Kent Hovind Gets Taken Again
Oh, this is just too precious.
The April 2005 issue of Scientific American included an editorial entitled “Okay, We Give Up” and subtitled, “We feel so ashamed”. The editors said they were contrite for ignoring creationism and ID, simply because there’s no evidence for either one.
That’s what makes ID a superior scientific theory: it doesn’t get bogged down in details.
Good journalism values balance above all else. We owe it to our readers to present everybody’s ideas equally and not to ignore or discredit theories simply because they lack scientifically credible arguments or facts.
This was clearly an April Fools joke. Perhaps not the funniest ever, but still pretty blatant. But Kent Hovind fell for it anyway.
Go read his response. I’m not reading so much as a twitch on the Clue-O-Meter. No wonder he’s a laughingstock, even by creationist standards.
This isn’t the first time this has happened, either: in 1999, New Mexicans for Science and Reason awarded Hovind the P.T. Barnum Award for showing a Philadelphia audience evidence of humans and dinosaurs coexisting. He didn’t realize it was NMSR’s April Fools prank.
Anyway, here are some selections from Hovind’s reply to Scientific American. Those of you who are familiar with him may recognize a lot of it. Those who don’t will discover new depths of kookiness.
The magazine treats evolution as if it is a part of science, when there’s nothing further from the truth. It is a religion, masquerading as science. But there is no scientific evidence that would tell us a dog produced a non-dog, let alone that a dog came from a work 4.6 billion years ago.
There’s actually overwhelming evidence that dinosaurs have always lived with humans. We simply called them dragons. Man killed most of them, and there may be a few still alive today.
As for the flood carving Grand Canyon, why don’t they explain to us why the top of the Canyon is 4,000ft higher than where the river (Colorado River) enters the canyon? Why don’t they explain to us how rivers miraculously flowed up-hill for millions of years to finally cut the groove deep enough so they could flow downhill?
The simple answer is uplift, of course. But Kent doesn’t accept continental drift, so presumably the idea of mountains growing is anathema to him as well.
There’s no such thing as a “fossil record”; there are simply fossils in the dirt.
Thanks for clearing that up. In other news, there’s no such thing as the free market; there’s just people buying and selling stuff. There’s no such thing as the National Archives; just a government building with a lot of old papers.
And if you can’t get your point across any other way, compare your opponents to Nazis or Communists:
Try to get a creationist article into a magazine like Scientific American, and see what happens. Ten years ago if a professor in the Soviet Union tried to submit an article to any Soviet magazine claiming that communism didn’t work, and capitalism is a better system, he would be shipped off to Siberia if he survived. Today, if a teacher in a public university, or a writer at any major science magazine (such as Scientific American) dares to suggest that evolution is not true, and maybe Creation is true, he will be sent to academic Siberia in a heart-beat.
One thing, though: ten years ago was 1995. The Soviet Union had formally become Russia four years earlier. I doubt anyone would have been sent to Siberia for saying that the old regime didn’t work.
I can’t believe these guys think there are scientifically credible arguments for the idea that all life came from nothing, 18 billion years ago. What are they thinking?
I agree with Hovind on this point: you’d have to be crazy to think that life on Earth started 4 billion years before the Big Bang. (For those unsure of the timeline: the universe is roughly 14 billion years old. The Earth is roughly 4.5 billion years old. Life appeared somewhere on the order of 1 billion years after the Earth formed, or about 3.5 billion years ago.)
The truth is that many scientists have come to understand who butters their bread. They have to support the evolution theory or lose their grant money. Ask any number of scientists who have not kissed the sacred cow of evolution and have lost their job, grant money, or position at a university. The list grows every day. See video number 7 for much more on this.
Ah, I love a good conspiracy theory!
The Bible says, “Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools.” Anyone who believes they came from a rock is a fool.
Hovind doesn’t think he came from a rock. He thinks he came from dirt.
You can download MP3s and videos of Hovind’s unique brand of stand-up comedy here.
Update, Sep. 16, 2005: Fixed URL to Hovind’s response. Thanks to alert reader Jamie for the correction.
The URL for Hovind’s response has changed. It is now at http://www.drdino.com/articles.php?spec=72&kws=scientific%20american
Thanks for your great summary. I enjoyed reading it. Nicely put. Hovind really lacks a sense of humor.
“Nicely put. Hovind really lacks a sense of humor.”
Maybe his whole career is his sense of humor.
i can’t believe how idiotic this is. not kent hovind. the so called scientists, and people who subscribe to their daydreams and fantasies as verbatim fact.
” But Kent Hovind fell for it anyway.” – he never said that he believed that scientific american was going to do what they said in the article. in fact, he never once says anything to order of “look, scientific amrerican is finally admitting that they were wrong”. there is nothing to “fall” for about that article.
“One thing, though: ten years ago was 1995. The Soviet Union had formally become Russia four years earlier.” – hovind’s comment about “ten years ago” is a figure of speech, not a date specific fact. get out of your mom’s basement, meet some people, and get a clue.
“the idea that all life came from nothing, 18 billion years ago” – he isnt refering to LIFE beginning 18 billion years ago. he’s refering to the “nothing” being 18 billion years ago.
here is a brief rundown of the evolutionist belief: life began on earth 3.5 billion years ago, where a primordial soup begat a simple single cell organism. where did that soup came from…? oh yes, it was formed what the earth was formed, by the swirling clouds and debris of elements and gasses caused by the big bang. where did that come from? all the matter in the universe (read: rock) came together and super-imploded (or whatever term you prefer to use these days), and exploded into what we call the big bang. and in another 18 billion years (i dont know the actual number that is being thrown around, so dont bother correcting me) it will happen again.
speaking of which, can you prove to me that life began approximately 3.5 billion years ago? no? can you make a time machine, and take us both back in time 3.5 billion years, and show me the beginnings of life? no? so then, this big-bang/evolution stuff is all just a theory then, yes? why then dont you treat is as such? just a theory. why is it, that scientists — who claim to be open minded (thats the point of science, isnt it?) — automatically regect all other theories that come to light? they say “these ideas are absurd, and are of no scientific value. only an idiot would believe something like that.” do they realize how “absurd” their own theories are?? scoffers = people who are willingly ignorant. in otherwords, dumb on purpose.
idiotic
I like this juxtaposition of “I don’t want to learn” and “betcha can’t make me learn.” You may want to rewrite this and use the same phrase in both clauses, for greater rhetorical effect.
…says the person who scoffs at honest scientists and refuses to learn.
All in all, thank you for this charming and amusing little tirade.
When looking at the glaringly obvious mistakes that certain people, such as Hovind, have made, it becomes too easy to “write off” all creation theories, for lack of a better
term, as absurd. However, the principles of a theory that claims all things in this universe evolved into being is equally difficult, if not impossible, to prove. Unless I remember incorrectly, Darwin himself originally studied theology, not science, and I am not aware of any formal scientific training he received. I know that the evolutionary theory did not begin with Darwin, but he is generally regarded as the father of modern evolution. My point is, many regarded him as an untrained man making absurd claims and theories. In response to arensb, mocking a previous writer for the dates is petty, since many scientists disagree with the exact date, by .5 billion years or so. As to there being no proof of creation theories: in previous archaeology classes that I have taken (for the record, my degree is from a div. I, four-year, accredited, state university), a specific point is made, time after time. It is impossible, without first-hand historic accounts, to prove that anything happened EXACTLY in a certain way. What archaeology, anthropology, and other related sciences (such as paleo fields) can prove is that it is POSSIBLE, even likely, that a certain event happened in a certain way. It is also unfair to say that someone who doesn’t believe in evoluion “scoffs at honest scientists and refuses to learn.” It simply means that the person disagrees with that scientist’s views on evolution. And not all “honest” scientists believe in evolution: there are many theories out there, with many strengths and weaknesses. In the future, we all would do better if we focus on the theories, and not the people proposing them.
