Skip to comments.Creationist draws large crowd
Posted on 03/19/2006 2:28:32 PM PST by Greg o the Navy
Mar 18, 2006 In a back row of a packed auditorium, seventh-grader Matt Frysinger and his two friends each sat with a skateboard positioned vertically between their knees and the floor. The boys had been skating in the area when they saw a sign promoting a "Creation Seminar" outside Dover Area High School.
(Excerpt) Read more at ydr.com ...
"DU trolls note: It's nice to see an event that drives the Darwinists, secular humanists, ACLU and the liberals under their respective slimy rocks."
I don't see any reason this event should upset anybody - they hold all kinds of optional evens at schools.
Now, Hovind is nutty but he's entertaining - if you haven't seen him its worth downloading a couple of videos.
He's entitled to free speech just so long as we don't teach junk science in science class.
Are these people paying to be stupidified, or are they getting the gift for free?
That was also the basic thinking behind the law that Scopes was put on trial for violating.
I am a scientist who (in the past) has studied evolution; my rock is not slimy, but thanks for the kind thought.
Wonder how much Hovind gets paid for his standup routine?
Darwinism on the run Bump!
I agree with this, and because it is correct you can expect to be attacked by the Truebelievers shortly. A word of advise: don't bother getting into the mud with them. They can use your prayers.
Yeah, like say an ape evolving to man...I wouldn't call that Junk science as much as I would call it Pure T. B.S.!
I remember when I was that age. I was always good at science & math, but when it came to things outside that sphere my beliefs could be changed any time the speaker sounded sincere & passionate enough. It wasn't until later that something clicked, and I understood that factual claims have to be verified, and conclusions actually have to be logical, and large swathes of what you know about the world cannot contradict each other. It got easier & easier for me not to be snowed by slick salesmen like Hovind.
According to several in the crowd of more than 600, Hovind's charisma and humor got his message across: "The universe was created by God."
"Everybody's fighting over it," Frysinger, a 13-year-old who attends Dover's intermediate school, said of evolution versus creation.
"Actually, what he's saying is true," his brother, Chris Frysinger, 15, said of Hovind's lecture. "He knows what he's talking about. You can hear it in his voice."
Hovind is still the best of a continuously evolving school.
Typical sting operation.
Hovind has ADD real bad, if you ask me. He can't stay on track, is too haughty ("I slaughter evolutionists in debates all the time") and too sensationalist. There's no doubt, he's a good performer, though. He's good at articulating some creationist arguments, and does have some charisma.
"Haven't you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,"?
Figure 1.4.4. Fossil hominid skulls. Some of the figures have been modified for ease of comparison (only left-right mirroring or removal of a jawbone). (Images © 2000 Smithsonian Institution.)
The folks from Designed Universe are here? Cool. It's been ages since they opted to show their faces here.
Let the party begin.
Right, we all know that no hate group ever used evolution to justify their views...
And let me guess: The SPLC would be the first to scream "McCarthyism!" if anyone drew too many comparisons between their leftist views and Stalin's.
Sure it does, unless you're prepared to argue that teachers have an absolute, unfettered right to say anything they want in the classroom. I'm kind of interested in hearing that argument, actually.
If they have the right, then it's as expansive as the right of any of us to say what we want in the public square. If they don't have that right, then Scopes' rights were not violated. Those are the only two choices.
""Haven't you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,"?"
Sure, that's part of the response of Jesus being tested by the Pharisees
It's nice to see a thread where the creationists, ID'ers, and other liars can demonstrate their 8th grade education.
Hooray for the junior college all-stars!!! /sarc
Check back and see if thread evolves macroly or microly
Some sort of fish apparently.
Why don't you try "How many are real, and how many are fake?" That's fun too.
Really? So teachers should be allowed - are allowed, in fact - to use the classroom as a platform to advocate for, say, changing the laws on adult-child sex? Drug usage? Gay marriage? To use it as a platform to promote anti-semitism? Denying the Holocaust? Eliminating the rights of non-whites to vote or hold property? Is their right to speak in the classroom that expansive? Because the right to speak in the public square sure is.
That same teacher would have much broader freedom on a public square without the responsibility of his profession. But on the other hand he is also protected somewhat from outside interference while on the job.
Well, I look forward to your defense of same when the next Jay Bennish pops up - it should prove to be quite a popular position to take around here, I'm sure.
Why don't you help us out and give us some hints as to which of the transitional fossils posted earlier are fake and which ones are real?
Yes, but he certainly impressed one of the kids in the audience:
"Actually, what he's saying is true," his brother, Chris Frysinger, 15, said of Hovind's lecture. "He knows what he's talking about. You can hear it in his voice."My dogs use the same method as Hovind's audience. They can tell from my tone of voice whether I'm serious or not.
