End of Year

Friday Feedback for 8/13/2010

Feedback

In a recent blog, some readers presume that, because of the content, we must not understand how evolution really works. One reader wrote this:

My true intent (at least with this thread) is to demonstrate that the writers here are either ignorant of evolutionary theory, or are intentionally misrepresenting it. If they are making an honest mistake in stating what they believe the theory to say, that’s one thing. However, when they make the same statements, even after being corrected, that is dishonesty. In my opinion, it is missing the mark.

You state: Just because you believe that something isn’t an “accurate representation of what the theory [says]” doesn’t mean that you’re right, and doesn’t make the other person wrong or a liar.” If they are accurately representing evolutionary theory, then they should be able to bring out an example of a text that supports their point. This is a direct challenge to you and to CSE—to examine any modern mainstream textbook on evolution or molecular biology and let me know and every other reader know where it says that chromosome number is related to organism complexity. You won’t find it. I teach on this subject and have used many texts. The fact is that the evidence states otherwise. In fact, there is a name for a related phenomenon—the C-value paradox. This concept is that genome size does not correspond with organism complexity.

Response

Unfortunately, you are missing the point. The goal of the article is not to say that the number of chromosomes is related to evolution, but rather to demonstrate that evolution picks and chooses what to look for in order to make the theory seem possible! You can arrange things in an order all day long, but it does not represent a relationship between the two things. The following example should demonstrate this:

Here we have the famous fork evolution talked about in Seminar #4. Notice the amazing way that the fork evolved from the knife over millions of years! See? Arranging things in order, based on appearance or anything else, does not prove they had a common ancestor, but instead a common designer.

Feedback

In the article “10 Questions for Evolutionists,” several people were upset that many of the questions did not deal with “evolution.”

Response

The article was not titled “10 Questions about Evolution,” it was “10 Questions for Evolutionists.” To say that we are ignorant of evolution theory because the first seven questions deal with the problems before life in the evolution theory is a terrible excuse and an obvious attempt to avoid the questions rather than dealing with some honest issues that need to be addressed. Indeed, “cosmic evolution,” “chemical evolution,” “stellar evolution,”and “organic evolution” have some serious problems before we even reach the stage of “macro” or “micro” evolution. These questions do not show a lack of understanding of the evolution world view, but rather pose a serious threat to the entire religious world view of Evolutionism.

,

Leave22 Responses to testFriday Feedback for 8/13/2010

  1. brian kent August 13, 2010 at 7:18 am #

    What I see is the evolutionist don’t answer questions. They only ask questions and attack you for asking a question. The more they talk about their fairy tale the more questions they raise.

  2. Rocky Salit August 13, 2010 at 9:36 am #

    Your point was a straw man. It was equivalent of someone coming in and saying, “Creationists think God created alien unicorns to destroy the dinosaurs. See they believe in God and dinosaurs, aren’t they stupid? Where are those alien unicorns now?” It made no point, but you are making a nice attempt at a post hoc explanation of it.

    The goal of the article is not to say that the number of chromosomes is related to evolution, but rather to demonstrate that evolution picks and chooses what to look for in order to make the theory seem possible!

    This is just projection on your part. Attempts to falsify evolution happen every day and have happened for the last 150 years. Any scientist that can falsify evolution would become instantly famous. I asked this in an earlier thread but it bears repeating. Do you remember the names of the hundreds of thousands of scientists who verified Newtonian Physics or do you remember Albert Einstein who showed a flaw in Newtonian Physics and proposed a new theory? The facts and evidence lead the way, not cherry picking what we want out of them.

    Yet, people like Ken Ham and yourself fully admit to cherry picking. Claiming that if it doesn’t fit the Bible then it is wrong. This is not how science works. In fact you are doing the exact opposite, you are trying to prove your hypothesis while science is always trying to disprove their hypotheses.

    Have you ever tried to falsify Creationism, and if so how would suggest that be done?

    As to your “example”. Can you show that silverware reproduces with genetic differences? You are making a false analogy or comparing apples to oranges. We can show that living things reproduce (it is a requirement for life) and we can show that there are differences between the child and the parent or parents. We can also show that these differences can be neutral, harmful or helpful to the living thing. We can also show that helpful mutations help the living thing propagate better and pass on their genes. We can also show that these changes can add up over a period of time. We can also show that different outside pressures create different ideals, in other words a harmful mutation in one area may be helpful in another and vice versa. We can also show that living things, that come from the same stock, separated over a period of time can accumulate changes that make it where they cannot reproduce fertile offspring together and tend to look very different from each other. Now can your example show any of that?

    Arranging things in order, based on appearance or anything else, does not prove they had a common ancestor, but instead a common designer.

    So what do you think would disprove the idea of common designer? Would the idea of sight, being done in different ways disprove it? How about the different way animals “learned” to fly? Why would there be such differences in sight and flight if there is a common designer? Why can evolution explain these differences easily through common descent? I am not even going to touch on ERV’s.

