Join John Adams, world renowned Intl Matchmaker, Monday nights 8:30 EST for Live Webcasts!
And check out Five Reasons why you should attend a FREE AFA Seminar! See locations and dates here.



View Active Topics       View Your Posts       Latest 100 Topics       FAQ Topics       Mobile Friendly Theme


The Problems With Atheists and Atheism

Discuss religion and spirituality topics.

Moderators: fschmidt, jamesbond

User avatar
Winston
Site Admin
Posts: 27841
Joined: August 18th, 2007, 2:16 pm
Contact:

Re: The Problems With Atheists and Atheism

Post by Winston » August 5th, 2018, 6:03 pm

Aron wrote:
August 2nd, 2018, 9:15 am
@Winston

I've watched the debate and he goes back and forth between arguments. His first argument with the rebuttal is rather than focusing on the science focusing on the morality of atheism. The argument is that atheism cannot produce a morality and leads to issues. Which is partly true, but it doesn't change that plenty of atheists will be just fine morally, they do not need Religion which often produces far more issues than Atheism will. His main argument on science is that evolution cannot produce new information. What he doesn't understand is that the evidence Michael Shermer is presenting that evolution occured is solid even if he might doubt Michael Shermer's belief on what the mechanism might be for evolution. I do think that the materialist conception that evolution is only random mutations is not quite true as i explained in detail in the prior post to this one, but questioning the process doesn't make any of the evidence for evolution suddenly go away, or suddenly make Carbon Dating not exist anymore. Or suddenly change the speed of Light and make the endless evidence we have from astronomy go away, and show the universe to not be billions of years old.
I don't care about the atheism and morality issue. That's highly subjective and off topic here. We are discussing the evidence for macroevolution. Shermer tried to present some, but Hovind tore it apart. Did you see the whole 90 minute debate where both sides tried to present evidence? Focus on that please. Hovind made many irrefutable points that Shermer had no response to. You should focus on that. That's what I wanted you to see in the debate. Forget the morality issue. That is a different topic. You seem to cherry pick and only see what you want to see. Focus on the evidence debate that I wanted you to see.
Check out my FUN video clips in Russia and Female Encounters of the Foreign Kind video series and Full Russia Trip Videos!

Join my Ukrainian/Russian Women Dating Site to meet thousands of legit foreign girls at low cost!

"It takes far less effort to find and move to the society that has what you want than it does to try to reconstruct an existing society to match your standards." - Harry Browne




Check out our Dating Sites and International Romance Tours!



User avatar
Winston
Site Admin
Posts: 27841
Joined: August 18th, 2007, 2:16 pm
Contact:

Re: The Problems With Atheists and Atheism

Post by Winston » August 5th, 2018, 6:22 pm

@Aron
I don't care about Perloff's Christian beliefs. You are getting anal again and going off topic. FYI he is not a fundamentalist. He is a former atheist and is now a member of the Eastern Orthodox Church. But who cares about his religious beliefs. I wanted you to focus on his arguments debunking evolution because they were powerful and compelling.

He was right that you cannot show evolution by experimentation in a lab. The scientific method is about doing experiments that can prove or disprove a hypothesis. You can't do that with evolution. So evolution is not proven or scientific. It's a theory and a bad one at that. What does that have to do with fossils in the rock layers? You aren't making sense. I'm talking about experiments in the lab. For example you can test the boiling point of water and prove it in a lab. But you cannot test evolution that way. You understand? Thus it's untestable and undemonstratable. Thus it cannot be a fact. The establishment desperately wants you think it's a fact so that you think you're an animal and become atheistic and materialistic so you are easy to control and manipulate for the elite and the system.

Check out James Perloff's interview about his book "Tornado Through A Junkyard".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1OTKynwGFzA

Also check out this 36 minute exposing of evolution by White Rabbit. It's very good.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c1ufK04tjOI
Check out my FUN video clips in Russia and Female Encounters of the Foreign Kind video series and Full Russia Trip Videos!

Join my Ukrainian/Russian Women Dating Site to meet thousands of legit foreign girls at low cost!

"It takes far less effort to find and move to the society that has what you want than it does to try to reconstruct an existing society to match your standards." - Harry Browne

Aron
Freshman Poster
Posts: 140
Joined: July 4th, 2018, 9:54 am

Re: The Problems With Atheists and Atheism

Post by Aron » August 5th, 2018, 11:14 pm

@Winston
Edit:Updated all quotations of you to include your name now since I added in the quote of Perry Marshall who wrote Evolution 2.0.
Winston wrote:The video "Darwin's Dilemma" did not acknowledge that macroevolution exists or that it happened. You misunderstood it. It merely presented the official Darwininan theory and then debunked it. Also it didn't just talk about the Cambrian Explosion. It talked about a lot of other stuff that debunks Darwinism. Are you sure you watched the whole video? You seem to not have understood it, even though it was all explained in layman's terms.

You keep stating that macroevolution happened, but you haven't offered any evidence for it at all. Dude, saying something doesn't make it so. You keep providing words, not evidence. Can you provide any proven examples of a transitional fossils or species? Not ones that have been debunked as hoaxes of course.
Here's the thing, if the Cambrian explosion happened then it inevitably means macro evolution did. Amphibians are not just going to appear out of nowhere. Acknowledging the cambrian explosion means that life existed billions of years ago and it's not young earth creationism. If all the species in the Cambrian explosion appeared then where did the land animals and amphibians come from? Evolution of course, where else could they come from? Unless you believe God magically created the land animals out of nothing at some random point in time. Also, Kent Hovind would never accept the Cambrian Explosion for this reason because he believes in Young Earth Creationism and this contradicts it, and leaves no room for land animals to emerge other than Macro Evolution.

There are a lot of transitional fossils. Like this one.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eusthenopteron
Its bonier fins would originally have been more useful for walking around underwater in its later evolution into tetrapods. Only later on would it be good for walking on land. Some freshwater fish can breathe air which explains why they don't die upon going to land.

And here is a database of transitional fossils i found.
http://transitionalfossils.com/

Winston wrote:Yeah Kent Hovind was arrested for tax fraud. But what did you expect? He was killing evolutionists in debate and changing the minds of many Americans about evolution. Thus he was a threat to the establishment. When you are a threat to the system that wants to promote atheism and amorality, they usually find a reason to lock you up, such as look for problems on your tax returns, or even making up stuff, anything they can use against you. What do you expect? That's how government and power works.

Yes Hovind defeated everyone in debate. Show me one debate where he lost. Just one. He destroyed a lot of students at UC Berkeley for example. No one could provide any real evidence of macroevolution, only microevolution.
You can think he was innocent or whatever if you want but i doubt it to be honest. If anything the system promotes Christianity, look at how many people are in the churches and how many people in government are Christians. It also does promote atheism somewhat but that is to make it so people either believe in Christianity and obey their God or are just atheists who don't know anything about spirituality so they are too afraid for their own survival to ever be a threat to the system. Disbelief in evolution does not make people dangerous, it just leads them into Christianity which is not really dangerous to the government.

The Kent Hovind vs Michael Shermer debate. I already went over where he was wrong there in my earlier comment.
Winston wrote:I'm glad you acknowledge that Michael Shermer is not honest. That's obvious. Anyone who sides with the establishment 100 percent of the time, even when they are obviously lying, is a propagandist with an agenda. He is probably paid to defend whatever the establishment wants or debunk whatever they want. He is definitely not a truth seeker or unbiased researcher. If you listen to him he sounds like a paid propagandist. He will defend a government lie even when it's obvious to everyone. He even denies the JFK assassination or 9/11 conspiracy.
I think the time when he lies the most is with debating anyone who has found the actually solid evidence of life after death ESP and etc as it is essentially his job to lie if he finds himself to not be right against them. As you have written about before with the atheist mindset issue it is probably a mix of cognitive dissonance+Neurolinguistic Programming, and the cases where he genuinely knows his argument is wrong but ignores this and lies. Obviously, if he ever acknowledges the evidence for ESP or Near Death Experiences which I am sure he has had presented to him in undeniable logical ways, he will lose a lot of credibility in the modern scientific community for disobeying the hive mind. Nonetheless, he does have the ability to explain to people like Kent Hovind how their beliefs are really biased and not true.
If you don't have time to watch of all of Kent Hovind's debates and lectures, just watch the one entitled "100 reasons why evolution is stupid by Kent Hovind". That one covers pretty much all his points.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q8DDIe_2cHM

You said you don't have infinite time to watch all the videos I suggested. Well dude, lol. I don't have infinite time to respond to so many points here either, especially in this hot sticky weather which makes it hard to think, type or concentrate. lol

There are some threads about evolution in the forum, where I posted a lot of info debunking evolution. See here:
Sure I'll watch the 100 reasons video. Again although I have no infinite time to do this all at once that doesn't mean i don't want to watch any of the videos. Depending on what it is i'll prioritize differently, I was more interested in this Evolution 2.0 idea at first so i might not get around to responding to the 100 reasons evolution is stupid video today.
Winston wrote: Btw, you might like this new theory of evolution called Evolution 2.0.
I looked it up and it seems like the author is biased towards Chrisitanity but ultimately may be making some valid points about how evolution is not just a random process regardless of that. I agree that it couldn't be 100% random, otherwise organisms just wouldn't be evolving the way they are, evolution makes a lot more sense as a semi-conscious adaptation rather than just natural selection and random mutations. But not as a top down design update by the Christian God, an update by the species in question that are evolving. Which explains why evolution often fails or you see many evolutionary dead ends, an omniscient God would make far more efficient evolution than we see happening, and there is no viable reason for an omniscient omnipotent god to be presumed to exist anyways.

