Mr Hovind vs Dr Hofmann 2 Debate Evolution/Creationism

[weefeatures]

This moron has a 'phd' in Christian Education... through correspondence...from a non-accredited university... pAHAHAHAHA!

How can he even begin to comment on evolution if he hasn't studied it?

[1robopm]

hovind should not be talking at all about evolution. thats the thing. its easy to straw man an idea and then say your idea must be superior. he hasnt given ANY work for his own creation theory. Only misquotations and misinformation about evolution are being given. i pity hoffman.

[BloodSweatTiers]

i can feel my IQ dropping as a listen to him talk

[globalfraud]

Wait he's taught biology for 15 years? Then how does he not understand that the big bang and abiogenesis are not evolution

[jonLukasC]

hovind is a retard

[Sweddude]

*caugh* Loser *caugh*

[sol3a1]

Holy Crap Hovind is a loon.

[Lottarandomness]

Is he (Hovind) hypocrite or what? Does he realize he just described his own religion and "science" at the beginning of this video?

[TheBadPhysicist]

@Lottarandomness

Ya' know, I would love to get in his mind and understand if he truly believes the crap he spouts off or is it all an act to preserve christian dogma at all costs--either way, they guy delusional .

[BeekersSqueakers]

Almost 2000 of the people who watched the first part couldn't stand listening to Hovind's bullshit enough to watch part 2.

[TheBadPhysicist]

@BeekersSqueakers

Now THAT is an amusing observation!

[CrowbarSka]

This man has not grasped the concept that evolutionary changes are tiny and incremental. No, animals do not produce new species instantly; they produce microscopically different versions of themselves. If these versions are stronger then they tend to survive and pass on their genes, and vice versa. Over long periods these evolved versions come to be labelled as different species but these labels are really meaningless and only useful as a way of distinguishing between major variations.

[pcdesigntt]

Can you please list your qualifications: as I would not like to listen to anyone who is not qualified to speak on these topics. Regards

[TheBadPhysicist]

@pcdesigntt

I am a scientician with an advanced degree in truthology from Christian-Tech University by the Sea.

Regards...

[TheBadPhysicist]

Cont...

Imagine that the curved 2-dimensional surface of a ball DEFINES the universe. If you are an ant crawling through that 2D universe (ignore any expansion for the moment), you would crawl over the entire surface (the universe) without ever running into a center. This is an indirect analogy to our 3 dimensional universe because our universe doesn't really curve 4-dimensionally into anything (like a hypersphere)!

Cont...

[CBALLEN]

@TheBadPhysicist The Bible tells us the universe is expanding ,so that's nothing new.The red shift is evidence that we are near the center too,if we weren't we we not see this red shift from all surrounding stars and planets.

[TheBadPhysicist]

CBALLEN,

That is a common misconception on your part about the being near the "center". In reality, there is no center to the universe. In general, every point is receding from every other point as the universe expands. It is analogous to raisin bread. Imagine you are on a raisin (our galaxy) when the bread is first heating up. The bread will rise making each raisin move away from all the others. From your POV, it look like everything is moving away from you.

Cont...

[TheBadPhysicist]

Cont....

If you were on another raisin it too would look like a center of expansion because all other raisins are moving away from it. Thus, in a sense, all points are the "center" of expansion.

Also, Einstein's general relativity predicts an expanding universe. From it, Hubble's law models the expansion rate of the galaxies. Basically, as, the recession velocity goes like the distance from the observer: v = HoD, where Ho is just come constant, v is recession velocity, and D distance

Cont...

[TheBadPhysicist]

Cont...

Also, the notion of a center of an expansion implies an explosion. However, explosions occurs only within the universe because it doesn't make sense for us to talk about anything outside the universe. The universe didn't come from an explosion because there was no "inside" to begin with.

So, space between galaxies is "growing", or expanding, uniformly throughout the universe. I know it might sound mind blowing but it's not. I can offer another analogy regarding a balloon.

Cont...

[CBALLEN]

Stephen J.Gould was so sure that there were no intermediate fossils,that Gould came up with punctuated equilibrium ,this is where one day something produces one THING and next they are producing something NEW.Evolutionists are some of the most gullible people alive AND THEY CHIDE EVERYBODY ELSE FOR HAVING COMMON SENSE.LOL

[TheBadPhysicist]

CBALLEN,

You ignorance of science speak volumes. Gould, like any scientist, is never completely sure of anything as science can only be as good as the current precision of instruments. When I do my research and publish something, I am only tentatively saying that, with the current level of resolution, I can be pretty confident that what I am describing is close to the true objective reality. You also misunderstand what punctuated equilibrium is all about.

