Creation Minute Episode 4: Six Types of Evolution

[gregrutz]

IDiot does not even know how many evolutions there are.

[gregrutz]

Hovind knows exactly which 'evolution' proves his interpretation of the bible wrong.

And geology also proves his interpretation of the bible wrong.

And astronomy also proves his interpretation of the bible wrong

And every dating method ever invented. also proves his interpretation of the bible wrong

[ProMajtas]

@gregrutz you probably never watched any of his seminars, because if you would you wouldn't say that.

[gregrutz]

@ProMajtas I have corrected him on all his lies. Any college science student can prove Kent wrong.

[ProMajtas]

@gregrutz where can I find your "corrections" ??

[gregrutz]

@ProMajtas See Hovind debunked >  watch?v=RFcl5OKk7E8

[ProMajtas]

@gregrutz pff nothing but some guy's theories about bible

[MrKennyBones]

@freebee9553 Wow, you've mistunderstood a lot of things.The primordial soup was a soup of different kinds of matter. Life didn't leap fully-formed from the primordial soup. What most likely happened was that this soup hosted the basis for organic molecules. Which most likely reacted with acids and began to function like replicating molecules. This is proven to be possible and they react to each other by themselves. This again evolved and began to undergo natural selection. Which lead to life.

[MrKennyBones]

@freebee9553 The term "evolutionist" doesn't even exist. And no, evolution is not religion and has nothing to do with belief. That's why it's a science.

[MrKennyBones]

@freebee9553 That's the problem, what he believes has nothing to do with science. So why is he even doing this when he's talking ABOUT science? Evolution is not religion because evolution is true no matter what you believe. That's the beauty of science, it doesn't matter what you believe. Because that doesn't change anything.

[theGigaflop]

@freebee9553 Just like a disgusting lying pile of crap creationist that you are. You make a claim that you have a textbook that says what he's talking about, but then when I ask you to please tell me what textbook, you suddenly no longer have it. How convenient. But then that's what I expect from liars that distort the truth.

Secondly, evolution does NOT say you came from a rock. Thirdly it's called "primordial" soup and not PREMARITAL soup. WTF? Why am I replying to an idiot like you?

[sunlitekid01]

@freebee9553 says the person who does not know the proper use of past / present tense... :)

[theGigaflop]

@freebee9553 Um. Please cite what the text book is, because you are 100% full of crap. Give me text book name, page, and edition.

You clearly know NOTHING about evolution if you think it's about coming from a rock. Three of the "evolutions" that he talks about are all JUST ONE type. Only creationists separate it into 3 so that they can try to debunk some of them, while trying to keep others. The others are just idiotic and only exist in the argument so that he can break up evolution into 3.

[MrKennyBones]

Dear Lord, these kinds of videos shouldn't even be allowed to be made. This is pure propaganda! This guy is not a scientist, he has no clue of what he's talking about. Creationism is not science at all. He's undermining his own arguments.

[sunlitekid01]

whats is this bullshit??........ 6 types of evolution??? are u fucking serious?

pfff.....

[oldblubblub]

4 of the 6 types you said have NOTHING do to with real Evolution. It didn't start with the Big Bang, the star, planets, or galaxies, or even the origin of life. It started off once reproductive organisms began to inherite genetic mutations of ancestral populations, and that was 10 billion years after the Big Bang, 1 billion years after our planet was formed, and shortly after the origin of life.

[rcguy69]

Christianity is in a corner and it will lie, destroy and corrupt anything that gets in its way in its struggle to survive. Why? Because evolution teaches us that things will do anything to survive in an amoral, uncaring Universe. Christianity is just another viral thing struggling to survive and reproduce.

[KyazuTheInsane]

hahahaha. Still building your house on sand, son of the deceiver?

[Samuelwhatshisface]

Wow... You take just after Kent!

Might want to get some cream for that, or just a good lawyer...

[kingsdun]

He forgot about Angler Evolution.

Meaning the evolution of a parents griftablilty slightly modifying in the descendants to take further advantage of the gullibility of fellow organisms in an environment or eco-system.

[EssentialPedagogy]

There is ONE definition of evolution in science. The rest fall under different names in science but this is a common lie by creationists. Evolution is not cosmology for instance.

[FiverBeyond]

I have not yet heard Eric Hovind call these different areas of science by their actual names:

Cosmology, Astronomy, Abiogenesis, Atomic Theory, etc.

It is the goal of Creationists to convince their audience that ALL of these separate sciences are, in fact, on worldview. This is an insult to Cosmologists, Astronomers, Geologists, Paleontologists, Archeologists, Anthropologists, and Biologists everywhere.

[theGigaflop]

Wow. He had to create 5 different kinds of evolution, only to claim that only one (which is no different from Macro) is true.

