Evolution is STUPID

[KJV1611Warrior]

100 reasons why evolution is so stupid. - YouTube

 

[jlmagee]

100 reasons why evolution is so stupid. - YouTube

You do realize that you are using Hovind---Kent Hovind(?) as a legitimate source?

 

[KJV1611Warrior]

Yes, and proudly so! He stood up to our government and was imprisoned for it. That does not diminish the veracity and truthfulness of his teaching. David committed adultery and then murder to cover it up. Even that didn't diminish the authenticity of his faith in the LORD.

 

[jlmagee]

Yes, and proudly so! He stood up to our government and was imprisoned for it. That does not diminish the veracity and truthfulness of his teaching. David committed adultery and then murder to cover it up. Even that didn't diminish the authenticity of his faith in the LORD.

First, I am not discounting Hovind because of his legal troubles. That would be an ad hominem. I try to avoid logical fallacies.

Second, I do not question his faith or his conviction that what he says he believes to be true.

When I was hardcore YEC, I viewed the the Hovind series with a friend. The straw men, non sequiturs, other fallacies, and just weak arguments led me to question YEC. Ken Ham sealed the deal.

There are very respectable YEC's that could be used as legitimate sources, just not Hovind or Ham. They have no credibility.

 

[metherion]

So let’s look at the beginning. Before he even gets to any reasons, at 0:03:18 or so, with the list starting to be shown at 3:30, he does the ‘6 definitions of evolution, which is wildly and objectively wrong.

He states there are 6 types of evolution:
Cosmic, chemical, stellar, organic, macro, and micro. He further states that only micro has ever been seen.

This is flat out, dead wrong.

He states cosmic evolution is the origin of matter and the universe, i.e., the Big Bang. Well, no. No it isn’t. The Big Bang is, well, the Big Bang. If you google ‘cosmic evolution’, even wikipedia doesn’t have a page on it. You get ‘physical cosmology’. The first result that’s a real result is something from Harvard, which defines it as:
The study of many varied changes is the assembly and composition of energy, matter, and life in the thinning and cooling universe.

This is something Darwin had nothing to do with, by the by. This is not biology.

Next, is chemical, which Hovind defines as the origin of higher elements from hydrogen. He states this has never been seen. He is flat out WRONG. Chemical evolution has another name you might recognize: nuclear fusion. It has been seen. It has been seen in stars including our own sun, it has been seen in experimental fusion reactors in labs, and it has been seen in the H-bomb. Hovind is flat out, objectively wrong about this.

Darwin also had nothing to do with this. This is not biology.

Next up is stellar and planetary evolution, the origin of stars and planets. Except this name is wrong. Stellar evolution is the term applied to the life cycle of stars, from birth to death (by nova, by fizzling into a white dwarf, whatever). So he is objectively wrong there. Planetary evolution isn’t even a term.

By the way, through space telescopes like the Hubble there have been several stages in the formations of stars and planets observed. The entire process takes longer than since humanity has gone to space, so it’s no wonder the full birth of a star and its planets hasn’t been observed beginning to end, but stages have been observed in the middle.

By the way, this also isn’t biology.

Next up is organic evolution, which he claims is the formation of life. The formation of life has another name. That name is abiogenesis. It is not evolution. It is not even completely biology, but biology mixed with biochemistry. Hovind is at least getting closer to the right field. However, this is not part of biological evolution. This also has nothing to do with what Darwin wrote about.

Next up is perhaps the worst offender of them all. He defines macro-evolution as a change between kinds. But he doesn’t define ‘kind’. He merely says “Nobody has ever seen a dog produce a non-dog. But the evolutionist believes a dog came from a rock, if you go far enough back in time, 4.6 billion years.” Direct quote, between 4:55 and 5:15.

This definition is meaningless because it relies on the undefined term ‘kind’. It is further an outright lie because nobody believes a dog came from a rock. Seriously, that’s just a plain lie. Furthermore, that is not the way organisms are classified, nor what you would expect to see. You would not expect to see a mammal produce a non-mammal. You would not expect to see a vertebrate produce a non-vertebrate. Saying that for macro-evolution to be true, one animal must birth a wildly different animal is a false statement.

His last definition, microevolution, he prefaces by saying he’s rather it be called ‘variation’, but it actually happens. He also says it’s the only one that has been observed (which is outright false).

Before I’ve even gotten to the reasons he’s told multiple outright lies, misnamed terms, and gotten basic science wrong.

He’s not a credible source. That DOES diminish the veracity and truthfulness of his teaching. By the way, he didn't 'stand up to the government', he failed to pay taxes. Federal income taxes. That's a far cry from someone like Wang Zhiming, who actually stood up to the government.

Metherion

 

[mark273]

Good luck with this metherion. Your responses are rational, clear, and correct. Evolution may be wrong, but anyone who says that it is stupid is simply choosing not to seriously engage with it. At Bryan College in Dayton, Tenn, there is a professor of biology who is an unapologetic young-earth creationist. He had this to say about evolution (http://toddcwood.blogspot.com/2009/09/truth-about-evolution.html):

The truth about evolution

I hope this doesn't turn into a rant, but it might. You have been warned.

