Evolution is stupid

Has an anthropology professor I had in university once said to his classes: "For those of you who believe in creationism, sure, God just snapped his/her fingers one day and everything came into existence, clap-trap." Yes, he actually said "clap-trap", lol. It's estimated that 99.9% of all species that have ever existed on this planet are now extinct. Did God suddenly decide he/she didn't like 99.9% of everything and wanted to get rid of it?

reply to post by randyvs


That's only on example though. For example Hovind has claimed that according to the MES humans evolved from bananas and rocks. That shows a complete misunderstanding of evolution. So how can he properly argue against something he clearly doesn't understand?

Originally posted by Xcalibur254

What does the Big Bang Theory have to do with evolution? This is a perfect example of why Hovind's arguments fail.

Hovind is attempting to prove creationism, hence while the the Big Bang theory and evolutionary theory are not linked in a scientific sense, in terms of him proving his thesis, that God created the universe and the life in it, they are both attacked by him.

Originally posted by Xcalibur254
Hovind has claimed that according to the MES humans evolved from bananas and rocks. That shows a complete misunderstanding of evolution.

I don't think you were meant to take the rock comment literally. He was being funny.

Originally posted by randyvs
reply to post by BrokenCircles

 

The good thing is it is entertaining at the same time he presents his case but I'm not demanding you watch. But you really should to comment. Watch it in parts, comment as it moves along.

Transcribe the top 10, and I'll think about it.

Some people have restricted bandwidth limits.

Based only off of the likes & dislikes, this video is currently rated at about 1.4 out of 10. Not very enticing.

Kent Hovind? Really? The simple truth of the matter is that his agenda is religion/bible/god couched is some pseudo-science, the evolutionists agenda *is* science - plain and simple. They have no other dog in the fight other than the fact that the theory is what the science supports.

reply to post by ollncasino

I don't think you were meant to take the rock comment literally. He was being funny.

If you go far enough in I think you will see different Cas. He's fairly serious in an indirect way. To be fair of course.
He describes how it breaks down to a rock in speaking to a woman college professor. He mentions Grand pa.

Originally posted by BrokenCircles

Originally posted by randyvs
reply to post by BrokenCircles

 

The good thing is it is entertaining at the same time he presents his case but I'm not demanding you watch. But you really should to comment. Watch it in parts, comment as it moves along.

Transcribe the top 10, and I'll think about it.

Some people have restricted bandwidth limits.

Based only off of the likes & dislikes, this video is currently rated at about 1.4 out of 10. Not very enticing.

No not when you can just watch until you can find something to refute which I haven't seen anyone do as of yet.

I love how people still don't even get how evolution even works in the first place. I myself don't believe in either strict evolution OR strict creationism but that's another issue.

But you can't even debate the issue honestly because you have to spend 99% of your time just explaining what the REAL theory of evolution actually says in the first place. Everyone thinks evolution works backwards from how it would really work.

Guy keeps saying every time a dog has a dog it's a dog. Animals always give birth to the same kind of animal. Of course they do! That's because they keep humping!

As long as you keep cross breeding dogs you're always going to get a dog. Well duh, if you keep cross breeding them then you continually have gene transfer across the entire species. All mutations will be shared among the species and they'll slowly evolve with each other as a single species.

That's not how you get new species. You get a new species by NOT breeding them. The breeding typically stops BEFORE a new species evolves. Not after! You take the dogs and you divide them into two groups and you don't let one group breed with the other group.

This stops the gene transfer between the two groups and over millions of years you get completely different mutations in one group than you do the other. Eventually they start to look like separate species and eventually they can't mate even if they wanted to.

This happens in nature due to things like geographic boundaries. Like an ice bridge melting after an ice age. One group can no longer get to the other group to inter breed. Or you get it through things like migrations or food sources drying up causing groups to divide and go their separate ways.

You're never going to need a chicken to mate with a reptile. What you might get though is a group of dinosaurs dividing into two groups and going off on their own geographical ways. Over millions of years one of those groups starts to look a little more bird like while the other starts to look a little more reptile like. There isn't just going be a random dinosaur egg that hatches a chicken.

Here's a site that analyzes all of Hovind's arguments. I have specifically linked to the section where they show that Hovind has no idea what the modern evolutionary synthesis actually states.

EDIT: I forgot that ATS cannot handle archive links for whatever reason. So here is a link to the Internet Wayback Machine. Put in this url:

www.kent-hovind.com...

And choose a date from 2006. That should get it working.

Originally posted by Xcalibur254
reply to post by randyvs

 

That's only on example though. For example Hovind has claimed that according to the MES humans evolved from bananas and rocks. That shows a complete misunderstanding of evolution. So how can he properly argue against something he clearly doesn't understand?

Seemed to do a damn good job if you ask me. But I'm no professor of any sort.

reply to post by tinfoilman

But you can't even debate the issue honestly because you have to spend 99% of your time just explaining what the REAL theory of evolution actually says in the first place.

Now that sounds like valid point that should taken into consideration. I know evolution doesn't attempt to explain how life originated. But i see that as a flaw because creation does. In other words evolution is half assed from the get go. Not valid and therefore shouldn't be taught to anyone.