How can people who believe in Creationism not see how disgusting and filthy and filled with lies these fundamentalists are?

[ragglefragglecalp]

wtf is cosmic,stellar,chemical, and organic evolution?

do you mean cosmology, astronomy,chemistry, and the theory of abiogenesis?

sorry but evolution is a theory in biology, which is a discipline of science, and evolution only explains that living organisms will adapt to their environment to better suit their survival. Also macro and micro are the same besides the time frame...if you had alot of "micro evolutions" they would make a "macro" evolution.

[fightforfair]

Evolution need time and stuck in time

Hi Zerg when your evolution Complete?

Yes you can evolution transform became Ultraman or back to Rock, your kids love to hear that LOL~~~

American total annihilation without blessing LOL~~~

[DanielCriticalMX]

organic evolution is abiogenesis, micro and macro evolution are the same: biological evolution, cosmic evolution does not exist, chemical evolution and stellar evolution are ok i guess, i nthe end the only one that HASN'T been observed YET is abiogenesis.

[Terje1337]

there is only one evolution theory, that is organic evolution. micro and macro evolution is simply smaller and larger changes whiting organic evolution.

micro evolution is small changes, macro ecolution is micro evoltuion over a larger period of time.

It isnt possible to believe that you can walk to the kitchen, but not walk to the mall. It is the same thing, just a longer period of time.

[KingHeathen]

@Cirripedius

See, there's the whole problem though...you are expecting him to have attended a REAL college. If he went to ANY college, I'd bet it was of the variety that Uncle Kent attended.

; )

[mjr256]

There's no such thing as "cosmic evolution" or "chemical evolution" or any other kind of evolution you'd like to invent. Evolutionary Theory is exclusively biological and you continue to fail to understand even its most basic principles.

[DanielCriticalMX]

@mjr256 evolution is still a word in the dictionary so in theory there is chemical evolution, it is the process by which lighter elements transform into heavier elements, like the sun fusing hydrogen into helium. Cosmic evolution does not exist since time space and matter are universal constants without which the universe would not exist, so they cannot evolve. Abiogenesis does not qualify as evolution, and both macro and micro evolution refer to evolution of species.

[KingHeathen]

I challenge you to find an accredited non-religious school that includes those terms in their science textbooks.

Good luck.

[nicGeorge1986]

These creation minute videos are great! Let the truth be known, evolution is false. Only adaptation(micro evolution) is true.

[KingHeathen]

@nicGeorge1986 Which part of "evolution" do you think is "false"? By the way, "adaptation" IS NOT evolution. "Adaptation" is a LEARNED behavior which occurs WITHIN a lifetime that is picked up by others that spread the information. It DOES NOT occur on a genetic level and therefore IS NOT evolution.

I think what you meant to say was "genetic differentiation" which can occur on an inter-species level but also can add up to make an offspring incompatible with another line of descendants.

[maskofsan1ty]

@nicGeorge1986 No, IDiots invented the concept of microevolution so that they could explain observable evolution like anti-biotic resistance without having to accept evolution.

[MrKennyBones]

@nicGeorge1986 And God is true? Which is not science at all.. ? The truth can only be described by Science. And God cannot possibly be explained by science, because it's not possible to observe. So why do creationists keep bashing evolution? Which can be observed. You guys are looking at a puzzle with only a few pieces missing. And you're saying "nope, I can't see what this is supposed to look like".

[ScottishAtheist]

Nice graphics, all donations went to a worthy cause. Pity it didn't pay for an education for Kent Junior.

[BalmungSama0]

EVERY one of those points has been observed and tested, except for the origin of life. Direct and indirect observation count in science. We can't observe the birth of the universe, but we can observe the evidence left behind from the birth of the universe. That is observation. And we can test the observations against our predictions. That is testing. You have failed at basic science once again.

[BalmungSama0]

Eric, both you and your father have been corrected on this incredibly pathetic argument many times, and yet you still repeat it. It is quite simply pathetic and deceiptful. You are lying to these people while offering salvation and knowledge, and for that you should be ashamed of yourself. I doubt God would approve of lying about the world He created.

[BalmungSama0]

"Macro evolution" is no longer used by scientists because its been established that macro is just a build-up of micro over time. Lots of micro=a little macro. Also, macro is defined as anything above the species level, which HAS been observed. Not "major kinds of animals". btw, what is a "kind"? How would you define it in biological terms?

Microevolution, again not used by scientists anymore, is variation within the species. Not kind, unless a kind is a species.

[BalmungSama0]

Stellar evolution is cosmology, gravitation and again, quantum mechanics. Again, not related to the theory of evolution.