[TheBadPhysicist]

CBALLEN,

I assume you never even looked at Gould's publications on it: Read Eldredge and Gould 1972 and Gould and Eldredge 1977, or his opus 'Structure of Evolutionary Theory" 2002.

Gould really said that "Stasis is data". As Myer's said "What led Eldredge and Gould to propose punctuated equilibrium is the physical evidence of long term stability of form in the fossil record, with relatively rapid — on a geological scale — transitions. Not absence of evidence, but the presence of evidence."

[eddogky]

DR. Hovind is awsome... G-d bless him

[TheBadPhysicist]

eddogky,

He has only a few more years left until he gets out from behind the bars...yup, such a good jailbird.

[eddogky]

@TheBadPhysicist For taxes...like we all haven't broken the law at least once

[CBALLEN]

@TheBadPhysicist Hey people in jail needs to be shown why evolution is stupid too!

[TheBadPhysicist]

CBALLEN,

This assumes there is something wrong with evolution--which is simply not the case. Since it is a well supported theory with preponderance of evidence, accurate predictions, and firm theoretical foundation, those who believe it is stupid are really using flawed reasoning based on a dogma.

The evolution deniers are, mainly religious clowns, would rather turn a blind eye to evidence so that their belief can be preserved.

[CBALLEN]

@TheBadPhysicist There is no evidence for evolution,creationists prove this to evolutionists in every debate.When the evidence of creation is put up side by side,everyone begins to feel embarrassed for the evolutionists.Why don't you think there are more debates between evos and cret. anymore,the evos are tired of looking like duped miseducated morons.

[TheBadPhysicist]

CBALLEN,

There is a preponderance of evidence leading to scientific consensus about evolution. There is literally a mountain of evidence here. If you have particular question then ask them--do not make meaningless generalization about

no evidence for evolution."

As for why there are not more debates, there is a majority of scientists who refuse to debate wacky christians on the merits of evolution because it will give them a sliver of legitimacy where none should be.

[TheBadPhysicist]

Cont...

Our universe isn't curved into anything nor is it expanding into anything. At least the ball analogy gives you another idea as to why we nor any other place is at a true center of the universe. In summery, the universe does not have an edge, nor a center.

Don't confuse red shift of stars and gravitational red shifts with the cosmological red shift of galaxies due to the expansion. Locally, we can have objects coming toward us but, globally, there is just expansion everywhere.

[CBALLEN]

@TheBadPhysicist My friend,as I said the Bible says He stretches out the Heavens as a curtain,He doesn't say He stretched it out,He continues to stretch it out.So how do you think that the Bible knew the Heavens were expanding?He hangs the Earth on nothing,this was said when people believed animals or Atlas held the Earth up.So maybe as a scientist you should look in the Bible and see what else it knew thousands of years ago,you may be able to come up with answers to things you're looking for.

[TheBadPhysicist]

I am sorry to say but arguing cosmology based on religious texts is rather immature. The bible DOES NOT say the universe is expanding. It say "he stretches out the Heavens as a curtain". Whatever that means in open to interpretation and the age of the child trying to use it as evidence.

Science, however, is extremely forthcoming with evidence, predictions, and even admits where it has yet to understand things. Science also builds into it's knowledge base falsifiability.

CONT...

[TheBadPhysicist]

CONT...

You have to understand that "[stretching] out the heavens" is a non-scientific statement because it uses non-specific terms that can mean anything, it makes no predictions, and it comes from the bible--a document so rife with inconsistencies and wrong descriptions of the world that if it were a science text, it would have long been shelved as an old but wrong attempt at describing the natural world.

E.g. GE 1:3-5, there was night and day before there was our sun or star light.

CONT...

[TheBadPhysicist]

CONT...

Also, in GE 1:29, every plant was good to eat, though we know it is physically impossible for humans to eat and metabolize poisonous ALL plants. We can not do this as there would be conflicts in the biochemical pathways that could not be physically overcome.

I don't want this discourse to degenerate into silly bible arguments because this YouTube channel is meant for logical, evidence based reasoning and not mythologies and dogma.