As is the verse from your tagline.
The similarity between apes and humans is one of evolutionists favorite arguments for common descent based on common appearance. The PBS series shouts yes in answer to the question, Have humans evolved from ape-like creatures? and episode 1 showed a number of fossils of alleged apemen for cumulative effect.
But this was very deceptivesome of the alleged apemen it showed are not even accepted by evolutionists as genuine intermediates anymore. For example, it showed an old photograph of Louis Leakey with Zinjanthropus (now Paranthropus) boisei or Nutcracker Man, sometimes called a robust australopithecine. But this was long ago relegated to a side branch on mans alleged evolutionary tree. PBS 1 also claimed that the DNA of chimps and humans was 98 percent similar, and said its only a couple of spelling errors. While the 98 percent is debatable,1 claiming a couple of differences is outright deceptionhumans have 3 billion letters (base pairs) of DNA information in each cell, so a two percent difference is actually 60 million spelling errors! Of course, this is not error but twenty 500-page books worth of new information that needs to be explained by mutation and selection. Even if we grant 10 million years to the evolutionists, population genetics studies show that animals with human-like generation times of about 20 years could accumulate only about 1,700 mutationsnot 60 millionin their genomes in that time frame.
Missing links found?
Donald Johanson, the discoverer of the alleged missing link Lucy, was featured on PBS 2 titled Great Transformations. Supposedly, humans are part of evolution, despite our unique abilities to design and create works of art. Allegedly, about 7 million years ago, our ancestors swung down from the trees and became bipedal. Then they could gather and carry food, and this food could be higher in energy. This fed bigger brains, which in turn helped food to be gathered more efficiently, in a positive feedback. But Johanson said that there are still differences in the skeletons of chimps and humans, e.g., differently shaped pelvises, different angles where the spine meets the skull, and the way we walk with our knees together while apes walk with their legs far apart.
But PBS offered little actual evidence. The fossil record is full of holes, and missing link claims become boring after a while because they are so often discredited.3 The nearest thing to evidence was Liza Shapiro, University of Texas, showing how flexible the lemurs spine was. The lemur can move on all fours, but leap upright. But this doesnt show how a quadruped can make all the transformations needed to turn it into a proper biped.
Scientific American also asserts that we have found a series of hominid fossils that link humans to an ape-like ancestor:
The historical nature of macroevolutionary study involves inference from fossils and DNA rather than direct observation . For instance, evolution implies that between the earliest-known ancestors of humans (roughly five million years old) and the appearance of anatomically modern humans (about 100,000 years ago), one should find a succession of hominid creatures with features progressively less ape-like and more modern, which is indeed what the fossil record shows.
Scientific American also makes this amazing claim:
Perhaps 20 or more hominids (not all of them our ancestors) fill the gap between Lucy the australopithecine and modern humans.
How could these alleged 20 or more hominids fill the gap if they are not all our ancestors? That is, they have fallen out of the gap and into a side alley.
The Power of Presuppositions
The links are still missing!
The apemen fossils are often based on fragmentary remains, and this is true of the latest of a long series of missing link claims, Ardipithecus ramidus kadabba. But when more bones are excavated, the specimens are found to be either man or non-man (e.g., australopithecine).
Even if there were such a chain of similar creatures, common appearance does not prove common origin. But the claim is groundless, anyway. What the fossil record shows in reality, even granted the evolutionary dating methods, is that this alleged clear-cut progression exists only in the minds of evolutionary popularists. Marvin Lubenow shows that the various alleged apemen do not form a smooth sequence in evolutionary ages, but overlap considerably.4 For example, the timespan of Homo sapiens fossils contains the timespan of the fossils of Homo erectus, supposedly our ancestor. Also, when the various fossils are analyzed in depth, they turn out not to be transitional or even mosaic.
The morphology overlaps toothe analysis of a number of characteristics indicates that Homo ergaster, H. erectus, H. neanderthalensis as well as H. heidelbergensis, were most likely racial variants of modern man, while H. habilis and another specimen called H. rudolfensis were just types of australopithecines.5 In fact, H. habilis is now regarded as an invalid name, probably caused by assigning fragments of australopithecines and H. erectus fossils into this taxonomic waste bin.
Out of Africa?
PBS 6 begins deep in a cave in France, where archaeologist Randy White explores cave paintings, allegedly 3040 ka (kilo-annum = thousand years ago). The narrator intones about finding out how our ancestors became truly human, and how the mind was born. Then the scene shifts to the Rift Valley in East Africa, where humans began.