I will try to read more about it and see what the more detailed substance of their findings is.

Edit:I have read more and found some of the information very interesting such as how he describes Horizontal Gene Transfer and other mechanisms that go to great lengths to prove that evolution is a conscious process, although he still seems mentally limited by Christianity in just assuming God has to be part of the equation here. Or that the initial DNA had to be created/engineered/designed by God and it couldn't have started out via an unconscious process and then developed in a conscious way over time.

Regardless of this, 90% of his general argument is very well done. You can see a comment page of him arguing with an atheist here if you haven't read this already:
https://evo2.org/evolution-untold-story/

Just CTRL-F to this quoted part if you want to see the argument I found most interesting and the general comment thread surrounding it. To summarize, random mutations would lead to too rapid a breakdown of any message that randomly emerged. Random chance dictates that genetic code could not emerge randomly with no conscious direction. 99.9999% of the time a random mutation would lead to non-information and no real beneficial change which is what you would expect from entropy. Even if 0.000001% of the time a beneficial mutation could occur the random beneficial ones would be swamped and destroyed by an endless sea of errors. Like expecting a monkey to enter the contents of "On the Origin of Species" randomly into a typewriter and also completely perfectly so that the message is readable. It just doesn't happen due to random chance, the statistical odds of random mutation into more functional life are too low at all stages of evolution.

Natural selection is obviously part of the process of evolution, but it is heavily overestimated since the mainstream atheist dogma requires that all of evolution's origins are fundamentally passive and unconscious.
Perry Marshall wrote: "“Trivial” is not a question of prejudice or anthropomorphism, it’s an issue of measurable, demonstrable functionality.

Example: A frameshift mutation could conceivably be responsible for changing

the quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog
to
the quick brown fox jumps over the lazy doll

that’s trivial.

However there is no realistic statistical possibility for it to change it to

the quick brown fox jumps over the lazy ferret

without a series of steps in the middle, in which the word “dog” would be mis-spelled and the whole sentence would get eliminated by natural selection before it became a readable sentence. Because codes are discrete, not continuous.

The only way you can get a sentence or any kind of digital instructions to evolve is through discrete substitutions and re-arrangements of genes or parts of genes. Without modular, discrete re-arrangements you will never achieve phenotypes that survive natural selection. Not in English, not in any computer language, and not in DNA.

As for your first statement: “If trivial improvement is possible, you cannot deny possibility of non-trivial ones.”

If Darwnism was actually concerned with building a working theoretical model of evolution rather than evangelizing philosphical reductionism, you wouldn’t be saying this. Because any functional evolutionary model has to demonstrate that significant new features can develop in acceptably short periods of time.

Throwing up your hands and saying “Given enough time anything is possible” is not science. Very tiny improvements that are likely to happen one time per billion copying errors do not explain things like how Nylonase digestion occurs within a small culture of bacteria. Let alone something enormous like the Cambrian explosion. This is why Darwinists are taught to strenuously avoid any discussion of statistics or probability.

HGT, transposition, epigenetics, genome doubling and symbiogenesis are exhaustively documented, parsimonious explanations for organizational adaptation.

In contrast, nowhere in the entire body of biological literature is there a single paper that demonstrates that random mutations alone produce evolutionary changes such as the ability to digest nylonase.

If you disagree, then show me one.

My larger question for you is:

Why do you still prefer a theory of random accident when documented systematic re-arrangements are already in the literature for 50 years now?

Respectfully, Patrik, it seems to me that if you did not define yourself as an atheist, you would no longer be “required” to prefer random accident over modular re-arrangements of genes, and you would then be allowed to simply follow the evidence where it leads."
Winston wrote:I don't care about the atheism and morality issue. That's highly subjective and off topic here.
Better blame Hovind then as he was the one to switch to that topic in the first place, i just posted a response that addresses his arguments in chronological order throughout the video.
Winston wrote: We are discussing the evidence for macroevolution. Shermer tried to present some, but Hovind tore it apart. Did you see the whole 90 minute debate where both sides tried to present evidence? Focus on that please. Hovind made many irrefutable points that Shermer had no response to. You should focus on that. That's what I wanted you to see in the debate. Forget the morality issue. That is a different topic. You seem to cherry pick and only see what you want to see. Focus on the evidence debate that I wanted you to see.
Yes I saw the whole debate. And I already told you how a lot of Kent Hovind's points are just not true.
Winston wrote: I wanted you to focus on his arguments debunking evolution because they were powerful and compelling.
I responded to those too.
Winston wrote:He was right that you cannot show evolution by experimentation in a lab. The scientific method is about doing experiments that can prove or disprove a hypothesis. You can't do that with evolution. So evolution is not proven or scientific. It's a theory and a bad one at that. What does that have to do with fossils in the rock layers? You aren't making sense. I'm talking about experiments in the lab. For example you can test the boiling point of water and prove it in a lab. But you cannot test evolution that way. You understand? Thus it's untestable and undemonstratable. Thus it cannot be a fact. The establishment desperately wants you think it's a fact so that you think you're an animal and become atheistic and materialistic so you are easy to control and manipulate for the elite and the system.
The rock layers argument isn't that complicated. If you found an ancient fossil of some trilobyte or whatever right next to a human fossil, that shows evidence that evolution might be wrong. Because older fossils are supposed to be stuck in lower layers of the ground than the more recent ones. The scientific definition of a theory is not the idea you are imagining, you are thinking more like a rough estimate, a theory is actually only given to something very well proven by evidence in science. Originally Evolution was a Hypothesis when Darwin came up with the idea, it became a theory later when a lot of proof came along. But that's just a nitpick. Anyway you can make efforts to debunk evolution through archeology if you find two fossils together when they shouldn't be.
Winston wrote:But you cannot test evolution that way. You understand? Thus it's untestable and undemonstratable. Thus it cannot be a fact.
What you have to understand is that obviously the way Evolution works makes testing difficult, but not impossible. That doesn't mean that Evolution is suddenly not true if it's harder to test than another idea. And experiments proving evolution have happened already. Breeding of all the different dog breeds from wolves is completely controllable and directable yet still has produced dramatic results showing that evolution can happen. A wolf into all these different dog breeds is not micro evolution, the changes are very significant. Macro evolution is not just # of limbs.

You seem to have this idea that there just couldn't ever be evolution beyond what is deemed a separate Kind or something, but there are already transitional species showing this is wrong. Tetrapods show this between fish and amphibians, and apes are an obvious transition to humans. They can walk on two legs somewhat, and use front knuckles to walk on instead of using them as feet. That shows more power available to the spine to lift up the arms. A bit more strength and they would be able to walk on two legs all the time just like humans.

Moretorque
Elite Upper Class Poster
Posts: 4819
Joined: April 28th, 2013, 3:00 pm
Location: USA,FL

Re: The Problems With Atheists and Atheism

Post by Moretorque » August 8th, 2018, 1:02 am

Aron wrote:
August 4th, 2018, 5:07 am
@Moretorque
No worry, all indicators as of late because of the mass extinction the dumb ape has triggered from being an overbearing bull in a fine China shop indicate the ape will be out of here shortly and evolution can then continue it's journey on the road too perfection!..... :D
If humans get wiped out in a mass extinction, I doubt the planet would survive anyways. Enough species going extinct can destroy the whole biosphere like if all the plankton creating oxygen die. The lasting effects of humanity's actions don't magically disappear if humans die out, and with no humans left there would be nobody left to make any attempt to intervene in a runaway biosphere collapse. But so many 'truthers' are indoctrinated enough to believe that Socialism=Bad no matter what that they will not wake up and realize how idiotic modern really-existing capitalism is destroying the planet. Who is it that is really in power, giant corporations and the banks that rule them along with the masses via debt scams.It's obvious but the Capitalist-tards who are often also Christ-tards will not see it. This is what leads to Trump having many of his pretty ridiculous policies, like completely shutting down research on global warming and appointing the head of Exxon to be the secretary of state. Someone who obviously will not consider the environment much and instead promote drilling the arctic or something similarily stupid. But because of Capitalist logic we must continue drilling in all sorts of environmentally dangerous ways to maintain cyclical consumption of Gasoline so the oil companies stay in business, if consumers had efficient electric cars en masse all they would need is to get electricity from the grid. Then if you set up a renewable energy infrastructure including being renewable enough to power both the energy needs of the public and the mining of the materials needed for the solar panels/geothermal plants/etc, nobody has to pay for their energy anymore. You can also make this much better if you get efficient mass transport like mag rail but that would be bad for business so it doesn't happen in America, the public transportation remains as shitty as ever.

