Hovind is such a noob. He doesn't even follow the teachings of the Bible, he just quote mines small passages from the Bible and then passes it off as "proof" even when the quote is taken out of context. He's making so much money off of the ignorant and young folk.
Any Berkeley professor worth his salt would answer a resounding "YES" to the question of whether there's a merry-go-round in Berkeley. There's a wonderful, classic merry-go-round in Tilden Park. Hovind is lying through his teeth.
I am so glad for this vid, we finally learn why this guy is so retarded and annoying: He has ADD and therefore needed to do 4th grade four times! I don't think he learned anything afterwards. Knowing he had ADD he probably concluded in his self-complacent way that he never had to pay attention ever again ...
Great Video! Hope you'll be on again sometime soon. I'd like to see more of this XD
At 2:45 you made a mistake in your text; you say: '' [...] Also, there is no ''belief'' in science because there is no ''faith'' in science. ''. But you wrote : '' [...] Also, there is no ''belief'' in science because there is ''faith'' in science. ''. Please remark that the word ''no'' is missing in what you wrote and correct it plz.
The retrograde motion of Venus was caused by a close encounter with a large stellar body as opposed to an impact because an impact large enough to change the rotation of a planet would have left a fair sized moon in its orbit, such as our own moon which formed from a massive impact approximately 4 billion years ago.
The major leaders of Christian or Creation apologetics basically agree with what Hovind is saying. He is not the ONLY one who says what he says most of the other creation scientists have done the same research he has done, so would you PLEASE stop calling it "Hovindism", because he is not starting an abusive cult like Islam or Communism, but he's only trying to win your heart to the Lord.
There is no debate about evolution and the big bang because anyone holding to intelligent design will not recieve any love from the gate keepers of modern science.
There can be no proper science until there is vigourous antagonistic peer review.
Are you saying that Evolution is not a religion because it's tax supported?
You waste your time and intelligence attacking Hovind there are sure to be more worthy opponents.
@antihistrymeme problem is that people listen to hovind so it is worth going after him. Intelligent design is also quite consistant with its nonsense in that you'll hear the same myths being repeating over and over again in many different religious publications
Logic and observation are the foundational priciples of biology.
You may be right evolution may be the foundational principle of "modern biology" and the reason we do drug studies on mice and other lesser animals instead of WHITE people.
Although we can see energy emenating from the smashed matter in a collider it is bad logic to say that it proves particles coallesed into matter after the BB.
Identiyfing particles in the detecter of a collider is a statistical exercise based on grouping similar energy signitures.
Particle physics is about as scientific as global warming science.
I really have a hard time believing that this guy is anything but an absolute fraudster. That people go around parroting his nonsense must be an endless source of his amusement.
Dr. Hovind's merry-go-round illustration really got me thinking: instead of spending all that money building particle colliders, couldn't scientists just get football players to throw the particles at each other really hard?
(In all fairness, if there were a merry go round at Berkeley I bet someone would have already thought of this.)
I am happy to say that in standard schools in the UK this guy would NOT be allowed to give a lecture on should Ridiculous, non-scientific and totally biased notions!
Are you serious?! Hovind actually thinks that science is something religious and faith-based?! That's hilarious, in fact, I can't stop laughing, LOL! I believe in the "dirt" faith, LOL!
@cannibalgourmet, Believe it or not, we all will return to dirt if you put it that way, when we will die. If they bury you, you will take longer, and if they cremate you, you will directly become ashes. That's our fate, want it or not. It is not funny but true. Dirt or earth, yes, we are.
although even scientist still argue over exactly how life was formed, the general consensus and the one were all taught in school is that primordial soup made from monomers and under the right conditions paved the way to living organisms. so unless that soup was suspended in the atmosphere, it was concentrated on the surface of the earth
NO I want to know what you think!! Not for you to rely on what has been said by others. Come on MR. 9 Senses, let's hear your answers so everyone can read them.
What I think, is that if I can see and review the evidence, then I can draw my own conclusions, which are the same conclusions drawn by other people.
What answers are there if you haven't asked me any questions that I haven't already responded to? You asked for evidence, I gave you the evidence. If you're not willing to review it, that's your problem. I'm not going to re-write a whole textbook worth of pictures and videos in a 500 character box.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Have you noticed that they rely more on philosophy than actual science. Yet they Say the Theory is Scientific, Trust me, you will get no where with these evolutionist. We say provide proof or evidence then they say, Well it all dependes on how you define theory, proof, Evidence. No science just thoughts, At least Chrisitans admit they believe on Faith. They rely on their theory the same way. FAITH!. If evolution was so fact why are there so many holes.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Unfortunately these dont prove evolution, None have, but I forgot your definition of evidence is different in the scientific world. Talking to you is like talking to a gamer devoted to world of warcraft.
2. That evidence supports evolution to the point of it being as certainly true as is gravity. The only reason you deny it is because of foundational bias.
Why don't you try proving that you're made of atoms, hm?
Maybe you could do better talking to me, because I've had no problem with stopping after becoming devoted to world of warcraft.
Let's try a different tactic; evolution is shown to be a false theory. No longer being taught in the classrooms, what do you propose we fill it with? As Mr. Hovind says, micro-evolution is true, so how do you explain that this DNA strand is capable of mutating, but it's somehow being limited to mutating only within its kind? Let's start with that lesson, shall we?
Then that is not Evolution, you would gain new information off of a mutated Strand. Micro Evolution is the only thing observed today, and thats a varition within species. But its a shuffling of Genetic code, no new information is coming from these mutated Strands. I propose you put fact in its place or describe how things operate or at least say it cant be proven but....
Doesn't answer the question of how one segment of DNA can be altered, but it can't be altered outside of its original "kind", whatever that might be. We know that there are multiple mechanisms for mutation, and these don't just "shuffle" the genetic code, the insertion of an actual base can alter the codon enough to have it form a different protein. What segment of the DNA defines the "kind", and how does it keep itself from losing this definition of a kind?
You would have to look at the consistency of these altered DNA's and see what Beneficial alteration has come from and what does it produce. There is nothing being observed that is new or beneficial. Man made selection is different from natural Mutation so just because we can change a protein doesn't mean its evolution. Thats like me cutting off you head and saying , Wow he or she Evolved. If Mutation happened outside its kind then all it did was mutate another species.
"Man made selection is different from natural Mutation so just because we can change a protein doesn't mean its evolution."
Insertion is the product of a mis-replication of the DNA by the cell itself. We don't have to intervene.
There's 4 bases which can create a basepair. That's it. You're claiming there is a segment which is resistant to mutation. It goes against what we know of the mechanism of mutation, if you can provide any mechanism or any "proof" that there is resistance for the "kind"
No I am not claiming a resistance I am asking what new info has been produced from these mutations. Evolutions should provide new info, in DNA It would do the same. So what new info in DNA proves one species evolving into another. Because a big change is Phenylketonuria and that results in a loss.
No, I do believe you are claiming there is a resistance. We know DNA mutates, all of it does. The only possible way for "micro-evolution" to be different from "macro-evolution" is if there is a defining set of genes which make up the individual's "kind", or whatever( this being why scientists don't differentiate between the two anymore).
Sickle-cell Anemia, which provides an actual advantage to the organism over those who don't, depending on the environment.
If Micro and Macro are not different then you are saying Science does not observe anything. Micro is a variation within species Macro is analysis of evolution in separated gene pools, one species turning into another. Not Observed and never has been. Its assumed. As for sickle Cell Anemia this is not in any way a beneficial Mutation its a loss in Genetic Complexity. I am assuming you are going to say that those who have this can not get Malaria? So, cut off my hands and no arthritis lol
"If Micro and Macro are not different then you are saying Science does not observe anything."
Not quite, I'm saying that there is no difference between micro and macro evolution. They work through the same process. Mutation on a gene. No one doubts DNA is subject to mutation, the only difference is you are claiming there is a definition of the "kind" which will always exist in that organism's genetic code, which has never been observed.
Then,we should observe one species, through DNA mutation, evolving into another. Right? Yet no species has produced outside its kind. I believe Micro Evolution happens but not in the form you are trying to portray, it should be called Micro variations because evolutions implies something new. It has never been done.
There's also the matter of the cecal valves appearing on the Italian Wall Lizard after being transplanted to a neighboring island. This is a new system on the animal. There is no "loss in Genetic Complexity". This is a new system, come about through mutation and selection. Adaptation to its environment. There's the Nylonase, which is the ability to digest a compound which had not existed before the 20th century, and not existed in the organism before then either.
But this is all still besides the point, because there is nothing showing that there is a resistant strand of DNA on the organism; this is necessary if micro-evolution would be the only possible form of mutation. If all segments of the DNA strand are susceptible to mutation, then whatever defines the "kind", is susceptible to mutation. If the gene which makes that organism part of its "kind" is mutated, it wouldn't be part of its "kind" anymore, which with redundant segments, this is possible.
