Name-Calling vs. Fact | Creation Today

Our Websites

Name-Calling vs. Fact

It is amazing to me how many times discussions with Evolutionists turn into arguing matches and lead to a lot of illogical name-calling. Tactics will turn ad hominem very quickly.  This is how a typical argument goes:

Mr. Creationist (Mr. C): Mr. Evolutionist, why do you believe in evolution when there is no scientific evidence to back it up?

Mr. Evolutionist (Mr. E): What are you talking about? There is lots of evidence to support evolution. Why do you think all scientists believe in evolution? There is not some conspiracy out there with a bunch of scientists in a smoke-filled room dictating what all other scientists must believe. They follow the evidence and draw conclusions from that evidence. The evidence points toward evolution.

Mr. C: No, the evidence points toward “micro-evolution.” There is no evidence that everything came from nothing. There is no evidence that a “singularity” could explode and create the universe. There is no evidence to show that stars formed. There is no evidence that life came from non-life. And there is no evidence to show that animals or plants are related to totally different kinds of animals or plants, such as a dog being related to a hamster.

Mr. E: Yeah, but we see small variations happen all the time, that is evolution in action. It takes such a long time for the big changes that we can’t see it happening in our lifetime, but it did happen. Just imagine all the little changes that take place happening over a long period of time and there you have it—evolution!

Mr. C: So what you’re telling me is that you don’t see the evidence but you believe it happened.

Mr. E: You know, you creationists are so stupid. You just stick your head in the sand and ignore all the science that we see today. You probably believe in a flat earth, too. You really need to catch up to what science has taught us and get on the bandwagon of reality.

And there you have it!  Mr. Evolutionist resorts to name-calling and illogical arguments in an attempt to cover up what he knows to be true and believes is a lie. The truth is that we do not see evidence of Evolution.

,

75 Responses to Name-Calling vs. Fact

  1. Mike Goebel January 11, 2011 at 9:10 am #

    You are correct. Happens all the time.

  2. Nathan Warden January 11, 2011 at 10:55 am #

    Yep, happens to me all the time too. Doesn’t name calling fall under the “Appeal to emotions” fallacy? I really think it does since they’re trying to make you think that if you were on their side you won’t be “stupid” anymore. Thus, they use it to try and win the debate. And oh boy do they hate it when a Christian calls them on a logical fallacy. They usually try and justify it since the rules only apply to you and don’t really apply to them. :)

    God bless you all at CSE, you’ve been such a blessing to me! :)

  3. John Bebbington January 11, 2011 at 11:52 am #

    “And there you have it! Mr. Evolutionist resorts to name-calling.”

    At least he doesn’t send his opponent to everlasting hell for failing to accept his argument”

    “…and illogical arguments in an attempt to cover up what he knows to be true and believes is a lie.”

    Please give us an example of an illogical argument. Stop your game of hit-and-run and stay around to argue a point.

    “The truth is that we do not see evidence of Evolution.”

    Eric, the totality of your formal post-high school education was two semesters at preaching college. You have no education in science whatsoever so why should we accept anything you have to say on the subject when every utterance you do make shows your complete lack of scientific understanding?

    If you are willing to stick around you might like to discuss your father’s video on bird evolution by addressing the points made by myself and/or, more pertinently, the excellent post by Jay Liverstitch. You might even head over to Pharyngula and address the points made by PZ under today’s post headed “Dave, Andy, and Georgia and their unbelievable, ridiculous fable”. On the other hand, having slandered the honestly-held beliefs of those who disagree with you, on past form you will doubtless ignore all comments.

    By the way, is not calling some-one a liar as you have just done a typical example of what you claim to abhor?

  4. andrew Ryan January 11, 2011 at 1:20 pm #

    Eric, the conversation you imagine is nothing like what I’ve seen on these boards. In practice, getting you to respond to ANY point is impossible. Look at all the unanswered questions that pile up in each thread. Besides, who are the name callers? Google the word ‘evilution’, you’ll find millions of ad hom spouting creationists.

    Stephen Holshouser: “Regarding crimes; I don’t doubt that there are scores of people who call themselves Christians who commit crimes.”

    You’re playing ‘no true Scotsman’. If the stats on crime can’t be trusted, then why believe the stats on charity giving? Are these self-reporting surveys on charity giving? You think no one ever lies about how much they give?

  5. andrew Ryan January 11, 2011 at 1:46 pm #

    “Kids, in case you don’t know, there are a few differences between birds and dinosaurs. You can’t just stick a few feathers on a dinosaur and get it to fly. Reptiles have four legs, while birds have two legs and two wings. If the front legs turned into wings, the evolutionist has to believe that somewhere in the evolutionary spectrum they had to be half-leg, half-wing. This means, during that time, the creature couldn’t run or fly, and had a serious survival problem.”

    What, like ostriches, penguins or chickens? They can’t fly and seem to survive just great.

  6. John Bebbington January 11, 2011 at 1:56 pm #

    “There is no evidence to show that stars formed.”

    From today’s Science Daily webpage:

    “In the sharpest view yet of Hanny’s Voorwerp, Hubble’s Wide Field Camera 3 and Advanced Camera for Surveys have uncovered star birth in a region of the green object that faces the spiral galaxy IC 2497, located about 650 million light-years from Earth. Radio observations have shown an outflow of gas arising from the galaxy’s core. The new Hubble images reveal that the galaxy’s gas is interacting with a small region of Hanny’s Voorwerp, which is collapsing and forming stars. The youngest stars are a couple of million years old.”

    So, Eric, as a world renowned cosmologist, please give us your considered ruminations as to why what is currently being observed is not star birth (I don’t know that it is but I also know that I don’t know it isn’t). But I ask that you don’t resort to that tired old vapid cop-out of “different world views”, i.e. “evidence isn’t evidence because I say it isn’t”.

  7. John Bebbington January 11, 2011 at 2:26 pm #

    Eric,

    Some weeks ago Jeff Brace asked me for a proof of an old Earth. I gave him one – well, at least an Earth some orders of magnitude older than 6,000 year – being the example of the ice core project in Greenland. A Thomas Hawkins responded by using your father’s disgracefully dishonest repudiation based upon the “Lost Squadron” story. Jeff has always avoided giving any substantive response.

