Evolution vs. Creation: hovind debate

[The Gregorian]

Not too long ago I watched the tapes by Kent Hovind... very good debater, and makes some interesting points. I wanted to ask a few questions that he pointed out to see how you guys would respond:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5665691163985573518&q=hovind+evolution+4

Questions I'd like answered:
1: Why is carbon dating trusted when living snails have been carbon dated as having died 26,000 years ago?
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?
3: How can you guys explain animals such as the woodpecker? Is it really possible for a bird with a tongue starting in the back of the throat and going straight out the mouth to evolve into a bird who's tongue goes backwards, over his head and all over the place? That's not really something that could have evolved in steps.


few more questions but my foot's asleep... let's discuss the first 3 first, in no particular order.

But, whether you agree with either theistic religion or evolutionary religion, wouldn't it be fair to treat religion equally? Include both or neither? For tax paid, public schools, shouldn't both be taught or neither? Either both theories: "the dirt decided to explode by itself, or something could have caused the dirt to explode" or neither "how life started is a religious question that can't be discussed in public schools"

 

[LaLaRu]

Kent Hovind is a charlatan and a Criminal, and is currently sitting in jail since he didn't read the part in the Bible about rendering unto Ceaser.

In other words, just because a known liar and cheat says something is true, doesn't mean it is.

 

[The Gregorian]

I heard about that tax thing... but his financial background doesn't falsify his points on evolution vs. creationism.

If he had a flawless financial background, would that PROVE his evolution vs. creationism points? No. Neither will his financial problems disprove his points.

 

[LaLaRu]

I heard about that tax thing... but his financial background doesn't falsify his points on evolution vs. creationism.

If he had a flawless financial background, would that PROVE his evolution vs. creationism points? No. Neither will his financial problems disprove his points.

Yes it does. You're taking what he says to be true solely because he says it. That is based upon his now non-existant reputation.

 

[grimbly]

Not too long ago I watched the tapes by Kent Hovind... very good debater, and makes some interesting points. I wanted to ask a few questions that he pointed out to see how you guys would respond:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5665691163985573518&q=hovind+evolution+4

Questions I'd like answered:
1: Why is carbon dating trusted when living snails have been carbon dated as having died 26,000 years ago?
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?
3: How can you guys explain animals such as the woodpecker? Is it really possible for a bird with a tongue starting in the back of the throat and going straight out the mouth to evolve into a bird who's tongue goes backwards, over his head and all over the place? That's not really something that could have evolved in steps.


few more questions but my foot's asleep... let's discuss the first 3 first, in no particular order.

But, whether you agree with either theistic religion or evolutionary religion, wouldn't it be fair to treat religion equally? Include both or neither? For tax paid, public schools, shouldn't both be taught or neither? Either both theories: "the dirt decided to explode by itself, or something could have caused the dirt to explode" or neither "how life started is a religious question that can't be discussed in public schools"

Ok guys I'll take slow pitch #1

C14 dating only works on organisms that take their carbon directly from the atmosphere. See PRATT killer
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD011_3.html

Hovind knows better, he's been corrected on it a number of times. I suppose he can tell his buddies in jail this line and see how well it goes over there.

 

[Pikachu]

Not too long ago I watched the tapes by Kent Hovind... very good debater, and makes some interesting points. I wanted to ask a few questions that he pointed out to see how you guys would respond:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5665691163985573518&q=hovind+evolution+4

Questions I'd like answered:
1: Why is carbon dating trusted when living snails have been carbon dated as having died 26,000 years ago?

EDIT: Someone beat me with a better answer.

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 haven't looked into this one yet, but I'm sure someone else here has.

3: How can you guys explain animals such as the woodpecker? Is it really possible for a bird with a tongue starting in the back of the throat and going straight out the mouth to evolve into a bird who's tongue goes backwards, over his head and all over the place? That's not really something that could have evolved in steps.

Why not?

few more questions but my foot's asleep... let's discuss the first 3 first, in no particular order.

But, whether you agree with either theistic religion or evolutionary religion, wouldn't it be fair to treat religion equally? Include both or neither? For tax paid, public schools, shouldn't both be taught or neither? Either both theories: "the dirt decided to explode by itself, or something could have caused the dirt to explode" or neither "how life started is a religious question that can't be discussed in public schools"

Yes. Keep all religion out of schools, whether it be called creationism or intelligent design. Continue teaching the scientific theory of evolution. As for Hovind being a good debater, that's, well, debatable.....

 

[flicka]

But, whether you agree with either theistic religion or evolutionary religion, wouldn't it be fair to treat religion equally? Include both or neither? For tax paid, public schools, shouldn't both be taught or neither? Either both theories: "the dirt decided to explode by itself, or something could have caused the dirt to explode" or neither "how life started is a religious question that can't be discussed in public schools"

Public schools are not in the business of teaching religion (yours or anyone else's). They teach what is known and universally accepted. Teaching 'alternatives' would lead to confusion, especially if additional alternative theories demanded inclusion. The buck wouldn't necessarily stop with just the Christan creationist ideas.

School teaches what kids need to know to progress within the field they are studying. Religious beliefs would add nothing. Churches are the place for learning about spiritual matters.

 

[aerophagicbricolage]

I'll take the woodpecker tongue:

A woodpecker's tongue is anchored to the base of the skull like all other birds. The tongue is merely an elongated, which could happen naturally ridiculously easily. It does not extend to the nasal cavity and is merely an extended bird tongue.


Know that Hovind has been disproved exhaustively.

 

[grimbly]

3: How can you guys explain animals such as the woodpecker? Is it really possible for a bird with a tongue starting in the back of the throat and going straight out the mouth to evolve into a bird who's tongue goes backwards, over his head and all over the place? That's not really something that could have evolved in steps.

#3 took all of 10 seconds...http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/woodpecker/woodpecker.html

#2 is just a strawman argument. Some layers can be 1 week apart, 1 year apart, 1 century apart, heck 1 million years apart. That's why they pay geologists the BIG BUCKS to figure that stuff out.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/polystrate/trees.html


Sure hope they keep Hovind segregated from the rest of the prison population cause I sure hate to see him corrupt the likes of murders, bank robbers, or drug traffickers.

 

[plindboe]

If you haven't heard the creationist challenges and the refutations before I realize why they can sound convincing. It's not stupid at all to listen to Hovind's arguments and say "hey, what's the deal here?", because his objections really can sound valid when you first hear them. It's good though that you actually seek out a place that can address these issues. Seems like the three main questions have been answered though, so I'll just comment on the last paragraph.

But, whether you agree with either theistic religion or evolutionary religion, wouldn't it be fair to treat religion equally? Include both or neither? For tax paid, public schools, shouldn't both be taught or neither? Either both theories: "the dirt decided to explode by itself, or something could have caused the dirt to explode" or neither "how life started is a religious question that can't be discussed in public schools"

If something is taught in the science class room it should be supported by scientific evidence, and not religious propaganda. When you first hear the idea that we should teach conflicting ideas equally, it sounds quite fair, but then you start thinking and realize how stupid it really is. Should we teach the holocaust along side holocaust denial? Should we teach abiosgenesis+evolution alongside the thousands of other creation stories in the class room (why only the christian creation story?). I say, let science be taught in science class and religion in religion class.

 

[USincognito]

Folks, if you're going to discuss Mr. Hovind's disdain for American law, at least make an attempt to discuss his bogus science as well as his bogus interpretation of the 16th Amendment. To do otherwise is to engage in ad hominem.

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?

The FAQ response that Grimby linked to fully covers it, but I just wanted to point out that a lot of these claimed polystrate "trees" are actually fossils, i.e. petrified trees that go through different layers, not living trees that continued to grow through different layers.

Another thing to keep in mind is that we never find polystrate trees crossing from, say, the Permian into the Cretaceous. For one thing, we never find deciduous trees Permian, or Devonian or Ordovician strata, and for another, they never are found in different layers covering massive periods of time.

 

[tocis]

Not too long ago I watched the tapes by Kent Hovind... very good debater, and makes some interesting points.

Not long ago I've been listening to all of hovinds audio "seminars", and I can answer "not really". He does have a cute sense of humor in many places, but sadly, that doesn't make the garbage heap he presents as "science" any more valid.

Questions I'd like answered:
1: Why is carbon dating trusted when living snails have been carbon dated as having died 26,000 years ago?
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?
3: How can you guys explain animals such as the woodpecker? Is it really possible for a bird with a tongue starting in the back of the throat and going straight out the mouth to evolve into a bird who's tongue goes backwards, over his head and all over the place? That's not really something that could have evolved in steps.

'nuff said.

wouldn't it be fair to treat religion equally? Include both or neither? For tax paid, public schools, shouldn't both be taught or neither?

If you find yourself suffering from recurrent headaches, will you trust your plumber just as much as your doctor when you want to get rid of them? Why (not)?

Either both theories: "the dirt decided to explode by itself, or something could have caused the dirt to explode" or neither "how life started is a religious question that can't be discussed in public schools"

And that first theory of yours is... what exactly?

Hint: It's not what science says in any of its various branches.

 

[Elduran]

For Hovind's other stuff, someone kindly made a list of over 300 lies just from his seminars (I believe, been a while since I read them).

Now, some of these aren't exactly lies, but most of them are just outrageous misrepresentations of science which Hovind has no excuse to keep propagating after this much correction.

Enjoy!

http://www.geocities.com/SouthBeach/Pier/1766/hovindlies/

 

[flatworm]

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

For the same reason blood tests are trustworthy even if they give ridiculous results when used on urine.

2: The geologic column... each layer is supposed to be long periods of time apart

Some are, but certainly not all.

... yet trees stand straight up through the layers, are we really to believe that the tree was standing for millions of years?

1) See above. Some layers get laid down more quickly than others.

2) Sedimentary rock layers don't become rock as soon as they're laid down. They start out as soft sediment, which trees can grow down into.

3) There are conditions, especially in swampy areas, where an anoxic layer forms at the bottom of a body of water. A dead tree can just sit in that anoxic layer for a long time and not decay as sediment collects around it.

But, whether you agree with either theistic religion or evolutionary religion, wouldn't it be fair to treat religion equally?

Evolution is not a religion any more than trigonometry is. I don't worship Charles Darwin, and in fact I know more about evolution than he ever did. There are no worship services for evolution. I don't look to evolution to guide moral choices. Evolution is a scientific theory that explains the origin and diversity of the species we see today. That's it.

Include both or neither? For tax paid, public schools, shouldn't both be taught or neither?

What do you mean, both? As if there are only two? There's evolution, a well-supported scientific theory of biological origins, and then there are reams and reams of creation myths (yes, myths) from every culture around the globe. Maybe we should start with the Iroquois creation story, then segue into the ancient Chinese version, and we'll get to the genesis myth around #57 or so.

Either both theories: "the dirt decided to explode by itself,

I challenge you to find any evolution textbook that describes anything like "dirt decided to explode". Go ahead.

"how life started is a religious question that can't be discussed in public schools"

How life itself started is a scientific question to which we do not yet have a firm answer- but that's the question of abiogenesis, not evolution. Evolution picks up after the first life forms appear.

 

[arunma]

Folks, if you're going to discuss Mr. Hovind's disdain for American law, at least make an attempt to discuss his bogus science as well as his bogus interpretation of the 16th Amendment. To do otherwise is to engage in ad hominem.

Not necessarily. For those of us who take the Bible seriously, we should consider this:

So, every healthy tree bears good fruit, but the diseased tree bears bad fruit. A healthy tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a diseased tree bear good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. Thus you will recognize them by their fruits. (St. Matthew 7:17-20)
​

Since the Bible tells us that we ought to pay our taxes (Romans 13:7), the fact that Kent Hovind is in prison can tell us something about his creationist ministry. Add to that the fact that aside from a two year degree in Christian education, the rest of his degrees came from a diploma mill. Why lie about one's education? Kent Hovind is an unscrupulous figure no matter which way you slice it. And that speaks against his creationist models.

 

[tocis]

Now, some of these aren't exactly lies, but most of them are just outrageous misrepresentations of science which Hovind has no excuse to keep propagating after this much correction.

For the sake of fairness I'll have to add to this: The list of 300 lies also doesn't take into account that many claims of hovind are plain idiotic when read in some document but clearly sound humorous when you hear the audios or watch the videos. Eh, one doesn't need to debunk jokes to show hovind has no clue

 

[FishFace]

Not necessarily. For those of us who take the Bible seriously, we should consider this:

So, every healthy tree bears good fruit, but the diseased tree bears bad fruit. A healthy tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a diseased tree bear good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. Thus you will recognize them by their fruits. (St. Matthew 7:17-20)
​

Since the Bible tells us that we ought to pay our taxes (Romans 13:7), the fact that Kent Hovind is in prison can tell us something about his creationist ministry. Add to that the fact that aside from a two year degree in Christian education, the rest of his degrees came from a diploma mill. Why lie about one's education? Kent Hovind is an unscrupulous figure no matter which way you slice it. And that speaks against his creationist models.

Unfortunately, philosophy and science aren't so easy. Anyone can produce, quite by chance, a good argument, even if they are thick as two short planks, and/or unscrupulous. Thus his arguments must be taken on their own merits, if they are to be dealt with properly.
It might be an indication of his trustworthiness, certainly, so on a practical level, it is sound to disregard his arguments. We should, however, be aiming to deal with them on more than a mere practical level.

 

[The Gregorian]

Yes it does. You're taking what he says to be true solely because he says it. That is based upon his now non-existant reputation.

I could care less who said it, what I do care about is the fact that he points out that a snail... still alive... has been carbon dated at 26,000 years old. How two parts of the same mammoth have been dated at thousands of years apart... yet "scientists" still accept carbon dating?

I don't care that HE said it... I care about the points that were made. I don't agree with HIM, I agree with a lot of his POINTS on evolution. I don't agree with HIM in a lot of cases. He takes the bible too literally, I don't believe the beginning of all creation was 6,000 years ago, and I don't believe the earth was created in 6 literal 24 hour days. I don't believe in a lot of things he says, not because I don't believe HIM... but because there are some of his points I don't believe... regardless of whether or not he is the one who says them.

What ever you want to say about Hovind is fine... I don't care about him at all... but he makes some valid points that should be considered SEPERATE from who he is.

C14 dating only works on organisms that take their carbon directly from the atmosphere. See PRATT killer

And mammoths don't take carbon directly from the air? Your source says the mollusk experiment is false because the molusk lived in the water, therefore c-14 dating is off... yet scientists still continue to use c-14 dating on other ocean dwelling creatures and call it fact? Yet your source shows that c-14 dating doesn't work with creatures in the water. And what about the snails... all your source said to validify the snails being 27,000 years old is that the snail drank water, and was therefore not a valid subject because the water nullified some of the c-14... So is c-14 dating invalid for anything that drinks water... which is almost every living organism?

to pikachu: You responded to all three of my questions with "I'm not sure, I'm sure someone knows though." Do you honestly not consider that to be a declaration of your faith? You don't know why the geologic column doesn't work... but you have faith that someone can explain it? How is this less faith based than any theology?

As to your responce to the woodpecker question: "why not?"... how can your tongue slowly evolve to going down your throat and over your head? The first one who's tongue appeared backwards would have died, not passing on the trait. If he could live without eating, the first one who's tongue started going behind his head, but not make it out the other side... how did he eat with his tongue half way in his head?

Lastly, you said we should keep religion out of schools, yet still continue to teach evolution... but Hovind's main point, which I very much agree with is teachers are telling their students that "evolution is a scientific fact and anyone who considers the possibility of life having started with a cause as opposed to no cause is ignorant and scientifically unsound"

 

[Pikachu]

to pikachu: You responded to all three of my questions with "I'm not sure, I'm sure someone knows though." Do you honestly not consider that to be a declaration of your faith? You don't know why the geologic column doesn't work... but you have faith that someone can explain it? How is this less faith based than any theology?

So what? I responded to the first two with (more or less) "I don't know" because that is a perfectly truthful, valid answer. You seem to be reading a lot into "faith" there.

As to your responce to the woodpecker question: "why not?"... how can your tongue slowly evolve to going down your throat and over your head? The first one who's tongue appeared backwards would have died, not passing on the trait. If he could live without eating, the first one who's tongue started going behind his head, but not make it out the other side... how did he eat with his tongue half way in his head?

You make the assumption that all of a sudden, a woodpecker was hatched with its tongue attached to a location opposite that of its parents. This is akin to arguing that suddenly, one day in history, an ape gave birth to a human, which is clearly not the case.

I was just trying to get you to think and do some research on your own, rather than relying on the creationist propaganda upon which you are basing this claim. Did you bother to look at the link another poster provided? Here it is again, in case you didn't.

Lastly, you said we should keep religion out of schools, yet still continue to teach evolution... but Hovind's main point, which I very much agree with is teachers are telling their students that "evolution is a scientific fact and anyone who considers the possibility of life having started with a cause as opposed to no cause is ignorant and scientifically unsound"

You voiced your opinion, and I voiced mine. The scientific community seems to agree with mine, however.

 

[The Gregorian]

Public schools are not in the business of teaching religion (yours or anyone else's). They teach what is known and universally accepted.

exactly. I don't like the fact that teachers often (not in every school, but most public schools and all universities) that all religions are wrong accept their true religion of we evolved from soup. That the idea of anything smarter than humans is completely illogical, and if you believe that you're not the superior race in the universe, you're an unscientific fool.

That sounds pretty foolish to me.

Teaching 'alternatives' would lead to confusion

Aye... teaching the possibility that there is more to this universe to be learned about is so horrible for the minds of today's youth. (that was sarcasm)

School teaches what kids need to know to progress within the field they are studying. Religious beliefs would add nothing. Churches are the place for learning about spiritual matters.

And to progress in the scientific community, they need to know to rely on faulty reasoning such as "These two finches are different, so they must be related to bananas?"

A woodpecker's tongue is anchored to the base of the skull like all other birds. The tongue is merely an elongated, which could happen naturally ridiculously easily. It does not extend to the nasal cavity and is merely an extended bird tongue.

Look up some pictures on a woodpecker's anatomy. The tongue isn't rooted to the base of the skull, it goes all the way around it's head.

#3 took all of 10 seconds...http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/wood...oodpecker.html

True enough, they discribe, quite well, how the tongue of a "red bellied" woodpecker could grow with it's anchor further and further up it's head until it's around it's eye... but they completely avoid the real issue: the european green woodpecker, who's tongue does not anchor farther and farther up as it ages... but who's tongue starts at the throat, and goes backwards, up around it's skull, out near the eyes, back in a nostril, then out it's beak forward.

Another question it fails to answer is the adhesive in the bird's mouth... woodpeckers coat their tongue with an adhesive to help grab the grubs, and produce a solvent so the tongue won't stick to their own beaks. Which evolved first? Or did these two mutations happen at once?