If you are going to have a formal debate then why....

[PETE_]

Hovind is controversial, but to say that 1) he has dismissed the evidence for evolution, 2) that he is "not exactly a reliable source" or 3) to just dismiss him with a rude and unchristian-like laugh is, sadly for those who engage in such arrogance, nothing but proof of the arrogance. The reality is, Mr. Hovind does an excellent job of exposing the bad science, the circular reasoning, and the double-mindedness of the people who perpetuate evolution as valid theory. You don't like Mr. Hovind because much of what he says exposes the obvious, and often turns science back on itself to prove what is being said isn't even consistent with the balance of their hypothesis. Also, the fact that Dr. Tripp's work is on Hovind's web site has no bearing whatsoever on the validity of Dr. Tripp's science. Frankly, I find this blind negativism about Hovind's work to be supreme but ill-conceived arrogance on the part of those who despise him.

By the way, as if it is any of your business, my degrees are in engineering (BS, and MS, University of Missouri-Columbia, both obtained while I was on active duty in the United States Army, from which I retired after 20 years, a major and with over 6,000 hours in combat rotary wing aircraft, fully a third of those hours in actual combat in the course of three wars and several hazardous situations, some in locations I still can't discuss or disclose) and in Biblical Counseling/Pastoral Studies (double major) with certifications in Cognitive Behavioral Therapy, Reality Therapy, Grief Therapy and Addictions Management. Any further questions?

I have seen many people say that he is a liar and his science is bad but I have yet to see anyone post any of these lies in the thread. Just saying it enough does not make it so. Sounds to much like "My scientist can beat up your scientist".

 

[gluadys]

I have seen many people say that he is a liar and his science is bad but I have yet to see anyone post any of these lies in the thread. Just saying it enough does not make it so. Sounds to much like "My scientist can beat up your scientist".

Except that Hovind is not a scientist. Even his pseudo-degree is in theology, not science.

 

[PETE_]

Except that Hovind is not a scientist. Even his pseudo-degree is in theology, not science.

does he not use information from different scientists?

 

[XTE]

I have seen many people say that he is a liar and his science is bad but I have yet to see anyone post any of these lies in the thread. Just saying it enough does not make it so. Sounds to much like "My scientist can beat up your scientist".

"Hovind" (response)

"Blood vessels in front of retina protection from UV light." (No it doesn't, we have one of the worst eyes in all of nature.)

"Darwin has said that it is absurd the eye with its 700,000 cones and 100,000 rods to have come into being by natural selection." (If you read the rest of what Darwin said, he goes on to explain how the eye developed. Completely taken out of context and tell me Hovind didn't read the whole thing and dice it for his target audience.)

"A giant ice comit hit the Earth and brought about the flood." (This is taught to children at Dino-Land as a fact, you can call them and see for yourself.)

"Water freezes from top down" (He claims that fish can live under water and through winter because of this. Water actually freezes uniformly if frozen uniformly, it freezes top down because the elements are from the top since water follows gravity just like the rest of us. But this one's just picking....)

"Whales vestigial leg bones are used for reproduction." (NO THEY AREN'T. He's trying to use this as an example of "perfect design." He's used this quite a bit in his videos.)

I guess I could keep going but even AiG sees that his arguements are self-fabrications and pointless outside of promotion technique.

Here is the link to AiG's "Don't Use" web-page:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/dont_use.asp

It should be pointed out that out of 25 of those, 16 are used by Mr. Hovind. It isn't that AiG is picking on Hovind, it's that Hovind hears something that supports HIS "theory" and adopts it readily!

Those that he uses:

1. Moon dust thickness proves a young moon
2. Wooly mammoths were snap frozen druing the flood catastrophe
3. Dubois renounced Java man as a missing link and claimed it was just a giant gibbon
4. The Japanese trawler Zuiyo Maru caught a dead plesiosaur near New Zealand
5. The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics began at the Fall
6. Archaeopteryx is a fraud
7. There are no beneficial mutations
8. No new species have been produced
9. Earth's axis was vertical before the Flood
10. Paluxy tracks prove that humans and dinosaurs co-existed
11. Darwin's quote about the absurdity of the eye evolution from Origin of Species.
12. Earth's division in the days of Peleg (Genesis 10 : 25) refers to catastrophic splittying of the continents
13. The phrase "science falsely so called" in 1 Timothy 6 : 20 (KJV) refers to evolution
14. Ron Wyatt has found Noah's Ark
15. Ron Wyatt has found much archaeological proof of the Bible
16. Many of Carl Baugh's creation evidences

Seems like Carl Baugh is directly called out though.

