1. Whenever I don't completely understand how something works, assuming it must involve supernatural magic is generally the most reasonable hypothesis.
2. The existence of an invisible supreme being who created everything and cares what I think might be a product of magical thinking.
@a0eoj false. How do you explain the fact that the Bible has no self contradictory errors (taking into account that the Bible was written by 40 authors over the course of around 1700 years, who many of them never met each other, and the fact that they spoke different languages, lived on different continents, and held different occupations.) Please explain why it has any coherent theme at all, and why you have concluded it is unreliable despite its irrefutable accuracy.
@guardianewjedijoel That's the thing; it is an either-or thing. There's a 10-year discrepancy between Matthew and Luke. Herod died in 4 BC. Cyrenius became governor of Syria in 6 AD. So, if the Bible is so reliable, when was Jesus born?
Matthew 2:1 ~ in the days of Herod ~ before 4 BC
Luke 2:2,5 ~ while Cyrenius was governor of Syria ~ after 6 AD
@guardianewjedijoel Who was Joseph's father? According to the Bible, Joseph was the son of Jacob (Matt 1:16) and Joseph was the son of Heli (Luke 3:23). Did Joseph have 2 fathers or is this a contradiction? Intelligent people can see the Bible isn't a history book; it's a fairytale with all sorts of logical inconsistencies. That's why preachers encourage their flocks to have faith. Faith is a key ingredient that enables gullible people to believe stuff based on weak evidence. God is imaginary!
@BigLundi Jesus was baptized to "fulfill all righteousness" i.e. He was giving us an example of what we should do by doing it Himself.Jesus didn't need to be baptized any more than He needed to wash the disciples feet, He was showing us what we should do by doing it Himself.I am glad that I follow someone who is willing to enact the things He teaches (even if it means to humble Himself) instead of a "leader" who just tells people to do things He won't do Himself...CONTINUED...
@guardianewjedijoel I never asked if JEsus was baptized. I asked if JEsus baptized anyone. Please actually answer my questions because I feel liek you're wasting my time when you go off on things I don't care about, nor anything that answers any of my questions.
@BigLundi Sorry for wasting your time, Jesus baptized with the Holy Ghost (literally) and with fire. (metaphorically) John was the one who baptized with water.
@guardianewjedijoel So if your point was Jesus wasn't sinless because He was baptized; then my response is, Jesus was baptized to give us an example on what we should do, and in no place in the Bible does it say that baptism brings about salvation. Baptism is rather a thing you do to show that you have ALREADY been saved (by grace through faith in Jesus Christ.) Do you have any other specific passages in the Bible that you think contradict each other?
In the red corner: He's a university professor whose fields of expertise include: botany, biology, and ecology! The wise beard man himself: Dr. Massimo Pigliucci!
And in the blue corner: He got his PhD from the university of *insert name here*! His words are as slick as his hair and is currently serving a 10 year sentence for fraud! Ladies and gentlemen, Mr. Cunt *cough* Kent Hovind!
@Bznrebel So you're saying that you know more than Einstein and Victor Hess? Yeah...I'd spend more time reading science books so you can actually contribute to society rather than holding on to the antiquated words of some dogmatic fairy tail.
Kent, closing public schools would certainly benefit your ignorance and theocracy platform. Just become an Amish preacher. Go back to the pre-scientific Roman empire by yourself, I prefer modernity.
I have never ever before heard somebody in their right mind stating that public schools should be closed. I cannot get over the stupidity of MR Hovind.
N.A.S.A. lost faith in the performance of the orbiter's O-rings in freezing weather after the first shuttle blew up. Faith is credence. Paranoia is a pathological lack of faith.
When I first saw Steve Irwin in a commercial I thought he was a comedian. But, alas, people took him seriously when he cried over a dead crocodile whom he professed to love as much as he loved his wife.
What could be more ancient than evolutionary conjecture's gospel ("...an arcanum of prosodic theory which is the province of specialists..." — P.F. Baum) with its interrelated specialisms: Big Bang, primordial ooze, archallaxis, uni-cellular life's speciational advancements through a positive and naturalistic eugenism, transitional relics and whatnot?
@procommenter it's a scientific theory, not a "conjecture". Either way, evolutionary theory is not the same as it was when it was first proposed. That's the thing about science, it corrects itself when it's wrong and is always open for debate.
@procommenter a creationist and a conspiracy theorist? Oh boy! Actually the scientific process not only allows dissent, but encourages science. That's simply how science works. The idea is that every experiment published in a journal can be reproduced and confirmed or invalidated. If a scientist were to provide evidence that evolution is wrong, he would get a nobel prize. I don't know about you, but that sounds like a sweet deal.
@Richy15251 : No man knows the impetus of the Universe. A tutorial in English language would serve you well. Learn the meaning of the word science, and of conspiracy.
(1) On page 723 of "Roget's 21st Century Thesaurus in Dictionary Form," Edited by the Princeton Language Institute, Barbara Ann Kipfer, Ph.D., Head Lexicographer (1993) ...we find the synonyms for: THEORY [n] hypothesis, belief -- approach, argument, assumption, base, basis, belief, code, codification, concept, conditions, conjecture, doctrine, dogma, feeling, formularization, foundation, grounds, guess, guesswork,
7/*@procommenter equivocation fallacy. You're using the colloqial word 'theory' which means a hunch, guess etc... a *scientific* theory is anything but a guess or a hunch. If you can google "theory" and cherry pick results, try "scientific theory" and see what you get.
@procommenter not faith. science makes testable claims that are readily falsifiable. Science requires hard evidence and rigorous argument to accept a claim. This is the opposite of faith which requires acceptance of a claim without or even in spite of evidence. If you need any evidence that science works, just look at the computer your using or the car you drive to work. To say that scientific theories are just "guesses", "stabs in the dark" is just so painfully ignorant I'm not sure what to say
@Richy15251@a0eoj You seem like an educated man, I would assume you therefore are knowledgeable about statistical probability.Are you aware that Jesus fulfilled 300 prophesies written about Him hundreds of years before his birth, and the chances of Him fulfilling just 8 of them is 1 in 100 trillion?Are you aware that the chances of a DNA code that describes just 240 proteins arising without a designer is 1 in 10^89190?I would also assume you know that statistical zero is 1 in 10^50.
@guardianewjedijoel I'm really curious as to where you got those numbers from. Most creationists love to pull numbers out of their asses. It's also quite interesting that Jesus wasn't the only one who fulfilled old testament prophesies. Either way, the new testament writers had access to the old testament and could easily just make him fit the supposed prophesies. You'd need extra-biblical evidence and not hear say from second hand accounts of testimony. This is NOT scientific.
@Richy15251 Of course jedijoel was probably just repeating the garbage he heard from his ignorant preacher. Only credulous people believe prophecy. Faith is what gullible people have when they believe stuff based on weak evidence. Only delusional people believe there's an invisible supreme creator of everything who wrote a book and cares what they think. The Bible is just a fairytale for delusional people like jedijoel who can't deal with reality.
@guardianewjedijoel The problem with your DNA code example is that evolution is not a random process. Evolution is the non-random selection of random mutations, so it's not just randomly choosing sequences. If you're going the route of irreducible complexity, each example given has been thoroughly debunked by scientists like Ken Miller who have shown, for example, that the individual components of the bacterial flagellum have different, but very useful functions that would have been selected for
On page 293 of "Roget's 21st Century Thesaurus in Dictionary Form," Edited by the Princeton Language Institute, Barbara Ann Kipfer, Ph.D., Head Lexicographer (1993) ...we find the synonyms for: FAITH : acceptance, allegiance, assent, assurance, belief, certainty, certitude, confidence, constancy, conviction, credence, credit, credulity, dependence, faithfulness, fealty, fidelity, hope, loyalty, reliance, stock, store, sureness, surety, troth, truth, truthfulness
Try reading the Bible? everything in that book is amazing. The stuff that are happening now are in the Bible and the verses were written hundreds of years ago! and i know people will say '' oh well it happened by a bunch of random chances .'' hmm theres a little error in that statement. K guys look.. Evolutionists say that ervything started off as nothing at all..o-O i dont really get that, because i dont think any single thing can happen if NOTHING WAS THERE ? wasanyonetherewhenthathappened?
@jbwkzforeva try learning about science works before you criticize it. the "you weren't there, how do you know?" argument has been long since debunked. It's tantamount to "you can't SEE air, how do you know it exists?". There are alternate ways of measuring phenomena and discovering facts about the universe. Also, evolution does not say that everything came from nothing. Read a book.