    My original post was on December 7th at 4:37 am. Perhaps you would like to respond by explaining why your father has never apologised for his slanderous criticisms of the honest scientists engaged on the study. Or is bearing false witness not a problem for your “world view”?

  8. Mark James January 11, 2011 at 3:51 pm #

    Hi Eric,

    As a “blind, deaf man at the back of a deep, dark cave refusing to accept the concept of a rainbow” I would have to respectfully suggest that this is the blogging equivalent of kicking a hornets nest!

  9. Ed Snipples January 11, 2011 at 4:02 pm #

    Pot calling kettle…

  10. Trevor Page January 11, 2011 at 5:22 pm #

    Typically, my conversations would go differently, as soon as I’d say something like “no evidence everything came from nothing,” or “no evidence of a singularity,” they’d fly off the handle with accusations of me changing the subject to “abiogenesis” or the big bang. What can I say then? I ask, “wll, it had to start somehow, right? and that’s what you believe, right?”

    Of course, they’ll then defer to an appeal to ignorance, “well, they’re still trying to figure that out, etc…” By that point, they’re typically frustrated enough they walk away. When/how can I get to the gospel message, then?

  11. k. zielinski January 11, 2011 at 5:50 pm #

    > There is no evidence that everything came from nothing.
    perhaps but this is beside the point as evolution says nothing about the origin of the universe.
    > There is no evidence that a “singularity” could explode and create the universe.
    This seems to be the last point again, and still not about evolution.
    > There is no evidence to show that stars formed.
    Yes its confusing but star formation is still not biological evolution.
    > There is no evidence that life came from non-life.
    Again evolution does not attempt to answer this question, though we are getting close here.

    > And there is no evidence to show that animals or plants are related to totally different kinds of animals or plants, such as a dog being related to a hamster.
    Finally a claim about evolution. Except that there is evidence its called DNA. Degrees of similarity of various genes in the DNA strand, show degree of relatedness.

    The fact that we can and do use animals for testing drugs intended for humans is evidence of relatedness (though admittedly a more pragmatic one).

    Also the fossil record.

  12. Jeff Maus January 11, 2011 at 7:03 pm #

    Eric & Kent,

    May God bless each of you richly as you continue to fight the good fight. No doubt that the naysayers will soon be on this blog attacking you (and probably me for defending you :o)

    Remember that Noah dealt with similar naysayers for years, right up until the time they drowned because they refused to hear the truth. Stay on the ark of truth, and count it all blessing when other attack you for His namesake.

    Regards,

    Jeff

  13. Alex M January 11, 2011 at 7:33 pm #

    Oh the fallacies.
    In a clever entry, Eric himself makes an Ad-Hominem attack on scientists. Firstly no self respecting scientist will ever respond in such a way. The fact that you get internet trolls and other underagers on the internet that call you names doesn’t mean that real credible scientists will. Nor does it mean that scientific theories are wrong.

    Secondly, you have so many red herrings in the third paragraph.

    “There is no evidence that everything came from nothing. There is no evidence that a “singularity” could explode and create the universe. There is no evidence to show that stars formed. There is no evidence that life came from non-life.”

    The four sentences above are all irrelevant to the veracity of evolution.

    FURTHERMORE, I’m an astrophysicist and anyone claiming that there’s no evidence for stars forming is simply ignorant of the past 60 years of astrophysics. Not only are there thousands of papers written on the subject, there are equally as many observations of stellar formation and starbursts, that all fit stellar models. Please do not claim this if you don’t want to be ridiculed.

    In fact ridiculing also ensues from your inability to understand the mountains of genetic evidence that supports evolution. Every protein and gene studied falls neatly into the tree of life also supported by morphology, fossils and embryology.

    Your continual ignorance to all these facts may just be enough to inspire antipathy in the scientists that have dedicated years of their life working in the field.

    But then again that’s just a penny for my two cents.

  14. Philip Kingsley Subas January 11, 2011 at 11:42 pm #

    I would suggest to use the word Expanded instead of exploded… Let us not give an opportunity for the evolutionists to say that as an excuse.

  15. Jack Napper January 12, 2011 at 12:59 am #

    Evolutionists turn into arguing matches and lead to a lot of illogical name-calling. Tactics will turn ad hominem very quickly.

    As long as you call people sinner or use silly names like EVILutionists it’s certainly not an ad-hom. For the record it’s not an ad-hom when you poke fun or flat out insult some while addressing the argument. Ad-homs are where you do these things RATHER THAN address the argument. The problem here is that your argument was addressed already. Instead you simply have the Creationists spewing the same tired assertions with nothing to back them up. Nice try though.

    Mr. Evolutionist, why do you believe in evolution when there is no scientific evidence to back it up?

    Nice framing. Can you spot the fallacy here? Interesting you start off having Mr. E put forth valid points in the first response. It goes downhill after this.

    No, the evidence points toward “micro-evolution.”

    That’s rather hard to accept as…
    1. Creationists have fail to DEFINE what a kind is.
    2. Creationists have FAILED to explain how the determine/classify/categorize kinds.
    3. They have FAILED to explain the limiting mechanism which only allows for variation within kinds (made funnier by all the above).
    4. Ignore all evidence because they don’t know how to use a dictionary to look up the difference in definitions between EVIDENCE and PROOF.

    There is no evidence that everything came from nothing. There is no evidence that a “singularity” could explode and create the universe. There is no evidence to show that stars formed. There is no evidence that life came from non-life.

    FACEPALM x 4. What do these have to do with EVOLUTION??? Besides resorting to obviously moving the goal post and dumping all science in the heading of evolution what is the point here other than showcasing the ignorance of Mr. C?

    And there is no evidence to show that animals or plants are related to totally different kinds of animals or plants, such as a dog being related to a hamster.

    Actually there is but Creationists basically make goofball assertions like “genetics and DNA prove creation” without explaining how and further showcasing their ignorance.