CONT...

[TheBadPhysicist]

CONT...

You are also the typical christian apologist type who either does not understand the scientific concepts that I take time to write in repsonse to you or you just do not care to read them.

You showed extreme ignorance regarding the current up-to-date science on the big bang and when I tried to write a layperson response to you, instead of replying "yeah, thank you", or "I finally understand the basic concepts about the big bang", you rebut with some silly bible passages.

CONT...

[TheBadPhysicist]

CONT...

Seriously, did you even read my long response about the science behind the expanding universe?

This is a serious science channel and not some fantasy role playing with primitive bronze age religious texts. Thus, either you genuinely talk about concepts in science (pro or con) based on rational thought or do not post here again.

You will not argue from some silly defunct bible and use church logic again as it is a dogma. Be mature and actually use your brain or be gone.

END

[TheBadPhysicist]

eddogky,

Yeah, right, and he broke the law and lied multiple times. Very christian of him.

[eddogky]

@TheBadPhysicist Everone sins...the question is did he repent...we are not here to judge, we here to love...G-D bless!

[TheBadPhysicist]

eddogky,

I do not know what is repent status is. Since I am a scientist I follow the secular laws of our great American nation and not some religion. Thus, I think he should pay for his misdeeds based upon the law. We all pay taxes, why shouldn't he?

He also lies in his debates. This is demonstrable.

[eddogky]

@TheBadPhysicist so your saying that you've never done anything illegal...he without sin cast the first stone...just because you believe the lies and drink the kool-aid that you've been givin doesn't mean that it's true

[TheBadPhysicist]

I never said I didn't do anything "illegal". I drive over the speed limit sometimes, but that is about it. I understand your perspective, but since I evaluate the workings of the world based on the process of science, I do not follow any dogmatic teachings like the Bible or the Koran.

Therefore, John's telling of Jesus and the mob is not germane to my ethics.

[eddogky]

@TheBadPhysicist "Therefore, John's telling of Jesus and the mob is not germane to my ethics."...really?...those laws that you, and the rest of us hold so highly are based upon what the Bible teaches, this country was based upon what the Bible teaches...

[TheBadPhysicist]

eddogky,

I have tried to steer you towards discussing science on here. In case you have not noticed, but I do not put up with silly religious discussion on here as it has no basis for scientific inquiry.

I will ask you this one time not to talk about the bible because this is not a religious channel, it's a science channel.

If you object to evolution or some other big science topic then list the reasons as long as they are based on real, intelligent thought and not some silly bible passage.

[eddogky]

@TheBadPhysicist I didn't know that youtube was a science channel...maybe I should write them and tell them I didn't get the memo...

[TheBadPhysicist]

eddogky,

Can you read? I I said MY YouTube channel is one devoted to discourse on science topics. I never implied YouTube itself was.

[eddogky]

@TheBadPhysicist Sure can't...why so hateful?...if you don't like what is written maybe you shouldn't have video's on hear...

[TheBadPhysicist]

I do not like that you do not read things before you post. That show a lack of caring and responsibility. I have videos on here to act as seeds for debate in a rational manner. This is not a place for throwing bronze age excerpts of mythologies around. If you have a drive to do so, go find an channel about fictional things. I do not put up with silly and childish stuff like that. Now go to your room...

[eddogky]

@TheBadPhysicist fictional like evolution...how does it show a lack of caring, now your just not making any sense, much like evolution...as far as mythologies, the only myth that has been mentioned is evolution

[TheBadPhysicist]

eddogky,

If you were not so willfully ignorant of the evidence presented to you, you would not be making such child-like statements. You have not given one counter example that would falsify evolution (assuming you know what that means) nor have you shown how any silly religious idea is better at explaining the present diversity of life, make predictions, and is falsifiable.

You don't even know what characterizes a scientific theory. Unlike your belief in religion, you need to think on here.

[TheBadPhysicist]

Do not make blind assertions. Let's all be honest here:

You don't care what science says, all you are worried about is your imagined attack on your religion by science. Even if the modern synthesis of evolution were to discount parts of our cherished religion, you would rather ignore evidence so your childish beliefs can remained in touch then be strong (and a big boy) and accept the hard facts.

