Evolution VS. Creationism

[Freethinker]

Originally posted by: CD27

Anything being posted here for now is not from me, but from a very qualified creation science evangalist named Dr. Kent Hovind. please read an go over his work.

 

Next. Hovind is another good example of a outright LYING FRAUD.

 

DR. Hovid. His PHD is in EDUCATION, NOT in a related field. His PHD came from a "diploma mill". The "College" he "graduated" from paid a couple hundred dollars for their right to give out pieces of paper they CALL Diplomas. They are NOT an ACCREDITED University by ANY valid accredidation operation. You send them money, they "accept life experience" and after some paper shuffling, you get a Diploma!

 

As I stated before, his PHD is in Education. As an example of just how bad this U of his was, the course guide lists only 2 classes in Education. So he got a PHD in Education by taking TWO BASIC education courses. His paper was on something about how Evolution harms Education. No one at this shlock house woould be in a position to review it.

 

I will be happy to show just how totally wring Hovid is. But I will not bother with Hovid himself. His agenda is NOT to react to and adjust to TRUTH. He has been trapped many times in his lies in debates, yet he keeps spewing them to the uneducated believers that will accept lies.

 

BTW, the fact that spaces appeared in posts that were copied from his site( I assume that is what you did) shows that your browser is not the problem.

 

Hovid, should a guessed!

[Freethinker]

Originally posted by: CD27

Doesn’t carbon dating or Potassium Argon dating prove the Earth is millions of years old?

 

No it doesn't. As Hovid (one of the few times he is correct) says, it is ONLY used for relatively recent dating.

 

And only those IGNORANT of how the earth's age is determined think it is.

 

And only those that are willing to OUTRIGHT LIE would use this as an attack against Evolution.

 

But for those relatively recent events (tens of thousands max), it has shown to be extremely accurate when compared to other processes.

 

Hovid is extremely good at attacking Evolution from the standpoint of entertaining the "Choir". I enjoy watching him on TV. He is clever and has some good comedic material. He is also a lying sack of ...

[Freethinker]

Originally posted by: CD27

Doesn’t carbon dating or Potassium Argon dating prove the Earth is millions of years old?

 

Carbon dating:... A freshly created earth would require about 30,000 years for the amount of C-14 in the atmosphere to reach this point of equilibrium because it would leak out as it is being filled. Tests indicate that the earth has still not reached equilibrium. There is more C-14 in the atmosphere now than there was 40 years ago. This would prove the earth is not yet 30,000 years old! This also means that plants and animals that lived in the past had less C-14 in them than do plants and animals today. Just this one fact totally upsets data obtained by C-14 dating.

Let's see how badly these liars abuse SCIENCE.

 

In 1968 another creationist, Robert L. Whitelaw, using a greater ratio of carbon-14 production to decay, concluded that only 5000 years passed since carbon-14 started forming in the atmosphere!

 

The argument may be compared to filling a barrel which has numerous small holes in its sides. We stick the garden hose in and turn it on full blast. The water coming out of the hose is analogous to the continuous production of carbon-14 atoms in the upper atmosphere. The barrel represents the earth's atmosphere in which the carbon-14 accumulates. The water leaking out the sides of the barrel represents the loss (mainly by radioactive decay) of the atmosphere's supply of carbon-14. Now, the fuller that barrel gets the more water is going to leak out the thoroughly perforated sides, just as more carbon-14 will decay if you have more of it around. Finally, when the water reaches a certain level in the barrel, the amount of water going into the barrel is equal to the amount leaking out the perforated sides. We say that the input and output of water is in equilibrium. The water level just sits there even though the hose is going full blast. (The barrel is made deep enough so that we don't have to worry about water overflowing the rim.)

 

Henry Morris argued that if we started filling up our empty barrel it would take 30,000 years to reach the equilibrium point. Thus, he concluded, if our Earth were older than 30,000 years the incoming water should just equal the water leaking out. That is, the equilibrium point should have long since been reached given the present rate of carbon-14 production and the old age of the earth. The next step in Henry Morris' argument was to show that the water level in our barrel analogy was not in equilibrium, that considerably more water was coming in than leaking out. To that end, he quoted some authorities, including Richard Lingenfelter. Having accomplished that, Morris concluded that the barrel was still in the process of being filled up and that, given the present rate of water coming in and leaking out, the filling process began only 10,000 years ago.

