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

[Lord Setar]

Dodge Beast

”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).

And? Science is self-correcting, so what?

Dodge Beast

Even the speed of light is in question, as light has been slowed, stopped, and even sped up.

c represents the speed of light in vacuum. Light will move slower in another medium, like, say, water.

Dodge Beast

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”.)

Since when was something with a lot of backing a guess? Guessing implies that you have little to no backing, and last time I checked, science has a lot of backing.

May I also ask if you have an alternative for gravity?

Dodge Beast

Evolution does make the claim that it “understands” where matter and energy originate; it does imply that matter spontaneously came into existence,

That's not evolution. That's not even biology. That's the Big Bang, which is cosmology. Of course, on the whole spontaneous part...have you ever heard of a man named Einstein?

Dodge Beast

and that the planets were formed from a sudden, mysterious expansion of energy (where none of these existed initially).

Since when was a singularity nothing?

Dodge Beast

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.

Except that Creationism/ID proponents claim to have evidence, but they refuse to cough up and instead to prefer using bifurcation. Even then, they have failed at it. We have evidence, where's yours?

Dodge Beast

”vipr230”

“You're acting likesomewhere 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”.

You are fined one credit for misuse of the term "science". This fine will be repealed if and when you provide evidence to back Abrahamic Creation.

Dodge Beast

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.

Except that it's possible to be Christian and yet support evolution. Someone remind me of the guy's name - I just forgot it, but he's a scientist, and a big supporter of evolution.

Not to mention that I believe morals to be a construct of society to uphold either social contract and/or power structure. I have seen no evidence for inborn morals and everything I have seen points to social conditioning.

Dodge Beast

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.)

For the love of your godhead, please stop spouting that nonsense.

Dodge Beast

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.

And evolution has claimed any of these where? Aside from birds (class Aves) being descended from dinosaurs, I don't see where you're coming from here.

Dodge Beast

”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

Wait, what? Where's your evidence contradicting the dating of Earth?

Dodge Beast

and no where else or that everything sprang from nothing that suddenly compressed, spun, expanded, and here we are.

Do you even know what a singularity is? What, do black holes suddenly not exist?

Dodge Beast

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.

Wrong. Life has what meaning that the individual assigns to it.

Dodge Beast

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.

Or, you're just delusional and trying to cry oppression where there is none, which is a giant red herring.

Dodge Beast

”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.

Except...we have evidence. You have not shown us any evidence for your side. I'm sorry, but last time I checked, certainty is in large part due to the amount of evidence one has to back up their claims.

Let me ask: do you try and write essays on story themes without backing up your thesis statement with evidence from the story?

Dodge Beast

”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.

Yet your choice flies in the face of all evidence present...

Dodge Beast

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.

You're not Micheal Moore, stop trying.

Seriously, do you have any idea how easily you would win a Nobel Prize if you provided evidence to substantially discredit or even overturn evolution?

Dodge Beast

”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?

Gee, I dunno...

Dodge Beast

”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?

Yes. But...it's not an animal. Wrong kingdom.

Dodge Beast

”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.

Well, you see, you lack this thing called evidence...

Dodge Beast

”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.

How does this make it impossible to be Christian and support evolution?

Dodge Beast

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.

And here you lie. I don't think Jesus likes people who lie.

Dodge Beast

”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?”

Doesn't matter if someone else has the mutation. It will be a part of your genes and passed on through sexual reproduction.

Dodge Beast

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?

Except that asexual reproduction also leads to a large lack of variety in the gene pool and susceptibility to mass destruction in unfavorable conditions because the same set of genes keep getting passed down for the most part. With sexual reproduction, it's easier to pass on multiple mutations (as it's half from the female plus mitochondrial, and half from the male) and there's more variety in the gene pool because the offspring are not a carbon copy of one parent's genes, they have their own genetic code based off of both their parents.

Dodge Beast

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.

That's not natural selection, though, that's humans asserting dominance. It has a different term, but it's certainly not natural selection. Natural selection is when unfavorable mutations get selected out.

Take timber wolves in the Arctic. A mutation comes up that gives five timber wolves out of, say, twenty for the sake of simplicity, thicker fur than the others. Those wolves will be much more likely to survive the cold, and thus more likely to pass on their genes and reproduce, thus passing on the mutations. The thinner-furred wolves will likewise die out because of the cold and the prevalence of the mutation. THAT is natural selection.

Dodge Beast

”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).

Hitler banned The Origin of Species, last I checked, so that one's null. Stalin, last I checked, was purging dissenters - he didn't really pick their race, just killed anyone he found expendable or who was saying stuff he didn't like. Don't know much about Mao or Pol Pot, but I don't know where evolution ties in there.

As for Marx...last time I checked he did not advocate killing, so I don't know why he's in there.

Dodge Beast

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.

Guilt by association and red herring.

And didn't I tell you already to bottle the Moore imitations?

Dodge Beast

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?

That's three...

Dodge Beast

”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.)

See the above link.

Dodge Beast

”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.

Again, see my above link.

Dodge Beast

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.

See my link pertaining to the meaning of life. Furthermore, why your God? You said earlier you weren't asserting truth, but you sure are implying it by underlining that this was all the Abrahamic God. What, we can't be living on the eyebrow of a frost giant?

Dodge Beast

”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.

Seriously. You are not Micheal Moore. Stop it.

Dodge Beast

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.

So where are the lies?

Dodge Beast

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.

Personally, I'd like Hovind to cough up some evidence for Creationism first. All I've seen in that department is a large donut.

Dodge Beast

”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.

Except that there's mountains of proof. Have a look at this, for a start.

Dodge Beast

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.

Is this just me, or are we replaying Bowling for Columbine here, except with Kent Hovind as the subject?

Where has Hovind spoken truth? Show me some evidence.

Dodge Beast

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.

Where is this falsification? Seriously, what is this, Fahrenheit 9/11?

Dodge Beast

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.

Or you just suck at Micheal Moore impressions.

[Jaaten Syric]

Dodge Beast

Well, the holocaust comes to mind, for one…

I'm curious to know how an inarguable theist like Hitler would support killing based on 'no god', especially given the slogan of the Wehrmacht, and as Setar mentioned, the fact that all of Darwin's work was banned in Nazi Germany.

Quote:

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.

And all of, which, curiously denounced evolution as 'bourgeois pseudoscience' in favor of a slightly altered form of Lamarckism (Lysenkoism) which is directly responsible for the deaths of millions due to starvation. Hell, official soviet policy denounced evolution because it contradicted the political idea of class, rather than individual struggle. I'm also curious to know how, using this logic, their motives are any different than say, the Israelites.

Quote:

[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).

You know, I'm through being civil at this point; This was even easier to disprove than 'Lady Hope' and has vastly less relevance. Kindly either stop lying, or shut up.

Quote:

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.

Bull. s**t. Eugenics is nothing new, and was well established before Darwin ever set pen to parchment. We've been selectively breeding livestock for millennia, and I'm curious to know how the actions of societies like Sparta would fail to qualify. I'm also curious how you manage to lay abortion at Darwin's feet considering it has been around since the dawn of humanity. (Don't believe me? Go read the original Hippocratic Oath).

Quote:

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.

Which does not work under evolutionary theory. By removing individuals from a gene pool based on perceived failings that are not actively selected against in nature, you're making the species weaker by breeding in uniformity. Darwin himself stated this and denounced eugenics programs decades before they ever got the bright idea to steal his name.

Quote:

After all, we are nothing more than animals, according to Darwin.

That's not what he said, but I'm curious now. If we aren't animals, what are we? Why is being 'nothing more than animals' a 'bad;' thing, considering that animals don't tend to rape the planet or intentionally cause the deaths of millions of sentient beings on a whim.