[eddogky]

@TheBadPhysicist If you only knew a tenth of what you think that you know...may our Heavenly Father bless you and I pray that your eyes and heart will be opened

[TheBadPhysicist]

eddogky,

As a scientist, we proudly admit that we don't know everything. If we did, then science, by definition, would not exist and world would be a boring place. How ironic it is that you claim what you claim while you, with one stroke of the hand, assume you know that 1) god exists and 2) if he exists, that you know how he operates (e.g. god might reward those who think critically like me and are not gullible like you).

YOU are the one who claims to know stuff (god) without evidence. I dont

[eddogky]

@TheBadPhysicist First there's plenty of evidence, just look around...to believe the very word of G-D is not gullible, he doesn't have to lie...I admit that I have faith and thats the difference, I will admit it and you won't...you believe in man and the lies purely on FAITH...I don't know everything and would never claim too, I do know that our heavenly Father loves us and wants us to be with him and also that the only way to get to him is through our savior Jesus Christ...G-D bless

[TheBadPhysicist]

eddogky,

I understand that you take all that on faith, I really do. That said, as a scientist, I evaluate the world through evidence based reasoning and as little--if any--faith. I am not here to tell you that god is a silly notion, rather, I am here to say that any claim against a well supported theory in science needs to really have substantive foundation and plenty of evidence.

There are plenty of Christians who understand evolution, and know there is no conflict, do you?

[eddogky]

@TheBadPhysicist THEORY being the key word...if you believe a theory that means that FAITH is a big factor otherwise it would be a fact...that was what I was pointing out to you...G-D bless you brother and have a terrific day!

[TheBadPhysicist]

eddogky,

Be careful about the definitions of Fact and Theory. Most laypeople confuse the meanings and often use the colloquial definitions when referring to science--which is a mistake.

A Fact in science is typically a repeatable observation under controlled conditions. An example is the acceleration of gravity at sea level at the equator being 9.789 m·s−2. For all intents and purposes this will be true for as long as humans walk the Earth. Thus, it's a fact.

Cont...

[TheBadPhysicist]

Cont...

As for Theory in science: it is a tentative falsifiable explanation of observations that arises from a hypothesis or hypotheses which have been well tested and posses a preponderance of evidence to back it up.

Faith in the religious sense plays no real part in Theory or Fact with regards to science. A theory's robustness is not due to how much faith a scientist has in it, rather, it's its explanatory power and quantity/quality of evidence behind it.

END

[eddogky]

@TheBadPhysicist the·o·ry /ˈθiəri, ˈθɪəri/ Show Spelled[thee-uh-ree, theer-ee] Show IPA –noun, plural -ries 6. contemplation or speculation.

7. guess or conjecture.

[TheBadPhysicist]

eddogky,

You make the most elementary mistakes common to christians. The most important being that you don't understand how the hierarchies of dictionary definitions work. You see, one word can have several meanings, many of which may be inconsistent when applied to the wrong discipline. Another problem is that definitions are often abbreviated so that words might have incomplete meanings. This is due to the fact that dictionaries have limited space.

Cont...

[TheBadPhysicist]

Cont...

This is why encyclopedias are used to quickly understand the true nature of something—in this case, Theory.

For example in Merriam-Webster Dictionary, the word Theory has more than six different s depending upon whether you are referring to science or are speaking in vernacular. The definitions closest to what theory means in science are 1, 3, and 5. (You on the other hand disingenuously omitted the proper definitions of Theory in science, rather going with others.)

Cont...

[TheBadPhysicist]

Cont...

As for the Merriam-Webster Dictionary definitons, like I said, the most appropriate are 1,3, and 5:

1: “the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another”

3: “the general or abstract principles of a body of fact, a science, or an art”

5: “a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena”

Now, Google Encyclopedia Britannica for the phrase Scientific Theory. Once there, you will find Theory means

Cont...

[TheBadPhysicist]

Cont...

Encyclopedia Britannica entry for Scientific Theory: "systematic ideational structure of broad scope, conceived by the human imagination (meaning human thought), that encompasses a family of empirical (experiential) laws regarding regularities existing in objects and events, both observed and posited. A scientific theory is a structure suggested by these laws and is devised to explain them in a scientifically rational manner. Etc…

Cont...

[TheBadPhysicist]

Cont...

