Evolution Officially Debunked!!!

Originally posted by Chronogoblin
What I love is how they keep letting people call Hovind a Doctor. When that sum-***** doesn't have anything remotely resembling a Ph.D from anything remotely resembling a University. Yet people still cite him as a credible expert. Gimme a freakin' break. The oddity that supposedly intelligent people still turn to this guy for their facts is astonishing.

Chrono

I've noticed that.

Not only is his "Doctorate" from a diploma mill, it is in Christian Education. Not even close to a scientific field, let alone one relevant to the debate at hand.

evolution is a load of un-scientific hog wash. it isn't even falsifiable. evolutionary scientists admit that they believe the evolution of one type of creature to another takes millions of years, so cannot be observed. they try and get round this by inventing new definitions like micro-evolution (adaption and variety in fact) and say because this is observed we should believe in their extrapolation of the results to say that macro-evolution is also true.

this is not scientific at all and quite sad. i wonder at what point the blind believers of this faith stop and see that there is no real observable evidence of any creature evolving into anything different. i.e. they have never got bacteria to evolve into anything other than bacteria.

I have a feeling the blind followers of evolution will stay blind until the end.

Meh. I didn't really like this guy. He uses a lot of rhetoric, and he debates/attacks people who have no authority to be discussing theories with him. He finds a tough question (but an answerable one), and he asks them to people who don't study the theory he's attacking. For instance, a physics professor cannot answer why the meandering stream appears to be coming into the grand canyon at a right angle - ask a high-level geologist that question.

This professor attacks so many well-proven theories that it really gets ridiculous after a while. For instance, he really wants to believe that the Earth is 6,000 years old - impossible. We are able to view geologic cycles that have taken millions of years. The forming of rock layers, the changing of magnetic field poles, and pangea. He attempts to address pangea, but only the parts of it that he can "debunk". He fails to address that mountain ranges line up, fossil records, and many other lines of evidence.

He's basically a con artist. He does exactly what he says to watch out for, which is mix a bit of truth with a bunch of lies. He's very convincing at it, I will give him that.

[edit on 12/15/2008 by Irish M1ck]

I didn't realize this was Hovind at first, as obviously i didn't watch the video.
by the third page when his name was mentioned..... that was more than enough.


This Hilarious thread will be of great need to anyone who wasted time reading this nonsense.

I'm gonna post something weird here..

There are many who oppose theologians as having any ability to speak on matters of science, even in cases where such theologians also have scientific background and training. The opposition is especially great against theologians who defend the Biblical account of creation and show that science supports faith in God.

It would surprise many to know that Charles Darwin, the founder of modern evolutionary theory, was not a scientist but a theologian. Darwin only had a divinity degree and no formal training in the sciences. Yet, the staunch evolutionists who make fun of theologians using science to defend creation would never criticize the great Darwin on the grounds that he was a mere theologian. It would further surprise many to know that the founder of the modern science of genetics, Gregor Mendel, was a theologian. Mendel was an Austrian monk who's experiments and study of cross-breeding of plants laid the foundations of the gene theory and our understanding of genetics and biological variation and transmission of biological traits within natural species.

Darwin's and Mendel's works contradict each other. Darwin taught that there were no limits to biological variation and that, if given enough time, a fish could evolve into a human being. Mendel, on the other hand, showed that there are natural limits to biological variations. Variations within biological kinds (such as varieties of dogs, cats, horses, cows, etc.) are possible but not variations across biological kinds, especially from simpler kinds to more complex ones. Mendel showed that evolution is limited to within the "kinds".

The only variations that biologists have observed in nature are variations of already existing traits, but evolutionists believe that random or chance mutations in the genetic code, caused by random environmental forces such as radiation, over time will produce entirely new traits which natural selection can then act upon.

Source: english.pravda.ru...
There's a lot more to read there than what i posted. That's just the beginning of the article.





Now I'm gonna say:

HAHAHAHA to religion and HAHAHAHA to science: The ones who came up with evolution actually believed in God from a religious perspective.

That is so double sided I love it.