I’ve never asked for proof. I know that science never proves anything, at least not in a mathematical sense. All I’ve asked for is evidence. And I note that you haven’t provided, linked to, brought up, or even alluded to any evidence for anything that supports any flavor of creationism.
Reread the last paragraph of whatanidiot’s comment and tell me he’s not scoffing at scientists. I wasn’t making fun of him for having an honest disagreement about a bit of fringe speculation. I was making fun of him for being monumentally, awe-inspiringly, Everest-dwarfingly ignorant despite the ease with which he could have educated himself, and the seeming pride that he took in his clue-proof skull. That, and accusing scientists of being guilty of his own sin.
I suppose that’s true: there must be a bunch of scientists who are utterly ignorant of biology. There are, however, no sane, knowledgeable scientists who honestly believe that evolution doesn’t occur or hasn’t occurred.
I guess that’s why you included the part about Darwin, as if it mattered to modern biology what Darwin thought.
PS: Paragraph breaks are your friends.
In response, while you speak of “scientists who are untterly ignorant of biology”, you disregard several credible scientists who raise serious
points concerning the creation/evolution issue (for example, Martin Lubenow has a good book, Bones of Contention). And it is true that no
“sane, knowledgeable scientists” will argue that “evolution” has not occurred. Organisms do progress, or evolve, over time. Adaptation also
occurs, as everyone knows.
However, the issue is whether or not a centralized theory of evolution, that all we know now evolved over billions of years. To disagree does not make someone incorrect or utterly ignorant.
I really cannot tell you what whatanidiot was thinking; maybe he was scoffing at scientists, maybe he wasn’t. What I was referring to was the fact that many creationists follow scientific research closely; we don’t simply ignore that with which we disagree.
You are correct that in my first statement I did not provide any citations; that was not the purpose of the statement. I had no illusions
that anything I did or did not say would change your mind; you do not seem to have an open mind concening this issue
In reference to Darwin, I was not implying that many, if any, of his ideas are followed religiously by modern biologists. I was merely pointing out the fact not all those who propose theories are “qualified”, if you will–this occurs on both sides of the argument.
Finally, in response to the ad hominem criticism of whatanidiot, perhaps you take this a little seriously. “Making fun of him”, “clue-proof skull”?
Seems a little vicious; yes, whatanidiot did the same thing, but that does not make amends. Once again theories, not people.
P.S. Yes, I am aware of what paragraph breaks are; thank you for pettily pointing out that error. I correspond via email frequently, so I tend you type for speed, instead of paying attention to grammar as much as I should. However, I did not forget to pay attention to common courtesy, as some seem to do. So, in advance, there may or may not be grammatical errors in this piece. Is that better? And, in rebuttal, contractions are not your friend in writing, although acceptable in everyday speech. I may have used them, and may have neglected my paragraph breaks as
well; all apologies.
Jim,
I confess that I haven’t read Bones of Contention. However, one reviewer quotes him as writing:
Other reviews (e.g., here and here) say that this is a major theme in the book.
Is this accurate? If so, how can you call Lubenow “credible” or say that Bones of Contention is a good book? Claiming that ancestral and descendent species cannot coexist is just “if humans evolved from apes, why are there still apes?”, which is as stupid as “if my ancestors were Russian, how come there are still Russians?”
I’m having trouble parsing this, mainly because the sentence seems to be missing a verb clause. I think what you’re saying is that there is dispute as to whether all life on Earth descended from one or a few common ancestors. If so, then no, that’s pretty much been established. How else can you explain the multiple nested hierarchies of living beings (e.g., morphological and genetic)? How do you explain the residual telomeres and centromeres on human chromosome 2?
It’s not that I don’t have an open mind; rather, it’s just that to date, creationists have failed to present any evidence for creationism that withstands close scrutiny. If you run across any, please let me know.
If by “qualified” you mean “has a fancy degree”, then you’re right. But in science, evidence trumps degrees every time, and Darwin did collect, organize, and present solid evidence for his ideas. Creationists don’t; or if they do (e.g., the Paluxy man-tracks) the evidence doesn’t stand up to scrutiny.
I’ll end by referring you to a message to creationists that I wrote a while back.
I apologize for the missing words in the sentence, it does make it difficult to read.
In Lubenow’s book, the point he was making with that statement is not one of the main themes; in actuality, he was summarizing several quotations from several scientists concerning basic principles of evolution. One of them is that if a “superior” species, B, evolves after species A, then eventually A will die off and B will remain. I said the book was good because of a number of issues addressed by the book. Regardless, if you would read the book, it would make it easier to comment on those issues. Quotations and reviews are not necessarily accurate.
Yes, Darwin did collect and organize “evidence”, although it was mostly visisble; much of what he used as basis for his claims was incorrect. Such is the way with science. Claims, hypotheses, and theories are made, and evidence either supports or falsifies them. Much in the way of evidence is ambiguous, and “scrutiny” can be used to attack numerous theories, not just creationism. If there was an evolutionary theory that was “air-tight”, there would be much less debate. For the record, most credible creationists don’t refer to Paluxy, although I believe Hovind does.
This is likely true if A and B are in competition with each other, but this is by no means always the case. A lot of times, speciation occurs because part of a population becomes isolated from the main population (allopatric speciation). In this case, the two aren’t in direct competition with each other.
If “B replaces A” were the rule, with few or no exceptions, then we’d see populations evolving, but we wouldn’t see speciation. Yet we do.
Unfortunately, none of the libraries in my area seem to have it.
The best kind of evidence, wouldn’t you say?
Okay, so what evidence, if any, supports creationism?
You’ll notice that there is no debate among biologists over the broad outlines: that evolution occurs; that it has occurred througout the history of life; that all modern species (including humans) are related by common descent; that natural selection, sexual selection, genetic drift, etc. drive evolution. If you’re interested in a list of deficiencies in modern evolutionary theory, I’ll refer you to this post by biologist PZ Myers.
The only “debate” is by people who, usually for religious reasons, don’t like evolution. What does this tell you?
I didn’t know there were credible creationists. Who are they, and where have they been hiding?
My intent in scoffing scientists is born only of my frustration for the dismissal of other theories. Setting aside creation, I do happen to believe there there is overwhelming evidence of a much younger Earth than is more popularly touted by science today. It doesn’t mean that it is true, but like many things it is possible. I do not have any direct links available at the moment as I am not at my regular computer. Here is an example, and while I am not “educated” with a university degree in physics, biology, archeology, paleontology, etc. I am more than intelligent enough to know that it is at least feasible:
Have you ever looked at the gutters in the road after a rain storm, and noticed the little canyons the rain carved? It reminds me alot of the satellite images of North America you see on Google Earth. Evidence? Or coincidence? I say evidence.
If the earth was flooded, where did the water go? Well, it’s possible that it retreated back into the oceans and subterranean caverns. The continents are part of much larger techtonic plates. If you push on one spot on a water bed, another part rises, yes? Would it not be possible then for one part of a techtonic plate to rise (bringing up mountains and land) while another part sinks becomming ocean? It could be that the plates were much more flat before the flood, and thus the water would have been spread out more equally. Well, difficult to imagine on a micro scale, but then again, a world flood isn’t so micro.
