Evolution vs. Creation: hovind debate

The Gregorian · Apr 27, 2007

that's nice that you bring up other woodpeckers... but again, I'll point out specifically the european green woodpecker. The tongue starts out going -down- the throat. This is is a change that could not survive intermediary steps.

Baggins · Apr 27, 2007

The Gregorian said:
that's nice that you bring up other woodpeckers... but again, I'll point out specifically the european green woodpecker. The tongue starts out going -down- the throat. This is is a change that could not survive intermediary steps.

It obviously did as the continued existence of the green woodpecker so eloquently shows.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/woodpecker/woodpecker.html

flatworm · Apr 27, 2007

The Gregorian said:
down to post #14 now:

So c-14 tests are invalid on snails? What are c-14 tests not valid on? Mammoths too, I assume? Since two parts of the SAME mammoth have been dated thousands of years apart? Again, I'll ask: If c-14 tests are invalid on mollusks and snails which live near water because the water is KNOWN to skew the results, why is c-14 testing used on oceanic fossils? And the results trusted, although they're known to be skewed?

I think other posters have addressed this quite well already.

Why does c-14 testing never work on things where we KNOW when it died, yet c-14 seems to ALWAYS work when we have no idea when it died except the results of the c-14 testing?

It doesn't always work- it just happens that we know what it works on and what it doesn't, and honest scientists only use it to date what it works on. The reason it "never works on things where we KNOW when it died" (which is an utterly false claim) is because professional creationists intentionally misapply (as in the case of the snails) or misrepresent (as in the case of the mammoths) carbon dating and its results.

not for thousands of years.

Yes, even for thousands of years. There are several examples of this in the form of Black Sea shipwrecks.

How do we know these 30'+ of layers formed within a year or two, yet these few feet of layers were a million years apart?

Here's a clue- the thickness of the individual layers. Mudslides form thick layers. Varves are paper thin.

Then why is evolution religiously defended by faith alone?

A basic understanding of science is now considered faith?

No one has evidence of how the first cell formed, let alone animated, let alone started to reproduce.

Which is not a matter of evolution. The first cell could have been created by God or magicked here by space faeries and it wouldn't invalidate evolution in the slightest.

Again, I'm not saying teach christianity.

The problem is that you seem enthusiastic about teaching lies about science.

There's no way to scientifically prove WHAT created the universe, but the idea that something ALIVE brought life to the earth is a perfectly logical statement.

A plausible claim, perhaps, but it is hardly axiomatic.

I'm NOT saying "teach evolution and christianity." I'm saying "if you're going to teach that 'science says we came from soup that got hit by lightning'

Who teaches that?

teach that 'it is also possible something could have created life.' Either way, the origin of why we're here is religious, and should be discussed with whatever religious leaders you choose."

The question of "Why" may be religious, but the "How" needn't be. Science is about how.

Is your best arguement the fact that I called the universal singularity "dirt?" I sincerely apologize if I offended your ancestors (the dirt, from which you evolved).

My best argument is the fact you have no scientific argument. You consistently display total ignorance of what evolution is, what abiogenesis claims, and what big bang cosmology claims, yet you somehow expect to be taken seriously when you pontificate on what ought to be taught in a science classroom.

You can't have a theory of how the first life forms evolved if you have no bloody clue how what evolved got here!

Sure you can. Do you realize we're still not quite clear on what exactly causes mass? Yet you'll see that little 'm' factor everywhere in physics! The theories that use it are quite valid at explaining the phenomena they purport to explain, just like evolution.

"I see multiple kinds of finches... so they all evolved from bacteria, and I have no idea how that bacteria got here." Honestly? That's what science accepts?

Out of necessity, since no one theory (at least no theory a human mind could hold) can be used to explain every phenomenon in the universe.

Evolution doesn't explain everything. Creationism, on the other hand, explains nothing.

A complete theory, for you, is "These bacteria with very little DNA material passed on what the information they didn't have, until what wasn't passed on is all you see?"

Nice straw man. You know that's a logical fallacy, right?

BTW, do you know how "information" is measured?

arensb · Apr 28, 2007

The Gregorian said:
1: Why is carbon dating trusted when living snails have been carbon dated as having died 26,000 years ago?

One time when I was a kid, I stuck a thermometer inside a candle flame. It broke. If you tried to get a temperature reading, it would probably have said 80 degrees C or something. Clearly thermometers don't work.

Same deal here: if you use a tool in circumstances where it doesn't work, don't be surprised if you get absurd results.

If those snails existed, I bet they were marine snails. C14 dating is based on the amount of C14 that has decayed since the organism died. C14 is produced in the atmosphere by cosmic rays. If the organism doesn't get its carbon from the atmosphere, then carbon-dating can't work. The same goes from organisms living in various environment where a lot of the carbon is ancient (e.g., plants that get their carbon from coal).

If this doesn't answer your question, then do us all a favor and find the original report that gave the discordant date. I predict that a) this will be hard to do because creationists like Hovind don't like to cite their sources, and b) there'll be a perfectly good explanation for the discordant date.