[edit on 15-12-2008 by vasaga]

reply to post by vasaga


you didnt know that?

he first started training in medicine didnt want to get messy with surgery swithed to theology half way through his love for naturalism took over and he set off on the beagle

his findings on evolution shook his faith so much he wanted to be proven wrong, it took years for his friends and fellow naturalists he had shown it too to convince him to publish

he lost his faith, and at the death of his daughter he t8urend away from god completley

and despite the lie that started up there was no last minute death bed converstion


and mendel was a priest, his work compliments not goes against evolution he was the father of genetics the greatest most conclusive most undeniable proof of evolution comes from genetics

they are misrepresenting mendels work now theres honesty

and a strawman theory of evolution, they talk about natural selection but ignore the rest of it which does breed new information and variantion using the same shared heredity mendel proved



[edit on 15/12/08 by noobfun]

Darwin did have great theories though. Natural selection, for instance, is a great term and theory produced by Darwin that lives on today.

It doesn't matter what your degree is if you can come up with something great. Bill Gates had no degree, but I bet you're using Windows right now.

Read the whole thing and you'll see yet again, why evolution has no real evidence. At least, not in the way Darwin thought. Mendel was right. Darwinian evolution is even against logic. But oh well. I'll let you decide. When someone gets something in their head (it be from religion, science or whatever other belief) it's impossible to open their eyes. They must do it themselves but often they don't want to. This might also include me, but i still consider both sides, and since you guys have taken one, i take the other, to try to show you, that it's not as sound as you believe it is. But never mind.

@ noobfun: No i didn't know.

@ Irish M1ck: Oh really? Try getting a great theory out there when you have no degree. The first thing they'll say is that you have no degree and are therefore not reliable. Second, even if you know your math perfectly and your math supports it, it's still rejected (see Nassim Haramein). If you don't have a little paper, you will be seen as retarded and with no basis for your claims, even though you have them.

Originally posted by vasaga
Read the whole thing and you'll see yet again, why evolution has no real evidence. At least, not in the way Darwin thought.

mendels work actually gave darwin the mechanism

he knew it existed but wasnt sure how it worked then mendel comes along and confirms it by finding that mechanism

Mendel was right.

yes he was

Darwinian evolution is even against logic.

only if you dont understand logic or the theory

mendels work on heredity is one of the driving forces of evolution

maybe you should look into his work instead of reading a magazine article that misrepresents both mendels and darwins work

and the reason we laugh at Doctor hovind is the fact he insists like most creationists do on bieng called doctor he even referes to himself as such its an attempt to appear authorative

dawkins, meyers, miller and any other scientists refer to them selves by name then say if its an lecture where it will be of intrest and they need to give thier qualifications (the fact they are real ones help)

hi my names ken miller i hold a phd in chemical biology, they dont run around going im Doctor ken miller

[edit on 15/12/08 by noobfun]

reply to post by noobfun


Yeah, but the thing is, he provided the genetics, saying there was a limit to the genetic variations, while Darwin said that anything could happen if given enough time. But Darwin had no backup for that, since the data given and used by him, only was evidence of limited variations. Today, it's still only limited variations that is supported by the evidence. The "we can't measure billions of years" argument does NOT mean it will happen if we could. That's a fallacy.

Originally posted by vasaga

Yeah, but the thing is, he provided the genetics, saying there was a limit to the genetic variations,

no he showed that hereditary traits existed and were passed down with variance

he put no confines on his work, he said only what it could achieve that he had observed and he only dealt in short time spans

while Darwin said that anything could happen if given enough time. But Darwin had no backup for that, since the data given and used by him, only was evidence of limited variations.

he had observed it in the short term and took this to long time scales that breeding with variance given enough time could account for the variation linneaus had found and cataloged with his new science of taxonomy

Today, it's still only limited variations that is supported by the evidence.

when somthing jumps to an entirely new genus thats not limited

when 2 plants hybridise and produce a self pollenating whole new version thats not limited

once you understand the mechanism you realise there are very few limits to what it can do

there are no natural blocks to prevent the mutatons and heredity with variance from going anywhere enviromental and predatorial pressure leads it

The "we can't measure billions of years" argument does NOT mean it will happen if we could. That's a fallacy.

great

what?

Racer asked for proof of evolution, and although his understanding of it is somewhat flawed, there is indeed proof of evolution in the world today.

Unlike Racers understanding of a dog making a non-dog, or a human spawning a new species, this is not how evolution works, or is claimed to work.

But if you were to study as an example Elephants in Asia you would see that evolution is at work.

