Evolution, Entropy, the Big Bang, and the Second Law

[Raw_fishFood]

TheGiantPotato

It was intriguing to me. I'd rather not start a huge theological discussion here as they are impossible to make any headway in, as you and I both agreed on above. mrgreen

Sounds like a plan. 3nodding

[Redem]

TheGiantPotato

1. Identification and coalition of mass ("The earth was without form and void; and darkness was the face of the deep." wink
2. Stellar ignition (the famed "let there be light" wink
3. Initial stellar wind pushing back the haze and accelerating inter-planetary definitions ("divided the light from darkness" as well as the following "firmament" statements)
4. Planetary cooling and tectonic definition (the bit where he makes dry land appear)
6. Monocellular and plant life (the whole grass and herbs thing)
7. Stellar sweeping, being the process where stellar wind and planetoids act together to clear the nearby space of debris by pressure and gravity interactions (God makes the stars appear, visible now if the nearby debris are mostly cleared)
8. Initial marine animal life (fishes in the sea)*
9. Terrestrial animal life (animals on the land)
10. Man

The order is wrong, though.

Stellar ignition began before the earth "formed", as I understand stellar and planetary formation.

And birds formed after land animals, yet the genesis account places them in with the fishes as being developed first.

[Jozarius]

Pleasingly the argument of the second law of thermodynamics used as evidence that the lord must be involved just keeps falling to threads. I just feel it's a shame creationists never pick up a new book. For the following idea is older than I can remember.

1) All goes from order to disorder
2) Arguably heat energy can be kinda considered disorder (please don't bite my head off)
3) Life increases the conversion and release of stored energy to heat energy.
4) Life though ordered aids increasing disorder

Like hexagonal patterns in hot oily water, Looks ordered but it's not designed.

[Syndactyly]

The big bang was not an explosion. It was an expansion. It was once quite ordered (a singularity) and actually expanded into a universe of chaos (the big bang). Entropy is the factor that must be considered.

To be more simple for people who don't want to read a college textbook definition of entropy, entropy is essentially the measurement of potential "chaos" within a system.

The universe was infinitely hot, infinitely small, and time was at 0. There was no "time" before the universe's creation, as time increased as space increased; hence space-time.

Evolution is evidently true. Adaptation is something we can personally observe with organisms and non-living biostructures (viruses) that change very rapidly. The same process applies modernly. I think anyone who doesn't believe evolution has happened and is happening is an idiot. The evidence is plentiful; the fossil record, vestigial analogous structures, embryology, drift gene pools, heredity... It's just plain idiotic to think evolution doesn't exist. It's common sense that it does.

[Mask_Thief of Hearts]

Heeeyyy! Look it's an original...

Oh no wait...

This ******** s**t has been done again and again and again.

Well I guess I could say you at least brought up a subject that nobody really thought up before...

Oh no wait. You didn't. Everybody who understands the Big Bang theory of the universe knew that people who argued against it are full of s**t. Which makes you boring.

Well at least it was detailed.

And by detailed I mean long, boring, stiff, and utterly useless when you could have summed up your position in far less words.

"Second Law doesn't disprove the Big Bang.

Creationists are full of s**t."

Thanks for filling the ED with the same tired and stale debate we see EVERY SINGLE ******** DAY.

[iaos]

Oh, all that stuff is referring the Human Spirit. The Spirit comes into manifestation when the individual's mind and body are unison. Everything creates me.

[A Confused Iguana]

Mask_Thief of Hearts

And by detailed I mean long, boring, stiff, and utterly useless when you could have summed up your position in far less words.

"Second Law doesn't disprove the Big Bang.

Creationists are full of s**t."

Minus the actual science that supports the position in the first place.

[Mask_Thief of Hearts]

A Confused Iguana

Mask_Thief of Hearts

And by detailed I mean long, boring, stiff, and utterly useless when you could have summed up your position in far less words.

"Second Law doesn't disprove the Big Bang.

Creationists are full of s**t."

Minus the actual science that supports the position in the first place.

