PRO

Where Your Ideas can change Minds

Please visit our new forum at

http://www.4forums.com

CON


YouDebate.com Forum
» back to YouDebate.com
Register | Profile | Log In | Lost Password | Active Users | Help | Board Rules | Search | FAQ |
Custom Search
» You are not logged in.   log in | register

  YouDebate.com Forum
   Creationism vs Evolution Debates
     Archaeopteryx

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

    
Prototype

|      |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

My source happens to be Dr. Kent Hovind. Who also happens to be the man in the site I already related and mentioned. You may look at that source, if you wish.

I admit though, I don't quite understand the populations evolving idea. I know that more than one thing had to evolve, but entire populations? Forgive my ignorance, but would you explain that to me?


-------
I want to know facts for both sides, and I will not take biased words as a valid arguement for whatever reason.
 


Posts: 31 | Posted: 12:35 AM on March 21, 2006 | IP
EntwickelnCollin

|        |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

My source happens to be Dr. Kent Hovind. Who also happens to be the man in the site I already related and mentioned. You may look at that source, if you wish.


Dude, you seem very open and willing to learn about this subject, so I'm not going to throw mud at you for listening to Hovind, but... just stop doing it.

Talkorigins.org perhaps isn't the most impartial source you could find to analyze "Dr" Hovind, but I could find a million more if you'd like. The most pertinent point you'll find again and again is that many creationists do not like associating themselves with Hovind, because it's known on both sides of the grapevine that he's fraudulent, that he's a felon, that he doesn't pay income taxes, and most importantly, that he recites arguments that creationists don't make anymore.


-------
http://ummcash.org/officers.html
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/wow_1.php
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/a_triumphant_beginning.php
We're official!
 


Posts: 729 | Posted: 01:00 AM on March 21, 2006 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

My source happens to be Dr. Kent Hovind. Who also happens to be the man in the site I already related and mentioned. You may look at that source, if you wish.

Hovind is a fraud and conman and doesn't understand science.  He doesn't have a Ph.D in science but in bible study.  He has no scientific qualifications, yet that doesn't stop him from calling himself "Dr. Dino".

I admit though, I don't quite understand the populations evolving idea. I know that more than one thing had to evolve, but entire populations? Forgive my ignorance, but would you explain that to me?

Hey asking questions is good!  It's what science is all about.  Check out this thread where we discussed this very subject:
Evolution
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 01:20 AM on March 21, 2006 | IP
RoyLennigan

|        |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Prototype at 12:35 AM on March 21, 2006 :I admit though, I don't quite understand the populations evolving idea. I know that more than one thing had to evolve, but entire populations? Forgive my ignorance, but would you explain that to me?


evolution is based on this idea, so its pretty important to know.  basically, change occurs in a species, there is no individual change.  over thousands or millions of years (the time period is dependant upon how fast the species reproduces and how easily mutations are made and passed down) a group of one species can change.  observe that every organism is just slightly different than its parent; that every human is distinct and unique.  this is because of recombination of gene patterns and sometimes mutations (or errors in copying of genes).  some gene combinations create organisms with traits that help them survive better in a particular environment (say a gene that causes a cat's pupils to get larger so that it can see better in the dark)  but if that change in that cat occured in a different environment (ie one where only prey came out in the day and it was very bright outside) then the same gene combination might be harmful to its survival.

big changes in an organism's physiology (on the scale of species to species) occurs when a new niche becomes available.  usually when a group of the species (or maybe even the entire species) finds a new environment with a new food source, there are changes on the pressures of this group.  there are different factors which affect efficiency and survivability and ability to find a mate and reproduce when an organism finds a new habitat.  different selective pressures mean that different genes are singled out and have a better chance of mixing with the overall population.  the dominant genes of the last generations are replaced by the new ones that have survived this new environment.  over long periods of time, these small changes just add up.  there are also theories that suggest that genes act as a group, instead of as seperate parts that relate to specific physical parts.  any small change could potentially have anywhere between no effect (or negligable) and as much as an extra limb or a change in bone structure (though most often not so obvious or detrimental).  we all observe the tiny steps behind the leaps of evolution; you see it in every individualistic face, in every unique colored butterfly, in every animal.
 


Posts: 152 | Posted: 02:09 AM on March 21, 2006 | IP
Prototype

|      |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Thanks for the link, I'll look into it.

I don't know about Dr. Hovind's income taxes or things like that. It sounds odd to me, as I never heard anyone say that before. I have heard things about fraud and not understanding science though.