The following 2 links are about how in Asia more and more Elephants are being born without tusks. The reason for this is there is a tuskless gene prevalent in Elephants that used to only be found in 2% of male Elephants. However since the tusked Elephants have been hunted for their ivory, the tuskless elephant is becoming more dominant, and the tuskless gene can be found in nearly 10% of male elephants today.

Scientists predict that through this evolution that elephants with tusks will cease to exist in several generations or at least be the minority amongst elephant folk.

So although it will not appease Racers desire to see an elephant spawn a chicken, it does prove Darwins theory of natural selection as part of the unified theory of Evolution.

www.timesonline.co.uk...

www2.chinadaily.com.cn...

reply to post by Loon


and african elephants are going the same route due to predation(poachers)

the males with the largest tusks are killed for them so the males with smaller tusks are the ones that breed repeat reycle

so they are breeding towards tusklessness and the average usk size is dropping fast

Yes, the natural selection is not the problem. It's exactly that elephant spawning a chicken thing that's the problem, because the claim is, that's what happened gradually till humanity came about. And that's the part i have a problem with. I have no problem believing a bird will change from brown to gray for example. That's still normal.

[edit on 15-12-2008 by vasaga]

Originally posted by vasaga
Yes, the natural selection is not the problem. It's exactly that elephant spawning a chicken thing that's the problem, because the claim is, that's what happened gradually till humanity came about. And that's the part i have a problem with. I have no problem believing a bird will change from brown to gray for example. That's still normal.

why would an elephant ever spawn a chicken?

you do realise birds are just little dinosaurs? they are refered to as avarian reptiles becasue they are essentially still reptiles,

in the same way we are still apes which are still mammals which are still reptiles which are still amphibians which are still fish which are still basic multicelluar organism

ever generation of dog breeds with variance a dog which breeds with variance a dog all those variances add up and even though it still looks similar to its parents its not what you would call a dog anymore after sufficent time





[edit on 15/12/08 by noobfun]

reply to post by noobfun


Don't take that so literally. An elephant will never spawn a chicken. What he was referring to was that they claim a class becomes another class. For example a fish becomes a reptile. They claim this to be true with fossil records, but that's not enough.

Originally posted by vasaga

Don't take that so literally. An elephant will never spawn a chicken. What he was referring to was that they claim a class becomes another class. For example a fish becomes a reptile. They claim this to be true with fossil records, but that's not enough.

thats the beauty once you understand the theory, it all sounds so complex and messy but once you understand you see how beautiful and simple it is

all those minor changes (breeding with variance) and random mutations when strictly regulated by natural selection all stack

its not an elphent giving birth to a chicken i know its a crude analogy thats used and its not a literal (well for some people) but everything looks like it parents did becuase the small changes all stack up so even after a hundred years even though everyone looked kinda like its parents a beagle looks nothing like a wolf or a ferret

the fossil record gives us glimpses of what it has done during those i look similar to my parents but not my ancestors change build ups

becasue we understand it we can even model it with algorithms watch the videos they show how the build up of small changes and natural selection can and do produce massive results

your getting to hung up on the 'kind' and 'sort' limitations that dont really exist the are made up to disprove it, thts why i say birds are still dinosaurs which are still reptiles which are still amphibians

species genus family are what we have invented to try and classify them they dont care about them and neither does evolution

**warning shows some animals dying in a natural history program sense tigers atatcking crocs and lions atatcking hyena**





[edit on 15/12/08 by noobfun]

Originally posted by noobfun
and african elephants are going the same route due to predation(poachers)

Yes, eventually only bullet-proof elephants will survive. Or perhaps only elephants that fly will survive, or maybe elephants will turn into some sort of X-Men Wolverine. They'll hide their tusks when poachers are present and only extend them during fights.

It's amusing that in all this talk about elephants is just a diversion away from the real discussion. How did we get elephants? Looking at the Wikipedia entry for elephant and you'll see a summary of what we know about their history. There are skulls of things like elephants but there are no skulls of intermediate phases. At one point in the "evolution model" they even inserted a question mark. Ah! That's the proof I was looking for. Question mark.

Still, let's assume for argument's that this evolution is true and real. Apparently elephant's are showing up with smaller tusks because all the ones that have large tusks are killed off leaving the small tusked elephants to breed.

