There is a well known correlation between belief in miracles and a limited understanding of science...Peolpe who fit in this category don't value evidence either...
Kent Responses demonstrate a great ability... to quote mine. Finding things in nature all over the world and the Universe at large is a science success story. We know more about extinct apes and the related dates than we know about King David and his court? Funny thing about Carbon-14 dating, it really best for dating plants, wood and botanical seeds... dating bones and living animals (snails and sea lions) isn't the best use of those techniques.
Ha-ha. This convicted felon and stand up comic is calling evolution a religion. He's not only revealing his massive ignorance of science, but he's, in effect, giving a great reason why creationism doesn't belong in science class.
Dr. Shermer is a joke--the cell and the universe are actually supreme examples that an intelligent designer created everything so he just proved dr. kent hovind right without knowing it lol
"Fossils don't prove that that critter gave birth to anything else but it's own species." Wow that's ignorant. Evolution doesn't say that dogs give birth to non-dogs. It says that populations change over time. We've actually observed this many times. Populations get separated, and after some time, they can no longer reproduce with each other when reunited. This is the definition of origin of the species. It does not require a duck to give birth to a crocodile, as "dr" hovind requires.
I'm not indicating that religion is always a bad thing, it is used for many MANY good reasons. What I'm saying here though, is that when the bible is taken LITERALLY as Kent Hovind does, it leads to intellectual retardation. Anyone who "denies" evolution, simply knows nothing of it, or the scientific method.
By simply observing the editorial aspects of this video, I already assume it was fabricated by a creationist to support their opinionated view. I hope you acheive your point and convince furthur gullible creationist viewers that evolution is proven incorrect.
Hovind vs, shermer this is great! it is like Batman vs. the joker, Superman vs. Luthor, Spiderman vs. the Green goblin. The great reps of their perspective systems.
soun, I am not a strict evolutionist, but I think it can explain alot. I am more of a progressive creationist but I do think Young Earth Creationists make us Christians look silly. The Big Bang, the fine Tuning of the universe and the almost insurmountable difficulties of Darwinian evolution point to a Creator. The historical evidence for the resurrection also demonstrates the divinity of Christ, why make it manditory that xians believe the impossible, that the earth is only 6g old?
Soun, my whole statement right was tongue in cheek. I respect Shermer and sympathize with Hovind. Young Earth Creationists are silly but most atheists are monsters. Shermer at least can be civilized when talking to Christians, most other atheists aren't. They just mock us for believing "fairy tales" while many of them accept the most absurd things, like that the universe came into existence from nothing (Atkins & Zindler among others), or that Jesus never existed, both views are laughable.
You don't seem to understand what those you call monsters are saying. The big bang theory states that the universe expanded from a singularity, not that it appeared without cause. It's also entirely possible, considering that cosmic background radiation has the same energy signature, for lack of a better word, as large galaxies. also considering that celestial bodies on a galactic scale have been observed to be drifting away from one another implies that they expanded out from something.
Phy, I accept the big bang. I think you misunderstood. As for atheists, some are cool but most are lunatics here on utube. Just go on an atheist utube post, pretend you are a Christian and watch the f-bombs fly.
Sorry, I think it's our thoughts on what caused the big bang is what we don't agree on. I just don't think "god did it" is an acceptable answer for things we don't understand. There are belligerent comments on every video on the entire site, the insults on those videos are minor compared to the others.
How can a high school science teacher debate someone with a Ph D.? They should put Hovind in prison, oh, wait. The poster boy FOR christians IS in prison. Hum!
The pioneers of science were creationists. Let's study gods handy work. With no purpose no design how can you come from nothing randomly unless you've all accepted EveRYthing that the establishment tells you. So full of hate towards the God you claim is a lie.