Which is pointless, because the scientists in the ED already know why Intelligent Design is bullshit. And the Intelligent Design bullshitters aren't going to believe the scientist bullshitters. And they usually combat the scientist bullshitters with expletives and ignorance which causes a ******** pointless, ******** stupid flamewar without end.

If you WANT to cause debate, it makes more sense just to type what I wrote. Then at least people applaud you for being a Scientist troll as opposed to an ignorant Creationist troll.

[Morberticus]

Mask_Thief of Hearts

A Confused Iguana

Mask_Thief of Hearts

And by detailed I mean long, boring, stiff, and utterly useless when you could have summed up your position in far less words.

"Second Law doesn't disprove the Big Bang.

Creationists are full of s**t."

Minus the actual science that supports the position in the first place.

Which is pointless, because the scientists in the ED already know why Intelligent Design is bullshit. And the Intelligent Design bullshitters aren't going to believe the scientist bullshitters. And they usually combat the scientist bullshitters with expletives and ignorance which causes a ******** pointless, ******** stupid flamewar without end.

If you WANT to cause debate, it makes more sense just to type what I wrote. Then at least people applaud you for being a Scientist troll as opposed to an ignorant Creationist troll.

*cough* what? These type ofr threads aren't here to convert die hard creationists. They're here to educate those who haven't made up their minds yet. The science is very important.

And GiantPotatoHead: The order in genesis is completely wrong. To say they wrote down what scientists are discovering today is a little contrived.

[VoijaRisa]

Bumping so Creationists have no excuse to continue their ignorance in all the new threads that have popped up the past few days.

[Dodge Beast]

Hi, and how d'you do?

You mentioned something in regard to Kent Hovind:

VoijaRisa

He actually has one in there where he says that God gives him the power not to kill his children, even though he really wants to sometimes. What a scary person! He wants to murder his children and the only reason he doesn't is because God says so? Good thing the p***k is in prison!

Could I trouble you to show me where he specifically says "God gives me the power not to kill my own children"?

I know what he had said. It was more to the tune of "Grandchildren are God's reward for not killing your own kids when you wanted to/thought about it." (paraphrased a little more accurately). Basically, to that effect, and he meant it in humour purely. (No, this is not the same thing; I cannot think of a person who has had their own kids that hasn't said something of similar stripe....and I don't socialize in homicidal circles.)

In one of your many other posts...I think it was the one where you "challenge" creationists to "prove" Special Creation, you mention how "IDers and Creationists are intellectually dishonest." How much more of that can be said of you, taking something like this and doing the very thing you revile Behe and Dembski for: deliberately misquoting and completely falsifying that which was said by another.

Pardon me, if I seem to be under the impression that the rules you cite in your threads are also supposed to apply to you as well as everyone else. Mea culpa.

Your vitriol towards those of us who choose to believe in Creation is evident in the mocking, condescending manner in which you respond ("Want a cookie?" When someone simply stated their belief, and made no ill comment to you.), only confirms my belief that those who identify themselves as "open minded" and "freethinking" are commonly anything but.

Truthfully, the derision in which you speak of anyone who believes counter to you really isn't necessary in furthering your ideas; a person can be civil in debate, no matter their passions. After all, I admit that your work here is pretty impressive, but on Gaia, you're really just preaching to the choir while telling them they sing off-key ("Stats is primarily a mathematical argument (mmm Gaussians....) and most Gaians can barely add." ). Also, what good does it do for your "logical argumnet" to refer to someone as a "p***k"? (I thought "logical fallacies" were considered counterintuitive...you know, like ad hominem attacks.)

Furthermore, I don't think evolution is an absolute, so I know my post here will likely be met with the usual flurry of snideness and contradiction, along with everyone here telling me how inferior I am, and that's fine; neither you nor I will lose sleep over it, as the opinions of others regarding meself has little to do with my own opinion of meself. Ultimately, it is that opinion alone that I must live with.

Admittedly, I don't have your college or science background, but my life experience tells me there is more than just analysis and numbers when it comes to understanding the world around me. I believe in my choices and my faith with the same conviction to which you cling to your philosophy and principle of Darwin's Theory. You and I both marvel at the complexity of something, but we come to separate conclusions.