The encyclopedia entry continues and even with just part of the entry, notice how more in-depth the encyclopedia definition is, but also its relation to the shortened dictionary definitions

Again, do not cheery-pick unrealted definitons of a word to back up your claim. It's all about what context you are in that dictates what dictionary definition is appropriate. Look up "Scientific theory" in Encyclopedia Britanica before you write back.

Cont...

[TheBadPhysicist]

Cont...

Finally, read

Hempel. C.G. 1951 "Problems and Changes in the Empiricist Criterion of Meaning" in Aspects of Scientific Explanation, for the definition of theory,

if you REALLY want an indepth explanation of what a scientific theory is.

End!

[eddogky]

@TheBadPhysicist Scientific Theory - a theory that explains scientific observations; "scientific theories must be falsifiable"...Falsifiable - Capable of being falsified, counterfeited, or corrupted...your right, that about sums it up

[TheBadPhysicist]

@eddogky

What are you talking about? Falsifiability does not imply corruption? Are you mad?

What a hypothesis is falsifiable it means that the it has someone of tested to see if it "holds water". I already demonstrated to you that an idea that is not falsifiable (like most things coming from religion) leads to tautologies. Having a dragon in my garage is a tautology because if anyone tried to disprove it, I can always say that the dragon is invisible when, for example, anyone be me looks at it

[eddogky]

@TheBadPhysicist That is the DEFINITION...I didn't write the dictionary...it's called copy and paste

[TheBadPhysicist]

eddogky,

You don't understand do you? There are various definitions of a word depending upon context. You were cherry picking from the 3 or 4 definitions of the word 'Theory' so that it fits your convoluted perception of it. Of course the definition you presented was wrong in the context of actual science.

You posted:

"6. contemplation or speculation - 7. guess or conjecture"

as the proper fitting definition...BUT those do not fit the proper context!!! Rather, they are colloquial.

[eddogky]

@TheBadPhysicist Fal´si`fi`a`ble 1. Capable of being falsified, counterfeited, or corrupted. 2. able to be proven false, and therefore testable; as, most religious beliefs are not falsifiable, and are therefor outside the scope of experimental science...thats the whole definition

[TheBadPhysicist]

eddogky,

Finally, something we agree on. The first definition is NOT in the context of science. Definition number 2 IS the definition of falsifiability in science. Do you understand now how dictionary definitions work?

I am with that most religious claims are not able to be tested; hence, no logical conclusion can be made from them. They have as much validity as leprechauns. (Sorry to the wee Irish.)

[eddogky]

@TheBadPhysicist 2. able to be proven false...that about sums it up, your right

[carstenhdk]

My belief is a religion - no doubt about that. I just ask you to admit, that your way looking at the world´s creation is a religion too. I think there is plenty evidence of a creating God in the world we live in (ex: Dr Hovind´s teachings). I have seen many signs of a God living and caring for people. That you haven´t seen it yet do not mean, that He doesn´t excist. It´s a matter of faith.

[TheBadPhysicist]

carstenhdk,

Science is not a religion. For example, in any religion (like your christian stuff) is based on dogma. Any theory (or even hypothesis) in science is not based what religion is because they are falsifiable and make predictions.

Unlike science, you and your religion denies observation so that belief can be preserved. This my friend, is your dogma seeping through your brain. You would rather sacrifice important counter evidence just to save appearances while in science, we welcome it

[TheBadPhysicist]

carstenhdk...you wrote "I have seen many signs of a God living and caring for people. That you haven´t seen it yet do not mean, that He doesn´t excist."

What you claim is purely anecdotal and is thus, the lowest form of any evidence. It is purely subjective on your part. That said, no scientist is claiming god (or Zeus) doesn't exist because we can't prove a negative, rather, there is no empirical evidence to support such a claim. Where are the hard scientific observations regarding Zeus?

[carstenhdk]

Placebo-effect? Well, I have removed the crutches from a person I did not know, and I he had no pain. Instant prayer, instant healing. I have a friend, who has been healed for bad leg injuries. Placebo-effect does indeed excist, and I believe that effect, but in these (and many other) case(s), it is a Godly act. Placebo-effect has its limitis. ;-)

[TheBadPhysicist]

carstenhdk,

From what you are saying--removing crutches from a person, etc.--that is grounds for a possible Nobel prize in medicine. Also, you can easily win one million dollars by trying for the James Randi Foundation Million Dollar Challenge. It is for anyone who can demonstrate genuine supernatural or psychic abilities. Check it out.