Isnt it funny how "Good Christians" can only make their points by editing the debate to make it apear that Dr. Shermer made a bad case? And they wonder why people stop going to church. Because you cant preach:Truth, morals, and god, when you lie to make your points. Its exactly why ID Therory isnt in actual Science, because to make the any point for it, you must make your self Willfully Ignorant
"Here are some "Human" fossils to chew on and to think about why we don't hear about them in school"
(By the way, a lot (if not most) of the finds are referenced and debated in universities around the world - don't think that these 'suspect' finds are being swept under the carpet or classified then hidden)
"The shape of the distal humerus in Homo, Pan (P. paniscus and P. troglodytes), Gorilla, and six australopithecines is compared using a geometric approach ... The analysis does not emphasize a particular affinity between KNM-KP 271 and modern Homo, nor with A. afarensis, as previously demonstrated."
Presumably you'll say that the dating system is wrong, and that they could have been made by modern man, as similar structures are produced by tribes in sub-Saharan Africa. But if you're right, and the structure was buried in 'the flood' - isn't it interesting that the ark's descendants trekked back down to Tanzania and started making structures very similar to the region's pre-flood inhabitants?
Please don't tell me you think this one's homo sapien - just look at it!
KNM-ER 813, 1472, 1481, 1590, Hominid 48 Clavicle
No issue here with any of these either. But one thing most of these remains have in common is that there is real debate over whether some these finds should be reclassified (eg. Rudolfensis to homo). However, I can find NOTHING that indicates that these finds are actually homo sapiens (which I assume is where you were heading).
What makes you think that? I thought his argument was way more logical than Shermer's. If you can disprove what Hovind said and Shermer couldn't, why don't you start debating?
Debating? Debating what exactly? Using your logic I might as well tell you to start writing biology textbooks because you happen to agree with hovind. I don't need to disprove hovind, by the way. He disproved himself when he opened his mouth.
I'm playing games? I'm not the one intentionally spelling evolution wrong, and asking me to disprove a person who obviously doesn't even have a basic BASIC understanding of science. What do you want me to do, explain in grave detail why he is wrong. I could write 2000 words on how wrong he is. Why is this so offensive to you? What is it about evolution that bothers you so terribly?
Nothing bothers except the fact that you say you can do something but refuse too. Please show me one example how he's wrong so I can be enlighted to the truth. That's all I ask.
When Hovind first steps to the podium he says "evolution is a religion" and "Evolution has nothing to do with science"
Ummm No. Evolution is a part of biology, and the last time I checked biology is a branch of natural science. Science and religion have absolutely nothing to do with each other.
I can see why he calls evolution a religion. I've watched some of Hovind's videos and he makes some really good points about it. Evolution, although been around for so many years, is still just a theory whether you like to admit it or not. Christians believe in the beginning God, and you believe in the beginning dirt.
There was no life either. I'm not familiar with any kind of guilt tactic. You shouldn't have even brought it up cause that has nothing to do with me. The old fossils should be retested in order to provide an accurate timeline. Yes by imperfect I mean wrong. 33+33=65? No, that's imperfect/wrong. The methods used back then may be way off and if retested could produce a much different outlook.
Carbon dating - if used correctly (ie. without contaminating the test samples) - is startlingly accurate. A 10,000 year old artifact can be dated to within 40 years.
"The methods used back then may be way off and if retested could produce a much different outlook."
What fossils would you like re-tested - and how would you like to test it?
For starters, evolution does not mention a supernatural power or God, so the dictionary and I have to disagree with you. Secondly, don't you think its interesting that the most recent creationist tactic is 'well, you're just as bad as us'? I'm tempted to call it surrender.
And if my religion is 'Evolutionist', can I still be a 'Special Theory of Realtivist' as well? And can any business that uses these theories get tax exemption?
Hovind also quotes 20 year old text on the subject of carbon dating. The scientific advances that have happened in that time have been profound. Look I'm not a carbon dating expert, however I do know it is ludacris to quote text that is older than I am. Hovind says something like " How can this animal produce something other than their kind" WHAT??
Kind, kind? What is he talking about? Does he expect a specific animal into morph into another over night? I'm beginning to think creationist assume that is what evolution is all about... because they listen to Kent Hovind.
Ok, if not over night then how long? Millions of years? How can you prove that? Can that be tested in a lab? You want me to belive that somewhere down the line my ancestors started evolving but I have yet to see some proof. I heard some good theories, but they always remain just that.