Also, what would the tides be like with all that water covering the earth? I think they would be huge. There would be immense amounts of water erosion, with the tides washing up mass amounts of soil into concentrated places (mountain ranges).
It would also cause the soil to hydraulically “sort” itself. More dense material would sink lower. It’s like those sand art frames you see sold in the malls where it is full of water and two colors of sand. You turn it over, and it forms layers.
Geologists have uncovered forests of petrified trees that were standing up. Why would they be standing up? If the layers are millions of years old, the trees could not have been growing through them. Hmm… I say evidence of something hydraulic in nature. How about the fossils in the layers? Well, the fish-like fossils are at the bottom, yes? Aren’t fish more dense, and would therefore sink? And the flying critters seem to be found on top. Maybe because they are less dense. Or, maybe because they drowned last.
Both evolutionists and creationists agree that there was an ice age. But the causes are only speculation. Three theories on the creation side: the massive amounts of water caused the oceanic currents to shift, causing deadly storms and freezing. That theory has been around a long time, and yes I know, they made a Hollywood movie about it. I think it’s doubtful that that happened. In Genesis it says that water burst forth from the earth. Taking this litterally, water could have shot out of underground caverns (Genesis also says that God created the earth above the waters and below the waters.) This water could have shot into the atmosphere (immeasurable weight would have been on these suggested caverns, and thus a great deal of pressure). The atmosphere would have super cooled the water mist into instant snow. Sounds far fetched, but then again, we dont know what was under the earth 5000 years ago.
The third theory would be that a comet hit the earth. I am putting this theory into a new paragraph because there are more details about it. An object that enters the atmosphere doesnt always burn up. In the case of a comet, it would surely break apart, and much of it burn up. But in the center of that object burning up, the air would cool into a cold-channel. (I’m my own words here, so please forgive me if my terminology is incorrect.) Remember back to the photos of Jupiter when it was impacted by a comet. The comet in that case broke up, and left dark spots on Jupiter for quite some time, indicating an cataclysmic temperature change, and volumetric change to those areas. So far, it sounds very unlikely. Recently there was a test performed that indicated that the Earth was wobbling a few inches. If you bump a spinning top, it wobbles, and eventually re-balances itself out. The Earth is a spinning top, and according to the formulas that the scientist came up with (based on how long it takes a gyro to re-balance itself, and based on it’s spin etc), they placed impact of something large on Earth at approximately 5000 years ago. A comet perhaps? Maybe, maybe not. But that 5000 years coincides with the flood supposedly taking place around the same time.
All of that being said, maybe thats what really happened, and maybe not. I don’t know, because I wasn’t there. I didn’t see the flood. I also didn’t see the big-bang, so I don’t know if that really happened either. I guess what I am trying to say is, the creationist theories (specifically about the flood — you dont have to believe in God to believe in a world flood) are very much snubbed out of hand and are not given alot of valid attention. Using only their analytical minds, and setting aside their biases of evolution (thats what they study, so that is always going to give some bias to their efforts), I would love for some scientists to honestly put some research into this. And not just reading white papers from creation theologists either. Do the honest research themselves, and get the results themselves. The only people who seemingly HAVE done any research on the subject is the creationists such as Dr. Kent Hovind, Martin Lubenow and the like.
whatanidiot:
Not only have I noticed this, I’ve written about it before.
You haven’t actually done the math on this, have you? How much water are you talking about? How many millions of tons of rock are you talking about moving, and by how much? How much energy is necessary to move that much stone? Over what period of time? Where does this energy come from? What happens once it’s dissipated into the planet and its atmosphere as heat?
In case you didn’t know, this is colloquially known as the “grass outran velociraptors” theory.
By the same reasoning, you don’t know whether your father was born normally, or emerged fully-grown from a radiant spacecraft. You don’t know, because you weren’t there.
I confess that I laughed out loud at this. The man’s a buffoon.
(southpaw: whatanidiot’s comment contains a lot of arguments that don’t stand up to scrutiny, in case you were wondering what I meant.)
When I said Darwin used visible evidence, I was referring to his observations of external, physical traits, as opposed to things that you have referred to, such as chromosome 2.
And yes, there are credible scientists who believe in creation theories, of which there are many variants. Just because you disagree does not mean that they are “absurd”, although I will admit that the pseudo-scientists “hurt the image”, so to speak. They (credible creationists) do exist, however.
“Not only have I noticed this, I’ve written about it before.” – Did you take into account other forms of erosions that would shape the rough surface?
“You haven’t actually done the math on this, have you? How much water are you talking about? How many millions of tons of rock are you talking about moving, and by how much? How much energy is necessary to move that much stone? Over what period of time? Where does this energy come from? What happens once it’s dissipated into the planet and its atmosphere as heat?” – It would take alot of computing power to do the “math” on this. Obviously it would take alot of force. Perhaps the force of a comet or meteor impact (craters found all over the world) while obviously not large enough of a force to move a continent, it could possibly be enough to start a chain reaction underground in subterranean chambers. Period of time would be months, and there would be earthquakes such as no body has ever imagined. Imagine the tsunamis, and add that to the theory of washing up soil and sediment. As for heat, it may have been in the form of cold, and triggered the ice age. Again, supporting the idea of a comet. Or as I said, if water shot out into the atmosphere and froze… you get the idea.
Look at the evidence for the ice age. Wooly mammoths, frozen standing up, food still undigested in their stomachs, and plants still green, in their mouths. They would have to be frozen VERY fast. In order to freeze an elephant sized mammal in for example 5 hours, it would take temperatures of -300 centrigrade. Tell me you don’t see that.
“In case you didn’t know, this is colloquially known as the “grass outran velociraptors” theory.” – Thats cute. I like how you dismiss it out of hand without thought.
Grass huh… What happens to grass when you throw it in water? It floats, yes? Does it seem reasonable then that the grass could have washed back into the oceans? Or more likely, it just stayed closer to the top and decayed.
“By the same reasoning, you don’t know whether your father was born normally, or emerged fully-grown from a radiant spacecraft. You don’t know, because you weren’t there.” – On the contrary, my grandparents were very fond of moving pictures and recorded his birth. Not that we have any equipment in the family to play it back anymore, when I was younger, I did indeed witness the birth of my father. Not something I wish to see again, nor would I wish ANYONE to see…. although a radiant spacecraft would have been much cooler.
“The man’s a buffoon.” – He comes across this way without a doubt. But if you look PAST that part, he brings up some interesting ideas. I know it can be hard to get past that though. It took alot of laughing and time, but I got over it. And now it is somewhat interesting (once you pick out the cheese). All Im saying is step outside the box, and actually examine everything. Every detail. Not, “well, thats not true because we know this and that.” No fossilized grass? What are the properties of grass when exposed to conditions that could possible be imposed?
“(southpaw: whatanidiot’s comment contains a lot of arguments that don’t stand up to scrutiny, in case you were wondering what I meant.)” – What scrutiny have you applied to them? 2-3 minutes of reading, or several hours of actual research? Did any of this stuff happen? Who knows? But for you to instantly dismiss it with a blatant “NO”, then that’s what is colloquially called “a one track mind”.
Anyways… Hovind apparently has a live radio show on his website that you can call in and… debate or whatever. http://www.drdino.com
southpaw:
On the basis of what evidence do they believe these theories? I keep asking for evidence, and you keep not providing any.
I can’t help but wonder why, if yeasts are now evolving, as bacteria did, my doctor just gave me the same old oral tablets for a systemic fungal infection, and how it worked. Or how, now, the doctors have any hope of using antibiotics to cure the many bacterial sinus and bladder infections out there, since now that drug resistant strains have evolved, the old ones clearly cannot exist.