@ikawpipa Yeah...no. The great thing about evolution is we can do this thing call science to test common ancestry. So if you mean "almost" you mean many scales of magnitude less, then yes...almost.
@Kruezoraxe - the religion of evolution use science to test common ancestry. the religion of creationist use science to prove the age of the earth is less than a million yrs old... -- it's amazing how people use science today and at the same time contradict each other.
@ikawpipa Like I said. You don't know what science is. You don't understand the day by day pain staking attempt to never make false assumptions. You don't understand the power of evidence from different disciplines convergent on one solution. You don't understand how scientists do their work by conducting experiments and then following the data...wherever that leads.
Chemistry, biology, genetics, genomics, geology, anthropology, paleontology, among others, all converge on evolution.
@ikawpipa You're a broken record with no signs of trying to fix it. Meaning you are just reciting what you've been told without employing your own personal thought. You don't know how science works so don't try to make judgments on it. I don't know how my computer works. But I don't assume magic. Try to do the same here.
Would you believe someone, who has barely even heard of Christianity and knows almost nothing about it, when they argue that your religion is false?
Because that's how we feel about you.
I, on the other hand, was raised a christian and was told to believe every word of the bible as true. But science, history class and reason lead me to accepting evolution.
@ikawpipa You need faith because you are ignorant. You don't want to believe in evolution so you choose not to learn about evolution. You are willfully ignorant yet you think you're qualified to critique evolution. Bravo! You're doing great job at making your country, the only first world country on earth that has an issue with evolution, look like the backwards and ignorant country it is. The smart Americans really have to figure something out before people like you destroy their country.
@urantivirus -- so members of the religion of evolution are smart and believe tigers and kangaroos came from a soup. how strong is their faith, im impressed.
@ikawpipa You're strawmanning evolution. Firstly, religions appeal to the supernatural for explanations of phenomena; evolution (and science altogether) rests on methodological naturalism, i.e. it can't comment on the supernatural. It remains neutral, ergo it's not a religion. Secondly, "came from a soup"? Abiogenesis (i.e. how life began) is not the theory of evolution (i.e. how life diversifies). Lastly, one doesn't need faith when all the evidence points toward (and never against) evolution.
@ikawpipa Do you know what a strawman argument is? If you don't know what it is or don't want to use one, I suggest you open a textbook and learn something. Do you like being ignorant?
@metubegirl69er yep. a biology "professor" who doenst know the meaning of some basic words (and uses them randomly) such as atoms, molecules, chromosomes and genes..
@Quilbo who is the moron, some that thinks we came from a banana or someone thinks that there's a common designer,, you just keep on thinking the world is flat and that we came from monkeys , am not using big words so you can understand, i would call you a moron but that would imply that you had some brains,, go eat a banana or your ancestry, lol you fail
@metubegirl69er being choosey won't make you less retard than you are, so fuck off and check the spelling of my last statement. is it correct? it is, and now FUCK OFF
you come here and tell me to check my spelling, it's obvious i know how to spell fucking banana, and it's obious that i wrote the answers under in a frenzied state of mind, because i keep reading such shit from you and your retard friends that i can't stay calm and check the spelling of my NON primary language
@metubegirl69er never said they did you complete goon.only you imbeciles believe evolution would need to be a "crockoduck" or "bacteria turning into a cat" thats my all time favourite really
I find it surprising that Hovid continues to argue that he doesn't want his tax money used to fund the teaching of evolution in public schools, given he doesn't actually pay any taxes. He's currently serving time in a federal penitentiary for tax evasion. It's the same sort of magical thinking and willful denial of reality that caused him to conclude income tax is illegal, then lie to the IRS and a federal judge about his income.
@aikwood666 one more thing if u call hovind a retard i think u should be call a retard cuz ur trying to prove u came from a rock lol buddy dnt u realize u cant beat bible
What evolutionist do is prove something tht they cant prove if u catch my drift if i was u i would stop calling ppl tht r smart and dnt say they came from a rock
@AntiFlavour haha ok is that all u can say to me so far " your are actually completely retarded" lol gosh u really tht stupid tbh trying to prove tht we came from monkeys and rocks haha
We didn't come from monkeys or rocks. You should probably put aside The Bible (which is an interesting, but very silly book, that was written during a time when no-one knew much about anything) and actually read up about what evolution is and how it works, rather than just rattling off silly cliches. That way, you can at least sound half intelligent when trying to make a point.
@AntiFlavour silly book which was written when no one knows lol i can see right now u dnt knw anything lol dude evolutions books r trash they dnt even make sences if they did ppl would believe it,"evolutionist" can not even prove the big bang they were never thier lol this earth is not billions of years old people r being brainwashed and u knw wat i say to american science teachers tht they r idiots and stupid because they teach somethings they were never there so some me some of ur smartness
@TheBloodsunday I so want to frame your comment! It is the most articulate essay proving that evolution is wrong that I've ever come across. Please never stop posting your brilliant ideas!
@aikwood666 ok 1st of before u say anything else about hovind plz open a book read it learn to spell than agrue if ur trying to prove tht evolution is true and u came from a rock than u should stop living and polut this world i think tht hovind is twiice smart than all evolutionsit but together in this world do me a favor go look a rock a prove tht this rock is millions year than ill give u 5g's for it and ill than believe in evolution
Closing the public schools? Good idea, Kent... because educational standards are just terrible here in Europe, where the government interference is rife. Much better to home-school them, because Eric turned out so well didn't he? An idiot with a criminal for a father...
For thoes interested hovind get seriously owned by a biology just graduated phd.
It is a great laugh look it up.
This Irish guy wipes the floor with Hovind, everything he says is debunked more so that he picks a couple of animals both of which were favorites of the student so he was a well versed and destroyed hovind exposing his lack of any knowledge on the subject.
First off, it is VERY SCARY to me that this man was teaching physics for 15 years if he is calling time a religion. Why so many people listen to someone who blatently lies to make his point is beyond me... And from what i hear he's in prison for 10 years so he won't have to worry about being called Dr., he'll just have to be worried about being called "Mrs. Hovind" lol
Kent's understanding of the word 'religion' is a prime example of his understanding of evolution. It's incomplete and a misrepresentation using an incomplete definition.
I love at 9:47 Kent actually believes he's on the same level as Dr. Pigliucci. Hilarious. By the way Kent, it does matter that you received some bullshit degree from an unaccredited university. Oh, and Dr. Pigliucci isn't in prison right now either.
LOL. Kent hovind doesnt even want public schools. He just want private schools were he can brainwash the students. I vote for him to get life time jail.
Hovind's analogy are based on his PHD through correspondence from the NON-ACCREDITED Patriot University now Patriot Bible which no longer offers this program. Patriot Bible U. is a diploma mill as it has unreasonably low graduation requirements
Dr. Pigliucci couldnt have explained himself better. Hovind has no reason besides his blind fundamentalism to reject what has been explained to him here.
When I hear the phrase "It's only theory." My eyes immediately glaze over & I can't hear anymore. Not because I'm closed minded. It's because I know what is going to follow & I'm interested in keeping my IQ intact .
Evolution is not a fact but a philosophy....Bring some true teachings into the science rooms because its all alot of bullcrap. Evolution is very illogical...It is definately not science.. Someone needs to throw our the darwinian theory and come up with something thats better than a bunch of lies......Darwinian theory is being disproved..
@Cherubim64 - Haven't you spent enough of your life being an uneducated buffoon ? You know, as well as everyone here, you don't know or understand the first thing concerning the Theory of Evo, science, the scientific method or what consitutes a scientific theory. Given this fact, where do you find the arrogance for your comments ? Go to a community college & take a remedial biology class. Don't say shit you can't back up. It makes you look like an ass.
@MaitreyaRocket Who are you intimidating you evoltionary arrogant baboon?Science doesn't need this preposterous theory...That's the problem is doen't even meet the scientific requirement. Any elementary science student can see how illogical and unreasonable the theory I took biology at he college level..Evolution is flawed at the elementary level. It is very inadequate and the darwinian mechanism does not support science.Many biologist don't regard it as a scientific theory...
@Cherubim64 - LOL !!! Congrats on your BIO 101 class. Alas, you should have started with an Intro to Science class. It's too bad you didn't tell your prof. about your misunderstandings of evo . I'm sure he/ she would have been glad to correct your ignorance. How is it you can state the theory of evo doesn't meet the requirements of a scientific theory if you don't know what they are, don't know what science is or does, or know what a scientific theory is ?