We had people alive who documented the Civil War. That was a bad example. Can the fossil record be reliable if the methods they used to date them are flawed? In the past carbon dating has proven itself to be wrong, however if we did advance our technology in recent years, we still would have to go back and redo all the fossils over again for accurate data, don't you think?
"We had people alive who documented the Civil War"
That's right, we "had". They're long dead. The eyewitnesses are all gone. We can only look back on the evidence presented - documents, rusting gun parts scattered across the countryside - and conclude from that the Civil War really did happen. But you still can't replicate it in a lab, can you? The same thing with billions of years of evolution.
"In the past carbon dating has proven itself to be wrong"
If you mean imperfect, you're correct. If you actually mean 'wrong', you're a long way off. Carbon dating has its limitations - the margin of error gets too big after 50,000 years - and that it gives skewed results under 150 years (post-industrial revolution atmospheric carbon and nuclear testing).
"we still would have to go back and redo all the fossils over again for accurate data, don't you think?"
A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment.
1. Astronomy: Big Bang Theory
2. Biology: Cell theory — Evolution
3. Chemistry: Atomic theory — Kinetic theory of gases
4. Climatology: Theory of Global Climate Change (due to anthropogenic activity)
5. Computer science: Algorithmic information theory
Yes, evolution is a theory. So is the theory of gravity, Conservation of energy is a theory, theory of relativity etc. "Somewhere down the line" would be like a few million years down the line. Would you like a few sources to read? I'm not being condescending or mean either. I can link you to some sites, and books on amazon that would be able to give way more info than I can in the limited amount of space, and time.
Hovind did use the "no gain of genetic information" argument. And I presume he wasn't using it as a joke. Thats a pretty good sign he's not thinking logically.
"Please elaborate." Presumably on the 'no genetic information gain' statement? Sure. We've already observed increases in genetic material, increases in genetic variety and new genetic material. Is that not new information?
Of course, if you're right, Adam and Eve had the genetic material required for Down's syndrome, cystic fibrosis, Alzheimer's disease, Huntington's disease, and a multitude of cancers - and perhaps some other genetic disorders no longer affecting the population.
Evolution is only under attack in some parts of the US and some developing countries. If you're trying to say that nothing can be proven absolutely, then you're right. But comparing gravity and evolution with creationism is just ridiculous.
Trying to compare Evolution with Gravity is ridiculous too! Variation(micro-evolution) in offspring Is scientific, we see it all the time. To say that variation leads to Darwinian (macro-)Evolution is not science, its a religion. It can't be proved! All you evolutionists ever say is "It happened" and "Its been proven". But they can't give evidence that it indeed did happened.
'Macro' evolution is 'micro' evolution plus time. Just because we can't say we've personally seen an animal evolve over hundreds, thousands or millions of years does not mean it didn't happened or that we can't prove it.
Macro-Evolution needs scientic evidence that proves IT happpened, without using evidence that supports micro-evolution. Common ancestory is just a theory. It is still in the realm of "might have". God "might have" too! About Fossils: people put their biases on them. Anthropology is barely a science, there is so much speculation and opinion that fluctuates in it. If you want some fossil evidence that is against the evolutionary theory, let me know, I'm give you the fossil names.
All evidence for 'macro-evolution' (or evolution, as its most commonly known) will support 'micro-evolution' (or evolution, as its most commonly known). There is no difference in the processes of either, because they are exactly the same thing. The only variable is time.
'Micro-evolution' was a term invented by creationists after evolution became accepted by the scientific community. It was a face-saving retreat: 'oh, sure, we never said MICRO-evolution didn't happen'.
Here are some "Human" fossils to chew on and to think about why we don't hear about them in school: 1.5- 2 m.y.a- Olduvai Hominid 48 clavical, Tanzania KNM-ER 813 leg and ankle, Kenya KNM-ER 1470, 1472, 1481, Kenya 2 m.y.a KNM-ER 1590, Kenya Olduvai stone structure, Tanzania 4 m.y.a. + Laetoli footprints, Tanzania Kanapol KP 271 arm, Kenya
Can you please explain why you say evolution has been proven and then say nothing can be proven absolutely? I always thought that if something was proven then it was proven absolutely.