    The article was not titled “10 Questions about Evolution,” it was “10 Questions for Evolutionists.” To say that we are ignorant of evolution theory because the first seven questions deal with the problems before life in the evolution theory is a terrible excuse and an obvious attempt to avoid the questions rather than dealing with some honest issues that need to be addressed.

    And yet several people still addressed them. You are now playing semantic games and claiming that each theory is linked because they require the previous theory and not because we have just discovered each one and they fall in a historical time line one after the other. You yourself in a way admit that what you are claiming is not true. You speak out against evolution but your real problem is with abiogenesis and what the first thing or things were. Your claim is that abiogenesis was started by God and was with “kinds” ( a word that is meaningless since it is not defined in any meaningful way), while science is showing that it seems to be more of a chemical reaction that started the first reproducing nucleotides. From each of those different starting points evolution takes over and you really don’t have much of an issue with it. So it does not matter from where the first living thing or things come from, thus you prove that evolution is not dependent on the current hypotheses of abiogenesis. Likewise the same argument can be made for each of your so called “evolutions”.

    These questions do not show a lack of understanding of the evolution world view, but rather pose a serious threat to the entire religious world view of Evolutionism.

    Yet, they do show a lack of understanding. You are redefining the theory of evolution to include other theories that are not required (as I have shown that you don’t believe they are required either).

    What is that “religious” world view? Honestly I see no threat by your questions as they are all easily answered, even if some of the answers are “I don’t know, exactly but we have some good ideas”. I don’t know is not a threat but a place to begin understanding. Also I have mentioned many times before that there are many Christian and other Theist scientists that accept Evolution with no issues. I could not recommend more “Finding Darwin’s God” by Ken Miller.

  3. David Ray August 13, 2010 at 10:36 am #

    I am the one you are quoting above and I must inform you and your readers that you have done it yet again.

    Here we go — You write: “Unfortunately, you are missing the point. The goal of the article is not to say that the number of chromosomes is related to evolution, but rather to demonstrate that evolution picks and chooses what to look for in order to make the theory seem possible!”

    Point 1. Amazingly, you even manage to misrepresent your own arguments. Quoting from the “Possum” blog post: “The theory of evolution teaches that living things are becoming more complex as time progresses. Because the chromosomes in living matter are one of the most complex bits of matter in the known universe, it would seem logical to assume that organisms with the least number of chromosomes were the first ones to evolve and those with the most chromosomes are the end result of millions of years of evolution experimenting to increase complexity in living organisms.”

    Read it. Kent clearly attempted to make a link between chromosome number to evolution. Then, today you say that you were doing no such thing.

    Point 2. Again, you incorrectly state what the theory says. Evolutionary biologists will tell you that “evolution” picks nothing. It is the environment that selects the traits that are passed on to the next generation. Evolution is just a theory that describes this process. In fact, the statement as written suggests that “evolution” is some intelligent entity that points at some creature, bellows some magical incantation and then the creature changes from a dog into a cat. The theory makes no such claims, yet you keep on repeating the same things even after being corrected.

    The above may just be sloppy writing on your part so, lets assume that when you say ‘evolution’ you mean ‘evolutionary biologists.’ In other words, maybe you are suggesting that evolutionary biologists pick and choose examples from the natural world to make it look like the theory is well supported. As an evolutionary biologist myself, I can tell you that neither I or anyone else I know is doing any such thing. We merely look at the data that the world presents to us and then try to figure out what it means. Thousands of honest scientists taking ALL of the information from geology, biology, molecular biology, anthropology and many other fields have come to the conclusion that evolutionary change does happen. We do not pick and choose. Instead, we evaluate the data honestly and then come to our conclusions. In fact, if a researcher is found to be dishonest in representing his results, even if those results favor evolutionary theory, he is going to be reprimanded at the least and probably removed from participating in scientific endeavors. I think it is you who is guilty of picking and choosing. You have decided that this one book holds all of the answers, so you choose the evidence that supports that book and ignore all of the evidence that doesn’t.

    Point 3. You said, “You can arrange things in an order all day long, but it does not represent a relationship between the two things. The following example should demonstrate this: Here we have the famous fork evolution talked about in Seminar #4. Notice the amazing way that the fork evolved from the knife over millions of years! See? Arranging things in order, based on appearance or anything else, does not prove they had a common ancestor, but instead a common designer.”

    Your overly simplistic representation of the scientific process and fallacious fork analogy misses the mark on several levels.

    Researchers do NOT simply arrange things in order, pat themselves on the back, and say they have proved evolution. No, they examine the evidence from the geological strata, from molecular biology, from anatomical analyses, from radiological dating (don’t even get me started on your misrepresentations there), and many other lines of evidence and then determine what the evidence suggests.

    You also appear to be guilty of another misrepresentation. No scientist is claiming that forks evolved over millions of years. These are not living things and are therefore not subject to evolutionary processes.

    Quoting Kent from the referenced video, “If I get buried on top of a hamster, does that prove he’s my grandpa?” Again, a misrepresentation of the theory. See above.