@MaitreyaRocket You know what? You studied under a cheap plastic microscope thats your problem.My professor knows the scientific theory better than you do...Any biologist or geneticist that knows anything about science knows darwinian evolution is full of holes. And you act as though Darwinianism is passing with flying colors....Well it is not....What you studied was not science..It was Darwin mythology...I think you better look at the facts not the illusions....
@Cherubim64 - Seeing that biologists & geneticists don't travel in your circle. You really shouldn't speak for them . I truly doubt your professor knows the theory better. It is what it iis. Can someone know that 2+2+ 4 better than someone else ? That was a truly stupid statement. YOU don't have an understanding of it. You should get your professor on here. At least he may be able to back up his statements.
@Cherubim64 - What test of a scientific theory does evo fail ? Do you understand what constitutes a scientific theory / Do you understand what falsifiable means ? What "fundamental principals" does evo "ignore" or violate? Do you know the difference between evidence & proof & what they mean in terms of a scientific theory?
@Cherubim64- These questions don't require a dissertation, just a few sentences.Since, you're unable to raise any viable criticims,get your professor to do it for you. I'd liove to know where a biology prof. who doesn't accept evo works.Between the two of you, you should be able to cobble together some dim witted argument for me to refute. Why can't you or the prof. back up a single accusation?It's simply because your accusations are merely creationist rhetoric aimed at the indoctrinated.
@Cherubim64 - I doubt you're ready to back up your dim witted accusations. Otherwise, you would have in your initial post. Anyway, please, by all means, 1) tell me the criteria for a scientific theory that goes unmet by evo . 2) What is it you see as illogical in the theory ? 3) How is evo flawed ? 4) What part of the theory of evo isn't supported by scientific fact ?
@MaitreyaRocket Those aren't accusations those were clearly observable facts that what evolution passes off as science is not science at all...And for me to answer your question to this could fill up quite of bit of paper...The fossil record for one does not support evolution at all.. Darwinism ignores the most fundamental principals. But I am not going into it with someone who is acting like a bully..
@Cherubim64 - All you've done is make unsubstatiated accusations that you can't back up. The fossil record does indeed support evo. It confirms a progression of organisms independently of evolution. Look for a Cambrian rabbit fossil. You won't find one. It is supported by geology & other sciences. One sees simple organisms at first and then new, more complex organisms appearing over time. This is consistent w/ evo. Do you see how I make a point & the back it up ? Try it
@MaitreyaRocket Thats the problem with Darwinism it makes claims that are not substantiated.The fossil record shows statis not any evolutionary progression.The Cambrian Explosian ia an embarassment to the d arwin theory because these forms appeared suddenly..Experts found discontinuances of pattern forms not at all what Darwin predicted. There are no morphological evolutionary evidence in the Cambrian.quite the contrary.Not a trace of ancestry for trilobite,brachiopods,fauna,etc.
@Cherubim64 - 5) The Theory of Evolution is the most evidence laden scientific theory known to science. No theory has come under more scrutiny. Any biologist will tell you that evo is the backbone of modern biology & very little makes sense without it. There isn't a contraversy among biologists. There may be a small fringe group of religious nuts but, it amounts to nothing & all their objections have been refuted. I would be glad to explain matters to you or correct you point by point.
@MaitreyaRocket you mean the most lacking evidence...Biologist use science mixed with evolution.. What really has it added to science? Lots of assumptions that don't even exist..oh wow natural selection..Big deal..oh descent with modification...big deal again. so you think its the backbone of modern biology...Actually biology makes more sense without it...Their just filled with evolutionary propaganda...You can explain it to me?...I have more to refute it...How is it that you could correct me/
@Cherubim64 - " Lots of assumptions that don't even exist' Can you explain to me WTF you mean by this ??? LOL ?!?!?!? You have more to refute ??? More ??? You haven't made any statements that refute evo. Saying something has holes in it & calling something propaganda isn't refuting anything. You haven't raised an argument. You can't . You would have to know the theory to refute . You don't so, you can't. You dishonor your own position by not knowing the contrary. Do you have anything ?
@MaitreyaRocket I could refute plenty of it ..Different people have different understandings of evolution and what they believe about it...Believing anywhere from chemical evolution. animal evolution,plant evolution,ape to human evolution,cosmic evolutio.n There are limits to as how far one can go with...Darwinism bites alot more than it can chew...There are tons of examples I could bring up that darwinists claim,that are myths and fallacies..There's the primordial soup,whale evolution.etc,etc.
@Cherubim64 - Different people may have different beliefs ,but, the theory is the theory ... It isn't different for some people ... The Cambrian Explosion isn't an embaressment to evolutionary biologists. It's a conformation. What we don't see are lions, tigers, & bears proposed by the dim wit creationists you cut & paste from. There isn't a single gene you or your dim wits can point to that does'nt exhibit evolutionary traits What "experts" are you referring to ?
@Cherubim64 - A puzzle doesn't undermine a theory. Neither does your ignorance of certain facts or what thye theory proposes . Your just wrong about the Cambrian.
@Cherubim64 - What test of a scientific theory does evo fail ? When are you & your professor going to refute the backbone of modern biology ? It's very simple to falsify . We're waiting ... Saying something is a myth isn't refuting it. You & your prof. have failed to refute a single point of evolutionary theory. It's likely you don't even know one.
@Ozzyman200 "The classic Pre-Cambrian bunny for example."
If that bunny is found, how would they know that it is Pre-Cambrian?
The dating methods can't date the bunny neither the rock if it is from that age, and if the bunny is found on a strata that it is thought to be Pre-Cambrian they would say: It can't be Pre-Cambrian, because there is a bunny there.
I don't know how could it be proven that a bunny is Pre-Cambrian.
"I don't know how could it be proven that a bunny is Pre-Cambrian."
Fair enough. There are plenty of textbooks and some great educational videos explainaing how we can date very old fossils. We can tell from the strata it's in and between for example. Scientists have got very good at such dating methods.
"they would say: It can't be Pre-Cambrian, because there is a bunny there.". That's merely your assumption, but there's no evidence for it.
@Ozzyman200 "We can tell from the strata it's in and between for example."
But this point is only valid if we can accurately date the strata and we can't. We now know that radioactive half lives are variable, and this is the base for all radiometric methods.
"That's merely your assumption, but there's no evidence for it."
But how could there be evidence If there is no accurate method to date the strata and if it is often dated by the fossils?
"But this point is only valid if we can accurately date the strata and we can't. We now know that radioactive half lives are variable, and this is the base for all radiometric methods."
No, the half lives of radiometric clocks are known to be very reliable and consistent. Look it up.
"But how could there be evidence If there is no accurate method to date the strata and if it is often dated by the fossils?"
There are many accurate ways, as I explained. You can look up more.
I said look into it, not just google it and stop reading. You obviously didn't read the link yourself. You've highlighted why research is important. Don't asume. The change in decay rate is old news, and so far only seems to apply to one kind of decay, and has yet to excede 2%. We're very well aware of this, so we take that into account. That's why scientists will give readings of say 1 million years, plus or minus 50,000. Every test shows radiometric dating is accurate.
@Ozzyman200 "and so far only seems to apply to one kind of decay"
The point I am making is that if the nucleus is not completely shielded from the environment and it can be affected by natural phenomena how can we know that there wasn't any significant alteration in more than million years?
Isn't a wild assumption?
If you are open-minded enough google for: One Reason I Am Skeptical of an Ancient Earth
It is an interesting article about extrapolating data.
"The point I am making is that if the nucleus is not completely shielded from the environment"
No, not what you said. You gave an example of an article that actually showed how very accurate radiometric dating is, you just didn't read it. Do you have any evidence of this alleged inaccuracy? The nucleus is indeed affacted by electrons in electron capture, you've given no evidence of beta or alpha decay varying. That's simply your wild assumption. Open your mind.
@Ozzyman200 "You gave an example of an article that actually showed how very accurate radiometric dating is, you just didn't read it."
I did read it a long time ago and it shows that radiometric dating could be very inaccurate, if the nucleus can be affected and we don't know how much neither the stress of the rocks along million of years.
"Do you have any evidence of this alleged inaccuracy?"
Do you have any evidence of this alleged accuracy along millions of years?
Yes, I did. Read beyond the title. The discrepancy is within the margin or error I stated earlier. Old news.
"An Open Mind is...."
Good, and I highly recommend one for you. It's the scientific way of thinking. It is deeply ironic to reject science without evidence and claim to be open-minded. Think about it.