Quote:

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?

...Make that make sense?

Quote:

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.)

I've long held that Hitler, by any definition was not a Christian, but how you get 'not a theist' from his writing is way the ******** beyond me.

Quote:

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.)

You, like the very people you mock, have no idea what fittest actually means, do you? It isn't a measure of physical or mental ability, it is a measure of how good you are at producing offspring. And the 'unfit' typically survive in every generation, simply in reduced numbers. They are not actively killed off by other members of the species because of perceived flaws, but merely die out because they can no longer attract mates.

Quote:

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.

I'm curious to know how the death toll amassed by a theist who rejected evolution makes a good example of what vipr asked for, and not merely one of the latest links in a centuries long chain of violence and repression that owes its existence to theism, personally.

Quote:

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.

Odd how such prominent scientists like Francis Collins, the head of the Human Genome Project (and 'born again' evangelical Christian), Ken Miller, the author of the most widely used biology text in the country (and Devout Catholic) and Robert Bakker, one of the most prominent paleontologists in the world (and Pentecostal preacher) managed to slip through the cracks...Odd how that slipped past no fewer than three Popes as well...

Quote:

It was blind chance, misfits and mistakes that created them, rather than a God that loves and cares for them.

I'd agree personally, but we both know evolution states no such thing.

Quote:

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

Unlike myths declaring that you still bear the burdens of your clay ancestors for a crime that they could not even knowingly commit and who are doomed to an eternity of torture unless they repent, right?

Quote:

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.

In quantity, quality, accessibility, and honesty Randi is miles ahead, as is Voija. As I said, the reason why no one can claim the prize is because Hovind has knowingly made the criteria impossible. Voija, by contrast has said' You say creationism is science? Prove it. Do so and I'll reward you handsomely. The only criteria you have to meet is that it must be presented using the empirical evidence you claim you have, and no fallacious or philosophical appeals'

Quote:

Besides…I don’t know of any well-financed universities that offer Creation Science on the level that evolution is offered;

AIG and DS both have annual budgets in the tens of millions of dollar ranges, most of which goes to funding their pet authors.

Quote:

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.

Odd how that works isn't it? Real science being rewarded, pseudoscience being banished to the diploma mills that deserve it...

Quote:

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.

And yet...that is all he ever does...

Quote:

For the record, no one has been able to prove evolution well enough to get the money from Kent Hovind, either.

Because the challenge has been deliberately set up to be impossible. There are also at least a half dozen applicants who have been given the run around when asking Hovind to either define his terms or present the credentials of his 'panel' for inspection. Randi lets you design the ******** test, and conducts the preliminary exam at a location of your choosing. The two are as different as black and white and you damn well know it by now.

Quote:

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.

Not on his website it isn't.

Quote:

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.

We don't know if we 'like' his panel, because he won't tell us who they are. That's just a tad shady, don't you think?

Quote:

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.

Considering that such a crocoduck would be startling evidence against[ evolution, I don't know why the applicant wouldn't just take his million dollar check from the Nobel Committee, instead of playing into the hands of a creationist fraud.

Quote:

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

The man being convicted on several hundred counts of fraud is not relevant to his honesty? Explain.

Quote:

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.

But Kent hasn't. His 'challenge' is impossible, and he knows it. His panel, if it exists at all is so atrociously biased that any evidence will be automatically rejected, and he knows it. He doesn't have the money to pay even if everything else wrong with the offer wasn't true, and he damn well knows that.

Quote:

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.

Uhm...yeah. Actually he is. Tunderf00t has shown that Hovind is off on his 'I taught High School for fifteen years' science is off by a factor of over a trillion.

Quote:

I think he has the right to believe as he does, and to share that belief if he is so inclined.

Yep, he does, bit that does not make him immune from criticism, especially given how often he lies.

Quote:

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.

Because...he has? He admitted it. He was taped in ******** prison conspiring with his son to hide assets from the IRS for ******** sake.

Quote:

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.

Funny, it didn't work for Al Capone, and he actually presented a defense.

Quote:

Far as I am concerned, he worked just as hard for his education as you did for yours.

I go to an accredited university, not a diploma mill. I'm studying for my BA in History with a minor (possibly a double major) in Political Science, not 'Christian Education' (which is vastly different than a traditional education degree). Hovind hasn't worked for a damn thing.

Let me put this in perspective:

Here is an image of one of the smallest buildings on my campus: Memorial Hall. It's used for math and philosophy lectures and very, very little else (beyond entertainment/guest lecture venues.) Seats about 700, perhaps 1000 if you include the space in the paddock outside)

Here is an image of Hoivind's entire university: Patriot (Bible) University. Looks like it's about four or five times the size of my dorm room.

Quote:

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?

No, he is a liar because he knowingly distorts evolutionary theory and uses(ed) it to line his pockets with money from gullible patrons.

Quote:

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.

Name a single one that actually fooled any scientist of note other than Piltdown man. Just one.

I'll give you a few tips before you begin: Virtually none of the scientific community accepted 'Nebraska man' as a viable hominid fossil, even the discoverer said that the drawings of it were wild flights of fancy and asked the (non-peer reviewed) magazine that ran it to retract the article. Archaeorapror fooled no scientists, and many actually warned they buyer that it was a fake.

Edit: s**t! I'm sorry vipr, I thought I got them all. sweatdrop

[vipr230]

I'm working on my response to him, I'm planning to use it as a reference for the future, cause I have link... after link... after link... after link... after link in it. Honestly, I'm getting annoyed that there is so much evidence for evolution, I'm finding 6 or 7 articles detailing evolution of tiny aspects of a single genus, let alone evolution as a whole.

Anyway in the mean time, jaaten, mind removing my name on the posts that, umm, aren't mine ^^; I don't want hitler references to be tied to me.

[Lord Setar]

It wasn't that hard for me to refute. Granted, he was just long-windedly making a bunch of common claims (I counted four or five I could discern) and the part about Hovind was a bad Moore impression.

[Jaaten Syric]

Lord Setar

It wasn't that hard for me to refute. Granted, he was just long-windedly making a bunch of common claims (I counted four or five I could discern) and the part about Hovind was a bad Moore impression.

I only did the second half, both because you'd already gotten to it, and I wouldn't have seen much point in it anyway. But...god dammit, the Hitler crap? I really need to buck up and devote my youtube channel to debunking social and historical claims about the effects of evolution one of these days, if only to avoid typing out the same damn response every time some idiot with an ounce of propaganda decides to claim that the holocaust was the result of evolution, and not a madman who happened to reject it.

[Damnati]

Lord Plate

I love your threads, but unfortunately, it's like a blitzkrieg of information... I have nothing to add or discuss, except my agreement and delight.

Nice to see you again, Plate. has been a while.

And I pretty much have to say the same thing. You always impress me, Voija. And I can never word things as good as you. I hope you don't mind if I quote you in future debates. This thread is, again, going under my subscribed threads, so that I may look back at it as a source and reference for future debates.

Though I will say, perhaps you should take care of this "LHC = Doomsday" craze. I have a feeling that if anyone could make people on Gaia shut up about it (or at least in the ED), it would be you.

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.

I disagree.

Most people who are proponents of these theories only know so much. They are missing a lot in their knowledge and thus, a lot in their arguments. So to have someone who truly understands his stuff, and can word in a rather clear way, is something that does not happen often in the ED.

Besides, saying the second law doesn't disprove the big bang, and that creationists are full of s**t, would do nothing. And posts like that, which you seem to be happily supporting, is what one would call spam posts in the ED, for they bring nothing to the table, only hurt the position of those who think that (though more extensively), and are utterly useless in nearly every way. At least with threads like this, Which Voija has done on several topics, actually helps explain these theories and how they can work together to support each other.