    Finally, to quote Kent from earlier in the video, “If something is proven wrong, take it out of the book. Period. The books ought to be accurate and up-to-date and current and confirmed research.” However, whenever people correct you on your inaccurate descriptions of the theory, as I have just done, you continue to make those same misrepresentations. Take your own advice. Kent goes on to say, “Is there anyone here who would knowingly and willfully deceive students?” I find it shocking that he doesn’t raise his own hand. Kent has been misrepresenting the theory for years, has repeatedly been corrected and yet still makes the same statements over and over.

    I respectfully ask that you stop doing it.

  4. H. Bosma August 13, 2010 at 1:03 pm #

    Again, this post shows how utterly ignorant Eric c.s. are on the evolution theory.
    Evolution is not based on random objects, ordered in a way to make sense. They are ordered along a timeline and incorporate many scientific area to construct the whole picture.

    The nonsense about cosmic, stellar, chemical ect evolution has nothing to do with the theory of evolution. In science, these subjects are not called evolution, but the Kent clan uses that name to suggest a connection.
    How life begon, how earth came into existence and how chemicals did end up on earth, has nothing to do with evolution.
    Evolution explains how organisms diversify, change and adapt to their envitonment. It presumes the existence of life, it does not explain it, it explains why we see the current biodiversity and the diversity in the fossil record.

    What happen by Kent c.s. is constantly and deliberately misinterpretating and misrepresentating science.
    If Kent Hovind was ever a real science teacher, he sure doesn’t show it in his lectures and other materials.

  5. Eric Hovind August 13, 2010 at 11:22 pm #

    Rocky Salit,

    Several problems with your thinking here.
    1. You are saying that evolution only deals with life, not the other “types of evolution” we addressed. You take by complete faith that the cosmos came into existence from nothing, that the nothing that exploded created everything, and that the stardust evolved into life, and then into people. Run on I know but the point is you have some serious problems before we even get to the idea of life evolving. When we speak of evolutionism in general we are referring to the complete religious world view that you hold to. Evolution is much bigger than “living things change over time.”
    2. There are too many “I don’t know” answers from Evolutionists. How did the Big Bang happen? “IDK” How did stars form? IDK How did life evolve? IDK How did symbiotic relationships develop? IDK Why are there serious problems with the dating method? IDK Along with many more.
    3. Why would you say, “There are many Christians that accept Evolution with no issues.” It doesn’t matter! How do we decide what is right and wrong? We must have a standard. That standard is the Word of God. Any attempt to go to any other authority is reduced to absurdity.
    4. Evolutionism is a fog that can fit any landscape of scientific terrain, it is not a theory that has helped science at all! If you feel that it has, I would like you to tell me one advancement that evolution has given to us. It is not why we have computers, cars, rocket ships, or any other advancement. Evolution has done nothing to help science but instead has done more to hinder science than to help it. More money has been spent trying to prove a theory than it is worth. Evolution is dead, let’s leave it’s bones behind and discover what truths God has in store for us in the future.

    It is also worth noting that with the atheistic or evolutionary world view nothing can be known to be absolutely true. Which of course is absurd when the question is asked, “How do you know that to be absolutely true?”

    We have many videos under the webcasts that speak to this if you care to watch them.

  6. Jack Napper August 14, 2010 at 2:00 am #

    1. As has been pointed out to you time and time again Eric 1-4 of your (and KH’s) 6 different types of evolution are complete garbage and show a complete misunderstanding of various scientific disciplines. The Big Bang is not evolution and the cosmos do not evolve. Evolution deals with the biological. Micro and macro are nice terms but are also stumbling blocks for creationists which is why they don’t like it when you ask questions. All evolution is micro.
    2. Again here you lump things in which have NOTHING to do with evolutionary theory. also, who exactly are you asking? The man on the street or a real scientist. Real scientists admit there are things they don’t know. Creationists say “I read it in a book that can be shown to be wrong (bats aren’t birds) and therefore it’s true. EVIDENCE!?!?! Who needs it when I got a book!?”. What problems with the dating methods? Oddly enough you like to misrepresent carbon dating. What about the others? all the “examples” you give of failures (mammoths, snails, etc) have been thrown back in your face and left your crying in the corner curl up in the fetal position dumb-founded when people check the facts. WHAT!?!
    3. “That standard is the Word of God. Any attempt to go to any other authority is reduced to absurdity.” Seriously? What argument do you have as to why? A false dichotomy? You gonna drag out Sye again? This should be good for a laugh. Show me why your statement is nothing more than an assertion. Go on…let’s have it.
    4. Oh this old one again? Seriously get your head out of the sand. covering your ears and pretending these things don’t exist when you are present with examples is laughable.

    “It is also worth noting that with the atheistic or evolutionary world view nothing can be known to be absolutely true. Which of course is absurd when the question is asked, “How do you know that to be absolutely true?””

    OK Eric put your money where your mouth is.

