Why evolution is so stupid

[dawiyd]

http://www.kent-hovind.com/ A refutation to Hovind all in one place

 

[danaman5]

One of many symbiotic relationships in this world speak to me that God made them that way unless it can be proven otherwise.

Germ Theory, Atomic Theory, and the Theory of Gravity are shown to be worthless by TheLowlyTortoise's brilliant statement of scientific principle.

OK, boys, the jig is up! Start disposing of all of those antibiotics, atomic bombs, and skyscrapers. None of it works without ultimate proof.

 

[Abongil]

Yes, the entirety of science can be found in the culmination of the theory of evolution. (note sarcasm) I don't see evolution to be scientific fact because it isn't proven, and I haven't seen it as such for some time. I had no delusions of grandeur in bringing anything down, I believe time will bring that.

Nothing can be proven, once we say something is proven we are shutting the door to other possibilites. What if we find out that gravity doesnt exist in some parts of the universe, but some other force is holding everything together?

 

[Mocca]

You are not telling the truth.

Yes you did cut and paste. I can put wholesale chunks of your post in Google and loads of websites pop up with the words as you posted them.

That is called cut/paste by the way!!!!!!!!!!!!
[/i]

SECOND'D!

 

[Pete Harcoff]

I intend to battle this thread to its death.

Well, at least you're not one of those hit 'n run posters we get here. I'll give you credit there.

But really, do you know how many times the same stuff gets brought up here? I've been on this forum for years now, and I've lost count the number of times Hovind's arguments have been recycled here. Suffice to say, they didn't make a dent then and they won't make a dent now.

Personally, I wish people would spend more time on the real-world application of the sciences. That's where you see the real reasons science abandonded the creationist paradigm some 200 years ago and why it remains falsified today. It just has no practical application whatsoever.

 

[BeamMeUpScotty]

I think this is relevant to the discussion:

The Dissertation Kent Hovind Doesn't Want You to Read​

​

A Review of Kent Hovind's Thesis by Karen Bartelt, Ph.D.​

​

 

[David Gould]

Evolution has nothing to do with cosmology, astronomy, geology or abiogenesis.

Evolution is all about the huge variety of species we see around us today.

Fact 1: We know that animals, including humans, pass characteristics to their offspring through the copying of the DNA in the germ line (the ovum and the sperm).

Fact 2: We know that there are errors in this copying.

Inference 1: We can infer that some characteristics are more useful than others in any given environment - for example, white colouring is useful in arctic climes while darker colouring is not so useful.

Inference 2: We can also infer that those animals with more useful characteristics will survive to breed more often than those without them.

Conclusion: Useful characteristics will spread through the population over time, with the less useful characteristics being weeded out.

That is evolution. Now, let us look at a hypothetical case.

Imagine an animal living in a particular part of the world. It is large, white and furry. It has a great sense of smell, but its hearing is not so flash. It has big claws.

The environment is gradually changing, such that over time white colouring is becoming less useful and better hearing is becoming more useful. Prey is also becoming harder to catch - it is becoming faster, thus more easily evading this animal because of its bulk.

Over a number of generations, animals that are a little bit smaller do better than their bigger cousins. Animals that are not so white also do better. And animals with better hearing are doing better.

If this trend continues, with each generation being, on average, .1 per cent smaller than the previous generation and .1 per cent darker and having .1 per cent better hearing - along with 1 per cent worse sense of smell, not needing it - then in a couple of thousand generations (less than 5,000 years) we have an animal that is less than half the size of its ancestors, that is completely black, has almost no sense of smell and can hear twice as well as any of its forebears.

If the trend continued for another 5,000 years or so, the animal would shrink to a very tiny size indeed, and might even be able to hear ants burrowing.

That is what evolution is talking about.

If you think that .1 per cent is to great a change per generation, change it to .01 or even .001. That only alters the time lines by a factor of 100.

I should point out, by the way, that trends do not necessarily keep going. At some point, this animal may get bigger again - or it may get bigger in parts, such as growing very large ears. It should be remembered that this is simply an example. I want you to learn what it is that evolution actually says, and not what non-scientists like Hovind says it is. (Hovind is not a scientist, or a doctor - his 'degree' comes from a diploma mill).