    So now we have Mr. E making the classic argument that we mostly see in Creationists videos while ignoring any scientific studies on “macro-evolutionary” change. Of course this is a layman that exists in the mind of a creationist because that’s the only place they can best anyone. It also shows that Creationists believe (confirmed in Eric and friends “creationguys” videos) that individuals evolve and not populations. Amazingly enough Eric attempts to create a strawman without actually trying to defeat it Instead he just ignores everything and makes a baseless assertion…

    So what you’re telling me is that you don’t see the evidence but you believe it happened.

    Here we see a response from the fictional “Mr. E-type”. I bet when Eric was dreaming this up he imagined Mr. E with a surfer-stoner “Bill and Ted” voice he uses for fictional college students he claims to have bested in debates.

    Yep, happens to me all the time too.

    So your opponent gets tired of you copy and pastes drivvel and results to name calling???

    Doesn’t name calling fall under the “Appeal to emotions” fallacy?

    No but this entire blog post is. In fact there was a poster in the comments sections that tried this stunt a few months back. Dang now I’m going to have to try and find that one. For the record your post also falls under that fallacy.

    YOUTUBE: Holy Hallucinations << really funny series

  16. Don Carr January 12, 2011 at 1:12 am #

    I can’t get through to anyone about evolution either.

    Nor does anyone seem to care that just about all the churches are mind controlled by the same crowd that promotes evolution.

    Nor does anyone care that Christianity is the parent teaching to the many schools including Chinese, Tibetan, Sanskrit and Egyptian.

    Nor does anyone believe that another cataclysm is due very soon.

    Nor does anyone believe that Christ and an enormous Host of support is due to externalize soon to remove the chosen and a few others.

    Nor does anyone believe that this universe is just one tiny speck in an infinite array of universes, with life everywhere.

    There’s a lot more disbelief than “evolution” going on here.

  17. andrew Ryan January 12, 2011 at 9:16 am #

    Trevor Page: “…They’d fly off the handle with accusations
    of me changing the subject to “abiogenesis” or the big bang.” Well
    they’re right: you are changing the subject. The evidence for
    evolution exists independently of the the clues we have for how
    life began or for how the universe began. Evolution is about
    biology, abiogensis is about chemistry, and the big bang is about
    physics or cosmology. “What can I say then?” Why not actually ask
    them about the evidence for evolution, if that’s what you genuinely
    want to know? “I ask, “wll, it had to start somehow, right? and
    that’s what you believe, right?” Why make such an assumption? Given
    that the majority of people who accept evolution also believe in
    God, the odds are against you that you’re right in assuming they
    don’t see God behind the origin of the universe. I’ll say it again:
    most people who accept evolution also believe in God. They do not
    see the two as mutually exclusive. Therefore conflating evolution
    and atheism makes no sense. In fact, the majority of people who
    accept the evidence for the Big Band ALSO believe in God. Most
    simply see the Big Bang and evolution as the methods by which God
    created first the universe and then the diversification of life we
    see on earth. At any rate, if you have evidence that something
    happened, while arguing about what happened BEFORE that thing might
    be interesting, it doesn’t affect the evidence you have for that
    thing. We can piece together the evidence that JFK was shot
    independently of questions we may have about how JFK’s ancestors
    travelled to America.

  18. Jeff Brace January 12, 2011 at 9:26 am #

    All arguments aside, the mathematical probability of a
    SINGLE CELL coming about by chance is 1/10340,000,000, the fraction
    1 divided by 1 followed by 340 million zeros! And then this cell
    must live long enough to reproduce. And then the reproduced cell
    must live long enough to do the same. And then more “accidents”
    must happen to cause more complexity. And then more “accidents”
    must happen to cause more complexity. And long before the first
    “accident” evolution is nothing but a silly, mystical fairy tale.
    Since this is a fact, debating “if” evolution is valid is
    senseless.

  19. James McGraw January 12, 2011 at 9:36 am #

    Dear Eric, I think you are mistaken. Let’s try the end of
    that conversation again: … Mr. C: So what
    you’re telling me is that you don’t see the evidence but you
    believe it happened. Mr. E: Not at all. For
    example, you accept the reality of “micro-evolution.” Would you
    please then explain, scientifically, the biological or genetic
    mechanism which permits all manner of “variation” within a “kind”
    (i.e. “micro-evolution”) but somehow slams the door shut at the
    “kind barrier.” preventing one “kind” from “varying” into another
    “kind.” Mr. C: … Actually, I’ll let you
    provide the response. Will you ignore the request? Will you resort
    to illogical name-calling? Or will you go where no creationist has
    gone before and actually provide a cogent, valid response?

  20. John Bebbington January 12, 2011 at 10:08 am #

    Don Carr said: “I can’t get through to anyone about
    evolution either.” That, Don, is because you have nothing useful to
    say about it. You waffle and skim at subjects but never engage. One
    thing you did write some weeks ago: “Even the Hovinds with a solid
    science background…” indicates you have little grasp on reality
    as neither Hovind has any such background nor claims any. As for
    cataclysms don’t you have your own at the moment down in
    Melbourne?

  21. John Bebbington January 12, 2011 at 10:11 am #

    Philip Kingsley Subas wrote: “I would suggest to use the
    word Expanded instead of exploded, Let us not give an opportunity
    for the evolutionists to say that as an excuse.” Given that
    creation was completed over 6,000 years ago what is the universe
    expanding into at the moment? Or do you deny it is
    expanding?

  22. Julie Collins January 12, 2011 at 2:28 pm #

    i have been researching creation science for awhile. and
    every time i get into a debate with evolutionists, it is them who
    always start the ad hominem attacks. i will not deny that
    creationists also steep to name calling and other logical
    fallacies, but it has never been nearly as bad with creationists
    than it has been with evolutionists.

  23. Brad January 12, 2011 at 2:41 pm #

    Thank you Eric, Your comments are so true and I have found
    the same thing in witnessing to our schools science teachers. They
    really don’t care about the truth they only care about what they
    are supposed to teach. It is a shame that they are blind to they
    truth. 2 Peter 3:5 they are willingly ignorant. God bless you and
    your work! My prayers are with you and your father.