    For something to be absolute it must…
    1.) Exist Independently
    2.) Exist not in relation to other things
    3.) Exist not relative to other things
    4.) Be true for every possible circumstance

    So Eric can you…
    1.) Provide an example of an absolute truth
    2.) Demonstrate for us how it satisfies 1 – 4 above
    3.) Show how that truth is not “Systemic”

  7. die kerze August 14, 2010 at 6:46 am #

    @ Eric Hovind

    1. The scientific theory of evolution deals only with living things. You can say it doesn’t, but that is still wrong.

    “Evolution is much bigger than “living things change over time.””
    No it’s not.

    2.
    “How did the Big Bang happen?”
    As far as i know Quasar fluktuation in a singularity.

    “How did stars form?”
    Hydrogen+Helium+gravity= stars

    “How did life evolve?”
    Yeah, that’s evolution, you’ve got it!
    Natural selection+random mutation.

    “IDK How did symbiotic relationships develop?”
    Slowly specialization of 2 forms of life that shared a habitat.

    “Why are there serious problems with the dating method?”
    ehm… there are non. IF you are referring to the old “living things are dated to be thousands of years old!!!” chestnut: carbon dating does only work on organisms that collect their C14 out of the atmosphere.

    3. Why would you say, “There are many Christians that accept Evolution with no issues.” It doesn’t matter! How do we decide what is right and wrong? We must have a standard. That standard is the Word of God. Any attempt to go to any other authority is reduced to absurdity.

    Good point. You are talking about religion. We are talking about science.
    you got the difference, congratulations.

    4. let’s see. Vaccines. Small pox are erased, Polio is almost (some muslims ordered their people not to tak the vaccination, thanks to them it’s spreading back.)
    Evolutionary models are used to predict the mutation of viruses, instead of just saying “it has been designed to kill us, let’s just pray” ;) )
    Engineers use evolution to develop better machines in a very brief time and so on.

    But science is not about something that’s helpful, it’s about knowing something about the unierse we live in. It is the search for answers.
    If you are happy with just one book, fine.
    A scientist was once asked “will it help to defend the nation?”
    his response: “no, but it will help to keep the nation worth defending.”

    If you think evolution is dead, look up Kitzmiller vs Dover.
    Evolution has been in the devastating process of science for over 150 years.
    it stood the test. Nothing has been discovered that would falsify it, it’s predections were right, it works and we can observe it.

    If you want to believe in a god you are free to do so, but don’t try to sabotage science. You can’t win Eric.

    Hope is was able to answer some of your questions.

    Sincerly, die kerze

  8. Joakim Rosqvist August 14, 2010 at 12:16 pm #

    > You are saying that evolution only deals with life, not the other “types of evolution” we addressed. You take by complete faith that the cosmos came into existence from nothing, that the nothing that exploded created everything

    Nope. Saying that evolution only deals with life means that it is /irrelevant/ (to the theory of evolution) how the cosmos came into existence or how life started. Regardless of whether a god did it o if it was the result of a natural process, the principles of evolution (mutation + selection) still holds.

    And as for all this “nothing” business – statements that “nothing created the universe”, “nothing exploaded” etc are (mis)representations from creationists. Note that there is a difference between
    1) Not saying where the universe’s energy comes from
    2) Saying that the universe’s energy comes from nothing
    Big Bang theory does the former.

    There are certainly questions where science’s current answer is “I don’t know”. That implies an opportunity for further research and would only constitute a problem if there were other better theories. Where did God come from? From where did God get the energy to create the universe? How did God make the stars? Creationists will only say that God somehow always existed and somehow created these things – i.e., no better than “I don’t know”. Science can at least give us some detail.

  9. Jack Napper August 14, 2010 at 12:02 pm #

    Oh wow! Egg on my face?! My past comment oddly has shown up after I submitted that new comment only minutes ago.

    Hmmmm….
    My screen grabs show the comment missing. I submit the new comment bringing it to your attention and suddenly the comment is back! OK, I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt and chalk it up to a possible loading error.

    • CSE August 14, 2010 at 12:27 pm #

      To Jack Napper.

      Not too sure if you understand how moderating blog comments works. When you post a comment on our blog, you will see it added to the list of comments immediately. But then that comment doesn’t actually get published on the blog until it is first approved by a administrator of the site – hence the sudden “disappearance” of the comment. Once a moderator reads the comment, and decides to either approve it or deny it, then it will be seen (or not seen) on the actual blog comment list. This usually takes time due to the fact that we don’t have an individual sitting in front of computer all day waiting for your comment to be posted; which would explain the gap of time between your original comment, the disappearance of it, and then the magical re-appearance of that same comment.

  10. Nigel McNaughton August 14, 2010 at 11:58 pm #

    brian kent is clearly blind, the questions where answered repeatedly.

  11. Nigel McNaughton August 15, 2010 at 12:13 am #

    Eric I am pretty sure we went over this on your previous blog.

    The Theory of Evolution does not depend on a particular answer to:
    What Started Life?
    God could be the right answer. Time Travellers could be the right answer. Aliens could be the right answer.
    Where did the Universe come from. God could be the right answer. Cyclic Infinite Universe could be the right answer.