Now stop shoving coal up your rear to make diamonds, and support someone who actually brings some great arguments to the table.

[Redem]

Dodge Beast

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.

I'll address these in a bit more detail.

Haeckel's embryos. Out of 32 embryo lineages he drew, he forges 6 because he could not get a clear image of the foetus in question.

This is not a "scientific theory that was once viewed as fact". Not even CLOSE. The hypothesis he was using it to advance was destroyed in it's infancy by the evidence being against him. The drawings themselves did however show some homology in embryology, and corrected versions of them are considered evidence of common ancestry.

The evolution of the horse. Also not a theory, but merely a set of data. And it is considered accurate as it stands.

Appendixes are vestigal in that they are the vestige of an organ that our ancestors used that we do not. That does not imply uselessness. It's certainly not a scientific theory, and is also not incorrect. It's simply a fact.

The speed of light. The "speed of light" is not "the speed at which a particular photon is travelling". It is the short hand for "the speed of light in a vacuum". Generally it's understood at that reader will comprehend this, because we KNOW that light is slower while travelling through various mediums. It never exceeds the speed of light (in a vacuum) though.

4 tries, 4 fails. Good show.

Dodge Beast

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).

No, it doesn't. It deals purely with how life changes over time.
Other areas of science deal with things like planetary formation (hint: gravity plays a big role here)

And NOWHERE in sicence does it imply that matter "spontaneously came into existence" in the creation ex nihilo sense that you imply it.

NOWHERE. To claim otherwise is a LIE.
Bearing false witness... where do I know that phrase from...

Dodge Beast

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.

Bullshit. You are assuming this because your ideology tells you it is true.
No one goes from hedonism to "darwinism".

Dodge Beast

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.

Actually it does, given time. (and corrected nomenclature)

Dodge Beast

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.

So, you admit that you are utterly ignorant on the subject, and have no interest in correcting that flaw. You then wonder why you are met with "hostility" when you make grand pronouncements based on creationist lies and distortions?
Go anywhere and talk authoritatively on a subject you are ignorant of in a manner that contradicts common wisdom, and you will meet the same reaction.
It's called "disdain".

Dodge Beast

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.

In evidential terms, it is directly equivalent to such things.
If you don't want your beliefs to be made fun of, don't have such funny beliefs.

Dodge Beast

Evolution assumes much on the part of blind chance, and is cited to eliminate the need of a creator.

Cited as such by paranoid Christians who cannot bear the thought that their holy book isn;t a history book.

Dodge Beast

“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

You neither understand what a tautology is, nor understand what "Survival of the fittest" is.

A tautology is a statement that is redundant. I THINK you were trying to accuse it of being a circular argument, but even then it isn't.

Survival of the fittest is natural selection condensed into a "natural selection for dummies" frame of understandability.

Dodge Beast

For the record, no one has been able to prove evolution well enough to get the money from Kent Hovind, either.

Because in order to do so you must meet the criteria he has selected, which includes "prove that it wasn't done by god". A logical impossibility.

[Lord Setar]

Jaaten Syric

Lord Setar

It wasn't that hard for me to refute. Granted, he was just long-windedly making a bunch of common claims (I counted four or five I could discern) and the part about Hovind was a bad Moore impression.

I only did the second half, both because you'd already gotten to it, and I wouldn't have seen much point in it anyway. But...god dammit, the Hitler crap? I really need to buck up and devote my youtube channel to debunking social and historical claims about the effects of evolution one of these days, if only to avoid typing out the same damn response every time some idiot with an ounce of propaganda decides to claim that the holocaust was the result of evolution, and not a madman who happened to reject it.

Put a megapost in a notepad file, it's what I used to do.

[Dryctarth]

While I don't want to interfere with vipr230 or Jaaten Syric's rebuttals, as they have put much more time and effort into this that I have, I would like to make a small point that hopefully I can state without requiring much in the way of sourcing.

Dodge Beast

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.

The reason you never see a lizard change into a bird or bird into dog or whatever comparison you prefer is because of the natural variation within a species over time. More specifically, the concept is the natural variation within a population of genes over time. This means that given a population of lizard, for example, no matter how many generations the population of lizard produces, all of those animals are still in the same genetic population. For sake of simplicity, let's assume that all of our lizards reproduce at the same time so that generations have clearly defined boundaries.

Now, anyone will agree that a lizard will reproduce to give more lizards of the same species. Thus, the next generation of our population of lizards will also be lizards of the same species as their parents. The third will be the same as the fourth, the fourth will be the same as the fifth, ..., the 567th will be the same as the 568th and so on until the population of lizards is wiped out. So, no matter what point in time we examine the population of lizards (which conveniently never becomes too large to study), we will find that any parent and child pair generations will be the same species. Now, let's start expanding this a little. We can say with confidence that a child generation will be the same as its grandparent generation, and the same as its great-grandparent generation. We can probably say that the child generation is the same species as its ancestor 20 or 30 generations ago. After all, as a species, we homo sapiens sapiens hasn't changed species in the last 6000 years, which has been well over 30 generations.

So for small scales, we see no change in species, but I'll bet we can start to see natural variation. Imagine after 100 generations of lizard. Do you think the average genome in that generation is the same within error as the average genome of the first generation? Chances are high that there will have been a significant change within the genetic population. Perhaps the lizards are longer and thinner, perhaps there are now two varieties with different head shapes. Whatever the specifics may be, there is a discernable difference between the first generation lizards and the 100th generation lizards, but there was no particular difference between 100th and 99th generation lizards. So let's expand this again, just for fun.

Imagine now the 1000th generation of lizard. There's the opportunity for ten significant changes to the genetic population of the species since the first generation. Now, chances are that the 1000th generation is still a lizard, but it might be different enough that if placed next to the first generation lizards, they would be classified as being different varieties on the species. More importantly, if we let the 1000th generation mate with the first generation and the offspring is sterile, we can say that the two generations are different species. If not, we could simply look at an even bigger span, perhaps the 2000th generation. Sooner or later, we'd find something that was a different species. Again, remember that the 1000th generation was not particularly different than the 999th generation. Let's expand again.

Now take the 10^5th generation (easier to read than 10000) and compare it to the first. By this time, the population may have developed apart from the genus of the first generation. The 10^6 would be even farther from the first. Eventually, we would reach a point where the genetic population is closer to that of a bird than a lizard, assuming the right environmental conditions (which is implied in the nature of the experiment). At no time was a generation of animal ever significantly different than it's parent generation, but if the span we examine is big enough, we might see a net change major enough to call it "evolution." (Technically, though, the population has evolved as soon as we can find a big enough net difference. Evolution isn't the changing of one type of animal to another or the changing of one species to another, it's the trend of naturally varying the genetic population to suit the environment and survive.)

So to summarize, a lizard never turns into a bird. For an analysis range of two or three generations, the population is the same over all time. But for a range a few orders of magnitude greater, the population can exhibit enough changes to show support for evolution. Look at a large enough range and you'll see that a constant line of descent from a lizard at one end could lead to a bird at the other end. It's all about the magnitude of difference and the timescale you're looking at.

Finally, this is a pretty cool video about evolution (not abiogenesis, which is the model that predicts how life arose from non-living matter over time). It doesn't show the same thing I described, but it looks at the situation in a little more complex fashion and shows how over enough time a self-contained population can significantly change its average genome. Also notice how short the transition times between 'species' last. This is similar to why there are few if any fossils found of transition species (also remember fossilization is pretty rare, most things just decompose or are scattered). video

[vipr230]

This took WAY too long, but I've a ton of really nice links in it. Some great papers, I hope everyone at least reads the abstracts because some are rather interesting, but there are quite a few genetics ones that get a bit repetitive.

