Skip to comments.Creation evangelist derides evolution as ‘dumbest’ theory [Kent Hovind Alert!]
Posted on 12/17/2005 3:58:48 AM PST by PatrickHenry
click here to read article
Thanks for the ping to this thread, tho I see I am late coming to the thread, which is really of no consequence to anyone, as by and large I am just a lurker on these evo/ID threads...
But this thread has really been interesting, informative, and revealing...of course, the usual name callers have showed up, with no substantive thing to say, nothing to add to the subject matter of the thread, they just need to be here, to spew filth out of their mouths...
And then there are the usual ones who turn up, to tell us that somehow they have a better understanding of the Bible, than the rest of us, that they think they have some special secret information from God about who will go to Hell and who wont...that their particular interpretations of the Bible, must be believed by everyone, or else they just are not 'Christians',(now where does this poster get his/her authority to decide who is a Christian and who is not?...certainly God does not give them this authority, so I guess they are taking on their own self important authority)...
And then there are those who use their own made up definition of 'Theory', and refuse to understand how that word is used and what is means in reference to scientific investigation...I guess if you cannot argue the facts, then you sink down, and try to change the definitions..of the words...truly an infantile tactic...its truly amazing to me, that how often the a list of the words like 'theory' are given with their precise meaning in scientific investigation and how often the ID/creationist people refuse, absolutely refuse to see that, and want to insert their very own special meaning...
And then there are the posters who argue logically, provide useful information, provide useful, current links, and attempt to help those of us who have a meager scientific understanding, to better understand what evolution is really all about...
This thread is a real eye-opener...Note, I mentioned no posters screenname...I think everyone can figure for themselves, in what category I might put them...
I know that there are many more just like me out here, who lurk, rather than post, and I am sure that they(regardless of what side of this debate they fall into),like me, are grateful for threads like these...
So thanks to all, many of you have provided great information for further study, some have provided the usual insane namecalling for its own sake(which says way more about the poster doing the namecalling, than it does about the one they are calling names), some have provided some great humor with some very witty remarks, and some have made themselves look absolutely ridiculous and have given me some great laughs, and last of all there are the 'proud'(or the holier than thou crowd), who think that they speak for God..
Quite a cast of characters...
You: Another typical evo nut.
Labeling people without the flimsiest evidence. You do the same thing with sci fi evo. Cook up stuff and make billion year connections. Laughable!
I think it depends on who it comes from. It may not be much different than being called a Howler Monkey.
Is it the contention of all you evolutionist that just because I've had something explained to me that mean I should just automatically belive in the cult of evolution?
I've "explain" alot of things to evolutionist too...Obviously you don't believe you're being duped by a huge lie?
First, the definition of a theory again. Words do mean things, and they mean specific things. They do not change at a whim or there cannot be rational discussion (hence, what we often see on these threads).
You obviously hate evolution so much that you are willing to contort standard meanings for things, such as the definition of a theory. This is not asking you to believe in evolution, but to accept what scientists mean when they talk about a theory, whether it is gravity, germs, or evolution.
My guess is you accept the first two, but reject the latter on religious grounds. Fine; but don't think that it is either honest or rational to reject standard scientific definitions because of your phobia against evolution--the science is the same in all three cases, as we have tried to explain to you.
So, once again, here is the definition of "theory" closest to what scientists accept:
Theory: a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena; "theories can incorporate facts and laws and tested hypotheses"; "true in fact and theory"Now you may consider the theory of evolution a lie, but you are arguing from a religious viewpoint--not to be confused with a scientific viewpoint. You really should try to keep the two separate. Your belief does not constitute scientific evidence.
That's why the ID folks keep trying to "wedge" the issue into the schools through popular opinion and school boards. They cannot compete in the world of science, and they know it.
It really doesn't matter who "wins" the debate. What's important is having a written record of it for everyone to see. It's also important to allow each side enough time to respond fully.
Charisma may be cool on stage, but in the long haul it's unimportant.