Sure. Nothing can be proved (or disproved absolutely), because we don't have absolute knowledge, we can't be absolutely sure of anything. We can be reasonably sure - based on the balance of probabilities - but never absolutely sure. Science does not claim absolute knowledge, and therefore does not claim absolute certainty of anything.
eg. With gravity, I can come up with stupid alternative theories as to why we stick to the ground - lets say some bizarre alien adhesive technology. We can't rule out my hypothetical example 100% - but its ludicrously implausible and there's no evidence for it, so nobody takes it seriously, and rightly so.
Saying something has been proven (to a practical extent) is fine, saying its been ABSOLUTELY proven is arrogant and incorrect. Absolutism is the rhetoric of religion, not science.
9.10 Kent can't resent paying taxes for something when you don't actually pay tax?
AndyCielecki 1 month ago
There is a well known correlation between belief in miracles and a limited understanding of science...Peolpe who fit in this category don't value evidence either...
enyskept 2 months ago
It's funny to how Shermer is continuously breaking sweat.
hendrixsj75 5 months ago
Kent Responses demonstrate a great ability... to quote mine. Finding things in nature all over the world and the Universe at large is a science success story. We know more about extinct apes and the related dates than we know about King David and his court? Funny thing about Carbon-14 dating, it really best for dating plants, wood and botanical seeds... dating bones and living animals (snails and sea lions) isn't the best use of those techniques.
granddad2002 11 months ago 2
Ha-ha. This convicted felon and stand up comic is calling evolution a religion. He's not only revealing his massive ignorance of science, but he's, in effect, giving a great reason why creationism doesn't belong in science class.
VanGoghsEar1890 1 year ago
Yeah, Rev. Hovind, evolution is a religion and our favorite hymn is Give Me That Old Time Speciation.
Kailoa36 1 year ago 2
Dr. Shermer is a joke--the cell and the universe are actually supreme examples that an intelligent designer created everything so he just proved dr. kent hovind right without knowing it lol
Ambassador4Christ100 1 year ago
@Ambassador4Christ100
Why don' you explain how this "intelligent designer" did it. Give a scientific analysis and detail it step by step.
philster61 1 year ago
Eintein once said, "Religion without science is blind and science without religion is dumb." The two go together and you cannot separate them
Ambassador4Christ100 1 year ago
"Fossils don't prove that that critter gave birth to anything else but it's own species." Wow that's ignorant. Evolution doesn't say that dogs give birth to non-dogs. It says that populations change over time. We've actually observed this many times. Populations get separated, and after some time, they can no longer reproduce with each other when reunited. This is the definition of origin of the species. It does not require a duck to give birth to a crocodile, as "dr" hovind requires.
chuckinator0 1 year ago
Hovind works on urban myths that sound cute but nothing based on facts. He tries so hard throwing something against the wall to make something stick.
sage0857 2 years ago
Lucy was proved to be a hoax!, i have the ducumenst proving that, she was a big fat freakin fake!.
Aheadstix85 2 years ago
@LakeShaman hes got some good points though.
Aheadstix85 2 years ago
After clicking "more From: joshdavidian
I came accross:
Taking the Gospel to Mexico
I'm not indicating that religion is always a bad thing, it is used for many MANY good reasons. What I'm saying here though, is that when the bible is taken LITERALLY as Kent Hovind does, it leads to intellectual retardation. Anyone who "denies" evolution, simply knows nothing of it, or the scientific method.
damaxman 2 years ago
By simply observing the editorial aspects of this video, I already assume it was fabricated by a creationist to support their opinionated view. I hope you acheive your point and convince furthur gullible creationist viewers that evolution is proven incorrect.
damaxman 2 years ago
Poor Kent. He tries so hard.
brandondagel 2 years ago
Lol hovind is retarded
roryvanvuuren 2 years ago
shermer won
stjimmy933499399493 2 years ago
Hows jail Hovind? plenty of meth and gaysex there, you have made it to Hovind Heaven!