Supposedly our branch of the evolutionary tree split off 6 Ma (mega-annum = million years ago) from the line leading to chimps. Our ancestors swung down from the trees and became bipedal about 4 Ma, tools were first made 2.5 Ma, early humans began to leave Africa 2 Ma but they would all eventually become extinct, while truly modern humans left Africa 5060 ka. This is all documented with computer graphics, then by actors.
Internal evolutionary squabbles overlooked
As shown later, PBS 6 advocates what is called the out of Africa model, without saying so. This is where modern humans came out of Africa and replaced less evolved hominids that had emerged from Africa much earlier. But there is another evolutionary idea, called the multi-regional or regional-continuity hypothesis, where the hominids that emerged from Africa 2 Ma evolved into modern humans in many parts of the world.
This is one of the most vitriolic debates among paleoanthropologists, yet this episode presents only one side. The acrimony between the proponents of these rival theories is due, according to anthropologist Peter Underhill of Stanford University, to: Egos, egos, egos. Scientists are human. We think both sides are right in their criticisms of each other, because humans did not evolve at all!
PBS 6 showed a skull dated 100 ka, and said that the owner could have been dressed in modern clothes and it would hardly raise an eyebrow. Massachusetts Institute of Technology psychologist Steven Pinker pointed out that modern human babies anywhere in the world can learn any language in the world, and how to count, as well as grow to understand computers. So he suggested: The distinctively human parts of our intelligence were in place before our ancestors split off into the different continents.
The humans who allegedly left Africa 5060 ka encountered the hominids that had left earlier, that had evolved into Neandertals. They were bigger and stronger than we are, had bigger brains, and were characterized by having a big nose, receding chin (prognathism) and forehead, almost no cheek, and prominent brow ridges (supraorbital tori). But they were less creative, with almost no symbolic life or art, and unstructured burial of their dead.
Their spear tips were easy to make by chipping stone, but had low range so were used mainly for stabbing. Supposedly they learned by imitation, rather than passing on information via a highly developed language.
The late arrivals, however, had a structured burial of their dead, and made long-range spears with some difficulty by carving antlers for tips. They also invented a spear thrower. Most importantly, they had a sophisticated language that enabled them to transmit information across both distance and time.
They also produced art and culture. PBS 6 demonstrates a spit painting technique they could have used for their cave paintings, and shows that they may have played music by using speleothems (stalactites and stalagmites) as natural percussion instruments.
Creationist view of cavemen and Neandertals
The Bible teaches that the first man, Adam, was made from dust and the first woman was made from his rib. Also, Genesis 1 teaches that living creatures reproduce after their kindsee chapter 4. Therefore, we would expect no continuity between man and the animals.
Cavemen and the Bible
One important event recorded in the Bible is the confusion of languages at Babel. The obvious effect was to produce the major language families, from which modern languages have developed. But the division of people according to their newly created language groups had other effects, too.
Babel resulted in the isolation of small people groups, each containing a fraction of the total gene pool. This would help fix certain characteristics. Natural selection and sexual selection would act on these, producing the different people groups (races) we see today.
Also, some people groups would be isolated from civilization. Consider even the typical small extended family group today, if suddenly isolated from civilization, e.g., on a desert island. Many such groups would not have the ability to smelt metals or build houses. Therefore, they would have to use the hardest material available (stone) and make use of already-existing structures (caves). Different family groups would also have different levels of artistic ability. So it shouldnt be too difficult to accept that humans such as Homo erectus and Neandertals were probably post-Babel humans who became isolated from major cities, and developed certain physical characteristics because certain genes became fixed due to the small population and selective factors. The notion of a stone age is fallaciousrather, its a cave/stone technology stage of different people groups. Some people even today have this level of technology, but they live at the same time as us, and are just as human.
Human brain uniqueness
PBS 6 quotes the psychologist Pinker again, who points out that the human brain contains 100 billion cells, and more importantly, it is wired with 100 trillion connections, wiring it in precise ways to produce intelligence. But he attributed this to mutations over 10s and 100s of thousands of years. He has yet to find a single mutation that could increase information, let alone the colossal number required to wire the cerebral supercomputer correctly.
Supposedly, this would have been driven by selection for ability to manipulate others. Better language control means better social control.