It would be a deformity not change it from one thing into something completely different. I have seen animals with mutations but it doesnt changes its entire species.
you said:
"If all segments of the DNA strand are susceptible to mutation, then whatever defines the "kind", is susceptible to mutation."
Can you elaborate please because I am not sure if I interpreted this correctly.
"Can you elaborate please because I am not sure if I interpreted this correctly." Sure, I often have problems expressing myself. It's in my head, but refuses to come out.
If there is no segment of the DNA which is immune to mutation, then whatever combination of genes make up the classification of "kind" is able to mutate. If these genes mutate, it won't be a member of its "kind", and it has changed from one "kind" to something else, and could be genetically healthy because of gene duplication.
"It would be a deformity not change it from one thing into something completely different." Genetic duplication allows for a gene which is required for the survival of an organism to be mutated without killing it, because of redundancy, as well as a wide combination of other mutations. Given time, this will happen to other segments which define the "kind", and it will not be able to be classified as its "kind".
As Orthrus said; I'm not saying it has to, I'm saying it's possible. The structures we have are strongly influenced by our genes. If the things which mark the bat as part of its "kind" include it's five fingers and wings, then a mutation on the genes which create the five fingers and wings( most likely different genes, so separate events), would remove it from its kind. This all depends on how you define the "kind"(as the video suggests, "kind" is rarely defined consistently hence the " "...).
Would this count for human Kinds as well? because if thats the case you what would you consider a child with down syndrome? Are they of a species since they have a different genetic code?
"Are they of a species since they have a different genetic code? "
can they still breed with other humans? Of course. Hence they are not a different species. But if you had a segregated group accumulating so many changes that they could no long successfully procreate with humans then they'd be a different species. That's not at all placing any judgment call on them. Their being different doesn't make them less than or greater than humans, merely genetically incompatible.
There is no evidence to support that, there are no colonies of this happeneing it is merely assumed. If it were so then we would see this in humans as well as animals and there has been nothing. And you made my point in your first sentence, "they are not a different species" they are mutations, this is not evolution.
you're right there are no such human colonies isolated as necessary. Still you miss the imperative here. The DNA can not help but mutate. I don't know if you knew this or not, but the mutations are not really reversible. The fact is that long long before a reversal of a mutation would occur many more mutations would have already occurred making that one reversal a pointless measure. So mutations accumulate. PERIOD.
Once a mutation has occured you are right! but a mutated cell can produce a normal Cell. That is why dwarf can produce a normal human or a def person can produce a normal hearing child. This is variation at work but for it to only produce mutated cells, well thats not true.
"That is why dwarf can produce a normal human or a def person can produce a normal hearing child. "
you are talking about recombination. In Mendelian distribution mutations can fade into obscurity. They can also resurface with rare pairings(what we refer to as atavisms). But Mendelian distribution has limits too. If a population of dwarfs is segregated and reproductively isolated from non-dwarfs and every non-dwarf child is removed from the group then the dwarf gene will be all there is there.
That is not evolution though, they are still human, Its what I told Cyboril, it is a loss of genetic Complexity and it goes against Darwins tree of life, They are still human and can produce a normal person if the paired with one. Natural Selection "selects", it does not create.
What Cyrathil has been saying about how there in no part of the genome which is barred from being changed by mutation is very very important. It is in fact the most critical flaw in creationists claims yet not one of them ever seems phased by it in the least. Instead of seeing this as the nuclear bomb that is laying waste to their claim (which it is) they pretend it is of no particular importance. I confess we snicker at the expression on your faces when it finally hits home. WHAT? You say! LOL!
Everything is limited though, the Genome can not mutate a species from one to the other. H. Pylori is has become resistence to antibiotics but it is still H. Pylori and not new info or genetic complexity has occurred. I has only adapted to its enviroment. It has lost if anything. No Nuke here!
If it were then the mechanism that sets the limits would be detectable in this case. It would have to be at least as large as the DNA chromosomes themselves. It would have support molecules checking between it (the immutable reference molecule) and the Chromosome for excessive deviation. Unless you just want to invoke magic keeping everything in place. Is that your suggestion? Are you ready to invoke magic?
What I mean by limited is it can not mutate into something that does not produce something other than its kind, in context. But if it is not limited where is the evidence for something that has turned into something else. You may call it what you want but science can not explian it all and theyinvoke mysticism as well I am not ashamed of saying I believe God Holds all things together. This is why you can not explain what keeps a nucleus together in an Atom. Unless you invoke magic as well.
"But if it is not limited where is the evidence for something that has turned into something else."
Would you say humans and chimps are sufficiently different that proof of them having a common ancestor would be evidence that something has turned into something else.
No I would say that is proof that God created them. In design a house has to have similar structures to make sure it stands. I believe God created apes the same way. But Similarities dont mean evolving, An amoeba has 50 Chromosomes while Cotton has 52, does this prove Evolution? Or the Amoeba is turning into cotton?
is the above a copy of what you wrote or not? That^s difficult to say isn^t it? We look at something that seems alright and it works either way. But what of the similarity of errors?
Is the phrase "That^s difficult to say isn^t it?" a copy of the above post? You'd rightly say these couple identical errors are very indicting evidence. The human and chimp genomes have literally thousands of such identical errors!
"Are they of a species since they have a different genetic code?"
Answered pretty well by ExtantFrodo. Define what makes a human "kind", and if that would be mutated so that this organism no longer has it, though, yes it would no longer be of the human "kind"( it seems to be definition... If you have to have X to be Y, but you don't have X, then you aren't Y...). On a side note, good luck defining the human "kind" without having to admit that the great Apes are incredibly close.
I feel I have to clarify that "and if that would be mutated so that this organism no longer has it" would not be possible within a single generation, and would most likely take a few thousand generations, or in the area.
Again this if this were true then it would be observed but no such testing has occurred on a major scale. DNA is so small when it comes this idea. In throught the Millions of years you figured it would be noticeable.
"Again this if this were true then it would be observed but no such testing has occurred on a major scale" If we were to try and get the testing the claim would be "That's not natural selection, you made the changes!". If we don't, then you claim "There has been no testing!" make up your mind...
"In throught the Millions of years you figured it would be noticeable." Name one scientific discovery which came about before the problem was known.
Ok , as stated in the Past Evolution produces new info. This is not new, all you are doing is making one species a bit more specific. It is not Creationist fault you cant test something that doesnt exist. Evolution proof can only be found after the fact? right? I am asking where is it. And I can give you an example where the discovery is happening before the problem, this debate, you claim DNA proves evolution yet you say we can t understand it DNA its too new. Its contradicting.
I see where you are going with filtering out a specific kind and allowing it continue, you believe it will change into something new and different yet it is not possible. Just tell it like it is and that is a theory. Unless you are saying that everything now is a mutation. Then you would have a hard convincing many scientist that.
Back to square one! lol So we are the product of a mutated DNA that is too new for science to understand and this is your proof? Yeah it did just dawn on me. Well thanks for increasing my patience.
"It is not Creationist fault you cant test something that doesnt exist." The bear is a much more specific animal than a dog when you go for individual hunting.
"you claim DNA proves evolution yet you say we can t understand it DNA its too new. Its contradicting. "
I've said it's new, and that because of that our observations of it are limited. We don't have several decades of observations of Pluto, since it was discovered in the '70s. We have to know it exists before we can observe it.
"And I can give you an example where the discovery is happening before the problem" Germ's were discovered after a doctor noticed that after treating patients with a certain disease others contracted it more frequently, and was later confirmed by Pasteur. Generally something is discovered after we notice it effecting something. The majority of discoveries I know of follow that pattern; you see something, study it and find what causes it.
Similarities do not prove Evolution, 5 years ago apes had a 98.5 similarity with humans, but scietifically that is a 40,000 Nucleitoid (sic) separation and it only takes 3 to change completey. Since then that similarity has moved from 98.5 to 95% which is an increase of NUC. You should know that similarities mean nothing in this field, if that were the case then you would have to consider agrculture as part human.
This is categorized as Natural Selection. All you did was change the environment of a lizard and now they have to adjust. This is not evolution. No new information and second, this does not act as an originator. It can not Allow organisms to evolve from molecules to man, nor Support evolutionary tree of life
"This is not evolution." It is evolution, you just categorize it differently because it didn't create an animal which isn't unrecognizable from the original. No scientist claims that is what evolution is.
"It can not Allow organisms to evolve from molecules to man" This is under a different theory. Evolution only takes charge once you have something that reproduces with heritable variability, if I'm understanding you correctly. This is a moot point for the theory of evolution either way.
They say: "We will not believe you until you make a spring gush out from the ground for us; or have a garden of dates and grapes that you make rivers come pouring through; or make the sky, as you claim, fall down on us in lumps; or bring God and the angels here as a guarantee; or possess a house built out of gleaming gold; or ascend up into Heaven-and even then we will not believe in your ascent unless you bring us down a book to read! (Qur'an, 17:90-93)
God? You mean an old hermit that wrote a book that says Pi=3 and the Earth is flat?