[TheBadPhysicist]

carstenhdk,

A few things. First, since you are making an extraordinary claim of a god existing, it is up to you to provide evidence in support of your assertion and not the other way around, for that would be a fallacy.

Second, how do you know you are not delusional when you hear those voices? You have to admit that mentally ill patients hear and say exactly the same things but they are talk about hearing voices of aliens or little trolls tell them to burn things.

[carstenhdk]

I have personally seen Jesus in about 45 minutes in a vision. I spoke with him in a heavenly language. I have seen people healed on the spot for a number of sicknesses and diceases. Both mental and physical conditions. I have seen angles. You know what? You could try to tell me, that God don´t excist, but I have experienced him - radically! Perhaps God hasn´t been revealed in your life, but that dosn´t mean, that he doesn´t excist.

[Xgya2000]

@carstenhdk wow, your crack dealer must make a lot of money off you.

"Power of prayer" has a scientific name. It's called "placebo effect".

Of course. The FLying Spaghetti Monster always acts radically. His noodly appendages have roots everywhere

[lizazoon]

Creation is right: God blew his bad breath(no toothpaste yet ) over a clump of mud, and voila, it became alive and upright. Question, did Adam have a penis ? Because Eve was only created when Adam complained about loneliness. If god had given Adam a motorbike or a computer, we would still be in the garden of Eden.

[0335193]

Well, it looks like we both have a different religion.

For your information, the flood is described in the Bible.

My english isn't as good as yours, so i will keep it simple.

I think discussing with you isn't worth it, as in the end we will both still believe what we first believed. I really hope you will eventually find the truth, as i did about 3 years ago.

Just start reading the Bible, and you will find it. God loves you too.

[TheBadPhysicist]

0335193

Again, you can believe in fairies, leprechauns, Zeus, or god, but science will continually progress. As genomics matures, even more and breathtaking evidence will be added to the mountain evidence for evolution. In 20 or so years, we will be computationally predicting extinct species through their inferred genomes and, after which, finding the undiscovered fossils...and I guarantee, the rendering and fossils will be exactly the same. This will be is absolute proof.

[gregrutz]

@0335193

What Flood? There is no geologic evidence for a global flood?

[0335193]

@gregrutz Watch his videos to show you plenty of examples. For example the Grand Canyon. And it is visible in the layers (that which is falsely named the geological column) of the earth. Also we know that bodies of mammoths have been found that died with food in their mouth: you don't die while chewing your meal unless you where surprised by something that kills you pretty instant.

[gregrutz]

Coconino Sandstone is a geologic formation that spreads across the Colorado Plateau. it can be seen in a number of national parks and monuments It is also present in the Grand Canyon, where it is visible as a white cliff forming layer. Coconino sandstone appears just below the Kaibab Limestone or the Toroweap layer. Coconino layers are typically buff to white in color. It consists primarily of sand deposited by eolian processes (WIND-deposited) 260 million years ago.

Look at real evicence.

[0335193]

@gregrutz I don't see anything in your post stating evidence, only a theory which says 'something happened 260 million years ago'. The Bible is very clear about what happened, but you just won't believe it. People don't want to believe the Gospel because then they would have to admit there is something bigger than them, and they have to surrender their will to God. Therefore they try to make up alternative explanations for things that can't be explained otherwise.

[gregrutz]

Because Kent and the bible are wrong !!

Not the first time science has proven the bible wrong.

Geology proves it, the earth is millions of years old, get over it.

[0335193]

None of the commentors on this topics have really listened to the very clear arguments Dr. Hovind states.

You all whine about prison (without googling the reason for it) and try to make him sound ridiculous. Trying to attack the form of his message, not the content. If you would really listen to the content and take of those fuzzy earbuds in your ears, you might understand. Don't be ignorant, but judge based on arguments...

[TheBadPhysicist]

0335193

I do not think many people are ignorant on here. Hovind has committed blatant fallacies and is very disingenuous with what he does. For example in part of this video, he uses a Canadian's attack on radioisotopic dating to support his claim that dates beyond 6000 year ago are false even though the Canadian was claiming such radioisotopic dates are ACTUALLY LONGER THAN SCIENTISTS THINK.

