100 Reasons why Evolution is Stupid - Dr. Hovind

[Monk Of Reason]

Variation is a fact. Evolution to be considered a fact must have definite links or chains that progress in a smooth progressive order. If I seen this I would consider it a fact, but as of now I have never seen any progressive links of fossil records nor have we seen smooth links in any living specimen of creature that have branched off each other. If evolution is to be considered true, then by association you must be related to a banana.

We are. About 50% of our DNA is identical to Bananas.

 

[fantome profane]

Why are you arguing with me already? Do you, or do you not, wish to explore the evidence for evolution?

I can't even reply to your post because it's all nonsense and gibberish. You're like Don Quixote, waving your sword at windmills. What you're debating against here isn't evolution - it's so bizarre and unfamiliar I don't even know what it is. But it's only nonsense because you know absolutely nothing about evolutionary biology. I'm offering to explain it to you. Do you want your future arguments against evolution to make sense to people who are not Christian fundamentalists, or don't you?

Are you interested, or are you not?

Alceste, I would recommend you take a quick look at some of the various threads started by this person with whom you are attempting to have a rational discourse.

 

[secret2]

Well...not quite a fact. It's a widely accepted scientific theory that probably is true, but it hasn't–and can never–be proven, much in the same way it's not proven that matter cannot go past the speed of light, or that time travel is impossible. It will always be called into question by science-deniers—usually the same people who deny global warming, which has been proven, time and time again, and can even be proven with simple logic. If such an obvious thing can be prevented from being accepted as fact, something that is impossible to prove will definitely be called an "opinion" by so-called "experts."

I (as well as most others) see your point. As someone else puts it on another thread, "proof should be left to mathematics and alcohols." But most evolutionary biology deniers' minds are already muddled enough already, let's not get into that

 

[secret2]

It takes no faith whatsoever to accept evolution. There are mountains of evidence supporting it. You can see this evidence for yourself, should you take the time to look at it. It is not a religious concept in any sense of the word. At all.

Actually this is an equivocation strategy that is quite popular among creationist folks.

A) My religious beliefs have no empirical evidence (by definition, supernatural/metaphysical claims admit no empirical evidence) and hence require faith
B) So does evolution, because you can never be "SURELY SURE" that fossils are not planted/what we observe is not created by a benevolent or malevolent being with agenda
C) Therefore, neither is 100% definite
D) Therefore, they are equally good/insufficient
E) Therefore, hallelujah

 

[SkepticThinker]

Actually this is an equivocation strategy that is quite popular among creationist folks.

A) My religious beliefs have no empirical evidence (by definition, supernatural/metaphysical claims admit no empirical evidence) and hence require faith
B) So does evolution, because you can never be "SURELY SURE" that fossils are not planted/what we observe is not created by a benevolent or malevolent being with agenda
C) Therefore, neither is 100% definite
D) Therefore, they are equally good/insufficient
E) Therefore, hallelujah

LOL Yes, I've seen this in action before.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I'm dying to know what these good points are that Dr. Distortion is supposed to have made.

 

[savagewind]

I'm dying to know what these good points are that Dr. Distortion is supposed to have made.

Die away! All you have to do is watch it. Are you being sarcastic? Did you fall asleep while watching it? Are you waiting for someone to tell you?

 

[Alceste]

Die away! All you have to do is watch it. Are you being sarcastic? Did you fall asleep while watching it? Are you waiting for someone to tell you?

Why don't you pick out one of the most compelling arguments and summarize it for us. As I said, I watched until it turned out his very first statement was a total fabrication. There's only one theory of evolution and it has nothing to do with chemistry or astrophysics.

The video is two hours long. Who wants to watch two hours of total fabrications? What would be the point? You watched it, I assume, and found some of his points compelling. Pick one and we'll talk about it. Or give me the time code and I'll listen to that single point.

If he can't even get through a single statement without lying, I am not optimistic about the other 99. I'll tackle them if you like, but one at a time.

 

[savagewind]

Is it true or not true that living things have been dated with carbon dating and found to be thousands of years dead?

 

[Alceste]

Is it true or not true that living things have been dated with carbon dating and found to be thousands of years dead?

I expect that's not true. Can you pop into google scholar and find me an abstract for that particular study?

Edit: I googled it myself. You can not carbon date living things. I mean you could, but there would be no point. The carbon 14 in living tissue matches the atmosphere while the organism is living, then decays at a known constant rate after it dies.

 

[savagewind]

Pages and pages of google and I cannot find the experiment. Of course the man should have provided a reference.

 

[Alceste]

Pages and pages of google and I cannot find the experiment. Of course the man should have provided a reference.

You don't think he's just making it up? He's in jail for lying to the IRS. Why do you still think he is credible?

 

[savagewind]

You don't think he's just making it up? He's in jail for lying to the IRS. Why do you still think he is credible?