There is just as much out there that science (well, that which you deem as your version of it, anyway) in terms of Darwinism cannot offer an explanation, anomalies that exist just outside of explainable ranges (no, I don't refer to "paranormal" circumstances, I simply state that evolution doesn't explain or validate everything exclusively).

In a sense, conversely, there are those in the Creation Science realm that feel as hostile towards evolutionary theory, and these are dismissed as the lunatic fringe. Really, what does your hostility towards a believer lead them to interpret? If the theory of evolution is so very and utterly unshakable, and there really is no God, what threat is there in leaving folks who choose to believe otherwise to their own devices?

If your belief and that of "everyone else" is so utterly resolute, that the mechanism of evolutionary advancement fits its model, then like the prehistoric and savage races of "early man", all these "loonies" are simply destined to die out in the face of advancement, yeah?

Will you use your impressive writing skills to politely (or not so politely) tell me your intent is to further expedite the extermination of those of "inferior intellect"?
Interestingly, someone else already came up with that theory and applied it to that end. After all, while I will admit that religion, taken to the extremes it has been in the past, has caused incredible loss...its counterpart is no more innocent.

So while I have no intent to convert you into believing that there is a good point in Devine Creation, I can offer that I believe Mr. Hovind's offer of "IRL" money to anyone who can prove evolution (and I'm sure his standards are no less reasonable than yours...his Son, Eric, is working in his stead) is still available. If you have such faith that you can knock down the tofu wall that is "Creationism", you stand to make a fortune.

Besides...you seem pretty happy where you are in life...and like everyone else, all anyone really wants in this world is peace. I respect the right of my fellow man to indulge his pursuits, as epiphany cannot be forced down anyone's throat, which isn't receptive. It isn't Faith if it's done in force.

It is my experience that the God I believe in wants your choice to be yours. To that end, I should expect no less from my fellow hominid...and you shouldn't, either.

Thanks for your time.

[vipr230]

I'll let Voija defend his own honesty but I'll correct the more egregious errors you made.

Dodge Beast

Admittedly, I don't have your college or science background, but my life experience tells me there is more than just analysis and numbers when it comes to understanding the world around me. I believe in my choices and my faith with the same conviction to which you cling to your philosophy and principle of Darwin's Theory. You and I both marvel at the complexity of something, but we come to separate conclusions.

Stop for a moment and think. We don't "cling to Darwin's theory", we accept it based on fact. You're acting like somewhere we have an inborn desire to be the cousins of earth worms, we know that this is what evolutionary theory dictates, but we do not "cling" to it. We "cling" to that which is supported by evidence because that is how science operates, so we "cling" to evolution and Darwin's theory as much as we "cling" to atomic theory.

We come to the conclusion based upon empirical evidence, we marvel at the complexity and rather than pretend we know exactly how it came about, we care enough about this diversity of life that we choose to really understand it rather than claim we know the answers. This is very different from you, who assert truth, without properly researching it. Our views can be invalidated, a fossil bunny in the Cambrian, a lizard with nipples, really only evolutionary theory is what states these are impossible, and if we invalidate evolution, we will reject it. We "cling" not to Darwin's theory, but rather "cling" to the evidence because we seek to understand this universe more. We seek to know, not pretend we already do.

Dodge Beast

There is just as much out there that science (well, that which you deem as your version of it, anyway) in terms of Darwinism cannot offer an explanation, anomalies that exist just outside of explainable ranges (no, I don't refer to "paranormal" circumstances, I simply state that evolution doesn't explain or validate everything exclusively).

... Do me a favor, state one. What's an animal that really is an anomaly? Any human with cell walls? Any cats with chloroplasts? These would be unaccountable over evolutionary theory, in fact, they would be down right damning to evolutionary theory, so tell me, has something like this been found?

State, in rather plain terms, what these "anomalies" that you speak of are.

Dodge Beast

In a sense, conversely, there are those in the Creation Science realm that feel as hostile towards evolutionary theory, and these are dismissed as the lunatic fringe. Really, what does your hostility towards a believer lead them to interpret? If the theory of evolution is so very and utterly unshakable, and there really is no God, what threat is there in leaving folks who choose to believe otherwise to their own devices?