Don't you believe that the people who work in science should be the ones defining 'Theory'? Should *you* be able to redefine baseball, or Republican?
"I've "explain" alot of things to evolutionist too...Obviously you don't believe you're being duped by a huge lie?
And your evidence of a lie is what? Is your evidence as tenuous as a 'belief'?
I'm an "evolutionist," having spent about half of my grad school training in that field. Here are the definitions of THEORY and FACT (hey, all caps makes them sound bigger!).
Please note, nothing in these definitions, which I have posted dozens of times, equates THEORY and FACT. But I will keep posting them as long as necessary.
Theory: a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena; "theories can incorporate facts and laws and tested hypotheses"; "true in fact and theory"
Fact: when an observation is confirmed repeatedly and by many independent and competent observers, it can become a fact
Psalms 33:6 By the word of the LORD were the heavens made;
and all the host of them by the breath of his mouth.
7 He gathereth the waters of the sea together as an heap:
he layeth up the depth in storehouses.
8 Let all the earth fear the LORD:
let all the inhabitants of the world stand in awe of him.
9 For he spake, and it was done;
he commanded, and it stood fast.
10 The LORD bringeth the counsel of the heathen to nought:
he maketh the devices of the people of none effect.
11 The counsel of the LORD standeth for ever,
the thoughts of his heart to all generations.
"What's a Melon Labe?"
Cousin to an Astro Labe
Happens all the time in my life. Some guy pops out and says, "Well, if you two are going to debate, I'll put up a 250K prize for the winner."
hey babe, it's you fairy tale believing evo's that are caught in a multitude of lies and frauds. And you just stick with the frauds and the hucksters. Why is unknown, because it sure isn't the least bit logical.
LOL! Alrighty Mr. Cruise, you keep drinking that kookaide.
I couldn't help but notice this post. Am I correct in assuming that you feel our inability to know definitively that some organism is extinct is similar to the refusal to accept despite verifiable and verified evidence?
Should have pinged you, too.
Please review this thread and see where the hate lies. Scientists who study evolution have been threatened with stakes and worse, along with damnation (or where ever the sun don't shine). No love there.
The responses of the "evolutionists" also employ much better spelling.
A cow is of the bovine ilk.
One end moo, the other milk.
if the pope doesn't believe the Bible then it is the pope himself who has proclaimed what he is or in that case, isn't.
If you don't believe Genesis 1:1, you sure don't believe John 3:16.
We now know you can use bat guano as food, if you're a salamander.
You sir, are a gentleman...
LOL! Alrighty Mr. Cruise, you keep drinking that kookaide.
Well it's as logical an explaiation as the one about the grand canyon being carved out in 30 minutes...in fact that sounds right out of scientology - it could fit somewhere between the journey of Xenu's space planes and putting the nukes in the volcano
Nonsense. I think about it a great deal. For example, here are some of my thoughts about it:
Now, feel free to explain where, exactly, my thinking on this matter has erred, if you think it has.
Background: Retroviruses reproduce by entering a cell of a host (like, say, a human), then embedding their own viral DNA into the cell's own DNA, which has the effect of adding a "recipe" for manufacturing more viruses to the cell's "instruction book". The cell then follows those instructions because it has no reason (or way) to "mistrust" the DNA instructions it contains. So the virus has converted the cell into a virus factory, and the new viruses leave the cell, and go find more cells to infect, etc.
However, every once in a while a virus's invasion plans don't function exactly as they should, and the virus's DNA (or portions of it) gets embedded into the cell's DNA in a "broken" manner. It's stuck into there, becoming part of the cell's DNA, but it's unable to produce new viruses. So there it remains, causing no harm. If this happens in a regular body cell, it just remains there for life as a "fossil" of the past infection and goes to the grave with the individual it's stuck in. All of us almost certainly contain countless such relics of the past viral infections we've fought off.