Evolution is not a theory in crisis. It is not teetering on the verge of collapse. It has not failed as a scientific explanation. There is evidence for evolution, gobs and gobs of it. It is not just speculation or a faith choice or an assumption or a religion. It is a productive framework for lots of biological research, and it has amazing explanatory power. There is no conspiracy to hide the truth about the failure of evolution. There has really been no failure of evolution as a scientific theory. It works, and it works well.

I say these things not because I'm crazy or because I've "converted" to evolution. I say these things because they are true. I'm motivated this morning by reading yet another clueless, well-meaning person pompously declaring that evolution is a failure. People who say that are either unacquainted with the inner workings of science or unacquainted with the evidence for evolution. (Technically, they could also be deluded or lying, but that seems rather uncharitable to say. Oops.)

Creationist students, listen to me very carefully: There is evidence for evolution, and evolution is an extremely successful scientific theory. That doesn't make it ultimately true, and it doesn't mean that there could not possibly be viable alternatives. It is my own faith choice to reject evolution, because I believe the Bible reveals true information about the history of the earth that is fundamentally incompatible with evolution. I am motivated to understand God's creation from what I believe to be a biblical, creationist perspective. Evolution itself is not flawed or without evidence. Please don't be duped into thinking that somehow evolution itself is a failure. Please don't idolize your own ability to reason. Faith is enough. If God said it, that should settle it. Maybe that's not enough for your scoffing professor or your non-Christian friends, but it should be enough for you.

I think that's all I want to say today. Rant over.

 

[berachah]

Next up is perhaps the worst offender of them all. He defines macro-evolution as a change between kinds. But he doesn’t define ‘kind’. He merely says “Nobody has ever seen a dog produce a non-dog. But the evolutionist believes a dog came from a rock, if you go far enough back in time, 4.6 billion years.” Direct quote, between 4:55 and 5:15.

This definition is meaningless because it relies on the undefined term ‘kind’. It is further an outright lie because nobody believes a dog came from a rock. Seriously, that’s just a plain lie. Furthermore, that is not the way organisms are classified, nor what you would expect to see. You would not expect to see a mammal produce a non-mammal. You would not expect to see a vertebrate produce a non-vertebrate. Saying that for macro-evolution to be true, one animal must birth a wildly different animal is a false statement.
Metherion

I hate this superior and condescending attitude. Everyone knows what a kind is, even if they feign ignorance. Just because people don't use evolutionist classifications doesn't mean you can discard their opinions. Such opinionated arrogance..

Personally I enjoy the passion and enthusiasm of Hovind and he cuts the through the pseudo science of evolutionists, even if he gets it wrong from time to time. (and lets face it which evolutionist hasn't had to revise his theory over and over again) If one tracks back up the proposed evolutionary chain, a dog does originally come from a rock. (the rain poured on the rock, together with heat and time, formed a broth and the 1st organism spontaneously burst forth which eventually evolved into a dog - that is the theory of evolution in a nutshell)

And I would love to know just how all the extra genetic information actually gets into these ever evolving organisms.

 

[super animator]

I hate this superior and condescending attitude. Everyone knows what a kind is, even if they feign ignorance. Just because people don't use evolutionist classifications doesn't mean you can discard their opinions. Such opinionated arrogance..

This is not a matter of ones opinion this is a matter of a definition for classification. No it has nothing to with arrogance when he disregard it, it doesn't have the same kind of support as "evolutionist" clarification. Would you say the same thing when it comes to chemistry classification?

 

[miamited]

I hate this superior and condescending attitude. Everyone knows what a kind is, even if they feign ignorance. Just because people don't use evolutionist classifications doesn't mean you can discard their opinions. Such opinionated arrogance..

Personally I enjoy the passion and enthusiasm of Hovind and he cuts the through the pseudo science of evolutionists, even if he gets it wrong from time to time. (and lets face it which evolutionist hasn't had to revise his theory over and over again) If one tracks back up the proposed evolutionary chain, a dog does originally come from a rock. (the rain poured on the rock, together with heat and time, formed a broth and the 1st organism spontaneously burst forth which eventually evolved into a dog - that is the theory of evolution in a nutshell)

And I would love to know just how all the extra genetic information actually gets into these ever evolving organisms.

Hi berachah,

Let me start by saying that I am a staunch and fully confirmed young earth creationist. I solidly believe that somewhere around 6,000 years ago there was nothing in all of the universe in which we live. No earth, no stars, no plants, no 'man-like' creature.

However, God did not define 'kinds'. He merely said that every kind will multiply with its own kind. Therefore, I believe that God's definition of 'kind' can be thought to be any animal that willingly and without any intervention of any kind would mate with another animal. That same understanding goes for plants.

All our talk of man-made classifications that are used to determine the family that an animal belongs to, is just that, man-made classifications. We have no assurance that those who determine such things for us in our realm of science are really keeping with God's definition of 'kind'. It is merely a human endeavor to catalog and categorize plant and animal life upon the earth on which we live.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

 

[PaladinValer]

The ramblings of a proven conspiracy theorist don't interest me much, especially one who seemingly willingly sets up Straw Men instead of arguing points.