I still leave a possibility of it. I do not know that he "lied to the IRS". Withholding taxes is not also lying about taxes imo. Is it not possible he is being a conscientious objector? I believe there really are legit evaders, though hard to believe. If no, then how do you know? How do you know it was about the money and not about taking a stand?

 

[Windwalker]

Why, oh why is it more likely that 99.5% of the world's scientists are wrong, than it is that your reading of Genesis is? Does this make any sense? Isn't there something revealing there? Some unwillingness to reconsider beliefs?

 

[savagewind]

Why, oh why is it more likely that 99.5% of the world's scientists are wrong, than it is that your reading of Genesis is? Does this make any sense? Isn't there something revealing there? Some unwillingness to reconsider beliefs?

Really? Hahahaha There are now over seven million members of a religion that I was a member of, that really believe in their hearts many lies about the Bible, The True God, and prophesy. Some of these things they believe can be contradicted logically. But they won't listen. Don't talk to me about deafness and blindness. OK?

Why can't the same thing happen among the science community? It can, I am sure. How am I sure? Because I have seen it in that religion. Years and years of it, like 100 years.

 

[Alceste]

I still leave a possibility of it. I do not know that he "lied to the IRS". Withholding taxes is not also lying about taxes imo. Is it not possible he is being a conscientious objector? I believe there really are legit evaders, though hard to believe. If no, then how do you know? How do you know it was about the money and not about taking a stand?

Ok, let's put the pieces together. He lied about having a doctorate. He lied to the IRS about his income. He lied about there being four meanings of evolution, and he lied about carbon dating living things and finding them to be thousands if years old. Let's take a look at another statement from the video that you find compelling and establish whether or not it, too, is a lie. Eventually we may be able to determine whether or not he is a habitual liar, or whether he is a principled man who is taking a stand about government spending.

 

[Windwalker]

Really? Hahahaha There are now over seven million members of a religion that I was a member of, that really believe in their hearts many lies about the Bible, The True God, and prophesy. Some of these things they believe can be contradicted logically. But they won't listen. Don't talk to me about deafness and blindness. OK?

Why can't the same thing happen among the science community? It can, I am sure. How am I sure? Because I have seen it in that religion. Years and years of it, like 100 years.

Why? Because there are specialists in a technical field, and you are not. That's why. It's like you telling astronauts the moon is made of green cheese, having nothing to go on in any sense of the word having to do with science! I work in technology with computer systems. I'm a specialized engineer in a particular field working for a major international company. It would be like you telling me that instead of these things working following the rules of the computer sciences, there are instead controlled by magic spirits. Who, between you and me, knows what the heck they're talking about, and who does not?

This is NOT scientists telling you God doesn't exist! This is you fearful of what they in fact, legitimately are seeing, that YOU interpret as a threat to your beliefs. This is obvious. I believe in God. I embrace evolution. You fear it. Please explain why that difference exists between you and me.

 

[Windwalker]

"For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear." ~ 2 Tim. 4:3

Kent Hovind itches ears.

Faith is not afraid of knowledge.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

I still leave a possibility of it. I do not know that he "lied to the IRS". Withholding taxes is not also lying about taxes imo. Is it not possible he is being a conscientious objector? I believe there really are legit evaders, though hard to believe. If no, then how do you know? How do you know it was about the money and not about taking a stand?

I don't get it. I honestly don't. You are willing to believe what this man says or at least give him benifit of the doubt when he has been shown to be wrong and a liar. But the mountains of evidence for evolution is just a scam?

You have to be consistant. Either your so skeptical of everything that its hard pressed to get you to believe everything or not. Otherwise you have to admit its just an over bearing bias towards the subject and your true problem with evolution isn't the scrutiny of it.

 

[savagewind]

Ok, let's put the pieces together. He lied about having a doctorate. He lied to the IRS about his income. He lied about there being four meanings of evolution, and he lied about carbon dating living things and finding them to be thousands if years old. Let's take a look at another statement from the video that you find compelling and establish whether or not it, too, is a lie. Eventually we may be able to determine whether or not he is a habitual liar, or whether he is a principled man who is taking a stand about government spending.

I do not agree with you.
1. He may very well have a doctorate from an unaccredited school. He passed the required curriculum and wrote his thesis. That is called benefit of the doubt. Have you heard of that before?
2. You can ignore my premise that he is a conscientious (thanj God foir spell check) objector but I think it is rude.
3. So what if he calls the precedent to evolution evolution? Without those prior things evolution could never have happened. You are not a judge are you?
4. We do not know if he lied about the carbon dating. If the tests he shared are real there are many reasons why they may not have become well known. The most obvious one I can think of is embarrassment, you know, like, in Yale and Harvard.

I hear evidence differently than you. Is that OK?