Human v. chimp minds
The PBS episode turns to psychologist Andrew Whiten of the University of St. Andrews in Scotland, who tested how young children learned. (Incidentally, on the lintel above the entryway to the school is the Latin In principio erat Verbum, the Vulgate translation of John 1:1, In the beginning was the Word.) He tested children with small models of people, where one person puts an object in one place, goes away, then another person takes this object and hides it somewhere else. Then the first person returns, whereupon the child is asked where he or she would look for the object. A three year old suggests the new hiding place, while a five year old correctly realizes that the first person would have no way of knowing that the object had been moved, and would look in the place he left it. (Sometimes this is called the Sally-Anne test, where the Sally doll hides something in the absence of Anne.) Whiten concluded that by the age of three:
A child cannot ascribe actions to others. But by the age of five, the childs brain has developed the capacity for stepping into someone elses mind.
The program contrasts this with chimpanzees, which are incapable of this at any age, No chimp has passed the test of attribution of false belief.
There are about 6,300 languages in the world today. They all have certain constraints, and obey strict rules, called syntax. This enables us to hierarchically organize information, which is something chimps cannot do, even with the best training in signing.
There is a certain window of opportunity for learning syntax by imitation that gradually closes after the age of seven. PBS 6 shifted to Managua, the capital of Nicaragua, where we meet Mary No-name. She was born deaf, and no one taught her sign language, so she never had a chance to learn syntax. She is still intelligent enough to communicate with some signs, but only to people who know the context.
PBS 6 documents how after the Nicaraguan revolution, U.S. sign language experts tried to teach sign language to deaf people from isolated villages, but failed. But the children developed their own sign language instead, which is a real language with proper syntax and as much capacity for expressing complex thought as spoken language. They wanted to communicate with other people like themselves rather than have a language imposed upon them.
Deaf people actually process sign language with the same areas of the brain that hearing people use to process spoken language, including Brocas area and Wernickes area. This is shown by deaf patients who have damage to either area, who have an equivalent type of aphasia (language impairment) in sign language to that which a hearing person would suffer in spoken language.
Evolution of language?
None of the above has anything to do with evolution. The language processing areas are unique to humans, and enable us to use syntax in both written and sign language.
All the same, atheist Richard Dawkins of Oxford University presents his usual storytelling on PBS 6 about how language conferred a selective advantage, so left more offspring. Its interesting that the only topic this well-known propagandist for neo-Darwinism is interviewed on is language, although Dawkinss field is biology, not linguistics. Its also notable that the PBS series did not show Dawkins promoting his rabid atheistic religion, which he makes plain is a main reason for his promotion of Darwin. Presumably the producers didnt want to make the materialistic implications of evolution too obvious to an American public that might still be repulsed by overt atheism.
PBS 6 explains how Robin Dunbar of Liverpool University has researched the way people use language, and he rejects the idea that the main function is to exchange information. Rather, about two-thirds is social interaction, which he called gossip. So natural selection favored those with the most refined social skills, which would have the advantages of holding big groups together and being able to find out information about third parties.
Difficulties with language evolution
Its one thing to claim that languages evolved, but its another to provide a mechanism. Evolutionists usually claim that languages evolved from animal grunts. Some even claim that the continuing change of languages is just like biological evolution. However, actual observations of language present a very different picture.
First, ancient languages were actually extremely complex with many different inflections. There is no hint of any build-up from simpler languages. For example, in the Indo-European family, Sanskrit, Classical Greek and Latin had many different noun inflections for different case, gender, and number, while verbs were inflected for tense, voice, number, and person. Modern descendants of these languages have greatly reduced the number of inflections, i.e., the trend is from complex to simpler, the opposite of evolution. English has almost completely lost inflections, retaining just a few like the possessive s.
English has also lost 6585 percent of the Old English vocabulary, and many Classical Latin words have also been lost from its descendants, the Romance languages (Spanish, French, Italian, etc.).
Second, most of the changes were not random, but the result of intelligence. For example: forming compound words by joining simple words and derivations, by adding prefixes and suffixes, by modification of meaning, and by borrowing words from other languages including calques (a borrowed compound word where each component is translated and then joined). There are also unconscious, but definitely non-random, changes such as systematic sound shifts, for example those described by Grimms law (which relates many Germanic words to Latin and Greek words).
Memes Dawkins said on PBS 6, The Minds Big Bang:
The only kind of evolutionary change were likely to see very much of is not genetic information at all, its cultural evolution. And if we put a Darwinian spin on that, then were going to be talking about the differential survival of memes, as opposed to genes. [PBS 6]
Dawkins proposed the meme idea long ago in his book The Selfish Gene, and psychologist Sue Blackmore of the University of West of England has been one of his recent champions. She said on PBS 6:
Memes are ideas, habits, skills, gestures, stories, songsanything which we pass from person to person by imitation. We copy them . just as the competition between genes shapes all of biological evolution, so its the competition between memes that shapes our minds and cultures.