    The Theory of Evolution simply doesn’t care. The answer to those questions doesn’t change anything about the Theory.

    You must know that the best theory on the formation of the Universe has already radically changed since Darwin wrote his book. From Steady State to the Big Bang.
    Biologists weren’t running around screaming “AHH NOOO EVERYTHING CHANGED!” because it didn’t change biology.

  12. Eric Hovind August 16, 2010 at 6:32 am #

    LOL! “:The Big Bang is not evolution and the cosmos do not evolve.” Well then Jack, How did it get here?

  13. Eric Hovind August 16, 2010 at 6:40 am #

    When we look up the word “evolution” it has a lot of different meanings! Even in many Biology textbooks the term is first defined as “change over time”. Of course anyone could agree with that! Later they narrow the definition to say evolution is the study of how life has changed over time. Then they narrow it a little further to say it is a change in species over time.

    Don’t try to tell me that Evolution does not include the rest of the “types” of evolution. You can be blind and ignorant if you wish, but I would encourage you to “wake up”!

  14. Rocky Salit August 16, 2010 at 8:56 am #

    1. You are saying that evolution only deals with life, not the other “types of evolution” we addressed.

    That is because it does, it is in the definition (evolution is the change in the inherited traits of a population of organisms through successive generations). You have made up a new definition of evolution that you try to knock down. This is called a straw man, except it is not even a good straw man.

    You take by complete faith that the cosmos came into existence from nothing,

    Define nothing. If you mean an absence of mass, then kind of yes. There appears to have been energy though and quantum fluctuations.

    that the nothing that exploded created everything,

    First off it was not an explosion, but a rapid expansion. Also it didn’t create anything as you mean, but instead the energy that makes up everything as we know it already existed (E=MC^2 energy and mass are the same). That energy then changed into mass, via quantum mechanics.

    and that the stardust evolved into life

    Well we still are stardust. It also didn’t evolve, it was chemical reactions, not quite reproduction as anyone would describe it. What happens when you mix vinegar and baking soda? Does it evolve?

    and then into people.

    A very shortened way of saying it, but I guess true. Although people do not appear to be an end goal so to speak.

    Run on I know

    Some might say a bit of a Gish Gallop.

    but the point is you have some serious problems before we even get to the idea of life evolving. When we speak of evolutionism in general we are referring to the complete religious world view that you hold to.

    Again making some big assumptions into my actual religious worldview. Of course you are trying to demonize science by calling it religious, which in a way is odd. I guess you can then try and get it removed from schools or say since their already is something religious then other religious things should be allowed.

    Evolution is much bigger than “living things change over time.”

    Actually no, it is not. There are fine details on how it occurred but overall that is a very basic definition of evolution.

    2. There are too many “I don’t know” answers from Evolutionists. How did the Big Bang happen? “IDK”

    You realize that is followed with a but, yes? We may also never know exactly how anything happened, we don’t know exactly how gravity happens to this day, but we can get some good ideas. It seems that what caused the Big Bang was quantum fluctuations.

    How did stars form? IDK

    Bad, example there. With the formation of hydrogen and helium all you need is gravity after that.

    How did life evolve? IDK

    Abiogenesis seems to be a chemical reaction that created the first “reproducing” nucleotides. But yes, we don’t know exactly and again may never know.

    How did symbiotic relationships develop? IDK

    Wow, another bad example. Two lifeforms can benefit from each other, take for example the Egyptian Plover and the Nile Crocodile. Currently a Plover gets free food by picking at the left overs stuck in a crocodiles teeth, while the crocodile gets its teeth cleaned, which allows it to stay healthier and live longer (clean teeth are important). Over time one living thing, which would normally do some function on its own, will lose that ability since the other symbiotic thing is doing it. Thus it is able to better utilize resources (bodies have limited energy resources) for other actions. Thus the two organisms become dependent on each other.

    Why are there serious problems with the dating method? IDK

    There are? Like what? I see Die seems to have covered the old canard of carbon 14 dating. Understanding limitations to dating does not make them wrong. That is like saying since certain watches break underwater, all watches are wrong.

    3. Why would you say, “There are many Christians that accept Evolution with no issues.” It doesn’t matter! How do we decide what is right and wrong? We must have a standard. That standard is the Word of God. Any attempt to go to any other authority is reduced to absurdity.

    It does matter, because you make it matter by insisting that anyone who accepts evolution is not a Christian (I have pointed this out every time it has occurred on this blog). You are creating a false dichotomy.

    What does evolution say about right and wrong? Nothing, because it is not a philosophy. You are now making a false analogy.

    As for the standard, I hope to see how you explain away all other religions and the fact that the “Golden Rule” has appeared in all cultures.

    4. Evolutionism is a fog that can fit any landscape of scientific terrain, it is not a theory that has helped science at all!

    So you are not planing on taking any flu shots this year, yes? I know that is what you call Micro-evolution (by the way that is called moving the goal posts). This goes back to my point that your issue is with abiogenesis and not evolution.