Why the hell does everyone always commit this false dichotomy? Changes in gene frequency of a population over time does not invalidate the existence of god, no believer should ever claim this, they do simply because it's useful to make this false dichotomy ("Believe in evolution and then you reject god!" wink but it's highly dishonest to go claiming that evolution in any way asserts there is no god. Evolutionary biologists make no claim to this, some idiot atheists might, but there is no legitimate reason that creationists should consider evolution as an attack on the very existence of god.

Dodge Beast

If your belief and that of "everyone else" is so utterly resolute, that the mechanism of evolutionary advancement fits its model, then like the prehistoric and savage races of "early man", all these "loonies" are simply destined to die out in the face of advancement, yeah?

This is a rather poor description of evolution. In a large gene pool, the "loonies" are dilute, and still increase the genetic variation of the gene pool (which is VERY useful, otherwise you can be like cheetahs), so it's unlikely that as long as we have a large gene pool, which is a large advantage, that we shall ever remove the loonies.

It's strange, survival of the fittest and "kill everyone who isn't the best" really makes rather lousy sense when speaking from an evolutionary context. It leaves a population to susceptible to disease, genetic variation is a very good thing.

Dodge Beast

Interestingly, someone else already came up with that theory and applied it to that end. After all, while I will admit that religion, taken to the extremes it has been in the past, has caused incredible loss...its counterpart is no more innocent.

I'd like you to cite a period in history where people kill specifically in the name of no god. Stalin certainly wasn't killing in the name of atheism, but rather in his own name. The country went through that whole destalinfication period because he made himself out to be near a god remember?

But, this has nothing to do with evolution. Evolution most certainly does not advocate mass killings, see above. Genetic variation=very, very good. Large gene pools=very helpful.

Dodge Beast

So while I have no intent to convert you into believing that there is a good point in Devine Creation, I can offer that I believe Mr. Hovind's offer of "IRL" money to anyone who can prove evolution (and I'm sure his standards are no less reasonable than yours...his Son, Eric, is working in his stead) is still available. If you have such faith that you can knock down the tofu wall that is "Creationism", you stand to make a fortune.

... Actually, hovind's offer pales in comparison to Randi's. Hovind in fact has very strong motivation on top of his religious beliefs to NEVER let that money go. When you've been thrown in jail for 10 years because of massive massive tax fraud, falsely declare bankruptcy, ignore zoning laws, don't pay property taxes either, SUE THE IRS for harassment (gee, wonder why they might be calling him), and on top of that tried to renounce citizenship so he doesn't have to pay social security, one can be pretty damn sure this guy isn't willing to let go of a penny and doesn't care if he has to lie, cheat, or steal to get it.

So, even if he wasn't religiously motivated NEVER to admit evolution had evidence, he is doubly motivated by his desire to keep his sum of money. Plus, his offer is intellectually dishonest in it of itself, he says "scientific proof" when in truth, science does not deal in proofs. So by the very nature of science ALWAYS admitting uncertainties, he ensures he NEVER gives the money away because he could always say "well it's possible X and Y and Z and A and B and C so ergo it's not 100% conclusive scientific proof". Randi's offer is a bit more relaxed, he simply asks for evidence of the paranormal, not proof. If we remember that time with James Hydrick, all he needed to do was turn over the page without the paper going flying, and he would have gotten the money. (It's not even conclusive proof, but it would have been evidence).

[Jaaten Syric]

vipr230

So, even if he wasn't religiously motivated NEVER to admit evolution had evidence, he is doubly motivated by his desire to keep his sum of money. Plus, his offer is intellectually dishonest in it of itself, he says "scientific proof" when in truth, science does not deal in proofs. So by the very nature of science ALWAYS admitting uncertainties, he ensures he NEVER gives the money away because he could always say "well it's possible X and Y and Z and A and B and C so ergo it's not 100% conclusive scientific proof". Randi's offer is a bit more relaxed, he simply asks for evidence of the paranormal, not proof. If we remember that time with James Hydrick, all he needed to do was turn over the page without the paper going flying, and he would have gotten the money. (It's not even conclusive proof, but it would have been evidence).