 

It's a great argument except for one, little thing. The water is not coming out of the hose at a steady rate as our model assumed! Sometimes it slows down to a trickle so that much more water is leaking out the barrel than is coming in; sometimes it goes full blast so that a lot more water is coming into the barrel than is leaking out. Thus, the mere fact that the present rate of water coming in exceeds that of the water leaking out cannot be extrapolated back to a starting time. And, that destroys the entire argument.

 

Lingenfelter actually attributed the discrepancy between the production and decay rates to possible variations in the earth's magnetic field, a conclusion which would have ruined Morris's argument. Henry Morris chose not to mention that portion of the paper! Just as Hovid intentionally continues to use bogus information. Creationists don't want their readers to be distracted with problems like that -- unless the cat is already out of the bag and something has to be said.

[TeleMad]

6. Do people accept evolution because of the following factors?

 

o It is all they have been taught.

 

o They like the freedom from God (no moral absolutes, etc.).

 

o They are bound to support the theory for fear of losing their job or status or grade point average.

 

o They are too proud to admit they are wrong.

 

o Evolution is the only philosophy that can be used to justify their political agenda.

 

No, no, no, no, and….no. At least not this person. I accept evolution because of the many valid evidences that have been presented to me over the years of my debating the matter on the net. In fact, I started out about 5 or 6 years ago as a hardcore anti-evolutionist! It’s not that I wanted to believe in evolution, it’s that even my high degree of skepticism could not resist the overwhelming evidence for evolution.

 

 

8. Should parents be allowed to require that evolution not be taught as fact in their school system unless equal time is given to other theories of origins (like divine creation)?

 

No. Evolution is a scientific fact, not a religious position like Creationism is: scientific facts, such as evolution, should be taught it school in science classes – religious beliefs should stay out of school, except for religion and philosophy classes.

 

10. Why are many evolutionists afraid of the idea of creationism being presented in public schools?

 

Because we don’t want schools dumbing our kids down.

 

If we are not supposed to teach religion in schools, then why not get evolution out of the textbooks?

 

Because it is a scientific fact. Any population not in Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium is evolving. Since having all the multiple assumptions needed for Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium to hold happen is not practical, the rule is that all natural populations are evolving.

 

11. … Wouldn’t it be great to know the God who made you, and to accept His love and forgiveness?

 

God didn’t make me…my mother and father did. Maybe he should learn more about genetics and sexual reproduction.

[TeleMad]

1. Where did the space for the universe come from?

 

The question needs to be rephrased. It makes is sound like the Universe is expanded into a preexisting space, like a balloon being inflated inside a room and asking where the room came from.

 

2. Where did matter come from?

 

From energy, as allowed by Einstein’s E = mc^2.

 

3. Where did the laws of the universe come from (gravity, inertia, etc.)?

 

From humans’ minds. The Universe worked a certain way naturally, long before humans were around. We then examined the Universe and formulated laws, such as Newton did when he formulated his law of universal gravitation.

 

4. How did matter get so perfectly organized?

 

Who says it is? Most of the Universe is empty space, with stars here and there – and the increase in order associated with stars arising from clouds of gases is produced naturally by gravitational attraction.

 

5. Where did the energy come from to do all the organizing?

 

What organizing? Stars? From gravity.

 

7. When, where, why, and how did life learn to reproduce itself?

 

Uhm, if there’s life, there’s reproduction…there’s nothing for life to “learn”.

 

8. With what did the first cell capable of sexual reproduction reproduce?

 

Possibly with itself. By analogy, some worms have both sex organs and fertilize their own eggs.

 

9. Why would any plant or animal want to reproduce more of its kind since this would only make more mouths to feed and decrease the chances of survival?

 

Plants don’t want to do anything.