  24. Stephen Holshouser January 12, 2011 at 4:47 pm #

    andrew Ryan, “You’re playing no true Scotsman”. If the
    stats on crime can’t be trusted, then why believe the stats on
    charity giving? Are these self-reporting surveys on charity giving?
    You think no one ever lies about how much they give?” I don’t think
    your “no true Scotsman” comparison fits here. There’s plenty of
    true, practicing Christians that we can observe today. I just said
    there are many that talk the talk, but don’t walk the walk,
    precisely as the Bible says. Concerning charity again; I figure up
    everyone’s donations at my church, so I know first hand who gives
    what. (Just fyi; we don’t pass the plate, and the pastor rarely
    says anything about tithing… so nobody is pressuring anyone, and
    no one knows who gives what except me and the person giving) Our
    church helps with drug rehab programs, feeds and clothes people,
    helps people find jobs, counsels, visits nursing homes, and, yes,
    the MOST important thing– preaches the gospel. So we are not just
    “paying priests’ wages.” Having said that, I would put some of our
    poorer members donations (not even counting their time and labor
    spent or what they’ve given elsewhere) up against the charitable
    donations of all the atheists combined that frequent this blog.
    Andrew, you are not your own. You do not hold your own self in
    existence. The talents that you have been blessed with have been
    loaned to you by God. Your intellect is for Him, your time is for
    Him, your resources are His. Your life is meant for the glory of
    Jesus Christ. He has given you a wife, a job, friends, and enough
    money to give to others, as you told me earlier. Consider Romans
    2:4 and may He continue to bless you. SH

  25. John Bebbington January 12, 2011 at 4:48 pm #

    Mark James wrote: “As a “blind, deaf man at the back of a
    deep, dark cave refusing to accept the concept of a rainbow” I
    would have to respectfully suggest that this is the blogging
    equivalent of kicking a hornets (sic) nest!” Nah. Not really. It’s
    the equivalent of kicking a heap of damp sand as there will be no
    intelligent response from you, Eric, Don or the rest of the motley
    CSE creationist crew on the matter – which is a pity as we Ancient
    Earthians would love to hear from you.

  26. John Bebbington January 12, 2011 at 5:03 pm #

    Jeff Maus: “No doubt that the naysayers will soon be on
    this blog attacking you (and probably me for defending you )” Jeff,
    you haven’t said anything yet worth attacking. “Remember that Noah
    dealt with similar naysayers for years, right up until the time
    they drowned because they refused to hear the truth.” I think that
    that you need to read your Bible. None other than Noah and his
    immediate family were given the option. There is nothing in Genesis
    about Noah dealing with naysayers – you made that up. Only Noah –
    not even his relatives – found favour with God. Doesn’t that strike
    you as odd? What a weird, fractious, partial, nasty god you
    worship. “Stay on the ark of truth, and count it all blessing when
    other attack you for His namesake.” Nobody here attacks the Hovinds
    for their faith – only for their proselytising of scientific
    ignorance. You seem to have missed the entire point. Back to bed
    with you.

  27. Mark James January 12, 2011 at 9:47 pm #

    Hi John, You couldn’t help your self, could you! On a blog
    discussing the merits of reasoned argument versus personal insult
    you had to go and say: “Eric, the totality of your formal post-high
    school education was two semesters at preaching college. You have
    no education in science whatsoever so why should we accept anything
    you have to say on the subject” I assume, on the basis of this
    statement, that you have written off the work of Charles Darwin as
    well?

  28. Mark James January 12, 2011 at 10:06 pm #

    John (again), You wrote: “At least he doesn’t send his
    opponent to everlasting hell for failing to accept his argument” On
    this basis, if I were to tell you that jumping in front of a train
    might be bad for your health, I would be guilty of sending you to
    your death if you ignored me and jumped! Far from sending anyone to
    hell, Eric is doing all he can to make sue NO-ONE goes
    there.

  29. Kenneth Tyner January 12, 2011 at 10:07 pm #

    That’s too funny. I see it all the time. Is it okay if I
    repost it?

  30. Billy Joe Grace January 12, 2011 at 11:05 pm #

    Mr. Bebbington, you can insult a man’s education all you
    want, but at some point you must come to grips with the fact that
    everything you think you know was taught to you by someone else.
    You BELIEVE that evolution happened, but you can’t prove it and you
    know it. All of your evidences are self imposed to support your
    BELIEF. You are willingly ignorant of two things, creation and the
    flood. Science as you know it was written by men. Corrupt men with
    agendas of their own. You will BELIEVE a man when he tells you what
    you want to hear, but refuse to believe the GOD that gave you life.
    You are without hope, and your evil-lution religion leaves you
    guilty of unbelief in the sight of a holy GOD. Faith in evolution
    is indeed the blindest of faiths.

  31. Billy Joe Grace January 12, 2011 at 11:11 pm #

    Jack Napper, Where is your evidence? How hard do you strain
    at those gnats anyway? Doesn’t name calling fall under the “Appeal
    to emotions fallacy? No but this entire blog post is. In fact
    there was a poster in the comments sections that tried this stunt a
    few months back. Dang now I’m going to have to try and find that
    one. For the record your post also falls under that fallacy. Does
    this include you?

  32. Billy Joe Grace January 12, 2011 at 11:13 pm #

    Don Carr, Sir, you need to be born again.

  33. Mark James January 13, 2011 at 3:18 am #

    Hi Jack, K Zielinski and Alex, Evolution is a gradual
    process in which something changes into a different and usually
    more complex or better form. The word is not, and has never been,
    reserved solely for biological systems. If you believe the universe
    started out as a singularity and, over time, became what it is
    today, then you believe it evolved. Same with star formation and
    the origin of life. Now, if Eric were to suggest that The Theory of
    Evolution (referring to Darwinian evolution) included these
    processes, then you would have something to complain about.
    Otherwise, you are just denying what you believe and I have to
    wonder… why?

  34. andrew Ryan January 13, 2011 at 8:10 am #

    Stephen Holshouser: “and, yes, the MOST important thing, preaches the gospel.”

    Stephen, funding preachers is no more charity than funding your favourite politicians. I could claim that the time I put in on this site is charity, as I’m spreading truth, but I doubt you’d accept that. Let’s stick to the things we both agree need support.

