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

[Olowkow]

Hmmm I always thought this refered to the life cycle of a star or planet. I musta been wrong about that

I guess I missed that lesson too, and the one about "chemical evolution".

 

[David Henson]

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'.

There are 11 parts of this video of which this was only the first. Lets not jump ahead of ourselves. Am I to understand that you don't agree with cosmic, chemical, stellar / planetary, and organic evolution? If not tell me why and if so explain briefly why.

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...

I don't see that as the case. He explains it right out. Macro involves the changes from one kind to another. Micro involves changes within a kind. There are variations in kind, various kinds of dogs but no dogs producing something other than a dog.

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 Big Bang. So, either the author was wrong, or Hovind misquoted him. Remember, the guy is a liar.

I am not interested in the man's integrity, I'm interested in hearing what you say about the specific claims he made which I pointed out.

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 Big Bang 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!

Blasphemy the word you are looking for? How dare he question science!

Not interested in that argument. You have only supplied me with a more elegant and vague defense of science along with those who dismissed me because I simply dare to question science. You are preaching to me. I want answers.

 

[aggle-rithm]

Anything which suggests the earth is 6000 years old is a joke, but that is the only interesting thing about it.

I find the hideous web design interesting in a macabre sort of way.

 

[David Henson]

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".

No, he says it is stupid and then he tells me why. You are not doing that. I'm not interested in your links, I'm interested in what you think.

 

[Simon39759]

The most interesting site I have found on the web concerning evolution issues is the following one:
It not only provides variety but depth and documentation as well.


Topical Index
http://www.ridgecrest.ca.us/~do_while/sage/topics.htm

I like this one much better.

 

[kerikiwi]

I'm interested in hearing what you say about the specific claims he made which I pointed out.

I, at least, am not going to sit through 11 videos of Hovind's utter rubbish.
But if you bring forward just one specific claim, I, along with others, will be happy to refute it.

 

[Olowkow]

No, he says it is stupid and then he tells me why. You are not doing that. I'm not interested in your links, I'm interested in what you think.

Well, it seems to me that if you were interested in what we think, you would read the links and you would stand a better chance of understanding what is being said. Why do you think we owe you private tutoring?

 

[John Jones]

Blasphemy the word you are looking for? How dare he question science!

Not interested in that argument.

Me either. No more strawman arguments please, unless you enjoy talking to yourself.

 

[David Henson]

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.")

If he defines Macro evolution as changes from one kind producing another as unscientific in that it is unobservable then you haven't demonstrated anything by your reference to Biologists except for interpretation rather than observation, is that not correct?

Anyway, I ask that you deal with the material that I presented from this particular video specifically. My opinion is that there is no evidence of Macro evolution but there is of "Micro-Evolution." In other words a dog produces a dog. Nothing else.

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.)

When you say supported by empirical evidence you don't mean science. Fact. Observed. Tested. Correct? Not that it is relying upon experiment or experience. In other words, though science believes this now it could change and be found to be flawed.

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.

Or false. By the way, no one answered his question - in the Big Bang what exploded?

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.

Someone brought it to my attention earlier that they (meaning science, I'm paraphrasing here) figured out some stuff about the Big Bang while Hovind was in prison. This video seems to have been recorded in 2001, or at least that is the latest reference to a science text book he makes.

What they were teaching as science at that time has been demonstrated as being wrong, or is it that someone made a prediction involving microwave background radiation, which you mentioned earlier, and would be as irrelevant as continuous creation?

Is science, that is, evolution as taught in school, any more or less factual than world history? Is it any more reliable than the weatherman's predictions on, for example, a 7 day forecast?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

No, he says it is stupid and then he tells me why. You are not doing that. I'm not interested in your links, I'm interested in what you think.

So Hovind has you snookered and you pretend to want to know why the science says Hovind is an idiot, but you really don't want to know. Sounds like one of those 'lying for Jesus' posts where some snookered individual thinks he/she, (mostly 'hes' I'd bet, though I'm not sure why that is), is going to post some 'aha' moment and get all us dumb led by the nose skeptics to see the light.


Look, genetic science confirmed what all the other sciences already confirmed: evolution theory is correct. PERIOD, end of debate.

