KingMerv00]

Be fair. The opening poster thinks Hovind understands science. You think he doesn't. From a distance, those both look like unsupported offhand opinions.

Why don't you think Hovind understands science?

(This applies to most of the rest of the dogpile as well. If you're going to criticize, you should educate as well.)

I honestly don't know where to begin.

I guess I could start with his "5 evolutions" nonsense. The evidence for biological evolution is completely separate from the big bang, planetary formation, etc. The only way one could confuse the two is through willful ignorance.

EVEN IF the planets did not form as popular science suggests, the evidence for biological evolution is there.

EVEN IF the Big Bang did not happen as popular science suggests, the evidence for biological evolution is there.

The fact that he brings them up at all is just one colossal red herring.

 

[Bill Thompson]

I also suggest you have a look at the definition of Sagan's baloney detection kit on youtube.

 

[Mashuna]

Lately I have discovered that I seem to have developed an interest in science as presented by guys like this (Dr. Kent Hovind) who seem to me, to have a good understanding of science but not so much the Bible, so I'm interested in what "evolutionist" have to say about that more than his religious beliefs. What interests me is that he sees evolution as a religious belief, and so this thread is in religion rather than science.

I know you've already been jumped on for this opening sentence, but can I ask how you came to the conclusion that Kent Hovind has a good understanding of science?

 

[KingMerv00]

It bears repeating. Kent Hovind literally has the worst understanding of science (and the law) I have ever seen in an adult. Roy Comfort is BAD. Ken Ham is AWFUL. Kent Hovind is on a whole different level.

I know that sounds like just another stab at the man but I think I failed to express my dislike of him sufficiently the first time.

 

[noreligion]

Well, I don't want a long debate that goes on until one of you are demonstrably right, that would take forever.

In this particular thread I'm not interested in God, the Bible, or religion, except for that what I have been saying all along about Evolution being a religious belief is true.

When did the big bang become part of the theory of evolution?

 

[John Jones]

Be fair. The opening poster thinks Hovind understands science. You think he doesn't. From a distance, those both look like unsupported offhand opinions.

Why don't you think Hovind understands science?

Lack of evidence.

 

[Vortigern99]

If you type Hovind's name into a youtube search, you'll get hours of videos made by scientists and science students directly rebutting and refuting all of Hovind's absurd arguments, misstatements and lies. That is all the citation needed to back up the assertion that Hovind is a clueless idiot.

ETA: [url="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZDyogxTl9KM]Here[/url] is a good place to start.

 

[Bill Thompson]

Regarding cosmic evolution he uses the unscientific Big Bang. He asks "What exploded?" He points out that according to Isaac Asimov, Georges Edward Lemaitre's notion of the big bang was that it was a mass of "no more than a few light-years in diameter." (about twelve trillion miles). In 1965 this was reduced to 275 million miles, in 1972 down to 71 million miles, 1974 down to 54 thousand miles, 1983 down to a trillionth the diameter of a proton. Now they say that nothing exploded.

Now it is believed that all the matter in the universe started out as being no bigger than a period at the end of this sentence. Eventually all the matter in the universe will be compacted down to the size of a period again and that this cycle happens every 80 to 100 billion years. They call this science and they teach it to children in schools.

That is wrong. Time had a beginnnig and time will have an end. No cycle. You have some very old informatioin.

There was no compressed "stuff" that exploded. At one time -- in a minute fraction of a second after the Big Bang -- what existed was strange and untangable.

But this has nothing to do with evolution or even the nature of God. Unless, of course, you are a biblical fundamentalists, in that case I can see why you would be troubled. In that case you want to deny the Big Bang completely.

 

[TraneWreck]

Be fair. The opening poster thinks Hovind understands science. You think he doesn't. From a distance, those both look like unsupported offhand opinions.

Why don't you think Hovind understands science?

(This applies to most of the rest of the dogpile as well. If you're going to criticize, you should educate as well.)

Talk about a softball...

First there's his complete wrongness:



Then there's his complete nuttiness:

Hovind has several conspiracy theories about the U.S. government. He believes that the cyanide-releasing compound Laetrile is a "cancer cure" and argues that the US government is conspiring to suppress a cure for cancer.[25][85] On his radio program, he has said that the U.S. government was behind the 9/11 attacks killing nearly 3000 people and that a "lot of folks were told not to come to work."[86] He also believes the Oklahoma City bombing was carried out by the government. "Did you know the Federal Government blew up their own building to blame it on the militias and to get rid of some people that weren't cooperating with the system?"[87] Regarding UFOs, Hovind recommends books by conspiracy theorists who believe "some UFO’s are U.S. Government experiments with electrogravitic propulsion as opposed to jet propulsion, while others are Satanic apparitions."[88] Additionally, Hovind believes that the Federal Reserve, the Council on Foreign Relations, the United Nations, and various other groups are actively planning to create a one world government and that the 1993 World Trade Center attack was staged by the US Government in order to pass "anti-terrorism" legislation that restricts civil liberties. He says, "I love my country, but fear my government. And you should too."[89] He also believes there is no such thing as the separation of church and state,[90] and opposes public schools.[91]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kent_Hovind

Then there's his complete moral terpitude (irrelevant to the OP, but instructive nevertheless):