Let's side step and recommend that we kill all humans that end up in jail a second time. This approach would allow for mistakes in the system and at the same time would remove the genetic trait that causes most of the harm in the world. While we're at it, kill off the ugly and fat people too. I can only imagine that a planet with peaceful beautiful people would be much better than the one we are on.

What's that you say? Morality? In relation to what? (What does the earth weigh in space?) Or perhaps your argument is that we need ugly and ruthless people for social and population control reasons. They why do we lock them up?

What's the answer to this madness? Cognitive dissonance of course. And there you see that while evolutionist claim to be 100% behind their theory, in reality they don't actually believe what they say to be true.



[edit on 15-12-2008 by dbates]

reply to post by dbates


I do. I am all for gene therapy and getting rid of certain genetic traits. I am also for forcibly stopping people from having so many children. We are literally polluting this world with kids - and many times kids with bad genes.

I don't know that I am all for killing, that seems pretty brutal and unnecessary. There are plenty of other reasonable means of helping develop a better gene pool.

Originally posted by dbates

Yes, eventually only bullet-proof elephants will survive. Or perhaps only elephants that fly will survive, or maybe elephants will turn into some sort of X-Men Wolverine. They'll hide their tusks when poachers are present and only extend them during fights.

now if evoluton could do that id been really impressed

It's amusing that in all this talk about elephants is just a diversion away from the real discussion.

no its a discussion on evolution in action no misdirection none needed

How did we get elephants? Looking at the Wikipedia entry for elephant and you'll see a summary of what we know about their history. There are skulls of things like elephants but there are no skulls of intermediate phases. At one point in the "evolution model" they even inserted a question mark. Ah! That's the proof I was looking for. Question mark.

yay for wiki

wow a hole in the fossil record it must all be wrong ..... -_-

theres holes in every fossil line thats becasue if your lucky 3% will fossilise and then if your lucky 1% of those wont be eroded or disperessed and destroyed and then we have to try and find the other 2%

but guess what we may be missing the olgacence but we have the before and the after and the dna analysis shows us they are related to hyrax and manatee so its all good again

but guess what, becasue we havnt found a fossil specis yet doesnt mean it never existed, we have a very well defined whale line from 4 legged predator down to modern cetations so unless elephants magically appeared(which the hyrax manatee dna comparison makes unlikley) they got here by evolution to, which the dna analysis shows

Still, let's assume for argument's that this evolution is true and real.

which it still is, cmon bates i thought you at least would avoid playing god of the gaps games

Apparently elephant's are showing up with smaller tusks because all the ones that have large tusks are killed off leaving the small tusked elephants to breed.

its natural selection in action ...well kinda poachers still class as predators and are still placing the same strain on the population, smaller tusks = longer life and better able to breed so any offspring with longer then average tusks gets killed off repeat recycle and we will end up with tuskless elephants

Let's side step and recommend that we kill all humans that end up in jail a second time. This approach would allow for mistakes in the system and at the same time would remove the genetic trait that causes most of the harm in the world. While we're at it, kill off the ugly and fat people too. I can only imagine that a planet with peaceful beautiful people would be much better than the one we are on.

well thats primarily social order and mental issues not genetic so that wouldnt work, we would just be killing people

(maybe im just too used to sly digs by creationists but this looks like a 'evil evolutionists have no morals they all love hitler' nonsense)

What's that you say? Morality? In relation to what? (What does the earth weigh in space?) Or perhaps your argument is that we need ugly and ruthless people for social and population control reasons. They why do we lock them up?

because they break the rules of social systems and mutual survivability, which isnt genetics

(or this is a weak morals come from the bible, : see this looks like another of the sly digs )

What's the answer to this madness? Cognitive dissonance of course. And there you see that while evolutionist claim to be 100% behind their theory, in reality they don't actually believe what they say to be true.

hahahhaha no congnative dissonance here

i understand the theory i understand social group behaviour in primates and suddenly the only time i have those bad feelings is when i carry on believeing people can understand a simple thoery if they really want to and then bump into creationists who think macro and micro evolution are actually seperate things not just descriptive terms for the same thing and evolution means everything from the big bang to communism, and assure them selves they know the theory intimatley then talk about everything but it



[edit on 15/12/08 by noobfun]