Also, if humans die out suddenly for whatever reason, or even if civilization is totally crippled for a few weeks and unable to get the water trucks moving to cool down the nuclear plants, it is pretty much guaranteed we get planetary extinction as nobody would be able to cool down the nuclear plants that would then melt down en masse and destroy literally all life on earth with no survivors. Fukushima was already bad and that was just 1. Imagine 100+.

I don't get why Christians think it is so bad that humans evolved. Big deal. It's an improvement from being an ape for sure. Their main reaction is against materialism which they do not realize is disproven but not because their religion is true. They're just too scared of being wrong because they think that would mean a meaningless universe. But even if it actually did it just means they would be too scared to face the truth anyways or examine evidence contrary to their beliefs. Christianity actually teaches them in the Bible that they will not exist after death unless resurrected from the grave a long time later by Jesus, which is why nowadays Christians have edited their religion to tell them that they can go to Heaven after death rather than just sticking with what the Bible says as certain fundamentalists like the Jehovah's Witnesses do.
Aron you still are missing what I was telling you, free and open markets have made oil obsolete for the most part but the people who created socialism ( which is just another name for a dictatorship ) are keeping the technologies under wraps that have been invented to replace it. THEY CONTROL US BY KEEPING US ON OIL!!!!!!

Anybody who does not believe in property rights for the individual is an idiot and our rulers are hoping earth has enough of them to pull this usury renter con off. You need to go back and read some of what I was telling you! yes I did babble but you missed the point!

The ECO will recover once the technological ape has gone extinct and the brake is released that the ape has engaged so the planet can lick it wounds and clean the mess up man ( APE ) has made. There have been 5 mass extinctions in the past and the recovery takes millions of years on average when we lose 70% or more species but it does come back better than ever in the past anyhow.
Time to Hide!

Aron
Freshman Poster
Posts: 140
Joined: July 4th, 2018, 9:54 am

Re: The Problems With Atheists and Atheism

Post by Aron » August 8th, 2018, 3:30 am

@Moretorque

Since this isn't really what the thread is supposed to be about I'll post my response to your post here back in the "Is Capitalism The Problem/" thread.

Aron
Freshman Poster
Posts: 140
Joined: July 4th, 2018, 9:54 am

Re: The Problems With Atheists and Atheism

Post by Aron » August 8th, 2018, 11:29 am

@Winston

Haven't finished writing my full analysis of the Kent Hovind 100 Reasons Why Evolution is Stupid video yet, only about 1/3d done, but I will post for you a response to all his points sometime soon. Along with a summary since it's going to be a point by point response to basically everything in the video and all the arguments. The summary will focus more on the major points like transitional fossils and proof of evolution's mechanisms, and not random examples like where he tries to debunk the Grand Canyon or some random fossil, but i'll try to go over as much of that stuff as I can in the point by point response. The Evolution 2.0 theory you mentioned that I read the book for is a pretty major help here as it explains many of the points where Kent Hovind asks something that the Neo Darwinian evolutionary theory seems to not answer when he's not just saying something 100% wrong. The Evolution 2.0 book gives a much more complete picture of evolution which answers the 15% of points he makes that are at least somewhat based on something wrong with the evolutionary theory that everyone hears about.

flowerthief00
Freshman Poster
Posts: 134
Joined: January 11th, 2017, 5:14 am

Re: The Problems With Atheists and Atheism

Post by flowerthief00 » August 9th, 2018, 7:31 am

Winston wrote:
August 5th, 2018, 6:22 pm
So evolution is not proven or scientific. It's a theory and a bad one at that.
Evolution is not scientific? Evolution is a bad theory?
Those are two amazing statements. I'd like to know what theory we've got that explains the origins of life on Earth better than Evolution.

Of course we can't test millions of years of Evolution in a lab. But we can and do make predictions from it.

I better stop there since I don't have the time or inclination to commit to mega-debates like this any more. Just recommend anyone who has trouble accepting Evolution to study it some more. Yeah, that sounds cliche, but I am giving you the same advice which was given to me, which I followed back when I had trouble accepting it. And it did make sense after that.

Aron
Freshman Poster
Posts: 140
Joined: July 4th, 2018, 9:54 am

Re: The Problems With Atheists and Atheism

Post by Aron » August 9th, 2018, 12:07 pm

@Winston

This took 10+ hours to write, I hope you will fully read through it and see how Kent Hovind makes a lot of very wrong statements that can be specifically proven wrong as I have done here. I did not do a full response to every last claim in the whole 2 hour video but I addressed about 90% of it and researched quite a big number of claims he made.

Summary Response to Kent Hovind's Main Arguments

Kent Hovind makes a few primary arguments trying to disprove evolution the big bang and quite a lot else. For the Big Bang, the main argument
Kent Hovind fails to make is that the Big Bang has no known 'off' switch. There's no explained reason in science as far as i know, for why the massive initial expansion rate suddenly slowed down to far far less than it originally was. That does not mean that there is no expansion of the universe as there obviously is given the evidence with redshift.The formation of the stars and the earth all make sense and he doesn't understand anything there. However he does make a good argument after that.

Yes, Kent Hovind is right that scientists don't have an answer yet for how Abiogenesis occured and the first life form emerged. A lot of arguments he makes against evolution with random examples that supposedly prove a fake fossil are basically just wrong.

Then there is one core argument that he gets partly right, the argument against Transitional Fossils. There obviously are transitional fossils but not as many as Darwin predicted. Kent Hovind assumes that this means evolution is all fake and deliberately misquotes Stephen J Gould to show this, more on that in the full analysis. But the idea in general that there are not enough fossils to justify Darwinian evolution is true, and the reason is that evolution has many 'jumps' where there are not 1 million transitional forms between one animal and one significantly different one. Evolution happens faster than Darwin thought it could. This is gone over in detail in that Evolution 2.0 book but basically the reason Darwin was wrong is he presupposed only random mutations and natural selection drive evolution. There is no statistical case for this showing that the rate of beneficial random mutations is high enough to overcome the damage caused by harmful random mutations, and it is basically just not proven at all.

The reality is it's been well proven that random chance does not explain this and the mechanisms involved with evolution like Transposition(Cells rearranging their DNA to create new traits), Horizontal Gene Transfer(Cells copying their genes over to other cells to give them a new trait, or copying a useful genetic trait from another cell or even a virus), Epigenetics(Cells rendering inactive or active specific genes or codons to turn off a trait or turn one on, or turn off/on a gene to create a new trait that will emerge from the combined effect of that gene and other genes together), Symbiogenesis(A rare event when two organisms essentially merge into one symbiotic relationship where they cannot seperate, this is how the modern animal cell emerged with mitochondria entering the cell), and Genome Doubling(A rare event in hybrids where they get the full genetic code of both parents rather than half of each, although hyrids are usually sterile) all show pretty apparent intentionality and planned behavior.

If one of your cells steals a gene from a virus via HGT that lets it help fight it it will actively go out and transfer this to all the other cells. Immune cells attacking viruses do not go blindly one by one. Their numbers accumulate nearby until a sufficient group is prepared and then they all attack at once. There's all sorts of behavior like this that shows obvious coordination and order. To get to the point here, Kent Hovind's objection is answered by the fact that these mechanisms allow big quantum leaps in evolution, it's explained why there are not so many transitional fossils. It also answers the main argument that evolution does not create new genetic information when these mechanisms do obviously create new information and have been proven in the lab too, not just via guessing around what certain fossils mean.

He doesn't make that many other systemic arguments saying that something just could not have happened, rather than giving a random supposedly debunked example of evolution. But if you want to see pretty much every single claim he makes rebutted just read the full analysis.

100 Reasons Why Kent Hovind is Stupid


First off he doesn't get how gravity works which is why he made all those arguments about the universe not being uniform, gravity pulls it in all sorts of ways after the big bang explaining all of these arguments. Some planets spinning the other direction also makes sense for this reason, some other solar systems probably have far more variation in which planets
spin which ways.

Kent Hovind asks what exploded in the Big Bang. It's not an explosion but a rapid expansion of space. For some reason, he doesn't ask the question of why space would suddenly expand so fast, or more importantly, how the Big Bang suddenly stopped expanding at the rapid rate it was expanding and slowed down massively. He complains about how they revised the estimate down to be a tiny dot of space when that is just how science works, observations are made with greater precision so the model is refined.