I say that I will not believe ANYTHING you say unless it is supported by evidence. In short, what any sane human being says. Why don't you believe in fairy-tales and invisible pink unicorns eh?
God are you another Hitchens or Dawkins penguin? I am so tired of you guys using the same old lines. Will you please be original and think for yourself for once??
OK so if ask you that I look at the fossil record and I See a jellyfish that is 510 million years old, which dates it back to the Cambria, then I see the the same jellyfish alive today, UNCHANGED, what do you say to that??
OK so the alternative to creation is to believe that there was some muddy soup and some lightning bolts hit it and all of a sudden some unconscious molecules decided to organize themselves into proteins and finally a cell, and then replicate, and then become infinitely complex, to produce computers, art, recognize beauty, have intelligence....... Which one sounds more complex and unbelievable? Produce evidence for your argument, don't give me assumptions!
OK I GUESS You have nine senses and the rest of us have 5. I have just described a straw man's argument? For saying that we are incredibly more complex than a few more molecules. Ok I will say that way are very complex, in fact so complex that we haven't even figured it out yet. How is that? better? You evolutionist are all alike. Brainwashed by your academics, but the sad part is you have been duped. You resort to all kinds of demagoguery and clamor to pass up on the facts.
All humans have 9 senses. Common misconception that it's five.
No, your straw man is that a soup was hit by lightning and suddenly became infinitely complex.
I'm brainwashed by reality apparently. Beats being brainwashed by a book with no evidence to support it.
Clamor and 'demoagoguery'? How about the actual evidence that I gave you links to? How about the Miller-Urey expirment? How about the Sidney Fox expirment?
In short, how about the actual, real, physical shit we can touch and test?
Keep up the hard work, maybe someday I will believe in your fantasy of mythical soups and lightning bolts. Abiogenesis doesn't prove squat. Wow your life must be real narrow, dark and empty bro with everything meaningless and nothing to look forward to. You must be miserable, I guess you can psychologically fool yourself to thinking everything is OK and will be OK. Hey No problem, believe in what you want to.
Let's start with the fossil record and we can take one topic at time mr science. OK. I am not here to make fun of you by the way, However I do feel bad for you. Life is much better when you believe. Just want to pass that along. Anyhow lets get going and lets take each topic one by one, but you have to use absolute FACT to prove your point, no assumptions OK, is that agreed??
I guess the internet in Russia is a bit slow. I don't have forever to debate this with someone that is unable to defend themselves logically and use others to support his own thinking.
Why is assumed that people who believe in God, don't believe in Science? Science and all its marvelous prove only one fact, a Supreme all-wise, all-powerful, all-forgiving, and all-loving creator. Why get caught up on the sign posts? They all point to the one that allows us to take every single breath. Logic : Creation = Creator
People have the right to believe in what they want. "science refutes such bullshit". Hmm Ok since when? on what LOGICAL GROUNDS. Give proof that science refutes God. Don't give me a bunch of clamor and Demagoguery. If you don't bring proof, please save your breath, you will be ignored. thank you.
Unfortunately all you did was explain in detail what Hovind did in laymen terms. Yet you did not show any evidence to counter him. Sorry but making fun of a man who was making fun of your belief doesn't discredit him. But your explanation of the COAM did not explain why moons and planets are spinning backwards if it came from the same ball of nothing. all you said was gravity. Well why did gravity cause those specific planets to go against the rest of the universe?
They have not an explanation, all they have are hallucinations that are taught as science, whether they admit it or not, venus ir rotating backward, uranus if tilted and its axis is pointing to the sun, there´re moons orbiting the same planet in both directions, there´re whole galaxies colliding, hence they´re traveling in opposite directions, of course with hallucinations anything can be explained.
I agree, all they say is Uranus may have been impacted by another planet but "may have" and fact are two different things. All they do is explain how it works but never the evidence to discredit creation.
You MAY HAVE a brain in your skull. It's not a fact until we cut it open and see it. You MAY be made of atoms, but its no fact.
If you walk into a room and find a body on the ground, it MAY have been alive before, but that's not a fact. If you find a bullet-hole in her back, she MAY have been shot, but its not a fact. If you find the bullet inside her, she MAY have been shot, but its no fact.
I cannot reason outside my NINE senses, because anything outside of that if known as fantasy/delusions/non-reality.
Matter is not another name for illusion, no matter how much you might say it is. Matter is the name for, well, matter.
The only thing that can truly be proven is your own minds existence. Otherwise, the Matrix is true and you really are in a coma next to Charlie the Unicorn.
"But your explanation of the COAM did not explain why moons and planets are spinning backwards if it came from the same ball of nothing."
Ooh, someone did not watch everything. Extantdodo said at 12:22 that a planet's rotation is determined by local gravitational interactions, NOT THE BIG BANG. AND THERE WAS NO "SAME BALL OF NOTHING"
Umm! the galaxy came from what evolutionist say, "Nothing." Or am I incorrect in this. I would like to hear that one. Local Gravitational interactions would all be the same if the universe is. What made the planets graviton any different? which leads me back to the first comment, you explain why the planets spin back ward but it doesn't explain what caused the them change if according to the big bang this universe exploded from a spinning ball of nothing.
Yes you're incorrect. Big Bang is not "something from nothing".
Besides, you got it all wrong. There was no spinning ball that exploded into stars,planets,etc.
The universe,itself,was very small. It expanded and continues to do so. Stars formed from H that collected. Nucleosynthesis and supernovae created heavier elements,which collected to form planets,moons,etc. Rotation is determined by gravitational interactions with other objects.
Now do you see why the COAM argument by Hovind is stupid?
Well then you must be the only person teaching that or believing it. How can a universe expand if if there is no hydrogen, as they teach it, or oxygen. Is this making it slowly expand? Or, why do college Biology books teach that we came from nothing, all the matter in the universe came together and became as big as a period. Unless you are a self proclaimed evolutionist with a new idea, i suggest you contact your professors and tell them they are wrong.
Nope. Just ask any physics professor in a University and you will get the same version of the Big Bang that I gave.
No one knows why the Universe is expanding but it is anyway.
Biology books teach nothing of the sort. The Big Bang is in Physics, not biology. Besides, the Big Bang also doesn't teach that "we came from nothing".
I have no new ideas. I'm simply repeating what was taught to me in the University. I suggest you enroll in a University and study biology, chemistry and physics.
It is as though they [fossils] were just planted there, without any evolutionary history. Needless to say this appearance of sudden planting has delighted creationists. ... The ONLY alternative explanation of the sudden appearance of so many complex animal types in the Cambrian era is DIVINE CREATION and (we) both reject this alternative." (Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker, p. 229-230)
Thank you Ricky, I bet you´re right, that´s the only one.
Thank you for the quote, I almost laughed out loud when I read this. Of course Mr. Dawkin's once responded to a young lady who asked him what if you are wrong? He then said, "well what if the boogey man exist?"etc..., then said "Well let me ask you this, what if you are wrong?" the crowd erupted in cheers. Well, Mr. Dawkins If I'm wrong then you and I have nothing to worry about. But if I'm right, then may God have mercy on your soul.
By measuring what they say is the "afterglow" of the big bang, scientists said today, they've been able to get a clearer picture of how fast the universe expanded. And "fast" doesn't begin to describe what they think they've found. As the Associated Press puts it, the universe grew "from the size of a marble to a volume larger than all of observable space in less than a trillion-trillionth of a second." Get your mind around that.
My Point exactly, but in the past the universe was spinning rapidly and them exploded, so now it did not explode but has always been expanding. My goodness their theories change so often no wonder they say we creationist have it wrong all the time. At least ours is consistent, One God created it all in 6 days. To some it may sound like a fairy tale but not absurd as saying we came from nothing in a trillion-trillionth of a second. I wonder who will say we are wrong again.
« My Point exactly, but in the past the universe was spinning rapidly and them exploded »
Ehr, no. That is just one of many of Hovind's misconceptions or misrepresentations that demonstrate his lack of knowledge regarding scientific findings in cosmology, astronomy and physics. This kind of statement is exactly why people laugh at Hovind.
I'm starting to suspect that you (or somebody else) just made up this story about these ignorant professors, since I could not conceive of an educated person making such basic mistakes - unless he were a creationist who was intentionally misrepresenting science or scientists.
No, the universe is not spinning, and never was, and every scientist worth his salt knows this.
« My goodness their theories change so often no wonder they say we creationist have it wrong all the time »
The difference between creationism and science is that at least science has it partly right some of the time, while creationism - because of its unwillingness to incorporate new observations - is completely wrong, all of the time.
You know if evolution actually made sense, i would believe in it and say God made it happen in such a fashion, but the evidence is contrary. Why do you guys just follow blindly because some evolutionist professor taught from an evolutionist written text book? Talk about brainwashing, that is a miracle.
« If you are right why is it that I never receive evidence. Oh I forgot you guys have a different definition. »
No, we use the definition that is required by the context. In science, evidence is an observation supporting or consistent with a specific scientific claim or hypothesis. Evidence consists of observations and other facts.