 

10. How can mutations (recombining of the genetic code) create any new, improved varieties?

 

By changing the phenotype and having the new phenotype happen to be better suited to the environment.

 

12. Natural selection only works with the genetic information available and tends only to keep a species stable.

 

TENDENCY and BEHAVIOR and two different things. If a beneficial mutation arises and natural selection retains it and helps it spread through the population, then the species can become more fit.

 

How would you explain the increasing complexity in the genetic code that must have occurred if evolution were true?

 

Poorly phrases question. The genetic code is the mapping between mRNA codons and amino acids. Is that what he is talking about? If so, exactly what does he mean? Or is this “scientist” instead using the term “genetic code” loosely to mean the genetic information content of organisms?

 

13. When, where, why, and how did:

 

…

 

o Single-celled animals evolve?

 

How did single-celled animals evolve? Just like all other living things…by mutation and selection. Is this “scientist” using the term inappropriately, to mean originate?

 

14. When, where, why, how, and from what did:

 

o Whales evolve?

 

o Sea horses evolve?

 

o bats evolve?

 

Again, just like all other living things…they evolved by mutation and selection.

 

15. Which evolved first how, and how long, did it work without the others)?

 

… o The termite or the flagella in its intestines that actually digest the cellulose?

 

Uhm, flagella don’t digest anything.

 

25. *What is so scientific about the idea of hydrogen as becoming human?

 

Nothing, and no real scien

[IrishEyes]

From TeleMad:

Nothing, and no real scientist believes hydrogen became human.

 

TeleMad, I've been gone a bit, and am not familiar with you or your position, but I can guess that you are not a Creationist ;-) That's ok though, I'm ok with that. I am not a rabid fanatic waiting to cast all evil doubters into the bowels of hell. I actually LOVE Tormod, and I adore FreeT, as well as sanctus and geko and a few others! You have a very well-thought out response to each argument, and I like that. My only question actually comes from your statement above. The italics are mine (if I did them correctly, I couldn't quite remember, so I'll see in a minute when this posts). Who gets to say who is a "real" scientist??? What does it take to be considered a *real* scientist? A degree in a science related field? Actual field or lab work? A PhD? Being published? Peer approval (the funniest of all!)?? I just don't get it. I mean, there are people at this forum that laugh at people with degrees, saying they are fake degrees, or not from a good enough school, yet these same people don't have degrees in a scientific field. I am no scientist. One of my degrees is in Education. And part of my degree was earned from a distance learning college. Does this mean I'm a fake teacher? Man, my kids will love this!!!

[CD27]

if i must say AGAIN, if you have any questions to ask, email them to Dr. Hovind. i can not answer them, as yourselves, i have not even read that much of this, i simply posted what i could.

[Uncle Martin]

CD,

 

When are you going to figure out how this works? You post your assertions with the intent that we read them and reply with our conclusions. Do you mean to tell me that you have the AUDACITY to claim unread material as your own views? I hope FT or Tormod tear you a brand new you know what, this is the most RIDICULOUS thing you've told us yet.

[CD27]

actually, no, i did mention, first thing,t aht al this came from Dr. Kent Hovind, and it is DIRECTLY from the web site http://www.drdino.com, perhaps you shoudlr ead more carefully, no offense of course. i am obviously not as educated as Hovind is, but that is why i told you to email him if you had any questions, which for you guys should be no problem. i actually find it quite odd that you think i would even try to post something that was not mine and then say it was mine, considering that i DID give all rights to the initial author of the article(s). i changed NOTHING from any of them, in fact, you can go to the site and check for yourself, it's all there, and in order as well. i posted it directly off the web site. it's basically like bringing the site here instead of leaving it over there.

 

i harmed nothing. i am reading just as much as you guys are, i just posted it 1) so you guys could see what i was being taught, and what i belive in as a person. 2) so maybe we could all learn from some of it, even if most of it isn't very good, which i think most of it was great, personally. 3) so just maybe i could get you guys off my back for a little while. reading that much should keep ya busy for a good long while, aye?

