Science Says NO to Evolution Theory!

[Subduction Zone]

He is asking for questions, maybe you can stump him and catch him in a lie?

I have caught him in many a lie. Countless people have.

 

[Subduction Zone]

20 Facts Proving Immoral Deviants Imprisoned Kent Hovind

This guy is a real gem: John David Roy Atchison

Call them what you want, "heroes" ?

How does that list of claims, not facts by the way, prove that immoral deviants imprisoned Kent? If I remember correctly it was a jury of 12 peers that finally put that fraud away.

 

[FollowerOfJesus]

I have caught him in many a lie. Countless people have.

Really, please do share!

Does this mean you are afraid to confront him in his challenge?

 

[FollowerOfJesus]

How does that list of claims, not facts by the way, prove that immoral deviants imprisoned Kent? If I remember correctly it was a jury of 12 peers that finally put that fraud away.

Friends of yours, birds of a feather ... ?

 

[RickG]

Really, please do share!

Does this mean you are afraid to confront him in his challenge?

Does he have a new challenge now?

 

[FollowerOfJesus]

Does he have a new challenge now?

Now that he is free, he is taking on all challengers: Kent Hovind OFFICIAL

 

[RickG]

Now that he is free, he is taking on all challengers: Kent Hovind OFFICIAL

I'm available for dating methods or flood geology.

 

[The Cadet]

attacking me, an ad hom, will not change a thing about the article, the conference, or what was said there.
roger lewin faced a similar scenario, an award winning science writer that earn a prestigious position with science, all of a sudden becomes the biggest liar that misrepresents scientists the world has ever known.
some of you have even witnessed such a thing in action recently.

Whois, you just keep making the same mistake. You find some quote by a scientist that seems to agree with your view, and then you cling to that quote as if it were the lost gospel of the Christ himself caught on video by a time traveler, but completely ignore the context of that scientist's work. In reality, each time you've cited a scientist, it's been shown that it's a misquote, a quote mine, or that the quote simply was not representative of that scientist's work. Has it ever occurred to you that your methodology might have some issues?

Where is Kent Hovind when you need him

...I believe the answer is "Trick question; you never need Kent Hovind". Seriously, you could do better with Banana Man. :/ No, not Ray Comfort. The British comic book parody hero.

 

[pat34lee]

What a bizarre claim. Citation, please?

https://sepetjian.wordpress.com/201...-exposed-60-years-ago-still-in-the-textbooks/

Information is something we read into semi-random patterns! Any semi-random physical phenomenon can be used as a "source" for information, be that phenomenon the code of DNA or the type and location of atoms in a rock. Could you please define your terms?

Information conveys data from one place or person to another. It must have meaning which both sides understand, otherwise it is just gibberish. Information can be put in physical form, but the form is not the information, any more than this text is the information. Writing is merely a means of conveying information from one person to another.

 

[pat34lee]

incorrect analogy.
i hate to break it to you, but that's exactly what happens with inorganic chemistry.
all ya gotta do is bring the atoms required into close proximity, add energy, and POOF, they join.
the situation with organic chemistry is just a tad different in that some reactions require a catalyst, but it's essentially the same scenario.

The problem there is just what you said. They join. But most easily with the wrong things.

 

[pat34lee]

Then perhaps you can explain why we don't find any horse fossils in the Triassic, Cambrina, Ordividican, Silurian, etc., periods.

The horse section is near the bottom of the article.
https://evolutionisntscience.wordpress.com/evolution-frauds/

 

[RickG]

The horse section is near the bottom of the article.
https://evolutionisntscience.wordpress.com/evolution-frauds/

You avoided my question. Please try again.

 

[The Cadet]

Information conveys data from one place or person to another. It must have meaning which both sides understand, otherwise it is just gibberish. Information can be put in physical form, but the form is not the information, any more than this text is the information. Writing is merely a means of conveying information from one person to another.

Well, congratulations, your definition of "information" excludes DNA. It also has absolutely nothing to do with "information" in the sense of "information theory", the type of information generally referred to in scientific research.