Eeep, I need to break it into 2... god damnit.

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.

I'm doing rather well considering I slept in and still got to sneak in an assignment that technically should not have been accepted. Being ninja is fun.

Anyway,it's fine, it won't be the first time I've had to sift through creationist junk. Plus, my response is going to be much longer anyway, and be ready for links. Please, do look at them.

Dodge Beast

”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.

Some errors don't require fundamental misunderstandings of science and of evolution, so some errors thus are not egregious, others however, the ones I responded to, require fundamental misinterpretations and thus are gross misstatements that must be corrected.

And I never understood this "your own logic" business.

Claim X
Accept X not.
Empirical Y supports X
Reject X not in favor of X.

In light of positive evidence, the null claim is abandoned, this is simple logic that is self-consistent and self correcting, I'd like to see your logic that allows for creationism which, again, has no actual empirical evidence for it. (If you believe it does, please, provide it).

Dodge Beast

”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.

WOAH! NO! BAD! STOP RIGHT THERE!

#1) None of the things you mentioned were EVER theories. Haekel's embryos were misrepresentation of the truth, yes, and thought to be true for a moderate while, but are NOT considered a scientific theory. The evolution of the horse is actually fairly well understood, http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/horses/horse_evol.html
If you don't like the source, then check the references at the bottom, the site just says the same thing in an easier to understand form but if you would rather the direct articles, google scholar the references talk origin lists, they are, after all, peer reviewed papers. Anddd, the classification of the appendix being considered vestigial does not mean it's a scientific theory as well, theories are broad explanatory models, they are based on many facts, you can show "oh, this actually isn't support" and it's still not a drop in the bucket.

#2) Science is a self-correcting medium, Haekel's drawings and the appendix were corrected by scientists, no one asserts science is perfect or science knows all already, if it did, there wouldn't be a point to being a scientist. The point is however that in light of positive evidence or contradictory evidence, the established theories stand.

#3) Light has a universal speed limit bounded by Maxwell's equations at c in a vacuum. Actually, this is the speed light travels anyway, it's just by changing the medium you can get it so that light gets bounced around so many times that it slows down the rate at which it travels through said medium. Light however always travels at c. To assert this is wrong is to go saying general relativity and maxwell's equations are wrong and I truly doubt you, nor any creationist, can go asserting such because the evidence always demonstrates c is a constant. In fact, if general relativity was wrong, one would expect our GPS systems to malfunction, because they account for time dilation which requires light being constant in all inertial reference frames. Don't go asserting general relativity is wrong if you can't back it up, and we can't speed light up, we can't accelerate, nor decelerate a photon. We can change the medium, thus changing the prorogation through an object, but the photon travels at c.

Dodge Beast

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.”).

Yes, you're right, science does not deal in proofs. But, that does not do much to assert that anything established in science currently is wrong. Just because it CAN be wrong does not mean it is, nor does it mean there's any reason to assert its wrong unless you have the empirical evidence to demonstrate why its wrong. See, asserting that anything in science that is accepted based upon the evidence would be an argument from ignorance, theories in science are as close to a true "fact" as you can possibly get.

Dodge Beast

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).

See, this is why I called your claims egregious. Again, evolution is "changes in gene frequency of a population over time". It is NOT the big bang, abiogenesis, planetary formation, galaxy formation, etc, no, those would be big bang theory, theory of abiognesis, accretion, etc. Evolution functions if you insert god as an explanation for ANY of the stages beforehand, including the very first cells. It says nothing about the formation of the planets.

Now, you should work on your science. Big bang theory does not state, or even imply, that matter spontaneously came into existence. It in fact doesn't imply that the energy came into existence suddenly, it has only one thing to say on where the singularity came from, "we don't know". However, when the universe cooled enough, that's when the first elementary particles could form, and that's the origin of matter, but matter wasn't here at the start of the universe. The singularity and energy however, was. But, that said, we don't know "how it got there" if asking such a question even makes sense.

Dodge Beast

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.

It's far, FAR easier to invalidate evolution than it is to win hovind's challenge. Remember, fossil bunnies in the Cambrian, cats with chloroplasts, lizards with nipples, all of these would work fairly well. Kent Hovind however, again, has many strong motives not to give the cash, has his own team of "scientists" with unidentified criteria, is asking for far more than biological evolution, wants you to somehow prove that it was done without god (Which, really, is impossible, because you could always just say "god made the laws that allow it to happen" wink , etc, etc. No, Hovind's claims are unreasonable, us asking for you to invalidate evolution is how science works. Provide contradictory evidence or the established theory stays, not, prove your theory 100% right without any alternative because that's not how science operates.

Dodge Beast

”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”.

I want to see said "science". Remember, science requires empirical evidence, we need testable falsifiable hypothesis with predictions that have been confirmed. Go on, provide it. You claim it's there. And again, we didn't somehow grow up wanting to live in a world where earth worms are our cousins, religion however teaches you that you want to accept god... so... don't you have a much stronger desire to actually cling to creationism regardless of the evidence for evolution?

Dodge Beast

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.

It's not "believe in Darwin", we don't say we "believe in Einstein" when talking about the Theory of General Relativity. Really, creationists tend to do this, because they know the name of Darwin, they can try to pretend that he's somehow our figurehead and make it seem like a religion so that they might get to feel as though its less science than it is. Sorry, but Darwin didn't even know about DNA, we've come a LONG way since Origin of Species, it's evolution, not Darwin, it's general relativity, not Einstein, it's quantum mechanics, not Plank, it's atomic theory, not Rutherford, it's classical mechanics, not Newton.

Anyway, evolution makes no comment on the validity of god, false dichotomy, blah blah blah. Your "people chose to believe...amoral lifestyle" is an appeal to consequences fallacy and says nothing to the validity of evolution.

Likewise, it stands in contrast to the evidence. Evolution has absolutely no effect on the crime rate of a population, it certainly doesn't make them amoral. In fact, the US has among the lowest % believe in evolution, but highest crime rate. It's not to say believing in evolution lowers crime rate, but it shows believing in evolution isn't done to encourage amoral behavior.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/08/060810-evolution.html
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_tot_cri-crime-total-crimes

http://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/pdf/2005-11.pdf
Most research really indicates that being religious really doesn't help the peace of an area. Accepting evolution certainly doesn't make people behave worse. Don't kid yourself.

So, even your appeal to consequences still fails.

Dodge Beast

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.)

Crime rates don't lie, look above. Likewise, appeal to consequences. Logic isn't your friend I'm afraid.

Dodge Beast

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.

*facepalm*
Evolution DOES NOT SAY THAT!!!!