    If you feel that it has, I would like you to tell me one advancement that evolution has given to us. It is not why we have computers, cars, rocket ships, or any other advancement.

    Others have already given you examples and pointed out that science is not obliged to give you anything but to inform.

    Evolution has done nothing to help science but instead has done more to hinder science than to help it. More money has been spent trying to prove a theory than it is worth. Evolution is dead, let’s leave it’s bones behind and discover what truths God has in store for us in the future.

    Like I pointed out in my first comment. Evolution has been attempted to be dis-proven for 150 years and it has yet to happen. That is not to say in the future this will always be the case, because new data is always coming in, but as for now it is the best we have. I will ask again (as you seemed to ignore all my questions), what would disprove creationism or common designer?

    It is also worth noting that with the atheistic or evolutionary world view nothing can be known to be absolutely true. Which of course is absurd when the question is asked, “How do you know that to be absolutely true?”

    Look here you are again conflating atheism and evolution! Just like I have pointed out before and emphasizing what I said about your point #3.

    Now where in atheism or evolution does it make the philosophical comment that nothing can be known to be absolutely true? You are moving into semantic games.

    We have many videos under the webcasts that speak to this if you care to watch them.

    I have seen your videos with Sye. Sye plays a semantic game that proves nothing. He ignores anything that doesn’t go his way and shifts the burden of proof. He asserts that he is right then asks you to prove him wrong but you can’t provide any evidence, even if you show something is axiomatic (like logic). I do not deal with the petty games of Sye.

  15. S. Odom August 16, 2010 at 8:12 am #

    Hi Eric, et al,
    I appreciate that you maintain something of an open forum here and you are not censoring viewpoints. Most creationists will not allow such content. I understand that you will likely never change your mind about this topic, even when faced with overwhelming evidence. Mostly because your entire livelihood is, at this point, entirely based on creationism. As well as, most likely, your relationships with friends, co-workers, family, etc.
    Fortunately, I never found myself in such a compromising position, and as a former creationist (grew up in a Baptist home, went to church three times a week, etc), I took the time to actually explore the other side of my beliefs and study what “evidence” actually existed for the theory of evolution.

    I was blown away.

    The evidence in terms of distinct scientific disciplines all point to the exact same answer, the exact same tree of life. It is actually … beautiful. It is obviously impossible to lay out all the evidence here in a single blog post, but to anyone reading (including you, Eric) if you really pause to look, objectively, you will find the exact same thing I found. Truth. Evolution is true, it happens now, and has happened for millions (and billions) of years. It’s the reason we have an appendix, hair follicles on every inch of our body, wisdom teeth and “goose bumps”. It’s the reason certain creatures are only found in certain islands or climates, etc, etc, etc.

    I guess that’s all I wanted to say for now. And on the question of “evolution” and the other “types”… here’s the first paragraph from Wikipedia on the topic of “Theory of Evolution”

    Evolution is the change in the inherited traits of a population of organisms through successive generations.[1] After a population splits into smaller groups, these groups evolve independently and may eventually diversify into new species. Ultimately, life is descended from a common ancestry through a long series of these speciation events, stretching back in a tree of life that has grown over the 3,500 million years of life on Earth. This is visible in anatomical, genetic and other likenesses between groups of organisms, geographical distribution of related species, the fossil record and the recorded genetic changes in living organisms over many generations. To distinguish from other uses of the word evolution, it is sometimes termed biological evolution, genetic evolution or organic evolution.

  16. Jack Napper August 16, 2010 at 10:13 am #

    When you look up these definitions you are essentially getting the same definition Eric. Whether it’s more narrow or vague it’s the same definition.

    Perhaps you could try looking up the definition of, well DEFINITION. I’m sure of course you’ll see more than one there two.

    “Don’t try to tell me that Evolution does not include the rest of the “types” of evolution. You can be blind and ignorant if you wish, but I would encourage you to “wake up”!”

    You just keep spewing forth this same old argument don’t you.

    How is the Big Bang evolution?

    The cosmos do not evolve.

    Chemicals do not “evolve” (I suggest picking up a grade school chem book Eric).

    All evolution is micro. There is not some limiting factor which stops micro. Seriously, why do creationists avoid this question? What is the limiting factor of micro-evolution?

    Your 6 types silliness has been beaten to death and you still drag it out. Your father claimed that he would stop using garbage arguments if they were proven wrong/stupid. Are you as dishonest? Not very “Christian of you” is it?

    I noticed you ignored my previous post regarding absolutes. Cherry pick one or the other but let’s see if you ignore both.

  17. die kerze August 16, 2010 at 5:43 pm #

    Eric, the scientific theory includes the change over time of living things.
    Look it up and be serious.
    And by the way, we answered your question, regardless if they deal with evoltuion or astronomy.
    Do you got nothing to say about htat?