 

i sek NO quarrel with anyone ehre. i only wish to be friends. that's all. i'd like to post my ideas and thoughts in the mind set that someone might actually respect someone else's hard work and effort instead of tearing it appart like it's a trash. it may be trash to you, but i spent a long time on my ideas. i worked very hard. and just because you THINK it's a "lie" you think that it's not as good as the otehr things you "belive" in. yes, athiets have belifs as well. atheism is a religion. it is the BELEIF that there is no god. that is a religion. i could be just as easily cold hearted to sit here in your fact and tear your religion apart, ridicule it, and TRY to convert you into beliveing what i do, but i don't. i'm not that type of man. everyone is equal, EVERYONE. a man who just committed murder and a boy who stole a candy bar, they are equal. a woman who loves her child, and a man who hates his, they are equal, a man who tries hard, and a man who does nothing, tehy are equal.

 

that's what this country is based on (america) so why can't anyone live like that? instead we hate, steal, kill, and greed...all of the things our mothers taught us NOT to do, or at least i hope she did. so why don't we do this, DO WHAT YOU MOTHER TOLD YOU TO DO IN THE FIRST PLACE. oh you think, "ah that's just too 'mother's boy''", or "that's too sissy, i couldn't even think of doing that". yea, well what if it was you being treated like this?

 

we go around, and we say, so who's the better president? bush or kennedy? well...one has caused a war, and the other is trying to raise taxes, so what's the difference? they're both greedy. i'm sick of it. gas where i am at is $2.08 a gallon, and itr is near $3.00 a gallon in california! why? certainly not because of the war. we can support ourselves, jsut take one wild gues of how many oil mines we have in just texas? let alone all of the oil just oozing out of alaska (and it is perfectly safe to drill there, it's already been drilled on for years, and when was the last time you heard of an oil spill? especially around the us or even the north us? i haven't. gas has been raised for greed. some guy didn;t get the right window shutters, so he wants a completely new house, and since he's part of the government, he can pitch in his vote to raise gas again, considering they already own mosr than half the moneyt in the country.

 

i will be VERY bold as to make this next statement. amrica is NOT for the people, of the people, and by the people, it's for the rich, the greedy, and those who don't give a darn wether we sit here and starve to death. you know if just every citizen would give up one single dollar, america would be out of debt? but look at us! just look! we're so darn greedy, someone steals

[TeleMad]

CD27: if i must say AGAIN, if you have any questions to ask, email them to Dr. Hovind. i can not answer them, as yourselves, i have not even read that much of this, i simply posted what i could.

 

So you don't understand what you posted. What was it that Stevie Wonder said...

 

"When you believe in things, that you don't understand, then you suffer...superstition ain't the way."

 

What you are using is an argument from authority. You can't support your position - you blindly accept what some "authority" says and use it as your argument. This is a logical fallacy and voids your support because of the "authority" holding the MINORITY view.

[TeleMad]

TeleMad: [There's] Nothing [scientific about that idea], and no real scientist believes hydrogen became human [anyway].

 

IrishEyes: ... Who gets to say who is a "real" scientist???

 

Your question is misdirected. The real question is, who gets to speak for scientists? This "authority" setup a strawman. Instead of stating the scientific position, he sets up a much weaker substitute he fabricated and then knocks it down, and in doing so pretends to have dealt a blow to the actual scientific position.

 

Let me turn the logic around a bit.

 

Who can believe God is righteous? What's righteous about God ripping babies apart and eating their guts for lunch, like the Bible says he does?

[TeleMad]

CD27: i am obviously not as educated as Hovind is...

 

I don't know about that...you might be giving him too much credit! ;-)

 

CD27: ... but that is why i told you to email him if you had any questions, which for you guys should be no problem.

 

There's no need. Dr Hovind's "arguments" have been being refuted on the internet at various Creation/Evolution site for years. Have you bothered looking around to see how his arguments hold up or don't? No, or else you woldn't rely upon him as your star witness.

[Freethinker]

Hi Irish! Your back... AGAIN...

 

I guess that means I will be reading your answer finally about your claikms to have/ not ahve Absoute Knowledge.