Oh its so much worse than that. (and I know you know this vipr, I'm simply illustrating for others)

Randi's challenge is pretty simple when you get down to it. 'Give me evidence of whatever paranormal ability you claim to have. You design the test, you designate your standards, and as soon as we reach an agreement over how to test them in controlled conditions we'll set them up to your satisfaction (at our own expense after you pass the prelim at your own dwelling) and let you at it. If you can do it under controlled conditions, the money is yours.' Course, it also helps that unlike Hovind Randi actually has the money to put where his mouth is...Hovind...well he owes that (and substantially more) in back taxes to the IRS.

Hovind's sounds honest at first; '"Prove" evolution using empirical evidence.' Reasonable enough, if yuo assume that he's using 'proof' interchangeably with evidence...ha. Then you read the fine print... which says, and I quote:

Hovind on the requirements for 'evolution' in his challenge

When I use the word evolution, I am not referring to the minor variations found in all of the various life forms (microevolution). I am referring to the general theory of evolution which believes these five major events took place without God:
1. Time, space, and matter came into existence by themselves.
2. Planets and stars formed from space dust.
3. Matter created life by itself.
4. Early life-forms learned to reproduce themselves.
5. Major changes occurred between these diverse life forms (i.e., fish changed to amphibians, amphibians changed to reptiles, and reptiles changed to birds or mammals).

(I'd link to it directly, but 'Dr'. Hovind's site appears to be down, if not removed completely)

Now...that's an odd challenge considering that the actual theory of evolution actually claims (in very broad terms) one of these five criteria to be true. The others four cannot be explained by evolution because they are not in any way related to the actual definition of the term (the change in allele frequency over successive generations suffering environmental attrition), making the 'challenge' fraudulent on its face even before we get into the false dichotomy of 'evolution versus god' and the challenge of empirically proving his/her/its nonexistence.

To top matters off, Randi's challenge, as stated, involves the applicant in the design of the test and what parameters are necessary to determine what constitutes 'evidence' Hovind...well... Hovind claims that the review will be done by a 'committee of trained scientists will provide peer review of the evidence offered' handpicked by him who, apparently, are under no obligation to reveal their experience and published works. So...impossible challenge compounded by one of the most ludicrously biased panels of 'experts' ever gathered, if we can even take him at his word (and, lets face it, we can't.)

[Dodge Beast]

Hello, Vipr230. How do you do?
I do not require anyone to “defend themselves” as it is not my intent to assault anyone’s character. I am not such that I demand others justify themselves to me, but I’m only too happy to present my input when I feel it is merited. Oh…you might want to grab a cup of coffee and use the bathroom…it’s kind of long, for a response.

”vipr230”

I'll let Voija defend his own honesty but I'll correct the more egregious errors you made.

Why do you deem my error “egregious”? If I am truly in err, it is by virtue of ignorance; your addressment of someone who believes contrary to your own logic is wrought with the sneer of superiority and pedantic veneer typical of atheists and agnostics.

”vipr230”

”Stop for a moment and think. We don't "cling to Darwin's theory", we accept it based on fact.”

Well, there have been scientific theories that were once viewed as “fact” that later turned out to be dishonest representations or contrived. Haekel’s embryos, the evolution of the horse, the original thought that the appendix is vestigial (there is a connection—I don’t know all the details---that the appendix has an impact on our immune system). Even the speed of light is in question, as light has been slowed, stopped, and even sped up.

Science is just the currently accepted best guess, given the data available at the time; even you and your friend allude that there’s a degree of malleability in regard to “fact” and “proof” of anything (“…science does not deal in proofs.”).

(“Science” is a word derived from the Latin of “knowledge”, or “to know”.)