Bockatadi 2 years ago
ToE is already old and obsolete. The new one is Interrelation Theory.
w3 interrelation-theory com
interrelation 2 years ago
Hovind vs, shermer this is great! it is like Batman vs. the joker, Superman vs. Luthor, Spiderman vs. the Green goblin. The great reps of their perspective systems.
agnostaxian 2 years ago
which one is batman?
SounzNice 2 years ago
soun, Shermer of course! lol
agnostaxian 2 years ago
Didn't see his cape, but then I didn't have your evolutionist glasses on.
SounzNice 2 years ago
soun, I am not a strict evolutionist, but I think it can explain alot. I am more of a progressive creationist but I do think Young Earth Creationists make us Christians look silly. The Big Bang, the fine Tuning of the universe and the almost insurmountable difficulties of Darwinian evolution point to a Creator. The historical evidence for the resurrection also demonstrates the divinity of Christ, why make it manditory that xians believe the impossible, that the earth is only 6g old?
agnostaxian 2 years ago
Then why the Shermer-batman remark?
SounzNice 2 years ago
Soun, my whole statement right was tongue in cheek. I respect Shermer and sympathize with Hovind. Young Earth Creationists are silly but most atheists are monsters. Shermer at least can be civilized when talking to Christians, most other atheists aren't. They just mock us for believing "fairy tales" while many of them accept the most absurd things, like that the universe came into existence from nothing (Atkins & Zindler among others), or that Jesus never existed, both views are laughable.
agnostaxian 2 years ago
You don't seem to understand what those you call monsters are saying. The big bang theory states that the universe expanded from a singularity, not that it appeared without cause. It's also entirely possible, considering that cosmic background radiation has the same energy signature, for lack of a better word, as large galaxies. also considering that celestial bodies on a galactic scale have been observed to be drifting away from one another implies that they expanded out from something.
Phyerbyrd 2 years ago
Phy, I accept the big bang. I think you misunderstood. As for atheists, some are cool but most are lunatics here on utube. Just go on an atheist utube post, pretend you are a Christian and watch the f-bombs fly.
agnostaxian 2 years ago
Sorry, I think it's our thoughts on what caused the big bang is what we don't agree on. I just don't think "god did it" is an acceptable answer for things we don't understand. There are belligerent comments on every video on the entire site, the insults on those videos are minor compared to the others.
Phyerbyrd 2 years ago
I definitely agree that Hovind is a joker
chuckinator0 1 year ago
How can a high school science teacher debate someone with a Ph D.? They should put Hovind in prison, oh, wait. The poster boy FOR christians IS in prison. Hum!
pillowbugg 2 years ago
I wish scientists would stop debating science-deniers. Hovind isn't worthy of being on a stage next to someone who actually worked for their PhD.
Hovind is where con-men belong: prison.
g12er 2 years ago 2
The pioneers of science were creationists. Let's study gods handy work. With no purpose no design how can you come from nothing randomly unless you've all accepted EveRYthing that the establishment tells you. So full of hate towards the God you claim is a lie.
liquastowilly 2 years ago
Isnt it funny how "Good Christians" can only make their points by editing the debate to make it apear that Dr. Shermer made a bad case? And they wonder why people stop going to church. Because you cant preach:Truth, morals, and god, when you lie to make your points. Its exactly why ID Therory isnt in actual Science, because to make the any point for it, you must make your self Willfully Ignorant
seeingglass86 2 years ago
Christianity is near an end. Soon to be relegated to the scrap heep of ridiculous superstition.
Only so long can the deluded maintain the level of ignorance that Christianity requires.
Good riddance.
judoyodan 3 years ago
"Here are some "Human" fossils to chew on and to think about why we don't hear about them in school"
(By the way, a lot (if not most) of the finds are referenced and debated in universities around the world - don't think that these 'suspect' finds are being swept under the carpet or classified then hidden)
Rissoleking 3 years ago
Kanapol KP 271 arm, Kenya
ncbi(dot)nlm(dot)nih(dot)gov/pubmed/10727967?dopt=AbstractPlus
"The shape of the distal humerus in Homo, Pan (P. paniscus and P. troglodytes), Gorilla, and six australopithecines is compared using a geometric approach ... The analysis does not emphasize a particular affinity between KNM-KP 271 and modern Homo, nor with A. afarensis, as previously demonstrated."