 

[Nathan Poe]

I absolutely did not think I would be the first, though I had no idea Hovind was so popular. Also, it's not dishonest in this instance, Mr. Hovind said repeatedly there was no copywrite on this material, and you all seem to know exactly who I studied, reflected in my initial post, so what's the problem?

The problem is you lied to us and claimed that these points were your own.

Now, if you need your arm twisted to fess up to an obvious truth like that, what is the point of trying to show you anything?

If these points have really been refuted so many times (I'd never even encountered the term PRATT before) then it should be easily done this added time.

Because 5 minutes on Google or talk.origins has done it just as easily. Find some original questions and we'll discuss them with you.

I do think it's rather closed-minded to say that not a single point has to do with evolution.

What you think is irrelevent -- the facts speak for themselves. What you-- ahem, what Hovind dumped in the OP has nothing to do with evolution.

According to the mass theory of evolution (from big bang to baby boys)

First of all, drop the soundbytes -- they don't make you or anyone else sound clever.

everything has to do with evolution. According to the theory, that termite evolved and so did the [bacteria?] inside.

Indeed. Creature A adapts in response to its changing environment -- but it, in turn, is a part of Creature B's environment, which triggers it to adapt.

One of many symbiotic relationships in this world speak to me that God made them that way unless it can be proven otherwise.

So God speaks to you and you want us to prove He doesn't? Not sure what you're going for here...

If Kent Hovind, and thus by association, I have no idea what scientists speak of as evolution, than what do they mean? Is it a secret only for professed believers of the evolution religion to learn?

Well, drop the "evolution religion" tripe and settle in for some schooling.

Lesson One: Hovind is a charlatan who's been spoon feeding you misinformation. Get your facts from a reputable source.

 

[Mocca]

http://www.kent-hovind.com/ A refutation to Hovind all in one place

WOW! I read through pages on that site. (Love the contradictions part. Amazing how many contradictions he makes.)

 

[LewisWildermuth]

TheLowlyTortoise, I am sorry that someone has lied to you in the name of Jesus, but you bear some responsibility for spouting these lies again.

You did not test the spirit that gave this information to you like Jesus commanded; otherwise you would have quickly found out that most of this was a lie.

You listened to a false teacher that tickled your ear by saying what you wanted to hear.

Please test these people, look up what they say and see if it is a lie before you go spreading it next time.

 

[Willtor]

I absolutely did not think I would be the first, though I had no idea Hovind was so popular. Also, it's not dishonest in this instance, Mr. Hovind said repeatedly there was no copywrite on this material, and you all seem to know exactly who I studied, reflected in my initial post, so what's the problem? If these points have really been refuted so many times (I'd never even encountered the term PRATT before) then it should be easily done this added time.

But you don't realize just how many of you there are who have watched a Kent Hovind video and come to the conclusion that you are experts on evolution. Instead, read a couple of entries in the Quiet Thread, or take a look at Talk Origins, or even look at the entry for evolution in Wikipedia. It's not enough to watch a video and conclude a major science that has so many ties into other branches has been refuted. That's why one researches. Research will help to give you a view of what is being said about evolution by the evolutionists. If anybody knows what the evolutionists think, they themselves would know, yes? See if what they are saying evolution means is the same as what Kent Hovind is saying. If you want to ask analytical questions, you are encouraged to do so, but people are also going to require you to do some reading.

I do think it's rather closed-minded to say that not a single point has to do with evolution. According to the mass theory of evolution (from big bang to baby boys) everything has to do with evolution. According to the theory, that termite evolved and so did the [bacteria?] inside. One of many symbiotic relationships in this world speak to me that God made them that way unless it can be proven otherwise.

There is a poetic way in which the astrophysics involved in the formation of the universe or of stars or whatever else is said to be "evolutionary." But it's actually sort of misleading. These things are not really evolutionary. What is the astrophysical analogy to the phylogenetic tree? When you talk about evolution in anything besides a poetic frame of thought, either speak of biological evolution or not at all. If processes leading to abiogenesis, for example, are ever shown, they will tie into evolution, but abiogenesis will remain a separate field.