Evolution does make the claim that it “understands” where matter and energy originate; it does imply that matter spontaneously came into existence, and that the planets were formed from a sudden, mysterious expansion of energy (where none of these existed initially). Kent Hovind’s criteria for evolutionary “proof” really is no less reasonable than the countless nagging posts that these self-assured “Gaian Atheists” make “defying the Creationist A-holes to prove god exists or that evolution is wrong” (or from JREF). They try to shoot the messenger because they don’t like the message.

”vipr230”

“You're acting like somewhere we have an inborn desire to be the cousins of earth worms, we know that this is what evolutionary theory dictates, but we do not "cling" to it.”

Until you know for sure, what makes you think that folks feel any different about Creation Science? Creation Science is based on much of the same principles, but it just offers support for why those of us who believe it offer a God-Creator, rather than a “Darwin-Mechanism”.

My time here in the Gaia forums has indeed been short-lived. The bulk of my experience here has been met with many people who choose to believe in Darwin and denounce God simply because they feel that accepting the presence of a God would inhibit that which they view as their ‘right’ to live an amoral lifestyle.

They want to use the drugs, follow the current trend to become “temporarily gay or bisexual” (it seems to be the latest fad), cut themselves, consume alcohol, smoke weed and have parties. However, they don’t want to pay for the consequences that arise from acting like the little animals a humanistic society has repeatedly instructed them that they are. (I don’t necessarily imply this of you or anyone else here, personally…just so you understand.)

I can agree that animals can show change over time (variation within a kind of creature), but that change doesn’t make a lizard turn into a bird, a bird change into a dog, or a frog change into a prince.

”vipr230”

“We "cling" to that which is supported by evidence because that is how science operates, so we "cling" to evolution and Darwin's theory as much as we "cling" to atomic theory.”

Just as well, you can claim that the Bible account of Creation is subject to human flaw and that Faith is “magical thinking”, the same can equally be claimed in regard to evolution. We spend billions to “educate” kids to believe the planet is (How old is it this decade?) 4.6 billion years old, using a geologic column that exists only in textbooks and no where else or that everything sprang from nothing that suddenly compressed, spun, expanded, and here we are.

God and love versus death and dirt that came from nowhere. Evolution still hasn’t explained how life developed from non-life, and how sentience came to be; it presumes to inform us that we came from nothing, are of little importance, and that our ultimate contribution is better served as worm-food.
So the difference between you and I does appear to be a disparity in Gods. Your god is supported and promulgated as a reality by virtue of grants and tax-support, whereas wealthy outsiders who wish to “separate the science from Moses” don’t fund mine.

”vipr230”

“We come to the conclusion based upon empirical evidence, we marvel at the complexity and rather than pretend we know exactly how it came about, we care enough about this diversity of life that we choose to really understand it rather than claim we know the answers.”

I don’t believe I ever claimed to “know the answers”. That would be terribly presumptuous of me. I have said that I, too, marvel at life’s complexity…I just have a different conclusion as to what I believe to be its beginning. It is the evolutionist that thinks they have everything figured out, most often. It is folly in your assumption that my choice in beliefs leads me to not “care about the diversity of life”, as well.

”vipr230”

“This is very different from you, who assert truth, without properly researching it.”

You assume a great deal here. Can you please explain to me where I claim I am somehow unquestionably correct? You see, I explained at the offset that I don’t have a college taught science background; I never implied that I haven’t done any reading. From what I have read, I think Darwin leaves me flat. I simply choose to believe different than you, and in the fashion of Kent Hovind or Ken Ham or anyone who doesn’t simply shut up and swallow I am met with hostility. Make that hostility and unfounded postulation.

Additionally, what is considered “proper research”? I’m of a mind to think that the only “proper research” you’d view as valid would be that which leads to your conclusion.

”vipr230”

“Do me a favor, state one. What's an animal that really is an anomaly?”

How about symbiosis? How about the little whiptail lizards? How did a woodpecker get its unusual skull and tongue design? What of monotremes?

”vipr230”

“Any human with cell walls? Any cats with chloroplasts?”

What about an euglena…doesn’t that little creature possess both plant and animal material?

”vipr230”

“Why the hell does everyone always commit this false dichotomy?”