But that’s really beside the point nitpicking. Clearly, fungi and bacteria have evolved drastically, even in my lifetime. As have (as any homeowner trying to use any older bait trays knows) many household pests, such as ants, roaches, and the like… all of which, no matter how odious I find them, I believe are beloved of God as God’s creation. If you find that disturbing, take your petty “Daddy loves you best” grievances up with your creator, not me, it’s not my problem.
If your God is so small that said God has to follow the rules of ANY of us down here, OR, if your God’s rules can’t hold up to the scrutiny of the brains said God supposedly created, then that God needs to be chucked, and a new one looked at. If God has to do things MY way, and I can’t allow for any other way for it to happen, I am kinda specifying God’s agenda. In that case, um, really, who’s trying to play the God, here? Yes, you could say then, I should be open minded enough to see it MUST be your way, but sorry, the brain God gave me says otherwise, and I get the feeling you’re not really reciprocating.
The problem is that if we admit we’re all descended from apes, then well, we can’t be any better than they are, can we? How can we compare to such lowly life forms as the aomeba? This all stems, IMO, from 1) an inferiority complex, and 2) a real lack of acceptance of God’s grace. God chose to elevate us out of the rest of creation, no matter HOW, and that makes us incredibly special- I think even MORE special if we consider “There, aomeba, but for the grace of God, slither I.”
Take that to your philosophy class and chew on it, get unbent, take delight in creation, and in the wonderful way God made it all work out, down to the little potassium-argon decomposition and all the other really cool stuff. It’s an amazingly fascinating universe, the more I learn of how evolution works, the more in awe I am of my creator. The bigger and more complex it gets, the more incredible it seems that I am important enough for all my hairs to be counted. Creationists: Stop putting all these STUPID limits on my Creator, making God more simplistic and less interesting. So what, you can’t understand it all. Neither can any other people. That’s the limitation of being human. Live with it.
whatanidiot:
I’m not asking for a detailed computer model; just a back of the envelope calculation, which you can do by hand or with a pocket calculator and some High School physics. Here’s something to get you started (Google and Wikipedia are your friends):
Tectonic plates are roughly 100 km thick.
Ocean plates consist largely of basalt; continental plates consist largely of granite.
The area of the surface of the Earth is 5.1 * 1011 km2.
Broken basalt has a density of 1954 kg/m3; broken granite has a density of 1650 kg/m3.
In the simplest case, the formula for work is W = Fs, where W is the work, F is the force applied to the object, and s is the distance it is moved.
An object near the Earth’s surface falls at 9.80665 m/s2, but you can round to 10 m/s2 for simplicity.
Ceres, by far the largest asteroid in the solar system, has a mass of 9.5 * 1020 kg.
The kinetic energy of an object is measured by E = 1/2 m * v2
For simplicity, assume a continental (or ocean, I don’t care) plate covering 1/10 of the Earth. You wish to raise it by 10 m over a period of, say, six months. How much work is required to do this? (Alternately: how much work will be done by gravity if the plate simply falls 10 m?)
You won’t tell me, because you’re a creationist and creationists, especially young-earth creationists, can’t do math.
Bzzt! You lose. Absolute zero is -273 degrees Celsius. A temperature of -300 C is impossible.
And by the way, even Answers in Genesis says the “flash-frozen mammoths” argument is bogus.
Not without thought. Rather, BTDTGTTS, and the idea that animals and plants ran for higher ground from a putative flood doesn’t pass the giggle test. Look at the news photos from post-Katrina New Orleans or the Indian Ocean tsunami. Notice lots of dead people, animals, and plants, all jumbled together, even though humans and animals could, theoretically run for higher ground. Now consider that you’re talking about a cataclysmic event far worse than either of those, and explain to me how it’s possible that not a single human skeleton has been found side by side with a dinosaur (not counting birds, of course); why ferns appear so much lower than grass; why Basilosaurs are never found in the same stratum as modern dolphins or whales.
So no, I haven’t dismissed the “grass outran velociraptors” because I haven’t given it much thought, but simply because it’s patent bullshit. You believe it not because there’s any evidence for it, or even because it’s plausible, but because you want it to be true, and because a snake-oil salesman told you it’s okay to believe that.
“You won’t tell me, because you’re a creationist and creationists, especially young-earth creationists, can’t do math.” – Is math really necessary when merely expressing an idea. It’s only an idea at this point. And just because I haven’t given you all this in thesis format with detailed mathematical results, doesnt mean that something is impossible. Or does it?
“Bzzt! You lose. Absolute zero is -273 degrees Celsius. A temperature of -300 C is impossible.” — Again, I was being general here; I was only trying to get across an idea, not a verbatim fact. Either way, it’s bloody cold.
“And by the way, even Answers in Genesis says the “flash-frozen mammoths” argument is bogus.” — Indeed they do, because elephants stomachs act as storage areas for food, and only begin digesting when it needs to. Well enough, but wouldnt that food begin to decay and rot, even without stomach acid? There must have been SOME bacteria and micro-organisms that would be decaying it, right? And the food still in the mouths was said to be fully intact, with no signs of decay.
“Now consider that you’re talking about a cataclysmic event far worse than either of those, and explain to me how it’s possible that not a single human skeleton has been found side by side with a dinosaur (not counting birds, of course); why ferns appear so much lower than grass; why Basilosaurs are never found in the same stratum as modern dolphins or whales.” — I dont know what the density of a live basilosaur is. Also, we don’t know if humans covered the entire planet either, of if they were concentrated in a more centralized area. Animals migrate a lot, as is still observed today. Before the flood, they probably did too, while humans stuck very much together for sharing of food and resources. And we don’t know the exact geography of the earth pre-flood, so it could also be that the ocean floor contains the vast majority of all earth fossils. You don’t see alot of archeologists digging on the ocean floor, do you? Who knows whats down there? I mean, it covers something like 70% of the planet, yes? Thats alot of un-explored area. As for ferns appearing lower, maybe they uproot more easily than grass, maybe they are more dense and are less likely to float. Maybe maybe maybe. Again, not facts, just ideas.
Rather than trying to find reasons for something to be wrong, why not try to find reasons for something to be right, or at least possible? I dont mean this from an evolution/creation standoff either. Just in general, “They found this, what could possibly make that happen? What else could make that happen?” I mean, how are we as human beings supposed to discover new things if we don’t question everything else around us? Instead it seems we come up with one explanation, call it truth, and drop all other explanations like yesterday’s garbage.
Either way, thanks for humoring me. It was a fun discussion, if not frustrating.
To AnneB: I don’t understand where you see these “STUPID limits” I am imposing on God. If anything, what I’m suggesting makes it even more incredible. There is nothing simple about a global flood, which is all Im suggesting at this point.
You know, in the time it took you to type that, you could at the very least have figured out the mass of the hypothetical tectonic plate I asked you to consider. Why are you making excuses instead? I guess I was right: creationists can’t do math, not even at the High School level.
Except that this sort of sloppiness shows that you have no idea what you’re talking about, any more than if you had mentioned the 90 planets of the solar system, or the 500 oceans. Like words, numbers mean things. And even if you don’t happen to remember the value of absolute zero, it’s the work of a few moments to Google it.
What if I told you that I once walked from New York to Los Angeles in a day? Let’s estimate about 3000 miles from NY to LA. Dividing by 24 hours, you would find that I would have had to “walk” at 125 miles per hour the entire time, which is two orders of magnitude greater than normal walking speed.