Rissoleking 3 years ago
Laetoli footprints, Tanzania
What's your issue with these footprints? If you're saying they're human (homo sapiens), you're placing humans on earth 3.6million years ago...
Rissoleking 3 years ago
Olduvai stone structure, Tanzania
Presumably you'll say that the dating system is wrong, and that they could have been made by modern man, as similar structures are produced by tribes in sub-Saharan Africa. But if you're right, and the structure was buried in 'the flood' - isn't it interesting that the ark's descendants trekked back down to Tanzania and started making structures very similar to the region's pre-flood inhabitants?
Rissoleking 3 years ago
KNM-ER 1470
Please don't tell me you think this one's homo sapien - just look at it!
KNM-ER 813, 1472, 1481, 1590, Hominid 48 Clavicle
No issue here with any of these either. But one thing most of these remains have in common is that there is real debate over whether some these finds should be reclassified (eg. Rudolfensis to homo). However, I can find NOTHING that indicates that these finds are actually homo sapiens (which I assume is where you were heading).
Rissoleking 3 years ago
Oh my gawd. Hovind truly is an idiot.
MemiLeigh 3 years ago
What makes you think that? I thought his argument was way more logical than Shermer's. If you can disprove what Hovind said and Shermer couldn't, why don't you start debating?
SnarlAAAAAH 3 years ago
Debating? Debating what exactly? Using your logic I might as well tell you to start writing biology textbooks because you happen to agree with hovind. I don't need to disprove hovind, by the way. He disproved himself when he opened his mouth.
MemiLeigh 3 years ago
Deabating Evilution vs Creationism, duh. Instead of playing your games, why don't you cut to the chase and tell me how Hovind disproved himself?
SnarlAAAAAH 3 years ago
I'm playing games? I'm not the one intentionally spelling evolution wrong, and asking me to disprove a person who obviously doesn't even have a basic BASIC understanding of science. What do you want me to do, explain in grave detail why he is wrong. I could write 2000 words on how wrong he is. Why is this so offensive to you? What is it about evolution that bothers you so terribly?
MemiLeigh 3 years ago
Nothing bothers except the fact that you say you can do something but refuse too. Please show me one example how he's wrong so I can be enlighted to the truth. That's all I ask.
SnarlAAAAAH 3 years ago
When Hovind first steps to the podium he says "evolution is a religion" and "Evolution has nothing to do with science"
Ummm No. Evolution is a part of biology, and the last time I checked biology is a branch of natural science. Science and religion have absolutely nothing to do with each other.
MemiLeigh 3 years ago
I can see why he calls evolution a religion. I've watched some of Hovind's videos and he makes some really good points about it. Evolution, although been around for so many years, is still just a theory whether you like to admit it or not. Christians believe in the beginning God, and you believe in the beginning dirt.
SnarlAAAAAH 3 years ago
"Christians believe in the beginning God, and you believe in the beginning dirt."
No, you're the one that believes in the dirt thing. Gen 2:7. Magic God makes dirt through magic, then turns dirt to human being via magic.
Read up on abiogenesis. There was no 'dirt' or 'dust' in Miller's test tube...
Rissoleking 3 years ago 2
There was no life either. I'm not familiar with any kind of guilt tactic. You shouldn't have even brought it up cause that has nothing to do with me. The old fossils should be retested in order to provide an accurate timeline. Yes by imperfect I mean wrong. 33+33=65? No, that's imperfect/wrong. The methods used back then may be way off and if retested could produce a much different outlook.
SnarlAAAAAH 3 years ago
"No, that's imperfect/wrong".
Carbon dating - if used correctly (ie. without contaminating the test samples) - is startlingly accurate. A 10,000 year old artifact can be dated to within 40 years.
"The methods used back then may be way off and if retested could produce a much different outlook."
What fossils would you like re-tested - and how would you like to test it?