Organic evolution is abiogenesis. Now this IS related to the theory of evolution, but only indirectly. It isnt actually a part of the theory. Evolution only deals with LIFE. Pre-life is seperate. Evolution doesnt care HOW the life got there. All that matters is that it was there and it changed. It could be put there by God, a pixie, or Chuck Norris and evolution wouldnt care.

[BalmungSama0]

WOW. You have been corrected on this argument MANY times.

"Cosmic evolution" is cosmology and guantum mechanics. It is totally unrelated to the Theory of Evolution, apart from having the word evolution in its name. Its like saying the comic book "Gravitation" is part of Gravitational theory. The theory of evolution is just biology.

Chemical evolution is quantum mechanics and nuclear chemistry. Again, not a part of the theory of evolution.

[NephilimFree]

God bless you brother. We prayh for your ministry and your Dad.

[theGigaflop]

@NephilimFree HAHAHAHAHAHA! You're here? Wow. You pray for these liars? Does your god support lies and deceit?

Blind leading blind. Uneducated is uneducated.

[thenowinstitute]

Good video!!

[theTRUTHgroup]

Good one!

[TheRichDarkEarth]

Direct observation and testability are needed to qualify a field of investigation as science? What about the forensic sciences?

[chrisbigred1]

He forgot the evolution of dance.

[SoCalAtheist]

The adage "the apple doesn't fall far from the tree"

You're using the same strawmen that your father used.

The term "evolution" just means change over time.

Regarding micro/macro, it's the same thing, changes in allele frequencies over time. And yes, we've observed speciation directly and indirectly.

As for all the other "evolutions" we have evidence supporting such deductions.

[matias2309]

@SoCalAtheist I think you're wasting your time here my friend...

[SoCalAtheist]

@matias2309 Perhaps. But I cannot be silent when I see such dishonesty.

[matias2309]

@SoCalAtheist Well I do feel the same urge as you...dishonest people eventually do get what they deserve...just look at this guy's dad...

[theninjacowboy]

If I didn't observe a murder happen, does that mean it's impossible to determine that one did? Of course not. Direct observation is just ONE piece of evidence. If you examine DNA you'll find genes that are meant for making parts of our ancestral past - such as fur and a tail. When they are rarely turned on during birth, what you get is a baby with such features. Now why would god put such genes in there if we didn't evolve from lower primates? Also, chickens have one for teeth. Answer me that.

[5to22a]

You've just put your foot in it... Do you believe chickens had teeth.... I'm sure that donkeys must have one for wings too. What does that prove? That certain genes must be activated to create the specific creature. So the complex code requires certain features to be activated for various creatures to form. Have you shown that one species will birth another? No.

That's like saying that A Midsummer Night's Dream evolved out of the play that the townsmen perform within the play.

[theninjacowboy]

If donkeys had one for wings then that would disprove my entire arguement. They don't, and the reason why we also do not have such a gene is because our recent ancestors did not have wings, yet there is a gene for a tail and fur which perfectly fit the theory of evolution. You still haven't answered my question as to why such genes are there to begin with if all life was created separate and has no need for them. That's like placing parts for a bike within car. It makes no sense.

[5to22a]

How then do you have micro-bacteria with irreducible engines attached to their rears...several working mechanisms - no chance of being evolved...how? Also, saying that ooh humans have certain genes deactivated and that means that because we've found a furry creature buried beneath a human...that means that the human came from the hairy creature.

Evolution has yet to be proven absolutely.

[BalmungSama0]

@5to22a They to have a chance of being evolved. Search Ken Ham Bacterial Flagellum. cdk007 also has a video on this. This argument was debunked as soon as it was made. Sure, take one part away and it no longer functions as a FLAGELLUM, but if you start with the proteins at the base and progress outward, each new protein actually changes the function of the mechanism until it becomes the flagellum. THAT is how it evolved. It built upon itself while changing functions.

[5to22a]

@BalmungSama0 That's some smart building...it's a good job it's finished.

[BalmungSama0]

@5to22a It might not be finished. Who's to say that somewhere down the line the flagellum won't change into something else? If you look at all of its past functions as you take away parts, they all looked finished.

[theninjacowboy]

@5to22a Biologist Ken Miller (a christian btw) debunked irreducible complexity long ago. Even so, you claim that micro-bacteria requires a designer but an all-powerful and all-knowing invisible sky being doesn't? The irony of you argument from complexity is astounding. If something as complicated as god doesn't need a designer than it makes zero sense as to why less complicated life does. And you have yet to provide a reason for why god would put vestigial genes in animals. I'm waiting.

[5to22a]

@theninjacowboy Just because those genes are there to structure DNA...which we do not fully understand to this day...it doesn't mean they do not have to be there at all. They are not active...so what...does this mean that the DNA was adding to itself over time and thought, 'ah...yes now this beak would be handy. BEAK ACTIVATE!' (flashy sequence) and there we have it - a chicken.

