Evolution is a lie
This is the first short video for the "Lies in the text book" series.
Please watch 1 through 24! Its not that long in reality but you will learn some interesting things about evolution or about how to lie more effectively! ;)
Side Score: 136
Side Score: 245
"Macroevolutionary studies focus on change that occurs at or above the level of species, in contrast with microevolution,which refers to smaller evolutionary changes (typically described as changes in allele frequencies) within a species or population."
Micro and Macro not the same (en.wikipedia.org)
Macro evolution and Micro evoultion is not the same thing.
I read other people saying that macro evolution is just lots of micro evolution. What a bunch of bollocks. This is not pokemon or digimon. Nor is this Harry Potter
''Creationists have always agreed that there is variation within species. What evolutionists do not want you to know is that there are strict limits to variation that are never crossed, something every breeder of animals or plants is aware of. Whenever variation is pushed to extremes by selective breeding (to get the most milk from cows, sugar from beets, bristles on fruit flies, or any other characteristic), the line becomes sterile and dies out. And as one characteristic increases, others diminish.'' You clearly can see that the beliefs of evolution has been disproven by real life circumstances. To continue believing in evolution which is disproven, is to be a total air-headed, hair-brained idiot.
''Do these big changes (macroevolution) really happen? Evolutionists tell us we cannot see evolution taking place because it happens too slowly. A human generation takes about 20 years from birth to parenthood. They say it took tens of thousands of generations to form man from a common ancestor with the ape, from populations of only hundreds or thousands. We do not have these problems with bacteria. A new generation of bacteria grows in as short as 12 minutes or up to 24 hours or more, depending on the type of bacteria and the environment, but typically 20 minutes to a few hours. There are more bacteria in the world than there are grains of sand on all of the beaches of the world (and many grains of sand are covered with bacteria). They exist in just about any environment: hot, cold, dry, wet, high pressure, low pressure, small groups, large colonies, isolated, much food, little food, much oxygen, no oxygen, in toxic chemicals, etc. There is much variation in bacteria. There are many mutations (in fact, evolutionists say that smaller organisms have a faster mutation rate than larger ones). But they never turn into anything new. They always remain bacteria. ''
Bacteria do not evolve. And when a scientists forcefully and artificially injects new DNA into animals, like the case a person called Nichole mentioned on another debate mentioned, it was still a fly. If you want a more complex being:
''There is much variation in fruit flies. There are many mutations. But they never turn into anything new. They always remain fruit flies. Many years of study of countless generations of bacteria and fruit flies all over the world shows that evolution is not happening today.'' Like us you can say that fruit flies have races. But they can still reproduce with each other, because they are one and the same species.
A white man can procreate with any other female HUMAN ''race'' no matter her genetic mutation. But he or she was never proven to be an Ape,chimpanzee or any other primate. Science DISPROVES evolution. Scientists like those who are here winning this debate with up votes of ignorance accept for a reason I do not know..
Erm the mechanics in micro- and macro-evolution are exactly the same. Macro evolution is just that - lots of micro evolution.
It's patently absurd to say that micro-evolution is possible and macro-evolution isn't. It's like saying that it's possible to walk to my neighbours house but impossible to walk from Chicago to New York.
If the earth is billions of years old as you all say. Explain how can their be petrified trees standing straight up through multiple layers of strata? Aren't each of these layers supposed to represent millions of years? How can a tree stand up for millions of years to be petrified?
I think the global flood about 4000 years ago laid all the layers of strata as you see today. That would explain perfectly these trees standing up through multiple layers.
Uniformitarianism simply means that scientists look at what goes on in the present to see what went on in the past, or said in another way the "present is the keys to the past". Scientists see examples of slow deposition in the present, as well as examples of quick deposition caused by volcanoes, flash floods and other similar events. They believe that the current occurrence of both types of deposition shows that both types of deposition occured in the past. Therefore, "polystrate" fossils(what you described) do not contradict uniformitarianism, but simply show that similar things that happen now happened in the past as well. The exact same definition for Uniformitarianism. Creationists only believe that fast deposition occurred in the past, while they disagree that very large sediment layers were created by slow deposition, because this process would have taken millions of years.
Many polystrate tree fossils form when a tree is subjected to rapid sedimentation, that is, when a tree is buried due to a flood, mudslide or volcanic ashfall (the three most common causes of rapid sedimentation). In other words, the strata that the tree passes through were laid down during the tree's lifetime, and or time of death. All of Yellowstone's upright petrified trees are rooted in place, having been buried alive during a prehistoric volcanic eruption. The Carboniferous fossil lycopod stumps show a series of roots that suggest that the trees were buried in floods, but continued to grow by producing more roots and adding more height to their trunks.
You believe a global flood did it? Evidence?
How was the fossil record sorted in an order convenient for evolution if they were laid down in the turmoil of a single flood? That is usually dismissed with a hand wave by saying the animals quickly sorted each other out based on their ability to compete for the shrinking high ground.
It overlooks an important issue: Since fossil layers were really constructed over millions of years, there was sufficient time to accumulate a consistent layer of corpses from many many generations of animals over wide areas. You could dig up a layer of trilobite fossils in Boise, for example, and it would have the same density of trilobite fossils as the same layer in Kansas City. So if you read the Noah story back into this observation, the antediluvian world must have been wall-to-wall trilobites, not to mention all the other animals in the other layers. In fact, there must have been far more animals than the biosphere could reasonably be expected to support, all because YECs compress a billion years of fossil building into a few weeks.
The theory also fails to take into account fossilized plants, which show the same type of order as animal fossils, and which are not noted for their ability to flee rising floodwaters
Repeating series of layers within coal measures indicate cycles of sedimentation rather than being laid down as part of one single event. The huge Carboniferous limestone strata which consist of the remains of innumerable marine shells, require long periods of clean water. Any flood would have mixed the remains with silt and sand to give us the grey cliffs of Dover rather than the white ones we see today.
Here is other problems with your flood theory
Where did the water come from
Where did it go? Water never leaves the earth
The flood story does not explain the present geographic distribution of species, e.g., how did marsupials wind up in Australia, and only in Australia?
The Deluge, according to the Ussher chronology, occurred circa 2348 BCE. It should have represented a clear historical breaking point for every civilization around the world. No such breaking point exists. History appears to continue uninterrupted through the flood in every other part of the world.
Once the animals got off the ark, they would have nothing to eat. All the plants would have died in the flood, so the herbivores would have nothing to eat. The carnivores would wipe them out anyway, and then they would die too.
Creationists often claim that there were only babies of each species and only seeds of each plant on the ark, but then this would require a time for them to grow. For every ten units of mass on one level of the food chain, only one unit of mass can be created on the next level. That means for a lion, which weighs over 400 pounds, to become fully grown, he needs to eat 4,000 pounds of meat, and that animal would have to eat 40,000 pounds of plant to get that much weight.
A single worldwide deluge cannot explain the distribution of fossils in the fossil record:
Radiometric dating, geological layering (both fossils and otherwise), major extinction events, corrosion, and mountain range formation all line up to show the same age. Any argument that attacks a single dating method has to address why all of them show the same thing.
Even if the dating method is not accepted as accurate (i.e. you don't believe a fossil is 250 million years old), every dating method shows the same relative difference. So to be successful, even an argument that attacks every dating method would have to show why they're all out by the same amount, to account for the agreement over the relative age
Given the distribution of fossils, even if fossilization were accelerated under high-pressure water, which it is not, there have still been several times when almost all life has been wiped out (we're talking 50-75% of all species going extinct, not 50-75% of all individual animals dying). No apologist argument addresses all five major extinction events.
I believe physical matter was created from energy, which scientists seek to do themselves.
On earth, we have a building up of topsoil. We also have, upon the highest mountains in the world, sedimentary rock containing fossils of leaves and easily perishable things that could not have occurred from a slow buildup like that of topsoil.
The fossil record contains huge gaps that 'scientists' fill in with supposition.
And, there is nothing in the BIble that indicates dinosaurs coexisted with men. Both you guys are wrong.
Evolution as it is taught now, I believe to be a lie. I am not disputing the changes in animals that can occur as a result of the environment, but I do not believe one can change species from ape to man.
So in response to the title of this debate (I cannot view the video due to audio output failure), I will have to say that Evolution is a lie as it currently stands. Should they wish to amend their theory in a more accurate light, I may reconsider my position.
Evolution refuted - refuted.
Okay, I'm going to pick out some quotes from this video and show why they are fallacious and in many cases simply nonsense.
" evolution in the sense that life began to randomly generate new genetic information...is something that quite honestly doesn't hold up against science"
An honest mistake, but unfortunately for creationists a mistake nonetheless. Beneficial constructive (positive) mutations have been observed in bacteria many times - hence why bacteria can become immune to antibiotics. Positive mutations concerning the Nylon Bug are described here: http://www.nmsr.org/nylon.htm
" it (evolution) is in great opposition to observational science"
(see above). Also, as I've mentioned in a couple of posts now: ubiquitous genes are something we can and have observed and strongly indicate that all life evolved from a common ancestor. Ubiquitous genes are protein sequences that are found in all life forms that perform the same function. However, different protein sequences could perform these functions just as well - so there is no reason for all life to use the same sequence, a phenomena explained only by a common ancestor.
"life doesn't arise from non life"
Miller and Urey's experiment in an attempt to verify the primordial soup theory showed that amino acids can be created from non-living chemicals. Suggesting it is certainly possible for life to arise from non life. I am not stating that their experiment proves the primordial soup theory, only that it demonstrates non-living chemicals, in the right environment, can be conducive to life.
"there is no known observable process by which genetic information can be added to an organism's genetic code"
(see first paragraph - this statement is simply false).
"humans are humans, apes are apes"
It is important to be clear that no modern day animal evolved into another modern day animal. For example, we did not evolve from monkeys. Both humans and monkeys share a common ancestor, but a monkey did not evolve into a man. Likewise, a fish has never evolved into an amphibian. There was no half-fish half-frog species (so the drawings in this video are incredibly misleading). Humans are humans, apes are apes, but both are descended from a common ancestor that was neither a human or an ape.
"never has it been observed that life can arise from non life"
(see paragraph 3) - clearly this video is a tad repetitive - not as much substance as it makes out.
"all powerful, all knowing, supernatural God"
Clearly the only possible alternative....
lol this looks like a presentation a grade seven kid put together at a catholic school. This guy doesn't know science for shit. His puny brain just doesn't understand. Look at the actual science behind evolution and it makes sense, even though it might not seem so at first. OliverJDH you fucking nailed it.
I agree with everything in spirit, but, being anal, I have to point out a few technical issues:
Humans are humans, apes are apes, but both are descended from a common ancestor that was neither a human or an ape.
Technically, it was an ape, and humans are apes too. It just wasn't one of the contemporary ape species.
Both humans and monkeys share a common ancestor, but a monkey did not evolve into a man
Same basic issue, that common ancestor was a monkey, just not a contemporary monkey species.
That bacteria then died when reintroduced to its surroundings.
Where did DNA come from? That is merely evidence for a common designer.
Amino acids are not life. Law of Biogenesis.
I have already refuted the first evidence.
There is still no proof of that common ancestor.
Repetition is good for memory.
this argument is already invalid because: (1) it states evolution says life came from non life. Abiogenesis is not evolution.
(2) life can come from non-life under certain conditions. see the Miller-Urey experiment.
(3) yes humans are humans and apes are apes. Evolution says nothing to the contrary.
(4) The theory of evolution as we understand it today has only been around for roughly 150 years. How could we have observed a process of evolution that takes millions of years?
(5) slight evolutionary changes have been observed. See Darwins fiches.
(6)There is no such thing as "molecule to man" evolution.
A 10th grade Science textbook
"Dr Eldredge [curator of invertebrate palaeontology at the American Museum] said that the categories of families and above could not be connected, while Dr Raup [curator of geology at the Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago] said that a dozen or so large groups could not be connected with each other. But Dr Patterson [a senior palaeontologist and editor of a prestigious journal at the British Museum of Natural History] spoke most freely about the absence of transitional forms... One reader wrote a letter to Dr Patterson asking why he did not put a single photograph of a transitional fossil in his book. On April 10, 1979, he replied to the author in a most candid letter as follows: ‘. . . I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them.'"
Miller and Urey experiment has no backing either. They excluded oxygen in the experiment because anything they created would oxidize and life would not form. However, with no oxygen in reality then one of the key components in the soup, ammonia, would be destroyed because UV light destroys it and UV light is stopped by the o-zone. Next, amino acids along with poisonous tar was created along side one another. The tar alone would kill any life that would possibly form but amino acids are not life so there was no life to kill from the tar.
If you watched the video series I posted it shows that this experiment is a lie that is in the text books.
Okay... I just watched the first video in the series. And this "science teacher" (I doubt he actually is what he claims to be) is an idiot.
-He claims the Big Bang theory is false, but he never gives any reason why it is. He simply opts to believe creationism.
-He claims the Earth isn't billions of years old, but gives no reason to suggest why it isn't.
-He claims the "caveman" (i.e. the Neanderthals) didn't exist, yet there is proof that they existed. He never gives any proof to the contrary.
-Finally, he claims dinosaurs didn't live billions of years ago, but instead, he follows the Bible in that they lived with humans.
This guy isn't a science teacher; he's a preacher.
The point of the video isn't to show creationism, it is to show that the theory of evolution is not accurate and that all the "evidence" they have is not real.
There isn't any evidence for the Big Bang, the methods for dating the earth are not trustworthy, what cave man? and Job 40 and 41.
The point of the video isn't to show creationism, it is to show that the theory of evolution is not accurate and that all the "evidence" they have is not real.
I don't care, he is still an idiot. Why should I believe his "evidence" when he makes unsubstantiated assertions?
There isn't any evidence for the Big Bang
Uhhhh... Yes, yes there is. There's an immense amount of evidence for the Big Bang theory.
the methods for dating the earth are not trustworthy
I'll give you the fact you do have an argument (though an albeit weak one) here. I'd say it's more flawed, then untrustworthy, though.
what cave man?
1:55 in the first video in the series.
and Job 40 and 41.
Nope. Don't give a shit about scripture. Not until the Bible has been verified, that is.
Actually yes there is lots of evidence for the Big Bang; the ratio of hydrogen to helium (76:24), cosmic microwave background radiation and redshift (the idea that the universe is continually expanding and growing). We can also derive, from the second law of thermo dynamics that the universe is cooling but I shall leave that out before things become too complicated. The Universe's light-element abundance is another important criterion by which the Big Bang hypothesis is verified. It is understood that light elements were formed within the first few minutes of the Big Bang while elements heavier than helium (beryllium) are thought to have their origins in the interiors of stars which formed much later. After the light elements (e.g. deuterium) were formed the temperature of the universe fell far below that of which is required for nuclear fusion. According to stellar theory, deuterium cannot be produced in stellar interiors; in actual fact it is destroyed inside of stars. The Big Bang Nucleosynthesis theory predicts that roughly 25% the mass of the Universe consists of Helium and the fact that helium is nowhere seen to have an abundance below 23% mass is very strong evidence that the Universe went through an early hot phase. Which is where thermodynamics comes in, as the universe is expanding (redshift) it is also cooling leading scientists to suggest that it could end in a 'Big Crunch'. Further support for the BBT and BBN comes from the consistency of the other light element abundances for one particular baryon density and an independent measurement of the baryon density from the anisotropies in the readings of cosmic microwave background radiation. So yes, there is in fact a LOT of evidence for the Big Bang but I cannot stress this enough- IT IS STILL ONLY A THEORY, I just wish over-excited Christians would stop treating it as if we 'non-believers' have foubd all the answers. And, you have to be an atheist to support the BBT.
I personally own the video series in question and, while he does not mention these other topics in detail in this video, you have to remember that it is still part of a SERIES. He explains all these other topics and more in his other videos. Don't attack something when you only see a small piece of it. Though he charges roughly 80 dollars for his 6 part series, his explanations make sense and all his counter-arguments are solid. And if you don't want to see the videos, he has debated MANY supporters in evolution, The Big Bang, etc. So feel free to find any of these debates, his name is Kent Hovind
I've gone through the first five, it is going to take more time than I have to do in one sitting, so I'll start with these, and you can refute me.
Firstly I'd like to start out by stating that Kunt Hovind was a high school science teacher, I've been in college with science teachers, they shared the preliminary subjects with us to get a broad base knowledge and it ends there, the last maths module I did in second year had final year science teachers in it, they do not go deep into any of the disciplines as they only have to teach the basics, and the rest they study is to do with education, his PhD is in education and this speaks volumes.
OK, here we go.
(1) Dinosaurs lived with Adam and Eve,
Sigh, meaningless assertion, have you any evidence of either of these people?
(2) "Textbooks should be factual"
I suppose they should say that dinosaurs lived with Adam and Eve, right?
(3) Majority of the population believe in the bible
Argumentum Ad Populum
(4) Lies should be torn out of textbooks
How does this work for religious textbooks?
(5) Scientists want you to believe water flows uphill
This is ridiculous and a baseless assertion, the Colorado palte has been pushed up over time by plate tectonics.
(6) There is no Delta
Outright lie, there are several, here is a book on one.
(6) People see thing in different ways, "proved" by a ridiculous unfunny joke
What retard would assume that a calf can run and insert itself into a cow's vagina?
(7) People that scoff at the bible are willfully ignorant
What is this based on?
(8) He correlates the fall of belief in the bible with the rise of democracy
Would he like to return to the dark ages? Would you?
(9) Charles Lyell hated the Bible
This couldn't be further from the truth, he was a devout christian that had trouble reconciling the evidence he found with his beliefs as were all of the Christian geologists at the time, he was an adviser to Darwin and was even at the end not sold on evolution, advising Darwin of the danger of his work, Darwin.
(10) Shake up a Jar and it will form layers
Does this idiot actually believe that all of the Earths solid matter was dissolved in water? If this hypothesis was accurate, surely the bottom strata would be made of the most dense material.
(11) Fossils tell what age rocks are and vice versa
I assume he's referring to Index fossils, these are used to identify strata not age it, radiometric dating does that. People like Lyell and Darwin were wrong but in the fact that they under not over estimated the age of strata.
(12) Meister foot print is evidence of man and trilobites living together
That is a cut spall, not a foot print, it superficially resemble a foot print.
(13) Graptolites and Coelacanths, still alive
What does this prove/
(14) hand print from cretaceous
Never verified, the piece sits in creationist museums and they don't allow anyone to take it away, as in they removed it from where they found it and it hasn't been aged.
(15) Petrified trees
These fossilised trees that are seen through multiple strata (as Hovind excludes) are found around areas of rapidly changing geological topography.
They have been shown to happen quite quickly in these areas, strange given Noah's flood was global, that petrified forests aren't found uniformly around the world.
There is observed evidence of partially buried trees regenerating by growing new root systems in new soil.
Petrified trees, as can be seen now, can become partially exposed by soil erosion, and buried again by new activity, strange that, I mean it's like they exist only in areas of volcanic or flooding activity.
Yes he has evidence of the people.... adam and eve... Every human on the planet comes from a single Paternal ancestor and a maternal ancestor..... Not acknowledging this fact (which the Bible does, and narrows it down to Noah and Eve (since the x chromosome was more ancient than the y-chromosome of Noah- or whoever you want to call it!) is testament to your extreme ignorance...
There is substantial evidence for both micro and macroevolution:
Ubiquitous genes being an example of molecular evidence for macro. (I noticed you didn't reply to this evidence lolzors last time I referenced it in a previous debate...?)
Microevolution has been observed - for example, the changing colour of Guppies (type of fish) according to the levels of predation in their environment.
In my narrow-minded dogmatic view, there are people who believe in evolution and there are people who don't understand evolution.
I appreciate this debate is cluttered with posts, and you probably haven't had the opportunity to read everything I've posted so I'll reiterate briefly:
Adaptation within a species is called "microevolution" - and my example involving Guppies was an example of microevolution, not "macroevolution" which you are disputing.
Secondly; a Guppy will never evolve to become another modern day species like a man or horse (and no evolutionist claims this). However, a guppy may in the future evolve into an entirely new species. This occurs as a result of a number of factors - and constructive genetic mutations (which I have talked about in quite some detail in this debate) is one of them.
At a simpler level, macroevolution is simply microevolution happening again and again to a large number of a certain species - large enough so that the evolving members can mate with each other and not with the "unevolving" members of the species. To clarify: If the genetic make-up of a group of guppies changes enough over a period of time through "adaptation" or "microevolution" it will become distinguishable from a guppy who hasn't made this change. If an "evolved" guppy and an "unevolved" guppy cannot mate together, the "evolved" guppy is now a member of a new species.
I hope I have made this clear - let me know if you still have any questions.
Kent Hovind is a moron
How can you even deny evolution.If you are going to deny evolution why not deny everything else science has proven.
All kinds of proof for it the best of which is DNA
Even if there were no other evidence other than DNA the theory would still be accepted. We share 98-99% of our DNA with chimps.
Humans also share a large percentage of their genes, probably more than 70 percent, with a fruit fly or a nematode worm.
Whales have genes for making legs
Chickens have genes for making teeth
Humans have genes for making TAILS!
and these are just 3 examples.The only way these genes can get there if they were once dominant in the ancestors
If you dig down in the layers of the earth, you find fossils of life forms that don't exist anymore, and you don't find fossils of life forms that exist now. The fossils appear in a chronological order, showing change consistent with common descent over hundreds of millions of years and inconsistent with sudden creation.
ERVs are usually species-specific, inserted almost randomly in the host genome, and the error or mutation that inactivated the gene is random. If two organisms share the same ERV in the same location with the same inactivation mutations, then they almost certainly share them due to common inheritance and not two separate infections. Researchers analyze shared ERV insertions across species to construct phylogenetic trees. For example, the common ERVs in simians indicates they share a common genome. When phylogenetic trees are constructed based on the pattern of ERVs, they indicate humans share more ERVs with chimps than either share with gorillas. Other examples are known.This is strong evidence for common descent.
Ontogeny (embryology and developmental biology) gives information about the historical pathway of an organism's evolution. For example, as embryos whales and many snakes develop hind limbs that are reabsorbed before birth and just about every living thing has a tail in embryology.
Evolution predicts that new structures are adapted from other structures that already exist, and thus similarity in structures should reflect evolutionary history rather than function. We see this frequently. For example, human hands, bat wings, horse legs, whale flippers, and mole forelimbs all have similar bone structure despite their different functions.
It is actually scary to see the number of people saying that ti is false? Oh, so the fact a species changed over millions of years..? Preposterous. But some magic man in the sky made us out of 2 people, and suddenly there are 7 billion people, whom show no signs of thousands of generations of inbreeding..?! Oh yeah that must be it! By the way, i am being sarcastic, Evolution is the only possible way humans could have turned out the way we did! religious ideas are based on belief. Which is complete crap, if i believe that when i die i turn in to a tree.. People would call me mad! Some cosmic zombie man and his un-dead, but dead, floating in the sky son who is Jewish, but killed by Jews ruler of the world...? Yeah totally legit!!
I watched it last night... but they include things like, "there is no such thing as a beneficial mutation," "no life has ever been created from non-life," "there is no geologic column," "the necessity for the Great Flood of the Bible and the Grand Canyon," etc. I think you might enjoy this! :)
"no life has ever been created from non-life,"
You know what's funny, up until Louis Pasteur's experiments in the late 1800s, Christians believed that life came from non-life all the time (spontaneous generation). It would be even funnier if Christians argued against biogenesis when it was first proposed, like they did a lot of other scientific theories, but I couldn't find any real solid evidence of that on google, just one sentence in the article on biogenesis on wikipedia:
"there is no such thing as a beneficial mutation,"
Mutation is just changes in the genome sequence, so positive mutation is possible.
"no life has ever been created from non-life,"
"there is no geologic column,"
"the necessity for the Great Flood of the Bible and the Grand Canyon,"
What? Is this trying to state the Great Flood would be required for the Grand Canyon to exist?
The points I was going to make have been laid out pretty accurately about how this video has flaws and how evolution is very firmly implanted in the scientific community. I'd also like to add that refuting evolution, in a scientific viewpoint, is akin to refuting gravity. Both are theories- the highest level of scientific understanding. Evolution did not become a theory for no reason. And no evidence has ever gone against it.
It is a fallacy to think just because the majority agrees with something that it is true or morally correct. Continued, it is also a fallacy to think that just because gravity is a theory and is accepted throughout the majority of the world that evolution could not be wrong because it too is a theory. Finally, there is plenty of evidence against evolution but people seem to ignore it.
Evolution is the change in the inherited characteristics of biological populations over successive generations. Evolutionary processes give rise to diversity at every level of biological organisation, including species, individual organisms and molecules such as DNA and proteins.
I'll make you a deal, lolzors93:
I will watch and respond to each of the 24 videos in this series, if you agree to watch in respond to each video in this series: http://www.youtube.com/
He cites 15 falsehoods. Most of them are covered by one video but there are at least two that he breaks into two parts. Although there are less episodes in this series, the run times appears to be longer on the one I'm presenting, so watching them should require an similar investment of time for both of us.
What do you say?
I watched your video and the entire thing was one big rant saying that creationism has no proof and that the majority is always right (meaning evolution). No evidence was shown against creationism or for evolution and it could be clarified as one big ad hominem attack, which implies that evolutionists are getting desperate.
I watched your video, you said you would watch mine.
It was a set up to rest of the series. And his point was not about proof for or against either creationism or evolution, but, in this specific video his entire purpose was to explain that evolution is not an inherently atheist subject matter. Are you SURE you watched this video?
Anyway, as I said before, each video deals with a different aspect of the debate. As you continue into the series, you will notice considerable evidence in support of evolution.
Now for some poetic justice.
No evidence was shown against creationism or for evolution and it could be clarified as one big ad hominem attack, which implies that evolutionists are getting desperate.
And, in Hovind's video....no evidence was shown against evolution or for creation. He made a few statements that about certain known scientific facts being wrong. I can only assume that this part 1 is a set up to the rest of the series, because for now he doesn't support his claims AT ALL. Maybe in later videos?
But most of the time, in this video, he repeats that text book are full of lies, but instead of showing any, he sites passages that he believes showcase an anti-creationist stance...arguable an ad hominem attack itself. But has yet to show any lies.
1) The first video I am not disagreeing on. I agree that the majority of people even Christians agree with evolution. But just because a majority agrees on something does not make it right.
2) What fossil record? There is no fossil record (which is supposedly in the geologic column) because there is no geological column! What evidence for evolution? The Bible was written by men, inspired by God. There are too many similarities between the books of the Bible from multiple people who had never met or read any other Scripture passages to say that it is not inspired by God. Then, they are too different to be seen as a conspiracy/collaboration to spread lies, unlike evolution. The men who did write the Bible also made many prophecies that have come true and did many miracles. There is much historical evidence for Jesus Christ and Hs miracles. You can trust that Moses existed because Jesus was true. 3 blind men and an elephant is untrue as well because the religions of the world contradict each other too much. Saying that God would not allow differing religions is a logical fallacy because we don't know the will of God. Radiocarbon dating is proven false a number of times so the Dead Sea Scroll argument is refutable. The apocryphal gospels were not what was taught in the early church nor by the apostles. One example of a Bible verse that was compiled to be incorrect and added after the original writings is the end of Mark. Go to this site: http://dgreenruf.org/index.php?option=com_content&view;=article&id;=15:how-can-we-trust-the-bible-as-true&catid;=2:article&Itemid;=12 and look at "God’s Word Has Been Faithfully Transmitted." We can also get into the so called "immoral" things of the Bible another day. Bible contradictions answered: http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/bible.htm Creationism is putting religion in science. Intelligent Design is putting science into religion... look at the Discovery Institute.
3) Paul met Christ on the road to Damascus and without understanding anything about Christianity instantly knew everything there was to know about the religion (as advocated by the other apostles that were alive at this time) and believed it. It was not one man saying that god met him and that road and that god told him to say things, like spiritualman on this site. There us such a thing as absolute truth but perception gets in the way of things. If I throw a ball out the window, can you honestly tell me that I didn't? Sure you can, but does that mean it didn't happen? However, we do not know the absolute truth of everything because if God was small enough for us to understand Him, He would not be God. Historians say that the books written on Alexander the Great are true even though they were 400 or 500 years after he died because they coincide with one another yet have enough difference to show that it was not a conspiracy. And, again, there is historic proof of Jesus outside of the Bible. But even if there wasn't, why shouldn't we trust the books of the Bible? Historians trust many books that are the only account of certain history. Death is the term for spiritual death not physical death. It was an actual fruit in the Garden of Eden. Jesus said many times in the Gospels "I Am" which is a reference back to Exodus 3:14 displaying Godship. The Isaiah prophecy of Immanuel is Jesus and Immanuel means God. Look to John 1. Jesus was omnipotent and omniscient but used rhetoric strategies while He lived. The early theologians did not believe the earth was flat: http://www.mandm.org.nz/2009/12/contra-mundum-the-flat-earth-myth.html and the dome around the earth is wrong also because the idea came form Genesis saying there was suspended water... this water is what helped flood the earth. He refers to metaphors from the Bible as if they were literal. Just because the Bible uses metaphors does not deny its inerrancy or absolute truth.
4) Just because you believe something does not make it true. I agree with that. Some people believe in evolution and some people believe evolution is crap. Someone has to be wrong. However, just as the bible requires in the courts for two people to bring forth charges against you to prove you were wrong or right, so does the Bible. There are numerous people who advocate the things that happen in the Bible, which would say to a logical person that either this happened or it is one big conspiracy. There is no evidence of most of the things in evolution, as the video I showed you shows, so it along with Christianity is a faith. We have a freedom in America to believe whatever we want so why is it that in schools any sort of creationism is grounds for expulsion of being fired? Evidence of God is the same evidence of the Laws of Thermodynamics. A God is required for matter to start its existence. Therefore, atheists must disprove the reliability of these Laws. I do, however, theologically believe that if you have faith in God then you know that Jesus is Lord because you believe it to be true.
5) I'm not saying that America is a Christian nation. This has nothing to do with creationism and not much of these videos have anything to do with creationism. "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." John Adams. The nation is based on Christian morals so that there is freedom and people do not have to be taken care of by the government... which is what is happening today. I don't care about teaching creationism in schools, I just want evolution out. Kent Hovind in the video is not trying to get evolution out but to show that the evidence in the schools is wrong because there is no evidence. Evolution has had no scientific breakthroughs either and is useless along with being considered religious just as Karl Popper says. Look at this site for quotes for the last sentence: http://creation.com/images/pdfs/flyers/15-questions-for-evolutionists-s.pdf questions 13 and 15.
6) I understand evolution quite a bit more than people think I do. His argument is a fallacy just as he was complaining earlier. He says that just because you believe it does not make it true. He is now saying that Christians do no understand it, which implies that if you did know it, you would believe it to be true. Cats branch out to different breeds but lose genetic information not gain any. Creationists attack anything that is not in line with science and the Bible. His entire premise is wrong. In my geology class I heard my professor say more than once geologic evolution. His entire idea was that evolution was only biological but this is wrong because there are many branches of science that deal with it. Psychology for instance has an evolutionary psychology sub discipline. Abiogenesis is impossible as seen in video and as stated in the Law of Biogenesis. Radiometric dating has been proven false... here is one citations about it: http://www.earthage.org/EarthOldorYoung/
7) There is no such thing as free will. God has planned our lives ahead of our understanding. The Bible is either right or wrong. If Adam lived 930 years and was created on the 6th day but God banished them afterwards and put a mark on Cain afterwards then the 7th day at the most is 930 years if it supposed to be a metaphor and not a literal "24 hours." 3:52 I'm pretty sure he just admitted the existence of God. Natural selection is a creationist term, why do evolutionist use it? http://creation.com/images/pdfs/flyers/
8) Mutations are explained in the video. Micro-evolution is different from macro. There have been a number of examples of where there have been "beneficial" mutations and I'm not denying that. However, people also forget that they have been created in a laboratory and when reintroduced with the parent organisms, the mutant has always died. This citation is from a video from the "Understanding the Times" teachers edition. "Bacteria can be made antibiotic resistant by mutation, but biologist Novick calls such forms 'evolutionary cripples.'" http://www.answersingenesis.
I'm going to take a break and watch a movie then if I have time tonight I might do it... but I'll probably finish this up tomorrow after I move in to my apartment.
“I agree that the majority of people even Christians agree with evolution. But just because a majority agrees on something does not make it right.”
His argument was not an ad populum argument. He was simply highlighting how evolutionary theory is not inherently atheist. Maybe you don't need that lesson, but many creationists do.
“ There is no fossil record (which is supposedly in the geologic column) because there is no geological column!”
To say that there is no fossil record is to argue that there are no fossils, that there aren't countless fossils found all over the planet all the time showcasing thousands of species of plant animal and even bacteria both living and extinct, that the people who found these fossils haven't kept track of where they were found, their condition and the environment in which they were embedded, that they haven't been thoroughly studied and compared against other fossils and living organisms. To say that there is no fossil record is to say that the entire occupation of paleontology does not exist.
As far as “no geologic column”...that is an even MORE ludicrous statement. Rock formations are everywhere and has been very closely inspected and studied. Numerous methods of both relative and absolute dating have been developed, tested and successfully used for quite some time now. There are countless ways to observe they Earth and deduce its age as well as deduce the circumstances that form certain formations, types of minerals and geologic phenomena.
“What evidence for evolution?”
The evidence of overwhelming. As you follow this series you will see plenty of it, and he just scratches the surface. After you watch it all, I will happily provide you a near infinite supply of sources, links, book recommendations and logic that confirm evolution.
“There are too many similarities between the books of the Bible from multiple people who had never met or read any other Scripture passages to say that it is not inspired by God.”
Similarities? Care to explain every single contradiction shown in this video?
“Then, they are too different to be seen as a conspiracy/collaboration to spread lies, unlike evolution.”
They should not be different at all if revealed by God, assuming God cannot or would not lie to them. Meanwhile, the reason that evolution theory is so consitent from on researcher to the other is a sign of its veracity, not a “conspiracy”. Although of course there is collaboration within the scientific community. Why would there not be?
“The men who did write the Bible also made many prophecies that have come true and did many miracles.”
Name one that prophecy that is a) the result can be verified independently from the Bible, b) is specific enough that it could not be misinterpreted, guessed at or dismissed.
“There is much historical evidence for Jesus Christ and Hs miracles.”
Please provide a link. All non-Biblical evidence I've seen was written well after the time of Jesus and not by people who actually met him or witnessed his miracles. This evidence only confirms that there was a group of people who believed in him, not that the Biblical depiction of him was accurate.
“Saying that God would not allow differing religions is a logical fallacy because we don't know the will of God.”
He did not say that God would not allow other religions. He is saying that the inspired word of a perfect being should be expected provide unity, particularly as it is spread over time and space. Instead, it seems to promote disunity and conflict. Why?
“ Radiocarbon dating is proven false a number of times so the Dead Sea Scroll argument is refutable.”
Not true. You'll have to site evidence for this.
“The apocryphal gospels were not what was taught in the early church nor by the apostles.”
So Paul Myer, the historian in this video (and also a devout Christian) and numerous other historians who specialize in this are dead wrong. At best we can say that there is not consensus about what exactly happened during that period, but there is very strong historical evidence that the early days of Christianity saw the Bible be compiled and edited due to politics and de facto popularity contests, and it is very well established that there have always been (and still are) countless conflicting interpretations of the Bible. Interpretation should not even be an issue in something that is completely true.
“Go to this site: http://dgreenruf.org/
I went to the site, but did not find an article with that title.
“Bible contradictions answered: http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/
Obviously I did not read the whole thing, but I am pretty experienced with apologetics concerning scriptural contradictions. As often as not it boils down to interpretation. This is risky business considering all of the translation involved. At the very best: the modern Bible is confused and confusing, probably very diluted from its source, and so open to wildly different interpretations that many people who have claimed to know what he wants have gotten into conflicts and caused the Church to constantly splinter. Most factions can be verified by certain verses or interpretations and denied by others, and objective analysis makes it far easier to rule out all of them than it does to confirm any.
“Intelligent Design is putting science into religion... look at the Discovery Institute.”
The various members of the Discover Institute stopped behaving scientifically years ago. Most have had extreme difficulty passing peer reviews because they brazenly ignore the scientific method in order to reach their conclusions, which defeats the whole purpose of science and makes their claims unverifiable.
“3) Paul met Christ on the road to Damascus and without understanding anything about Christianity instantly knew everything there was to know about the religion (as advocated by the other apostles that were alive at this time) and believed it.”
It is also said that many who encountered the Buddha learned the Dharma simply by being in his presence or hearing his voice. It is not difficult to imagine followers making these kinds of claims in order to make their favored figure look more powerful.
For now this is all I have time for. I do intend to watch and respond to the next video in the Hovind series within the next 24 hours or so, though.
9) Here's the thing about fossils... If you go to any dinosaur museum it will say that they have been preserved due to sediment and mud flow. We find fossils wide spread across the globe, which implies that not only could a great flood have happened but it is required to have happened. Geologists say that every place on earth has been covered by water at some point or another... this is why we find fossilized sea creatures everywhere on earth. http://www.answersingenesis.
10) He is begging the question, "how did life arise in the first place?" He automatically assumes that life can arise from non-life without any proof of such. Second. he also says that we are animals even though there is no proof that we are but by the evolutionary definition of what an animal is. This also explains why the Bible calls the bat a bird; there are different definitions. It is merely an attack to show that creationists are stupid when it truly revolves around opinion. Special creation implies a common designer just as evolution can imply a common ancestor (regardless of if there were more than one origin bacteria). If there were no other living things that are common to one another then no organism would be able to digest a different organism. I am not denying all the similarities between animals; however, saying that because they are common proves evolution is a pre biased fallacy.
11) Micro-evolution is different from macro. There has been no evidence of macro-evolution as presented in the rebuttal to video 9 because there are no transitional fossils. His entire argument is based on what he thinks has already been proven. There is no evidence of a kind drifting away from their own kind to a point in which neither can reproduce. What I mean is that dogs can still breed with other dogs regardless of if they are different types of dogs. A kind is something that can reproduce with one another. Here is part of my post to another person: "http://www.trueauthority.com/cvse/
12) I’m not denying that people lie a lot. But he is also implying that evolutionists do not lies. As can be seen in the video series, there are a lot of lie! Look at the Discovery Institute. There is a difference between creationism, which is putting religion first, and intelligent design, which is putting science first. Intelligent design makes reasonable sense just as most people think that evolution makes logical sense. The origin of the term "science" really means "knowledge" and has changed over time to be defined differently and only applied to the natural world. "The word science comes from the Latin 'scientia,' meaning knowledge." http://www.sciencemadesimple.com/
13) I have seen a text book with Haeckel's drawings... it was in psychology class. As can be seen in the video series, this is false. Next, we have to get something straight. Kent Hovind was put in prison for "tax evasion" not fraud unless you want to consider tax evasion as fraud. His family and friends think that he was put there because of his video attacking the illuminati, which shows that he might not be guilty. Next, we have all done something wrong so that does not discredit him. Finally, his entire ministry was tax exempt because he was fighting against evolution being a tax funded expenditure. He had every right to not pay taxes because it is called "passive protest." All of Kent Hovind's information is more than likely true and has just as much credibility as the man in these videos does, if not more. Here are the frauds for the missing links: http://www.nwcreation.net/
14) God is evident but that doesn't mean that people believe it. Some people create illogical thoughts and some people create rational thoughts. For some people, they will see skid marks on a road and think that someone painted it there while other will clearly think it was from a car because it is obvious. This also goes into Biblical ideas about how people suppress the truth for lies so that they can believe that they will not have to stand before God in the end. http://www.personal.psu.edu/jmc6/
15) Citing Men in Black can be argued against evolution just as it can be argued against religion. Actually, saying that all the religions believed the earth was flat is incorrect. The early Christians denied this: http://www.mandm.org.nz/2009/12/
Well, I do you give you respect and admiration for your thorough and well researched answers. Simply put, you have managed to make me "lazier" than you :P...I do not have the time or energy, especially in this coming week to do a full response to each of yours.
I will say that a lot of what you propose is incorrect. Many of your objections were actually addressed right there in the video series and your responses simply say "he is wrong." The sources you use are highly spurious.
However I will grant you the victory in this one since I simply do not wish to put in the effort to go into all of this (not to mention hunting down links to challenge your assertions.)
That being said: I am a man of my word. Therefore, over the course of this week, when I can find, I will watch and post responses to the remaining videos from the series you linked to. I should be able to do vid 3 within the next few hours, and will continue on when I can.
If you wouldn't load the question with libel, I might be more inclined to agree with you.
To say that someone lied is to say that they knew something to be different and they misrepresented what they knew. If you were to make the case "Evolution is not entirely accurate", I'd almost certainly agree with you. It's a theory, an evolving theory, one that attempts to rationalize the data its collected over time. On a broad level, it simply states that living things have changed over time (presumably to adapt to a changing environment). We've watched this happen before our eyes. On average kids are growing taller nowadays than they ever did in the past. Of course, it's because of improved nutrition. But the point is THEY STILL CHANGED. Whether or not is all traces back to a single-cell organism billions of years ago... well, that's more debatable, but it's theory.
The only reason why people say things like 'Evolution is a lie' is because they believe that it conflicts with their belief in God. It doesn't. I'm not arguing for the existence of God now. I'm simply stating that there's not a contradiction there. Yes, it is possible to believe in God AND evolution. Many intelligent, enlightened people do. We have to past this black-and-white kind of thinking. Nothing is all one way and not another. There's a lot of gray in the universe. And when we realize it, it CAN BE a beautiful thing.
I'll log what I think as I watch it
First impression: what a load of cr*p
Second impression (4 minutes in): ""
3:"", and evolution is so a part of science, and not a reigion.
4:"", and wtf proof is there that the spillover is of supernatural origin?
5: I can't be botherd to watch all of this, I have more pressing things to do.
God is infinite and eternal. Anything infinite cannot have form. For example: You cannot make a line that is infinitely long, except in concept. You cannot have an infinite number of a sand grains. God is infinite, in the form truth and mathematical possibilities and infinite consciousness.
Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.
Right there in the Bible is says, that even though the earth was created in spirit, that it was formless.
And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light.
The Big Bang was the Light. The creation of Earth spoken of in the Bible was it's spiritual form. As the Big Bang implies, the Light, (Christ) went on to be the Creator of all things. The Light took form according to the spiritual plan.
Contrary to what many "evolutionist" believe, something can be created out of nothing, in terms of matter. Truth is foundation of the universe. The Living Truth is God. And the Living Truth is conscious. And consciousness has the ability to play roles. And consciousness reacts according it's needs and abilities. And so conscious is put into a position to react, either to light, or heat, it does with specific intentions. The primary intention is to survive.
The Drive to survive is the strongest spirit that shapes the life form. Even the position of the eyes is a product of the survival spirit. For example: "Eyes in Front, I hunt. Eyes on side, I hide."
All things evolve according to desires and survival needs.
God exists in an eternal and infinite realm and doesn't not change, sort of like mathematics. God Consciousness is slightly more flexible, but it starts in "non-form condition."
If there is no evolution and you believe man was created by God many questions arise -
1.God created Adam and taught him everything and Adam had seen things from heaven (that is from space or a different dimension whatever) so Adam must be knowing that earth is round / sun is a star and there is glaxies (or group of galaxies etc) and this knowledge will be passed on to his next generation quite easily. So human race will not be curious about any of the thing that man used to wonder for 1000s of years.
2. It clear that God and Adam talked to each other and so there was some language. Humans would have used this language forever (Since this language already had words for everything and Adam knew the same)
3. Evolution is clearly supported by Fossils and any religious book more than mentioning about beliefs mentions the need to use reasoning which is gift to mankind.
4. No books clearly mention about Pre mankind age (though monsters etc are mentioned) - the scriptures ahs many versus that mentions God has detailed his verses where man will use his reasoning - so its quite obvious for man to use reasoning and god could have mentionedi t in clearer way
5. if you believe God exists then why not God make his presence felt now so that it is now a generation who can verify things scientifically and no human can do miracles and cheat mankind. So why not god send a prophet now with miracles ( i mean anything that can convince mankind to velieve in God)
6. Evolution is an accepted theory and cannot say the whole of mankind is ignorant to the facts.