All that coupled with his $250,000 farce of a challenge, his conspiracy theories, and his anti-semitic remarks and constant badgering of his opponents makes me think he shouldn't be trusted.

The sad FACT, is that there is MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MORE! It never stops with this guy.

 

[pastorkevin73]

not actually stick to the title of the debate?

On this board I expected to see a nice layman butchering of science on the "Age of the Earth" topic but instead I didn't see a thing pertaining to the title.

Very disappointing!

Sometimes threads just "evolve". lol.

Notice: No insulting or backhandedness is intended in the posting of this post. Thank you for receiving this post in a gracious manner and laughing along with the poster of this post. Thank you.

Notice: No keys were harmed in the typing of this message.

 

[IisJustMe]

"Blood vessels in front of retina protection from UV light." (No it doesn't, we have one of the worst eyes in all of nature.)

Its not Hovind who says it, its Dr. Peter W. V. Gurney, a graduate of London's University of Bristol School of Medicine in 1960. After six years as a medical missionary to Muslim nations in the Mideast, he returned to London where he became an ophthamologist. Here's a link to the article where he postulates the blood vessels' protection of the retina.

http://www.trueorigin.org/retina.asp

I'll take a trained ophthamologist's opinion over yours or mine any day.

"Darwin has said that it is absurd the eye with its 700,000 cones and 100,000 rods to have come into being by natural selection." (If you read the rest of what Darwin said, he goes on to explain how the eye developed. Completely taken out of context and tell me Hovind didn't read the whole thing and dice it for his target audience.)

I'll have more to say about this at the end of this post, but let's just say for now that Darwin wasn't as convincing as you might think.

"A giant ice comit hit the Earth and brought about the flood." (This is taught to children at Dino-Land as a fact, you can call them and see for yourself.)

It's presented as a theory, albeit kind of heavy-handedly, but still, its called a theory.

"Water freezes from top down" (He claims that fish can live under water and through winter because of this. Water actually freezes uniformly if frozen uniformly, it freezes top down because the elements are from the top since water follows gravity just like the rest of us. But this one's just picking....)

The highlighted portion of your statement is nothing more than a different way of stating the same thing Hovind said, and might be construed by some to be an effort to make him appear stupid, where he most assuredly is not.

"Whales vestigial leg bones are used for reproduction." (NO THEY AREN'T.)

Actually, they are, in the sense that they anchor the animals together while they mate, which is precisely what Hovind says they are used for today. They have been observed engaged in this usage of the appendages. Also, has it occurred to you that believing that whales used to have legs violates the premise of the order of evolution, the whale being a key transitional animal in the evolutionists fish-to-mammal development?

It should be pointed out that out of 25 of those [discredited arguments against evolution on the "Answers in Genesis web site], 16 are used by Mr. Hovind. It isn't that AiG is picking on Hovind, it's that Hovind hears something that supports HIS "theory" and adopts it readily!

Well, not quite ...

Those that he uses:

1. Moon dust thickness proves a young moon -- agreed
2. Wooly mammoths were snap frozen druing the flood catastrophe -- he's been backing off this one for the last year
3. Dubois renounced Java man as a missing link and claimed it was just a giant gibbon -- no longer in his videos, or his lectures
4. The Japanese trawler Zuiyo Maru caught a dead plesiosaur near New Zealand -- qualified as "possibly though unproven" since his 2003 videos
5. The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics began at the Fall -- not true; he states the second law negates evolution, but does not state it began at any time other than "the beginning"
6. Archaeopteryx is a fraud -- semantics; as AiG points out in the article linked in the page you linked (follow that? LOL) a 100 million year old bird (giving a great deal of latitude in "awarding" the years as valid, which I doubt) is still a bird, not a transitional link between reptiles and birds
7. There are no beneficial mutations -- also incorrect; Hovind makes a distinction between failed mutations and surviving mutations, but he does not claim there are none beneficial
8. No new species have been produced -- to the extent that no new genetic material has resulted, this is still a true statement
9. Earth's axis was vertical before the Flood -- true, he does claim this; however, AiG doesn't deny a shift of the axis occurred, only that it was not from the vertical
10. Paluxy tracks prove that humans and dinosaurs co-existed -- again, while Hovind maintains the Paluxy tracks are, in fact, proof, AiG does not back away from human and dinosaur co-existance, only that Paluxy proves it.
11. Darwin's quote about the absurdity of the eye evolution from Origin of Species. -- Darwin did indeed use the term "absurd" and even stated why -- then went ahead and claimed it could easily have been an evolved organ after all, a viewpoint AiG disagrees with, and provides a link to an article explaining why. I believe one would find Hovind points out the same dichotomy I just mentioned, that it truly is absurd to call a theory "absurd" and then insist on accepting it anyway. There is far too much of this done in the interest of maintaining a false viability for the TofE.
12. Earth's division in the days of Peleg (Genesis 10 : 25) refers to catastrophic splittying of the continents -- Incorrect; Hovind does not ascribe to catastrophic continental division, but rather postulates that natural earthen dams formed by the Flood gave way behind the pressures of numerous massive lakes and inland seas, alternately, in a cycle lasting perhaps hundreds of years, filling then abandoning low-lying areas until the waters finally settled out leaving our current shallow continental shelves reaching for hundreds of miles into the oceans before falling off into the deep wells of original seabeds.
13. The phrase "science falsely so called" in 1 Timothy 6 : 20 (KJV) refers to evolution -- I haven't heard Hovind say that, but if he did, I would agree, he is incorrect
14. Ron Wyatt has found Noah's Ark -- I agree with this point and the next two: Hovind says these things, and he's wrong
15. Ron Wyatt has found much archaeological proof of the Bible -- ditto
16. Many of Carl Baugh's creation evidences -- ditto

Seems like Carl Baugh is directly called out though.

Deservedly so, and to a lesser extent, Hovind also. But there are skeletons in the closet of the evolution crowd too, including all the fraudlent "finds" around the world that in recent years have cost some very prominent scientists their jobs and their reputations. This on top of the well-known Darwin contemporaries who falsified drawings, "evolutionary trees" and a number of other "evidences" that, to their shame, were designed not just to "prove" the theory, but in particular, the superiority of the white "race" (so written in quotations because I believe there is only one race = human). Subterfuge, lies, frauds and deceptions have been discovered on both sides. Strange that two unproven and perhaps unprovable theories should result in such dishonor.

One would think there was more than pure research afoot here, wouldn't one?

 

[Willtor]

Actually, they are, in the sense that they anchor the animals together while they mate. They have been observed engaged in this usage of the appendages. Also, has it occurred to you that believing that whales used to have legs violates the premise of the order of evolution, the whale being a key transitional animal in the evolutionists fish-to-mammal development.

I don't know anything about whether they still use these muscles, but just to address the last part about fish-to-mammal development, I'd say no. Whales evolved from land mammals. They are not a break off of the development from fish into mammals. Rather, they are a sublcade of mammals. Think of it like this:

 

[Mallon]

Also, has it occurred to you that believing that whales used to have legs violates the premise of the order of evolution, the whale being a key transitional animal in the evolutionists fish-to-mammal development?

There's a strawman if I've ever heard one. I challenge you to back that up with sources.

But there are skeletons in the closet of the evolution crowd too, including all the fraudlent "finds" around the world that in recent years have cost some very prominent scientists their jobs and their reputations.

Prominent scientists like who?
Moreover, who do you think are the ones rectifying these frauds? Creationists?

 

[KerrMetric]

Also, has it occurred to you that believing that whales used to have legs violates the premise of the order of evolution, the whale being a key transitional animal in the evolutionists fish-to-mammal development?

A nice example of what ticks me off about this entire debate. You don't even understand what it is you are arguing against. Someone else also called you on this. Show us who states the whale has anything to do with some fish-to-mammal development.

Do you have a clue what you are even typing? Or is it a case of your cartoon version of reality just sounds nice to you?

Next time - TRY READING UP ON A TOPIC BEFORE TYPING!!!!!

 

[IisJustMe]

There's a strawman if I've ever heard one. I challenge you to back that up with sources.

Hardly a straw man, this is an ongoing controversy among evolutionists. You are quite correct in that the supposed evolution of whales from land mammals mesonychids currently holds sway, but that's only been the case for the last 30 years or so, and is a diametric oppositive position as expressed by evolution theorists in 1955. There are still those who say the 'land-to-sea' progression is ridiculous, because they recognize what creationists have been saying about the alleged "vestigial legs" for decades: The fossils represent a behemouth of an animal that couldn't have survived on land or sea.