I'm going to rehash my standard post. Read it.

me

Originally we're eukaryotes, nucleic organisms, which then diverged into Bikont and Opisthokonta (creatures where the flagellate cells only have one flagella)... from Opisthokonta we diverged into metazoa, aka, animals. Animals are defined as multicellular opisthokonts which have to eat other creatures in some form of a digestive tract. (As opposed to choanoflagellates and fungi which are the other two groups of Opisthokonts). From there we diverged into Porifera and Eumetazoa, Porifera being sponges without any true tissue, or Eumetazoa which are organizms with true tissues (among other things). Within the Eumetazoa we diverged from Placozoa, ctenophora, cnidaria, myxozoa into bilateria (organisms which have at some point bilateral symmetry). From bilateria we diverged from acoelomata and pseudocoelomata into coelomata, bilaterias with a tubular digestive tract. From there we go into Protostome and Deuterostomia, where the first opening in development becomes the a**s while the second becomes the mouth. The Deuterostomia then diverge into Echinodermata, Hemichordata, Xenoturbellida and of course, Chordata, Deuterostomia with a spinal chord. From Chordata we branch into Urochordata, Cephalochordata, and Craniata, organisms with a brain in a skull. Craniata then have Myxini and Vertebrates under them, Vertebrates of course being chordates with a backbone descending from the skull. From vertebrates we diverge from quite a few things into gnathostomata, vertebrates with a jaw bone. From gnathostomata we go into teleostomi which have calcified bones (rather than cartilage) as well as some gas bags or something of the sort (which later became lungs). From there we have osteichthyes which have swim bladders or lungs, and have pectoral girdles covered with bones. From osteichthyes we go onto Sarcopterygii which are lobed-finned osterichthynes with limbs which eventually evolved and diverged into tetrapods, which are gill-less sarcopterygii with digits on the ends of limbs and now skeletally adapted to have legs (or leg like appendages). Evolution then went on to create Anthracosauria, post aquatic terrestrial tetrapods (They were reptile like rather than amphibians), from there we diverged yet again into amniota, tetrapods with an amnion, a membrane sac that protects the embryo. Then we diverged yet again into synapsida, animals with a single Temporal Fenestra in the skull (rather than Sauropsid... reptiles, with either none or two). Then we diverged yet again into eupelycosauria which have a far more narrow supratemporal bone (bone above the temporal bone) than cosauria, from there we diverged yet again into sphenacodontia which have premaxilla teeth (teeth at the tip of the jaw) set in deep sockets as well as a thicker Maxilla than the other eupelycosauria. Sphenacodontia then diverged into Sphenacodontidae and Therapsida (sort of, don't make me get into this), Therapsida having larger temporal fenestrae than the Sphenacodontidae, legs positioned more vertically than other Sphenacodontia, and teeth that had diversified a bit. The therapsids then have a branch, Theriodonts which had a larger mandible than other therapsids and the lower jaw bones that were on other therapsids had moved up to the ear giving them better hearing. The theriodonts then diverged into Cynodonts, which had canine teeth and probably were even covered in hair. This brings us to mammals, of which can be diverged to Theria, mammals which give live birth (no eggs), which then have Eutheria which have placentas, then on we diverge into Epitheria which have stapes shaped like stirrups rather than columns in the middle ear. Within the Epitheria then are another branch, the Euarchontoglires which we are from, and Laurasiatheria which has clades for things like bats and hedgehogs. The Euarchontoglires include clades for rodents and Lagomorpha while we come from Euarchonta which includes clades for treeshrews or lemurs or other primates. At the primate level we have lemurs, monkeys, and apes, with humans from the ape branch.

At each and every one of these levels there are changes but not one of these is a modern animal, Eucarchontoglires isn't a shrew or a squirrel, we're not descendant from one... the original common ancestors may have looked something like one, but taxonomy does not back up your oder. For example, humans are not considered amphibians, we do not have a common ancestor that was an amphibian, we are tetrapods, which has a branch that has amphibians, but the amphibian branch doesn't lead to humans.

Put simply, evolution is a branching pattern, a lizard will NEVER turn into a bird, that flies in the face of evolution because lizards and birds have already diverged. A bird will NEVER change into a frog because that's not how evolution works, evolution branches, birds will always be birds but their children might be more than just birds as well. Frogs will always be frogs but their children might be more than frogs too. However, birds will never be frogs, frogs will never be birds, frogs will never be princes, it's simply NOT how evolutionary biology works!

You really should learn about evolutionary biology before you go denying it because that was a pretty damn poor statment.

Dodge Beast

”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.

..... Um, actually if you want you could go to many universities and they will show you methods of dating the earth that don't rely on geologic strata to get back 4.6 billion years. See, if we go back far enough the evidence melts, geologic strata are useful, but not for the total age of the earth. For that, we need other methods. lead-lead isochron dating is one of the most effectives, and this functions by the principle of radiometric dating. If you believe it's only in textbooks, go to a university, ask for a TA, and have them show you a small radioactive sample. You can take a geiger counter to it yourself and then make your own model for decay. You'll see that no matter how long you do it, no matter how much you want it to be anything but, it's absolutely one of the most consistent exponential curves that exist. Radioactive decay is about as easy to measure as it gets. If you really want to get into it, most big universities also have mass spectrometers that you can use to find the precise ratios of the materials, you can learn all about that too.

That of course isn't the only radiometric dating method, and they all seem to agree with meteorites (that aren't geologically active and so their age can't be so easily erased), so, we at least know how old the solar system is. Most first year science students in their labs end up proving radioactive decay is exponential decay, so you're well within your power to learn and do it yourself if you really doubt the scientists. Don't take my word for it, you don't have to be a super genius to learn and in fact date things yourself. Hell, even if it's not the age of the earth, you won't be hard pressed to find rocks millions of years old, and try it out for yourself using non-expensive hard to find meteorites.

Dodge Beast

God and love versus death and dirt that came from nowhere.

False dichotomy, and, furthermore, straw man, evolution says nothing about dirt, or even death really, evolution doesn't care about death just the gene pool. And it's not "From nowhere", it's a singularity that we openly say "we don't know where it came". Don't pretend we go saying everything came from nothing and nowhere when we say "we don't know". At least, most physicists say that anyway.

Dodge Beast

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.

It doesn't HAVE to explain life from non-life, that is abiogenesis, not evolution. God could have made the first cells and evolution kicked in afterwards, with absolutely no impact to the theory of evolution. In fact, considering evolution didn't kick in immediately anyway, as there was a period of horizontal gene transfer, it's especially evident that life from non-life=/=evolution because evolution didn't begin at the origin of life, but rather around the time of the eukaryote divergence.

(See, horizontal gene transfer
http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2148/3/2/)

However, with regards to sentience,
http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0168159106001080
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/118618225/abstract?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0
http://web.missouri.edu/~gearyd/GearyHuffman.pdf
http://www.pnas.org/content/89/16/7320.abstract

And, by the way, it informs us we came from previous lifeforms, it says nothing of our importance, and says nothing of our ultimate contribution. Tesla for example, from a biological standpoint, singlehandedly improved the condition of the entire race, such a person would have great importance because he improved the fitness of the species.

Dodge Beast

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.

It also has rather copious amounts of evidence. The following is very short list of 10 articles that all indicate common descent between different populations.
http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/citation/14/2/133
http://www.springerlink.com/content/llauvvpfhwukhg9l/
http://jb.asm.org/cgi/content/abstract/186/5/1518
http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0002929707640968
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11961552
http://www.pnas.org/content/94/6/2415.abstract
http://www.pnas.org/content/91/11/5163.abstract
abstract link is too long
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v275/n5682/abs/275744a0.html
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/253/5027/1503
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/118940956/abstract

Ok, 11, but one I couldn't put the link out so I gave an extra. See, it's not all that hard to find evidence for evolution, in numerous forms. We've still yet to be provided with empirical evidence for creationism. Are you really asserting that you can go looking up morphological and genetic evidence for creationism and come up with peer reviewed scientific papers? I'd love to see it.

Dodge Beast

”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.

Note, your conclusion is not based upon actual evidence. If it is, you certainly have yet to provide it. I'm waiting. Want some more articles supporting evolution while you're at it?
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/283/5407/1476
http://www.pnas.org/content/86/16/6196.abstract
http://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/jjg/67/3/67_187/_article
http://www.pnas.org/content/76/4/1967.abstract

Again, we don't pretend we have all the answers, that's why these papers are here. That's why scientists do research, to learn. You are asserting that god did it, but you have yet to provide any evidence to back such a statment up and considering the evidence really does favor evolution (here are four more.) so in standing contrast to the evidence, without any evidence of your own, simply because the bible says so, means you're asserting to know truth without actually doing research or even having any research to back your claim. Again, if I'm wrong, provide said evidence.