Rebuttal for all the nonsense. I actually watch part of the video, it didn't take long to for red flags to pop up...

Originally posted by randyvs
reply to post by tinfoilman

 

But you can't even debate the issue honestly because you have to spend 99% of your time just explaining what the REAL theory of evolution actually says in the first place.

Now that sounds like valid point that should taken into consideration. I know evolution doesn't attempt to explain how life originated. But i see that as a flaw because creation does. In other words evolution is half assed from the get go. Not valid and therefore shouldn't be taught to anyone.

edit on 2-10-2012 by randyvs because: (no reason given)

I don't know. Even if not true I never advocate the censoring of ideas. Either scientific or religious. Even if it's half assed. I guarantee you that at one point, virtually all my greatest ideas were half assed. Many of them still are.

Originally posted by randyvs
In other words evolution is half assed from the get go.

reply to post by randyvs

But i see that as a flaw because creation does. In other words evolution is half assed from the get go. Not valid and therefore shouldn't be taught to anyone.

That makes no sense whatsoever. We should be teaching things to people that aren't validated or are not proven? Scientific understanding of the world takes time and changes as the scientific method takes information and year after year, becomes more accurate.

Creation doesn't explain anything besides, "god put us here." and then we are supposed to eat that up without evidence to support it....

reply to post by yeahright


Good post, you put that into words nicely.

Originally posted by redtic
Kent Hovind? Really? The simple truth of the matter is that his agenda is religion/bible/god couched is some pseudo-science, the evolutionists agenda *is* science - plain and simple. They have no other dog in the fight other than the fact that the theory is what the science supports.

Scientists are just as agenda driven as anyone else. Neither side of this debate can trusted to be objective, and therefore neither is deserving of the faith that is placed in their "facts", or their character, for that matter. Both sides are well known to denounce any theory that goes against the consensus among them.

You are right about Hovind's agenda though. Like every other leader of the Christian church, he's corrupt, and is only interested in continuity of control, and perpetuating delusion among the masses. IMHO.

What, please let us know, is an "Evolutionist"?

There is only science - and then there are religious people which created the idea of "Creationism".

Are you calling scientists "evolutionists" just so it appears they BOTH merely stick to a belief system? Or are you calling them "evolutionists" since it would be too outrageous and risky just openly to admit you're arguing against science?

Of course, you cannot openly go up against science, it would be bad PR for whatever belief you belong to....arguing against "evolutionists" makes it sound less crazy

reply to post by Klassified


Seems like he was interested in fraud and making money:

He received his credentials from a diploma mill and went on to "teach" kids at private church schools:

Other critics of Hovind have pointed out that Patriot Bible University is a diploma mill, as it has unreasonably low graduation requirements, lack of sufficient faculty or educational standards, and a suspicious tuition scheme.[6][10] The school's current policies allow students to attain bachelor's degrees, master's degrees, and even "Doctor of Ministry" degrees in months, rather than years, for as little as $25 per month. Currently Patriot offers a monthly fee, unlike most universities, which only charge per-credit fees.[11]

Hardly someone who "taught science for 15 years."

Between 1975 and 1988, Hovind served as an assistant pastor and teacher at three private Baptist schools, including one he started.[3] As these were private schools, Hovind was not required to have any teaching credentials or accredited qualifications.[4][5] In 1989, Hovind started Creation Science Evangelism.[6] In 1998, Hovind created his Dr. Dino web site and began producing articles and selling video tapes, books, and fossil replicas. Prior to his convictions, Hovind spoke at churches, private schools, and other venues each year. Hovind also hosted a daily internet radio talk show and has established Dinosaur Adventure Land in Pensacola, Florida.

And then jail:

Since January 2007, Hovind has been serving a ten-year prison sentence after being convicted of 58 federal counts, including 12 tax offenses, one count of obstructing federal agents, and 45 counts of structuring cash transactions. He is incarcerated at the FPC Satellite Camp of the ADX Florence prison in Florence, Colorado.

It was all about money...

According to the IRS, Hovind reportedly earned $50,000 a year through speaking engagements and, in 2002 alone, the ministry sold more than $1.8 million in merchandise.[36] Also, Hovind's theme park and merchandise sales earned more than US$5 million from 1999 to March 2004.[37] On average, they say, Hovind "has made deposits to bank accounts well in excess of $1 million per year."[38] Eventually that grew to about $2 million a year.[39] About half that income went to employees who were salaried or were paid hourly wages. However, Hovind derived "substantial revenue" from these activities that appeared to be "income to [him] personally."[40]

Why do people actually encourage their kids to look up to people like this....

en.wikipedia.org...

Originally posted by Klassified
Scientists are just as agenda driven as anyone else. Neither side of this debate can trusted to be objective, and therefore neither is deserving of the faith that is placed in their "facts", or their character, for that matter. Both sides are well known to denounce any theory that goes against the consensus among them.

Look up "peer reviewed" and "scientific method" and then you tell me who should be trusted more. Sure egos get in the way and I'm not saying every scientist is a golden boy, but science is the closest thing we have to truth - the theory of evolution is one of the most tested theories in our history and the vast majority of the scientific community fully supports it. So, tell me again - who here should be more trusted?