 

Great, we are all looking forward to you resolving this for us.

 

Originally posted by: IrishEyes

From TeleMad:

 

Nothing, and no real scientist believes hydrogen became human.

Who gets to say who is a "real" scientist??? What does it take to be considered a *real* scientist? A degree in a science related field? Actual field or lab work? A PhD? Being published? Peer approval (the funniest of all!)?? I just don't get it.

If you think that "peer review" is a funny way to prove a person is valid in scientific terms, then you obvious have no conept of what science is and how it works. It would explain how you can hold the superstitions you do as if there is some validity to them.

 

The best answer to "Who gets to say who is a "real" scientist???" is Other Scientists". And it is not just by SAYING it. It isn't just making the CLAIM. It is based on the accuracy of the work produced. The entire concept of Peer Review is that other people, which have already established some higher level of credibity within the scientific community, in the specific field under discussion, try to find fault with the presentation. If they can't, if the proposition is found to follow well established guidelines for factual support and accurate predictability, then it gets published so that it can undergo even further intense scrutiny.

 

You fail to understand the the very concept of Science, the Scientific Process and how perfectly Peer Review fits int that process. No wonder you can't make accurate determinations of who is a scientist and what IS Scientific.

 

No suprise here.

I mean, there are people at this forum that laugh at people with degrees, saying they are fake degrees, or not from a good enough school,

And I think it is very funny. Yes I laughed a good bit when I found out what a sham Hovid's entire background is. Not just the absolute garbage he shovels, but his actual life. Too bad there are so many ignorant people that are know so little about Science that they are fooled by his well rehearsed standup comedy show.

yet these same people don't have degrees in a scientific field.

Ah, if this ad hominem is aimed at me, I have a degree in Electronics. I do not claim to be a Scientist. I am a business man. But I am trained in scientific methodology. And was formally educated in a specific field of science.

I am no scientist. One of my degrees is in Education.

Did you take more than 2 Educational courses in College to qualify for a degree IN Education?

And part of my degree was earned from a distance learning college. Does this mean I'm a fake teacher? Man, my kids will love this!!!

Ah, we already know that yoou lie to your kids. We've covered that before. And they probably loved it when you did. How could they know better at this point? You won;t let them get an outside education. You shelter them from outside knowledge. They probably also thing that Peer Review is a joke. Which will serve them wel should they decide to become Scientists and get laughed out of any field of interest when they stand on street corners passing out research papers instead of trying to get them published in CREDIBLE journals.

 

BTW, which did you choose?

 

1) Jesus, the Christian god and his heaven could all be fairytales

 

2) I have perfect knowledge that the Christian god is real and the only god there is and Jesus was his son here on earth and I am going to heaven.

[Freethinker]

Originally posted by: CD27

if i must say AGAIN, if you have any questions to ask, email them to Dr. Hovind. i can not answer them, as yourselves, i have not even read that much of this, i simply posted what i could.

What is so difficult for you to understand CD? You come here making all kinds of claims. When asked to stand behind them, you make all kinds of excuses. You don't want the rest of us to use your religious superstition against you, yet you want to use it to support your ramblings.

 

Hovid is a lying sack of sh..! This has been well established in the Scientific world. I have shown specific examples of his intentional lies. He is no more likely to stop lying because I, Tormod, Unc or any others of us add to the extensive list of people that have exposed his lies. Especially not when there are so many of you out there willing to ignorantly accept his continued lying and pay him good money to do it. A sucker is born every minute and Hovid lives very well off of you suckers.

 

Yoiu have specifically state you will continue to sell your very life out based on what you have been repeated shown to be lies.

 

This is a site dedicated to scientific discussions. You do not show yourself as being capable of carrying on an intellectually honest scientific discusion. I see no reason to bother with you any longer unless you are willing to change your approach and start responding in an intellectual honest way.

 

If all you are looking for is positive reinforcement from like minded fools, find some Christian site. There are plenty that are also not interested in factual honest discussion.