    “I figure up everyone’s donations at my church, so I know first hand who gives
    what.”

    That’s ONE CHURCH. You were quoting nationwide figures on charitable giving, and comparing Christians to atheists. By definition the atheists aren’t going to be contributing in your church, and you’ve got no way of personally verifying how much they’re giving OUTSIDE of your church.

    So again, the stats you cite, are these self-reported giving? If you don’t trust the stats on Christians committing more crimes than atheists, why trust the stats on charitable giving? If the criminal ‘Christians’ aren’t ‘walking the walk’, isn’t it just as likely that ‘not walking the walk’ Christians are also lying about their charitable donations?

    “I would put some of our poorer members donations (not even counting their time and labor spent or what they’ve given elsewhere) up against the charitable donations of all the atheists combined that frequent this blog.”

    Pure conjecture. I could make the same claim in reverse. Where’s your EVIDENCE?

  35. John Bebbington January 13, 2011 at 11:13 am #

    Jeff Brace wrote: “arguments aside, the mathematical probability of a SINGLE CELL coming about by chance is 1/10340,000,000, the fraction 1 divided by 1 followed by 340 million zeros!”

    Wrong again, Jeff. The denominator you have written is 1 billion 340 million which is 1 followed by fewer than 11 zeros – count them for yourself. You are wrong by an order of magnitude of 34 million – which is quite accurate for a YECist so you should be pleased with yourself.

    But no cell came into existence by chance. Whatever the process was it was a very slow development and happened because the machinery within the walls of the primitive cell tended to survive to reproduce. Overall, that was not a matter of chance although the ability of any particular cell to survive was chance – a bit like the ability of a human being to survive to maturity and have offspring. Not all of us manage to grow to adulthood although human beings as a population do survive and reproduce.

    “And then this cell must live long enough to reproduce. And then the reproduced cell must live long enough to do the same. And then more “accidents” must happen to cause more complexity. And then more “accidents” must happen to cause more complexity. And long before the first “accident” evolution is nothing but a silly, mystical fairy tale. Since this is a fact, debating “if” evolution is valid is senseless.”

    So you are exactly the same as your parents. I hope they were both good looking.

    By the way, even YECists including the Hovinds believe in evolution. Indeed, they believe in an enormously fast rate of evolution, much faster than staid, old neo-Darwinists are able to accept. So you need to catch up on modern YECist thinking as your opinions are proving to be an embarrassment to the movement.

  36. John Bebbington January 13, 2011 at 11:55 am #

    Mark James wrote: “You couldn’t help your self, could you! On a blog discussing the merits of reasoned argument versus personal insult you had to go and say: “Eric, the totality of your formal post-high school education was two semesters at preaching college. You have no education in science whatsoever so why should we accept anything you have to say on the subject”

    Is anything I have written in that paragraph erroneous? If had written “Eric, you know nothing about brain surgery so I don’t want you to operate on my damaged frontal lobes” would that be an unreasonable and personally insulting position?

    “I assume, on the basis of this statement, that you have written off the work of Charles Darwin as well?”

    In writing that last you show yourself to be deeply ignorant of Charles Darwin and his over 60 years of constant scientific study. He made a myriad of biological discoveries but as far as I am aware Eric & Kent between them have not made or even claim to have made a single one.

    But if I have slandered Eric then then him stand up for himself and tell us exactly what is the extent of his scientific education. But he won’t, will he?

  37. John Bebbington January 13, 2011 at 12:03 pm #

    Mark James wrte: “John (again), You wrote: “At least he doesn’t send his” opponent to everlasting hell for failing to accept his argument” . On this basis, if I were to tell you that jumping in front of a train might be bad for your health, I would be guilty of sending you to your death if you ignored me and jumped! Far from sending anyone to hell, Eric is doing all he can to make sue NO-ONE goes there.”

    A slight difference, Mark. Firstly, jumping in front of a moving train is a reproducible and demonstrable hazard. The idea of an everlasting hell is nothing more than a relatively modern ill-thought-out and untestable supernatural belief. Secondly, jumping in front of a train requires a positive action by the jumper. The truth of evolution requires no decision by anybody. Indeed, evolution was true billions of years before modern man had evolved.

  38. John Bebbington January 13, 2011 at 12:13 pm #

    Does anybody else have trouble with this website?

    Often on Safari the page will not load but puts up an error message: “Warning: require_once(./wp-includes/registration.php) [function.require-once]: failed to open stream: No such file or directory in /home/drdinoco/domains/drdino.com/public_html/wordpress/wp-content/plugins/external_session/external_session.php on line 336”

    Every time it does load, even in Chrome or Firefox, all the menus pop open for a few seconds.

    There are other errors but these two will suffice.

  39. Jack Napper January 13, 2011 at 12:50 pm #

    All arguments aside, the mathematical probability of a
    SINGLE CELL coming about by chance is 1/10340,000,000, the fraction 1 divided by 1 followed by 340 million zeros!

    WOW Jeff!!! I love Creationist math. Random made up numbers copied and pasted from videos based on arguments from ignorance and incredulity. If I didn’t have better things to do I’m sure I could find half a dozen Creationists spouting evening bigger numbers.

    And long before the first
    “accident” evolution is nothing but a silly, mystical fairy tale.
    Since this is a fact, debating “if” evolution is valid is
    senseless.

    You JUST contradicted yourself. You don’t get to apply statistical analysis to something and then say it never happened. If there is a chance that it could have, no matter how small, it’s not impossible but merely improbable. Of course we see the same old flawed “first cell” argument too but we’re talking about evolution so try and stay on topic.

    Mr. Bebbington, you can insult a man’s education all you
    want, but at some point you must come to grips with the fact that
    everything you think you know was taught to you by someone else.

    Billy, I nearly fell over in my chair when I read this. Wasn’t everything you know taught by someone else? Heck your biblical information isn’t a firsthand account. This is a rather weak argument.

    You BELIEVE that evolution happened, but you can’t prove it and you know it. All of your evidences are self imposed to support your BELIEF. You are willingly ignorant of two things, creation and the flood.