This is wholesale trickery on Hovind's part. He does this often too! If anyone is ignorant its Hovind

[0335193]

He does things often because people learn in school to be ignorant about certain things. E.g.: they teach us about earth layers, and state that they tell time. But that conclusion is not supported by evidence, they just tell it to you as a fact so you don't think about it. How do you explain stone trees going through ' million years' of earth?? Another thing: scientists date the fossils based on the layer they found them in, and vice versa they date the layer based on the fossils! Ignorant.

[TheBadPhysicist]

Stone trees? What the hell? Can you please explain what you are trying to say. As for Earth's layers, that is called the geologic column. Let's go over some definitions:

Geologic column: is the complete rock

record

Geologic time scale: is the method of using stratigraphy in composite the geologic record to provide a chronological system or time scale. It looks like you have trouble understanding geologic time. I will help:

Within geologic time we have two processes you need to know

Cont..

[TheBadPhysicist]

Cont...

Absolute time: is measured in millions of years typically through radiometric means.

Relative time: details relationships of relative age of "chunks" of Earth's stratigraphy (layers). Calibration of the relative time scale is done by using absolute time measurements.

With any scientific measurement, refinement always ensues because the techniques get better. You may ask why we change dates a bit: The dates given have changed because the measurements have become more precise.

Cont...

[TheBadPhysicist]

Cont...

You may question the validity of radiometric dating - don't.

1)

Different types of radiometric dating give the same dates.

See for example,

Meert, Joe, 2000. "Consistent radiometric dates".

Dalrymple, Brent, (2000). "Radiometric dating does work! Some examples and a critique...". Reports of the National Center for Science Education 20(3): 14-17

Cont...

[TheBadPhysicist]

Cont...

2) Also, radiometric dating is consistent with non-radiometric dating methods

a) Milankovitch cycles, which are astronomical based measurements are consistent with radiometric dating.

See:

Hilgen, Krijgsman, et al. (1997). "Breakthrough made in dating of the geological record". EOS 78(28): 285,288

b) Luminescence or Optical dating method is consistent with radiometric dating

See:

Thorne, et al., 1999. "Australia's oldest human remains..." Journal Human Evolution 36(6): 591

Cont...

[TheBadPhysicist]

Cont...

Now that I have provided you evidence for radiometric dating of the geologic column (and provided references to respected scientific journals) I will tackle your question of "scientists date the fossils based on the layer [and vice versa]"

This is an easy one as well as a classic among creationists: You think this is circular reasoning but you are mistaken.

Scientists date the geologic column FIRST (see above discussion on Relative/absolut dating). SECOND, they date fossils.

Cont...

[TheBadPhysicist]

Cont..

The confusion you have arises because, once the relative dates of Earth's strata are known through radiometric and other means, fossils found only in certain strata time and again were obviously dated to that time - they appear no other place (these are called dominate fossils), then whenever a scientist comes across the previously established and dated dominate fossils when digging they automatically know the age of the strata. without having to radiometric ally date it!

NOT IGNORANT

[0335193]

You still pre-assume your geological column is formed over time. It isn't, it was formed very rapidly: during the flood. I was talking about petrified trees, which have been found (straight up) through 'million years' of your geological column. It can only petrify if it was captured in the earth quickly. And this happened, since the layers were formed during the flood.

The whole misunderstanding is based on the fact that you believe, as is told in textbooks, that there IS a geological

CONT

[TheBadPhysicist]

Wow, have you not read my postings?

The geologic column is not assumed a priori. Rather it's a consequence of radiometric dating.

I love your petrified tree question. It is classic creationist confusion. I called my colleague on this, we had a laugh. You see, the geologic column is not perfect, so some small variation occurs, as with this example, making dating the fossilized tree via the column rather difficult. Why, might you ask, makes it such a difficult fossil?

Cont...

[TheBadPhysicist]

Cont...

Because, as strata form, erosion takes place but some larger fossils, called upright fossils, survive the erosion process; that is, through quick rapid deposition and subsidence. Adding to the effect, trees are indeed quite long so they my run through more than one layer.

It's an easy matter for scientists to explain. To say it simply, if there is a large depositional event, then fossils are buried in a relatively short period of time. Several smaller events can do the same.

Cont...

[TheBadPhysicist]

Cont...

As for following text books, most practicing scientists, like geologists, don't stare at a text books, they are carrying out research, going to the data, reducing it, publishing, and giving conference talks. Science does not progress through text books; it does so by the activities mentioned above. 

Cont...