Evidence produced at the trial revealed that Jo Hovind had requested financial assistance from Baptist Healthcare claiming that the Hovinds had no income. "'Dr. and Mrs. Kent Hovind do not earn salaries,' wrote Martha Harris, the trust secretary of Creation Science Evangelism to Baptist Healthcare. 'As health insurance is not provided for this couple, we would appreciate (financial assistance).'"[143] However, continues the article "Kent Hovind, a tax protester, makes a substantial amount of money". The Pensacola News Journal noted: "On the day the IRS searched the Hovind home, Kent Hovind withdrew $70,000 from the Creation Science Evangelism account. Half in a check; the other in cash."[

 

[marplots]

1. Evolution is a slippery word. His definition allows for 5 unscientific and purely theoretical possibilities, namely; Cosmic evolution (the origin of time, space and matter), Chemical evolution (The origin of higher elements from hydrogen), Stellar and planetary evolution (Origin of stars and planets), Organic evolution (origin of life), and Macro-evolution (Changing from one kind into another), as well as 1 possibility which is scientific (observed) and in harmony with the Bible and that is Micro-evolution (variations within a kind).

The word, evolution, can seem slippery depending on the context. In the broadest sense, it simply means change and the rules associated with the changes. You have evolved over your lifetime. Subtle changes driven by a combination of your genes, which try to repair various injuries and react to things like exercise and nutrition -- there's nothing controversial about that. It also probably doesn't surprise you that children are not exact copies of their parents. They have some traits and similarities, but not all.

Evolution for non-living celestial objects (and the earth itself) is simply a way to talk about the changes we see now, and the evidence for changes in the past. The cosmos is a little easier to see because it takes so long for distant light to reach us. In a real sense, we are looking back into the past when we point our telescopes. But the idea is the same. We want to know what rules led to the changes we see.

For life, the word seems to evoke more passion and argument. Perhaps because, on the near scale around us, plants and animals do not seem to change much across generations. We accept that the corn we plant today is much more robust and produces more per plant than the corn the Native Americans ate, but the idea of changing from one form to another seems miraculous. It may be difficult to believe that all the various dogs descended from a few wolf-like types. And it might be surprising when we see humans who grow to only a few feet tall. But even these changes seem acceptable when compared to something like a fish becoming something that has fur or flies.

Mostly, the difficulty comes from a surface examination. To connect the minute changes we can see around us to the radical changes that must have occurred for all these critters to evolve into the variety we see around us -- that takes some deep looking. What were the incremental changes? How did they happen? What can we find from the past to show us what 'before' looked like?

The root question evolutionary theory addresses is how living things have changed from the deep past (which we dig up and examine) to the near past and the present. Fossils demand an explanation. You might be comforted with the idea that all living things are of the same 'kind'. They all use DNA. Everything living around you is related. The problem seems to be one of categorization. I can argue that a midget (is that PC?) is a new species, and I suppose, over time, if small people survived and larger people did not, on some forum millenia from now they might be arguing about whether the new, compact humans evolved from the large brutes they find the bones of all over.

Creationists argue for no meaningful change at all. Evolution, the science, thinks an explanation is needed. As long as no one digs up the past, the two ideas can get along. But there is a smoking gun, an ancient world that no longer exists... curious monkeys want to know. So evolution becomes a sort of forensic science. And just like criminal forensics, new techniques shed light on old problems.

The guy convicted of some crime is found not guilty when DNA shows another perpetrator must have done it. That's not a big deal in science. The big deal would be if we didn't change the 'facts' when new evidence trumps old. Then we would be just lying to ourselves. And this is where a lot of the passion comes from. Scientists see creationists as unwilling to admit they were wrong in light of new evidence. They see it as lying to themselves.

 

[IMST]

The series of videos by Thunderf00t on YT called "why do people laugh at creationists" has several takedowns of Hovind. There are links above in the thread that point out specific failings of his understanding and not to mention the OP where he seems to think evolution comments on the origin of the universe, the origin of elements beyond hydrogen, planetary formation and the origin of life. I don't think there's any lack of evidence that Hovind's a total git.

 

[Bill Thompson]

David, name 5 things that do NOT evolve?

Even our understanding of Mathematics and Chemistry and Physics evolve.

Inventions evolve. Gadgets we use everyday keep getting better and the poorer ones go out of existance.

Every form of life I can think of evolves and adapts. If species did not evolve, they would die.

It has been discovered that there are subatomic particles that simplely blink out of existance over time. So even Chemistry itself evolves.

Metals have half-lives. They change in a kind of evolution.

There are not many things that does not evolve. How many things can you think of that does not?

 

[Marduk]

Sorry folks
I have created a monster

my fault

 

[Lukraak_Sisser]

Wow, welcome back David. Does this mean you're actually going to adress the arguments made in response to your previous posts (some of which by me) that you left to languish?

There isn't really much I could write in response to this post that hasn't been adressed yet.

I would suggest that if you *really* are interested in science of any form (although evolution/geology seem to be the ones you focus on most) that you start by following a course in your chosen subject, or pick up the starter text books, work your way up until you understand the evidence presented by the scientific community over the years yourself and then either agree, or set up experiments that actually are reproducible and disprove the current theories. That way you don't have to rely on what others tell you one way or the other.