  18. Eric Hovind August 16, 2010 at 8:01 pm #

    @ S. Odom,

    Just wondering if you have ever seen the seminar series from my Dad, Dr. Hovind? You can watch it for free right here on the site. http://www.drdino.com/category/type/video/creation-seminars/
    I know, I know, it is a url! But since this is our site I felt the freedom to put it up!
    Most of your questions are addressed in the series and they will blow your mind.

    Now, If you have seen them and still aren’t convinced, try this statement out: Without the God of the Bible, you can’t prove anything! I know it is a bold statement. but take a look at some of the videos we did on the subject. http://www.drdino.com/proving-god-part-1-foundations/
    This 4 part series gives an introduction to the fact that without God you can not prove anything.

  19. Nigel McNaughton August 16, 2010 at 9:52 pm #

    No Eric Sye’s game is essentially ‘I claim that you can’t use logic without first asserting my version of God exists, disprove me without using logic, otherwise you prove that my God exists! Gotcha’.

    He is simply asserting that which he is trying to prove. He hasn’t proven anything. If you listen to his most recent ‘debate’ he admits it’s not a conversation starter or even a conversion tool (it doesn’t convert people) it’s simply a conversation killer.

    It’s really a shame that you have fallen for it so hard.

  20. MICHAEL MILLS August 17, 2010 at 9:06 pm #

    Just had to chime in with EVERYONE else on this issue…. I first need to say THANK YOU for having an open forum like this where not only Atheist but THEISTS can also chime in… It really is amazing to see the responses from some people who actually use arguments like “if you really wanted to learn about evolution I’m sure you could go to a local university…” OK and if an ATHEIST wants to learn about how life REALLY came into existence they could simply pick up a Bible… Cheaper, faster, more accurate and certainly no where near as complex! By the way, the simplest answer on this one really IS the correct one. GOD did it. That’s it. Plain and simple.

    To argue that planetary evolution and biological evolution are NOT interconnected is like saying you can have peanut butter without first having PEANUTS. IT’S NUTS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    The evolution of the universe and the cosmos and all that is IS a HUGE problem for the Atheist and by default the person who believes in Evolution in any significant capacity again based upon one’s definition of the word Evolution right? If we are simply referring to two horses creating a new breed of horse then I believe that even someone of my limited intellect can grasp that one. Likewise a dog breed could be bred to create a new breed. But it’s still a dog. Now I’m not a vet nor do I claim to have vast knowledge of veterinary science but I’ve never once seen two dogs mate and later a horse pop out of the equation. If you have PLEASE let me know. IT DOESN’T HAPPEN! It isn’t observable, quantifiable, testable except to validate it as FALSE…

    YES, in order for Evolutionary views to be accurate as a scientifically valid origin of all life and prior to that the universe at large which MUST exist by default for organic matter to ever have the chance to reproduce, then YES the Atheist (evolutionist) MUST MUST MUST MUST have built a single cohesive canvas upon which is painted an interwoven masterpiece that clearly provides answers to the questions raised by us ignorant, back wood theist so that we may then become as enlightened as you and join in the great celestial cosmic mud dance to celebrate the pit that our ancestors first slopped in and later (for no reason) jumped out of…

    Someone I respect greatly posed this… If you were to fly from here to the surface of MARS and land. Then, using your powers of observation determine that there were a giant collection of rocks that were organized in the shape of a triangle you might conclude that something like these could have occurred over hundreds of millions of years through random processes. It’s just a geometric shape. HOWEVER, if in the middle of that large triangle there were a podium with a single piece of paper with the phrase “Hello John, I hope you brought some great recipes…” would you for ONE SINGLE SOLITARY SECOND ASSUME that that sentence came about as a result of of millions of years of evolution?

    The Atheist’s and their twins (evolutionists) make the assumption that non-intelligence somehow makes a leap to intelligence which is in and of itself the STUPIDEST thing I’ve heard. Yet GOD created a universe and built it upon laws, created beauty and intelligence and everything that is contained therein as PROOF to US of HIS existence and yet we seem compelled to dismiss the collection of evidence of INTELLIGENCE that’s embodied within our very on genetic code? Not to mention EVERYTHING that is around us?

    Along those lines, if someone where to chance upon a town that was deserted and with no living person to speak. Yet within that town there was a library and in that library a collection of the town’s LAWS. Would you for one SECOND assume that not only that book you were holding but the very town itself somehow evolved? NO you would NOT. Yet anytime we ignore the LAWS that govern our universe as proof of a divine intellect we are doing the same thing.

    Does all this refute evolution? Depends upon who is doing the asking and upon what are your basing your question. If you mean are these challenges that must be met and rationally thought out then YES it does and SHOULD give any Atheist reason to pause and postulate for a moment. If we approach something so important in shaping our worldview with such a flippant attitude then we do not only the person raising the objection a dis-service but by default ourselves as well. These are questions that MUST be answered FIRST.