Perhaps it’s due to the fact that the inherent smug, self-righteous attitude displayed by atheists is so very analogous to the attitude flaunted here. I believe in science just like you do, but I believe my science is based in God, whereas your ilk refer to my belief as “BS” and dismiss it as though it is somehow equivalent to “divining with bones” or some other savagery.

”vipr230”

“Changes in gene frequency of a population over time does not invalidate the existence of god, no believer should ever claim this, they do simply because it's useful to make this false dichotomy ("Believe in evolution and then you reject god!" wink but it's highly dishonest to go claiming that evolution in any way asserts there is no god.”

Okay. Then how exactly does evolution glorify God? Just because the Pope accepted evolution, doesn’t mean I have…my world isn’t dictated by any pope…I’m not of the Catholic faith.

Evolution assumes much on the part of blind chance, and is cited to eliminate the need of a creator. If there is no need for a creator, there was no need for God. All the wonderful diversity in the world is an accident, rather than something genuinely worthy of our respect and amazement that was created by a Divine Hand. God becomes vestigial…an indifferent, nodding presence…benign rather than benevolent.

”vipr230”

”This is a rather poor description of evolution. In a large gene pool, the "loonies" are dilute, and still increase the genetic variation of the gene, so it's unlikely that as long as we have a large gene pool, which is a large advantage, that we shall ever remove the loonies.”

I beg to differ; I think it’s a great parallel (and no, not because I wrote it). Given some thought, I’m inclined to wonder: “Okay, I’m a new mutation…where can I find another one like me, of the opposite gender—who’s interested!---so I can perpetuate my kind?”

Unless, at some distant point there was a sudden, simultaneous mutation of this genotype among a specific type of animal, example being from a reptile to a birdlike reptile or from that to a mammal. Also, how did the sudden circumstance of the sexes arise? Evolutionarily speaking, wouldn’t asexual reproduction be much more effective?

Even dilute poison is still poison. A mixture that kills ants that we use in the South is more food than toxin…it isn’t the “inferior” ants that eat it and die it is the ants we feed, that consume it and die.

”vipr230”

”I'd like you to cite a period in history where people kill specifically in the name of no god.”

Well, the holocaust comes to mind, for one…Stalin will work, too, as would Mao Tse Tung, Pol Pot…all for the reason that they thought they were the ones who should rule because their race was the best and thus deserved to lead or perpetuate. Marx dedicated “Das Kapital” to Darwin, whose writings were responsible for him having lost faith and abandoning his belief (he actually had admitted this himself; however, Darwin wisely declined).

Consider the number of deaths associated with the elimination of the “product of conception”…a toll greater than the loss of life in the Twin Towers occurs daily in the name of convenience. Planned Parenthood was a program founded on the principle of eugenics, an idea popularized in Nazi Germany. Its premise is the advancement of a better race through the control of the population of the undesired races: the poor, the infirm, blacks, Jewish, and so on.

After all, we are nothing more than animals, according to Darwin. Why not sow seed and pray for a crop failure? Even better, why not cheapen the act of creation by destroying the life it creates simply because it is weaker and inferior?

”vipr230”

“Stalin certainly wasn't killing in the name of atheism, but rather in his own name. The country went through that whole destalinfication period because he made himself out to be near a god remember?”

Hitler was no different; he pretended he was a devout Catholic to the Public Eye, but he rigidly hated religion. (However, you could be “baptized” a Nazi, believe it or don’t.)

”vipr230”

“But, this has nothing to do with evolution. Evolution most certainly does not advocate mass killings, see above.“

Interestingly, what do you suppose the fate of all those deemed “unfit” is? (“Survival of the fittest” is a tautology….I rate it right up there with “eat my shorts.” and “don’t have a cow, man.” But at least the latter two are funny.)
As to the issue of “mass killings”, I think the millions that died during the Holocaust are a reasonable illustration of a “mass”. So in like fashion, I invite you to ‘see above” as well.

Evolution teaches people (children are indoctrinated from the beginning) that they are nothing more than a biological hiccup with a sense of self esteem (the philosophy of the classroom in one generation will be the philosophy of Government in the next), that there is no need to believe in such ridiculous things as a Creator. It was blind chance, misfits and mistakes that created them, rather than a God that loves and cares for them.