"I am not saying it ISN'T that way, instead I say: it MAY not be that way."
Of course. Are you also saying the Earth MAY be flat or MAY be curved?
The information in the article is indeed old news, scientists have known about it for ages. The author even makes this point, that it's not going make a big enough difference for an old earth, which you'd know if you'd read it. Please, do your research before jumping to conclusions.
Keep an open mind to science, it has an incredibly good track record.
@Ozzyman200 "The information in the article is indeed old news"
No it is not old news, the paper referenced in the article is from 2008.
"The author even makes this point, that it's not going make a big enough difference for an old earth"
I don't know what you are talking about, I am not arguing about an old earth, you asked for evidence of beta or alpha decay varying and there you have it.
It is indeed old news. Not that exact paper obviously, but others with similar results. I'm sure you haven't read them, but that doesn't mean they don't exist. The sum of the evidence is still very weak.
Alpha and beta decay rates have been known to vary for many decades. As I say, old news. They're still very reliable clocks as they're used.
You mentioned an old earth earlier, perhaps I misunderstood. What is your view on the earth's age?
You are correct but if you have, and there are many along decades, please point me to any paper about DIRECT evidence for alpha and beta decay variation.
I still wonder why did you asked about this if you already knew?
"The sum of the evidence is still very weak."
How is it weak? What is the strong evidence that these clocks are so reliable along millions of years?
TRUE or FALSE:
1. Whenever I don't completely understand how something works, assuming it must involve supernatural magic is generally the most reasonable hypothesis.
2. The existence of an invisible supreme being who created everything and cares what I think might be a product of magical thinking.
a0eoj 1 week ago
@a0eoj false. How do you explain the fact that the Bible has no self contradictory errors (taking into account that the Bible was written by 40 authors over the course of around 1700 years, who many of them never met each other, and the fact that they spoke different languages, lived on different continents, and held different occupations.) Please explain why it has any coherent theme at all, and why you have concluded it is unreliable despite its irrefutable accuracy.
guardianewjedijoel 1 week ago
@guardianewjedijoel Have you read the Bible? It's loaded with contradictions!
a0eoj 1 week ago
@a0eoj Name one contradiction. (formatted book, chapter, verse.)
guardianewjedijoel 1 week ago
@guardianewjedijoel When was Jesus born?
~ prior to 4 BCE according to Matthew 2:1 ~ in the days of Herod
~ after 6 CE according to Luke 2:2,5 ~ while Cyrenius was governor of Syria
a0eoj 1 week ago
@a0eoj Cyrenius was governor of Syria in the days of Herod; it doesn't have to be an either-or thing here.
guardianewjedijoel 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@guardianewjedijoel That's the thing; it is an either-or thing. There's a 10-year discrepancy between Matthew and Luke. Herod died in 4 BC. Cyrenius became governor of Syria in 6 AD. So, if the Bible is so reliable, when was Jesus born?
Matthew 2:1 ~ in the days of Herod ~ before 4 BC
Luke 2:2,5 ~ while Cyrenius was governor of Syria ~ after 6 AD
a0eoj 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@guardianewjedijoel Who was Joseph's father? According to the Bible, Joseph was the son of Jacob (Matt 1:16) and Joseph was the son of Heli (Luke 3:23). Did Joseph have 2 fathers or is this a contradiction? Intelligent people can see the Bible isn't a history book; it's a fairytale with all sorts of logical inconsistencies. That's why preachers encourage their flocks to have faith. Faith is a key ingredient that enables gullible people to believe stuff based on weak evidence. God is imaginary!
a0eoj 1 week ago
@guardianewjedijoel Is that checkmate?
a0eoj 1 week ago
@guardianewjedijoel Gah...the amount of contradictions in the bible are staggering.
We'll start off simple by asking you questions.
Did Jesus ever baptize anyone?
BigLundi 6 days ago
@BigLundi Jesus was baptized to "fulfill all righteousness" i.e. He was giving us an example of what we should do by doing it Himself.Jesus didn't need to be baptized any more than He needed to wash the disciples feet, He was showing us what we should do by doing it Himself.I am glad that I follow someone who is willing to enact the things He teaches (even if it means to humble Himself) instead of a "leader" who just tells people to do things He won't do Himself...CONTINUED...
guardianewjedijoel 5 days ago
@guardianewjedijoel I never asked if JEsus was baptized. I asked if JEsus baptized anyone. Please actually answer my questions because I feel liek you're wasting my time when you go off on things I don't care about, nor anything that answers any of my questions.
BigLundi 5 days ago
@BigLundi Sorry for wasting your time, Jesus baptized with the Holy Ghost (literally) and with fire. (metaphorically) John was the one who baptized with water.
guardianewjedijoel 5 days ago
@guardianewjedijoel So if your point was Jesus wasn't sinless because He was baptized; then my response is, Jesus was baptized to give us an example on what we should do, and in no place in the Bible does it say that baptism brings about salvation. Baptism is rather a thing you do to show that you have ALREADY been saved (by grace through faith in Jesus Christ.) Do you have any other specific passages in the Bible that you think contradict each other?
guardianewjedijoel 5 days ago
@guardianewjedijoel ...I didn't ask if JEsus was baptized. Please actually answer my question.
BigLundi 5 days ago
In the red corner: He's a university professor whose fields of expertise include: botany, biology, and ecology! The wise beard man himself: Dr. Massimo Pigliucci!
And in the blue corner: He got his PhD from the university of *insert name here*! His words are as slick as his hair and is currently serving a 10 year sentence for fraud! Ladies and gentlemen, Mr. Cunt *cough* Kent Hovind!
CaptainAwesomeoh13 1 month ago 6
@CaptainAwesomeoh13
don't care what the credentials evolution is for retarded satan lovers
soldierofchrist77777 3 weeks ago
@soldierofchrist77777 By your own words, knowledge comes from Satan and ignorance comes from God. *golf clap*
CaptainAwesomeoh13 3 weeks ago
@soldierofchrist77777 And you're assuming that one believes in Satan in the first place.
CaptainAwesomeoh13 3 weeks ago
The big bang story was a explotion that started in the anus if the atheist and it came out through their mouth spilling out shit.
Bznrebel 1 month ago
@Bznrebel So you're saying that you know more than Einstein and Victor Hess? Yeah...I'd spend more time reading science books so you can actually contribute to society rather than holding on to the antiquated words of some dogmatic fairy tail.
CaptainAwesomeoh13 1 month ago
Kent Hovind is up there with John Edward as being the biggest douche in the universe.
LonesomeTroubadour 1 month ago 2
Kent, closing public schools would certainly benefit your ignorance and theocracy platform. Just become an Amish preacher. Go back to the pre-scientific Roman empire by yourself, I prefer modernity.
dwolfcoach 2 months ago
I have never ever before heard somebody in their right mind stating that public schools should be closed. I cannot get over the stupidity of MR Hovind.
Nylonbeast 2 months ago
why are all the comments so long
gerdaand 3 months ago
@gerdaand Why is your comment so short?
tonowicz1 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
N.A.S.A. lost faith in the performance of the orbiter's O-rings in freezing weather after the first shuttle blew up. Faith is credence. Paranoia is a pathological lack of faith.
procommenter 3 months ago
When I first saw Steve Irwin in a commercial I thought he was a comedian. But, alas, people took him seriously when he cried over a dead crocodile whom he professed to love as much as he loved his wife.
procommenter 3 months ago
Kent Hovind(10 points) and Massimo(2 points)
johnrsamuel1 3 months ago
What could be more ancient than evolutionary conjecture's gospel ("...an arcanum of prosodic theory which is the province of specialists..." — P.F. Baum) with its interrelated specialisms: Big Bang, primordial ooze, archallaxis, uni-cellular life's speciational advancements through a positive and naturalistic eugenism, transitional relics and whatnot?
procommenter 4 months ago
@procommenter it's a scientific theory, not a "conjecture". Either way, evolutionary theory is not the same as it was when it was first proposed. That's the thing about science, it corrects itself when it's wrong and is always open for debate.
Richy15251 3 months ago
@Richy15251 : You're living in a fools' paradise. Corporate science doesn't tolerate dissension. Research consensual medicine.
procommenter 3 months ago
@procommenter a creationist and a conspiracy theorist? Oh boy! Actually the scientific process not only allows dissent, but encourages science. That's simply how science works. The idea is that every experiment published in a journal can be reproduced and confirmed or invalidated. If a scientist were to provide evidence that evolution is wrong, he would get a nobel prize. I don't know about you, but that sounds like a sweet deal.