And perhaps you should just ask for a summary of the evidence, or better yet: LOOK IT UP YOURSELF. You have internet, surely you know how to use a search engine.
If the Universe took a trillion of trillionth of a second to expand from a the size of a marble to a volume larger than all of the observable space, so the Word of God is right,....and God said let there be, my God is powerfull enough to stop the rain and calm the sea in just an instant, He does not require millions and millions of years to his job.
« Sorry but making fun of a man who was making fun of your belief doesn't discredit him »
Demonstrating that his knowledge of evolutionary theory specifically and basic scientific findings and principles in general is severely flawed to say the least does.
« Well why did gravity cause those specific planets to go against the rest of the universe? »
When you play a game of billiards, why do some balls spin one way and other balls the other way right after the cue off? Did your god perhaps cause these balls to spin certain ways?
They balls go a different path but all of them spin the same way. A pool table is not a good example because you place them on the table and you set them up. Unless you agree with me that someone set up the planets in the universe. Which is what it sounds like. Is the expansion the universe causing rotating planets? Because even in an explosion particles spin. in the same direction.
I guess you are talking about the tilt, unfortunately I asked for a reference that shows there was an impact and the only thing I found was "there may have" been an impact. Listen I know its easy to speak in theory but it does not prove anything. Why do people who believe the big bang get upset when questioned? I mean really, please get a mind of your own and gain knowledge rather than get upset when you dont have the answer! There is a God.
Interesting how you complain about being unable to prove things despite the liklihood of it having happened that way being overwhelming, but you say there IS a God, without any question, although the concept completely denies known laws of physics and has absolutely NO evidence to support it, eh?
If you find a woman on the floor with a bullet in her back, she MAY have been alive before. She MAY have been shot. You can't prove it, so by your logic, she must have been teleported into there.
« Listen I know its easy to speak in theory but it does not prove anything »
Go learn about the how and why of the scientific method as well. Science is not here to "prove" things or tell us what's "true". Science provides accurate models of reality that can be used to make predictions about future observations. If the predictions are accurate, then the model is accurate. Not "true", but *accurate*.
« Why do people who believe the big bang get upset when questioned? »
They get upset with the fact that you're asking questions from flawed assumptions (misconceptions or misrepresentations of actual science) and then are unwilling to let yourself be informed about these actual scientific findings.
Basically, you make stuff up about science so you can attack the stuff you made up. Stuff like Hovind's "spinning dot".
Hovind is such a noob. He doesn't even follow the teachings of the Bible, he just quote mines small passages from the Bible and then passes it off as "proof" even when the quote is taken out of context. He's making so much money off of the ignorant and young folk.
DarkZerkerX 1 year ago
Any Berkeley professor worth his salt would answer a resounding "YES" to the question of whether there's a merry-go-round in Berkeley. There's a wonderful, classic merry-go-round in Tilden Park. Hovind is lying through his teeth.
criskity 1 year ago
~12:18 "The Big bang Theory does not describe the beginning of the universe"
Surely that must be a mistake?
otur1 1 year ago
@otur1 Nope, the Big Bang Theory does not describe the beginning of the universe, only right after the 'beginning'
atomicnumber86 1 year ago
Mr. Hovind wandered far from the UC Berkely Professor?
No...his presentations usually present various points that he wishes to address....
i never knew there was a law pertaining to how he presents his research?
What law do you have pertaining to asking only some questions but NOT every question related to the points you wish to refute????
varoshah 1 year ago
I am so glad for this vid, we finally learn why this guy is so retarded and annoying: He has ADD and therefore needed to do 4th grade four times! I don't think he learned anything afterwards. Knowing he had ADD he probably concluded in his self-complacent way that he never had to pay attention ever again ...
Great Video! Hope you'll be on again sometime soon. I'd like to see more of this XD
roecla 1 year ago
the conservation of angular momentum is a result of rotation symmetries
how actually to apply that to a singularity?
nublered 1 year ago
I wonder how Kent is getting on in prison. Can you imagine having to share a cell with this guy?
madrobot 2 years ago
Naturally, it must be quite the horrid nightmare indeed.
TheNinjaBoy7 2 years ago
At 2:45 you made a mistake in your text; you say: '' [...] Also, there is no ''belief'' in science because there is no ''faith'' in science. ''. But you wrote : '' [...] Also, there is no ''belief'' in science because there is ''faith'' in science. ''. Please remark that the word ''no'' is missing in what you wrote and correct it plz.
patrice670 2 years ago
That was a pretty sad attempt at a Texas accent--where do people talk about "ma-ter" and "gi-ver" in weasely little voices?
This guy is somebody's prison bitch, even if it's a country-club prison.
tctheunbeliever 2 years ago
Other than my previous comment, awesome video and I look forward to more of your work.
Not2Sane 2 years ago
The retrograde motion of Venus was caused by a close encounter with a large stellar body as opposed to an impact because an impact large enough to change the rotation of a planet would have left a fair sized moon in its orbit, such as our own moon which formed from a massive impact approximately 4 billion years ago.
Not2Sane 2 years ago
@Not2Sane
So is Uranus the same thing with similar sized stellar object(asteroids ftw) or was it an impact event since Uranus has moons.
DarkZerkerX 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The major leaders of Christian or Creation apologetics basically agree with what Hovind is saying. He is not the ONLY one who says what he says most of the other creation scientists have done the same research he has done, so would you PLEASE stop calling it "Hovindism", because he is not starting an abusive cult like Islam or Communism, but he's only trying to win your heart to the Lord.
Eye2EyeIIIV 2 years ago
@Eye2EyeIIIV
Troll somewhere else, and be industrious enough not to just cut and paste.
tctheunbeliever 2 years ago
There is no debate about evolution and the big bang because anyone holding to intelligent design will not recieve any love from the gate keepers of modern science.
There can be no proper science until there is vigourous antagonistic peer review.
Are you saying that Evolution is not a religion because it's tax supported?
You waste your time and intelligence attacking Hovind there are sure to be more worthy opponents.
antihistrymeme 2 years ago
@antihistrymeme problem is that people listen to hovind so it is worth going after him. Intelligent design is also quite consistant with its nonsense in that you'll hear the same myths being repeating over and over again in many different religious publications
OjohYou 1 year ago
Logic and observation are the foundational priciples of biology.
You may be right evolution may be the foundational principle of "modern biology" and the reason we do drug studies on mice and other lesser animals instead of WHITE people.
antihistrymeme 2 years ago
Although we can see energy emenating from the smashed matter in a collider it is bad logic to say that it proves particles coallesed into matter after the BB.
Identiyfing particles in the detecter of a collider is a statistical exercise based on grouping similar energy signitures.
Particle physics is about as scientific as global warming science.
antihistrymeme 2 years ago
great video
FullTimeGunner 2 years ago
Oh, ExtantDodo, excellent work as always. Please make more videos. Your work is a credit to YouTube.
darmokandgalad 2 years ago 6
I really have a hard time believing that this guy is anything but an absolute fraudster. That people go around parroting his nonsense must be an endless source of his amusement.
scoopapa 2 years ago
I read the Wikipedia article for Kent Hovind and its hilarious because even other creationists think this guy is a nutjob xD.
Mercenary1706 2 years ago
Many creationists worship this fraudster too.
MusicHypno 2 years ago
This guy Hovind sounds a lot like L.H.Hubbard
ggorg2000 2 years ago
At least Hubbard admitted his books were science fiction.
Omnywrench 2 years ago
wow, what a story on Hovind on Wikipedia, crook!!
ViscousKanid 2 years ago 2
Comment removed
NewMargaritaville 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The question should be...where did energy come from?
Craighill9 2 years ago
the question was...where did matter come from?
Craighill9 2 years ago
I don't think this guy gives a shit about god. I think he is just making money out of ignorant people.
theonewayroad01 2 years ago 39
yup, and now he's in jail.
seanbrockest 2 years ago 3
thats why hes in jail.
AtheistRocketMan 2 years ago 4
Dr. Hovind's merry-go-round illustration really got me thinking: instead of spending all that money building particle colliders, couldn't scientists just get football players to throw the particles at each other really hard?
(In all fairness, if there were a merry go round at Berkeley I bet someone would have already thought of this.)
malvivant 2 years ago 4
around 8:24 hovind includes "centrifugal force" in his powerpoint, too bad centrifugal force doesn't exist
princecaspian1 2 years ago 2
It's a pseudo-force, and we use the term as a common-day misnomer. You can't blame him for that.
Though actually, since it's Hovind, go ahead and blame him. He deserves it.