    It’s not willful ignorance to not reach a conclusion and then find evidence to support it while discarding anything that contradicts it. So you BELIEVE there was a creation event or a flood? Do you have some evidence to support this that won’t easily reveal your ignorance or are you wishing us to work backwards from a conclusion with no support? Come on bring on your Everest clams!

    Science as you know it was written by men. Corrupt men with agendas of their own.

    Yep, forget the fact that experiments can be tried and duplicated by doubters

    You will BELIEVE a man when he tells you what
    you want to hear, but refuse to believe the GOD that gave you life.

    Sorry almost fell over again. First you say science was written by men but the hold up your book written by…MEN.

    Jack Napper, Where is your evidence?

    Thanks for completely missing the point of the article. However, do Creationists delight in sticking their heads in the sands whenever evidence is presented and then asked the next person “OK where’s YOUR evidence?” and repeat. Interestingly enough, whenever I ask Creationists for evidence in support of their position they stare blankly. I see a link to “the mountains of evidence” on Conservapedia (mirrored by Creationists) and get redirected to an article about Christian apologetics!!!

    For the record your post also falls under that fallacy. Does
    this include you?

    Much like Eric we see that you don’t understand what constitutes a logic fallacy. Heck I’ve heard him whip the label out many times without bothering the explain how it’s fallacious or which fallacy it is (see thecreationguys videos on YouTube).

    Example by a creation of the fallacy:
    Creationist put forth clear and rational arguments and mountains of evidence. What do those mean wicked sinful God denying evil atheist poop-heads do? The make fun of them and make them sad and it makes me cry.

    So explain how I tugged at the heart strings or how else my post qualifies as an appeal to emotion.

  40. Don Carr January 13, 2011 at 1:02 pm #

    We all need to be born again.

  41. Jack Napper January 13, 2011 at 1:39 pm #

    SORRY missed one…

    Hi John, You couldn’t help your self, could you! On a blog
    discussing the merits of reasoned argument versus personal insult you had to go and say: “Eric, the totality of your formal post-high school education was two semesters at preaching college”

    Nice quote mining Mark. However, when you read the rest of the post you’ll notice John wasn’t taking a stab at Eric but pointing out a fact and calling into question his credentials. Now a low blow would have been pointing out his father’s dubious teaching credentials and that he’s on tape stating that he trained his son to give verbatim presentations. Of course this would further make Billy Joe look silly with his “science taught by men” argument.

    “You have no education in science whatsoever so why should we accept anything you have to say on the subject”

    You don’t get to discount one and not the other two (Hovinds).

    I assume, on the basis of this statement, that you have written off the work of Charles Darwin as well?

    I assume that you likely just got your Darwin facts from a Kent Hovind seminar or Conservapedia. It’s quite clear that you didn’t bother reading into Darwin’s life and his extensive scientific studies at prestigious universities.

  42. Stephen Holshouser January 13, 2011 at 2:57 pm #

    Andrew Ryan

    “Stephen, funding preachers is no more charity than funding your favourite politicians. I could claim that the time I put in on this site is charity, as I’m spreading truth, but I doubt you’d accept that. Let’s stick to the things we both agree need support.”

    I disagree. Without the preaching of the gospel, people remain in the bondage of sin and degradation. I can name many examples of those whose lives were destroyed by sin, who have become valuable members of society because of their new, spiritual birth. When you feed or cloth an individual, it is only temporary, but if their lives are changed by the gospel and they believe the Bible, they see the call to be a blessing to others. When you become a Christian, your life is no longer self-centered, but centered upon the Lord and serving others. Don’t you want people around to be less self-centered and practicing the verses listed below? It will NEVER come from preaching ATHEISM to them.

    Eph 4:28 Let him that stole steal no more: but rather let him labour, working with his hands the thing which is good, that he may have to give to him that needeth.

    1Ti 5:8 But if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel.

    Ga 6:10 As we have therefore opportunity, let us do good unto all men, especially unto them who are of the household of faith.

    1 Tim 6: 17 Charge them that are rich in this world, that they be not highminded, nor trust in uncertain riches, but in the living God, who giveth us richly all things to enjoy; 18 That they do good, that they be rich in good works, ready to distribute, willing to communicate;

    Heb 13: 16 But do not forget to do good and to share, for with such sacrifices God is well pleased.

    I could go through my whole post the other day that you originally objected to; how that without Christianity and Jesus Christ as the Head of that, we would not be blessed like we are today. And without gospel preachers, Christianity would not be here (nor would we).
    If not simply for practicality sake, you should be thanking God for gospel preachers, or who or whatever it is you atheists thank when you are thankful (boy, that must be an uncomfortable scenario for you guys)

  43. Jennifer Preston January 13, 2011 at 3:04 pm #

    Mark James wrote:
    “Hi John, You couldn’t help your self, could you! On a blog
    discussing the merits of reasoned argument versus personal insult
    you had to go and say: “Eric, the totality of your formal post-high
    school education was two semesters at preaching college. You have
    no education in science whatsoever so why should we accept anything
    you have to say on the subject” I assume, on the basis of this
    statement, that you have written off the work of Charles Darwin as
    well?”

    Back in the Late 1800s and early 1900s, in Britain, there was not really a higher education system at that time. Therefore not many people had degrees and you could essentially work in any career, including science, through pure experience and starting at the bottom, learning on the job. Fast forward 150 years and it is a different story. There has been this expansion of higher education, and of science as a whole. Science has expanded so much it now has some very specialised subjects (You cannot expect an evolutionary biologist to know anything about the Big Bang thoery, and you cannot expect a physicist to know any thing about biological evolution). In this day and age to work in Science you are expected to have at least a PhD in a relevant subject.
    We are not comparing Eric/Kent Hovind to Charles Darwin. What we are saying is that, in 2011, the modern world, in this day and age, when you need a relevant PhD to work in a particular area of Science, why should we listen to Kent and Eric Hovind in 2011, when they clearly have no relevant qualifications on the subject. In 2011, if I want to know anything about physics I’m gonna go to the guy with a PhD in physics, but if I want to know anything about how to teach people Kent Hovind will be at the top of my list.
    Kent Hovind seems to be mashing the whole of Science under the term “evolution” and then expecting every scientist to know everything about every part of science. This is just plain wrong.