Richy15251 3 months ago
@Richy15251 : No man knows the impetus of the Universe. A tutorial in English language would serve you well. Learn the meaning of the word science, and of conspiracy.
procommenter 3 months ago
(2) hunch, idea, ideology, impression, method, outlook, philosophy, plan, position, postulate, premise, presentiment, presumption, proposal, provision, rational, scheme, speculation, supposal, suppose, supposition, surmise, suspicion, system, systemization, theorem, thesis, understanding
procommenter 3 months ago
(1) On page 723 of "Roget's 21st Century Thesaurus in Dictionary Form," Edited by the Princeton Language Institute, Barbara Ann Kipfer, Ph.D., Head Lexicographer (1993) ...we find the synonyms for: THEORY [n] hypothesis, belief -- approach, argument, assumption, base, basis, belief, code, codification, concept, conditions, conjecture, doctrine, dogma, feeling, formularization, foundation, grounds, guess, guesswork,
procommenter 3 months ago
7/*@procommenter equivocation fallacy. You're using the colloqial word 'theory' which means a hunch, guess etc... a *scientific* theory is anything but a guess or a hunch. If you can google "theory" and cherry pick results, try "scientific theory" and see what you get.
Richy15251 3 months ago
@Richy15251 : You're wrong. "Roget'sThesaurus" DOES NOT list colloquialisms for THEORY.
procommenter 3 months ago
@procommenter you're equating "Scientific theory" with the colloquial "theory" --> equivocation fallacy.
Richy15251 3 months ago
@Richy15251 : What is science?
procommenter 3 months ago
@procommenter not faith. science makes testable claims that are readily falsifiable. Science requires hard evidence and rigorous argument to accept a claim. This is the opposite of faith which requires acceptance of a claim without or even in spite of evidence. If you need any evidence that science works, just look at the computer your using or the car you drive to work. To say that scientific theories are just "guesses", "stabs in the dark" is just so painfully ignorant I'm not sure what to say
Richy15251 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Richy15251 : You didn't answer my question. What is science?
procommenter 3 months ago
@Richy15251 @a0eoj You seem like an educated man, I would assume you therefore are knowledgeable about statistical probability.Are you aware that Jesus fulfilled 300 prophesies written about Him hundreds of years before his birth, and the chances of Him fulfilling just 8 of them is 1 in 100 trillion?Are you aware that the chances of a DNA code that describes just 240 proteins arising without a designer is 1 in 10^89190?I would also assume you know that statistical zero is 1 in 10^50.
guardianewjedijoel 1 week ago
@guardianewjedijoel I'm really curious as to where you got those numbers from. Most creationists love to pull numbers out of their asses. It's also quite interesting that Jesus wasn't the only one who fulfilled old testament prophesies. Either way, the new testament writers had access to the old testament and could easily just make him fit the supposed prophesies. You'd need extra-biblical evidence and not hear say from second hand accounts of testimony. This is NOT scientific.
Richy15251 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Richy15251 Of course jedijoel was probably just repeating the garbage he heard from his ignorant preacher. Only credulous people believe prophecy. Faith is what gullible people have when they believe stuff based on weak evidence. Only delusional people believe there's an invisible supreme creator of everything who wrote a book and cares what they think. The Bible is just a fairytale for delusional people like jedijoel who can't deal with reality.
a0eoj 1 week ago
@guardianewjedijoel The problem with your DNA code example is that evolution is not a random process. Evolution is the non-random selection of random mutations, so it's not just randomly choosing sequences. If you're going the route of irreducible complexity, each example given has been thoroughly debunked by scientists like Ken Miller who have shown, for example, that the individual components of the bacterial flagellum have different, but very useful functions that would have been selected for
Richy15251 1 week ago
On page 293 of "Roget's 21st Century Thesaurus in Dictionary Form," Edited by the Princeton Language Institute, Barbara Ann Kipfer, Ph.D., Head Lexicographer (1993) ...we find the synonyms for: FAITH : acceptance, allegiance, assent, assurance, belief, certainty, certitude, confidence, constancy, conviction, credence, credit, credulity, dependence, faithfulness, fealty, fidelity, hope, loyalty, reliance, stock, store, sureness, surety, troth, truth, truthfulness
procommenter 3 months ago
Try reading the Bible? everything in that book is amazing. The stuff that are happening now are in the Bible and the verses were written hundreds of years ago! and i know people will say '' oh well it happened by a bunch of random chances .'' hmm theres a little error in that statement. K guys look.. Evolutionists say that ervything started off as nothing at all..o-O i dont really get that, because i dont think any single thing can happen if NOTHING WAS THERE ? wasanyonetherewhenthathappened?
jbwkzforeva 4 months ago
@jbwkzforeva try learning about science works before you criticize it. the "you weren't there, how do you know?" argument has been long since debunked. It's tantamount to "you can't SEE air, how do you know it exists?". There are alternate ways of measuring phenomena and discovering facts about the universe. Also, evolution does not say that everything came from nothing. Read a book.
Richy15251 3 months ago
Dr. Massimo Pigliucci (1) Kent Hovind (0)
a1saouse 4 months ago
a dog, a pine tree and a banana has the same ancestor... and this is modern science?
ikawpipa 4 months ago
@ikawpipa All back to one single cell which was the first organism that could self-replicate. It's really quite beautiful.
Kruezoraxe 4 months ago
@Kruezoraxe - i think the religion of evolution is quite beautiful, almost the same faith is required as creationist.
ikawpipa 4 months ago
@ikawpipa Yeah...no. The great thing about evolution is we can do this thing call science to test common ancestry. So if you mean "almost" you mean many scales of magnitude less, then yes...almost.
Kruezoraxe 4 months ago
@Kruezoraxe - the religion of evolution use science to test common ancestry. the religion of creationist use science to prove the age of the earth is less than a million yrs old... -- it's amazing how people use science today and at the same time contradict each other.
ikawpipa 4 months ago
@ikawpipa You clearly don't understand science.
Kruezoraxe 4 months ago
@Kruezoraxe - i don't understand the faith used in evolution.---- i love science.
ikawpipa 4 months ago
@ikawpipa if you think evolution has to do with faith, then you don't know what science is.
Kruezoraxe 4 months ago
@Kruezoraxe - everything came from a soup.... that's faith not science.
ikawpipa 4 months ago
@ikawpipa Like I said. You don't know what science is. You don't understand the day by day pain staking attempt to never make false assumptions. You don't understand the power of evidence from different disciplines convergent on one solution. You don't understand how scientists do their work by conducting experiments and then following the data...wherever that leads.
Chemistry, biology, genetics, genomics, geology, anthropology, paleontology, among others, all converge on evolution.
Kruezoraxe 4 months ago
@Kruezoraxe - yeah. billions and billions of years ago.... and that is science, more like faith and religion.
ikawpipa 4 months ago
@ikawpipa You're a broken record with no signs of trying to fix it. Meaning you are just reciting what you've been told without employing your own personal thought. You don't know how science works so don't try to make judgments on it. I don't know how my computer works. But I don't assume magic. Try to do the same here.
Kruezoraxe 4 months ago
@Kruezoraxe - evolution is magic.
ikawpipa 4 months ago
@ikawpipa You spin me right round round round like a record baby right round round roun
Kruezoraxe 4 months ago
@Kruezoraxe - awim mawe awim mawe awim mawe ...
ikawpipa 4 months ago
@ikawpipa This lion is asleep because he realizes how little of a threat you are.
Kruezoraxe 4 months ago
@ikawpipa How much do you know about evolution?
Would you believe someone, who has barely even heard of Christianity and knows almost nothing about it, when they argue that your religion is false?
Because that's how we feel about you.