So do you believe that I could have walked across the North American continent in a day? Is it worth trying to find ways for my claim to be right, or at least possible? If you believed my claim, would that make you open-minded, or just gullible?
It’s good to keep an open mind, but not so open that your brains fall out, or that someone stuffs it full of garbage.
While I can’t claim to read her mind, I believe what’s she’s saying is that you’re telling God that he had to have done things in accordance with your interpretation of a particular book written by and for bronze-age nomads. You’re telling God that since you can’t cope with the idea of a universe billions of years old, that he has to acquiesce and make it a million times younger. That you want to be the purpose of the universe, rather than just one voice in a symphony that includes every insect on every planet, and therefore God isn’t allowed to have used evolution.
You have no idea. Go read Pat James’s article, Torpedo Ye Arke. You don’t realize it because you haven’t thought it through (and you don’t know math, so you can’t even do simple reality checks), but if you think that there was a flood and an ark as described in Genesis, then you must also believe that Noah was a better shipwright than anyone in the British Navy, that you fit 3000 tons of food into a 1500-ton boat, and that evolution proceeds thousands of times faster than any evolutionary biologist would dare to suggest.
And yet you have the gall to bad-mouth scientists because they’ve thought it through, they’ve done the math and the legwork and the experiments, and they tell you that sorry, that nice story you grew up with as a kid isn’t actually literally true. Then, instead of trying to figure out why they’ve reached the conclusions that they have, you pout and stamp your little feet and say “Is not!”
Go learn something. You can start here. Try to understand why scientists say the things they do, and maybe you’ll find that you live in a world more complex and wonderful than you have ever imagined.
About the only thing I’ve gained for this is the knowledge that arensb is an asshole who can’t resist showing everyone what a tedious pedant he is with regard to grammar and syntax. Of course, all his grandstanding clearly displays his superiority. How could anyone pose a valid argument without perfect grammatical skills?
Better yet, why are all you people wasting your time arguing with an asshole when there might be someone who is genuinely interested in what you have to say?
Now, find my mistake and prove me right.
“Now, find my mistake and prove me right.”
I’m looking for the part where you proved any of his arguments wrong. And since those are the important bits of the discussion, and you’ve missed them entirely, then I’m thinking that that was your mistake.
That or spelling the word “arsehole” wrong.
arensb I admire your faith in evolution. Despite the lack of evidence, you seem to make it look as if evolution is a fact when in fact it’s a hypothesis. Creation too is a hypothesis but a much better one. Evolution can’t explain the origins of life. Life can only occur from life as life begets life! Evolution seems to skip this observable fact and thus becomes nothing but a fairy tale. Unless you believe in a form of theistic evolution, your evolution hypothesis becomes a joke. Don’t tell me that scientists have accepted evolution as you understand it for that itself is part of the debate.
I’ll ask you the same question I’ve asked the other creationists, above: what evidence is there to support creationism?
There isn’t any. Everyone can go home now. Actually, after reading both sides of the argument, I’ve decided to believe in neither “hypothesis”. Instead, I’ve decided to believe in the “Lord of the Rings” and its teachings. It’s a book that was written before my time, and tells of tales before anyone alive can remember. So it must be true. Long live Middle Earth!
Paul L. “Evolution can’t explain the origins of life. Life can only occur from life as life begets life! Evolution seems to skip this observable fact and thus becomes nothing but a fairy tale.” The origins of life are explained via the theory of abiogenesis. Evolution explains how life come from life, abiogenesis explains how life might have come frome no life.
right now, i’m too effin tired to argue with either of your sides, so i’ll simply say that kent hov-whatever is no moron. is is one of the more intelligent people that i have seen. of course, not in matters that concern science or reilgion, but he is quite adept at maniuplation and solicitation. he quotes from adolf hitler in his conferences, suggesting to me that he has read mein kampf. he has been charged with assault and tax evasion. he runs a multi-million dollar company which invites children to have fun from his back yard in the middle of a slum, without proper permits to run the business or care for the children whom attend at a whopping rate of less that 50 per day.
evolution is proven to me by the fact that if i need cheddar cheese, and all i have is mozzarella, i improvise and make do with what i have. (now, some may argue that this is not proof of evolution, but of adaptation and to that i say: prove the difference to me)
Clearly this is proof not of evolution, but of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, who has provided bounteous cheese to go with your spaghetti. QED.
kent hovind has disprooved evolution and u guys r deperately hanging on to the dumbest theory in history
So my choices are 1.) I came from a concoction of random chemicals that gathered together after a random spark brought them to life. And this all came from the random formation of a planet that is just situated at the right location from a light and heat source to allow that life to propogate and of course the planet came from a huge explosion in which nothing created everything which also randomly created the galaxy I sit in and the planet I live on or 2.) I was created by an intelligent being, call him God or whatever you choose to and he made me and everything on this planet through some grand design known only to it.
I’ll tell you what, when I win the freakin’ lottery which would seem to me to be a far easier prospect than being born of a bunch of goo coming to life, I’ll buy you all a car. Until then, I think I’ll believe in something a bit more positive… a supreme being.
You forgot option 3: that you were born of human parents, like every other person on the planet. If you want to call your parents “God”, that’s your prerogative, of course, though it’s likely to cause confusion when you try to communicate with other people.
Is there any evidence to support your belief?
If your argument boils down to “I can’t imagine… therefore God exists”, that says a lot more about your imagination than about God.
Option 3 is rather unthinkable in that its obvious my parents, nor yours, created the world we live in so I’m speaking in a larger sense rather than just of myself. To attribute the creation of the galaxy to anything other than the Big Bang or to a Supreme Being makes no sense. Is there really another option? In your statement you don’t imply a third option either, you literally provided it as ones parents; as if the beginning point is simply that, your very own birth.
I think this line of thinking provides more limits to your own imagination rather than mine. Why you ask? Well, simply because you’re thinking only takes you as far as a humancentric (assuming that’s a real term and I’m too lazy to look it up) view and no further as if to say that’s it… there’s nothing else to your existence or your life beyond your own existence. From this I deduce that you are probably a humanist in your world view and its obvious you have a greater appreciation for scientific belief than theistic belief because you seek evidence.
I’ll happily admit there’s no evidence to support a supreme being who we’ll call God for lack of a better label. If someone truly has belief, evidence means nothing to them; it’s what they believe via their own rationale. And, providing evidence sounds like a court case that must be won by one side convincing the other of the fallacy of their argument and the correctness of their own. The better question would be: does it really matter in the end? From your philosophy it really doesn’t matter because you have no one to answer to but yourself, but from a theistic point of view it matters to God and that’s all that’s important to a believer who actually has a God.
Let us suppose for a moment that there is no God. Well then we have to take the natural or evolutionary explanation for the existence of all life as we know it in all of its various complexities and its beauties not to mention all of the awful, ugly things that happen to the world and to its inhabitants day in and day out. At that point it seems that life or, to put it more precisely, mere existence has no purpose but rather it is a random effect within the universe without cause or reason. That means that since we merely exist there’s no point in creating rules or social morals or standards to live by as we have nothing and no one to answer to and nowhere to go when our time is up. It also means there’s not much in life to look forward to since its merely an existince with the preclusion that it will end in your death and anything that might make you unique is simply lost to time unless you have left behind some legacy of yourself, and then again if its a human legacy how long will humanity really last… by your line of thinking.