However... By chance this sometimes happens to a special cell in the body, a gametocyte cell that's one of the ones responsible for making sperm in males and egg cells in females, and if so subsequent sperm/eggs produced by that cell will contain copies of the "fossil" virus, since now it's just a portion of the entire DNA package of the cell. And once in a blue moon such a sperm or egg is lucky enough to be one of the few which participate in fertilization and are used to produce a child -- who will now inherit copies of the "fossilized" viral DNA in every cell of his/her body, since all are copied from the DNA of the original modified sperm/egg.
So now the "fossilized" viral DNA sequence will be passed on to *their* children, and their children's children, and so on. Through a process called neutral genetic drift, given enough time (it happens faster in smaller populations than large) the "fossil" viral DNA will either be flushed out of the population eventually, *or* by luck of the draw end up in every member of the population X generations down the road. It all depends on a roll of the genetic dice.
Due to the hurdles, "fossil" retroviral DNA strings (known by the technical name of "endogenous retroviruses") don't end up ubiquitous in a species very often, but it provably *does* happen. In fact, the Human DNA project has identified literally *thousands* of such fossilized "relics" of long-ago ancestral infections in the human DNA.
And several features of these DNA relics can be used to demonstrate common descent, including their *location*. The reason is that retroviruses aren't picky about where their DNA gets inserted into the host DNA. Even in an infection in a *single* individual, each infected cell has the retroviral DNA inserted into different locations than any other cell. Because the host DNA is so enormous (billions of basepairs in humans, for example), the odds of any retroviral insertion event matching the insertion location of any other insertion event are astronomically low. The only plausible mechanism by which two individuals could have retroviral DNA inserted into exactly the same location in their respective DNAs is if they inherited copies of that DNA from the same source -- a common ancestor.
Thus, shared endogenous retroviruses between, say, ape and man is almost irrefutable evidence that they descended from a common ancestor. *Unless* you want to suggest that they were created separately, and then a virus they were both susceptible to infected both a man and an ape in EXACTLY the same location in their DNAs (the odds of such a match by luck are literally on the order of 1,000,000,000,000,000,000 to 1...), *and* that the infections both happened in their gametocyte cells (combined odds on the order of 1,000,000 to 1) *and* that the one particular affected gametocyte is the one which produces the egg or sperm which is destined to produce an offspring (*HUGE* odds against), and *then* the resulting modified genome of the offspring becomes "fixed" in each respective population (1 out of population_size^squared)...
Then repeat that for *each* shared endogenous retrovirus (there are many) you'd like to claim was acquired independently and *not* from a shared ancestor...
Finally, you'd have to explain why, for say species A, B, and C, the pattern of shared same-location retroviruses is always *nested*, never *overlapped*. For example, all three will share some retroviruses, then A and B will both share several more, but if so then B *never* shares one with C that A doesn't also have (or at least remnants of).
In your "shared infection due to genetic similarities" suggestion, even leaving aside the near statistical impossibility of the infections leaving genetic "scars" in *exactly* the same locations in independent infections, one would expect to find cases of three species X, Y, and Z, where the degree of similarity was such that Y was "between" X and Z on some similarity scale, causing the same disease to befall X and Y but not Z, and another disease to affect Y and Z but not X. And yet, we don't find this in genetic markers. The markers are found in nested sequence, which is precisely what we would expect to see in cases of inheritance from common ancestry.
Here, for example, is an ancestry tree showing the pattern of shared same-location endogenous retroviruses of type HERV-K among primates:
This is just a partial list for illustration purposes -- there are many more.
Each labeled arrow on the chart shows an ERV shared in common by all the branches to the right, and *not* the branches that are "left-and-down". This is the pattern that common descent would make. And common descent is the *only* plausible explanation for it. Furthermore, similar findings tie together larger mammal groups into successively larger "superfamilies" of creatures all descended from a common ancestor.
Any presumption of independent acquisition is literally astronomically unlikely. And "God chose to put broken relics of viral infections that never actually happened into our DNA and line them up only in patterns that would provide incredibly strong evidence of common descent which hadn't actually happened" just strains credulity (not to mention would raise troubling questions about God's motives for such a misleading act).