I, on the other hand, was raised a christian and was told to believe every word of the bible as true. But science, history class and reason lead me to accepting evolution.
urantivirus 4 months ago
@urantivirus - im not an expert in evolution but i think i need more faith to believe that everything came from a soup.
ikawpipa 4 months ago
@ikawpipa You need faith because you are ignorant. You don't want to believe in evolution so you choose not to learn about evolution. You are willfully ignorant yet you think you're qualified to critique evolution. Bravo! You're doing great job at making your country, the only first world country on earth that has an issue with evolution, look like the backwards and ignorant country it is. The smart Americans really have to figure something out before people like you destroy their country.
urantivirus 4 months ago
Comment removed
ikawpipa 4 months ago
@urantivirus -- so members of the religion of evolution are smart and believe tigers and kangaroos came from a soup. how strong is their faith, im impressed.
ikawpipa 4 months ago
Comment removed
gmn545 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ikawpipa You're strawmanning evolution. Firstly, religions appeal to the supernatural for explanations of phenomena; evolution (and science altogether) rests on methodological naturalism, i.e. it can't comment on the supernatural. It remains neutral, ergo it's not a religion. Secondly, "came from a soup"? Abiogenesis (i.e. how life began) is not the theory of evolution (i.e. how life diversifies). Lastly, one doesn't need faith when all the evidence points toward (and never against) evolution.
gmn545 4 months ago
@ikawpipa Do you know what a strawman argument is? If you don't know what it is or don't want to use one, I suggest you open a textbook and learn something. Do you like being ignorant?
urantivirus 4 months ago
@ikawpipa yeah, massive strawman there. Just read a book please
Richy15251 3 months ago
@ikawpipa you would need faith to believe everything came from a soup. It's a good thing that evolution does not say that.
Richy15251 3 months ago
@ikawpipa
If you go back maybe a billion years.........there the similarity ends........
AceofDlamonds 4 months ago
massimo needs to learn how to speak clearly, hes a mumbler.
irishgeal1 4 months ago
I actually envy Kent...he's so blissfully ignorant that he thinks he won this debate...I wish I had that ability...
TwiztedTBone 5 months ago
Kent Hovind is cool
metubegirl69er 5 months ago
@metubegirl69er yep. a biology "professor" who doenst know the meaning of some basic words (and uses them randomly) such as atoms, molecules, chromosomes and genes..
a total retard, but ye, definetly cool.
moron.
Quilbo 5 months ago
@Quilbo who is the moron, some that thinks we came from a banana or someone thinks that there's a common designer,, you just keep on thinking the world is flat and that we came from monkeys , am not using big words so you can understand, i would call you a moron but that would imply that you had some brains,, go eat a banana or your ancestry, lol you fail
metubegirl69er 5 months ago
@metubegirl69er buddy, YOU and your retard friends say we come from a banane
no one who even calls him a psuedo-scientist would say such bullshit, understand?
you believe what this retards say because you didnt even open your science book when you were in school, fucking retard
Quilbo 5 months ago
@Quilbo to bad you count have evolve to a person that could spell banana , no species can make any other kind of species , idiot
metubegirl69er 5 months ago
@metubegirl69er being choosey won't make you less retard than you are, so fuck off and check the spelling of my last statement. is it correct? it is, and now FUCK OFF
you come here and tell me to check my spelling, it's obvious i know how to spell fucking banana, and it's obious that i wrote the answers under in a frenzied state of mind, because i keep reading such shit from you and your retard friends that i can't stay calm and check the spelling of my NON primary language
now FUCK you, idiot
Quilbo 5 months ago
@metubegirl69er "to bad you count have evolve to a person that could spell banana , ..."
Oh the irony! LOL!
gupsphoo 5 months ago
@metubegirl69er your a fucking insult to humanity if you think this retard hovind speaks the truth.go crucifuck yerself
1984LizardKing 5 months ago in playlist Massimo Pigliucci and others
@1984LizardKing talk to me when you evolve some new brain cells. no species can make any other kind of species , idiot
metubegirl69er 5 months ago
@metubegirl69er never said they did you complete goon.only you imbeciles believe evolution would need to be a "crockoduck" or "bacteria turning into a cat" thats my all time favourite really
1984LizardKing 5 months ago
@Quilbo Lol lol... you've just defined evolution.
markovka77 5 months ago
"Evidence for what?"
Your huge claim that scientific dating methods don't work and that you know better than the scientific community. Well?
"Then whats your point about the Turin Shroud?"
That it worked from several labs independently.
"the methods dating trees are used to calibrate radiocarbon dating..."
Not in most cases. You are claiming most are just one huge coincidence.
Ozzyman200 5 months ago
I find it surprising that Hovid continues to argue that he doesn't want his tax money used to fund the teaching of evolution in public schools, given he doesn't actually pay any taxes. He's currently serving time in a federal penitentiary for tax evasion. It's the same sort of magical thinking and willful denial of reality that caused him to conclude income tax is illegal, then lie to the IRS and a federal judge about his income.
redrover411 6 months ago
@aikwood666 one more thing if u call hovind a retard i think u should be call a retard cuz ur trying to prove u came from a rock lol buddy dnt u realize u cant beat bible
What evolutionist do is prove something tht they cant prove if u catch my drift if i was u i would stop calling ppl tht r smart and dnt say they came from a rock
God bless you.
TheBloodsunday 6 months ago
@TheBloodsunday You are actually completely retarded.
AntiFlavour 6 months ago
@AntiFlavour haha ok is that all u can say to me so far " your are actually completely retarded" lol gosh u really tht stupid tbh trying to prove tht we came from monkeys and rocks haha
TheBloodsunday 6 months ago
We didn't come from monkeys or rocks. You should probably put aside The Bible (which is an interesting, but very silly book, that was written during a time when no-one knew much about anything) and actually read up about what evolution is and how it works, rather than just rattling off silly cliches. That way, you can at least sound half intelligent when trying to make a point.
AntiFlavour 6 months ago
@AntiFlavour silly book which was written when no one knows lol i can see right now u dnt knw anything lol dude evolutions books r trash they dnt even make sences if they did ppl would believe it,"evolutionist" can not even prove the big bang they were never thier lol this earth is not billions of years old people r being brainwashed and u knw wat i say to american science teachers tht they r idiots and stupid because they teach somethings they were never there so some me some of ur smartness
TheBloodsunday 6 months ago
@TheBloodsunday I so want to frame your comment! It is the most articulate essay proving that evolution is wrong that I've ever come across. Please never stop posting your brilliant ideas!
CasualTS 5 months ago
@aikwood666 ok 1st of before u say anything else about hovind plz open a book read it learn to spell than agrue if ur trying to prove tht evolution is true and u came from a rock than u should stop living and polut this world i think tht hovind is twiice smart than all evolutionsit but together in this world do me a favor go look a rock a prove tht this rock is millions year than ill give u 5g's for it and ill than believe in evolution
TheBloodsunday 6 months ago
@TheBloodsunday "learn to spell"
"polut"
"twiice smart"
"evolutionsit"
The irony here is absolutely palpable.
419Films 5 months ago
ok, so you go to a libeary, you look at the books, thay all is writhen with lethers....what does this tell you?
It tells you your a retard, Hovind......
Aikwood666 6 months ago
"It's not from an accredited university, but I don't think that matters." 09:51
DoctorNociceptor 7 months ago
Pigliucci is an excellent teacher. I would love to have him as a professor.
joetaff 7 months ago
Oh stop fighting, Kent Hovind is a total cunt !
mrbullfinch 7 months ago
I love how Kent has a problem with taxes being wasted when none of those tax dollars were contributed by him.
johnalton22 7 months ago
I believe that God created the earth
HOWEVER....
that DR. Kevin Hovind is insane (and annoying)
redheadchels22 7 months ago
creation vs evolution . freeforums. org
purdyr 7 months ago
Comparing scientific education to the crimes of the Holocaust. Real classy, Kent. I hope you get ball cancer...
0mniaV1nc1t 8 months ago
Closing the public schools? Good idea, Kent... because educational standards are just terrible here in Europe, where the government interference is rife. Much better to home-school them, because Eric turned out so well didn't he? An idiot with a criminal for a father...
0mniaV1nc1t 8 months ago
Almost a good start KENT.
The Bible has been priven wrong so we should not teach it at all right Kent.
Science is about truth and evidence.
Faith is about belief without evidence and what about all the other equally valid faiths.
Hovind makes my blood boil, such bare faced lies and ignorance.
VideoAudioDisco09 8 months ago
For thoes interested hovind get seriously owned by a biology just graduated phd.
It is a great laugh look it up.
This Irish guy wipes the floor with Hovind, everything he says is debunked more so that he picks a couple of animals both of which were favorites of the student so he was a well versed and destroyed hovind exposing his lack of any knowledge on the subject.
VideoAudioDisco09 8 months ago
First off, it is VERY SCARY to me that this man was teaching physics for 15 years if he is calling time a religion. Why so many people listen to someone who blatently lies to make his point is beyond me... And from what i hear he's in prison for 10 years so he won't have to worry about being called Dr., he'll just have to be worried about being called "Mrs. Hovind" lol
dajdawg69 8 months ago
Kent's understanding of the word 'religion' is a prime example of his understanding of evolution. It's incomplete and a misrepresentation using an incomplete definition.