In order for an animal, such as a dog (the mammal the mesonychid is said to most closely resemble) to evolve into a whale, it would need to get rid of its pelvis. This means that, at some point, the creature wouldn’t have a tail suitable for aquatic life, and wouldn't have legs suitable for living on land. So what did it do after its birth -- founder and die of suffocation because it couldn't support the weight of its own lungs and their absolute necessity to function?

Prominent scientists like who? Moreover, who do you think are the ones rectifying these frauds? Creationists?

In one sentence you seem unaware there are any discredited evolutionary scientists, then you question who is exposing them? Which is it?

In response to "who" I'll give the example of Shinichi Fujimura, the Japanese palentologist who, for 20 years, went about rewriting Japanese pre-history, until in 2001 was discovered to be a fraud who went out in secret burying the "finds" he then went out and dug up later. A million years of supposed "history" has been cast out because it was based on the work of a fraud who desperately wanted the world to be made in the image he imagined.

Need I remind you of the great "archeraptor" that was actually published in National Geographic 196:98-107, November 1999. Dinosaur bones were put together with the bones of a newer species of bird and they tried to pass it off as a very important new evolutionary intermediate. I wonder what the media would have done had a creationist produced a skeleton and claimed he had proof it was the remains of Adam? Would it have similarly been swept under the rug?

Then there was brontosaurus: One of the best known dinosaurs in books and museums for the past hundred years, brontosaurus never really existed. The dinosaur’s skeleton was found with the head missing. To complete it, a skull found three or four miles away was added. No one knew this for years. The body actually belonged to a species of Diplodocus and the head was from an Apatosaurus. (source: Paul S. Taylor, The Great Dinosaur Mystery and the Bible, [Chariot Victor Publishing, 1989], pp.12-13)

This is just more of the same from the beginning of the TofE, from Haekel's fraudulent "embryo drawings" and Darwin's finches. As to the latter, I'll give the man credit in saying he didn't realize he wasn't viewing evolution, but merely genetically encoded adaptation allowing the birds to adjust for wet and dry years.

I can list more, if you'd like. I'll let these digest for awhile.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

"Blood vessels in front of retina protection from UV light." (No it doesn't, we have one of the worst eyes in all of nature.)

Its not Hovind who says it, its Dr. Peter W. V. Gurney, a graduate of London's University of Bristol School of Medicine in 1960. After six years as a medical missionary to Muslim nations in the Mideast, he returned to London where he became a ophthamologist. Here's a link to the article where he postulates the blood vessels' protection of the retina.

http://www.trueorigin.org/retina.asp

I'll take a trained ophthamologist's opinion over yours or mine any day.
snip snip to address a single point

this issue of the inverted mammalian retina is a very interesting one that pops up on the boards pretty often. The problem is that it is just a little to complex for a layman to get a decent handle on it.

i've collected a number of decent links on the issue:


there are a number of excellent sites to learn about how eyes can evolve

start with:
http://www.maayan.uk.com/evoeyes1.html
then look at the variety of eye types at:
http://soma.npa.uiuc.edu/courses/bio303/Ch11b.html
then check out the annotated links list at:
http://ebiomedia.com/gall/eyes/EyeAWLS.html


http://dev.biologists.org/cgi/content/full/128/13/2497
looking for a review article on human eye nerve cell development.

asa has a whole series of discussions on it at:
http://www.google.com/search?as_q=i...itesearch=www.asa3.org&as_rights=&safe=images

http://www.catalase.com/retina.htm

if anyone has a complete list of websites they've liked on the issue, i'd appreciate the link.

it is a worthwhile research study, however at this point i'm unable to come to any conclusion.

 

[Willtor]

Whales were identified as mammals long before evolution was proposed by Darwin. If I recall, Darwin, himself, speculated on the descent of whales from terrestrial mammals. Could you cite some sources for the idea that it used to be thought that whales were not a subclade of mammals?

 

[IisJustMe]

Could you cite some sources for the idea that it used to be thought that whales were not a subclade of mammals?