Of course some folks who recall evolution science from their 5th grade class some 30-50 years ago are totally unaware evolution science continued on its merry way for the last 50 years. Get over it, evolution is a fact and it is supported by so much scientific evidence if you really cared to look you'd be embarrassed that you continued to believe the Earth was flat for as long as you have continued to do so.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

...
When you say supported by empirical evidence you don't mean science. Fact. Observed. Tested. Correct?...

Yes, as a matter of fact, evolution theory has moved well beyond the stage of collecting evidence and well into the stage of being usable to develop predictions, carry out the experiments and confirm the predictions.

Did you know you can take a rabbit gene that turns on fetal eye growth, replace the equivalent fruit fly gene with the rabbit gene and voila! Fruit fly larva grow normal fruit fly eyes.

Did you know we've traced the evolution not just of the eye, but of several molecular pathways in the eye and confirmed the genetics of eye evolution, including the pathways by which mammalian and insect eyes diverged?

Are you aware that one can turn on turned off genes on that still exist in chickens and get chickens with teeth or scales or limbs instead of wings? Jurassic Park doesn't need DNA from blood sucking mosquitos preserved in amber. Dinosaur genes are still around, just shut down or modified to perform other tasks.


The flat Earthers who don't get it that evolution science has progressed to an incredible extent are very sad souls indeed.

 

[Simon39759]

There are 11 parts of this video of which this was only the first. Lets not jump ahead of ourselves. Am I to understand that you don't agree with cosmic, chemical, stellar / planetary, and organic evolution? If not tell me why and if so explain briefly why.

I am less familiar with them.
The term evolution can be applied, the word means only 'change over time' but, in its common usage in science refers to the 'theory of evolution by natural descent'; Hovind kinda conflate that with a bunch of totally unrelated theories with murky the issue.

I don't see that as the case. He explains it right out. Macro involves the changes from one kind to another. Micro involves changes within a kind. There are variations in kind, various kinds of dogs but no dogs producing something other than a dog.

But a dog is only a kind of wolf.
And wolves are only one example among the carniforma.

MAcro-evolution is but the sum of a large number of micro-evolutionary changes adding up overtime.
One step can take people a little bit apart. Multiply these steps a large number of time over a long period of time and people will be long separated...

Creationists have to accept, finally, the 'micro-evolution' work, because of the great many evidences that it does, but argue that it, magically?, stop working for the biggest changes.

They also introduce a new concept, the 'kind' that has no definition. Why not using a term from the already existing taxonomic system?

I am not interested in the man's integrity, I'm interested in hearing what you say about the specific claims he made which I pointed out.

But his integrity is important, it explains why the man can keep blathering about a subject he knows little about and can lie about whatever he does, finally, understand.

Blasphemy the word you are looking for? How dare he question science!

He is not questioning science, though, he is rejecting it outright and insulting people, smarter than him, that devoted their life to research the subject.
It is *********** arrogant.

Not interested in that argument. You have only supplied me with a more elegant and vague defense of science along with those who dismissed me because I simply dare to question science. You are preaching to me.

No; I felt like posting that, I don't care enough to "preach" to you. I know from previous experiences that you don't want to learn anything.

I want answers.

And yet, you won't do any serious research or even open the links offered to you.
So what, you want a condensed course on the theory of evolution delivered just for you? There are a few threads on this very subject sticked in the science forum.
And yet, you posted this thread in the 'religion and philosophy', stating: "What interests me is that he sees evolution as a religious belief, and so this thread is in religion rather than science. " So, obviously, you were not interested in actual scientific answers to (pseudo)scientific questions at the time.
You are contradict your initial statement and I strongly believe that you are weaseling...


Anyway, I will give you the benefit of the doubt as well as a brief answer to your initial question:
Science is a methodology were data are gathered; falsifiable hypothesis; laws and theories are constructed; prediction are made based on this and tested.
The theory of evolution fits within this methodology and was constructed, and tested, using it. As such, it is scientific in nature.
Creationism, in contrast, is not falsifiable and does not make testable predictions. It, therefore, does not follow the scientific method and is not a science.

A religion, on the other hand, is a cultural set of belief and practices centered around supernatural elements.
The theory of evolution does not contain such supernatural elements while creationism does. Hence, the theory of evolution can not be religious while creationism is.


Now, if you have any actual questions based on Hovind's presentation, post them here, if possible one by one, and I am sure, people will answer them.

 

[David Henson]

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

Really? I suggest you start a thread on the subject, perhaps I will have time then to discuss it with you.