  44. Stephen Holshouser January 13, 2011 at 3:09 pm #

    Andrew Ryan (part 2),

    “So again, the stats you cite, are these self-reported giving? If you don’t trust the stats on Christians committing more crimes than atheists, why trust the stats on charitable giving? If the criminal “Christians” aren’t “walking the walk”, isn’t it just as likely that “not walking the walk” Christians are also lying about their charitable donations?”

    I think the stats are probably reasonably accurate. There is a chance, though, that anyone could lie about it, there are probably no polls where at least some people don’t lie. You don’t think lying is “wrong” do you? I was just pointing out that the believers I know personally are very generous with their time and money.

    Hey, I answered your question about what I thought biological life was the other day; why haven’t you answered my simple question about when you think death began, since you believe life is a continuum?

  45. Stephen Holshouser January 13, 2011 at 3:12 pm #

    andrew ryan (part 3),

    “Pure conjecture. I could make the same claim in reverse. Where’s your EVIDENCE?”

    It was just a hypothesis that we both know won’t be proven for sure. It wasn’t supposed to be evidence. I could definitely be wrong, but I don’t think so.

  46. John Bebbington January 13, 2011 at 4:12 pm #

    Billy Joe Grace wrote: “Mr. Bebbington, you can insult a man’s education all you want,…”

    Pointing out that some-one does not have a scientific education is not insulting. If you were to write that I have no education whatsoever in Far Eastern languages I would not be in the least offended as it is true. Even if it weren’t true I still wouldn’t be offended as I would put it down to your ignorance of my educational history and I would correct you accordingly. Anyone heard from Eric lately?

    “…but at some point you must come to grips with the fact that everything you think you know was taught to you by someone else.”

    That is true, Billy Joe. And those things I tested and found to be false I rejected and those I checked out and found to be true I tentatively accepted.

    “You BELIEVE that evolution happened, but you can’t prove it and you know it. All of your evidences are self imposed to support your BELIEF.”

    The evidence for evolution is so vast that it would be perverse and foolish of me not to accept that it is a real phenomenon. I accept evolution on the basis of the wealth of the evidence which surrounds me. You reject it in spite of the evidence.

    “You are willingly ignorant of two things, creation and the flood.”

    I was deeply aware of both the creation stories and the flood stories many years before I knew anything of the theory of evolution. Later, I examined in some detail the “theories” of Philip Gosse, Walt Brown, Hugh Ross, Henry Morris etc etc. and found all of them wanting. I have also corresponded with a number of prominent American creationists but, without exception, they run away from the discussion. I have a small group of YECists in the States with whom I correspond and consider friends. So, for someone who (I’m guessing) probably has never read a single book on any aspect of science, please don’t be so arrogant as to suggest that I am “willingly ignorant”.

    “Science as you know it was written by men.”

    No. For example, gravity existed long before Newton. All Newton did was to formulate a mathematical model which as accurately as could be measured appeared to describe the physical effect of spatial matter upon itself. Do you dispute that Newton was correct?

    “Corrupt men with agendas of their own. You will BELIEVE a man when he tells you what you want to hear, but refuse to believe the GOD that gave you life.”

    That is a religious and not a scientific statement. You choose to ignore the vast majority of the rules, stipulations and religious requirements set out both in the Old and New Testaments so I don’t think that you make for much of a God-believing standard bearer.

    “You are without hope, and your evil-lution religion leaves you guilty of unbelief in the sight of a holy GOD. Faith in evolution is indeed the blindest of faiths.”

    I have no faith whatsoever in evolution any more than I have faith in metallurgy or the science of cheese-making. What can be shown to work and work predictably is good enough for me.

  47. Jeff Brace January 13, 2011 at 9:33 pm #

    Andrew – “Stephen, funding preachers is no more charity than funding your favourite politicians. I could claim that the time I put in on this site is charity, as I’m spreading truth, but I doubt you’d accept that. Let’s stick to the things we both agree need support.”

    If it is not charity, why are we able to deduct tithes from our tax return. All churchs for the most part are 503c entities.

  48. Jack Napper January 14, 2011 at 12:28 am #

    Hi Jack, K Zielinski and Alex, Evolution is a gradual
    process in which something changes into a different and usually
    more complex or better form. The word is not, and has never been,
    reserved solely for biological systems.

    Firstly your description of how evolution works is wrong. SOMETHING does not turn into SOMETHING else. Species evolve. Populations evolve. Individuals do NOT.

    Now you can play your semantics game all you want but you apparently never bothered to open a dictionary or are attempting to apply the word to instance outseide of the other definitions. FAIL

    If you believe the universe started out as a singularity and, over time, became what it is today, then you believe it evolved. Same with star formation and the origin of life.

    I started as a baby. Then I was a child. Then a teen. Now I am an adult. Does that mean I evolved? My city used to be a town. Did it evolve? You wouldn’t really even say that it did unless you were talking to a layman. Did you really think you could play the semantic game and win?

    Now, if Eric were to suggest that The Theory of
    Evolution (referring to Darwinian evolution) included these
    processes, then you would have something to complain about.

    I suggest you pick up a copy of the Creationist’s Guide to Redefining Term and look up one of their favorites…EVOLUTIONISM.

    Otherwise, you are just denying what you believe and I have to wonder, why?

    Now that’s just sad.

  49. Duane January 14, 2011 at 2:08 am #

    @ Mark James January 13th at 3:18 am

    “Hi Jack, K Zielinski and Alex, Evolution is a gradual
    process in which something changes into a different and usually
    more complex or better form. The word is not, and has never been,
    reserved solely for biological systems. If you believe the universe
    started out as a singularity and, over time, became what it is
    today, then you believe it evolved. Same with star formation and
    the origin of life. Now, if Eric were to suggest that The Theory of
    Evolution (referring to Darwinian evolution) included these
    processes, then you would have something to complain about.

    Otherwise, you are just denying what you believe and I have to
    wonder, why?”