We can presume that God does not exist all day long but our presumption does not make it so. We can presume that science is correct all day long but our presumption does not make that so either. Everyone on either side of that particular debate is simply wasting their time as there will always be those, like yourself, with a third option who believes neither is true and yet provides no meaningful alternative to explain this other option. The so-called evidence of the Bible, or of God if you prefer, is manifest in the writings of people who lived thousands of years before you and I. The evidence of science is manifest in the writings of people who live hundreds of years, sometimes thousands of years, before you and I and who continue to extoll their own beliefs.
Is science the new religion then, attempting vainly to convert new followers to its own dogmatic view? Are the scientists the new prophets who are proselytizing to the masses? If so, then who do you worship? Who is your God or do you have a pantheon of Gods instead whom you revere? How is it that you worship them and how do you pray to them? What do you offer of yourself to them in exchange for their divine influence since its obvious in your belief you’ve made Gods of men.
I ask you then, where is the evidence to support your belief? Assuming you truly have a belief. And is this evidence simply the evidence of man and nothing more? And if it is the evidence of man implying a belief from what he can observe, is that evidence really good enough for everyone?
Far From Goo!:
You said “I”, which led me to believe that you were speaking of yourself.
Sure. Why shouldn’t there be? But I must ask: you started out by talking about either embryonic development or abiogenesis. How did the formation of the galaxy creep into the discussion?
If this is how you think, then doesn’t it follow that you’d believe in God whether or not God existed? If evidence means nothing to you, that means you could be completely and utterly wrong, and you’d have no way of knowing.
That doesn’t follow. One can be an atheist and still not accept evolution. Granted, such an atheist would have to be as ignorant as the typical Christian literalist creationist, but it’s still possible.
There are literally tons of evidence for evolution (by which I mean biological evolution; if you think it means something else, such as “origin of life” or “origin of Earth” or “origin of the universe” or “atheism”, then you’re wrong).
That doesn’t follow either. “Random” is not the same as “purposeless”. To a first approximation, “random” means “unpredictable”, and it’s clear that much in nature is not random: the planets revolve in their orbits according to the laws of gravity and mechanics, and not because there are angels pushing them along. And yet their motion is highly predictable, and not at all random.
And even if there is no grand, overarching, externally-imposed “purpose” to human life, so what? Are you saying that you can’t come up with something good to do with your life on your own?
That doesn’t follow either: just because there are no gods doesn’t mean that we can’t or shouldn’t come up with rules to live by. I happen to like getting along with other people: a lot of them are smart, and funny, and charming, and generally a pleasure to be around. Most of the others I’m generally indifferent to, but I’d still like to be able to walk around without worrying (too much) that I’ll be killed or robbed or assaulted.
There’s at least one hidden assumption here: you’re assuming that if there’s a god, it has to be the Judeo-Christian-Islamic god, with all the attendant baggage: life after death, judgment, heaven and hell, and all that.
But the possibilities are endless: there might be a god, but it created the universe by accident, and isn’t even aware of us. Or else it created the universe to see some pretty black holes, and the existence of life on our planet is just a side effect; there
“preclusion“?
You do know that words have meanings, don’t you?
But anyway, you’re arguing that I should believe in a god because the alternative makes you uncomfortable. Sorry, but I’d rather face an uncomfortable truth than a soothing lie.
Ditto Zeus, Brahma, Xenu, the IPU and the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
That would be missing the point. Science is not a dogma that one take on faith; in fact, it’s quite the opposite.
Since I just wrote an article about this, I’ll refer you to it. In particular, see the middle section and the two questions that every scientist must ask himself.
The way you’re asking this, I think you mean “if you don’t have a belief in God, what takes the place of that belief in your life?” This is a lot like a drinker asking a teetotaler, “If you don’t get drunk on whiskey, what do you get drunk on?”
Atheism and science are not different types of religion, any more than water and lemonade are different types of alcohol.
At any rate, you haven’t given any reason to believe in your or any other god. At best, it seems you’ve said that you’re afraid to face life without someone telling you what to do. I hope you’ll forgive me if I’d rather not join you.
Thanks for correcting my diction. If a word sounds good why not throw it in there, I’ve always said.
I’ll let you get back to your tons of evidence and your convictions and quit wasting your valuable time then. I do however appreciate the commentary and the conversation; it’s always educational to see how different people feel and what it is they believe in their hearts.
So… like every other ignorant, Christian literalist creationist, I’ll pray for you anyway… even though you might not want me to.
And thus another creationist slinks away rather than try to back up his assertions.
arensb, have you had an opportunity to read Matt Ridley’s The Agile Gene? It’s an interesting take on the complexity of the human genome. I have difficulty reconciling the obvious complexities of what Ridley points out about the human gene with the idea of evolution. As well, I was also confused about something you had mentioned earlier about Darwin. You said that it didn’t matter to modern biology what Darwin thought. I find that statement confusing because it seems to me that modern biology might not be where it is today if not for the principle of natural selection so well put together by Darwin. His observations of the natural world are well reasoned concepts for someone of his time. I am often amused at the fact that he never obtained a degree in science and that his degree was in theology instead in the scientific field. I do feel that Darwin tends to get alot of the credit for the principle of natural selection when he wasn’t the only one with such ideas. His contemporary, Alfred Russel Wallace is so often overlooked though I can easily understand why because he so much doubted his own theories, as I understand that Darwin doubted his own later in his own life. I do not think that modern biology or any naturalistic science can simply discard Darwin. If one can overlook the racism that permeates his Origin of the Species, Darwin is otherwise a brilliant individual.
Creationists hate to admit this, but the world is full of evidence for evolution!
Evolutionists hate to admit this, but the world is full of evidence for creation!
This is simply because the evidence for both models is exactly the same. We live in a material world, and all material (matter) is available for scrutiny. It is all here for both sides to examine at leisure. If you are a creationist, you see the evidence as supportive of your view. If you are an evolutionist, you see the evidence as supportive of your view. Thus, it is pointless to ask an opponent of your view for evidence of his view (and vice versa). It’s not the evidence; it’s how you view the evidence.
How is this possible? Simple!
The evolutionist hates to admit that his is a faith-based model of origins. He likes to defer to science, and uses evolutionary scientists to back up his views. History records many notable scientists who subscribe to the evolutionary model.
The creationist hates to admit that his is a faith-based model of origins. He likes to defer to science, and uses creationist scientists to back up his views. History records many notable scientists who subscribe to the creationist model.
Each side comes to the table with a pre-conceived view of origin, and views the evidence through the lens of their own background and beliefs.
Can a person switch sides? Sure, but not generally on the basis of evidence. More often than not, the switch occurs on the basis of faith. When we change our basis of faith, we change our view of the evidence. And by the way—it goes both ways. Some have changed from evolutionist to creationist; some have gone the other way.
Which am I? Doesn’t matter. If I were to say, you would immediately invalidate my view. Let’s just think about what I’ve said, and let that be a matter of discussion!
Can you please provide the creationist explanation for the multiple nested hierarchies observed in nature? What about homologies? The lack of mammals with feathers? Just to name a few.
“God did it” or “God wanted it that way”, since it explains everything (it handles both the existence and nonexistence of centaurs equally well), and therefore explains nothing.
In the same way that a Fortune 500 CEO hates to admit that he runs a charity: it just isn’t true.
Evolution is science, and science is based on doubt: experimental facts are considered in doubt until they’re replicated by someone else, preferably by several other teams. Articles are submitted anonymously to reviewers (to help prevent the reviewers from privileging famous or popular researchers at the expense of unknown ones) before publication.