Agrobiz 8 months ago
I love at 9:47 Kent actually believes he's on the same level as Dr. Pigliucci. Hilarious. By the way Kent, it does matter that you received some bullshit degree from an unaccredited university. Oh, and Dr. Pigliucci isn't in prison right now either.
jordaniac89 8 months ago
LOL. Kent hovind doesnt even want public schools. He just want private schools were he can brainwash the students. I vote for him to get life time jail.
gulbirk 8 months ago
Hovind's analogy are based on his PHD through correspondence from the NON-ACCREDITED Patriot University now Patriot Bible which no longer offers this program. Patriot Bible U. is a diploma mill as it has unreasonably low graduation requirements
casyatbat 8 months ago
i find it funny everyone debates him but ( CANNOT BEAT HIM ) amen brother hovind.
willdick999999 8 months ago 3
@willdick999999
Everyone beats him. Nobody debates someone who is intellectually challenged. Hovind is a fraud, and a lying sack of shit.
radioactiveego 8 months ago
@willdick999999 Everyone beats him in a debate. Kent Hovind twists reality to conform to his bronze age belief system. Now he is in jail for FRAUD.
coolgreyoneabby 8 months ago
Evolution a religion? Kent is such a dick!
wachnathan 9 months ago
How many people out there honestly subscribe to the Hovind cult?
BigMrSox 9 months ago
Kent Hovind: evolution is a religion
Dr. Massimo Pigliucci: no its not, and here is the reasons why, and how it differes from religion
Kent Hovind: SELECTIVE HEARING FTW!!!!! evolution is a religion.....
Fulmetal: *SIGH*
fulmetalmage 9 months ago
Dr. Pigliucci couldnt have explained himself better. Hovind has no reason besides his blind fundamentalism to reject what has been explained to him here.
sirdelrio 9 months ago
LOL, i love it: MISTERRRR kent hovind.
sirdelrio 9 months ago
Glad I finally got to see this debate. Heard about it before. I have to say Dr. Hovind ran circles around this guy. Beautiful.
richmahn 9 months ago
oh yea and Pigliucci teaches at Stony Brook University in NY now.
KorlicTheGreat 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Dr. Pugliucci is the fucking man! Ive taken a few classes with him and hes so goddamn awesome. Evolutionary biology ftw
KorlicTheGreat 9 months ago
Dr. Pigliucci is the fucking man! Ive taken a few classes with him and hes so goddamn awesome. Evolutionary biology ftw
KorlicTheGreat 9 months ago
@mattetho I fail to understand how being "useless matter" proves that "evolution is a croc". Care to explain?
Moun10eer14 10 months ago
@mattetho
Ah, creationists. All insults no reasoning. I challenge you to present any evidence to back up your odd claims. Creationists never dare.
Ozzyman200 10 months ago 10
This is hilarious, what a jackass. Dr. Pigliucci deserves a medal for even being polite to this moron.
woodleman 10 months ago 4
When I hear the phrase "It's only theory." My eyes immediately glaze over & I can't hear anymore. Not because I'm closed minded. It's because I know what is going to follow & I'm interested in keeping my IQ intact .
MaitreyaRocket 10 months ago 4
This has been flagged as spam show
Evolution is not a fact but a philosophy....Bring some true teachings into the science rooms because its all alot of bullcrap. Evolution is very illogical...It is definately not science.. Someone needs to throw our the darwinian theory and come up with something thats better than a bunch of lies......Darwinian theory is being disproved..
Cherubim64 10 months ago
@Cherubim64 - Haven't you spent enough of your life being an uneducated buffoon ? You know, as well as everyone here, you don't know or understand the first thing concerning the Theory of Evo, science, the scientific method or what consitutes a scientific theory. Given this fact, where do you find the arrogance for your comments ? Go to a community college & take a remedial biology class. Don't say shit you can't back up. It makes you look like an ass.
MaitreyaRocket 10 months ago 5
@MaitreyaRocket Who are you intimidating you evoltionary arrogant baboon?Science doesn't need this preposterous theory...That's the problem is doen't even meet the scientific requirement. Any elementary science student can see how illogical and unreasonable the theory I took biology at he college level..Evolution is flawed at the elementary level. It is very inadequate and the darwinian mechanism does not support science.Many biologist don't regard it as a scientific theory...
Cherubim64 8 months ago
@Cherubim64 - LOL !!! Congrats on your BIO 101 class. Alas, you should have started with an Intro to Science class. It's too bad you didn't tell your prof. about your misunderstandings of evo . I'm sure he/ she would have been glad to correct your ignorance. How is it you can state the theory of evo doesn't meet the requirements of a scientific theory if you don't know what they are, don't know what science is or does, or know what a scientific theory is ?
MaitreyaRocket 8 months ago
@MaitreyaRocket You know what? You studied under a cheap plastic microscope thats your problem.My professor knows the scientific theory better than you do...Any biologist or geneticist that knows anything about science knows darwinian evolution is full of holes. And you act as though Darwinianism is passing with flying colors....Well it is not....What you studied was not science..It was Darwin mythology...I think you better look at the facts not the illusions....
Cherubim64 8 months ago
@Cherubim64 - Seeing that biologists & geneticists don't travel in your circle. You really shouldn't speak for them . I truly doubt your professor knows the theory better. It is what it iis. Can someone know that 2+2+ 4 better than someone else ? That was a truly stupid statement. YOU don't have an understanding of it. You should get your professor on here. At least he may be able to back up his statements.
MaitreyaRocket 8 months ago
Comment removed
MaitreyaRocket 8 months ago
@Cherubim64 - What test of a scientific theory does evo fail ? Do you understand what constitutes a scientific theory / Do you understand what falsifiable means ? What "fundamental principals" does evo "ignore" or violate? Do you know the difference between evidence & proof & what they mean in terms of a scientific theory?
MaitreyaRocket 8 months ago
@Cherubim64- These questions don't require a dissertation, just a few sentences.Since, you're unable to raise any viable criticims,get your professor to do it for you. I'd liove to know where a biology prof. who doesn't accept evo works.Between the two of you, you should be able to cobble together some dim witted argument for me to refute. Why can't you or the prof. back up a single accusation?It's simply because your accusations are merely creationist rhetoric aimed at the indoctrinated.
MaitreyaRocket 8 months ago
@Cherubim64 - I doubt you're ready to back up your dim witted accusations. Otherwise, you would have in your initial post. Anyway, please, by all means, 1) tell me the criteria for a scientific theory that goes unmet by evo . 2) What is it you see as illogical in the theory ? 3) How is evo flawed ? 4) What part of the theory of evo isn't supported by scientific fact ?
MaitreyaRocket 8 months ago
@MaitreyaRocket Those aren't accusations those were clearly observable facts that what evolution passes off as science is not science at all...And for me to answer your question to this could fill up quite of bit of paper...The fossil record for one does not support evolution at all.. Darwinism ignores the most fundamental principals. But I am not going into it with someone who is acting like a bully..
Cherubim64 8 months ago
@Cherubim64 - All you've done is make unsubstatiated accusations that you can't back up. The fossil record does indeed support evo. It confirms a progression of organisms independently of evolution. Look for a Cambrian rabbit fossil. You won't find one. It is supported by geology & other sciences. One sees simple organisms at first and then new, more complex organisms appearing over time. This is consistent w/ evo. Do you see how I make a point & the back it up ? Try it
MaitreyaRocket 8 months ago
@MaitreyaRocket Thats the problem with Darwinism it makes claims that are not substantiated.The fossil record shows statis not any evolutionary progression.The Cambrian Explosian ia an embarassment to the d arwin theory because these forms appeared suddenly..Experts found discontinuances of pattern forms not at all what Darwin predicted. There are no morphological evolutionary evidence in the Cambrian.quite the contrary.Not a trace of ancestry for trilobite,brachiopods,fauna,etc.
Cherubim64 8 months ago
@Cherubim64 - 5) The Theory of Evolution is the most evidence laden scientific theory known to science. No theory has come under more scrutiny. Any biologist will tell you that evo is the backbone of modern biology & very little makes sense without it. There isn't a contraversy among biologists. There may be a small fringe group of religious nuts but, it amounts to nothing & all their objections have been refuted. I would be glad to explain matters to you or correct you point by point.
