Creation & EvolutionForum for the discussion of this important topic. This forum is open to non-believers. There is a Christians-only forum in the Christians-only section too.
You made it. And just in time to witness the general opinion of Hovind in these forums (I warned ya ).
No evidence for macroevolution - He's right.(if you have some link it up and I'll go take a peak at it).
Hovind is utterly, utterly wrong. The reason Hovind thinks there is no evidence for macroevolution is because he thinks macroevolution = a monkey giving birth to a human. But given that this is not how evolution works, it's little surprise Hovind thinks there is no evidence for it. He is trying to find evidence for a caricature that only exists in his mind.
For evidence for macroevolution go to 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution (I know I've pointed you to the stuff on nested hierarchies before). It's pretty long and might be complicated in spots, but if there's stuff you don't understand, ask questions here and people will help you out.
__________________ Creationism has not made a single contribution to agriculture, medicine, conservation, forestry, pathology, or any other applied area of biology. Creationism has yielded no classifications, no biogeographies, no underlying mechanisms, no unifying concepts with which to study organisms or life. - Botanical Society of America's Statement on Evolution
Well Pete(I just like the name pete. so if I keep sayin pete don't worry about it),
I dont think that hovind is saying that your therory claims that a monkey will give birth to a human. I think what he's saying is that there are genetic limits that we observe that show us that nothing will keep changing and changing and changing little by little by litte into something completely different. It's like using instuctions. If you try and use instuctions from a fisher price toy to put together a real house. It doesn't work so well.
And regarding your 29+ evidences. I'm slowly reading those.
And they sound very very fishy to me.
The pseudo-tails portion is, well under my investigation. They X-ray that they have pictured there appears to be fake. I went and followed the references and I still am very sceptical that those are real. They may infact be real however but if they are real then that still isn't evidence of evolution because it's a mutation not a window to the past. If in fact those are real photos and reports(which is what I'm leaning towards at the moment) then I have my own theory on how it happend.
And the whale bones. Looking at those pictures there.. those really don't look like legs to me. And I know that those are used for a specific function.(this is a christian forum here and I wanna keep it kinda clean so I wont get into that lol)
So my current stand is that they(creation/evolution) are both based on faith.
And if you evolutionist guys would just admit that..we could all be happy. lol
I dont think that hovind is saying that your therory claims that a monkey will give birth to a human.
Hovind has used that very line (and many like it) before. The way Hovind seems to view evolution is:
dog --> dog --> dog --> dog --> ... (long ago and far away) --> dog --> cat
IOW, that this appeal to "time" involves a dog giving birth to a cat in some distant past.
What he fails to understand is that evolution is a process by which little changes will (over time) accumulate and add up to big changes. He just can't seem to get his head around this concept (or, maybe he does understand and is simply propogating his caricature because it's easier to argue against evolution that way).
I think what he's saying is that there are genetic limits that we observe that show us that nothing will keep changing and changing and changing little by little by litte into something completely different.
What genetic limit? Aside from the current creationist mantra is that evolution can't produce new "genetic information" (and this point has been proven wrong repeatedly on this forum; evolution can and does produce new information), no creationist has ever shown there is a genetic limit to biological evolution.
It's like using instuctions. If you try and use instuctions from a fisher price toy to put together a real house. It doesn't work so well.
But you can add to and modify those instructions.
And they sound very very fishy to me.
The pseudo-tails portion is, well under my investigation. They X-ray that they have pictured there appears to be fake. I went and followed the references and I still am very sceptical that those are real.
They may infact be real however but if they are real then that still isn't evidence of evolution because it's a mutation not a window to the past.
It is a window into the past because we currently have the genetic ability to produce tails, but it's turned "off".
__________________ Creationism has not made a single contribution to agriculture, medicine, conservation, forestry, pathology, or any other applied area of biology. Creationism has yielded no classifications, no biogeographies, no underlying mechanisms, no unifying concepts with which to study organisms or life. - Botanical Society of America's Statement on Evolution
If you want something really brutal to listen to, try Hovind's "Answers His Critic" series. He did a bunch of radio shows where he (and his son Eric) actually addresses some of the web sites (talk origins, Analysis of Kent Hovind, even AiG) that say mean things about him. But he spends almost all the time grandstanding and reciting his usual diatribe rather than addressing anything. It was positively brutal to listen to.
You're exactly right...they just sit there and verbally high five each other. I love how they try to paint this picture of how atheists and science professors tremble in their site.
__________________
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Last edited by Routerider; 13th March 2004 at 06:47 PM.
The pseudo-tails portion is, well under my investigation. They X-ray that they have pictured there appears to be fake. I went and followed the references and I still am very sceptical that those are real.
Don't worry, they're quite real. You don't hear about them much, usually they just get chopped off at birth.
I dont really know anything about science stuff to be honest. not too interested in learning. I know what I know is right. God made the world and everything in it and now I'm writing you.
So are you all christians that feel this way about kent? or are some of you believing totally different stuff but arent christians? From the people that have already written about him are you all christians who believe God created everything ect
I don't even think Patriot U has a basketball team...I'm not sure they have more than 10 students at a time.
That is enough fopr a basketball team- 5 to play, 3 bench warmers, 1 water boy and 1 to carry the clip-board.
__________________
None of the gods love wisdom or desire to become wise, for they are wise already -- nor if someone else is wise, do they love wisdom. Neither do the ignorant love wisdom or desire to become wise; for this is the grievous thing about ignorance, that those who are neither good nor beautiful nor sensible think they are good enough, and do not desire that which they do not think they are lacking.
The pseudo-tails portion is, well under my investigation. They X-ray that they have pictured there appears to be fake. I went and followed the references and I still am very sceptical that those are real.
I think you are ref. to the coccyx? No it is very real. You have one too! It is five fused vertebrae at the end of your spinal column that anchor the Filum Terminale which is an extension of the Pia Mater. There is also a muscle that used to raise this tail but it now useless, since, the 5 vertabrae are now fused into one vertebra- that muscle is known by many different names in the medical community: musculus sacrococcygeus dorsalis, dorsal sacrococcygeal muscle, musculus extensor coccygis, musculus sacrococcygeus posterior or simply, "extensor coccyx"
__________________
None of the gods love wisdom or desire to become wise, for they are wise already -- nor if someone else is wise, do they love wisdom. Neither do the ignorant love wisdom or desire to become wise; for this is the grievous thing about ignorance, that those who are neither good nor beautiful nor sensible think they are good enough, and do not desire that which they do not think they are lacking.
I dont really know anything about science stuff to be honest. not too interested in learning. I know what I know is right. God made the world and everything in it and now I'm writing you.
So are you all christians that feel this way about kent? or are some of you believing totally different stuff but arent christians? From the people that have already written about him are you all christians who believe God created everything ect
Sounds like you have it all figured out. If you are not too interested in learning, why did you come to a science forum??
__________________
None of the gods love wisdom or desire to become wise, for they are wise already -- nor if someone else is wise, do they love wisdom. Neither do the ignorant love wisdom or desire to become wise; for this is the grievous thing about ignorance, that those who are neither good nor beautiful nor sensible think they are good enough, and do not desire that which they do not think they are lacking.
I dont really know anything about science stuff to be honest. not too interested in learning. I know what I know is right. God made the world and everything in it and now I'm writing you.
).
Linear Mode