 

[ebia]

Information conveys data from one place or person to another. It must have meaning which both sides understand, otherwise it is just gibberish. Information can be put in physical form, but the form is not the information, any more than this text is the information. Writing is merely a means of conveying information from one person to another.

You seem to have confused information with communication.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Now that he is free, he is taking on all challengers: Kent Hovind OFFICIAL

Sorry, I don't listen to convicted liars. Does he have anything in writing?

 

[whois]

In reality, each time you've cited a scientist, it's been shown that it's a misquote, a quote mine, or that the quote simply was not representative of that scientist's work.

the only thing that applies in the case of ayala is that it isn't representative of his work.
transposons wasn't representative of darwinism either, but it turned out to be correct.

Has it ever occurred to you that your methodology might have some issues?

yes, i've often thought that i have been missing something somewhere.
i've started to form my own opinion about what's at work here, and it's a combination of things.

...I believe the answer is "Trick question; you never need Kent Hovind". Seriously, you could do better with Banana Man. :/ No, not Ray Comfort. The British comic book parody hero.

personally, i think it's wrong to question evolution on religious grounds.
i think that's the biggest misinterpretation you have of me.
you would be very hard pressed indeed to find any argument of mine that supported god in the case of evolution.
there may indeed be an intelligence at work, but that hardly suggests a god of sorts.

the origins of life and the transformation of animals into different kinds, there is no empirical evidence of either of these.
there are plenty of hypothesis and theories to explain it, no evidence that proves it.

 

[whois]

The problem there is just what you said. They join. But most easily with the wrong things.

maybe.
OTOH, organic chemistry, which is basically the chemistry of carbon, can be quite complex.
i would say it's so complex that no single chemist will ever understand all of it.
in my opinion, the biggest unknown by far are catalysts.
some organic reactions just simply will not proceed without them, and no one knows what will work until it is tried.
don't make the mistake that organic chemistry is as simple as putting together a puzzle, because it isn't.
catalysts throws an almost impossible monkey wrench into the works.
catalysts do not follow laws, you cannot find a catalyst by solving a chemical equation.

 

[RickG]

maybe.
OTOH, organic chemistry, which is basically the chemistry of carbon, can be quite complex.
i would say it's so complex that no single chemist will ever understand all of it.
in my opinion, the biggest unknown by far are catalysts.
some organic reactions just simply will not proceed without them, and no one knows what will work until it is tried.
don't make the mistake that organic chemistry is as simple as putting together a puzzle, because it isn't.
catalysts throws an almost impossible monkey wrench into the works.
catalysts do not follow laws, you cannot find a catalyst by solving a chemical equation.

Whois, I spent most of my professional career as a chemist. Your idea of a catalyst is completely wrong. The only function of a catalyst is to speed up a reaction. That is the rate at which a reaction occurs. A catalyst does not affect the equilibrium position of a reaction or its equilibrium constant and is not consumed in the reaction, and yes catalysts do follow laws and are not unknowns.

 

[The Cadet]

the only thing that applies in the case of ayala is that it isn't representative of his work.

You're missing my point. You keep on appealing to these scientists as authorities, but you completely ignore what they actually have to say. We've had this with Gould, with Eldridge, with Koonin, and with Ayala. Every scientist you cite disagrees with you on what their work means. Why is that? How do you keep making this same mistake?

 

[whois]

Whois, I spent most of my professional career as a chemist. Your idea of a catalyst is completely wrong. The only function of a catalyst is to speed up a reaction. That is the rate at which a reaction occurs. A catalyst does not affect the equilibrium position of a reaction or its equilibrium constant and is not consumed in the reaction, and yes catalysts do follow laws and are not unknowns.

well, i have absolutely no formal education on chemistry, and i suggest that anyone that wishes to learn about catalysts do so by reading.
hint, another term for catalyst is substrate.
yes, there are known catalysts, but these were found by "trying it" not by solving an equation.