    Have you even been paying attention to Kent and Eric? This IS what they suggest. They have always included these non-related fields when they discuss the Theory of Evolution. In the Hovinds’ world, they only have the beginning as told in Genesis, so they conflate all origins to be about the Ultimate Origin. The Theory of Evolution (as proposed by Charles Darwin) is a biological process that takes it for granted that life exists and that we live on an ancient earth. It makes no explanation for how that life came to exist. It’s like discussing how Shakespeare was influenced by Chaucer while you keep demanding to know where Chaucer got his paper, what kind of animal was skinned for the parchment, what kind of ink did he use , that Middle English was not originally Germanic and modern English sprang suddenly and fully formed just in time for King James Bible.

    @Jeff Brace January 12th at 9:26 am

    “All arguments aside, the mathematical probability of a
    SINGLE CELL coming about by chance is 1/10340,000,000, the fraction
    1 divided by 1 followed by 340 million zeros! And then this cell
    must live long enough to reproduce. And then the reproduced cell
    must live long enough to do the same. And then more “accidents”
    must happen to cause more complexity. And then more “accidents”
    must happen to cause more complexity. And long before the first
    “accident” evolution is nothing but a silly, mystical fairy tale.
    Since this is a fact, debating “if” evolution is valid is
    senseless.”

    Complete garbage copy and pasted from a 1000 Creationist sites. Those numbers are pulled directly from someone’s posterior and are irrelevant, anyway. Those numbers are purported to be about the chances of a modern complex eukaryote cell coming into existence at random while no one suggests that is how it happened. Not to mention that the first cells were much simpler than current prokaryotes.

    @John Bebbington January 12th at 10:11 am

    “Philip Kingsley Subas wrote: “I would suggest to use the
    word Expanded instead of exploded. Let us not give an opportunity
    for the evolutionists to say that as an excuse.” Given that
    creation was completed over 6,000 years ago what is the universe
    expanding into at the moment? Or do you deny it is
    expanding?”

    Who says it has to expand into anything?

    @Stephen Holshouser January 12th at 4:47 pm

    “Concerning charity again; I figure up
    everyone’s donations at my church, so I know first hand who gives
    what. (Just fyi; we don’t pass the plate, and the pastor rarely
    says anything about tithing, so nobody is pressuring anyone, and
    no one knows who gives what except me and the person giving) Our
    church helps with drug rehab programs, feeds and clothes people,
    helps people find jobs, counsels, visits nursing homes, and, yes,
    the MOST important thing preaches the gospel. So we are not just
    “paying priests’ wages.” Having said that, I would put some of our
    poorer members donations (not even counting their time and labor
    spent or what they’ve given elsewhere) up against the charitable
    donations of all the atheists combined that frequent this blog.”

    That’s what is so dangerous. It is the world’s oldest Ponzi Scheme. Fill people’s heads with tales of Hell and Damnation and Ultimate reward and debauchery and then control them and collect money from them, especially the ones who can least afford it. I’ve seen it first hand. My wife’s uncle and his wife went to a church and although they didn’t have 2 nickels to rub together and they were falling behind in their bills and finally had to get a divorce because she was giving most of their money to the church. Another friend with a wife and 3 children was having problems making his mortgage and he told the church that he couldn’t keep up with his tithing, and he was told by the minister that he should get an apartment. That’s what is so dangerous about ministries like this. Religion depends upon the ignorance of its followers to believe in its false promises and exaggerated claims. “Sure, you are good but poor, so you will be rewarded in the next life with mansions and golden streets while the bad people will get their comeuppence.” You don’t have to make any effort to prove anything and no one has ever come back to deny any of it. It’s the perfect scam. It even had built in verses gainsaying the people with common sense that scoff at this nonsense (that Peter verse so favored by the Hovinds). People are always going to be willing to believe stupid things (astrology, crystals, homeopathy, “The Secret”, etc.). What Hovind does is put the veneer of science to patently absurd assertions. Never mind that his “science” is cobbled together from cranks and kooks and he represents the opposing side with lies, half-truths and distortions. How many times in this blog have you guys threatened our everlasting souls with eternal damnation if we refuse to accept your “Truth”. If you can convince people that this magical fantasy world actually has some substance, then they will believe you represent this supernatural world and then the money can roll in. You start with children and indoctrinate them with these deep seated beliefs that leave them open to be preyed upon by anyone with the gift of gab and a $2 prayerbook. How many preachers have to be caught with their hands in the till until it is obvious? Sure, churches can do good work, at the cost of recruiting more for the scheme (I’ve yet to see church-led drug/alcohol counseling or any other charity work that didn’t include proselytizing.). If charity is so important, then give directly to actual charities that give 80-90% instead of churches that only give 5-10%. The rest of it is just a social club. I’ve yet to see the social club that expects 10% of your income, and then pays no taxes.

  50. Manuel Little January 14, 2011 at 4:56 am #

    I think everyone needs a bit of help on this topic. Taken as an honest report of how many times people recur to criticizing the credibility of the other, and not their arguments, it is true. It is true in any debate, since the Greek Sophists used it against the Philosophers. Today, we all think we are “philosophers” – not so.

    But there’s no definition from the start about who an “Evolutionist” is, and therefore the meaning is left to encompass ALL evolutionists, including micro-evolutionists. That’s a pretty bad start for an argument – or should we say “a good start” if arguing is the intent…

    The problem in not defining who an “Evolutionist” would be, also aggregates those who have studied formally some form of Evolution theory, with those that simply repeat like a parrot what they’ve read, or what they’ve been told in school. It is true that people who don’t have in-depth knowledge of a subject, but still defend it, will run out of substantial arguments and turn to the logical conclusion – ad hominem – so the general idea is true, but not posed concretely.

    The most important concept to grasp is: TO WHAT EXTENT HAVE WE BEEN INDOCTRINATED IN SCHOOL? Who has the time to check every theory, and every so called “fact”? Schools have to teach something, to get out tuition. In the subject of Natural History, there’s a lot of room for conjecture. It’s not about Science, or the matter would be settled by now.

    That is not to say that those who work in Evolutionary theory are not dedicated and sincere – but the parrot is also sincere.