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

[drkitten]

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.

So you're impressed with his ability to deliver lies convincingly faster that the other side can refute them?

I think you've just confused the captain of the debate team with the valedictorian.

 

[David Henson]

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.

I really don't understand this type of response. If I came here and said God created the heavens and earth and gave nothing but all sorts of links to that effect what sort of discussion would we have.

Some advice. Use the information you learned from the references you provide. It isn't just enough to check them, you know.

 

[X]

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.

Kindly define what makes one species distinct from some other species.

 

[David Henson]

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

I don't know . . . sounds like too much trouble . . . does it link directly back to this forum?

 

[MattusMaximus]

David Henson, one question: in your earlier definitions of macro- and micro-evolution you kept mentioning "kinds" of life-forms. Can you please provide a concrete definition of what you mean by "kind"?

A serious response from you will be necessary to continue this particular line of discussion in any meaningful manner. Thanks.

 

[drkitten]

David Henson, one question: in your earlier definitions of macro- and micro-evolution you kept mentioning "kinds" of life-forms. Can you please provide a concrete definition of what you mean by "kind"?

And in particular, do sperm whales (a species) comprise a "kind"?
Do "toothed whales" (a suborder) comprise a "kind"?
Do "whales" (an order) comprise a kind?
If not, what's the smallest "kind" that encloses the whales?

 

[drkitten]

What I want to know is what about the fraction of a second before the alleged big bang?

Unfortunately, the phrase "the fraction of a second before the alleged big bang" is not meaningful. It has nothing to do with case -- and everything to do with the fact that time itself appears to have started at the instant of the big bang.

The usual metaphor used for comparison is "what is north of the North Pole?", but you could just as easily ask "what is colder than absolute zero?" or "who was President of the United States in 1740?" It doesn't matter how badly you want to know who that person was,... that person didn't exist, and so he wasn't anyone.

 

[Foster Zygote]

Oh, I remember that party! What I want to know is what about the fraction of a second before the alleged big bang? Is that permissible? To use lower case? Big Bang, sorry.

Maybe I'm on your ignore list, but I have already addressed this issue. As we currently understand the universe, it is very likely that there is no such thing as "before the Big Bang". There is no space/time on the "other side" of the singularity, hence, there is no "before".

 

[drkitten]

I find it interesting that early on in this thread you dismissed all of this as not worthy of serious consideration and now you find it necessary to discredit him.

Not that interesting. I challenged him (directly) to discredit Hovind rather than dismissing him, and he has done so.

It's called "presenting evidence for one's beliefs when challenged," something that most creationists have tremendous difficulty with. For example, how about that non-arbitrary definition of "kind", hmmm?

 

[Foster Zygote]

David,

The mutated form of the L-gulano-y-lactone oxidase gene pretty much wraps up the issue of common ancestry between ape species. Among ape species in which this pseudogene has been identified, it is most similar between humans and chimpanzees, as predicted by evolutionary theory. How do you explain the presence of this hereditary feature among distinct ape species without invoking evolutionary theory?

 

[drkitten]

David,

The mutated form of the L-gulano-y-lactone oxidase gene pretty much wraps up the issue of common ancestry between ape species. Among ape species in which this pseudogene has been identified, it is most similar between humans and chimpanzees, as predicted by evolutionary theory. How do you explain the presence of this hereditary feature among distinct ape species without invoking evolutionary theory?

"God wanted it that way."

 

[joobz]

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?

Your observation is not correct.
Macro evolution, as defined by either speciation or by new gene emergence, has been observed multiple times.

I think most compelling is the observations surrounding Human Chromosomal fusion shows perfectly our common ancestry with the great apes. http://www.evolutionpages.com/chromosome_2.htm
This is not only evidence of evolution, it is the calling card of macroevolution.

 

[Vortigern99]

I really don't understand this type of response. If I came here and said God created the heavens and earth and gave nothing but all sorts of links to that effect what sort of discussion would we have.

Some advice. Use the information you learned from the references you provide. It isn't just enough to check them, you know.