2: The geologic column... each layer is supposed to be long periods of time apart... yet trees stand straight up through the layers, are we really to believe that the tree was standing for millions of years?

I recently went through this same discussion with another Hovindite. Maybe you can do what he couldn't: find a geological report that discusses a specific tree, and dates the bit of rock at the top of the tree as being significantly older than the bit just above the roots. In other words, find a geologist who thinks that the particular layer(s) that the tree is embedded in was laid down over millions of years.

Deposition rates vary. Just because a 300-foot cliff took 100 million years to form doesn't mean that it was deposited at a constant rate of 3 millionths of a foot every single year. Geologists aren't stupid. They can figure this out.

USincognito · Jul 18, 2007

I happened to check to see if Hovind's videos were availible on Netflix. They are and I was increasingly disheartened as I read through the reviews.
(note, you might not be able to see the specifics or the reviews if you're not a Netflix member)

I ordered Dinosaurs in the Bible, but probably won't get it until some time in Sept. There's no way I'd bump it to the top over things like Soap Season 3 or a number of National Lampoon movies I remember from the 80s.

fromdownunder · Jul 18, 2007

And 9 years from now when he gets out of prison, he can start making brand new videos.

Norm

Jet Black · Jul 18, 2007

so soon?

xXNERDXx · Jul 18, 2007

fromdownunder said:
And 9 years from now when he gets out of prison, he can start making brand new videos.

Norm

wow, pretty hostile. what's he in jail for?

USincognito · Jul 18, 2007

xXNERDXx said:
wow, pretty hostile. what's he in jail for?

Tax evasion.

Atheuz · Jul 18, 2007

xXNERDXx said:
wow, pretty hostile. what's he in jail for?

Several offenses of tax evasion.

This entire thread is just a large PRATT...... It's sad :/

z3ro · Jul 18, 2007

xXNERDXx said:
wow, pretty hostile. what's he in jail for?

I prefer to think of him kind of like Al Capone; we didn't get him for destroying the science education of a nation's youth, but we nailed him on tax evasion.

Split Rock · Jul 19, 2007

The Gregorian said:
that's nice that you bring up other woodpeckers... but again, I'll point out specifically the european green woodpecker. The tongue starts out going -down- the throat. This is is a change that could not survive intermediary steps.

Yet, obviously it did. Unless you are going to claim that all Woodpeckers do not constitute a single Biblical Kind?

Split Rock · Jul 19, 2007

The Gregorian said:
Then why was this paleozoic limestone not accounted for with the snail? Why was it not accounted for with the mollusks? The mammoths? Why does it seem to never be accounted for when we test anything with a priorly known date of death? Yet, we assume it's perfectly accounted for when c-14 dating is used by itself?

note this quote from your source:

So shouldn't ALL carbon-14 dating from water dwelling creatures be invalid because of the potential for paleozoic limetsone CO2?

Next, your source specifically says again that the snail dating was off, therefore it must have had some sort of reservoir effect... How do we know what does and doesn't have this same reservoir effect? Unless this reservoir effect is accounted for in all c-14 dating, if so why was it not accounted for in the case of the snails and mollusks and seals and mammoths?

Have to go now, but I'll continue with more on post 21+ when I get back.

Rather than throwing blanket accusations about inapproriate C-14 dating methodology around why don't you pick a published paper, or a excerpt from a book, which provides C-14 dating which you deem to be inappropriate. Then provide us a critique on why the methodology is wrong.

fromdownunder · Jul 19, 2007

xXNERDXx said:
wow, pretty hostile. what's he in jail for?

How is it that you can claim that a simple statement of a fact is "hostile"?

He is in prison. he will not be out of prison for 9 years. Simple facts.

Jet Black · Jul 19, 2007

The Gregorian said:
that's nice that you bring up other woodpeckers... but again, I'll point out specifically the european green woodpecker. The tongue starts out going -down- the throat. This is is a change that could not survive intermediary steps.

look greg, this is a big problem you have here. If Christians started going around saying that Iraq had a border with France because the Bible Says So (regardless of whether the Bible does or not), then people would look at the map, see how wrong they were, and this would reflect badly on Christianity, because they would associate the bad geography with Christianity, and we all know what Jesus said about millstones.

Now what you're doing here, is the scientific equivalent of that; you're making statements that are easy to refute, just by going and looking at the anatomy of a woodpecker. That simple; there's no theorising involved, I just go and look at a book about Woodpeckers, and see how wrong you are. This discredits you, it discredits people like you, and it discredits your religion. If you are happy with tarnishing the image of Christianity, then carry on making statements like that.

Jet Black · Jul 19, 2007

fromdownunder said:
How is it that you can claim that a simple statement of a fact is "hostile"?