MaitreyaRocket 8 months ago 2
@MaitreyaRocket you mean the most lacking evidence...Biologist use science mixed with evolution.. What really has it added to science? Lots of assumptions that don't even exist..oh wow natural selection..Big deal..oh descent with modification...big deal again. so you think its the backbone of modern biology...Actually biology makes more sense without it...Their just filled with evolutionary propaganda...You can explain it to me?...I have more to refute it...How is it that you could correct me/
Cherubim64 8 months ago
@Cherubim64 - " Lots of assumptions that don't even exist' Can you explain to me WTF you mean by this ??? LOL ?!?!?!? You have more to refute ??? More ??? You haven't made any statements that refute evo. Saying something has holes in it & calling something propaganda isn't refuting anything. You haven't raised an argument. You can't . You would have to know the theory to refute . You don't so, you can't. You dishonor your own position by not knowing the contrary. Do you have anything ?
MaitreyaRocket 8 months ago
@MaitreyaRocket I could refute plenty of it ..Different people have different understandings of evolution and what they believe about it...Believing anywhere from chemical evolution. animal evolution,plant evolution,ape to human evolution,cosmic evolutio.n There are limits to as how far one can go with...Darwinism bites alot more than it can chew...There are tons of examples I could bring up that darwinists claim,that are myths and fallacies..There's the primordial soup,whale evolution.etc,etc.
Cherubim64 8 months ago
@Cherubim64 - Different people may have different beliefs ,but, the theory is the theory ... It isn't different for some people ... The Cambrian Explosion isn't an embaressment to evolutionary biologists. It's a conformation. What we don't see are lions, tigers, & bears proposed by the dim wit creationists you cut & paste from. There isn't a single gene you or your dim wits can point to that does'nt exhibit evolutionary traits What "experts" are you referring to ?
MaitreyaRocket 8 months ago
@Cherubim64 - A puzzle doesn't undermine a theory. Neither does your ignorance of certain facts or what thye theory proposes . Your just wrong about the Cambrian.
MaitreyaRocket 8 months ago
@Cherubim64 - What test of a scientific theory does evo fail ? When are you & your professor going to refute the backbone of modern biology ? It's very simple to falsify . We're waiting ... Saying something is a myth isn't refuting it. You & your prof. have failed to refute a single point of evolutionary theory. It's likely you don't even know one.
MaitreyaRocket 8 months ago
@MaitreyaRocket "It's very simple to falsify . We're waiting ... "
How? How could it be falsified?
naujphantom 8 months ago
@naujphantom
The classic Pre-Cambrian bunny for example. A fossil out of sequence would do it.
Ozzyman200 8 months ago
@Ozzyman200 "The classic Pre-Cambrian bunny for example."
If that bunny is found, how would they know that it is Pre-Cambrian?
The dating methods can't date the bunny neither the rock if it is from that age, and if the bunny is found on a strata that it is thought to be Pre-Cambrian they would say: It can't be Pre-Cambrian, because there is a bunny there.
I don't know how could it be proven that a bunny is Pre-Cambrian.
naujphantom 8 months ago
@naujphantom
"I don't know how could it be proven that a bunny is Pre-Cambrian."
Fair enough. There are plenty of textbooks and some great educational videos explainaing how we can date very old fossils. We can tell from the strata it's in and between for example. Scientists have got very good at such dating methods.
"they would say: It can't be Pre-Cambrian, because there is a bunny there.". That's merely your assumption, but there's no evidence for it.
Ozzyman200 8 months ago
@Ozzyman200 "We can tell from the strata it's in and between for example."
But this point is only valid if we can accurately date the strata and we can't. We now know that radioactive half lives are variable, and this is the base for all radiometric methods.
"That's merely your assumption, but there's no evidence for it."
But how could there be evidence If there is no accurate method to date the strata and if it is often dated by the fossils?
naujphantom 8 months ago
@naujphantom
"But this point is only valid if we can accurately date the strata and we can't. We now know that radioactive half lives are variable, and this is the base for all radiometric methods."
No, the half lives of radiometric clocks are known to be very reliable and consistent. Look it up.
"But how could there be evidence If there is no accurate method to date the strata and if it is often dated by the fossils?"
There are many accurate ways, as I explained. You can look up more.
Ozzyman200 8 months ago
@Ozzyman200 "No, the half lives of radiometric clocks are known to be very reliable and consistent. Look it up."
I have looked it, for example google for: Change of decay rate wiki
The first result from wikipedia.
naujphantom 8 months ago
@naujphantom
I said look into it, not just google it and stop reading. You obviously didn't read the link yourself. You've highlighted why research is important. Don't asume. The change in decay rate is old news, and so far only seems to apply to one kind of decay, and has yet to excede 2%. We're very well aware of this, so we take that into account. That's why scientists will give readings of say 1 million years, plus or minus 50,000. Every test shows radiometric dating is accurate.
Ozzyman200 8 months ago
@Ozzyman200 "and so far only seems to apply to one kind of decay"
The point I am making is that if the nucleus is not completely shielded from the environment and it can be affected by natural phenomena how can we know that there wasn't any significant alteration in more than million years?
Isn't a wild assumption?
If you are open-minded enough google for: One Reason I Am Skeptical of an Ancient Earth
It is an interesting article about extrapolating data.
naujphantom 8 months ago
@naujphantom
"The point I am making is that if the nucleus is not completely shielded from the environment"
No, not what you said. You gave an example of an article that actually showed how very accurate radiometric dating is, you just didn't read it. Do you have any evidence of this alleged inaccuracy? The nucleus is indeed affacted by electrons in electron capture, you've given no evidence of beta or alpha decay varying. That's simply your wild assumption. Open your mind.
Ozzyman200 8 months ago
@Ozzyman200 "You gave an example of an article that actually showed how very accurate radiometric dating is, you just didn't read it."
I did read it a long time ago and it shows that radiometric dating could be very inaccurate, if the nucleus can be affected and we don't know how much neither the stress of the rocks along million of years.
"Do you have any evidence of this alleged inaccuracy?"
Do you have any evidence of this alleged accuracy along millions of years?
naujphantom 8 months ago
@Ozzyman200 "you've given no evidence of beta or alpha decay varying"
Google for: Proslogion More Evidence for Variable Radioactive Half-Lives
"Open your mind"
An Open Mind is by definition a mental state of being receptive to information or ideas.
You seem to be fixed to million of years or this IS this way or that way.
I am not saying it ISN'T that way, instead I say: it MAY not be that way.
naujphantom 8 months ago
@naujphantom
"Google for:....."
Yes, I did. Read beyond the title. The discrepancy is within the margin or error I stated earlier. Old news.
"An Open Mind is...."
Good, and I highly recommend one for you. It's the scientific way of thinking. It is deeply ironic to reject science without evidence and claim to be open-minded. Think about it.
"I am not saying it ISN'T that way, instead I say: it MAY not be that way."
Of course. Are you also saying the Earth MAY be flat or MAY be curved?
Ozzyman200 8 months ago
@Ozzyman200 "Read beyond the title. The discrepancy is within the margin or error I stated earlier. Old news."
I have read the entire article but what about you? Old news?
From the article: "Since these are relatively new results [...]"
If you already knew about this why did you asked for evidence of beta or alpha decay varying?
Also, it is not about the margin of error but that it can be affected by the environment.
naujphantom 8 months ago
@naujphantom
The information in the article is indeed old news, scientists have known about it for ages. The author even makes this point, that it's not going make a big enough difference for an old earth, which you'd know if you'd read it. Please, do your research before jumping to conclusions.
Keep an open mind to science, it has an incredibly good track record.
Ozzyman200 8 months ago
@Ozzyman200 "The information in the article is indeed old news"
No it is not old news, the paper referenced in the article is from 2008.
"The author even makes this point, that it's not going make a big enough difference for an old earth"
I don't know what you are talking about, I am not arguing about an old earth, you asked for evidence of beta or alpha decay varying and there you have it.
naujphantom 8 months ago
@naujphantom
It is indeed old news. Not that exact paper obviously, but others with similar results. I'm sure you haven't read them, but that doesn't mean they don't exist. The sum of the evidence is still very weak.
Alpha and beta decay rates have been known to vary for many decades. As I say, old news. They're still very reliable clocks as they're used.
You mentioned an old earth earlier, perhaps I misunderstood. What is your view on the earth's age?
Ozzyman200 8 months ago
@Ozzyman200 "I'm sure you haven't read them"
You are correct but if you have, and there are many along decades, please point me to any paper about DIRECT evidence for alpha and beta decay variation.
I still wonder why did you asked about this if you already knew?
"The sum of the evidence is still very weak."
How is it weak? What is the strong evidence that these clocks are so reliable along millions of years?
naujphantom 8 months ago