I can't find anywhere I stated whales were not mammals, only that they at one time, according to some evolutionists, represented a fish-to-mammal transition. More accurately, one of their evolutionary ancestors would fill that role. I found some references on the web to this line of thinking up through the mid-fifties before falling out of favor, and while I knew that when I initially wrote the post, I didn't make it clear. Sorry.

 

[Willtor]

I can't find anywhere I stated whales were not mammals, only that they at one time, according to some evolutionists, represented a fish-to-mammal transition. More accurately, one of their evolutionary ancestors would fill that role. I found some references on the web to this line of thinking up through the mid-fifties before falling out of favor, and while I knew that when I initially wrote the post, I didn't make it clear. Sorry.

The transition of fish to mammal goes through the transition of fish to amphibian and amphibian to mammal. If there was a line that never left the water (that ends in various whales, today), people would hardly classify it as a mammal. When did these evolutionists of the 1950's think that the line broke off? Did they classify whales under the clade of amphibians? Did they classify them under the clade of mammals?

Could you provide the links? I'm not understanding where the whales were said to have been such that they could have been transitional from fish to mammals.

 

[shernren]

they at one time, according to some evolutionists, represented a fish-to-mammal transition. More accurately, one of their evolutionary ancestors would fill that role.

I'm expecting a credible source for this ... in a sense some of the whales' ancestors were transitional between fishes and mammals, if only in a very round-about way: the classic lobe-finned fishes -> amphibians -> land animals -> etc. They were indeed ancestral to whales in the same way that they are ancestral to the other land tetrapods.

If you're saying, on the other hand, that the whales represent a second outgroup from fishes directly into mammals, independent from the earlier-described processes, or that evolutionists once supported this, I hope you have a source for that claim.

 

[Mallon]

Hardly a straw man, this is an ongoing controversy among evolutionists.

Ongoing controversy? What in the world are you talking about? Again, I challenge you to back your point with sources. Even before the 50's, it was well accepted amongst scientists that whales had descended from mammals, not fish.

There are still those who say the 'land-to-sea' progression is ridiculous

Like who?

In order for an animal, such as a dog (the mammal the mesonychid is said to most closely resemble) to evolve into a whale, it would need to get rid of its pelvis. This means that, at some point, the creature wouldn’t have a tail suitable for aquatic life, and wouldn't have legs suitable for living on land.

This is wrong for 2 reasons:
1) The pelvic girdle is part of the appendicular skeleton; the tail is part of the axial skeleton. We see many loses of pelves in the fossil record, including in snakes (which retained their "tails", by the way, and do quite well in the water).
2) Your statement that an early whale ancestor "wouldn’t have a tail suitable for aquatic life, and wouldn't have legs suitable for living on land" shows a clear misunderstanding of the issue and is clearly addressed in the literature.

So what did it do after its birth -- founder and die of suffocation because it couldn't support the weight of its own lungs and their absolute necessity to function?

For whatever reason, you seem to be confusing mesonychids for large, multi-tonne, obligate aquatic animals.

In one sentence you seem unaware there are any discredited evolutionary scientists, then you question who is exposing them? Which is it?

My point is that it is other 'evolutionist' scientists who are revealing the frauds you bring up; NOT creationists. That's the scientific method at work.

Need I remind you of the great "archeraptor" that was actually published in National Geographic 196:98-107, November 1999.

Glad you brought it up. Who made the forgery? A farmer. Who uncovered the forgery? An evolutionary scientist.

Dinosaur bones were put together with the bones of a newer species of bird and they tried to pass it off as a very important new evolutionary intermediate.

And as the case would have it, both specimens which comprised the fossil hoax turned out to be important evolutionary intermediates. Especially Microraptor, the back half of 'Archaeoraptor'.

brontosaurus: One of the best known dinosaurs in books and museums for the past hundred years, brontosaurus never really existed.

Except Brontosaurus was no hoax. It was an honest case of mistaken identity. And unfortunately, your source isn't entirely accurate. Find the complete story here:
http://www.miketaylor.org.uk/dino/faq/s-class/bronto/

The dinosaur’s skeleton was found with the head missing. To complete it, a skull found three or four miles away was added. No one knew this for years. The body actually belonged to a species of Diplodocus and the head was from an Apatosaurus.

The head was of Camarasaurus, actually.

I can list more, if you'd like. I'll let these digest for awhile.

Not necessary. I don't deny that scientific hoaxes occur. My point is that it is other evolutionary scientists -- not creationists -- who uncover them.