Rissoleking 3 years ago
"I can see why he calls evolution a religion."
For starters, evolution does not mention a supernatural power or God, so the dictionary and I have to disagree with you. Secondly, don't you think its interesting that the most recent creationist tactic is 'well, you're just as bad as us'? I'm tempted to call it surrender.
And if my religion is 'Evolutionist', can I still be a 'Special Theory of Realtivist' as well? And can any business that uses these theories get tax exemption?
Rissoleking 3 years ago
Hovind also quotes 20 year old text on the subject of carbon dating. The scientific advances that have happened in that time have been profound. Look I'm not a carbon dating expert, however I do know it is ludacris to quote text that is older than I am. Hovind says something like " How can this animal produce something other than their kind" WHAT??
MemiLeigh 3 years ago
Kind, kind? What is he talking about? Does he expect a specific animal into morph into another over night? I'm beginning to think creationist assume that is what evolution is all about... because they listen to Kent Hovind.
MemiLeigh 3 years ago
Ok, if not over night then how long? Millions of years? How can you prove that? Can that be tested in a lab? You want me to belive that somewhere down the line my ancestors started evolving but I have yet to see some proof. I heard some good theories, but they always remain just that.
SnarlAAAAAH 3 years ago
"Millions of years? How can you prove that?"
Genetics, the fossil record, contemporary observation of organisms. BTW, can the US Civil War be tested for in a lab?
"I heard some good theories, but they always remain just that."
'Just' a theory? Were you expecting absolute proof?
Rissoleking 3 years ago
We had people alive who documented the Civil War. That was a bad example. Can the fossil record be reliable if the methods they used to date them are flawed? In the past carbon dating has proven itself to be wrong, however if we did advance our technology in recent years, we still would have to go back and redo all the fossils over again for accurate data, don't you think?
SnarlAAAAAH 3 years ago
"We had people alive who documented the Civil War"
That's right, we "had". They're long dead. The eyewitnesses are all gone. We can only look back on the evidence presented - documents, rusting gun parts scattered across the countryside - and conclude from that the Civil War really did happen. But you still can't replicate it in a lab, can you? The same thing with billions of years of evolution.
Rissoleking 3 years ago
"In the past carbon dating has proven itself to be wrong"
If you mean imperfect, you're correct. If you actually mean 'wrong', you're a long way off. Carbon dating has its limitations - the margin of error gets too big after 50,000 years - and that it gives skewed results under 150 years (post-industrial revolution atmospheric carbon and nuclear testing).
"we still would have to go back and redo all the fossils over again for accurate data, don't you think?"
What needs re-testing?
Rissoleking 3 years ago
A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment.
1. Astronomy: Big Bang Theory
2. Biology: Cell theory — Evolution
3. Chemistry: Atomic theory — Kinetic theory of gases
4. Climatology: Theory of Global Climate Change (due to anthropogenic activity)
5. Computer science: Algorithmic information theory
check the wiki
ekoforever 3 years ago
Thanks for cutting up the debate too. This really allows both sides to explain their sides....er at least Hovinds slippery slope.
ekoforever 3 years ago
Yes, evolution is a theory. So is the theory of gravity, Conservation of energy is a theory, theory of relativity etc. "Somewhere down the line" would be like a few million years down the line. Would you like a few sources to read? I'm not being condescending or mean either. I can link you to some sites, and books on amazon that would be able to give way more info than I can in the limited amount of space, and time.
MemiLeigh 3 years ago
Sure. By the way did you check out this whole debate? It's pretty interesting.
SnarlAAAAAH 3 years ago
Hovind did use the "no gain of genetic information" argument. And I presume he wasn't using it as a joke. Thats a pretty good sign he's not thinking logically.
Rissoleking 3 years ago
Please elaborate.
SnarlAAAAAH 3 years ago
"Please elaborate." Presumably on the 'no genetic information gain' statement? Sure. We've already observed increases in genetic material, increases in genetic variety and new genetic material. Is that not new information?
Of course, if you're right, Adam and Eve had the genetic material required for Down's syndrome, cystic fibrosis, Alzheimer's disease, Huntington's disease, and a multitude of cancers - and perhaps some other genetic disorders no longer affecting the population.