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

The Brick Testament is a silly cartoon. If you go to many pages on the Skeptic's Annotated Bible, like this one on Guinea Worms on the bottom of the page you will see Christian Response and The Pathway Machine there.

Pssttt! [Whispers] Look at my Signature.

Steve Wells, who owns the Skeptic's Annotated Bible has actually been known to have removed claims that he has had at the SAB due to my correction of said material.

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.

Later in the video series I am discussing in this thread Darwin is referenced to a number of times. Once as a sort of failed theologian - well a preacher.

All that stuff you said in the quote directly above, about Adam and Noah, is for another discussion.

Here and now we should stick to evolution.

 

[Olowkow]

Yes, as a matter of fact, evolution theory has moved well beyond the stage of collecting evidence and well into the stage of being usable to develop predictions, carry out the experiments and confirm the predictions.

Did you know you can take a rabbit gene that turns on fetal eye growth, replace the equivalent fruit fly gene with the rabbit gene and voila! Fruit fly larva grow normal fruit fly eyes.

Did you know we've traced the evolution not just of the eye, but of several molecular pathways in the eye and confirmed the genetics of eye evolution, including the pathways by which mammalian and insect eyes diverged?

Are you aware that one can turn on turned off genes on that still exist in chickens and get chickens with teeth or scales or limbs instead of wings? Jurassic Park doesn't need DNA from blood sucking mosquitos preserved in amber. Dinosaur genes are still around, just shut down or modified to perform other tasks.


The flat Earthers who don't get it that evolution science has progressed to an incredible extent are very sad souls indeed.

Just fascinating stuff. If I remember correctly, these are "hox genes"? I seem to recall Massimo Pigliucci blowing my mind with this stuff a while back.

 

[dasmiller]

My opinion is that there is no evidence of Macro evolution but there is of "Micro-Evolution." In other words a dog produces a dog. Nothing else.

Since you've mentioned dogs twice now, I'd like to understand your view of their micro/macro evolution a little better. You obviously agree that the various types of dogs have diverged substantially over the last few thousand years. Suppose there a pack of dogs got isolated on an island. Do you think that pack would eventually diverge enough that they would no longer be able to breed with the mainland dogs?

 

[David Henson]

I honestly don't know where to begin.

At the beginning. (Do you have any idea how difficult for me it was not to mention genesis here?!)

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.

I didn't get the impression that he confused the two. He identified them as distinct parts. Correct me if I'm wrong.

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.

I disagree. Although according to my extremely limited knowledge of science I don't see anything other than macro / and micro or organic evolution as being of any real interest to the average science minded atheist because they are primarily concerned with the biological or specifically just not Adam, a great deal of that will be examined further in the following 10 parts.

With this first video your argument that "EVEN IF the Big Bang did not happen . . . " pretty much says it all, doesn't it?

 

[Marduk]

or try Domestic sheep (Ovis Aries), you know that they were originally bred from wild sheep (Ovis orientalis) but because they have been separated from their ancestral stock for so long a domestic sheep can no longer mate with a wild one.
what word commonly used in the English language describes what happened there David
(Clue: it starts with an "E")

Although according to my extremely limited knowledge of science I don't see anything other than macro / and micro or organic evolution as being of any real interest to the average science minded atheist because they are primarily concerned with the biological or specifically just not Adam, a great deal of that will be examined further in the following 10 parts.

Apart from the bolded part, does anyone actually understand what David is trying to say here, is Micro.Macro evolution suddenly not part of biology ?
when did that happen

With this first video your argument that "EVEN IF the Big Bang did not happen . . . " pretty much says it all, doesn't it?

I thought you wanted to discuss evolution David, what does cosmology have to do with that exactly ?

 

[David Henson]

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?

You certainly may. I seen him in a debate at a university with three evolutionist including one professor at that university, and though I pretty much disagree with his beliefs I couldn't help but be impressed with his presentation and ability to make those guys look like idiots.

 

[drkitten]

There are 11 parts of this video of which this was only the first. Lets not jump ahead of ourselves. Am I to understand that you don't agree with cosmic, chemical, stellar / planetary, and organic evolution? If not tell me why and if so explain briefly why.

I do not, for the reasons already given. Biologists use a specific definition of "evolution," one to which Hovind specifically objects; he's specifically altering the definition to one not used or recognized by biologists in order to refute it. Even discounting the fact that his alteration and refutation fails, that's still a well-understood fallacy of argument by misleading definition and "straw man."