This thinking does not glorify God, and it doesn’t teach anyone much more than they are an accident and thus expendable.

”vipr230”

“Actually, hovind's offer pales in comparison to Randi's.”

Perhaps the James Randi offer of one million does outstrip Kent Hovind’s in Quantity, but that’s not the same challenge presented by your friend. I feel your friend is content to be a colossus on the Gaian landscape, but that is merely a statement of opinion.

Besides…I don’t know of any well-financed universities that offer Creation Science on the level that evolution is offered; the NCSE was started by the Carnegies and gets its support from the Rockefellers, DuPonts, and many other wealthy entities. If these universities do exist, I’m willing to bet they aren’t “accredited”, if they don’t teach evolution as the primary science. More than likely, they’re listed as schools of theology and not science.

Kent Hovind has said himself that he doesn’t want to take evolution out of the schools, and he feels that anyone who tries to have it (evolution) removed, or tries to put “Creationism” in is wasting their time. He has said, however, that he’d like to see anything that is a deliberate lie removed from the textbooks.

For the record, no one has been able to prove evolution well enough to get the money from Kent Hovind, either. I can’t offer you a bank-statement that somehow proves he has the funds…all I know is that the offer is still there. Just because one doesn’t like his “panel” doesn’t mean they don’t deserve the same respect that is expected of the panel that works for Randi’s group.

”vipr230”

“Hovind in fact has very strong motivation on top of his religious beliefs to NEVER let that money go. […] Plus, his offer is intellectually dishonest in it of itself, he says "scientific proof" when in truth, science does not deal in proofs.”

Well, if I had that kind of wager up, I’d be ill-inclined to just hand it off to anyone coming to me with a lizard’s head taped onto a birds body. (Yes, I know that sounds ridiculous.) Notice that you, too, detach religion as a separate entity.

After this, you go on to attack Kent Hovind’s character, and this has really little to nothing to do with proving him wrong.

If Bill Clinton were to say: “two plus two equals four.” Regardless of the atrocious nature of the things he has done, it doesn’t change the fact that he had at that point spoken a truth.

Kent Hovind may not be a hundred percent correct in every single thing he states (he has in fact, welcomed correction), but he isn’t a hundred percent wrong, either. I think he has the right to believe as he does, and to share that belief if he is so inclined. You think he is guilty of dishonesty because he’s been jailed, and place faith in the news that you read, citing he’s done this great wrong.

Lots of innocent men are jailed for lesser things, and there are plenty of criminals on the streets though, aren’t there? (Yes, I also know that the System has actually put the correct person in jail, as well.) If nothing else, it’s a testament to the fact that the System is flawed. I do know that if Kent Hovind were a rapper, a sports star (current or former) or a politician, he’d have likely gotten away with it. Technicalities have set free far more monstrous individuals.

Far as I am concerned, he worked just as hard for his education as you did for yours. Mistakes aside, it’s his message and not the man…chew the meat and spit out the bones, as it were. Is he somehow less honest, because his message doesn’t harmonize with Darwin’s theory? Considering there has been plenty of falsification engineered to support the theory of evolution, many of the same arguments that stand against Intelligent Design and Creation Science could also hold valid against evolution.

I reiterate; I’m not trolling for converts. Believe as you wish, but don’t discredit others for believing differently. On the note of belief, you have managed to “correct” nothing, now, and no one else has managed to force me to abandon my beliefs either. I do not assume that I am perfect because I believe…I know I am subject to the exact same frailty that bedevils us all. I feel sound in my belief, and take umbrage to someone else implying that because I am secure and content, I am resultantly inferior and deserve patronizing or otherwise derogatory treatment.

Simply, I’m not looking to spend endless hours of time debating a right or wrong side…I believe as I choose, as do you, and I respect your right to believe as you wish. My point in responding was to simply present that which is my view and perhaps clarify on the remark your friend claimed that Kent Hovind made, which is completely false.

Thank you for your time.