If Kent Hovind, and thus by association, I have no idea what scientists speak of as evolution, than what do they mean? Is it a secret only for professed believers of the evolution religion to learn?

See above for some sources to help you read up on evolution. As to the so-called religion of evolution: it is not widely held. Most people do not draw philosophical conclusions from evolution, in my experience. But even those who do must distinguish the philosophy from the science. You will note that there are TE's (Theistic Evolutionists), for example, on these forums.

Try reading from some of the above sources.

 

[JediMobius]

Good, go stand up for you beliefs and refute the creationist challenge.[/quote

I just might, but after I've finished a 149 point refute I'm working on.

O come on, get off your high horse *cough* Hovind *cough*

My own words. (yeah, he says poison a lot) I'm not fond of the public school system to begin with.

No but we observe the repercussions of the big bang.

Theory, nothing more. It's just as probable that: Jer 51:15 God used his wisdom and power to create the earth and spread out the heavens.

hmmm, spread out the heavens. . . sounds like the repercussions of the big bang to me. This was written down by a prophet, no astronomer, inspired by the Spirit.

Tell that to these guys

A nice list of nebulae that is, but for all scientists know, a nebula is just a nebula. Until those little baby stars grow up, it's still theory. Nor was a single birth of a star listed, just supposed nurseries.

Eurgh they have conducted experiments on abiotic production of organic molecules.

They've also conducted experiments on fossilization (24 hours, I believe) and coal (a matter of days).

HOVIND ALERT! HOVIND ALERT! If you think that is how evolution happens I feel sad for you, say hello to Tiktaalik roseae, may I introduce you to our other transistion fossil friends?

So I exaggerated a little. That's still how it goes, just on a much more stretched out scale. Dogs have been bread for years and years and years. Still, dogs only give birth to dogs. Ah yes, the most recent attempt at the "missing link." There isn't even a second half to that fossil, is there? Besides, there is no proof of the fossil's origin, how many others like it actually existed, and if/how many offspring resulted.

Semantics

indeed

Nothing exploded!

Explode:

1. To release mechanical, chemical, or nuclear energy by the sudden production of gases in a confined space: The bomb exploded.
2. To burst violently as a result of internal pressure.

Already wrong. There was no explosion involved, nor was matter involved, at all. Thanks for playing. Try taking some real physics courses.

Ok, at risk of sounding like Hovind again, the Big Bang was composed of non matter . If the big bang was not matter, only energy, and energy created matter, isn't that proof of God's hand rather than evolution?

http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/user/gr/public/bb_pillars.html
"The Universe began about ten billion years ago in a violent explosion; every particle started rushing apart from every other particle in an early super-dense phase."
http://liftoff.msfc.nasa.gov/academy/universe/b_bang.html
"According to the big bang, the universe was created sometime between 10 billion and 20 billion years ago from a cosmic explosion that hurled matter and in all directions."

Forgive me, I can't afford "a real physics course" I work with what I can.

False, and again, this 'spreading out' notion is a facet of inflationary models, not of the actual event of the big bang. None of that has anything to do with the big bang. That has to do with gravity. So again, your ignorance is on display. Thanks!

Refuted here

That's one down.

 

[fromdownunder]

TheLowlyTortoise

Just one more thought on the matter, if you have not left this thread.

The reason why everyone picked up on Hovind so fast is because he is the only YEC of influence silly enough to think that he can get away with this sort of stuff. (and he makes a lot of money from people such as yourself by doing it).

Even other YEC organisations distance themselves from him.

You will not see support of Hovind from AiG, ICR, Reasons to Believe, CMI or any other major YEC organisation, although you will find whacko web pages in support of him with such illuminating information as this:

"During the winter of 1856 workmen in France digging a railway tunnel through a layer of Jurassic limestone were startled to find a large creature stumbling out of a recently split boulder, flapping what looked like wings and croaking. It died immediately. A local paleontology student identified the animal as a pterodactyl."

http://www.straight-talk.net/evolution/dinosaurs.htm

(from a Hovind supporter). He and his supporters are on the fringe, and becoming more and more irrelevent by the day. He won't even pay taxes, or get a building permit for his Dino. park, claiing a mandate from God.