At 8:39 in the video Kent Hovind makes this obvious blatant lie. If you look at the textbook page he references it is a deliberate misquote as you can see right in the video. It's talking about a nebula shrinking and spinning faster and faster, not the Big Bang. The Big Bang didn't work that way. Yes the Big Bang is also an 'explosion' in a way although it's technically an expansion but he is misleading the audience here by making them think it worked similarily to the described nebula issue. Maybe Kent Hovind somehow thought that worked as a reference for describing an explosion but if he did that just means he messed up big time. So he either made a big mistake or was a deliberate liar, take your pick.

There are actually a good deal fewer transitional fossils than you would expect but for a good reason, Evolution is faster than the random mutation and natural selection method Darwin proposed. Nonetheless there are obviously an abundance of fossils out there and it's easy enough to discern that evolution connected them, there just isn't an endless array of tiny gradual changes like you would expect if random mutation is the only possible cause of evolution.

He describes the tongues of woodpecker birds wrong. They don't wrap around the inside of their heads in some weird way. Then he describes a symbiotic relationship between termites and bacteria in their guts that help them digest cellulose and asks which one evolved first. What he doesn't realize is that symbiotic relationships can and do develop in real time in nature, it doesn't have to magically all have been created that way like he thinks. The termite probably survived without cellulose earlier and ate from non plant food sources. The bacteria that started a symbiotic relationship with the termite probably had something to gain from that symbiosis. Like having an animal to carry it around quickly inside of it and transport it so its species could spread to other animals and other locations.

The Big Bang is supposed to come from quantum fluctuations or something along those lines as far as scientists can tell but scientists aren't sure how that would work yet, or if it is due to parallel universes or something else. Scientists make the analysis that it happened based on data without having to know exactly why and how it happened yet. Kent Hovind makes the analysis based on a dogma that it HAD to be Young Earth Creationism and will not question that at all, while scientists questioned the Big Bang plenty. They just have chosen the Big Bang because it seems to make the omost sense with the evidence so far. See the difference? Kent Hovind doesn't get what Religion means.

He is wrong that Evolution is the only thing here that's tax supported. Churches are exempt from taxes...Did Kent Hovind know that? He probably did but just didn't make the connection. At 13:55 he mis-explains the laws of the universe. They are more like Patterns of physics rather than Laws of physics, there doesn't have to be a 'law-giver'. Also Rupert Sheldrake has disproved that the laws of the universe are and have been absolutely constant in their exact effects for all times in his Ted Talk entitled "The Science Delusion".
You can see it here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JKHUaNAxsTg

At about 15 minutes in Kent Hovind shows that he doesn't understand gravity. It's been a long long time since the Big Bang. It doesn't matter if the matter in the big bang was spinning when it exploded, all the matter that was sent out then pulled on the other matter with gravity. So of course matter in the universe is not evenly distributed. It also makes sense that a planet in the solar system could be rotating 'backwards', there is no law of the universe that everything rotates the same way, gravity could change planet's rotations and no law says they originally have to have been rotating the same direction either.. There could be solar systems out there with lots of planets rotating in different directions much more so than here. Gravity's effect after the big bang completely explains why there are big voids in space, there is no law saying that star formation happens evenly and uniformly all throughout the universe. The universe being 'lumpy' makes total sense.

Then he repeats the untrue statement that there are no observed star births to make up for star deaths, this is just not true. Also consider how bright a supernova is compared to the initial formation of a star. Less advanced telescopes could pick up a supernova but not a star birth. Although that doesn't matter because the best telescopes in the world are seeing plenty of star births.

The reason there are not that many super novas we see in the Milky Way is the ridiculous scale of cosmic time. Stars stay around for literally billions of years. However if you look at the rest of the universe there are a lot more because the universe is far bigger than the milky way. Here's an extract from wikipedia:
"Although supernovae are relatively rare events, occurring on average about once every 50 years in the Milky Way,[25] observations of distant galaxies allowed supernovae to be discovered and examined more frequently. The first supernova detection patrol was begun by Zwicky in 1933. He was joined by Josef J. Johnson from Caltech in 1936. Using a 45-cm Schmidt telescope at Palomar observatory, they discovered twelve new supernovae within three years by comparing new photographic plates to reference images of extragalactic regions"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_o ... bservation
Keep in mind we are not observing the whole visible universe we could be observing all at once. We only have so many telescopes out there looking at only so many regions of space. The amount we could be looking at if we had 100s more deep space telescopes like Hubble is vastly greater than the amount we actually are looking at, this theoretical amount completely dwarfs the amount we see.

He quotes Fred Hoyle as saying he has 'little hesitation in saying a sickly pall now hangs over the big bang theory". He really is cherry picking this quote. If he gave the full context he would tell everyone listening that Fred Hoyle invented the Steady State theory of the universe's expansion where the universe is constantly expanding and has always been creating new matter, no Big Bang involved. I can't see the scientific journal he wrote that in online via the internet, but he probably said it because he never believed in the Big Bang theory of the universe's expansion and thought his Steady State theory explained the evidence better. Kent Hovind deludes the audience into thinking this is just a random scientist who became doubtful of the big bang they believed in earlier and thought it was being disproved.

19:14 in the video he rebuts the earth being molten by quoting the Bible. Which isn't really proof at all. Then he switches to evidence claiming that radioactive polonium was found in rocks that are supposed to have been previously molten. First off putting aside his claim that these rocks were never molten, he hasn't proved that these polonium haloes allegedly found in the rocks were there for long enough that they have to have been there at a time when the rock would have been lava. The polonium getting stuck in these rocks doesn't mean it was always there, and the point when it initially got into the rock could have easily been a point in time when the rock was not lava. If you want to prove the whole rock cycle is somehow fake science then the first thing you need to do is show a rock that could not have gotten polonium into it in any natural way has recently emerged from the crust and would have been lava. Kent Hovind does not go into any specifics probably because he has no real proof of this and is just hoping people buy the vague idea.

After that he goes back to disagreeing with the origin of life and saying it's all impossible. He gets back to a specific point by saying that life could not have evolved because UV light destroys ammonia and in the experiment that was supposed to create life, the scientist deemed ammonia necessary and excluded oxygen from the experiment because it would oxidize the amino acids. He says ozone is needed to block the UV light but this may not be true. If oxygen didn't do it then the next best guess would be another gas in the atmosphere at the time was responsible. Or perhaps life evolved deep enough under the sea that the UV light didn't reach, rendering UV light not really a problem. I don't know what the exact composition of ancient Earth's atmosphere was but it was decently different from the modern one for sure. According to scientists the mass oxygenation of the earth's atmosphere only happened after life got around:
https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... tmosphere/
So it's safe to say that scientist probably excluded Oxygen from his attempted abiogenesis experiment not because he couldn't think of another way to make it work, as Kent Hovind makes the viewers assume, but because as far as science could tell there was no oxygen in the atmosphere at all when life arose. Which is a coherent explanation, even if Kent Hovind is completely right about amino acids oxidizing quickly in a modern atmosphere and preventing any new instances of abiogenesis, or at least abiogenesis anything similar to the one that happened before.

He admits that scientists thought there was no oxygen back then at 24:20 or so but his initial presentation of the facts makes it seem like the scientist adjusted things just to make it work. His contradiction that Ammonia is needed and destroyed by UV light could be wrong for the 2 reasons I said, either life evolving far enough under the sea that the UV light doesn't get through the water or some other gas just blocking out enough UV light.

25 minutes in he complains that the abiogenesis experiment was biased because the amino acid product was filtered out to not get sparked a second time. He thinks this is not realistic in nature. But for all we know it easily could be that some series of amino acids got created due to electrical input and just did not receive any more. Lightning is sporadic and you're unlikely to get hit by it twice. Sounds more like an attempt to imitate nature than to make it easier on the amino acids. As Kent Hovind says in the video yes the amino acids produced ended up bonding with tar and only 2 types were produced. Doesn't mean that it's impossible for these amino acids to emerge. It's like he thinks everything can be demonstrated in one experiment. Yes the experiment did not create life and Kent Hovind is right to say that it didn't but he's wrong to dogmatically assume that old earth conditions cannot have led to life.

The next point he makes is basically that Entropy alone poses a huge problem for the formation of successful proteins due to them unbonding and naturally dispersing. Normally most objects would not seem likely to become alive and in fact the most coherent hypothesis according to the model of entropy and passive unconscious movement of matter alone would be a universe with zero life whatsoever. Obviously this did not happen despite what seems like signifcant obstacles to the emergence of life, I don't claim science has the answers to how yet but clearly it happened one way or another.