Orthrus 2 years ago 2
9:35 well that explains alot,XD
SoulStealer124 2 years ago 4
he only just got to grade 10
robertwc82 2 years ago
Sorry guys, I now see why you keep getting suspended. You just gotta stop making these fools...sorry people look so stupid! LOL
mattie690 2 years ago 3
I am happy to say that in standard schools in the UK this guy would NOT be allowed to give a lecture on should Ridiculous, non-scientific and totally biased notions!
mattie690 2 years ago 5
"Drank himself into a coma on over-priced gin." Hilarious! Great videos Extant!
ghanamuscle2000 2 years ago
is he endorsing torture of 4th graders?
bigblakblob2 2 years ago 5
Are you serious?! Hovind actually thinks that science is something religious and faith-based?! That's hilarious, in fact, I can't stop laughing, LOL! I believe in the "dirt" faith, LOL!
JDnin 2 years ago 6
Do you know the funniest part? The bible describes Adam as being made from dirt.
LMAO XD
cannibalgourmet 2 years ago 25
@cannibalgourmet, Believe it or not, we all will return to dirt if you put it that way, when we will die. If they bury you, you will take longer, and if they cremate you, you will directly become ashes. That's our fate, want it or not. It is not funny but true. Dirt or earth, yes, we are.
Ellu2010 1 year ago
@cannibalgourmet
so does a secular science book dumb shit
sehren 1 year ago
@sehren Whiskey Tango Foxtrot?
cannibalgourmet 1 year ago
@cannibalgourmet
although even scientist still argue over exactly how life was formed, the general consensus and the one were all taught in school is that primordial soup made from monomers and under the right conditions paved the way to living organisms. so unless that soup was suspended in the atmosphere, it was concentrated on the surface of the earth
sehren 1 year ago
@cannibalgourmet Indeed, it's okay to consider yourself made out of dirt but not descended from apes. That would DEGRADE human dignity!
notthecheatr 1 year ago
My Girlfriend is pure dirt. Very Very dirty. I'm sure God made her from Dirt
19822andy 9 months ago 3
all science can ever prove without a doubt is in fact how much we do not know. other than that it can never prove anything with 100% certainty.
therefore it is the complete opposite of faith.
robertwc82 2 years ago 6
I am quite impressed by Hovind's poster-making skills. Well done, Kent!
AgnosticAntitheist 2 years ago
NO I want to know what you think!! Not for you to rely on what has been said by others. Come on MR. 9 Senses, let's hear your answers so everyone can read them.
intellectualsword 2 years ago
What I think, is that if I can see and review the evidence, then I can draw my own conclusions, which are the same conclusions drawn by other people.
What answers are there if you haven't asked me any questions that I haven't already responded to? You asked for evidence, I gave you the evidence. If you're not willing to review it, that's your problem. I'm not going to re-write a whole textbook worth of pictures and videos in a 500 character box.
Orthrus 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Have you noticed that they rely more on philosophy than actual science. Yet they Say the Theory is Scientific, Trust me, you will get no where with these evolutionist. We say provide proof or evidence then they say, Well it all dependes on how you define theory, proof, Evidence. No science just thoughts, At least Chrisitans admit they believe on Faith. They rely on their theory the same way. FAITH!. If evolution was so fact why are there so many holes.
Jerzey55 2 years ago
No, we just don't want you to fuck up terms.
You asked for evidence? WE GAVE YOU EVIDENCE.
Transitional fossils, radiometric dating, homologous structures, protein commonalities, genetic commonalities, vestigial structures, and embryo similarity.
Orthrus 2 years ago 4
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Unfortunately these dont prove evolution, None have, but I forgot your definition of evidence is different in the scientific world. Talking to you is like talking to a gamer devoted to world of warcraft.
Jerzey55 2 years ago
1. Nothing can prove anything.
2. That evidence supports evolution to the point of it being as certainly true as is gravity. The only reason you deny it is because of foundational bias.
Why don't you try proving that you're made of atoms, hm?
Orthrus 2 years ago 2
Maybe you could do better talking to me, because I've had no problem with stopping after becoming devoted to world of warcraft.
Let's try a different tactic; evolution is shown to be a false theory. No longer being taught in the classrooms, what do you propose we fill it with? As Mr. Hovind says, micro-evolution is true, so how do you explain that this DNA strand is capable of mutating, but it's somehow being limited to mutating only within its kind? Let's start with that lesson, shall we?
Cyrathil 2 years ago
Then that is not Evolution, you would gain new information off of a mutated Strand. Micro Evolution is the only thing observed today, and thats a varition within species. But its a shuffling of Genetic code, no new information is coming from these mutated Strands. I propose you put fact in its place or describe how things operate or at least say it cant be proven but....
Jerzey55 2 years ago
Doesn't answer the question of how one segment of DNA can be altered, but it can't be altered outside of its original "kind", whatever that might be. We know that there are multiple mechanisms for mutation, and these don't just "shuffle" the genetic code, the insertion of an actual base can alter the codon enough to have it form a different protein. What segment of the DNA defines the "kind", and how does it keep itself from losing this definition of a kind?
Cyrathil 2 years ago
You would have to look at the consistency of these altered DNA's and see what Beneficial alteration has come from and what does it produce. There is nothing being observed that is new or beneficial. Man made selection is different from natural Mutation so just because we can change a protein doesn't mean its evolution. Thats like me cutting off you head and saying , Wow he or she Evolved. If Mutation happened outside its kind then all it did was mutate another species.
Jerzey55 2 years ago
"Man made selection is different from natural Mutation so just because we can change a protein doesn't mean its evolution."
Insertion is the product of a mis-replication of the DNA by the cell itself. We don't have to intervene.
There's 4 bases which can create a basepair. That's it. You're claiming there is a segment which is resistant to mutation. It goes against what we know of the mechanism of mutation, if you can provide any mechanism or any "proof" that there is resistance for the "kind"
Cyrathil 2 years ago
No I am not claiming a resistance I am asking what new info has been produced from these mutations. Evolutions should provide new info, in DNA It would do the same. So what new info in DNA proves one species evolving into another. Because a big change is Phenylketonuria and that results in a loss.
Jerzey55 2 years ago
No, I do believe you are claiming there is a resistance. We know DNA mutates, all of it does. The only possible way for "micro-evolution" to be different from "macro-evolution" is if there is a defining set of genes which make up the individual's "kind", or whatever( this being why scientists don't differentiate between the two anymore).
Sickle-cell Anemia, which provides an actual advantage to the organism over those who don't, depending on the environment.
Cyrathil 2 years ago
If Micro and Macro are not different then you are saying Science does not observe anything. Micro is a variation within species Macro is analysis of evolution in separated gene pools, one species turning into another. Not Observed and never has been. Its assumed. As for sickle Cell Anemia this is not in any way a beneficial Mutation its a loss in Genetic Complexity. I am assuming you are going to say that those who have this can not get Malaria? So, cut off my hands and no arthritis lol
Jerzey55 2 years ago
"If Micro and Macro are not different then you are saying Science does not observe anything."
Not quite, I'm saying that there is no difference between micro and macro evolution. They work through the same process. Mutation on a gene. No one doubts DNA is subject to mutation, the only difference is you are claiming there is a definition of the "kind" which will always exist in that organism's genetic code, which has never been observed.
Cyrathil 2 years ago
Then,we should observe one species, through DNA mutation, evolving into another. Right? Yet no species has produced outside its kind. I believe Micro Evolution happens but not in the form you are trying to portray, it should be called Micro variations because evolutions implies something new. It has never been done.
Jerzey55 2 years ago
There's also the matter of the cecal valves appearing on the Italian Wall Lizard after being transplanted to a neighboring island. This is a new system on the animal. There is no "loss in Genetic Complexity". This is a new system, come about through mutation and selection. Adaptation to its environment. There's the Nylonase, which is the ability to digest a compound which had not existed before the 20th century, and not existed in the organism before then either.
Cyrathil 2 years ago 2
But this is all still besides the point, because there is nothing showing that there is a resistant strand of DNA on the organism; this is necessary if micro-evolution would be the only possible form of mutation. If all segments of the DNA strand are susceptible to mutation, then whatever defines the "kind", is susceptible to mutation. If the gene which makes that organism part of its "kind" is mutated, it wouldn't be part of its "kind" anymore, which with redundant segments, this is possible.
Cyrathil 2 years ago
It would be a deformity not change it from one thing into something completely different. I have seen animals with mutations but it doesnt changes its entire species.
you said:
"If all segments of the DNA strand are susceptible to mutation, then whatever defines the "kind", is susceptible to mutation."
Can you elaborate please because I am not sure if I interpreted this correctly.
Jerzey55 2 years ago
"Can you elaborate please because I am not sure if I interpreted this correctly." Sure, I often have problems expressing myself. It's in my head, but refuses to come out.
If there is no segment of the DNA which is immune to mutation, then whatever combination of genes make up the classification of "kind" is able to mutate. If these genes mutate, it won't be a member of its "kind", and it has changed from one "kind" to something else, and could be genetically healthy because of gene duplication.
Cyrathil 2 years ago
"It would be a deformity not change it from one thing into something completely different." Genetic duplication allows for a gene which is required for the survival of an organism to be mutated without killing it, because of redundancy, as well as a wide combination of other mutations. Given time, this will happen to other segments which define the "kind", and it will not be able to be classified as its "kind".