I guess the next thing you will come back with is his $250,000 offer, which "proves" he is right. Don't bother, 'cause that is just as fake as everything else he says.

Norm

 

[JediMobius]

Why does everyone think I'm going to leave the thread? I'm simply taking the time to actually look at links offered me as I reply.

I was seriously hoping for a discussion, I expected it to be heated, but I didn't expect to be insantly debased and patronized.

Further, please don't assume, any of you, to know my intentions without asking, I don't think "I'm an expert on evolution" because I watched one video (again, not the only video i've seen on the subjects). I've already learned a few things throughout my many replies.

But now, it's late, and I shall return to answer others' refutes tomorrow.

 

[Mocca]

If you're gonna link bomb me, then I'm gonna link bomb you.

Refuting just about everything the RATE project has done:

http://www.answersincreation.org/rate_index.htm

Answering just about every creationist claim ever made:

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html

(This is why you should not link bomb... because we have better links! =P)

 

[TheBear]

Wow!!!

Hello to all who are gathered here right now.

 

[Mocca]

The truth is, we don't know what "started" or "caused" the Big Bang. We're just about certain that it happened.

"We don't know" doesn't imply "God did it."

By the way...

Matter IS energy:

e = mc^2.

 

[LewisWildermuth]

[*]To release mechanical, chemical, or nuclear energy by the sudden production of gases in a confined space: The bomb exploded.
[*]To burst violently as a result of internal pressure.

[/LIST]Cool, now can you show me in a real scientific paper (not just one dumbed down for the uneducated public) where scientists ever say that any of this happened in the BB theory?

Again, I am sorry your source has lied to you in the name of Jesus, but your failure to test what this person was saying to you is a failure to do what Jesus commanded of you and all of us when listening to our teachers.

 

[dawiyd]

Theory, nothing more. It's just as probable that: Jer 51:15 God used his wisdom and power to create the earth and spread out the heavens.

"Theory: A theory is more like a scientific law than a hypothesis. A theory is an explanation of a set of related observations or events based upon proven hypotheses and verified multiple times by detached groups of researchers. One scientist cannot create a theory; he can only create a hypothesis.

In general, both a scientific theory and a scientific law are accepted to be true by the scientific community as a whole. Both are used to make predictions of events. Both are used to advance technology.

The biggest difference between a law and a theory is that a theory is much more complex and dynamic. A law governs a single action, whereas a theory explains a whole series of related phenomena.

An analogy can be made using a slingshot and an automobile.

A scientific law is like a slingshot. A slingshot has but one moving part--the rubber band. If you put a rock in it and draw it back, the rock will fly out at a predictable speed, depending upon the distance the band is drawn back.

An automobile has many moving parts, all working in unison to perform the chore of transporting someone from one point to another point. An automobile is a complex piece of machinery. Sometimes, improvements are made to one or more component parts. A new set of spark plugs that are composed of a better alloy that can withstand heat better, for example, might replace the existing set. But the function of the automobile as a whole remains unchanged.

A theory is like the automobile. Components of it can be changed or improved upon, without changing the overall truth of the theory as a whole.

Some scientific theories include the theory of evolution, the theory of relativity, and the quantum theory. All of these theories are well documented and proved beyond reasonable doubt. Yet scientists continue to tinker with the component hypotheses of each theory in an attempt to make them more elegant and concise, or to make them more all-encompassing. Theories can be tweaked, but they are seldom, if ever, entirely replaced."

A nice list of nebulae that is, but for all scientists know, a nebula is just a nebula. Until those little baby stars grow up, it's still theory. Nor was a single birth of a star listed, just supposed nurseries.

NICMOS project.

They've also conducted experiments on fossilization (24 hours, I believe) and coal (a matter of days).

Source?

So I exaggerated a little. That's still how it goes, just on a much more stretched out scale. Dogs have been bread for years and years and years. Still, dogs only give birth to dogs. Ah yes, the most recent attempt at the "missing link." There isn't even a second half to that fossil, is there? Besides, there is no proof of the fossil's origin, how many others like it actually existed, and if/how many offspring resulted.