Heck, even as we speak, I’m running some computer simulations because I didn’t want to take someone else’s word for the power of natural selection. If you want a copy of the code, let me know and I’ll share. If you find any bugs, I’ll be glad of it.
More importantly, evolution produces results: Tiktaalik was discovered in the place it was predicted to be found, using results from paleontology and geology. When’s the last time creationism advanced human knowledge?
How many of them work or worked after the publication of The Origin of the Species? How many of them are biologists? How many are named Steve?
I’ll defer to Glenn Morton, a geologist in the oil industry, who used to be a young-earth creationist, and wrote “research” papers for ICR:
Can you name anyone who understood the theory of evolution and was familiar with the evidence for it who switched to creationism?
The fact that you think evolution is faith-based says that you don’t know what it is, or how science works, or what the evidence for evolution and common descent is. Your performance here is on a par with someone who says, “Sure, this Republican administration got us into a pointless war in Iraq, but the Democrats want to confiscate everyone’s property and strangle kittens. Betcha can’t guess which party I’m in!”
But hey, I’m open to the possibility that creationism might be true. If you have any evidence for it, why don’t you bring it out and show us?
I also strongly suggest that you learn what evolution is, so that you don’t make a fool of yourself by misrepresenting it. Call it “know thy enemy” if you like.
Of all of Kent Hovind’s intellectual sins, his biggest is stating that evolution is a religion. I am a practicing Christian. I beileve in God. I don’t “believe” in evolution; it is merely the scientific theory that most credibly explains the origin of life. Kent Hovind would tell me that I do not believe in God, since I “believe” in evolution. What gall he has to tell other people what they do and do not believe!
Science and religion can coexist. Science is based on doubt (as arensb said), and religion is based on faith. Science will never “kill” religion. No matter how far science goes into understanding the nature of life, the universe, or even the multiverse, God still can (and I believe does) exist on a level never accessible to science. This does not marginalize science for people of faith, rather it makes science an integral part of understanding God’s Creation.
Furthermore, I think creationism, not the theory of evolution, degrades the Supreme Being. To say, “Oh, God couldn’t have done it that way, it’s not it Bible,” is to impose human restrictions on God. The Supreme Being could have made things literally the way it is described in Genesis if it wished, but the evidence clearly doesn’t point to that. To ignore emperical evidence in order to believe two parables (the first developed to counter the Babalonian creation myth and the second to teach about humanity’s chosen fall from grace) on a literal level is not only bad science, but bad theology.
If creationists like Kent Hovind would realize that understanding the thoery of evolution and believing in God are not mutually exclusive, and if they truly examined the evidence for evolution, without the agenda of proving a coulple of parables to be historically and scienctifically correct, I think they would understand evolution as the best thoery for biogenesis.
Ummm. I’m not trying to be difficult here, arensb, but you never answered my earlier questions. See above comment from “crew” dated 6/29. Any insight or comments you might have is most appreciated. Thank you.
crew:
Sorry about that. Your message fell off of the current page in my mail inbox, and I forgot.
Sorry, no. I’ve read his Genome, though.
Why? Is it just “I can’t imagine that all of this could have happened naturally”? If so, you may want to consider whether the problem lies in your imagination. Personally, I find that my intuition doesn’t work very well in many areas. That’s why I prefer to see what the data say.
At any rate, complexity of the type that we see in nature is an argument against intelligent design. A good design is one that is simple. For instance, compare Google to the Windows search utility. Henry Ford revolutionized manufacturing by introducing the assembly line, a drastic simplification from earlier, more “artisanal” manufacturing methods. (Obviously, it still has to work. A simple design that doesn’t work is a bad design.)
In living beings, we see all sorts of unnecessary complexity: redundant genes, genes that need to be spliced together from different introns, genes that control multiple unrelated systems (e.g., the distal-less gene in certain butterflies controls both the edge of the wing, and eyespots in the middle of wings. PZ Myers has an interesting post that shows that a lot of the genes used in the development of arms and legs are also used in the development of penises and clitorises. If you’ve read Behe’s Darwin’s Black Box, he’s provided examples of complicated molecular pathways.
These are signs not of a brilliant designer who could hold in his mind the intricate dance that these thousands of molecules would execute, but rather of a blind process that’ll use anything available, no matter how stupid, as long as it works, and then propagates its “decisions” to the next generation.
This thread has been most interesting. I’ve been reluctant to add my opinion, because I know how much both sides of this issue are going to hate me. Evolutionists are going to hate me because I believe in a six day creation, involving a Creator. Creationists, on the other hand, are going to hate me because I will freely say that the pulpits of America’s churches are filled, for the most part, with yellow bellied gutless wonders: hypocrites that shop around for a church that gives the best salary and health benefits, then preach sermons on living by faith (to pick on just one issue, out of many). I cannot condemn anyone who choses the Theory of Evolution as a saner alternative.
I have no problem with the Theory of Evolution being taught or believed. I simply believe that there is an alternative, and the alternative is true. The alternative is that God created the universe. This world is well designed. Where ever their is a design, there needs to be a designer. A single human cell is incredibly complex. More complex than a space shuttle. If a human cell evolved, then why didn’t other, simpler things evolve, like windup wrist watches? I firmly believe that if evolution was true, we’d be digging up wrist watches all the time: why not, as metal doesn’t break down quite as quickly as flesh.
Scientific facts, such as the second law of thermodynamics, show me that I was indeed created. If there was not a system in place that blocked, or slowed down, the second law of thermodynamics on our bodies, we would all cease to exist. For evolution to be true, not only would substances have to evolve, a system would have to evolve along with it that would prevent the substances from break down immediately. The system and the substance evolving at the same time at the same place is totally improbable . Compute that.
Some people refuse to believe in God until they see hard proof of his existence, such as photographs, or other physical evidence. This is not a logical position: basically saying that if science can’t prove it, then it can’t be true. This is not reasonable, and I will not believe something that is unreasonable.
proclaimliberty:
Because wristwatches don’t reproduce. If they made copies of themselves with less than 100% accuracy, they would.
You’re using Paley’s watchmaker argument, which is basically “I can’t imagine how this could have happened naturally, therefore God was involved.” But the universe isn’t limited by your imagination. I suggest you read Richard Dawkins’s The Blind Watchmaker, which addresses this very question.
No, they don’t. Whoever told you that was either misinformed or lying.
You seem to have a lot of misconceptions about science in general, and evolution in particular. I suggest that you browse the Index to Creationist Claims, which may dispel a lot of your misconceptions.
This is a misrepresentation of the skeptic’s position.
Tell me: do you believe that there is a teapot orbiting Neptune? Do you believe that there’s an invisible pink unicorn in my back yard? Do you believe in Zeus, Shiva, or Thor? Do you believe that Dionysus died and was reborn?
If you’re a normal intelligent person, you don’t, because you’ve never seen any good evidence for these things. And even if you’re willing to consider the possibility that they might be true, you don’t live your life as if they were real possibilities: you don’t dress like a pirate just in case the Flying Spaghetti Monster really exists, right?
So given that there’s no good evidence for the existence of any god (if there were, apologeticists would’ve told us by now), why believe in any of them? (And please don’t say Pascal’s Wager.)