Cyrathil 2 years ago
So in short you are saying that because there is a mutation in DNA this removes it from its species or Kind?
Jerzey55 2 years ago
Not at all. Unless that mutation causes a difference in unique character set, which WOULD set it apart.
Orthrus 2 years ago
As Orthrus said; I'm not saying it has to, I'm saying it's possible. The structures we have are strongly influenced by our genes. If the things which mark the bat as part of its "kind" include it's five fingers and wings, then a mutation on the genes which create the five fingers and wings( most likely different genes, so separate events), would remove it from its kind. This all depends on how you define the "kind"(as the video suggests, "kind" is rarely defined consistently hence the " "...).
Cyrathil 2 years ago
Would this count for human Kinds as well? because if thats the case you what would you consider a child with down syndrome? Are they of a species since they have a different genetic code?
Jerzey55 2 years ago
"Are they of a species since they have a different genetic code? "
can they still breed with other humans? Of course. Hence they are not a different species. But if you had a segregated group accumulating so many changes that they could no long successfully procreate with humans then they'd be a different species. That's not at all placing any judgment call on them. Their being different doesn't make them less than or greater than humans, merely genetically incompatible.
ExtantFrodo 2 years ago
There is no evidence to support that, there are no colonies of this happeneing it is merely assumed. If it were so then we would see this in humans as well as animals and there has been nothing. And you made my point in your first sentence, "they are not a different species" they are mutations, this is not evolution.
Jerzey55 2 years ago
you're right there are no such human colonies isolated as necessary. Still you miss the imperative here. The DNA can not help but mutate. I don't know if you knew this or not, but the mutations are not really reversible. The fact is that long long before a reversal of a mutation would occur many more mutations would have already occurred making that one reversal a pointless measure. So mutations accumulate. PERIOD.
ExtantFrodo 2 years ago
Once a mutation has occured you are right! but a mutated cell can produce a normal Cell. That is why dwarf can produce a normal human or a def person can produce a normal hearing child. This is variation at work but for it to only produce mutated cells, well thats not true.
Jerzey55 2 years ago
"That is why dwarf can produce a normal human or a def person can produce a normal hearing child. "
you are talking about recombination. In Mendelian distribution mutations can fade into obscurity. They can also resurface with rare pairings(what we refer to as atavisms). But Mendelian distribution has limits too. If a population of dwarfs is segregated and reproductively isolated from non-dwarfs and every non-dwarf child is removed from the group then the dwarf gene will be all there is there.
ExtantFrodo 2 years ago
That is not evolution though, they are still human, Its what I told Cyboril, it is a loss of genetic Complexity and it goes against Darwins tree of life, They are still human and can produce a normal person if the paired with one. Natural Selection "selects", it does not create.
Jerzey55 2 years ago
What Cyrathil has been saying about how there in no part of the genome which is barred from being changed by mutation is very very important. It is in fact the most critical flaw in creationists claims yet not one of them ever seems phased by it in the least. Instead of seeing this as the nuclear bomb that is laying waste to their claim (which it is) they pretend it is of no particular importance. I confess we snicker at the expression on your faces when it finally hits home. WHAT? You say! LOL!
ExtantFrodo 2 years ago
Everything is limited though, the Genome can not mutate a species from one to the other. H. Pylori is has become resistence to antibiotics but it is still H. Pylori and not new info or genetic complexity has occurred. I has only adapted to its enviroment. It has lost if anything. No Nuke here!
Jerzey55 2 years ago
"Everything is limited though"
If it were then the mechanism that sets the limits would be detectable in this case. It would have to be at least as large as the DNA chromosomes themselves. It would have support molecules checking between it (the immutable reference molecule) and the Chromosome for excessive deviation. Unless you just want to invoke magic keeping everything in place. Is that your suggestion? Are you ready to invoke magic?
ExtantFrodo 2 years ago
What I mean by limited is it can not mutate into something that does not produce something other than its kind, in context. But if it is not limited where is the evidence for something that has turned into something else. You may call it what you want but science can not explian it all and theyinvoke mysticism as well I am not ashamed of saying I believe God Holds all things together. This is why you can not explain what keeps a nucleus together in an Atom. Unless you invoke magic as well.
Jerzey55 2 years ago
"But if it is not limited where is the evidence for something that has turned into something else."
Would you say humans and chimps are sufficiently different that proof of them having a common ancestor would be evidence that something has turned into something else.
ExtantFrodo 2 years ago
No I would say that is proof that God created them. In design a house has to have similar structures to make sure it stands. I believe God created apes the same way. But Similarities dont mean evolving, An amoeba has 50 Chromosomes while Cotton has 52, does this prove Evolution? Or the Amoeba is turning into cotton?
Jerzey55 2 years ago
I would say that is proof that God created them
is the above a copy of what you wrote or not? That^s difficult to say isn^t it? We look at something that seems alright and it works either way. But what of the similarity of errors?
Is the phrase "That^s difficult to say isn^t it?" a copy of the above post? You'd rightly say these couple identical errors are very indicting evidence. The human and chimp genomes have literally thousands of such identical errors!
ExtantFrodo 2 years ago
"Are they of a species since they have a different genetic code?"
Answered pretty well by ExtantFrodo. Define what makes a human "kind", and if that would be mutated so that this organism no longer has it, though, yes it would no longer be of the human "kind"( it seems to be definition... If you have to have X to be Y, but you don't have X, then you aren't Y...). On a side note, good luck defining the human "kind" without having to admit that the great Apes are incredibly close.
Cyrathil 2 years ago
I feel I have to clarify that "and if that would be mutated so that this organism no longer has it" would not be possible within a single generation, and would most likely take a few thousand generations, or in the area.
Cyrathil 2 years ago
Again this if this were true then it would be observed but no such testing has occurred on a major scale. DNA is so small when it comes this idea. In throught the Millions of years you figured it would be noticeable.
Jerzey55 2 years ago
"Again this if this were true then it would be observed but no such testing has occurred on a major scale" If we were to try and get the testing the claim would be "That's not natural selection, you made the changes!". If we don't, then you claim "There has been no testing!" make up your mind...
"In throught the Millions of years you figured it would be noticeable." Name one scientific discovery which came about before the problem was known.
Cyrathil 2 years ago
Ok , as stated in the Past Evolution produces new info. This is not new, all you are doing is making one species a bit more specific. It is not Creationist fault you cant test something that doesnt exist. Evolution proof can only be found after the fact? right? I am asking where is it. And I can give you an example where the discovery is happening before the problem, this debate, you claim DNA proves evolution yet you say we can t understand it DNA its too new. Its contradicting.
Jerzey55 2 years ago
Your posts give me a headache trying to make sense of your confusion.
"Evolution produces new info. This is not new, all you are doing is making one species a bit more specific."
if it's adding new information generation after generation it's CHANGING the species
Did you miss my post about copying errors?
ExtantFrodo 2 years ago
I see where you are going with filtering out a specific kind and allowing it continue, you believe it will change into something new and different yet it is not possible. Just tell it like it is and that is a theory. Unless you are saying that everything now is a mutation. Then you would have a hard convincing many scientist that.
Jerzey55 2 years ago
"Unless you are saying that everything now is a mutation."
You mean it has only just now dawned on you?
ExtantFrodo 2 years ago 4
Back to square one! lol So we are the product of a mutated DNA that is too new for science to understand and this is your proof? Yeah it did just dawn on me. Well thanks for increasing my patience.
Jerzey55 2 years ago
"that is too new for science to understand "
where do you get this weird idea? We are very much in possession of understanding of DNA..
ExtantFrodo 2 years ago 6
"It is not Creationist fault you cant test something that doesnt exist." The bear is a much more specific animal than a dog when you go for individual hunting.
"you claim DNA proves evolution yet you say we can t understand it DNA its too new. Its contradicting. "
I've said it's new, and that because of that our observations of it are limited. We don't have several decades of observations of Pluto, since it was discovered in the '70s. We have to know it exists before we can observe it.
Cyrathil 2 years ago 4
"And I can give you an example where the discovery is happening before the problem" Germ's were discovered after a doctor noticed that after treating patients with a certain disease others contracted it more frequently, and was later confirmed by Pasteur. Generally something is discovered after we notice it effecting something. The majority of discoveries I know of follow that pattern; you see something, study it and find what causes it.
Cyrathil 2 years ago 2
Similarities do not prove Evolution, 5 years ago apes had a 98.5 similarity with humans, but scietifically that is a 40,000 Nucleitoid (sic) separation and it only takes 3 to change completey. Since then that similarity has moved from 98.5 to 95% which is an increase of NUC. You should know that similarities mean nothing in this field, if that were the case then you would have to consider agrculture as part human.
Jerzey55 2 years ago
"and it only takes 3 to change completely. "
elaborate.