From what I know, he has studied science and taught high school science for fifteen years. He does, in fact, have a PHD in his education. I've seen a scan of that PHD before, and I see no reason to think he lied about it.

You think he's lying? Well, have you watched any of his seminars before? You watch one of his seminars all the way through and whether you think he's right or not, I gaurantee you that you'll be presented with FACTS. Cold hard Facts, and I've found him to put up a better arguement at a debate than any evolutionist or atheist.

Thanks for explaining this population evolution to me, RoyLennigan. And I agree with you that a different species may arise out of the environment they're in. May in fact become so seperate that many other species of their kind cannot interbreed with them. That I agree with.

Something I found questionable though. What happens to the animal that evolves a little better than the rest? Wouldn't it get diluded back into the rest of the yet unevolved population and the information lost?




-------
I want to know facts for both sides, and I will not take biased words as a valid arguement for whatever reason.
 


Posts: 31 | Posted: 09:57 AM on March 21, 2006 | IP
EntwickelnCollin

|        |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

You think he's lying? Well, have you watched any of his seminars before? You watch one of his seminars all the way through and whether you think he's right or not, I gaurantee you that you'll be presented with FACTS. Cold hard Facts, and I've found him to put up a better arguement at a debate than any evolutionist or atheist.


Hovind does not present facts. One of my friends on CreationTalk.com actually attended more than ten of Hovind’s seminars, and he showed in his blog how all of them were terribly misleading: Part One.

As for Hovind’s credentials… You’ll see they really don’t apply, and in some cases don’t exist. From here:

Hovind claims to possess a masters degree and a doctorate in education from Patriot University in Colorado. According to Hovind, his 250-page dissertation was on the topic of the dangers of teaching evolution in the public schools. Formerly affiliated with Hilltop Baptist Church in Colorado Springs, Colorado, Patriot University is accredited only by the American Accrediting Association of Theological Institutions, an accreditation mill that provides accreditation for a $100 charge. Patriot University has moved to Alamosa, Colorado and continues to offer correspondence courses for $15 to $32 per credit. The school's catalog contains course descriptions but no listing of the school's faculty or their credentials.

What this shows is a questionable credential in that he received his PhD from a place that anyone could get a PhD from. But that’s only the tip of the iceberg. You’ll also notice that it’s a slimly-accredited theology university, and has nothing to boast about science. Further, Hovind says his PhD is in education. One thing is for sure: Hovind’s expertise is not in science.

You also said that Hovind can ‘put up a better argument at a debate than any evolutionist.’ Please… Hovind doesn’t even debate. His strategy is to spit as many holes in evolution at his opponents in the first couple seconds as possible. There are many things in evolutionary theory that take whole semesters of college-level biology class to learn, and Hovind only has to ask someone to explain one of these intricate lessons in the five minutes his opponent is given. His opponent doesn’t have the time to explain it, and already Hovind’s ahead of the game. You’d think because he’s so excellent at these debates, though, that he would engage in them on the internet, through email or forums like you and I. But he doesn’t. He says he ‘doesn’t have the time.’ Could that perhaps be because it’s to his opponents advantage that he be given unlimited space to explain and debunk holes in evolutions efficiently and understandably?

Thanks for explaining this population evolution to me, RoyLennigan. And I agree with you that a different species may arise out of the environment they're in. May in fact become so seperate that many other species of their kind cannot interbreed with them. That I agree with.


That’s speciation. It’s otherwise known as “macro-evolution”.

Something I found questionable though. What happens to the animal that evolves a little better than the rest?


Well, if a single organism evolves faster than the rest, it wouldn’t really be evolving. It’d just be born with more mutations than the others, and either it would die as the result of these mutations, or it would live on without affecting the rest of the population, which would continue at the same pace.

Wouldn't it get diluded back into the rest of the yet unevolved population and the information lost?


Most likely, assuming it could procreate with the rest of the population.

(Edited by EntwickelnCollin 3/21/2006 at 11:10 AM).


-------
http://ummcash.org/officers.html
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/wow_1.php
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/a_triumphant_beginning.php
We're official!
 


Posts: 729 | Posted: 11:07 AM on March 21, 2006 | IP
Prototype

|      |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I've seen Hovinds seminars and watched tons of his videos myself and I've seen nothing that would imply that he knew nothing of science or evolution. The evolutionists he debates (you can get some of his debates on DVD and VHS) seem to know less of science than he does.