    Taking the “they’re two different issues” way out is not a free pass, just a way of stating you don’t have an answer so let’s dodge the question. Look, if I want to build a house I must first have the place to build it otherwise I can’t build the house. My simple intellect can see that. If there’s no Earth then I have a hard time constructing a theory of how life evolved on that planet don’t I? To simply say well it happened because of a process we know little to NOTHING about, have never observed, documented, tested, verified or proven mathematically to be 100% FEASIBLE does put the evolutionist back to the intellectual drawing board. You must have the ground BEFORE you build the house. Simple saying that well we’re working on the house while someone else finds the location is perfectly OK IF we’re talking about modular homes. Yet even though this Earth and all that is contained herein is in a state of motion even I must recognize that the neither the Earth nor the inhabitants herein are living in a cosmic trailer park!

    YES, there is a HUGE amount of circumstantial conjecture and theory upon which to base evolution. But there are fantasy RPG’s all over the web with rules that govern them as well. They have laws and processes, book written to validate them as real. People will immerse themselves into them for HOURS and even DAYS of continuous play taking only time for sleep and hopefully restroom visits. In fact, pick out the most popular one and you will find that the amount of data that validates it as REAL is probably (in bits and bytes) as plentiful as the cumulative knowledge upon which the Theory of Evolution is founded. Yet it is a FALLACY! Having millions of people who buy into the lie that it exists doesn’t validate it as real nor does a HUGE collection of information! It is “a dream world NEO!!!!”

    The fact of the matter is that people are GOING to believe in evolution until the end of the world itself. People rejected the belief in God long before we had evolution didn’t they? Solomon said “the fool has said in his heart there is no God..” I find it kind of ironic that he didn’t say “mind” instead of “heart” there. You see, Solomon knew that there is within man something that transcends our intellect and goes to our very core. The part of us that prejudges what I am saying here as right or wrong before it’s even been read. A part that HATES God or LOVES God. The difference between me and an Atheist (don’t try and weasel out and say that evolution isn’t the religion of Atheism cause it is), is I love God, I love my neighbor and I love YOU Mr. or Ms. Atheist. That is something else you cannot quantify or qualify in evolution. You see, you have to dismiss LOVE to believe in evolution and Atheism don’t you? “Oh but wait I love my….” Great but that merely validates that love is something that shouldn’t be invalidated doesn’t it? If I choose to believe that I’m here simply because of a billion billion billion chance mutations then nothing has any value does it? Then I must conclude that my 2 1/2 year old daughter DOESN’T “LOVE” me. I MUST accept that LOVE is simply the chemicals in my brain creating a neurochemical connection causing me to “feel” the way I do and LOVE is without merit. If I believe this then I don’t LOVE my wife. It is merely an extension of my desire to reproduce. “BUT I LOVE MY WIFE/HUSBAND?CHILD” you may say… GREAT… But that merely Validates you and validates LOVE as something that has value and transcends a few connections in our brain that are put there to cause our species to want to survive… Another question I might have for an evolutionist is how is it possible that the most advanced species on the planet (humans are whom I’m referring to) are the only one’s capable of mass extermination, bitter hatred over ideological differences and creating the very processes that could ultimately destroy the human race itself (biological warfare, nuclear warfare, etc) IF the same laws that allegedly cause a species to seek to preserve itself are hardwired into the DNA of those species? If we are really just a bunch of animals running around wouldn’t the truths of natural selection, survival of the FITTEST be all the more exemplified in the most advanced species? Wouldn’t our advanced nature bind us all the more to Naturalistic laws? Could stories about a GOD of omnipotence and omniscience actually prevent us from doing what comes “natural”? You know, do whatever feels good and who cares were just cosmic slime? Have sex with LOTS of people to spread our seed around and have lots of offspring oh wait guess that goes against survival tendencies since the female gets stuck caring for the offspring or bashing its head in when there isn’t enough food… But even though our family unit is disintegrating (a sign of de-evolution?) we still do not see people regressing as a whole to such base tendencies do we? Could it be that within us there is a part that KNOWS that all the “evidence” supporting evolution were little more real than the books supporting an RPG as being a real REALITY?

    As I stated earlier, I’m not a Dr, a member of any organization that give me any credentials before, after or in my name. You can choose to dismiss me as another wack-job if you want to. But thankfully, I and people like me still represent the 90% of America that believes that GOD created the Heavens and the Earth. I’m part of the 90% that believes in Truth and Justice for ALL because ALL MEN ARE ENDOWED BY THEIR CREATOR WITH INALIENABLE RIGHTS… LIFE, LIBERTY AND THE PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS! I believe that you are NOT a cosmic marshmallow. I believe you are a man or woman created in the image of an almighty GOD and your life has VALUE. It MEANS SOMETHING. My daughter’s life MEANS something and so do her “I love you Daddy’s”. My Wife’s love means something and so does my love for her!

    I lay before you a choice, “life and death, choose life.” Choose meaning, choose purpose. God created you in his image and after his likeness and you can have fellowship with him and know him intimately. He sent his son to die for you because he loves you. CHOOSE LIFE!

  21. Ryan Vinter August 18, 2010 at 4:52 am #

    lols at Nigel falling hard?

    Thats a pretty big statement for an evolutionist which has no evidence what so ever? Its rather obvious that creation has won the war.