He thinks self-replication in cells doesn't make sense since it would've been better for them to evolve immortality to avoid competition First of all just because he thinks it's better doesn't mean they realize it. Self replication has many benefits that immortality alone can't grant. If there was only one immortal cell and that was it, then if that cell dies the species is dead and none of its genes are left. Self replication or in the case of most modern animals, sexual reproduction, lets them maintain the race they are part of which can spread out to all over the place depending on how generalized the adaptations of the species are. Also animals of the same species or race will very often cooperate in quite a lot of species so his argument that there is an issue for competition over food isn't exactly true. One organism generally can't be all over the place all by itself so it's vulnerable to death due to its local environment or unlucky circumstances more than a species is. Immortality along with sexual reproduction would probably be more adaptive and generalized than sexual reproduction alone, a species with both these capabilities could use reproduction as merely a back up mechanism in case immortality failed for any members of the group. For example with reincarnation,this means reproduction would become obsolete in such a group once all the members of the group have been reincarnated and become immortal in their new bodies, other than either A:Creating new souls, if that's possible, or B:Reincarnating animals into being humans if that's possible. But that doesn't mean animals are necessarily going to achieve the adaptation of immortality just because it would be good for them.

31 minutes in he says he dislikes the idea that sexual reproduction eventually emerged rather than asexual reproduction but he doesn't explain a specific problem other than saying it's stupid.

32 minutes in he quotes Stephen Jay Gould who proposed the theory of Punctuated Equilibrium in evolution. Basically it's the idea that evolution is slow over time but from time to time makes a rapid quantum leap. This explains why there is plenty of fossil evidence for different stages of evolution but there aren't 1 million fossils of tiny little adjustments between any given animal. What Kent Hovind doesn't realize is this doesn't disprove evolution at all it just undermines the standard Neo Darwinian analysis that it's just random mutation and natural selection over time with
no direction or intent by the organisms whatsoever.

He misquoted that quote by Stephen J Gould, purposefully leaving two parts of it out and misleading viewers. He made it say this:
"The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages...has been a persistent and nagging problem for...evolution."
When it really said this:
“The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualist accounts of evolution.”
You still think Kent Hovind is not a con man? It's obvious he made a lie on purpose here after seeing the real quote. "Between major transitions in organic design" clarifies that Gould still believed there were major transitions proven by fossil evidence. "Gradualist accounts of" shows the specifics that Gould is saying there are problems with normal darwinian accounts of evoluion. This is why he came up with his theory of Punctuated Equillibrium, that evolution is slow but has occasional big jumps in progress which explain why fossil evidence doesn't have 1 million transitional forms.

So now that you've seen that it should be obvious that Kent Hovind deliberately lied and misled the audience into a cherry picked version of that quote. Yes it does show evidence against the normal darwinian evolution but it does not show that evolution as a whole is debunked somehow. Which would be ignoring all the fossil evidence and other evidence.

Kent Hovind after that just goes on for a while about his dogma that kinds can only produce the same kind. Which obviously did not happen with human evolution from primates, which definitely was not an example of hybridizaiton. But he is in denial so he won't admit any evolution from animals.

He's wrong that no new information can get added to the gene pool. Transposition does essentially create new information by letting cells re arrange the codons in the DNA which 100% changes the meaning of the entire DNA molecule. Creating new information. Just like re arranging the letters of the alphabet to create a new word.

He argued about horse evolution not being true and what do you know he managed to quote mine yet again producing a quote that was not in its full context, deliberately misleading the audience. Here it is: "Many examples commonly cited, such as the evolution of the horse family or of sabertooth 'tigers' can be readily shown to have been unintentionally falsified and not really orthogenetic". Did you notice that last word orthogenetic? If you look at the full context what is revealed is this person is not saying evolution is debunked. They think these fossils are debunked because they don't follow the pattern of evolution by Natural Selection. Look at this link for the full context of the quote and what he said right around it.

https://smoodock45.wordpress.com/2013/0 ... the-horse/

The "Moscow Truth" journal this claim that 'modern horses are found in same layer as ancient horses are' doesn't sound like an official source for sure. Also even if the ancient horse species was still alive as he claims that doesn't prove it didn't evolve, he doesn't seem to understand that evolution does not necessarily get rid of the original species.

The guy who claims 3 toed and 1 toed horses grazed side by side is a young earth creationist and obviously a biased source who probably hoaxed it. Since Kent Hovind makes a lot of quotes from old 1980s sources there's often no way to check it online easily and immediately find the debunking evidence.

40 minutes in Kent Hovind acknowledges that comparative anatomy shows similarity between the species. He attributes it to a common designer when this doesn't make sense, a common designer could pick and choose different anatomy for each species without having to make them the same. Having similar forelimb structure is more indicative of evolution than God magically creating all these animals out of nothing at will.

48 minutes in he complains about how evolutionists try to make their interpretation of facts the truth. When it's obvious he is doing the same thing in this part where he tries to debunk the grand canyon forming over a long period of time. Essentially his claim is that the Colorado river would have had to flow uphill according to his likely fake/false source. I'll see if i can find a source to debunk this obvious bullshit claim later but you should see the pattern by now of how he lies.

He misquotes yet again at 52:19 when trying to debunk the geologic column. If he read the whole quote he would find out it says this right after that:"Where sediments are missing, a break in the sedimentary record occurs. Breaks result in gaps in the record that may range from a few years to hundreds of millions of years. Breaks in the sedimentary record are called uncomformities." The point is that individual places can have breaks in the sedimentary record due to geological activity, that doesn't mean there is no geological column, but that it's unlikely you will find each and every layer all in one place all the time.

There is totally erosion between layers in the grand canyon what he is saying is just an outright fabrication. Look at this educational powerpoint:
https://www.uen.org/utahstandardsacadem ... rSheet.pdf
Quote:"Third layer comes after what appears to be a lot of erosion from the shale above it. "

54 minutes in he says the bones in rock layers are supposed to determine the age of the rock layers and the bones age are determined by which layer they are in. What Kent Hovind is not showing you is that for one we know the older layers are older because they are below the others and this is confirmed from knowledge of how the rock cycle works and brings in new layers of rock from lower in the crust. The other thing Kent Hovind doesn't mention there is how carbon dating can tell you the age of the fossils too.

He continues on with this not mentioning the rock cycle at all until he cites his claim that petrified trees are found running through multiple rock layers.At 57 minutes he cites a creationist journal of some kind that argues these couldn't fit in any way but a flood. This is not really true, these petrified trees had roots deep down and remained where they were, they couldn't have been transported to their current location in the sediment by a flood or their roots would've been torn loose. The assumption by young earth creationists is that the trees couldn't have petrified standing up before they fell down but that is ignoring something about how the layers accumulate. While the overall process of them building up is slow, that doesn't mean there aren't instances of a sudden fast deposit of sediment like in a mudslide or something similar where a tree can be quickly buried. Trees have roots anyways so they seem far more likely to get petrified standing up than any other organism, without needing to invoke a flood. Here's a source describing this issue:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/polystrate/trees.html

At 1:03 he makes the claim that carbon dating could only work for maybe 10 or 20 thousand years at most. First of all the problem even here for carbon dating is that creationists say the earth is way younger than that and carbon dating has shown many things to be 10'000+ years old. Along with showing the last ice age to have ended about 20 thousand years ago.

Here's a comment from a paleontologist on carbon dating:
http://www.thescienceforum.com/earth-sc ... ating.html
"I'm a paleontologist (geologist) and Carbon dating is rarely if ever used except in a few quartenary studies and even then it doesn't play much of a role. Carbon dating is more useful in other disciplines (anthropology, etc.) studying the recent past. Other radioactive techniques are used on the geologic timeframe....and again, not all that mainstream compared to using index fossils.

Carbon dating is fairly accurate. The issue can be deposition and what's being measured. It's akin to watching CSI when they somehow miraculously exclude the other thousand bits of DNA from the hotel room and perform tests in minutes on 'the right' sample and then just happen to have the 'immaculate conception' data base on hand.

If the methdology is done right then carbon dating is accurate. It's about physics and 'has to' be right. It's not the dating that's the issue but what's being dated. Sure, there might be an ancient garbage site but fire, etc. might have swept through a hundred times in the meantime...birds pooped...other animals flora died...stuff moved around by floods, storms, etc. How much integrity is there is the original material? "
TLDR, carbon dating is used for the recent past(in the tens of thousands of years not 100s of thousands or millions or billions) and other methods are used for farther in the past like other radioactive elements that decay much more slowly.Uranium's half life is so long that it's older than the age of the earth, making it possible to date the earth at billions of years old with just uranium:
https://answers.yahoo.com/question/inde ... %20slowest

Then he claims that the atmosphere has not reached equilibrium of C-14 which takes 30000 years so it must be <30'000 years old. The problem is that for this to be true you have to prove that the rate of C14 production and the rate of decay have been constant and do not change, if the C14 production could slow down or more decay could happen it becomes compatible with old earth as long as there were enough instances of slowdown of production or faster decay that the atmopshere got to its current state. It could have reached C14 equilibrium in the past possibly but that does not necessarily mean it will always stay in equilbrium. The proposed mechanism for how production of C14 could reduce or increase is variation in the earth's magnetic field which makes sense, the magnetic field strength would affect how much cosmic rays get into the atmosphere and convert N14 into C14.
https://infidels.org/library/modern/dav ... brium.html

At 1:07:00 he makes the argument that we can't tell how long a radioactive material has been decaying and if the decay rate has remained consistent. But that's not true, the decay rate will remain consistent without some outside force intervening somehow. That's the whole reason we use radiometric dating because radioactive materials have a predictable decay rate. The way we know how much there was of the element originally i believe is atomic physics. We know what the atomic weight of a certain radioactive isotope is so we can tell how much it originally had and when the starting point is. If we didn't have the table of elements yet it'd be impossible to know but we do.
https://www.reference.com/science/radio ... ce5f809c4f#

Carbon dating is not perfect like Kent Hovind makes it seem like scientists say it is but when it goes wrong the sources of those errors can be traced. The one he cites is living mollusks being seen as 2300 years or 2700 years old. The reason is that they were in an area with water that dissolved a lot of very old carbon into it and drank from that. Putting very old carbon into their bodies while they were still alive.
http://talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD011_3.html

Not going to bother to research every one of the 5+ examples of this same idea that Kent Hovind brings up. The general point of how the carbon dating could have gone wrong is the same, animals getting old carbon into them one way or another.