Dodge Beast

”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.

Then you've done rather poor research, if you honestly don't see the evidence for evolution you are not looking hard
enough.

You don't need to be college taught, you just need to do more than search the basic explanations of evolution or common creationist sites without seeing the refutation of them. You see, I assert that you claim you are unquestionably correct because you choose differently in SPITE of massive amounts ofevidence.

Honestly, if you choose to believe in spite of evidence, and no amount of evidence can dissuade you, then you are asserting a form of unquestionable truth. Evolution can be invalidated, but if you have yet to invalidate creationism, then it's clear you're asserting that which cannot be.

We care enough about the diversity of life to LEARN and actually write these papers, we care enough to read these papers, to study, you assert god did it without reading the evidence, without learning, THAT is why you are asserting unquestionable truth. We don't pretend to have the evidence, we actually have it.

We're not defending evolution because we want to believe it or we've just decided it's what we choose to believe, we defend it because it has the support.

Dodge Beast

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.

... See those papers I linked to? All but one were peer-reviewed scientific journals, all provide descriptions of how the conclusion was made, all cover the method of obtaining evidence, all contain hypothesis, all follow the scientific method to be empirical evidence for evolution. Proper research for creationism would include reading scientific papers rather than creationist websites.

In other words, it'd require falsifiable empirical evidence rather than attacks on evolution that rely on fundamental ignorance of evolution (such as "birds into frogs" or "lizards into birds", if you had properly researched the topic, you should understand evolution well enough to know why this is not what evolution says)

Dodge Beast

”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?

You… know what’s coming next don’t you?

Symbiosis is very well understood and is not a problem for evolution.

Honestly, I can’t see what would have made you think symbiosis was a problem.

Now, the “whiptail lizards” are part of the family Teiidae, and I’m not sure what problem you think they pose for evolution, but, regardless, their evolution hardly poses a problem

Woodpeckers also don't provide problems.

Really though, with respect to woodpeckers, "natural selection favors the mutations that'll allow a dampening system" would have sufficed, your "anomaly" here is really just your own argument from ignorance in that you yourself didn't think evolution could make it. But, evolution as a theory even if no one researched woodpeckers wouldn't have much problem explaining how they're there. It's only a contradiction if it contradicts common descent, such as, oh, a turtle with feathers.


And finally, monotremes are the easiest because they’re simply an ancient clade of mammals. We have a lot of research about monotremes because of that.

Dodge Beast

”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?

Since when is a protist considered an animal? See, humans, reptiles, birds, fish, etc, etc, we have all diverged from both protests and plants, but the euglena probably diverged from plants after we diverged from both so that it has chloroplasts. After all, animals don’t have chloroplasts, if you found any that did, you might stand a case. Early divergence prosists like that really only lend credibility to the branching pattern.

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=550058
http://www.springerlink.com/content/m3cykdktd4bkmgmb/
http://www.springerlink.com/content/t2586122040m02q5/

(Last one confirms what I just said, first two explain the origin of the chloroplasts in the protist itself)

[vipr230]

Dodge Beast

”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.

Science is based on empirical evidence, god may exist or not, but you cannot have science based on god. Actually, though I’m an atheist, I’ve yet to mention this entire time that I’m an atheist, and in fact would argue constantly that EVOLUTION DOESN’T INVALIDATE GOD! Attack us atheists all you want, but most of us don’t set up the false dichotomy when it comes to evolution or god, most of us recognize that god=/=creationism. If the fricken pope can believe in evolution, then clearly this is NOT a “god vs science” thing. So quit keeping up your false dichotomy hiding behind the “mean old atheists” line.

Once again, NOT TRYING TO DISPROVE GOD! Only support proper science based upon empirical evidence, god, by definition, cannot be tied to the empirical and so WE CANT COMMENT AS SCIENTISTS! But what we can say is that science does not deal in the supernatural, and so you lie if you say your science is based on god because that is NOT science. The scientific method utterly rejects something like the god hypothesis, that doesn’t mean god isn’t real, it just means if you want to follow the scientific method, in other words, practice science, you don’t use god to do it.

Dodge Beast

”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!" 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.

Does it have to glorify god as well? Some theistic evolutionists will probably say that god set up this entire universe to run on natural laws without need for constant tinkering, and thus rather than making a world where he has to intervene to create life, he’s got much more foresight. That said, evolution doesn’t have to glorify god any more than atomic theory does. It’s just what is supported by the evidence. And the point of the pope is that no one can go claiming he doesn’t believe in god, meaning that evolution does not mandate giving up belief in god. That is why it is a false dichotomy, that is why it is intellectually dishonest to equate evolution to atheism.

Dodge Beast

Evolution assumes much on the part of blind chance, and is cited to eliminate the need of a creator.

Correction, evolution functions by genetic drift, which is random, but natural selection is non-random. But, that said, these are natural laws, if god is the creator and decided to put this whole thing into play, you still get to have your god, and side with the empirical evidence.

Dodge Beast

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.

You… do realize that you’re saying god can’t create a world that abides by natural rules right? And just because we can show that life gets here just as well without god doesn’t mean god didn’t do it, we can’t prove that one way or the other, all we can do is show that these really are natural phenomenon, if god made them, fine, if he didn’t, fine, but evolution does not comment on that, evolution only is verified by the evidence. God doesn’t affect the equation, either god made the universe to abide by natural laws, or he didn’t, but either way, creationism is a poor alternative because it states he can’t create the natural laws and also goes against the evidence.

Dodge Beast

”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?”

Genes have no thoughts, but genetic variation is still useful. Don’t believe me?
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/221/4609/459
So no genetic variation
http://www.jwildlifedis.org/cgi/content/abstract/41/3/542
And susceptible to disease because of it.

Genetic variation=useful. That’s it, the loonies because they really are fairly small in numbers hardly affect our fitness more than their genetic variation helps us.

Dodge Beast

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?

Nope, sexual reproduction leads to more genetic diversity, remember, we just went over that above. Genetic diversity=good, so miosis especially with crossover events is especially helpful.

But, regarding the evolution of sexual reproduction… you guessed it, more links.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v336/n6198/abs/336435a0.html
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1511870
http://eebweb.arizona.edu/michod/Downloads/Evolution of Sexual Reproduction Importance of DNA Repair Complementation and Variation 1981.pdf
http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/282389
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v331/n6158/abs/331714a0.html

Put simply, sexual reproduction doesn’t pose a big problem either.

Dodge Beast

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.

Except you ignored the part of “it makes them still less likely to succumb to other problems”.

What part of genetic-variation=good don’t you understand? Why do you think sexual reproduction became favored for us? Read the links above please.

Dodge Beast

”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…

Hum, lets seeeeee….
Hitler, Hitler, oh, wait, I know

”Hitler”

Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord.

”Hitler”

My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God's truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter

Honest or not, he sure as hell wasn’t killing in the name of no god, he was killing for himself.. well, and because he wanted a scapegoat. That’s not to say he was killing in the name of the Christian god, but, it is to say he sure wasn’t killing in the name of a lack of a deity, he was doing it for self-serving interests.

Dodge Beast

Stalin will work, too,

I addressed this before, it’s not killing in the name of atheism, it’s killing in self-interest. Hell, he himself made himself out to be a god remember???

Dodge Beast

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.

Yes, but this isn’t in the name of atheism, this is in the name of self-interest and their own superiority complex. I... don’t see how this helps your point. This isn’t killing because their atheists, they’re killing because their cold hearted brutal murderers.