And by the way, as you have not watched any of Kent Hovinds things yourself, I would strongly encourage you to do so before you make a decision on it. Even Prof. Greenleaf didn't believe the bible until he studied it fully for himself; and he had already believed it was untrue.

He doesn't engage on forums or e-mail or internet. Would you like to know why? He only does about 700 seminars a year!! I've heard he now speaks even more than that. That takes a lot of time considering how long his seminars are. He'll do everything else but that, it is just too time consuming considering what he already does.

This is something I see almost everytime somebody attacks him. They question his credentials or his actually being a doctor or not. If that place that he got his PHD from was a degreee mill, than a place like that should be shut down. Something like that, distributing to individuals would be considered illegal, and yet, I don't believe the PHD I saw was illegitimate.

Even if he didn't have his PHD in education, why bother with that? Darwin himself was not a scientist in the least. He was trained at a bible college for years and had even less scientific qualifications than Kent Hovind does. Yet, people seem to believe him easily. Why should there even be an arguement when one of the main men who started the evolution theory had possibly less expertise in this area than the man who debates him?

He happened to teach High school science for fifteen years. I doubt you could disprove that, unless the records of his school he taught at show no record of a fifteen year career. That is unlikely to happen to anybody.

Well, if the one mutated animal was diluted, than how could it effect the population as a whole?

Plus, there is a lot a mutations that are bad, or are only scramblings of information already there. A three legged dog for instance would be a loss of information. Do you know of any true mutations that truly benefit?

Some bugs can become resistant to bug spray and other things. But they will never survive if they are sprayed with Anthrax. They may develop such things, but I doubt even one will develop a totally new organ or totally new or different set of bones. A population of cows could live next to the sea all their life and change biologically, but they will never turn into a hippo or a seal.




-------
I want to know facts for both sides, and I will not take biased words as a valid arguement for whatever reason.
 


Posts: 31 | Posted: 2:19 PM on March 21, 2006 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I've seen Hovinds seminars and watched tons of his videos myself and I've seen nothing that would imply that he knew nothing of science or evolution.

Sure, he's a conman and ignorant of science.  He counts on his ability to befuddle and fast talk others like you who are even more ignorant of science than himself.  Take a look at his $250,000.000 offer:

"I have a standing offer of $250,000 to anyone who can give any empirical evidence (scientific proof) for evolution.* My $250,000 offer demonstrates that the hypothesis of evolution is nothing more than a religious belief."

But then look at the dishonest terms of that offer:
"* NOTE: When I use the word evolution, I am not referring to the minor variations found in all of the various life forms (microevolution). I am referring to the general theory of evolution which believes these five major events took place without God:
1. Time, space, and matter came into existence by themselves.
2. Planets and stars formed from space dust.
3. Matter created life by itself.
4. Early life-forms learned to reproduce themselves.
5. Major changes occurred between these diverse life forms (i.e., fish changed to amphibians, amphibians changed to reptiles, and reptiles changed to birds or mammals)."

The first 3 points of his offer have nothing to do with evolution!  Here's what Talkorigins have to say about the offer:  

DrDino

"As Hovind would have it, there is some all-encompassing concept he calls "the general theory of evolution" that embraces (1) cosmology, (2) astrophysics, (3) abiogenesis and (4) biochemistry or genetics or something (given the confused "Early life-forms learned to reproduce themselves"), in addition to (5) biological evolution. All of the other items could be disproved without affecting the validity of biological evolution. Since this "general theory of evolution" is not a part of science, there is no reason for any scientist to attempt to establish evidence for it."

He makes up his own bogus theory, the general theory of evolution, and he sets it up so no one can can win!  

And by the way, as you have not watched any of Kent Hovinds things yourself, I would strongly encourage you to do so before you make a decision on it.

I've read Hovinds material, he's an idiot.  He claims that evolution is not a fact, when virtually all biologists say that it is and the theory of eovluiton explains it.

He doesn't engage on forums or e-mail or internet. Would you like to know why?

Because on written forums, he can't use his charismatic voice and presence to confuse his audience, on a written forum he would be taken apart by a competent biologist and he knows this, so he avoids them like the devil.

This is something I see almost everytime somebody attacks him. They question his credentials or his actually being a doctor or not. If that place that he got his PHD from was a degreee mill, than a place like that should be shut down. Something like that, distributing to individuals would be considered illegal, and yet, I don't believe the PHD I saw was illegitimate.