Look, we have transition fossils if you want to be willfully ignorant so be it.


Explode:

1. To release mechanical, chemical, or nuclear energy by the sudden production of gases in a confined space: The bomb exploded.
2. To burst violently as a result of internal pressure.

Ok, at risk of sounding like Hovind again, the Big Bang was composed of non matter . If the big bang was not matter, only energy, and energy created matter, isn't that proof of God's hand rather than evolution?

You realize I do believe in God right? But cosmology states that the energy content of our universe has always been. The current structure of matter and energy came into this state at the bang, but it has always been somewhere.

http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/user/gr/public/bb_pillars.html
"The Universe began about ten billion years ago in a violent explosion; every particle started rushing apart from every other particle in an early super-dense phase."
http://liftoff.msfc.nasa.gov/academy/universe/b_bang.html
"According to the big bang, the universe was created sometime between 10 billion and 20 billion years ago from a cosmic explosion that hurled matter and in all directions."

Dumbed down for public consumption.

 

[DJ_Ghost]

Why does everyone think I'm going to leave the thread?

I am afraid you are being tarred with the same brush as others. You see we get an awful lot of people here who come in, post something from Hovind they did not bother to check the veracity of, then leave the thread and start the process over again in another.

Since you are quoting Hovind, and have not checked the truth of his claims, many posters expect you to go 3 for 3 like so many before you.

I was seriously hoping for a discussion, I expected it to be heated, but I didn't expect to be insantly debased and patronized.

Again, you are suffering for the actions of others. So many have come here dishonestly pretending to be interested in debate, and have caused many posters to waste a lot of time, that people no longer trust new posters till they proven themselves to be honestly interested in debate.

It should also be noted that since your argument rests almost entirely on Hovinds “work”, and everything he has said has been debunked and refuted many times, people tire of going over the same ground. Hovind does our faith no favours, he knows many of his points are founded on untruths and yet repeats them, he makes claims he knows to be dishonest, and he implies he has a academic doctorate in the field rather than a one purchased form a diploma mill. His dishonesty reflects badly on Christians as a whole.

Further, please don't assume, any of you, to know my intentions without asking, I don't think "I'm an expert on evolution" because I watched one video (again, not the only video i've seen on the subjects). I've already learned a few things throughout my many replies.

Fair enough, since you seem to be a genuine person may we begin by pointing out two important misunderstandings. You talk a lot about proof, but science foes not deal in proof, we deal in evidence. Proof is something restricted to maths and alcohol, not for science. The scientific method is falsificationist, this means that for something to become a theory it must first be very well supported, it must be able to make predictions about what we will and wil not see (the latter is, in many ways the more important) and it must withstand attempts to falsify it. However, nothing in science is ever proven, when a theory is sufficiently strong that we are virtually certain it is correct, we provisionally accept it, but continue to look for the falsifying evidence.

This is the same in all sciences and with all theories, but Hovind pretends that evolution is some how different. He also perpetuates the myth that Theory means in science what it means in common usage, yet he knows this is not true. Clearly you have fallen for this because you use terms like “only” a theory. In the correct scientific context there is no “only” a theory, a theory is the highest form an idea can take. Hovind would have you believe that if it was true it would be a “law”. However, Laws and theories are entirely different things, the one does not become the other, ever.

Also, he conflates many divergent ideas and theories (and I should point out he misrepresents all of them). The big bang, abiogenesis and evolution are all independent theories, they do not need one another to exist. Further more, not one of them makes the claim that there is no God.

The Big bang for example was not an explosion, it was a quantum event. the expansion of he universe from a singularity. As to what caused it, the simple answer is, we do not know. It is important to recall that since time is not independent of space but is part of it, time did not exist till space did. Our laws of physics break down as we approach T=0, because they are a result of the event, not a pre-existing law that governed it. Now is you want to ask the question “Since we do not know what caused the big bang could it have been God” the answer is, yes it could have been, there is no empirical way to know.

None of that is relevant to evolution, which describes how life on Earth diversified once it came to be.

Ghost