Same with the potassium argon dating examples he complains about.

The age of the earth has been discovered with greater accuracy over time. Scientists used to not have the same methods for measuring its age.

Embryology which Kent Hovind complains about at 1:11:20 is great proof of evolution. When growing embryos show traits of earlier animals it's obvious evolution happened. It's no wonder Darwin said this is the best evidence for his theory because it's easily verifiable and observable in a very direct and real time way. Little guesswork is needed if you see it happening unlike with fossils. It's only Creation Magazine claiming this guy who did drawings of embryos hoaxed it all. And guess what now we have direct observational evidence not just drawings, we can get photos and video of embryo development. Still a hoax?

Now he says that Archeopteryx is a hoax. He doesn't cite a source other than saying it was proven in 1986. Well i found out it was actually 1985 and this claim of a forgery was totally disproven, not only was the one described not a forgery there were 5 other ones they found. Oddly enough the one to claim it was a forgery was Fred Hoyle, the same guy who invented the steady state theory of cosmology.
http://www.chebucto.ns.ca/Environment/N ... teryx.html

You may have noticed Kent Hovind's general style is to make 1 million claims someone must research and debunk, he focuses 100% on attacking the position of evolution via a million random examples but he does not attack its general principles. Or worse actually question the principles of the Young Earth Creationism hypothesis and its validity as a model for explaining observable reality. Once again this claim that Archeopteryx can't be a missing link because a crow fossil or whatever was observed in an earlier same time frame is just in some 1980s scientific journal publication not accessible via the internet. See the problem? How am i supposed to rebut something that i have no access to the source of? Also something you should note is the fallacious reasoning used for some of his examples. He says because there is a 130 million year old crow sized bird then archeopteryx could not have been the first bird but Archeopteryx was from 150 million years ago which is significantly older. My source:
https://www.livescience.com/24745-archaeopteryx.html

Apparently Archeopteryx was a relative of the first transitional dinosaur to bird according to a study referenced in that source.

1:18:16 Thanks Kent Hovind for referencing some good evidence for evolution. He mentions that feathers and scales are both made of the same protein which is pretty obviously good evidence for feathers evolving from scales. He just says it's a proof of 'same designer' when the evolutionary connection is obvious here.

Then he tries to debunk the documented shift with moths. Basically he just claims they made it up without citing a source. And then he says since there were dark colored and light colored moths from the beginning it doesn't prove evolution. It doesn't prove direct evolutionary change but it does prove natural selection. So technically this factoid fits in Kent Hovind's model of 'Micro Evolution Only' but he denies it anyway since it seems like evolution to him.

At 1:20:45 he argues that vestigial legs in whales are far far too small to ever be used. What that really means is that DNA is advanced enough for those vestigial leg genes that used to produce usable legs for the land based ancestors of whales to be kept in storage and rendered inactive in modern whales other than producing tiny legs that don't influence their movement at all. They are still available to be re-evolved later on if those whales descendants need to walk on land again. Rather than simply deleting the DNA for legs once it is no longer needed. His argument doesn't show that those whales didn't evolve from land animals, they obviously did as shown by their vestigial legs, it just means that DNA can be very good at storing information for potential later use.

He says lobe finned fish couldn't still be alive when nothing in evolution says they couldn't just because other organisms evolved from them, reminds me of the classic 'If humans came from monkeys why are there still monkeys?" question.

Apparently he thinks some dinosaurs are still alive. Lol.

Then he says two trilobytes were found inside what seemed like a human footprint. Supposedly scientists have debunked this according to the source i read. Look at the 2nd photo in this link. It looks like the heel line across the middle of the footprint wasn't really a heel line and it goes past where it should.
http://paleo.cc/paluxy/meister.htm
I'm inclined to believe there were definitely no humans stepping on trilobytes so i'm not going to do some super detailed analysis of that claim beyond looking at that picture.

After that he says graptolites are still alive when they are an index fossil for 400 million years ago. He does not seem to get that it is totally possible for a species that left fossils to still be alive. Even if it's from millions of years ago.

Then he says there was some sort of prehistoric creature like a dinosaur that washed up on the coast of california. I do not know if that is really true, it being from deep enough under the sea would explain it not being seen until now. But there certainly aren't dinosaurs roaming around the surface of the earth today.

At 1:27:52 he says evolution is built on faulty assumptions. He thinks mutations cannot make anything new. Random mutations like those caused by radiation actually tend to be issues, but other kinds of genetic change like those mentioned in Evolution 2.0(Transposition, HGT, Epigenetics, Genome Doubling and Symbiogenesis) do definitely create new information. Transposition rearranges the DNA in all sorts of ways and could easily make new 'code' allowing for entirely new functions, increasing genetic complexity.

Natural selection does exist it just does not do anything other than sort out those that fail to survive. By the way, quite a lot of the time a well evolved creature will get 'naturally selected' to die and have its species go extinct. These Natural Selectionist types tend to assume that the species that survives was necessarily the best one when quite a lot of the time that is not true. If anything, natural selection/The tendency for death to destroy many species, has destroyed so many species that it's debatable whether it's that good at all. Natural selection relies on death to sort out species, which overall is just deleting a lot of information and parts of the gene pool removing them from any potential later use. You see the problem here? Well i'm sure you do as you have doubts about evolution anyways. But every time you hear someone talk about natural selection just remember that it's mostly a sign of how much unique genes and biology is completely lost to history other than in fossils we try to study. Imagine if the lizards out there that are capable of regenerating limbs went extinct, then we'd never be able to know about them and possibly study them to figure out how limb regeneration could work and see if it's possible to apply to humans.

Anyway he just continues on for a while complaining about natural selection without bringing up much new. Kent Hovind is right to say that natural selection alone cannot justify evolution. The point that most people arguing about evolution miss is that for random mutations that are very rarely beneficial to benefit, there would have to be a statistical case for this. There would need to be common enough beneficial mutations that the species is able to effectively adapt and survive without being overwhelmed by the negative ones. It doesn't work that way and nobody's written a proof of this. "Random" mechanisms like cosmic rays just don't give anywhere near enough beneficial mutations to justify this. Other methods of creating new information like Transposition do actually work to adapt at an effective level and have been shown to occur scientifically. Look up Barbara McClintock's discovery of Transposition, she forced cells in plants to re arrange their DNA by giving them a problem they could not
survive otherwise.

At 1:32:00 he realizes a problem with natural selection. In situations like the one Kent Hovind mentioned with a whale eating a ton of fish,
being the Fittest is utterly irrelevant if you happen to be in a position where the whale chomps on you. Sometimes the fittest will even be less likely to survive, like if the most adapted animal species stood out in some way and became a big target to other predators. Yes the example of mutating a ton of fruit flies with radiation and getting no good results shows that cosmic rays and other mostly random mutation causes do not produce evolution in any meaningful way. The 4% larger wings for fruit flies in the north is a totally valid example of possible evolution though if they need bigger wings up north.

Then he complains a long while about college making people quit Christianity. I don't need to go over this one, you already know how Christianity is very much an indoctrinating thing and it's all about making people believe or think they're going to be tortured in hell forever.

There is a quote he says is from Arthur Keith that is supposedly from someone else. This Arthur Keith guy died before the 100th edition of Darwin's book came out and that's where he supposedly wrote this in. See Wiki page for the reference. Yes Wikipedia is wrong sometimes but given that Kent Hovind doesn't even say where this quote is from(he only says Keith wrote the foreword to the 100th anniversary of Origin of Species, not that this quote is from that foreword) i highly doubt it and at any rate if you really want to know just go buy that edition and see for yourself that it's a lie. It is possible Kent Hovind just copied this idea from other creationists and did not originally make up this lie but who knows.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Keith

After that he just goes on about Christianity and its bullshit doctrines. To him evil=disobeying God and evil is defined by breaking a rule not by something being right or wrong on its own.