I don't see that as the case. He explains it right out. Macro involves the changes from one kind to another. Micro involves changes within a kind.

But the word "kind" is nowhere defined, which makes the definition no definition at all, merely an arbitrary line.

Of course, there's a good reason for that. Previous arguments (e.g. from the early 20th century) focused on specific "missing links." Early creationists were willing to point out specific gaps in the fossil record and say "there's no way you could get from [here] to [there]." The problem, of course, is that far too often a fossil was found that fit exactly into that gap. A good example of that is Basilosaurus, incorrectly called Ambulocetus which bridges the gap nicely between the "kinds" of whale and ungulate. Ergo, "whale" is no longer a kind.

If he defines Macro evolution as changes from one kind producing another as unscientific in that it is unobservable then you haven't demonstrated anything by your reference to Biologists except for interpretation rather than observation, is that not correct?

Not at all. Until he defines "kinds" in an empirically testable way (and it passes tests), then he's simply playing word games.

Anyway, I ask that you deal with the material that I presented from this particular video specifically. My opinion is that there is no evidence of Macro evolution but there is of "Micro-Evolution." In other words a dog produces a dog. Nothing else.

Well, your opinion is wrong. The transition between 'dog' and 'weasel' (more formally, between Miacids [the ancestral form] and Candids and Mustelids [the descended forms] are well-attested. 'As Romer (1966) states in Vertebrate Paleontology (p. 232), "Were we living at the beginning of the Oligocene, we should probably consider all these small carnivores as members of a single family."'

And at a higher level, of course, the 'fishapods' we've found show that fish can turn into amphibians, and the 'mammal-like reptiles' show that reptiles can turn into mammals.

So your notion of 'kind' has to support the idea that trout, snakes, and weasels are all of the same 'kind.'

Talkorigins has a wonderful example of this kind of arbitrary division (at a much lower level) that I'm too lazy to look up right now. Most creationists assert (completely without evidence) that apes and humans are different 'kinds,' but when presented with fossil skulls are completely unable to identify any characteristics that distinguish the two or to make the distinction in a nonarbitrary manner. They have a great table somewhere that shows eight or so skulls along with the "classification" given by several creationist authors. About the only thing they can agree on is that the skull of a modern man is a man. Everything else seems to be an arbitrary classification -- which it is, because the separation into 'kinds' is arbitrary.

When you say supported by empirical evidence you don't mean science. Fact. Observed. Tested. Correct? Not that it is relying upon experiment or experience. In other words, though science believes this now it could change and be found to be flawed.

I'm sorry, this is word salad.

Or false.

Well, if it had been false, Penzias wouldn't have found the evidence for it, would he?

Someone brought it to my attention earlier that they (meaning science, I'm paraphrasing here) figured out some stuff about the Big Bang while Hovind was in prison.

Yes, but they found the background radiation in 1964. Hubble identified the relationship between redshift and distance in the 1920s. There's no excuse for Hovind not to be familiar with the evidence supporting the Big Bang.

And the Big Crunch has never been supported or mainstream science. It's always been at best an open question -- and one that now appears to be closing because of the mass of evidence against it.

Is science, that is, evolution as taught in school, any more or less factual than world history? Is it any more reliable than the weatherman's predictions on, for example, a 7 day forecast?

That's not really a relevant question, I'm afraid. Different branches of science (or scholarship generally) have different standards for accuracy, in part because of the difficulty of gathering evidence and the difficulty of getting models. Evolutionary science, as it happens, is among the most accurate and factual branches of science. In many ways, it's much more accurate than history -- fossils don't tell lies, but politicians and newspaper editors do.

The question you should be asking, though, is whether Hovind's version of science is as accurate as what they were teaching when the video was made. If he made a film in 1950 that accurately reflected our understanding in 1950 of the world, later errors are not a problem. But he didn't do that. he ignored and distorted evidence familiar to every high school student for thirty years. Hovind either deliberately misrepresented the science of his day (which makes him a liar, and more problematically, means that nothing that he states in his video series can be trusted as evidence) or he does not understand science at all well (in contrast to your claim) and you should look in more detail at the science itself and the evidence that underlies it.

 

[David Henson]

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.

In my opinion you haven't done very well in giving a reason for that.

Roy Comfort? Hmmm. I wasn't impressed. Ken Ham? Never heard of him. Perhaps I will look him up some time in the future.