Debate between Dan Cardinale and Kent Hovind

[pitabread]

This idea of calling everything a species now is nothing more than evolution rhetoric to try and save face.

Defining and classifying species is the same as other forms of taxonomy: it makes it easier to talk about things.

Or to put it another way: organisms in nature don't come with their species classification stamped on their underside. Those classifications are purely artificial.

It has nothing to do with "saving face". I'm not even sure what you're trying to get at here.

And referring to everything above the species level as "artificial" just QEDs that point.

Well, no, because your premise is incorrect in the first place.

 

[AV1611VET]

Did you watch all of this, pitabread?

I'm at 27:06 now and saying, "Go, Kent, go!"

"An ear developed from a common ancestor called an ear. A hand had a common ancestor called a hand. Same for dogs, corn, and anything else."

Love it!

 

[pitabread]

Did you watch all of this, pitabread?

I did.

I'm at 27:06 now and saying, "Go, Kent, go!"

I'm sure you are.

 

[AV1611VET]

Defining and classifying species is the same as other forms of taxonomy: it makes it easier to talk about things.

No argument there.

When you truncate the genus, it makes it easier to tell someone that an animal is your ancestor, as it effectively removes the "after their kind" phrases from Genesis 1.

 

[AV1611VET]

EXCELLENT point about the Kentucky Derby.

They spent billions of dollars trying to get a faster horse, and in the past 100 years have only gone from 127 seconds to 123 seconds -- and that's with them TRYING to make it happen!

ETA: He said if you really want to win the Kentucky Derby, breed wings on a horse, and it will win every time.

 

[pitabread]

When you truncate the genus, it makes it easier to tell someone that an animal is your ancestor, as it effectively removes the "after their kind" phrases from Genesis 1.

Again, missing the point.

 

[AV1611VET]

I'll stop right here at 28:47 for now.

Should get interesting with Dan's reply to this.

But more later (LORD willing).

 

[pitabread]

EXCELLENT point about the Kentucky Derby.

They spent billions of dollars trying to get a faster horse, and in the past 100 years have only gone from 127 seconds to 123 seconds -- and that's with them TRYING to make it happen!

Were you able to spot the strawman that Kent was creating here?

 

[AV1611VET]

Here come the fallacies.

Were you able to spot the strawman that Kent was creating here?

No.

 

[pitabread]

No.

Maybe you'll spot it when he gets to his "dogs the size of Texas" bit.

 

[AV1611VET]

Maybe you'll spot it when he gets to his "dogs the size of Texas" bit.

Did you mean "pig"?

He said at 24:25, "You'll never get a pig as big as Texas."

 

[pitabread]

Did you mean "pig"?

He said at 24:25, "You'll never get a pig as big as Texas."

He later uses dogs in the same analogy (at the ~46:30 mark).

It's the same strawman though.

(TBH, I'd forgotten that he'd first mentioned that claim with pigs.)

 

[Strathos]

I love it when someone gives a definition of macroevolution.

They always say it is, "Evolution above the species level," but they always stop short of what they mean.

They don't explain that the next step above the species level is "genus."

So you'll never hear them say, "Macroevolution is one species (or genus) giving rise to a new genus."

Dan wouldn't get away with his definition of macroevolution with me.

I actually think you'd do better than Hovind did if you replaced him.

Granted, that's more a condemnation of Hovind's debating skill than praise of yours.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

I use its etymology.

From Etymology Online:

Genus = KindAs I said, if most creationists define "kind" at the Family level, I believe they are wrong.I agree. And it certainly did for thousands of years, until Linnaeus came along and injected his particular brand of science into it and muddied the waters.

Today, KIND has been Arab-phoned to GENUS, and now no one knows what the proper definition is.

You use the etymology of genus for your source? Why not use the etymology of kind?

From Etymology Online:
Kind (n) "class, sort, variety," from Old English gecynd "kind, nature, race," related to cynn "family"

Typical creationist tactic - bait and switch.

 

[AV1611VET]

You use the etymology of genus for your source?

Once in awhile.

Why not use the etymology of kind?

And how would the etymology of KIND make my point that Kind = Genus?

Typical creationist tactic - bait and switch.

Hey, neat.

Bait-and-Switch vs Arab Phone

You Arab phone words in the Bible; and I'll bait-and-switch them back!

 

[Frank Robert]

Yay for Kent!

At 22:30 ff, he makes the point I just made: that they don't explain what they mean by "above the species level."

And Kent says he would be cautious of using the word "species," and I couldn't agree with him more.

This idea of calling everything a species now is nothing more than evolution rhetoric to try and save face.

And referring to everything above the species level as "artificial" just QEDs that point.

Kent was unable to define where microevolution for kinds ends. Besides fumbling to define kinds he claimed over and over that macroevolution is in your dreams never once attempted to debunk Dan's evidence for macroevolution happening today. I genuinely felt embarrassed for him.

 

[Frank Robert]

Did you watch all of this, pitabread?

I'm at 27:06 now and saying, "Go, Kent, go!"

"An ear developed from a common ancestor called an ear. A hand had a common ancestor called a hand. Same for dogs, corn, and anything else."

Love it!

Unfortunately for Kent, a hand or an ear is not a common ancestor, nor is a dog a common ancestor for dogs. Genes for a hand and ear will be found in somewhere in a now extinct ancestor of the present day species. The common ancestor for evolution of dogs and wolfs are a now-extinct wolf population.

 

[Frank Robert]

EXCELLENT point about the Kentucky Derby.

They spent billions of dollars trying to get a faster horse, and in the past 100 years have only gone from 127 seconds to 123 seconds -- and that's with them TRYING to make it happen!

That is not evolution it is gene manipulation, evolution is mutation and natural selection not artificial manipulation.

ETA: He said if you really want to win the Kentucky Derby, breed wings on a horse, and it will win every time.

He has an overactive imagination.

 

[Frank Robert]

Did you mean "pig"?

He said at 24:25, "You'll never get a pig as big as Texas."

Who is the "you" he is referring to? Kent is simply displaying willful ignorance of evolution.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

Once in awhile.And how would the etymology of KIND make my point that Kind = Genus?Hey, neat.

Bait-and-Switch vs Arab Phone

You Arab phone words in the Bible; and I'll bait-and-switch them back!

I haven't arab phoned any word in the bible. The bait and switch is entirely yours - the etymology of "kind" is swapped for the etymology of "genus" because the real etymology of kind is inconvenient, eh?