It's euthyphro's dillemma. Also even if God had created the world it would not mean everyone has to obey God to be morally right. Even if God created everyone and was responsible for them existing it would not make him own them and make them his justified slaves..The very idea of being a created soul to serve God means you are nothing more than a means to an end for God to get what he wants out of you, you have no intrinsic value if all you are is a tool. In other words, if God could find someone to replace you you would be obsolete and no longer have a point in existing. See the problem? It just writes off everyone as mere worthless minions of God that exist for no purpose but to amuse him and follow his rules, since he doesn't actually need them anyways if he's Omnipotent.

Other stuff Kent Hovind spouts off here just shows how Christianity is totally anti-health and tells people they shouldn't keep money for themselves. Yes, being a billionare and owning 20 cars is retarded, but it is not wrong for people to seek a good house and a car and have a goal of owning their own house and not being a debt slave. While Christianity sort of makes people think that state of being as a debt slave is somehow OK, that it's just necesssary to be poor to be benevolent.

Anyway that's enough ranting about Christianity. With that I've finally responded to the whole video and addressed about 90% of all points. There were 3-4 examples i guess that i didn't spend time to try to research and debunk but i think i answered mostly everything.

User avatar
Winston
Site Admin
Posts: 27841
Joined: August 18th, 2007, 2:16 pm
Contact:

Re: The Problems With Atheists and Atheism

Post by Winston » August 11th, 2018, 9:41 pm

@Aron
This is way too much to respond to. And too tedious too. Why can't you be concise rather than so long winded. lol

That long rebuttal to Kent Hovind is very long. Must have taken hours to write. Why don't you make it an official article and post it on a blog or webpage somewhere? So it goes to some good use? If you want, I can put it up as a subpage on here or the SCEPCOP site. Then it will get more attention and notice.

Also, have you seen "Unlocking the Mysteries of Life" yet? It's one of the main films I listed and only a little over an hour. I don't see how you can watch it and remain a believer in evolution. Here's the link again.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tzj8iXiVDT8

Also, why do you think the world is 4 billion years old? Is there any real proof for that? Or do you take it on faith because authority says so? How can you prove such a thing? Isn't it speculation and assumption?

The thing is, the movie I told you about "Is Genesis History?" gives a lot of good arguments for a Young Earth that is 6,000 years old. The atheists have not answered the arguments or address them. All they do is ridicule and mock the film. Take a look for yourself at the reviews on the IMDB page of the film.

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt6360332/?ref_=nv_sr_1
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt6360332/re ... ef_=tt_urv

Isn't it interesting that atheists only ridicule the film but cannot answer any of its arguments or points?

Please watch the whole film for yourself. It is very likable and enjoyable and like a nature tour. You can download it here on a torrent site.

https://thepiratebay.org/torrent/179884 ... [[English]

Also please see the film "Evolution's Achilles Heels". That one is the BEST and is guaranteed to make you dismiss evolution. It debunks evolution from every angle thoroughly. And if you watch it and listen to all its points and arguments, I don't see how you can possibly believe in it anymore. Here is the link to download the whole film from a torrent site.

https://thepiratebay.org/torrent/181895 ... laws_(m4v)
Evolution's Achilles' Heels: 15 Phd Scientist explain evolution's fatal flaws (m4v)

15 Ph.D. scientists expose devastating weaknesses in modern evolutionary theory. Subject areas covered include the fields of genetics, radiometric dating, natural selection, the geologic column, the fossil record, the origin of life, cosmology, and ethics. 3D animations and dramatic footage help to show how the theory's supposed strengths are, in fact, its fatal flaws-Evolution's Achilles' Heels.
Also here are some companion booklets to the film in PDF format.

https://thepiratebay.org/torrent/178302 ... volutions_
Evolution's Achilles Heels - 9 PhD Scientist explain Evolutions fatal flaws - Robert Carter (Editor) epub/mobi

This powerful book (illustrated in full colour) exposes the fatal flaws of evolutionary thinking. Like no other work that we are aware of, it is authored by nine Ph.D. scientists to produce a coordinated, coherent, powerful argument. All of the authors received their doctorates from similar secular universities as their evolutionary counterparts. Each is a specialist in a field relevant to the subject written about: Natural selection, origin of life, geology, genetics, radiometric dating, the fossil record, cosmology, and ethics.

Evolutions Achilles Heels directly demolishes the very pillars of the belief system that underpins our now-secular culture—evolutionary naturalism.

The nine Ph.D. scientists are Donald Batten, Robert Carter, David Catchpoole, John Hartnett, Mark Harwood, Jim Mason, Jonathan Sarfati, Emil Silvestru and Tasman Walker. Foreword by Carl Wieland and edited by Robert Carter.
https://thepiratebay.org/torrent/117731 ... ert_Carter
This powerful book (illustrated in full colour) exposes the fatal flaws of evolutionary thinking. Like no other work that we are aware of, it is authored by nine Ph.D. scientists to produce a coordinated, coherent, powerful argument. All of the authors received their doctorates from similar secular universities as their evolutionary counterparts. Each is a specialist in a field relevant to the subject written about: Natural selection, origin of life, geology, genetics, radiometric dating, the fossil record, cosmology, and ethics.

Evolution s Achilles Heels directly demolishes the very pillars of the belief system that underpins our now-secular culture evolutionary naturalism. It s coupled with the Biblical command to reach the lost with the Bible s Good News. In a nutshell, it s a comprehensive outreach tool like no other.

The nine Ph.D. scientists are Donald Batten, Robert Carter, David Catchpoole, John Hartnett, Mark Harwood, Jim Mason, Jonathan Sarfati, Emil Silvestru and Tasman Walker. Foreword by Carl Wieland and edited by Robert Carter.
Check out my FUN video clips in Russia and Female Encounters of the Foreign Kind video series and Full Russia Trip Videos!

Join my Ukrainian/Russian Women Dating Site to meet thousands of legit foreign girls at low cost!

"It takes far less effort to find and move to the society that has what you want than it does to try to reconstruct an existing society to match your standards." - Harry Browne

Aron
Freshman Poster
Posts: 140
Joined: July 4th, 2018, 9:54 am

Re: The Problems With Atheists and Atheism

Post by Aron » August 11th, 2018, 10:34 pm

@Winston

The reason i do such a long winded and tedious response is because you just quoted Kent Hovind without citing specific things in that video that convinced you. So to me, to really fully debunk it, I should write the long winded article. Which makes it lame if you are not going to read the long explanation of how kent hovind is wrong. It's not as bad as if you just continued to cite Kent Hovind later and ignored my response, but it's still annoying.

And yeah I have considered making it its own thread but I was going to post it here first.

Winston please look at your response from my perspective for a moment. I just spent more than 10 hours debunking that video for you, and a lesser amount of time addressing that Kent Hovind vs Michael Shermer debate before that. What do you do at that point....Tell me to watch another documentary to be convinced about evolution being untrue and the age of the earth being young and probably the Earth being Flat next or some other bullshit. Do you see where this is going...You just keep endlessly spamming links so i have to rebut source after source with no guarantee you will even acknowledge anything i prove.

So for me it feels like a huge letdown when i write the whole long article and you basically refuse to read and tell me to do more long research. I'm not going to waste my time watching another anti evolution documentary for you unless you're willing to engage in the dialogue here and respond to at least some of what i wrote. You do not have to read everything, I wrote a summary for you in that post that details all the actually important points. The long winded version is just to address basically everything Kent Hovind said including almost all of the 1 million random disproofs he tries to give of evolution, rather than addressing the systemic flaws he tries to point out with evolution as i do in the summary section.

Moretorque
Elite Upper Class Poster
Posts: 4819
Joined: April 28th, 2013, 3:00 pm
Location: USA,FL

Re: The Problems With Atheists and Atheism

Post by Moretorque » August 12th, 2018, 2:51 am

I mean it is like so simple, they say we came out of Africa and were previously apes and they also have traced our DNA to tribes in Africa.

Now all be dammed if a lot of black people don't look like a cross between an ape and a human. Some more so than others but it is so obvious too me......
Time to Hide!

User avatar
Winston
Site Admin
Posts: 27841
Joined: August 18th, 2007, 2:16 pm
Contact:

Re: The Problems With Atheists and Atheism

Post by Winston » August 22nd, 2018, 8:43 pm

@Aron

Sorry I didn't have time to reply to you for a while. There are also too many discussion threads going on too, to keep track of them all.

If you have 10 hours to write down why Kent Hovind is wrong, why didn't you have one or two hours to watch the videos I linked to you?

Anyway, I just wanted to make a few points. You listed some transitional fossils. Here are more:

http://transitionalfossils.com/pics.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_t ... al_fossils
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transitional_fossil
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archaeopteryx

However, how do you know these are transitional fossils? Because some scientist or institution labeled them as such? How do you know they aren't just species of their own, like types of fish for example, or types of birds? How do you know they are transitioning to a different species? That's what I don't get.