 

But I do not care to waste time showing the utter lies behind Hovids drivel just for another chance to do so. If you do not want to learn from it, if you do not want to be honest enough to be intellectually involved in the discussion, why bother coming here?

[IrishEyes]

If you think that "peer review" is a funny way to prove a person is valid in scientific terms, then you obvious have no conept of what science is and how it works. It would explain how you can hold the superstitions you do as if there is some validity to them. The best answer to "Who gets to say who is a "real" scientist???" is Other Scientists". And it is not just by SAYING it. It isn't just making the CLAIM. It is based on the accuracy of the work produced. The entire concept of Peer Review is that other people, which have already established some higher level of credibity within the scientific community, in the specific field under discussion, try to find fault with the presentation. If they can't, if the proposition is found to follow well established guidelines for factual support and accurate predictability, then it gets published so that it can undergo even further intense scrutiny.You fail to understand the the very concept of Science, the Scientific Process and how perfectly Peer Review fits int that process. No wonder you can't make accurate determinations of who is a scientist and what IS Scientific. No suprise here.

 

Hey, Back off, Jack!! Suck your dry martini and chill out for a sec. Peer review is the funniest to me because there will always be different camps of scientists that claim to know the 'truth' about any particular idea. Usually, two very distinct opinions will emerge for an idea, and scientists will choose camps. One of the loudest arguments is always that the other group is not 'real' scientists. So which group is right, and which group is 'fake'? If the scientists get to decide, you still will end up with two very different conclusions. And, FYI, it isn't that I am incapable of making an accurate determination of who is a scientist and what is scientific. I was simply asking TeleMad a question, to which he has already given me his opiniion. Thanks, Tele!

 

Did you take more than 2 Educational courses in College to qualify for a degree IN Education?

Just a few more than two, yes. However, there are colleges that will offer Education degrees with very few 'education' classes. "life experience" is accepted more and more these days. In many states, a degree in Education is not even required to teach in public schools (which is a valid reason not to have your children taught in public schools!!). Many states only require an undergrad to begin teaching, then a promise to earn a graduate degree within a specified amount of time. In 4 of the last 5 states where I have lived, this has been the case.

 

Hold on a sec, I'm breaking this up...

[IrishEyes]

Ah, we already know that yoou lie to your kids. We've covered that before. And they probably loved it when you did. How could they know better at this point? You won;t let them get an outside education. You shelter them from outside knowledge. They probably also thing that Peer Review is a joke. Which will serve them wel should they decide to become Scientists and get laughed out of any field of interest when they stand on street corners passing out research papers instead of trying to get them published in CREDIBLE journals.

 

Ok, this is where you reveal your true self. Specific, targeted attacks against me and my children are totally not needed.

 

You know that I lie to my children based on what 'proof'? Where has it been covered before that I lie to my children? In another thread, we have covered how I homeschool my children. We have even discussed, at length, our shared feelings about the state of public education in this country. You even *almost* complimented me by saying you could almost forget I was a Christian! Yet now, in this thread, you claim to have knowledge of my lies to my children. HAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!! You are KILLING me!!!

 

Become scientists? MY children? No way!!! They are all going off to seminary to become missionaries and preachers and televsion evangelists!!! C'mon, I know where the real money is! Scientists? phew!!

 

(oh Tormod, tell me that last at least made YOU smile) ;-P

[IrishEyes]

Hi Irish! Your back... AGAIN...

 

I guess that means I will be reading your answer finally about your claikms to have/ not ahve Absoute Knowledge.

 

Great, we are all looking forward to you resolving this for us........

 

BTW, which did you choose?

 

1) Jesus, the Christian god and his heaven could all be fairytales

 

2) I have perfect knowledge that the Christian god is real and the only god there is and Jesus was his son here on earth and I am going to heaven.

 

Remind me where this was originally posted, and I will respond in that thread. As glad as I'm sure Tormod is that I'm back :-) , I won't jump back in to *this* fight with you in yet another topic (meaning this one) and chance his wrath. And since you are totally unwilling to let this die a peaceful death, I will answer your question and we can put it behind us. Where is your original post?