 

[Keachian]

I hate this superior and condescending attitude. Everyone knows what a kind is, even if they feign ignorance. Just because people don't use evolutionist classifications doesn't mean you can discard their opinions. Such opinionated arrogance..

Well from what I understand Y/OEC normally have it as those that can reproduce with one another, as such we have problems with new speciation events and ring species, that is unless we make the claim that God's providential care of creation results in the creation of new kinds.

Personally I enjoy the passion and enthusiasm of Hovind and he cuts the through the pseudo science of evolutionists, even if he gets it wrong from time to time. (and lets face it which evolutionist hasn't had to revise his theory over and over again) If one tracks back up the proposed evolutionary chain, a dog does originally come from a rock. (the rain poured on the rock, together with heat and time, formed a broth and the 1st organism spontaneously burst forth which eventually evolved into a dog - that is the theory of evolution in a nutshell)

Evolution doesn't deal with where the first organism(s) came from, it merely talks about how organisms diversify. Yes a dog comes from the first organism.

And I would love to know just how all the extra genetic information actually gets into these ever evolving organisms.

Sex is actually a very quick way of getting new information in an unstable gene pool, since the extinction of homo sapiens nenderthalis the human gene pool has stabilized.

Sorry about the short answer to your post, my area of study regarding origins is more on the theology side than the biology side

 

[Smidlee]

I don't think evolution is stupid but agree more with Ian in this rant that it's not falsifiable. It must be accepted by faith.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UB0cjZMVjOo&feature=youtu.be

 

[berachah]

Evolution doesn't deal with where the first organism(s) came from, it merely talks about how organisms diversify. Yes a dog comes from the first organism.

I think you should read any book that professes the theory of evolution and they all say.... "in the beginning it was hot, very hot, then there was precipitation..lots...then there was time ..billions of years and then there was soup, and then there was life.."

Sex is actually a very quick way of getting new information in an unstable gene pool, since the extinction of homo sapiens nenderthalis the human gene pool has stabilized.

Well those higher species with which to mate with, have had to come from somewhere.. Evolution is esentially saying that the whole chain of evolution is charaterised by more genetic data being introduced for each progressive species and that is impossible.

 

[Keachian]

I think you should read any book that professes the theory of evolution and they all say.... "in the beginning it was hot, very hot, then there was precipitation..lots...then there was time ..billions of years and then there was soup, and then there was life..

On just a quick skim through of The Origin of Species it doesn't actually have this, this is also the first time I've heard this variant of the timetable. Your statement that all books on evolution contain this timetable is disproved as there exists one book which doesn't contain it.

Well those higher species with which to mate with, have had to come from somewhere.. Evolution is esentially saying that the whole chain of evolution is charaterised by more genetic data being introduced for each progressive species and that is impossible.

Of course that's assuming that the only form of information gain is through sexual reproduction.
Mutation and other things help, do you have any theological objections to evolutionary creationism?

 

[berachah]

On just a quick skim through of The Origin of Species it doesn't actually have this, this is also the first time I've heard this variant of the timetable. Your statement that all books on evolution contain this timetable is disproved as there exists one book which doesn't contain it.

Correction....every book except the above one.

Of course that's assuming that the only form of information gain is through sexual reproduction.
Mutation and other things help, do you have any theological objections to evolutionary creationism?

Mutation is a malfunction and invariably involves a loss of information or functionality. As for the 'other', would love to hear more...

Evolutionary Creation? The Bible says sin came through man and death through sin and that the whole earth is under the curse of sin. It is difficult to understand how animals could die, kill each other, kill man, before the original sin?

 

[Assyrian]

The bible doesn't say anything about animal death being the result of the fall.

 

[freezerman2000]

.

 

[berachah]

The bible doesn't say anything about animal death being the result of the fall.

Yes it does....right next to where it says we evolved from apes

 

[Keachian]

Correction....every book except the above one.

I could probably keep going through books on evolution and continue proving your statements wrong but I only have one other on hand, Thank God for Evolution it does have a timetable, it talks of hot springs in the ocean, and within the earth's crust, Dowd only puts these forward as a probability though and not a certainty.

Mutation is a malfunction and invariably involves a loss of information or functionality. As for the 'other', would love to hear more...

GAT -> GATT is a mutation, it is also a gain in information (the T is unexpected and therefore new information)

Evolutionary Creation? The Bible says sin came through man and death through sin and that the whole earth is under the curse of sin. It is difficult to understand how animals could die, kill each other, kill man, before the original sin?

So the problem is theodicy? The answer to all questions of theodicy do not come down to us and our sinful natures, it is fundamentally answered in the Cross of Christ, the God of the universe entering in and demonstrating his Grace by reconciling creation back unto himself. It is not as if Christ is plan B, Christ is the Lamb slain from before the foundation of the world, this cannot be if he is the backup plan.

 

[Assyrian]

Yes it does....right next to where it says we evolved from apes

In other words it isn't in the bible. If that is the case why do you have a problem with animals dying before the fall?