[TheBadPhysicist]

Cont

Last, you on the other hand, presuppose that this so-called "flood" occurred. What exactly is this flood? Where is the data published? Is it in a peer-reviewed journal?

In futility, Hovind tried to justify the biblical flood by stating theoretically, one drop of water could cover the entire surface of the Earth. This is wrong!!! This is ridiculous statement; you can even do it theoretically. He's an idiot.

[0335193]

Cont

Column. We all have been learned that that is a fact, and it isn't. There is no proof that it was formed in millions of years.

The one difference between you and Dr. Hovind is that he did study all your articles: you didn't study his full lecture (where he refers to lots of articles), i advice you check it out first, and then come to your decision about what is true. As long as you ignore another explanation (i believe the right one) you can't say you judge fair.

CONT

[TheBadPhysicist]

You wrote "There is no proof that it was formed in millions of years".

I assume you do not read the scientific papers I cited. Radiometric dating alone dates layers up to millions of year old. Look at my first posts in this thread regarding the scientific validity of such methods.

Cont...

[TheBadPhysicist]

Cont..

I have study Hovind's material a great deal. I even pointed out to you an example of one his underhanded tricks where he quoted a source to counter scientists' results, only, if anyone would care to read his scitation, it goes again Hovind's creationism! BUT YOU DIDN'T EVEN FLINCH. There was no surprise from you, or disdain for Hovind's tricks. I can even give you the citation from Hovind's debate.

Obviously, you haven't studied his stuff as carefully as I.

[0335193]

Cont

As for your references to articles:

we both know that the 'respected magazines' only accept articles for publishing IF THEY AGREE TO THE RESEARCH AND OUTCOME. Otherwise, they just send it back.

The teaching of evolution is propaganda, and the biggest nationwide religion, as there are no facts to support.

Cont

[TheBadPhysicist]

You wrote: "respected magazines only accept articles for publishing IF THEY AGREE TO THE RESEARCH AND OUTCOME"

Of course they do. This is called peer-review and no such journal is reputable without it because without it, anyone with a wacky idea can publish without the peers in specific scientific discipline having an honest and evaluation. There is ten no way to make sense from nonsense.

Peer review is not perfect but it is the best we have. Even counterexamples are published!

Cont...

[TheBadPhysicist]

Cont...

I have published articles myself in refereed scientific journals. The process of acceptance is tough but if one has real data, solid facts, and great observations, then one should not be scared to put forth the evidence and courageously defend their conclusions. If it's legit research, it will eventually pass peer-review. For example, my first paper publish had three peer scientists on the committee & was rejected the first time. After a revision, it got accepted.

[0335193]

Cont

I believe that God created the heavens and the earth in 6 days, and rested the 7th day. He created all living things, and he created men. They were tempted by the devil, and they sinned. Therefore we are all sinners.

And God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son [Jesus], that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.

[TheBadPhysicist]

You can believe what you want, but science marches on and your god lives in the gaps of our knowledge and since the Renascence, those gaps have been getting very narrow.

[JohnFotios]

If I was in the audience I would have walked out laughing. Kent is some good entertainment :)

[TheBadPhysicist]

Agreed!

[NavinJohnson90]

Kent Hovind has got to be the dumbest motherfucker to ever teach science. No wonder our country's education is so terrible.

[TAz69x]

I'm scared... I've never seen "Captain Science Make Super Wronginator For Unto Edgeokaay'shun 'Cause Religion Learned Me Good" in person before! X:-O

*Smallville theme plays

"Somebody saaave me!"

Superman Clark Kent beats Stupidman Hovind, Kent!

"It's a bird!❥"

"It's a plane!✈"

"What are you two, retarded?! It's Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin's science teacher!"

[ProphetTenebrae]

Hovind makes wilful ignorance is almost like a SUPERPOWER. You can almost see him walking off a cliff because gravity is "just a theory".

Well, if he wasn't in jail.

[TheBadPhysicist]

Well put Prophet. Are you a fellow rationalist? Scientist?

[haroldzlw]

TBP - Can you see my comment below. I have ongoing arguement and would like to have some hard facts. thanks!

[TheBadPhysicist]

I have been slowly crafting a commentray on a 30 second slide showing how Hovind lifted information without checking content and the information is actually in favorour of an old Earth!

It might take another week or so due to my research, or do you want me to comment of something specific?