Look, from one David Henson to another (and, off-topic, it's really strange debating a guy with the same name as my father and myself!), it's not my place, or my job, to do your research for you. You've chosen to post a thread based on a series of Hovind videos, and I've offered you a link to a video which begins to debunk his errant, imaginary, easily refuted nonsense.

Realistically, I doubt there is anything I or anyone can say that will persuade you to think differently, or scientifically, about evolution. You lack the basic understanding of the scientific method necessary to make sense of it. If I may recommend you begin with a basic scholastic textbook on biology, that would be a good place for you to start catching up with most of the people posting in this thread.

 

[Vortigern99]

But I happen to be up to the challenge. Let's see how it goes. I need to say at the outset that I am not a scientist, but I do have some undergrad training in anthropology and a lifelong interest in the evolution of the human species.

First I'll begin by addressing the claims you derive from Hovind's video:

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.

To begin, the rendering of "evolutionism" as a religion is unsubstantiated at best and a malicious lie at worst. Evolutionary science is as empirically based as any scientific discipline, and is supported by findings over the last 150+ years in such diverse, independent fields as geology, paleontology, anthropology, biochemistry and genetics -- all of which would have to be involved in some kind of global conspiracy in order for evolution to be in error.

Religion, specifically the kind that Hovind peddles, is based on unsupported texts written thousands of years ago by Bronze Age philosophers who had no understanding of the scientific method and very little grasp of the realities, forces and principles of the natural world. How could they have?

Even if their work is divinely inspired, which could not be proven on an evidential basis, though I'm willing to accept it for argument's sake, clearly God would have been talking to them in the parlance of their times, and couched in language and terms that they could understand with their limited worldview and perspective. In short, the authors of the Bible could have had no grasp of evolution, so God spoke to them, if "He" spoke to them at all, in symbolic language.

This makes it impossible to assemble a scientifically accurate picture of the world from the poetic proclomations of the Bible, though that is what Hovind and other fundamentalists wish to do.

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 old, dinosaurs existing alongside humans and - well, his views on returning that which belong to Caesar to Caesar...

I'm gratified to know that. We may be able to discover some common ground after all.

... aside from all of that, 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).

This is a purely semantic, meaning language-based, argument. The kind of evolution we're discussing here is biological evolution of organisms through random mutation and natural selection. That phrase is too long to write every time we want to discuss it, so in short hand we just say "evolution".

All those other forms of evolution are unique and specific to their discipline, and have nothing to do with biological evolution of organisms through random mutation and natural selection. Hovind is trying to introduce doubt and sow confusion by conflating what we can consider homonyms -- words that sound alike but have different meanings.

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 the end of part 1.

Since this has nothing to do with biological evolution of organisms through random mutation and natural selection, I hope that you will agree to table this and/or address it in a thread regarding the origin of the cosmos and the Big Bang theory.

What's next?

 

[cienaños]

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")

I check the site for a laugh, and I get a welcome slice of knowledge in the process.

Thanks Marduk.

 

[Twiler]

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.

You seem to think that this should be difficult to accept. Why?

 

[noreligion]

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.

Correct but even more to the point distinguishing a difference between micro and macroevolution provides evidence that one knows NOTHING about evolution and most likely science in general.

 

[Seismosaurus]

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.

The fossil record supports the idea that, given enough generations of gradual change in between, a dog can produce something that is not a dog.

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.

The fossil record is observed. It is tested via evidence and experiment.

In other words, though science believes this now it could change and be found to be flawed.

This is always true of all science. If you think there are areas of science that are proven fact, completely settled, so that they can never be changed, then you are not only utterly wrong, you have badly misunderstood what science IS.

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

Actually somebody did. The universe exploded.

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?

Evolution as taught in school is essentially that species have variation, that natural selection acts on this variation, and that over time this causes the species to change. In the fundamentals, that is as solidly proven a fact as any in science.

 

[Belz...]

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.

Since when is opinion important in science ?

 

[paximperium]

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.

No. He makes up an idiotic version of "evolution" and goes about telling you why...and you bought it. My link shows that his entire basic premise is garbage hence his explanations is worthless nonsense.

Now would you like to provide one of his arguments that is even compelling enough to refute?