Rissoleking 3 years ago
Why'd you chop the video? Where is the full debate posted?
FYI There are far better ways than carbon dating which only works up to 50,000 years and in certain situations.
CBUEngineer 3 years ago
I took the best arguments for both side I could. The debate was over two hours.
joshdavidian 3 years ago
"Anthropology is barely a science, there is so much speculation and opinion that fluctuates in it."
Anthropology is the study of humanity, encompassing elements of psychology, sociology and biology to explain what makes humans human.
Were you meaning to criticise paleontology or archaeology?
Rissoleking 3 years ago
Bottom line you cant prove evolution to be true hust as you cant prove creationism to be true.
theUSER101 3 years ago
No, evolution has been proven. A long time ago.
Evolution is only under attack in some parts of the US and some developing countries. If you're trying to say that nothing can be proven absolutely, then you're right. But comparing gravity and evolution with creationism is just ridiculous.
Rissoleking 3 years ago
Trying to compare Evolution with Gravity is ridiculous too! Variation(micro-evolution) in offspring Is scientific, we see it all the time. To say that variation leads to Darwinian (macro-)Evolution is not science, its a religion. It can't be proved! All you evolutionists ever say is "It happened" and "Its been proven". But they can't give evidence that it indeed did happened.
joshdavidian 3 years ago
What more evidence do you need?
Lets start with the fossil record. Do you believe the australopethicus (for example) is a fake? Another species that coexisted with humans?
Rissoleking 3 years ago 2
'Macro' evolution is 'micro' evolution plus time. Just because we can't say we've personally seen an animal evolve over hundreds, thousands or millions of years does not mean it didn't happened or that we can't prove it.
Rissoleking 3 years ago 2
Macro-Evolution needs scientic evidence that proves IT happpened, without using evidence that supports micro-evolution. Common ancestory is just a theory. It is still in the realm of "might have". God "might have" too! About Fossils: people put their biases on them. Anthropology is barely a science, there is so much speculation and opinion that fluctuates in it. If you want some fossil evidence that is against the evolutionary theory, let me know, I'm give you the fossil names.
joshdavidian 3 years ago
Sure. Bring 'em on.
BTW, gravity is 'just a theory'.
Rissoleking 3 years ago 2
All evidence for 'macro-evolution' (or evolution, as its most commonly known) will support 'micro-evolution' (or evolution, as its most commonly known). There is no difference in the processes of either, because they are exactly the same thing. The only variable is time.
'Micro-evolution' was a term invented by creationists after evolution became accepted by the scientific community. It was a face-saving retreat: 'oh, sure, we never said MICRO-evolution didn't happen'.
Rissoleking 3 years ago 3
So no fossil evidence against evolution, then?
Rissoleking 3 years ago
joshdavidian 3 years ago
@joshdavidian
@joshdavidian
Google "talk origins Creationist Arguments: Homo habilis" and click the first result.
That site includes discussions of all the KNM-ER fossils you mentioned, maybe some of the others.
airandfingers 1 year ago
Can you please explain why you say evolution has been proven and then say nothing can be proven absolutely? I always thought that if something was proven then it was proven absolutely.
SnarlAAAAAH 3 years ago
Sure. Nothing can be proved (or disproved absolutely), because we don't have absolute knowledge, we can't be absolutely sure of anything. We can be reasonably sure - based on the balance of probabilities - but never absolutely sure. Science does not claim absolute knowledge, and therefore does not claim absolute certainty of anything.
Rissoleking 3 years ago
eg. With gravity, I can come up with stupid alternative theories as to why we stick to the ground - lets say some bizarre alien adhesive technology. We can't rule out my hypothetical example 100% - but its ludicrously implausible and there's no evidence for it, so nobody takes it seriously, and rightly so.
Saying something has been proven (to a practical extent) is fine, saying its been ABSOLUTELY proven is arrogant and incorrect. Absolutism is the rhetoric of religion, not science.
Rissoleking 3 years ago
that's what you think dumbass
klank67 3 years ago