Dodge Beast

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).

... k? That doesn’t really mean much at all, and Marx’s violence was violence advocated simply to get the working class to rise up, not kill people because they believed in god.

Dodge Beast

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.

Lets not get into an abortion debate, it’s irrelevant, but eugenics following evolution is actually remarkably stupid. “Lets self-impose a bottleneck!” Still, appeal to consequences fallacy, and doesn’t validate your point regarding atheism either.

Dodge Beast

After all, we are nothing more than animals, according to Darwin.

Actually even according to Carl Linnaeus who was of course a Christian creationist. Remember, he was the one to put us under kingdom animalia in the first place, he considered us animals, just special animals in the eyes of god. If god really wanted natural selection to favor humans, then technically we still would be, either way, evolution makes no comment on that. Darwin, well, he doesn’t represent the entire field of biology, contrary to creationist claims.

Dodge Beast

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?

Irrelevant to discussion.

Dodge Beast

”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.)

But that’s the point, they were the same, it’s killing in their own names.

Dodge Beast

”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.)

“Survival of the fittest” isn’t biological. Survival of the fittest was made by Herbert Spencer, an economist. It has nothing to do with biology because again, genetic variation is inherently useful for a population! See links above.

Dodge Beast

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.

HITLER BANNED ORIGIN OF SPECIES! You certainly can’t blame evolutionary theory on this, and once again, appeal to consequences logical fallacy even if you could.

Dodge Beast

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.

No, evolution teaches you are the product of generation after generation after generation of genetic drift that has been selected to survive until today. You can take this however you want. Some (like myself) recognize that we are the product of a direct line that has extended some 3.5 billion years, survived trial after trial after trial, and successfully reproduced to get me. That makes me feel pretty damn special. Evolution doesn’t teach that however, evolution is only the science, it’s changes in gene frequency of a population over time, you can interpret it however you want but don’t go pretending that evolution makes a comment on your worth as a person, or makes any comment on god. Some people can use it to make those comments, but the biological theory does NOT and never HAS. Nor is its validity determined by any of those comments, such an assertion would be again an appeal to consequences fallacy. Its evidence is strong enough as it is.

Dodge Beast

It was blind chance, misfits and mistakes that created them, rather than a God that loves and cares for them.

What part of “non-random” natural selection do you not understand?

Dodge Beast

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

*facepalm* maybe YOU see it that way, but that makes no comment on its validity.

It doesn’t need to glorify god because it doesn’t comment on god. It doesn’t comment on “accident” or “expendable” because there is no “accident” or “expendable” within evolution, it has no goal in mind!

Dodge Beast

”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.

Voija’s challenge is also rather simple, just so you know. Empirical evidence isn’t hard to get, read any of the papers I gave you.

Dodge Beast

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.

Because it’s not science. If you had evidence to indicate its science, you might get the funding, but the evidence part has to come first. It fixes no contradictions within evolution, and offers many, MANY more contradictions with the evidence. That doesn’t make for very good science.

Dodge Beast

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.

I dunno, I honestly believe that some lies are useful. “Sally is 200 meters from Fred and moving towards him at 20m/s, how long does Fred have to wait for her to get to him?”

I’ll be damned if I want 8th graders working on Lorentz transformations.

Dodge Beast

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.

… Except remember, aside from just the money, he hasn’t given a method to prove it, or a criteria. Randi has given rather clear criteria for the goal, Hovind has said “prove it so that god didn’t do it and I’ll have my panel who I haven’t released to the public to decide”.

That’s… hardly worthy of the same respect.

Dodge Beast

”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.

And that somehow means he can’t offer any kind of criteria that you have to meet?

Dodge Beast

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

No, it’s not attacking his character, it’s attacking his motivation when dealing with money. It’s saying that because he has a consistent pattern of avoiding ANY loss of income, far beyond what most people normally do, he has shown he would be remarkably ill-inclined to let go of $250,000. It’s using his previous actions regarding a commodity to determine probable future actions regarding the same commodity. That’s… hardly an attack of character.

Dodge Beast

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.

You’re right, but that’s a non-sequiter. “Two plus two equals four” has nothing to do with adultery, if he were however to say “I will never cheat on my wife again” after he had been caught 5 times with 5 different women in 5 months, you could venture that he is not going to be too candid. Kent Hovind has been caught keeping his money improperly by lying, cheating, and stealing on numerous occasions, this would indicate that he would not give up his money if someone actually did provide him with the most perfect evidence he could ever ask for.

Dodge Beast

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.

Really? I can’t think of many times he’s right. I especially love his “you can cover the world with a single drop of water if you spread it thinly enough” comment. Or his “clouds block UV rays” comment. Or his “there was a giant sphere of ice over the earth” fail. He doesn’t even understand the concept of work or gravitational potential energy. He may be right with a few things, but I can be pretty sure none of them relate to beyond 2nd grade science. Even his conservation of angular momentum makes me want to vomit.

Oh, wait, then there was his Mississippi river delta determines the age of the earth! Or his stalagmites and stalagmites! Those two crack me up.

Dodge Beast

I think he has the right to believe as he does, and to share that belief if he is so inclined.

I think he has the right to believe it, but if he wants to promote ignorance, I will stand at nothing to combat his lies and distortions of decent science.

Dodge Beast

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.

…He was convicted for tax fraud. He got off with a slap on the wrist for not having a building permit and not paying property taxes. He got off with a slap on the wrist for falsely declaring bankruptcy; he kept ignoring the IRS when they gave him one hell of a long time to pay income taxes, he tried to renounce citizenship just to avoid it, then tried suing the IRS for harassment because they were calling him because of the things HE was doing wrong and then finally when over a 2 year period the guy owed half a million dollars in taxes that he owed the IRS, he was FINALLY charged with breaking federal law and going to prison. No, excuse me, he god off damn easily considering how far he pushed the boundary. They could have thrown him in jail far earlier and they didn’t, yet he ignored the IRS and had the audacity to sue them because of his crimes, you can’t go saying “he would have gotten off”, he had a chance, he blew it.

Dodge Beast

Far as I am concerned, he worked just as hard for his education as you did for yours.

Did he? You… do realize all of his degrees are in “Christian education” from unaccredited universities right? I hope for damn sure that I worked harder than that to get into one of the top universities in the world to get a degree in physics so that I may study science rather than make a mockery of it. “Christian education” is hardly science, and his failure to understand even the second law of thermodynamics makes it apparent he’s never studied it.

Dodge Beast

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.

Provide them, because I provided some nice evidence to counter your previous “anomalies”.

And it’s less honest because he quite honestly knows nothing about science. His entire “ice sphere” around the earth would fry, utterly sterilize the earth. His ice asteroid at cometary velocity would do the same thing. His understanding of entropy would mean I can’t clean my room. His understanding of conservation of angular momentum means that I can’t turn a wrench. He does not know science, and so every time he speaks against it, he spews lies and distortions which are very intellectually dishonest.

Dodge Beast

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.

I’m not trying to get you to abandon belief in god, but just to accept evidence. Think! Open your eyes! You refuse and will ALWAYS refuse to believe in evolution, I have provided you numerous ways for evolution to be falsified because I know the theory, I learn about it, you are showing that you really don’t want to. You’re showing that you don’t care about learning, you don’t care about evidence, you simply believe and assert you have the truth already without bothering to confirm it.

Dodge Beast

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.

I choose to accept evidence, you choose to reject it. This is the problem.

[vipr230]

Dryctarth

While I don't want to interfere with vipr230 or Jaaten Syric's rebuttals, as they have put much more time and effort into this that I have, I would like to make a small point that hopefully I can state without requiring much in the way of sourcing.