There is no create that goes from genus to genus and they do not build themselves like in Spore the game.

[theninjacowboy]

@5to22a No, it means they are remnants from when they once WERE turned on and used. Due to inevitable change in the environment, natural selection later favored those who were born without them and so those more fit individuals reproduced with them off - which is how they are today. And how is your uneducated mocking of evolution any different from what you actually believe, which is that *poof* animals came into being and *poof* a man came from dirt. Right. That doesn't sound like magic at all.

[5to22a]

Then we can agree...we both believe in the miraculous.

[theninjacowboy]

No, we can't. I believe in the slow step by step process called Evolution which is an established, proven fact. The THEORY is natural selection, which explains how that process of change occurs. Theories explain facts, and in this case that fact is life changing over time (evolution). And you have yet to explain why complex life on earth requires a designer if a more complicated life form, god, doesn't need one. It's circular reasoning. You're trying to solve complexity with more complexity!

[5to22a]

Theories explain fact. This isn't forensics...and if it were, you'd still be lacking to take this to the judge. What you are discussing is unobserved.

[BalmungSama0]

@5to22a Lets see. We have conclusive DNA maps, ancestries capable of being traced by endogenius retroviruses, the fossil record, morphology, mitochondrial sequencing, and direct observation. We have been proven. There can still be some changes made, but evolution has so much evidence, its almost impossible for anything to show up that can disprove it.

BTW, we HAVE gone up against a judge. Dover trial, remember?

[5to22a]

The very DNA map itself shows that the information in this world must have had a sender...that the very definition of information. The fossil record does not show one genus birthing another. Also, which direct observation is this? Oh...and btw wow...you've shown that the legal system and the whole world believes evolution should be taught in school. Teachers believe Harry Potter should be used as an educational aid so why should I be surprised by this?

FYI I'm English; I know of no such case.

[BalmungSama0]

Why does the information need a sender? Does a crystal forming need someone placing each atom in a perfect sequence? Also, how does God existing disprove evolution?

Actually, the fossil record shows just that.

Italian Wall Lizards developed a whole new gland in their body. We have actually observed in laboratories and in the wild new species being formed. Just search "observed instances of speciation" for a pretty decent list.

[BalmungSama0]

@5to22a You're seriously comparing Evolution to Harry Potter? And which teachers consider using Harry Potter as a teaching aid? (fyi, using it for analogies or English classes don't count). By your logic, we can't trust education with anything. The entire scientific community accepts evolution. Over 96% of it. Over 99% if you only count scientists in feilds relevant to evolution (ie. biologists, geneticist, paleantologists, etc. No computer technitians, psychologists, etc)

[BalmungSama0]

@5to22a Your country of origin is irrelevant. Google the trial if you've never heard of it. I'm canadian. The trial is American. I know of it.

[BalmungSama0]

@5to22a Wow. When you fail to come up with an argument to defend yourself, you resort to "were both equally valid and that's that". No, that's not how science works. Your side loses. You stole fizzy lifting drink! You bumped into the ceiling, which now has to be washed and staralized! You get NOTHING! You LOSE! Good day, sir!

[5to22a]

How have I failed... You've theorised and your theory is full of holes...the least you can say to mine is...what an idiot, living his life by a book...

[BalmungSama0]

What holes do you speak of/ I keep hearing about them, but they never pan out.

[ScottishAtheist]

@5to22a

"irreducible engines"? L O L Someone hasn't been paying attention. There's no such thing mate. Way to be 2005. Even Behe doesn't try and sell that tripe anymore.

[BalmungSama0]

Actually, if you look at the map of genes in species, it all lines up with the evolutionary tree of life. It also matches the tree made by the fossil record and morphological trees. That DOES prove species changed.

[MattersofArete]

jerk

[pschierhorn]

This division of evolution is made up by creationists. What is commonly called evolution is biological evolution. There's no such thing as micro- and macroevolution. Bot are the same, time is the difference.

[VenomFangX]

@pschierhorn This is exactly why creationists make the distinction; science is defined by things we can test, repeat, and observe. We can not test, repeat, or observe processes for millions/billions of years, and therefore, saying micro-level adaptations are able to cause macro-level changes over untestable periods of time is not science. It is precisely how you were deceived into believing in evolution, when there is no scientific evidence for it, but much against it.

[troy2062]

@VenomFangX

I can't help but wonder how many dozens of people have corrected you on that how many dozens of times, Shawn.

We HAVE observed macro-level adaptions in populations of species. You have the richest source of information ever devised available to you. I suggest you use it.

[gregrutz]

@VenomFangX Evolution has been tested and observed. Get over it.

[sweatytoothmadman]

There is such a thing as indirect observation.