He is in prison. he will not be out of prison for 9 years. Simple facts.

slang I suppose... like saying "far out" or something.

ranmaonehalf · Jul 19, 2007

USincognito said:
I happened to check to see if Hovind's videos were availible on Netflix. They are and I was increasingly disheartened as I read through the reviews.
(note, you might not be able to see the specifics or the reviews if you're not a Netflix member)

I ordered Dinosaurs in the Bible, but probably won't get it until some time in Sept. There's no way I'd bump it to the top over things like Soap Season 3 or a number of National Lampoon movies I remember from the 80s.

lets see

april may jun july...
you just cast a 1st or 2nd level threadomancy spell.

USincognito · Jul 19, 2007

ranmaonehalf said:
lets see

april may jun july...
you just cast a 1st or 2nd level threadomancy spell.

Actually I wanted to post the link to the Netflix reviews of the Creation Seminar and rather than waste a thread that was likely to get 8-11 replies, none meaningful, I searched for Hovind and this was the first thread to come up.

Unfortunately, since everyone is responding to the OP and other posts, it seems that it was an inadvertant threadomancy rather than an attempt at ecomony.

The Gregorian · Jul 20, 2007

<-haven't checked this in some time, but I saw that it came back and I missed out on a lot of golden opportunities to comment on some wonderful closed mindedness:

I'll comment on the best ones... if you see something specific that you want a comment on let me know and I'll comment on that too:

1- earlier I pointed out that evolution is unlikely because there is currently no reputable theories as far as how the thing started. We know it's here... we know it wasn't always here... therefore it started. Evolution says "This little bacteria evolved into everything from other bacteria to trees and people" ... and it's best guess as to how that first bacteria got there is... (silence)... well we know the first bacteria evolved this way...

My question is: How do we know it's sexual patterns when we don't know what "it" was? We think amino acids just... kinda bumped together in the ocean... and... you know... started reproducing in a specific way?

And why can we still not replicate the idea of inanimate liquids becoming animate?

It was aptly said that biogenisis is no part of the evolution theory. Therefore the evolution theory is fundamentally without a very important step: How it started. What kicked it off.

And Hovind's being thrown in jail for corrupting the scientific minds of america?

He's not even saying not to teach it, only to point out that it's a -THEORY- that some people have. That there is both evidence FOR and AGAINST it. Teach both sides. It's possible that life just magically poofed into existence with no cause whatsoever. However, it should be taught that an equal theory is that -something- may have caused the same magic poof that evolutionists hold their faith in. It may have been space fairies or the christian God or the flying spaghetti monster... -who- poofed it and why are for the children to decide based on their religious beliefs.

But what's so intimidating about allowing them to hold faith in the religion they choose? Isn't this a free country? Since when is it OK to say "that's nice, but your silly religion is wrong. Science has proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that there is no God and we magically poofed into existence from nothing at all."

-enter rebuttal of "that's why we don't say that."-

Then why does the scientific community specifically consider anyone holding the theory that life may have been created by something not from this earth discredited? So much so that they'd throw someone in jail for suggesting the idea and pointing out the deficiencies in their own theory?

-but Hovind's in jail for tax evasion-

Meanwhile we do absolutely nothing about specific oil companies spiking their prices and forming illegal monopolies? While we use our tax dollars to support a war based on an admitted lie?

Even if Hovind did pocket the money instead of using it in a religious campaign (which you guys admit that he was doing), should we be forced to pay taxes going to wars we don't support? Is a government that steals the wealth of a nation to fund it's unprovoked attack on other countries not the definition of tyranny?

... too many tangents that should be addressed at once. Probably just need to start this thread over in another place... keep it simple for you smart science folks... one thing at a time. You may be able to handle that a bit better. Small sentances, and small ideas for minds that have been closed to everything except what they can read from their text books.

You know... cuz books can't lie. Except the bible.

Quantic · Jul 20, 2007

The Gregorian said:
1- earlier I pointed out that evolution is unlikely because there is currently no reputable theories as far as how the thing started.

It doesn't matter too much how life began, with regard to evolution. Once there was a self replicator that made mistakes when replicating (regardless how it came about) then evolution was in full swing. Regardless, evolution and abiogenesis are separate ideas.

The Gregorian said:
My question is: How do we know it's sexual patterns when we don't know what "it" was?

It is unlikely that the first organisms used sexual reproduction.

The Gregorian said:
He's not even saying not to teach it, only to point out that it's a -THEORY

I would like to quote Issac Asimov at this point:
"Creationists make it sound as though a theory is something you dreamt up after being drunk all night."

The Gregorian said:
Then why does the scientific community specifically consider anyone holding the theory that life may have been created by something not from this earth discredited?

Because there is no evidence supporting such a hypothesis?

Evolution vs. Creation: hovind debate

Troll

Senior Veteran

Veteran

Senior Member

a post by Alan Smithee

Senior Member

Jet Black

Guest

xXNERDXx

Guest

a post by Alan Smithee

It's comforting to know that this isn't a test

Veteran

Conflation of Blathers

Conflation of Blathers

Senior Member

Jet Black

Guest

Jet Black

Guest

Senior Member

a post by Alan Smithee

Troll

Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency