Falsify Common Descent

[anonymous1515]

I recently heard an incredibly entertaining audio clip of a debate betwen a famous creationist (Kent Hovind) and an evolution graduate student (Martin). In this clip, Martin completely obliterates every argument that Kent Hovind tries to push forward. It's actually quite amazing.

Here are some links to it:

*Note* Although the first picture slide in the video may be inappropriate (poor choice of language), I assure you, the audio IS worthwhile to listen to.

YouTube:
part 1:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jWyCX3vCj_s
part 2:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eXEoPAt0g98&feature=related
part 3:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CldSZddiAuk&feature=related

Or, if you want to download it from Megaupload: http://www.megaupload.com/?d=B8VE3SUD

Anyways, I thought I would share it. Cheers!

 

[Scotishfury09]

Kent gives the stereotypical "show me a half platypus half dragonfly" argument. What a joker.

I literally laughed out loud at the nintendo music. I don't know why that was so funny but it was.

 

[anonymous1515]

Kent gives the stereotypical "show me a half platypus half dragonfly" argument. What a joker.

I literally laughed out loud at the nintendo music. I don't know why that was so funny but it was.

Hahaha, no kidding. It's kind of funny...Kent doesn't know that the kid he's talking to is actually an "expert" in the field, so he treats him without any intellectual respect - and pays for it.

 

[Mallon]

Indeed. This "kid" (he's a PhD student) is already published in Nature.

 

[anonymous1515]

Indeed. This "kid" (he's a PhD student) is already published in Nature.

Haha, no way! I was trying to find out who he was, but I couldnt find it. Getting published in Nature is a big deal. That, and Science, are the two biggest.

 

[Mallon]

Haha, no way! I was trying to find out who he was, but I couldnt find it. Getting published in Nature is a big deal. That, and Science, are the two biggest.

His name's Martin Brazeau. You can read his blog here:
http://lancelet.blogspot.com/

 

[NathanCGreen]

You're kidding me, right? These audio clips are full of evolutionary bias comments on screen... but then there is a message that suggests the idea that it is good to hear an unedited debate. So sorry, but those comments are an edition. Of course, no-one has to read them...

I listened to part 1 and half of part 2, but there was nothing that Martin presented that was compelling at all. And all that the commentator did, was slander Hovind, how unprofessional... Hovind didn't pay his taxes because he believes that he has the right not to. Look into the issue a little more.
But that has nothing to do with the issue at hand anyway.

Martin just sounded like your typical deluded evolutionist. He won't even consider the possibility that God made creatures such as the platypus, as is.
Hovind was correct in saying that Martin was reverting to faith, and not observable science. Just because an organism has similar features to another, does not imply a common ancestor. Of course, in the evolutionist's faith, it has to, otherwise he wouldn't be able to make any sense at all out of what is observed in the variety of animal life, etc.

 

[Mallon]

Hovind was correct in saying that Martin was reverting to faith, and not observable science. Just because an organism has similar features to another, does not imply a common ancestor. Of course, in the evolutionist's faith, it has to, otherwise he wouldn't be able to make any sense at all out of what is observed in the variety of animal life, etc.

The problem with this position, and why it isn't taken seriously by biologists, is that it is a completely ad hoc argument. It doesn't actually explain anything. Designers are also capable of coming up with different designs, so what is it about perceived similarities that draws us to the conclusion of a common designer? By the same token, I've also heard special creationists argue that life's diversity is evidence of a creative designer. So either way, whether we focus on the similarities or differences in life, the special creationists would have it that God designed life. And as much I agree with them about that, it simply isn't a scientifically falsifiable position like Hovind once would have had us believe.

Also consider the following from talkorigins:

There are similarities that cannot rationally be attributed to design. For example, an endogenous retroviral element (ERV) is a retrovirus (a parasite) that has become part of the genome. There are several kinds of ERVs, and they can insert themselves at random locations. Humans and chimps have thousands of such ERVs in common -- the same type of ERV at the same location in the genome (D. M. Taylor 2003).

 

[Molal]

You're kidding me, right? These audio clips are full of evolutionary bias comments on screen... but then there is a message that suggests the idea that it is good to hear an unedited debate. So sorry, but those comments are an edition. Of course, no-one has to read them...

I listened to part 1 and half of part 2, but there was nothing that Martin presented that was compelling at all. And all that the commentator did, was slander Hovind, how unprofessional... Hovind didn't pay his taxes because he believes that he has the right not to. Look into the issue a little more.
But that has nothing to do with the issue at hand anyway.

Martin just sounded like your typical deluded evolutionist. He won't even consider the possibility that God made creatures such as the platypus, as is.
Hovind was correct in saying that Martin was reverting to faith, and not observable science. Just because an organism has similar features to another, does not imply a common ancestor. Of course, in the evolutionist's faith, it has to, otherwise he wouldn't be able to make any sense at all out of what is observed in the variety of animal life, etc.

Typical deluded evolutionist?

Why do you assert that biological science is faith?

 

[Scotishfury09]

Just because an organism has similar features to another, does not imply a common ancestor.

You're just as narrow minded and unable to listen as Hovind is. If you had actually listened to the clips you would have heard numerous times that the point does not lie in the similarities but the combination of the similarities.

 

[anonymous1515]

You're just as narrow minded and unable to listen as Hovind is. If you had actually listened to the clips you would have heard numerous times that the point does not lie in the similarities but the combination of the similarities.

Exactly. I don't understand why "anti-evolutionists" cannot connect the dots. They actually CANNOT understand evolutionary theory. To ask a question like "why isnt there a platypus-dragonfly?" is absurd. Evolution does NOT predict it, nor has it ever. To ask a question like that (as Hovind did) really highlights his inability to understand the theory.

I agree with NathanCGreen that the video commentary presented by the videos is questionable, but turn off your monitor and listen to the audio itself. Listen, and try...actually TRY to understand what Martin is saying.

I AM a biologist. Deluded? I doubt it. I have considered both the "anti-evolutionist" claims, and the "evolutionist" claims. The only thing that makes sense is the theory of evolution from common descent. Nested heirarchies exist. Period. Both creationists and evolutionists can agree on that. WHY do they exist? Why are traits distributed in these heirarchies the way they are? Evolution.

The creationist assertion that God created a bunch of "kinds" is simply illogical. It doesn't make sense. Listen to the audio again, and see if you can understand what Martin is saying.

 

[shernren]

Exactly. I don't understand why "anti-evolutionists" cannot connect the dots.

Oh, I don't know ...

http://waldo.jaquith.org/blog/2007/03/connect-the-dots/

Sneak preview:

 

[anonymous1515]

Oh, I don't know ...

http://waldo.jaquith.org/blog/2007/03/connect-the-dots/

HAHA. That is probably the funniest thing I've seen in a while. Thanks...you made my night.

 

[Scotishfury09]

Oh, I don't know ...

http://waldo.jaquith.org/blog/2007/03/connect-the-dots/

One of the comments:

The lord god almighty shall smite thee for denying the dogma of the connect-the-dots fish.
BLASPHEMY!!!

 

[NathanCGreen]

Typical deluded evolutionist?

Why do you assert that biological science is faith?

I don't. Why do you continue to assert that evolution is biological science?

What you have said here only proves to me that you are really relying on a blind faith in evolution.

 

[Scotishfury09]

I don't. Why do you continue to assert that evolution is biological science?

What you have said here only proves to me that you are really relying on a blind faith in evolution.

There's pretty compelling evidence for that claim, isn't there?

 

[anonymous1515]

I don't. Why do you continue to assert that evolution is biological science?

What you have said here only proves to me that you are really relying on a blind faith in evolution.

Yeah, I'm a little confused by your claims too. What exactly about the theory of evolution do you not find compelling? It seems to me, more often than not, anti-evolutionists just dont know about the theory. They actually take people like Hovind's word without examining it themselves.

Well, I'll assume thats not what you did Nathan. I'll assume that you actually studied the evidence yourself, and understood it. So, assuming you did, what do you find to be the most compelling evidence against evolution?

 

[shernren]

What you have said here only proves to me that you are really relying on a blind faith in evolution.

"Here we are, ladies and gentlemen, at the foothills of yet another Mountain of Irrefutable Evidence and Impeccable Logic. Completely invisible and undetectable, of course. I hope you're enjoying your tour of the Creationist Range so far."

 

[anonymous1515]

"Here we are, ladies and gentlemen, at the foothills of yet another Mountain of Irrefutable Evidence and Impeccable Logic. Completely invisible and undetectable, of course. I hope you're enjoying your tour of the Creationist Range so far."

I am not.

 

[Molal]

I don't. Why do you continue to assert that evolution is biological science?

What you have said here only proves to me that you are really relying on a blind faith in evolution.

Since biological evolution is researched within the biological sciences, and since it is, by definition, biology, then I and the rest of the scientific community agree that evolution is biology.

Thus, when you attack evolutionary theory, you attack biological science. Indeed, since the support for biological evolution is unanimous throughout the physical sciences (geology, chemistry) then you attack those as well.

I am amazed that anyone would ask why evolution is biology.

Science is not faith based. A simple query of an online dictionary will enhance your understanding of the word faith.