Feel free to always jump in, I've got no need to be the only one to tear apart arguments, and I doubt Jaaten or Setar are any different.

[Dodge Beast]

Hello, Setar.

Darned if I didn’t fall for it, but when I first presented my original comment, I had specified that I didn’t wish to be drawn into a debate regarding evolution.

However, I have to admit that I had slipped into “debate mode” (and you’re welcome to disagree as to the veracity of my debate skills; it still doesn’t change the fact that my initial statement still stands regarding your friend’s ‘version’ of Mr. Hovind’s statement was in fact, misconstrued if not outright false.).
Whether or not you or any of your friends agrees with me, I am indifferent.

To succumb to debate, I have left meself open for contradiction in that I am questioning your right to believe as you wish, and I don’t feel I have that right. You (and your other chum) have, however, overlooked my intent and chose to openly refute my right to believe as I wish, and completely ignored my peaceful intent.

In truth, you have only lent substance to the fact that most of your ilk aren’t interested in peaceful intent, as it serves your purpose much better to aggregate and berate others who believe differently than you.

I have stated, that folks who consider themselves to be classed as “freethinkers” and “open-minded” are most often anything but. You are welcome to continue seeing anyone who doesn’t agree with you completely as inferior, I know this suits your liking and helps you to feel as though you are the one who is the more “accepting”, and thus, you are the one who has the open mind. After all, your lot seems to believe that everything is alright, as long as it doesn’t require you to accept that some people are old-fashioned in their belief, as I am certain you’d view it. Again, in this, you are welcome.

Originally, when I saw the response offered by Setar, I almost fell back into debate, assembling articles, and gearing for the possibility that another would soon join the “fray” there are, after all, how many of you in your group..? I do not wish to consume my day in babysitting a post to defend a comment I had made…I really have more engaging things to do.

Then I considered what I had originally stated; that I am not interested in a long-winded debate. You see, I may not agree with you, but I do believe you have the right to feel and believe as you do.

Like it or don’t, I also possess the same rights as you. You won’t be likely to change my belief, and I really don’t care if I change yours…after all, that’s not what I am here to do. You, on the other hand, have your motivations, I am certain…and you are unconstrained to keep them.

Again, I am indifferent. Thank you for your time.

[Jaaten Syric]

vipr230

Actually even according to Carl Linnaeus who was of course a Christian creationist. Remember, he was the one to put us under kingdom animalia in the first place, he considered us animals, just special animals in the eyes of god. If god really wanted natural selection to favor humans, then technically we still would be, either way, evolution makes no comment on that. Darwin, well, he doesn’t represent the entire field of biology, contrary to creationist claims.

Of all the (true) christian creationists ever to exist, I must say Linnaeus is probably the only one I think I need to treat to a cold one...or nine. Honestly, I love him not only for his brilliance, but because of how succinctly he destroys (modern) creationist claims. 'Evolution says man is an ape!' Noooo....well, yes, but only because taxonomically he is an ape. 'Only because scientists shoehorn information into their system to fit their preconceived evolutionist notions!' Carl Linnaeus first placed man amongst the primates in 1735, and was a devout catholic (and believe in creation) until the day he died. It is from a Christian creationist that we have our modern system (admittedly tweaked a bit) into which evolution fits so perfectly, and our first instance of man being placed not just among animals in general, but in his proper place in the lineage of great apes. Suck on that Ham.

Oh, and Dodge:

Guess what? ED is not your hugbox. If you come in here and lie to us, we will throw it back at you, much as any group of learned individuals would when you see fit to drone on and on about subjects they hold near and dear which you understand at a third grade level, if that. Don't like our tone? Tough. Show us evidence, any evidence at all of your claims and it'll change. Fail to do so and you have more than earned our disdain.

And neither Setar or I ever said you couldn't believe anything you want. I could care less if you think draino cures cancer, but I'm certainly not going to stand by and let you market it until you show me some sliver of evidence that It's not a horrible bleach-based toxin designed for clearing drains that will kill you in agony instead of fighting your tumor. Seriously. Go right ahead. I won't stop you, but that doesn't mean that your beliefs are automatically worthy of respect, much less immune from criticism.

[vipr230]

Dodge Beast

Hello, Setar.

Darned if I didn’t fall for it, but when I first presented my original comment, I had specified that I didn’t wish to be drawn into a debate regarding evolution.

However, I have to admit that I had slipped into “debate mode” (and you’re welcome to disagree as to the veracity of my debate skills; it still doesn’t change the fact that my initial statement still stands regarding your friend’s ‘version’ of Mr. Hovind’s statement was in fact, misconstrued if not outright false.).
Whether or not you or any of your friends agrees with me, I am indifferent.

To succumb to debate, I have left meself open for contradiction in that I am questioning your right to believe as you wish, and I don’t feel I have that right. You (and your other chum) have, however, overlooked my intent and chose to openly refute my right to believe as I wish, and completely ignored my peaceful intent.

In truth, you have only lent substance to the fact that most of your ilk aren’t interested in peaceful intent, as it serves your purpose much better to aggregate and berate others who believe differently than you.

I have stated, that folks who consider themselves to be classed as “freethinkers” and “open-minded” are most often anything but. You are welcome to continue seeing anyone who doesn’t agree with you completely as inferior, I know this suits your liking and helps you to feel as though you are the one who is the more “accepting”, and thus, you are the one who has the open mind. After all, your lot seems to believe that everything is alright, as long as it doesn’t require you to accept that some people are old-fashioned in their belief, as I am certain you’d view it. Again, in this, you are welcome.

Originally, when I saw the response offered by Setar, I almost fell back into debate, assembling articles, and gearing for the possibility that another would soon join the “fray” there are, after all, how many of you in your group..? I do not wish to consume my day in babysitting a post to defend a comment I had made…I really have more engaging things to do.

Then I considered what I had originally stated; that I am not interested in a long-winded debate. You see, I may not agree with you, but I do believe you have the right to feel and believe as you do.

Like it or don’t, I also possess the same rights as you. You won’t be likely to change my belief, and I really don’t care if I change yours…after all, that’s not what I am here to do. You, on the other hand, have your motivations, I am certain…and you are unconstrained to keep them.

Again, I am indifferent. Thank you for your time.

*facepalm*

This is an insult to basic human intelligence. Honestly, I gave you at least 70 (probably more) links to peer reviewed scientific journal articles, each one providing some rather nice evidence for evolution, explain why it is that you were creating a false dichotomy, and did indeed give you enough to show why evolution is actually science. I shot down each of your "anomalies" with at least 5 articles from peer reviewed journals EACH, yet you still want to assert that all beliefs are equally valid and you really say that we should respect this for the sake of being open minded???

You seem to misinterpret what "open minded" and "free thinking" would entail. I have given you article after article, paper after paper, some addressed specifically to what you claimed fault in. Open minded means you consider the evidence, both sides. We have given you our evidence. I've given you a fricken deluge of it. You have YET to provide us with evidence.... at all. In fact your "anomalies with evolution" were refuted rather easily by peer reviewed scientific journal articles. Yet, in face of the evidence you continue to say "I believe what I choose". That sir isn't in the spirit of being open minded. This is utter hypocrisy. Call us close minded all you want, but we can be swayed by evidence. You have shown yourself to be much like hovind, ignore any and all evidence you see. Don't pretend that all we do is insult and have nothing of substance, if you had bothered to read what I wrote at all you should be well educated on genomics, horse evolution, woodpecker evolution, seeded plant evolution, whiptail lizard evolution, and human evolution. We may be condescending, but it is because of posts like this that ignore all of what has been said before. You ignore everything because you realize that if you were to learn, it would ruin your current world view.

We're close minded? Don't make me sick.