Once again, the evidence for common descent -- as opposed to any other conceivable alternative explanation -- is clear and overwhelming.
Wait, want more? Endogenous retroviruses are just *one* type of genetic "tag" that makes perfect sense evolutionary and *no* sense under any other scenario. In addition to ERV's, there are also similar arguments for the patterns across species of Protein functional redundancies, DNA coding redundancies, shared Processed pseudogenes, shared Transposons (including *several* independent varieties, such as SINEs and LINEs), shared redundant pseudogenes, etc. etc. Here, for example, is a small map of shared SINE events among various mammal groups:
Like ERV's, any scenario which suggests that these shared DNA features were acquired separately strains the laws of probability beyond the breaking point, but they make perfect sense from an evolutionary common-descent scenario. In the above data, it is clear that the only logical conclusion is that, for example, the cetaceans, hippos, and ruminants shared a common ancestor, in which SINE events B and C entered its DNA and then was passed on to its descendants, yet this occurred after the point in time where an earlier common ancestor had given rise both to that species, and to the lineage which later became pigs.
And this pattern (giving the *same* results) is repeated over and over and over again when various kinds of molecular evidence from DNA is examined in detail.
The molecular evidence for evolution and common descent is overwhelming. The only alternative is for creationists to deny the obvious and say, "well maybe God decided to set up all DNA in *only* ways that were consistent with an evolutionary result even though He'd have a lot more options open to him, even including parts which by every measure are useless and exactly mimic copy errors, ancient infections, stutters, and other garbage inherited from nonexistent shared ancestors"...
[Followup: On another thread a clueless creationist tried to tell me that the above description of endogenous retroviruses was just what I "imagine" happens. No, sorry -- here's a selected list of papers confirming what I've written, out of over a *thousand* on the topic:]
Hovind gives just as logical explanation for life as any evolutinist I've ever heard...T
ROFL!!!! That's the funniest thing I've heard all week. Sorry, but Hovind's explanations are anything but "logical", nor do they even accord with the facts.
The problem is evo's can't stand the compitition.
LOL!!! Oh, yeah, *that* must be it. It couldn't *possibly* be because we've read his material and found it to be childish twaddle. Nor could it be because we've caught Hovind lying time and time again, and he is unable to admit his dishonesties.
For example, here's a summary of the ability of the Hovind to present information he *knows* is false, and to *fail* to retract when reminded of his falsehoods: Summary here, along with links to all appropriate documentation.
Handwave *that* away if you can, son. Your hero is, unfortunately, a blatant liar.
Even the creationist website AnswersInGenesis.Com says that "...Hovind's document repeatedly misrepresents or misunderstands not only our article, but the issues themselves."
Hovind's spew has so many errors, misrepresentations, and outright falsehoods, that multiple webpages are dedicated to pointing out his screwups:
- How Good Are Those Young-Earth Arguments?
- Dave E. Matson's classic and detailed refutation of the arguments used by Kent Hovind and many other creationists to "prove" that the Earth is young.
- Kent Hovind's $250,000 Offer
- Shows why no one has collected is not evidence against evolution since the offer is a sham, worded so as to be impossible to meet.
- The Hovind Bankruptcy Decision
- An appendix to the previous article that gives the judge's finding that Hovind filed false tax schedules, made a bad faith court filing, and lied about his income in order to evade paying income tax he lawfully owed.
- Some Questionable Creationist Credentials
- Kent Hovind's claimed doctorate is from a diploma mill. This page documents false degrees held by Hovind and several other well-known creationists.
- Kent Hovind's "Creation Seminar"
- An online version of Mr. Hovind's seminar on creationism and his "evidence" against evolution.
- Analysis of Kent Hovind
- A look into almost every claim that Hovind makes.
- Creationism Gets a Dash of Anti-Semitism
- A civil rights organization rants on Hovind for selling The Fourth Reich of the Rich, recommending The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, and for promoting extremist views.