Also why did you say that the Cambrian explosion proves macroevolution? The video I showed you called "Darwin's Dilemma" doesn't say that at all. If it does, show me where it says that. It is definitely against macroevolution and states very clearly that it is impossible. There were many clips with Jonathan Wells where he explained why. And he also explained why life must have been designed top down, not bottom up. The Cambrian explosion means complex life just came out of nowhere. It doesn't mean evolution. It could be creation too. Creation with design. If something came out of nowhere or was sudden, that implies design or intervention, not a godless process. So I don't get your argument.

Have you seen the movie Star Trek II The Wrath of Khan? It had a Genesis torpedo that could create life and bring life to a dead planet. Perhaps life began like that, with some torpedo that jumpstarted it. See this clip of it here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52XlyMbxxh8

As you know, there is no way Darwinism or evolution can explain the origins of human intelligence. Even Carl Sagan admitted that. The human brain is way too complex and out of line with other animals, to have "evolved". It had to have been designed.

Please watch this presentation by Lloyd Pye called "Everything you know is wrong". He gives many arguments why intervention theory makes the most sense, not Darwinian theory.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e5qJYwfAju8
Check out my FUN video clips in Russia and Female Encounters of the Foreign Kind video series and Full Russia Trip Videos!

Join my Ukrainian/Russian Women Dating Site to meet thousands of legit foreign girls at low cost!

"It takes far less effort to find and move to the society that has what you want than it does to try to reconstruct an existing society to match your standards." - Harry Browne

Aron
Freshman Poster
Posts: 140
Joined: July 4th, 2018, 9:54 am

Re: The Problems With Atheists and Atheism

Post by Aron » August 24th, 2018, 12:55 am

@Winston
Winston wrote:
August 22nd, 2018, 8:43 pm
@Aron

Sorry I didn't have time to reply to you for a while. There are also too many discussion threads going on too, to keep track of them all.

If you have 10 hours to write down why Kent Hovind is wrong, why didn't you have one or two hours to watch the videos I linked to you?
You may not have noticed, but I responded to multiple of the videos. For example i responded to the whole SGTReport video and I also responded to the whole Darwin's Dilemma video. No i did not watch every single documentary you have linked in this thread but i would say i have watched more than enough. The ratio of how much video watching I have done when you link things in this thread compared to how much you have done is probably about 3 to 1 or at least 2 to 1. Not that i want it to stay that way but that's just how it is right now and it is getting frustrating.
Anyway, I just wanted to make a few points. You listed some transitional fossils. Here are more:

http://transitionalfossils.com/pics.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_t ... al_fossils
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transitional_fossil
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archaeopteryx

However, how do you know these are transitional fossils? Because some scientist or institution labeled them as such? How do you know they aren't just species of their own, like types of fish for example, or types of birds? How do you know they are transitioning to a different species? That's what I don't get.
I told you earlier but since it was contained within a long post and there was no pointer to it in the format or anything you might've missed it. Apes make sense as a transitional link, they walk on front knuckles instead of using the front limbs as feet, it seems like a progression from apes to humans as far as i can tell. Basically they have more power available to lift their upper body and frontal limbs than other animals do which is a trait they share in common with humans. The same goes with those fish that have bonier fins, it makes sense to me that maybe those fins evolved into feet, allowing them to walk around underwater and maybe get at some food they couldn't before, and then later on they learned to breathe air, those two evolutionary developments combined allowed them to just walk on land and breathe air.

Also why did you say that the Cambrian explosion proves macroevolution? The video I showed you called "Darwin's Dilemma" doesn't say that at all.
Something it seems like you didn't understand was that i was pointing out a contradiction. It was not the intent of the video makers to show this, but it's the truth these facts prove although it's ignored by their NLP. It doesn't matter that they intended otherwise since they're not honest and are trying to warp the facts to their agenda, but even as they do that the facts prove it's wrong. Here's the basic logical sequence i'm trying to explain:

Cambrian Explosion->Sudden rapid development of many animals underwater>None were land animals->Evolution required for land animals to emerge

They point to the Cambrian Explosion as evidence of divine intervention but what they are not understanding is that the moment they admit the Cambrian explosion it's evident there were no land animals on earth at the time, the best they can do is make up some BS about how Amphibians were magically created by God at some later point in time along with land animals. But this is 100% wrong. Here's their argument:

"The basic body plans of all animals were present from the start with the Cambrian Explosion, proving Intelligent Design."

Now notice what this means. All animals, they say. That means evolution is mandatory because there weren't any land animals when the Cambrian explosion happened. There's no way around it. The only real common body plan shared among all these animals was Bilateral Symmetry and later evolutions were really radically different from the fish back then. For example the development of many bones and the brain.

You didn't respond to anything I said about evolution and how it has been proven in the lab before, along with what mechanisms it uses. Which is right from the Evolution 2.0 book you mentioned in passing but you still don't respond to it.
If it does, show me where it says that. It is definitely against macroevolution and states very clearly that it is impossible. There were many clips with Jonathan Wells where he explained why. And he also explained why life must have been designed top down, not bottom up. The Cambrian explosion means complex life just came out of nowhere. It doesn't mean evolution. It could be creation too. Creation with design. If something came out of nowhere or was sudden, that implies design or intervention, not a godless process. So I don't get your argument.
They say God is responsible for the Cambrian explosion suddenly developing but the point is that evolution is still necessary to get the amphibians and the land animals. So if they are accepting the mainstream science that there was a cambrian explosion but altering it to say it created all the body plans immediately, it still has to be evolution that made the land animals. If they were questioned on this, they would probably make up some BS stating the land animals were created magically by God as well as the amphibians, but that doesn't change that the evidence is totally against their position.

Have you seen the movie Star Trek II The Wrath of Khan? It had a Genesis torpedo that could create life and bring life to a dead planet. Perhaps life began like that, with some torpedo that jumpstarted it. See this clip of it here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52XlyMbxxh8
Even if you're going to believe that as a possibility with no evidence that just pushes the issue back further, with how life developed on the earlier planets that spread life around. Maybe some comets had dormant bacteria on them and ended up spreading life to earth but i haven't seen any real evidence for that. Do you have a reason you are saying this at all and think it might have actually happened? Or are you just saying it since what you want to say is that God did it but you think this is more likely to be accepted by me?

As you know, there is no way Darwinism or evolution can explain the origins of human intelligence. Even Carl Sagan admitted that. The human brain is way too complex and out of line with other animals, to have "evolved". It had to have been designed.

Please watch this presentation by Lloyd Pye called "Everything you know is wrong". He gives many arguments why intervention theory makes the most sense, not Darwinian theory.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e5qJYwfAju8
Winston it's like you totally ignored my earlier comment. You didn't respond to all the main things i wanted you to respond to. You're the one who brought up Kent Hovind in the first place so you shouldn't get so disinterested when i put in a lot of effort to change your mind about him. You also didn't respond to everything I said about the evolution 2.0 book which i thought was really interesting, even though you were the one to mention it.

I really have no interest in watching that video about intervention theory unless you are going to respond to me on what i have said. Otherwise this is becoming an extremely one way conversation where i say something and you don't really respond. Making it seem like nobody heard it or cares, and also making it have been a waste of time. Even if i turn it into its own post, it doesn't matter if the few people in this forum don't actually respond.So please do actually respond to what i am saying on at least one or two points i have brought up.

flowerthief00
Freshman Poster
Posts: 134
Joined: January 11th, 2017, 5:14 am

Re: The Problems With Atheists and Atheism

Post by flowerthief00 » August 25th, 2018, 4:56 am

If a teacher asked you to critique an article or presentation and your critique was simply "Watch this rebuttal video. You'll be convinced for sure"....you'd fail the assignment.

I challenge you guys not to link to anyone or anything whose arguments you could have, should have made in your own words. If you have to link to hard evidence, tho, that's fine.

Aron
Freshman Poster
Posts: 140
Joined: July 4th, 2018, 9:54 am

Re: The Problems With Atheists and Atheism

Post by Aron » August 25th, 2018, 5:11 am

@flowerthief00
flowerthief00 wrote:
August 25th, 2018, 4:56 am
If a teacher asked you to critique an article or presentation and your critique was simply "Watch this rebuttal video. You'll be convinced for sure"....you'd fail the assignment.

I challenge you guys not to link to anyone or anything whose arguments you could have, should have made in your own words. If you have to link to hard evidence, tho, that's fine.
Yeah that is a good point. I try to explain the arguments in my own words but let me know if i forgot to somewhere. I don't mind that much when Winston links stuff since I can get the gist of what he is arguing as something that is just the same as what the video says, but what bothers me is when he doesn't answer the questions i bring up about some video. Worst of all, when he responds to my answer with linking another video. It's not like he doesn't know what they are saying as he explains his opinion sometimes but in this thread this videospam problem has been an issue.

Post Reply
  • Similar Topics
    Replies
    Views
    Last post

Return to “Religion and Spirituality”