"an increase of NUC" What is NUC
ExtantFrodo 2 years ago
This is categorized as Natural Selection. All you did was change the environment of a lizard and now they have to adjust. This is not evolution. No new information and second, this does not act as an originator. It can not Allow organisms to evolve from molecules to man, nor Support evolutionary tree of life
Jerzey55 2 years ago
"This is not evolution." It is evolution, you just categorize it differently because it didn't create an animal which isn't unrecognizable from the original. No scientist claims that is what evolution is.
"It can not Allow organisms to evolve from molecules to man" This is under a different theory. Evolution only takes charge once you have something that reproduces with heritable variability, if I'm understanding you correctly. This is a moot point for the theory of evolution either way.
Cyrathil 2 years ago 3
This is a miracle how God describes you!
They say: "We will not believe you until you make a spring gush out from the ground for us; or have a garden of dates and grapes that you make rivers come pouring through; or make the sky, as you claim, fall down on us in lumps; or bring God and the angels here as a guarantee; or possess a house built out of gleaming gold; or ascend up into Heaven-and even then we will not believe in your ascent unless you bring us down a book to read! (Qur'an, 17:90-93)
intellectualsword 2 years ago
God? You mean an old hermit that wrote a book that says Pi=3 and the Earth is flat?
I say that I will not believe ANYTHING you say unless it is supported by evidence. In short, what any sane human being says. Why don't you believe in fairy-tales and invisible pink unicorns eh?
Orthrus 2 years ago
God are you another Hitchens or Dawkins penguin? I am so tired of you guys using the same old lines. Will you please be original and think for yourself for once??
intellectualsword 2 years ago
I'll keep using the same lines until you can discredit them. Why the hell shouldn't I?
Should I stop saying that the sky is blue and that the moon waxes and wanes just because it doesn't change?
Orthrus 2 years ago
OK so if ask you that I look at the fossil record and I See a jellyfish that is 510 million years old, which dates it back to the Cambria, then I see the the same jellyfish alive today, UNCHANGED, what do you say to that??
intellectualsword 2 years ago
1st: And...what jellyfish is this? Why haven't you given me so much as a name?
2nd: So what? It would mean that jellyfish was completely isolated and never had predatory environmental pressures on it.
Orthrus 2 years ago
Wrong DORK.
intellectualsword 2 years ago
I am not a whale's penis.
How am I wrong?
Orthrus 2 years ago
OK so the alternative to creation is to believe that there was some muddy soup and some lightning bolts hit it and all of a sudden some unconscious molecules decided to organize themselves into proteins and finally a cell, and then replicate, and then become infinitely complex, to produce computers, art, recognize beauty, have intelligence....... Which one sounds more complex and unbelievable? Produce evidence for your argument, don't give me assumptions!
intellectualsword 2 years ago
1. We are not infinitely complex.
2. You have just described a straw man argument commonly proposed by creationists. That is not the actual theory of abiogenisis.
3. There are many other alternatives, including other religious beliefs.
Orthrus 2 years ago
OK I GUESS You have nine senses and the rest of us have 5. I have just described a straw man's argument? For saying that we are incredibly more complex than a few more molecules. Ok I will say that way are very complex, in fact so complex that we haven't even figured it out yet. How is that? better? You evolutionist are all alike. Brainwashed by your academics, but the sad part is you have been duped. You resort to all kinds of demagoguery and clamor to pass up on the facts.
intellectualsword 2 years ago
All humans have 9 senses. Common misconception that it's five.
No, your straw man is that a soup was hit by lightning and suddenly became infinitely complex.
I'm brainwashed by reality apparently. Beats being brainwashed by a book with no evidence to support it.
Clamor and 'demoagoguery'? How about the actual evidence that I gave you links to? How about the Miller-Urey expirment? How about the Sidney Fox expirment?
In short, how about the actual, real, physical shit we can touch and test?
Orthrus 2 years ago
Keep up the hard work, maybe someday I will believe in your fantasy of mythical soups and lightning bolts. Abiogenesis doesn't prove squat. Wow your life must be real narrow, dark and empty bro with everything meaningless and nothing to look forward to. You must be miserable, I guess you can psychologically fool yourself to thinking everything is OK and will be OK. Hey No problem, believe in what you want to.
intellectualsword 2 years ago
Funny how you're completely avoiding the substance of the argument by making a poor Ad Hominem.
I mean, I give you the evidence, and instead of countering it you just go "wah wah wah".
You really are just a biased, deluded, brainwashed little child aren't you?
Orthrus 2 years ago
Let's start with the fossil record and we can take one topic at time mr science. OK. I am not here to make fun of you by the way, However I do feel bad for you. Life is much better when you believe. Just want to pass that along. Anyhow lets get going and lets take each topic one by one, but you have to use absolute FACT to prove your point, no assumptions OK, is that agreed??
intellectualsword 2 years ago
I already gave you the link to the evidence. Why are you asking me again?
Orthrus 2 years ago
I guess the internet in Russia is a bit slow. I don't have forever to debate this with someone that is unable to defend themselves logically and use others to support his own thinking.
intellectualsword 2 years ago
You mean you're incapable of waiting for over a minute and a half? Well that's pathetic now isn't it?
Orthrus 2 years ago
YOU failed your first Test question, You used an assumption, and by the way, it is false anyways!!
intellectualsword 2 years ago
Yeah? What assumption?
How was it wrong?
What the hell was your question anyway?
Orthrus 2 years ago
"Wow...it's been a whole six minutes now and you haven't replied! Well I guess I can't possibly wait this long now can I?"
See what I mean? Or have you just given up?
Orthrus 2 years ago
Earth to ORTHRUS, come in , come in......do you read me??
intellectualsword 2 years ago
Why is assumed that people who believe in God, don't believe in Science? Science and all its marvelous prove only one fact, a Supreme all-wise, all-powerful, all-forgiving, and all-loving creator. Why get caught up on the sign posts? They all point to the one that allows us to take every single breath. Logic : Creation = Creator
intellectualsword 2 years ago
On the contrary, science completely refutes such Bullshit, and since you promote it, you obviously don't agree with science.
Orthrus 2 years ago
People have the right to believe in what they want. "science refutes such bullshit". Hmm Ok since when? on what LOGICAL GROUNDS. Give proof that science refutes God. Don't give me a bunch of clamor and Demagoguery. If you don't bring proof, please save your breath, you will be ignored. thank you.
intellectualsword 2 years ago
Unfortunately all you did was explain in detail what Hovind did in laymen terms. Yet you did not show any evidence to counter him. Sorry but making fun of a man who was making fun of your belief doesn't discredit him. But your explanation of the COAM did not explain why moons and planets are spinning backwards if it came from the same ball of nothing. all you said was gravity. Well why did gravity cause those specific planets to go against the rest of the universe?
Jerzey55 2 years ago
Jerzey55
They have not an explanation, all they have are hallucinations that are taught as science, whether they admit it or not, venus ir rotating backward, uranus if tilted and its axis is pointing to the sun, there´re moons orbiting the same planet in both directions, there´re whole galaxies colliding, hence they´re traveling in opposite directions, of course with hallucinations anything can be explained.
They have no explanation for that.
chuyaventuras 2 years ago
I agree, all they say is Uranus may have been impacted by another planet but "may have" and fact are two different things. All they do is explain how it works but never the evidence to discredit creation.
Jerzey55 2 years ago
You MAY HAVE a brain in your skull. It's not a fact until we cut it open and see it. You MAY be made of atoms, but its no fact.
If you walk into a room and find a body on the ground, it MAY have been alive before, but that's not a fact. If you find a bullet-hole in her back, she MAY have been shot, but its not a fact. If you find the bullet inside her, she MAY have been shot, but its no fact.
Your argument is baseless.
Orthrus 2 years ago
K so you are a crude impericist so to speak. You cannot reason outside of your 5 senses. What if I told you that Matter is another name for illusion.
intellectualsword 2 years ago
I cannot reason outside my NINE senses, because anything outside of that if known as fantasy/delusions/non-reality.
Matter is not another name for illusion, no matter how much you might say it is. Matter is the name for, well, matter.
The only thing that can truly be proven is your own minds existence. Otherwise, the Matrix is true and you really are in a coma next to Charlie the Unicorn.
Orthrus 2 years ago
So if I understand correctly, you are an agnostic, because you cannot either prove or disprove God's existence, is that correct?
intellectualsword 2 years ago
No, I'm an atheist. I would be agnostic if I believed that God exists, but I understood that this could not possibly be proven.
I also understand that the existence of a God cannot be disproven, but I do know that much of the Bible can be.
Orthrus 2 years ago
"But your explanation of the COAM did not explain why moons and planets are spinning backwards if it came from the same ball of nothing."
Ooh, someone did not watch everything. Extantdodo said at 12:22 that a planet's rotation is determined by local gravitational interactions, NOT THE BIG BANG. AND THERE WAS NO "SAME BALL OF NOTHING"
nightoftherobots 2 years ago
Umm! the galaxy came from what evolutionist say, "Nothing." Or am I incorrect in this. I would like to hear that one. Local Gravitational interactions would all be the same if the universe is. What made the planets graviton any different? which leads me back to the first comment, you explain why the planets spin back ward but it doesn't explain what caused the them change if according to the big bang this universe exploded from a spinning ball of nothing.