It is pretty funny, I mean you guys had to start a website to make fun of a good guy because you are scared… scared that he might be right; scared that there is a God who made everything like the Bible says, and one day you will have to answer to Him for the things you have done. Not to mention you have nothing better to do with your time than talk about there being no meaning to life (that’s pretty depressing). Tell me, why even fight I.D. and creationism if when you die in a few years you’ll just go back to nothingness. Someone or something had to create a beginning. Think about it, who made the Laws of the universe(gravity, thermodynamics, etc.), how did O2 come aboutW/out which nothing can survive,and how could anything create itself spontaniously out of nothing, grow, find food and reproduce itself? how did fish survive before they “evolved” gills? The truth is your religeon(you have to believe there is no God, there is no way to know that) is no different than mine, except i have peace and reassurance that Jesus is God and He died for my and your sins. All we need to do is believe He is God and He will save us. Read Romans 3:23 6:23, John 3:16 and romans 10:13.
If you pride yourselves in being open-minded check into these verses and decide for yourself, because i was a loser once, but i found a Savior who loves me no matter what. P.S. i know you will want to delete this opinion because it’s something you don’t agree with, but don’t do it. let other people think for themselves. if what i believe is so dumb that noone with intelligent thought would ever believe it, what will it hurt? Dr.C
Dr. Clayton:
Here’s an atheism FAQ. And here’s Mark Isaak’s Index of Creationist Claims.
Go learn. Come back when you have a comment that hasn’t been refuted a thousand times yet.
this is very simple….it takes more faith to believe that nothing created everything than to believe that God created everything. the laws of thermodynamics tell us that it is impossible for something to come from nothing. there are cells in our bodies that look and run like motors. its absolutly amazing. if you were to remove or alter just one part of the cell, we would not be able to exist. so how in the world could a monkey turn into a human? how in the world could a species survive if its building blocks are changed? alot of time is never a good thing. things get worse never better. should i expect to start changing into a super human soon or some really intelligent gorilla? seriously! there must be some animal somewhere in the world that is changing into something else before our eyes. i guess we were just born from nothing at the wrong time. we all come from a rock i guess. or a rat. we came from nothing and we are going to nothing. oh i praise you nothing! you are so quite and wonderful. your non-existence is so rewarding in my life. thank you for sending that big bang that you created. i praise you for that rock that you directed towards that ball in the vast nothingness that you created from your vast knowledge of all things,which came from you. oh nothing, you are worthy of honor. for by the rat you eventually made me. im so glad i was made in the image of your monkey. thank you nothing. GOD MADE YOU,HE KNEW YOU BEFORE YOU WERE BORN. HE FORMED YOU IN YOUR MOTHERS WOMB. YOU ARE FEARLESSLY AND WONDERFULLY MADE(PSALM 39)WE ARE THE ONLY ONES ON EARTH THAT HAVE BEEN MADE IN HIS IMAGE. WE ARE THE ONLY ONES WHO CAN WORSHIP HIM. WE HAVE ALL FALLEN SHORT BEFORE GOD. NOONE IS RIGHTEOUS,NOT EVEN ONE. I HEAR PEOPLE SAY EMBRACE YOUR OWN TRUTH,BE TRUE TO YOURSELF. THERE IS ONLY ONE TRUTH AND HIS NAME IS JESUS CHRIST. BLUDGEONED TO DEATH TO BRING YOU TO GOD. FORGIVENESS IS AVAILABLE FOR EVERY MAN WOMAN AND CHILD ON EARTH. NO MATTER WHAT YOU HAVE DONE. IF YOU EXCEPT THE ATONING SACRAFICE OF jESUS CHRIST AND PUT YOUR TRUST IN HIM AND TURN FROM YOUR SIN, THE BIBLE SAYS YOU ARE SEALED WITH THE HOLY SPIRIT, AND ETERNAL LIFE AWAITS YOU. BE WARNED NOW WHOEVER IS READING THIS…NOW YOU ARE WITHOUT EXUSE. YOU HAVE HEARD THE GOSPEL MESSAGE. I PRAY MOST EARNESTLY THAT YOU RESPOND. ITS NOT BY CHANCE THAT YOU ARE READING THIS. gOD BLESS YOU OR…..NOTHING BLESS YOU. YOU DECIDE
Greg:
I’m afraid you’ve got a lot of work ahead of you to unlearn all of the nonsense you got from Hovind. You can start here.
Learn, and then come back if you have any substantial comments or questions. But leave the strawmen at home, m’kay?
arensb:
This has been a fascinating read thus far. I am curious however about the big bang theory. Did everything come from nothing? Is this phenomenon observable, since science is all about what is observable. If all of the matter in the universe did not come from nothing, where do scientists suppose it came from? Where do YOU suppose it came from? Can you please provide evidence to irrefutably substantiate your claims in this matter? I know you ask this of Creationists, but are you exempt from providing evidence to support your claims?
“You forgot option 3: that you were born of human parents, like every other person on the planet.” Is that the chicken, or the egg? Because that smells like chicken to me, and according to that statement by yourself, it’s poultry to you as well.
Finally, how did you like my use of big words? I know how much you like to use them, perhaps in an effort to make yourself seem more intelligent, and superior. To all of the followers of the church of evolution, go forth and give the Earth a nice hug! After all, it is your ancestor!
evian wrote:
No, you’re not. That “I’m curious” nonsense is just a rhetorical device to allow you to pretend that you’re not just trying to score points by repeating tired old creationist talking points.
If you were really interested in the Big Bang, you’d read one or two of the many fine science books on the subject written for laymen.
Yes, but not the way that you mean: scientists can’t create a Big Bang in a test tube, or travel back in time to take color pictures. Then again the war of 1812 isn’t observable in that sense, but we have plenty of evidence that both the war of 1812 and the Big Bang happened.
To begin with, there’s Hubble’s observation that the universe is expanding, which implied that everything used to be much closer together than it is now. Then there’s Penzias and Wilson’s discovery of the cosmic microwave background radiation, which had been predicted as a consequence of a singularity. If you check the science news, you’ll see that in the past few months astronomers have made new discoveries that shed more light on the Big Bang.
I don’t know. Why don’t you ask them?
I’m pretty sure, though, that if you do, they’ll tell you that the way you’ve phrased it is an oversimplification. I don’t claim to know what happened in the first few instants after the Big Bang, but I do know that matter behaves in funky waves at those temperatures and densities, and at those scales. This may be, in fact, one of those times when relativity (the physics of the very big, very massive, and very fast) and quantum mechanics (the physics of the very very small) both apply, and give inconsistent results.
Neither. Far From Goo was asking where he, personally, came from. I can only assume that he’s a human, and not a chicken, so I gave an answer appropriate to humans.
Eh? What big words?
Has it ever occurred to you that maybe I use whichever word is most appropriate in a given context? If I use a word you’re not familiar with, you can look it up in a dictionary.
WTF are you talking about?
Seriously, do you really believe that anyone actually believes the strawman caricature of evolution that you’ve just presented? Do you really think that every biologist on the planet is a blithering moron?
I have just seen this web site, with the usual assortment of strawmen and misinformation from the creationists, together with their complete inability to actually present anything in support for their views (and I don’t want to hear a reiteration of Bronze Age mythology).
Whatanidiot said in an early post
No, a young Earth is not feasible, that is if we exclude the possibility of a devious trickster for a god.
You do not need to have a degree to understand the current theory of evolution. However, if you wish to criticise it and have your views taken seriously, you need, as a minimum, the knowledge equivalent to a degree in biology with more advanced courses in biochemistry, genetics, statistics, physics, biogeography, geology and paleontology. Anything less and you are like the man who went to the Paris Air Show and told aircraft designers, manufacturers and flight crew ‘I topped my class in Grade 8 Math and I’ve been able to prove that it’s impossible for aircraft to fly.’
It might be easier and do as arensb suggests by actually producing some evidence that actually supports creationism. However, as no-one has succeeded in the last 150 years I doubt if you will either.