- Dr. Dino's "Fractured Fairy Tales of Science"
- A Response to Kent Hovind's Coast-to-Coast AM interview: August 2-3, 2000
- ANALYSIS OF KENT HOVIND: QUACKY QUOTES
- Kent Hovind's Cytochrome Lie
- Stupid Dino Tricks
- A Visit to Kent Hovinds Dinosaur Adventure Land
- Buddika's 300 Creationist Lies Index
- All just from Kent Hovind!
Labeling people without the flimsiest evidence.
To exactly what label I've applied to which people do you refer?
You do the same thing with sci fi evo. Cook up stuff and make billion year connections. Laughable!
You appear to be evolving into f.christian. This is not good.
[Blush] It helps me to stay in line to know that the mods are on duty.
Better late than never, and with a very good post. Welcome!
If you checked his schedule, you'd know where he was and what he was doing almost 24/7.
And he wouldn't waste time arguing with a bunch of evo's who are too chicken to debate him in person while all they can do is copy and paste from internet sites.
Better late than never, and with a very good post. Welcome!
" Oh, you mean like this one... see posts leading up to 180.."
The origins of life are not a part of the theory of evolution, no matter how many times you say it.
Right, I don't think you fully grasped my point. Evolution has to be a belief, it has to be a theory in even laymans terms because science can not show it happening, they can not demonstrate it, nor recreate it in a labratory...You can not say we have a theory that man evolved from a fish and call that fact without obsevervable proof, like say gravity, that works everytime it's tested. Evolution at best, is ONLY speculation.
You're the one creating a strawman by ignoring the fact that evolution is NOT fact, but only a guess. Yeah, evolution collects what evidence from different fields? Maybe a PIG BONE and points to it as evidence of a man's? You mean surefire evidence like that?
And let me add, Evolution is not only speculative, it's an illogical conclusion to most of the evidence.
Be fair. It could be an artifact of having a working "s" key.
Are you going to answer my post #559. I am really curious.
Man Peyton, you are a huge liar!!!
The IRS complained that SINCE 1997 his ministry, which includes voluntary offerings taken at churches, sales from the books and other materials he writes and produces and income from his Dino Land have earned $1 million. That's in 8 years time. And of course there is no mention of the funds spent paying Staff, and plowed back into the ministry.
Why would you lie about the guy so bad????
No need to review ... "religious folk" clearly know where the hate lies.
More to the point is that the monopoly that evolution holds over academia warps the research that should be going on.
Evo theory has cornered the market so to speak on new ways of looking at life on earth. Further, the gaps, illogical leaps, outright lies in the field of evolution has undermined what real science - a science not cahined to secularism - could be doing. Evos have decided that undermining Christian origin beliefs is their primary mission. Very sad that science has deteriorated to this low point.
Hovind distorts, bends, ignores and abuses the laws of physics to develop his 'science'. He shows an incredible lack of understanding of the basics. His science is anything but science.
Of course it's understood. The footnote has nothing to do with the offer itself. The terms of the public offer are very specific and it deals with evolution, despite the evolutionsts denying it. The footnote(s) were added by the person attacking the offer and offeror.
It is also understood just fine that my quote at #201 was a quote and not my own writing, which I shall report here, despite all my innumerable links to the original. The quote and the precedent text to it, announcing what follow is a quote - ie, "reads" is in its entirety. The quotes lacks of the end quote, and it was attributed to me, which, as is now well known, it's not. No other text follows the quote.
Post #201 follows:
The offer reads in part: "Creationist Kent Hovind has widely publicized his "standing offer" to pay $250,000 for scientific evidence of evolution. He argues that the "failure" of anyone to claim the prize is evidence that the "hypothesis" of evolution is not scientific but religious in nature. What is the real meaning of Hovind's challenge?
He didn't give details on how the creation was made. And frankly, if the evidence of the physical creation contradicts Genesis, I'll believe the physical creation.