Jerzey55 2 years ago
Yes you're incorrect. Big Bang is not "something from nothing".
Besides, you got it all wrong. There was no spinning ball that exploded into stars,planets,etc.
The universe,itself,was very small. It expanded and continues to do so. Stars formed from H that collected. Nucleosynthesis and supernovae created heavier elements,which collected to form planets,moons,etc. Rotation is determined by gravitational interactions with other objects.
Now do you see why the COAM argument by Hovind is stupid?
nightoftherobots 2 years ago
Well then you must be the only person teaching that or believing it. How can a universe expand if if there is no hydrogen, as they teach it, or oxygen. Is this making it slowly expand? Or, why do college Biology books teach that we came from nothing, all the matter in the universe came together and became as big as a period. Unless you are a self proclaimed evolutionist with a new idea, i suggest you contact your professors and tell them they are wrong.
Jerzey55 2 years ago
Nope. Just ask any physics professor in a University and you will get the same version of the Big Bang that I gave.
No one knows why the Universe is expanding but it is anyway.
Biology books teach nothing of the sort. The Big Bang is in Physics, not biology. Besides, the Big Bang also doesn't teach that "we came from nothing".
I have no new ideas. I'm simply repeating what was taught to me in the University. I suggest you enroll in a University and study biology, chemistry and physics.
nightoftherobots 2 years ago
Jerzey55
This is my favorite quote
It is as though they [fossils] were just planted there, without any evolutionary history. Needless to say this appearance of sudden planting has delighted creationists. ... The ONLY alternative explanation of the sudden appearance of so many complex animal types in the Cambrian era is DIVINE CREATION and (we) both reject this alternative." (Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker, p. 229-230)
Thank you Ricky, I bet you´re right, that´s the only one.
chuyaventuras 2 years ago
Thank you for the quote, I almost laughed out loud when I read this. Of course Mr. Dawkin's once responded to a young lady who asked him what if you are wrong? He then said, "well what if the boogey man exist?"etc..., then said "Well let me ask you this, what if you are wrong?" the crowd erupted in cheers. Well, Mr. Dawkins If I'm wrong then you and I have nothing to worry about. But if I'm right, then may God have mercy on your soul.
Jerzey55 2 years ago
Jerzey55
By measuring what they say is the "afterglow" of the big bang, scientists said today, they've been able to get a clearer picture of how fast the universe expanded. And "fast" doesn't begin to describe what they think they've found. As the Associated Press puts it, the universe grew "from the size of a marble to a volume larger than all of observable space in less than a trillion-trillionth of a second." Get your mind around that.
God bless you
chuyaventuras 2 years ago
My Point exactly, but in the past the universe was spinning rapidly and them exploded, so now it did not explode but has always been expanding. My goodness their theories change so often no wonder they say we creationist have it wrong all the time. At least ours is consistent, One God created it all in 6 days. To some it may sound like a fairy tale but not absurd as saying we came from nothing in a trillion-trillionth of a second. I wonder who will say we are wrong again.
Jerzey55 2 years ago
« My Point exactly, but in the past the universe was spinning rapidly and them exploded »
Ehr, no. That is just one of many of Hovind's misconceptions or misrepresentations that demonstrate his lack of knowledge regarding scientific findings in cosmology, astronomy and physics. This kind of statement is exactly why people laugh at Hovind.
XGralgrathor 2 years ago
too bad your professors didnt, they just at him and tried to find the answer.
Jerzey55 2 years ago
« too bad your professors didnt »
I'm starting to suspect that you (or somebody else) just made up this story about these ignorant professors, since I could not conceive of an educated person making such basic mistakes - unless he were a creationist who was intentionally misrepresenting science or scientists.
No, the universe is not spinning, and never was, and every scientist worth his salt knows this.
XGralgrathor 2 years ago
« My goodness their theories change so often no wonder they say we creationist have it wrong all the time »
The difference between creationism and science is that at least science has it partly right some of the time, while creationism - because of its unwillingness to incorporate new observations - is completely wrong, all of the time.
XGralgrathor 2 years ago
If you are right why is it that I never receive evidence. Oh I forgot you guys have a different definition.
Jerzey55 2 years ago
Perhaps because you don't bother to look for it, and posting so much evidence in 500 character limit comments becomes difficult?
Go to [Triple W (dot) talkorigins (dot) org/faqs/comdesc/ for evolution.
Evidence for the Big Bang includes an expanding universe, background microwave radiation, and ripples in that radiation.
Orthrus 2 years ago
You know if evolution actually made sense, i would believe in it and say God made it happen in such a fashion, but the evidence is contrary. Why do you guys just follow blindly because some evolutionist professor taught from an evolutionist written text book? Talk about brainwashing, that is a miracle.
intellectualsword 2 years ago
Evolution makes perfect sense.
What evidence is contrary to it? Can you give me one example?
I told you, we don't follow things blindly. We follow the data.
Orthrus 2 years ago
« If you are right why is it that I never receive evidence. Oh I forgot you guys have a different definition. »
No, we use the definition that is required by the context. In science, evidence is an observation supporting or consistent with a specific scientific claim or hypothesis. Evidence consists of observations and other facts.
And perhaps you should just ask for a summary of the evidence, or better yet: LOOK IT UP YOURSELF. You have internet, surely you know how to use a search engine.
XGralgrathor 2 years ago
« saying we came from nothing in a trillion-trillionth of a second »
Which no scientist claims. Another Hovindism in other words. Another word for Hovindism could be: lie.
XGralgrathor 2 years ago
Hovind didn't say this. this is being quoted by an article in AP.
Jerzey55 2 years ago
« Hovind didn't say this. this is being quoted by an article in AP. »
Well, he might have. It sounds just like the kind of dumb, uninformed or deceptive thing he would say.
I don't know what AP is, but obviously it is not a science journal.
XGralgrathor 2 years ago
Jerzey
If the Universe took a trillion of trillionth of a second to expand from a the size of a marble to a volume larger than all of the observable space, so the Word of God is right,....and God said let there be, my God is powerfull enough to stop the rain and calm the sea in just an instant, He does not require millions and millions of years to his job.
God bless you
chuyaventuras 2 years ago
« Sorry but making fun of a man who was making fun of your belief doesn't discredit him »
Demonstrating that his knowledge of evolutionary theory specifically and basic scientific findings and principles in general is severely flawed to say the least does.
XGralgrathor 2 years ago
« Well why did gravity cause those specific planets to go against the rest of the universe? »
When you play a game of billiards, why do some balls spin one way and other balls the other way right after the cue off? Did your god perhaps cause these balls to spin certain ways?
XGralgrathor 2 years ago
They balls go a different path but all of them spin the same way. A pool table is not a good example because you place them on the table and you set them up. Unless you agree with me that someone set up the planets in the universe. Which is what it sounds like. Is the expansion the universe causing rotating planets? Because even in an explosion particles spin. in the same direction.
Jerzey55 2 years ago
Unlike pool-balls, these planets formed out of condensed matter which is gravitationally attracted to other matter and slams into other matter.
That 'slamming into' part is what causes rotations.
Orthrus 2 years ago
I guess you are talking about the tilt, unfortunately I asked for a reference that shows there was an impact and the only thing I found was "there may have" been an impact. Listen I know its easy to speak in theory but it does not prove anything. Why do people who believe the big bang get upset when questioned? I mean really, please get a mind of your own and gain knowledge rather than get upset when you dont have the answer! There is a God.
Jerzey55 2 years ago
Interesting how you complain about being unable to prove things despite the liklihood of it having happened that way being overwhelming, but you say there IS a God, without any question, although the concept completely denies known laws of physics and has absolutely NO evidence to support it, eh?
If you find a woman on the floor with a bullet in her back, she MAY have been alive before. She MAY have been shot. You can't prove it, so by your logic, she must have been teleported into there.
Orthrus 2 years ago
« I guess you are talking about the tilt »
No, we're talking about tilt and spin and angular momentum and orbital velocity. All these things are variables in a complex, chaotic system.
XGralgrathor 2 years ago
« Listen I know its easy to speak in theory but it does not prove anything »
Go learn about the how and why of the scientific method as well. Science is not here to "prove" things or tell us what's "true". Science provides accurate models of reality that can be used to make predictions about future observations. If the predictions are accurate, then the model is accurate. Not "true", but *accurate*.
XGralgrathor 2 years ago
« Why do people who believe the big bang get upset when questioned? »
They get upset with the fact that you're asking questions from flawed assumptions (misconceptions or misrepresentations of actual science) and then are unwilling to let yourself be informed about these actual scientific findings.
Basically, you make stuff up about science so you can attack the stuff you made up. Stuff like Hovind's "spinning dot".
X