But his Ph.D is not in science, it's in "Christian education", in other words, evangelism.  It is not a Ph.D in science, it is not a Ph.D in education, it's a Ph.D in preaching.  Yet, he never tells anyone this.  He continually claims he has a Ph.D in education and he does not.

Even if he didn't have his PHD in education, why bother with that? Darwin himself was not a scientist in the least.

Darwin never claimed he had a Ph.d in something he did not.  And of course Darwin was a scientist!  Here's a recap of Darwin's science education prior to his trip on the Beagle:
DarwinEducation
"In 1825 after spending the summer as an apprentice doctor, helping his father with treating the poor of Shropshire, Darwin went to Edinburgh University to study medicine, but his revulsion at the brutality of surgery led him to neglect his medical studies. He learnt taxidermy from John Edmonstone, a freed black slave, who told him exciting tales of the South American rainforest. In Darwin's second year he became active in student societies for naturalists. He became an avid pupil of Robert Edmund Grant, who pioneered development of the theories of Jean-Baptiste Lamarck and of Charles' grandfather Erasmus concerning evolution by acquired characteristics. Darwin took part in Grant's investigations of the life cycle of marine animals on the shores of the Firth of Forth which found evidence for homology, the radical theory that all animals have similar organs and differ only in complexity. In March 1827 Darwin made a presentation to the Plinian society of his own discovery that the black spores often found in oyster shells were the eggs of a skate leech. He also sat in on Robert Jameson's natural history course in which he learnt about stratigraphic geology and received training in how to classify plants when assisting with work on the extensive collections of the Museum of Edinburgh University.

In 1827 his father, unhappy that his younger son had no interest in becoming a physician, shrewdly enrolled him in a Bachelor of Arts course at Christ's College, University of Cambridge, to qualify as a clergyman. This was a sensible career move at a time when Anglican parsons were provided with a comfortable income, and when most naturalists in England were clergymen who saw it as part of their duties to "explore the wonders of God's creation". At Cambridge, Darwin preferred riding and shooting to studying. Along with his cousin William Darwin Fox, he became engrossed in the craze at the time for the competitive collecting of beetles, and Fox introduced him to the Reverend John Stevens Henslow, professor of botany, for expert advice on beetles. Darwin subsequently joined Henslow's natural history course, became his favourite pupil and came to be known as "the man who walks with Henslow". When exams began to loom Darwin focused more on his studies and received private tuition from Henslow. Darwin became particularly enthused by the writings of William Paley, including the argument of divine design in nature. In his finals in January 1831, he performed well in theology and, having scraped through in classics, mathematics and physics, came tenth out of a pass list of 178.

Residential requirements kept Darwin at Cambridge until June. In keeping with Henslow's example and advice, he was in no rush to take holy orders. Inspired by Alexander von Humboldt's Personal Narrative, he planned to visit the Madeira Islands to study natural history in the tropics with some classmates after graduation. To prepare himself, Darwin joined the geology course of the Reverend Adam Sedgwick, a strong proponent of divine design, then in the summer went with him to assist in mapping strata in Wales. "

So your claim that he had even less science education than Hovind is patently false!

Well, if the one mutated animal was diluted, than how could it effect the population as a whole?

What does "diluted" mean?  You don't know what the theory of evolution is, why don't you learn what your talking about, then come back here and debate.  As it is, you're just making yourself look the fool.

Plus, there is a lot a mutations that are bad, or are only scramblings of information already there. A three legged dog for instance would be a loss of information. Do you know of any true mutations that truly benefit?

Most mutations are neutral, neither good nor bad.  And it's the environment that determines if a mutation is beneficial or harmful, thats how natural selection works.  And it's a fact that mutations can increase the size and complexity of a genome.  As for beneficial mutations, there are many, look them up, but use real scientific sources, not aquacks like Hovind.


 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 5:11 PM on March 21, 2006 | IP
Prototype

|      |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Well, it's clear to me that I can't convince you of anything either way of Dr. Hovind one way or the other, and its also clear to me that you really have a hatred for the man. I won't argue against you with this point any further, but to let you off with this.

If his credentails are in fact fake, then how did he get a job teaching high school science for fifteen-years? He was a teacher you know. I'll bet the school holds records of him there. It wouldn't say much for public shool systems if they let a man who supposedly "had no idea what science or evolution was"  teach at a school for that long. Especially without noticing it.

Perhaps I didn't know everything about Darwins education. But I doubt that he had more science education than Kent Hovind for the simple reason that he studied theology so much more. I doubt he would have qualified as a teacher being so much better educated in the clergy.