Nowadays I would say that memetic evolution is going faster and faster, and it has almost entirely taken over from biological evolution .
The more educated you are, the less children you have. That is memes fighting against genes. [PBS 6]
Now memes have apparently found a new home, the internet, and it has actually enslaved us, we are told.
Blackmore even believes that the idea of the self is an illusion produced by competing memes in the brain. But under her own system, we must ask her, Who is (or rather, what are) actually proposing this idea?!
But it becomes ridiculous when things such as the internet, birth control, any invention, insulin, are called memes. A term that describes everything really describes nothing. All that shes done is apply the same label to just about anything, but this adds nothing to our knowledge.
Its no wonder that the evolutionist Jerry Coyne called Blackmores book a work not of science, but of extreme advocacy. He says that memes are but a flashy new wrapping around a parcel of old and conventional ideas. Coyne also believes that evolutionary psychology is non-science (and nonsense). Coyne is no creationist sympathizer but an ardentbut ineffectiveopponent of creation.
The Discovery Institute critique of the PBS series points out that, if the likes of Eugenie Scott were truly concerned about non-science being taught in the science classroom, she would oppose evolutionary psychology and memetic evolution as well, and certainly not support the use of this PBS series in science classrooms.10 No, what shes opposed to are challenges to her materialistic faith.
From all the money and time lavished on the PBS Evolution series, major articles in science journals, and political campaigns to keep teachers from presenting alternatives to evolution in schools, it is evident that the evolutionists fear the increasing spread of creationist information, despite their best efforts at censorship. So they are desperate to counteract this information. But their efforts dont withstand scientific scrutiny, and in the end any reasonable observer would have to admit that evolution is a deduction from a materialistic belief system. It is philosophy/religion dressed up as science.
References and notes
1. See also Don Batten, Human/chimp DNA similarity: Evidence for evolutionary relationship? Creation 19(1):2122, December 1996February 1997.
2. W.J. ReMine, The Biotic Message (St. Paul, MN: St. Paul Science, 1993), chapter 8.
3. For example, see J. Sarfati, Times alleged ape-man trips up (again), TJ 15(3) 2001.
4. M. Lubenow, Bones of Contention (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1992).
5. J. Woodmorappe, The non-transitions in human evolutionon evolutionists terms, TJ 13(2):1013, 1999.
6. For an explanation of both the out of Africa and regional-continuity ideas and a biblical alternative, see C. Wieland, No Bones about Eve, Creation 13(4):2023, SeptemberNovember 1991.
7. G. Hickok, U. Bellugi, and E.S. Klima, Sign Language in the Brain, Scientific American 284(6):4249, June 2001.
8. K. May, Talking Point, Creation 23(2):4245, MarchMay 2001, and A. Steel, The Development of Languages Is Nothing Like Biological Evolution, TJ 14(2), 2000.
9. See C. Wieland, New eyes for blind cave fish?
10. The Discovery Institutes critique makes these good points in Getting the Facts Straight: A Viewers Guide to PBSs Evolution (Seattle, WA: Discovery Institute Press, 2001).
Of course, there's mounds of PROOF of all this... Oh wait, there isn't.
Ah,... but can your dogs tell whether you are being truthful or not?
This kid is amazing if he can tell the truth value of a statement... From vocal tones... From a distance... During a snake oil sales event... (Two lies for the price of one)
Actually, if evolution were true there would be many millions of transitional fossils of life forms with partially formed limbs, nubs, etc..if that were the case this debate would be over. It would be nice if you all would at least admit that. And because some ape fossils look like humans falls way short of transitionals. It could very well have been an ape type animal unto itself. There are alot of credible eyewitnesses that have seen bigfoot which if the bones were found the evolutionist would likely think it was a transitional fossil.
If the teacher's freedom of speech isn't as broad as ours is in the public square, then any latitude he does have is only what his employers (the people) decide to give him. As soon as the courts decide that some of his speech can be limited because it's unorthodox, but other speech he makes is orthodox and is therefore protected, then that defeats the whole purpose of the first amendment. Very famous quote from SCOTUS Justice Jackson: "If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion".
So it's really either one or the other (the teacher has the same freedom that we can exercise in the public square, or he's subject to the same controls that a private school can have over its employees).
I believe that, since Kent "graduated", Patriot has moved to a new...well, campus, of sorts. I don't know of any pictures, but it's described as basically a renovated strip mall. Large Slurpee, couple of Slim-Jims, and the second doctorate on the right, please...
Well good then - you should have no trouble telling me which of the skulls in post 20 are from the ape kind & which are from the human kind. They couldn't possibly be separated by mere "micro-differences", could they?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.