Dr. Hovind was not a teacher for so long without a real knowledge of science. Darwin also happened to be educated in a bible college, and he did not get a decree of any kind in science. I agree passing in the tenth place is impressive. I doubt that is untrue. But he was trained for the clurgy, not a teacher. Dr. Hovind was, and he happened to be qualified enough to teach for FIFTEEN years. Call me crazy for believing this, but he appears to have a sufficient understanding to debate this among other scientists.

I believe I already said that there are limits to change. Mutations change, and a lot are neutral. But even if there were beneficial mutations, one animal in a population getting it would not benefit the species. It would just get that new information diluted back into the normal information of the general population and be lost.

His offer has not been claimed by anyone for this reason. Evolution does touch itself on these topics in one way or another. He wants someone to prove it, but he- like me, is not talking about just biological evolution, he's talking about everything involving evolutionistic ideas.


Here's a definition of "Diluted.

To lessen the force, strength, purity, or brilliance of, especially by admixture.

adj. Weakened; diluted.

The new information mixed in with the regular population would be lost considering how much parental genes and characteristics are lost in breedings. That's what I mean.

And your not understanding the meaning of that statement does not mean that I am a fool. It means that you do not understand, and you'd better knock off this name calling and personal remarks things you do in the debate. You stop it, or I will refuse to continue to debate you any further.



-------
I want to know facts for both sides, and I will not take biased words as a valid arguement for whatever reason.
 


Posts: 31 | Posted: 9:06 PM on March 21, 2006 | IP
EntwickelnCollin

|        |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

And by the way, as you have not watched any of Kent Hovinds things yourself, I would strongly encourage you to do so before you make a decision on it.


I'm watching it right now. My friend happened to have a 2 and a half hour seminar on his hard drive. So far, it's been rather hilarious.


-------
http://ummcash.org/officers.html
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/wow_1.php
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/a_triumphant_beginning.php
We're official!
 


Posts: 729 | Posted: 10:10 PM on March 21, 2006 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Well, it's clear to me that I can't convince you of anything either way of Dr. Hovind one way or the other, and its also clear to me that you really have a hatred for the man. I won't argue against you with this point any further, but to let you off with this.

I've never met the man, but he conflates religion with science, he doesn't understand science, he is too afraid to engage in written debates where all that matters is the facts.
Guess you don't have the guts to look at what real scientists say about Hovind.  From here:
HovindIdiot

"Hovind rejects the age of the earth, the field of astronomy, denies the entire field of geology, and is utterly confused by physics and/or radiometric dating (Or more likely, purposely distorting all those fields). He has a dismal grasp of pretty much every field of scientific study, and apparently little to no concern for factual accuracy. Just one tiny example among far too many to list: Hovind argues against 'evolution' by trying to discredit the Big Bang. In one such diatribe, known affectionately as Mister Hovind and the Professor, he explains that the Big Bang violates the conservation of angular momentum because [paraphrasing] "If everything came from a tiny spinning dot that blew up then everything would spin in the same direction ... since some planets and moons in our solar system exhibit retrograde motion/rotation ... this disproves the Big Bang ... so evolution is impossible".

For those of you familiar with the relationship between the Big Bang and the solar system, you understand the stunning conflation and dishonesty in that statement. For those who are not, basically it's about as accurate as saying something like "The atomic bomb was a tiny spinning dot that blew up, and since it was spinning in one direction, the debris produced had to spin the same way ... so global warming is impossible"
Among the more comical claims attributed to Hovind are that The Trail of Tears was a result of Darwin's Theory of Evolution, even though Darwin didn't publish until 1859 and the Cherokee tragedy happened in 1838 [Link], that vaccinations are from Satan [Link], and that his commercial enterprises needn't file with the IRS in anyway or abide by legally issued warrants from same--even as a tax free organization in the unlikely event they qualify."

Hovind is a charleton and a conman who doesn't understand science.  Heck, he rants about evolution and doesn't even understand what it is.  

If his credentails are in fact fake, then how did he get a job teaching high school science for fifteen-years?

Frist of all, it doesn't take much to teach high school science.  Second I didn't say his credentials were fake, I said he has a Ph.D from a bible school for "christian education", evangelism but he fails to mention this in his seminars, lectures, books.  He has no background in real science, but he never told you that did he?

Perhaps I didn't know everything about Darwins education. But I doubt that he had more science education than Kent Hovind for the simple reason that he studied theology so much more. I doubt he would have qualified as a teacher being so much better educated in the clergy.

Did you even bother to read my post?!?  Darwin had much more science education than Hovind!  And I guess you missed the part where it said most naturalists where clergyman, he learned natural science at Christ College, university of Cambridge.  Let's compare university of Cambridge with Patriot University!

Dr. Hovind was not a teacher for so long without a real knowledge of science. Darwin also happened to be educated in a bible college, and he did not get a decree of any kind in science.

What science degree did Hovind get?  From here: HovindFraud
"Hovind claims to possess a masters degree and a doctorate in education from Patriot University in Colorado. According to Hovind, his 250-page dissertation was on the topic of the dangers of teaching evolution in the public schools. Formerly affiliated with Hilltop Baptist Church in Colorado Springs, Colorado, Patriot University is accredited only by the American Accrediting Association of Theological Institutions, an accreditation mill that provides accreditation for a $100 charge. Patriot University has moved to Alamosa, Colorado and continues to offer correspondence courses for $15 to $32 per credit. The school's catalog contains course descriptions but no listing of the school's faculty or their credentials. Name It and Frame It lists Patriot University as a degree mill [3]. "

Call me crazy for believing this, but he appears to have a sufficient understanding to debate this among other scientists.

You're crazy!  Hovind ONLY debates in front of a sympathetic (and suitably ignorant) audience, he refuses to participate in written debates where only the facts matter.  Typical conman.  He isn't able to debate scientists.  And real scientists do research, make observations, test their hypothesises, like
Darwin did.  What research has Hovind done?
So yes, I do consider you crazy for believing a moron like Hovind over virtually every biologist in the world.

I believe I already said that there are limits to change.

What are those limits?  You make a lot of claims and run away when asked questions....

Mutations change, and a lot are neutral. But even if there were beneficial mutations, one animal in a population getting it would not benefit the species.

Why not?  You still don't understand evolution!
One animal receives a mutation that allows him to live a little longer, produce more offspring.  Since mutations are inheritable, it's offspring would also have that beneficial mutation.  They would have more offspring that survived longer than the non mutants and on and on until their were no more non mutants in the population.  Your claim is wrong.
Guess you never heard of differential reproductive success...But if you knew anything about evolution, you should have heard of it.

It would just get that new information diluted back into the normal information of the general population and be lost.

And if you knew anything about genetics, which is a major part of the modern synthesis, you'd know your statement is wrong.  Genetic characteristics are particulate, they don't blend, they don't "dilute".  So new, beneficial characteristics would NOT be lost in the general population.  The organisms that had these beneficial mutations would produce more offspring than those without it, again, differential reproductive success.

The new information mixed in with the regular population would be lost considering how much parental genes and characteristics are lost in breedings. That's what I mean.

And you are wrong when you say this.

And your not understanding the meaning of that statement does not mean that I am a fool. It means that you do not understand, and you'd better knock off this name calling and personal remarks things you do in the debate. You stop it, or I will refuse to continue to debate you any further.

It's obvious you're ignorant of evolution, you make mistakes, I'll point them out.  If you can't handle that, if you can't support your claims, that's your problem not mine.
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 10:43 PM on March 21, 2006 | IP
Prototype

|      |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

A mill that made decrees or PHDs for science and sold them to people would be illegal. Then anybody could claim that he/she was a doctor or whatever with their PHD or decree. I doubt Kent Hovind got his from a mill, or anything like that.

A bible college? What is wrong with a bible college? The house is certainly unimpressive, but if he was taught there, why should that say he wasn't acquainted with science?

Hovind happens to speak over 7 or 8 hundred times a year. Lets say about 30 people were at each thing. He would be speaking to about... 21,000 or 24,000 people a year, not including debates. Hovind does not hand-pick gullible audiences for all 700 or 800 seminars all over the country you know.

If you'd like to see him speaking in a class room, I would highly recommend getting his class room debate. I think its the first debate DVD on his site, so it should be easy to find. There is an adult man in that classroom who clearly understands science and evolution that throws literally everything at him he can, and some of it resembles your stuff. I think you'd be interested in how he defends his views.

And now I'm through with this debate about Kent Hovind. I came here to debate fossils or the archaeopteryx, and I'm done with Hovind. I do admit that I have been very wrong in some of the assumptions I made. I'll visit a topic of Darwin and research him more before I make judgements.

I don't mind your pointing out mistakes, but calling me stupid or a fool is not acceptable. One more time and I won't continue this debate with you.


-------
I want to know facts for both sides, and I will not take biased words as a valid arguement for whatever reason.
 


Posts: 31 | Posted: 3:25 PM on March 22, 2006 | IP
EntwickelnCollin

|        |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Even though you said you are done debating about Hovind, I thought I’d reply anyway, since I finished that disgusting seminar last night.

A mill that made decrees or PHDs for science and sold them to people would be illegal. Then anybody could claim that he/she was a doctor or whatever with their PHD or decree. I doubt Kent Hovind got his from a mill, or anything like that.


I’m not saying Hovind obtained his PhD illegally. I’m saying he obtained his PhD from a place that anyone could obtain a PhD from. For 30 bucks, he could take a course that at an accredited university, would cost hundreds of dollars.

A bible college? What is wrong with a bible college? The house is certainly unimpressive, but if he was taught there, why should that say he wasn't acquainted with science?


He’s certainly aquainted with science, though his experience runs far too thin in it.

Hovind happens to speak over 7 or 8 hundred times a year.


You do realize that’s impossible, right? That’s two two-and-a-half hour sessions every day of his life. No.

Hovind does not hand-pick gullible audiences for all 700 or 800 seminars all over the country you know.


Of course not. We never said he did. Everyone there at his seminars is there on their own choice.

If you'd like to see him speaking in a class room, I would highly recommend getting his class room debate. I think its the first debate DVD on his site, so it should be easy to find. There is an adult man in that classroom who clearly understands science and evolution that throws literally everything at him he can, and some of it resembles your stuff. I think you'd be interested in how he defends his views.


Based on the session I watched last night, Hovind uses derogatory and often hypocritical zingers to get his point across, and rarely explains anything but the shortcomings of evolutionists. He explained a moment that he was particularly proud of, in which this professor of science approached him. The professor said, “You can’t honestly expect me to believe that every single breed of dog we have today came from a single male and a single female dog off of the ark,” and Hovind explained with a chuckle, that he then replied, “At least I don’t believe we came from a rock!” ::laughter and applause from the audience::

It was truly the height of irony, because the Bible states quite clearly that we came from ‘dust,’ which is crushed rock.

I don't mind your pointing out mistakes, but calling me stupid or a fool is not acceptable. One more time and I won't continue this debate with you.


I completely agree with you on this one. Demon can become carried away in this respect. Demon, just work on that, and we’ll all be happy once more.


-------
http://ummcash.org/officers.html
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/wow_1.php
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/a_triumphant_beginning.php
We're official!
 


Posts: 729 | Posted: 4:08 PM on March 22, 2006 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

A mill that made decrees or PHDs for science and sold them to people would be illegal. Then anybody could claim that he/she was a doctor or whatever with their PHD or decree. I doubt Kent Hovind got his from a mill, or anything like that.

Kent Hovind got his Ph.D from Patriot university for "Christian Education" , evangelism.  He did not receive a Ph.d in science.  So you can doubt it all you want, but it's a fact.

A bible college? What is wrong with a bible college? The house is certainly unimpressive, but if he was taught there, why should that say he wasn't acquainted with science?

Because he didn't get a Ph.D in science, he got it in "Christian education".  And yes, the house is certainly unimpressive, where do you think they housed their science department, in the garage?  So he's not a doctor of science and has no expertise in biology.

There is an adult man in that classroom who clearly understands science and evolution that throws literally everything at him he can, and some of it resembles your stuff. I think you'd be interested in how he defends his views.

I've read his work, I've read his responses to real science, to say I'm unimpressed is an understatement.  The man doesn't understand science, he's a conman using every dishonest tactic he can muster to confuse the issues.

I do admit that I have been very wrong in some of the assumptions I made. I'll visit a topic of Darwin and research him more before I make judgements.

Whether you agree with me or not, I applaud your intention of doing further research.

I don't mind your pointing out mistakes, but calling me stupid or a fool is not acceptable. One more time and I won't continue this debate with you.

OK, OK, I know I can go overboard.  But I really can't see where I called you stupid or a fool (I might have and just forgot and in that case I apologize) and I don't think you are.  I know in many places I said you were ignorant of evolution or genetics, but that's not saying you're stupid, merely uniformed on the subjects your commenting on.  I do admit it sometimes annoys me when you make statements that have already been refuted thousands of times, statements that are strawmen and especially when you deny things that are already facts.  So I'll try harder to be more civil.  We're all here for the same reasons, learn something new and have fun debating.
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 12:19 AM on March 23, 2006 | IP
Prototype

|      |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I thought I'd post and say something to Entickle here.

I've heard evolutionists complain about that rock and dust bit before. The question has been asked "What is wrong with believing we came from rocks and believing we came from dust?"

That's an interesting question, and one that I would answer with. "Rocks being mixed with chemicals and rain for millions of years and suddenly yielding life doesn't sound likely to me. Now dust is, perhaps, even less likely to yield life out of itself only, but a Creationist will respond by saying that a divine intelligent creator molded him out of the dust and breathed life into him."

I believe the God who used the dust to create Adam was an intelligent designer; intelligent enough to use his own dust that he created and change it around enough to suit his man. Like I've said, that would take supernatural power, and we've never seen someone make a human out of dust, but since God created the dust and everything else, he could change those things enough to create him and breathe life into him. That would be how I countered it.

I guess I can't say your wrong about Dr. Hovind not understanding science. I believe he does, and you believe he doesn't. I think I'll leave it there. The PHD question is definitely something I'll ask out of interest of Hovind's defense at a seminar. Though it will be some time before he comes to our part of town.

And its true, we did come here to learn and have fun debating. I have never been this involved in such a heated debate (online at least) before. I've certainly concluded that Demon38 has done his research, and that I should do my homework before I speak. I'll continue to debate my points in other topics, but be assured that I'll watch what I say.



-------
I want to know facts for both sides, and I will not take biased words as a valid arguement for whatever reason.
 


Posts: 31 | Posted: 11:09 AM on March 23, 2006 | IP
EntwickelnCollin

|        |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

That's an interesting question, and one that I would answer with. "Rocks being mixed with chemicals and rain for millions of years and suddenly yielding life doesn't sound likely to me. Now dust is, perhaps, even less likely to yield life out of itself only, but a Creationist will respond by saying that a divine intelligent creator molded him out of the dust and breathed life into him."


I’m not saying either of the two is anymore ‘likely’ than the other. My point was that Hovind argues like a kindergartner, often times without even considering some contradictory point about his own side.

I believe the God who used the dust to create Adam was an intelligent designer; intelligent enough to use his own dust that he created and change it around enough to suit his man. Like I've said, that would take supernatural power, and we've never seen someone make a human out of dust, but since God created the dust and everything else, he could change those things enough to create him and breathe life into him. That would be how I countered it.


The absurdity in this notion is not that God made anything out of dust, but that He exists. Now, I’m not actually trying to say that the possibility of a supernatural deity creating the world is too far out to ever believe in my wildest dreams, but it’s certainly up there when people say the natural causes are too unbelievable to have existed. It's just hypocritical to attack the basis of someone's belief, when your own stance is something similar, and deliberately avoid the point of your opponent, which is exactly what Hovind did. Instead of rebutting the science professor's challenge to show how all the dog breeds we have today could possibly have come from a single couple of dogs on the ark, Hovind made fun of the science professor's belief. It wasn't professional, nor very witty.

There are a lot more credible sources for Creation out there. Hovind is one of those sources you'd do better not to use.

(Edited by EntwickelnCollin 3/23/2006 at 12:32 PM).


-------
http://ummcash.org/officers.html
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/wow_1.php
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/a_triumphant_beginning.php
We're official!
 


Posts: 729 | Posted: 12:31 PM on March 23, 2006 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

In an effort to get this thread back on topic, here's some relatively new information about Archaeopteryx that further strengthens it's link to dinosaurs, from here:
Archy

"An exceptionally well preserved new fossil reveals a foot and skull that more closely resemble those of a group of two-legged predatory dinosaurs called dromeosaurs, than modern birds."

This new fossil comes from Solnhofen limestone quarries in Germany where the first Archaeopteryx fossil was discovered but only came to light last December.  

From the above sited link:

"A complete foot reveals that archaeopteryx had an extensible claw on its second toe, which is a hallmark of raptors, but is absent in all known birds. Its first toe, or "hallux", is also at the side of the foot and not reversed as it is in perching birds, which use it to grasp branches.
The skull is also well preserved and shows that the animal had a skull bone known as the "palatine", which is shaped in the same way as in many two-legged dinosaurs."

The evidence is still mounting, Archy was a feathered dinosaur that links dinos with birds.






 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 01:01 AM on March 28, 2006 | IP
    
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 ]

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

Topic options: Lock topic | Unlock topic | Make Topic Sticky | Remove Sticky | Delete thread | Move thread | Merge thread

 

© YouDebate.com
Powered by: ScareCrow version 2.12
© 2001 Jonathan Bravata. All rights reserved.