The Peoria Journal Star (June 25, 1993) had an article about Kent Hovind, (who at that time was offering $10,000 for “proof” of evolution – to his impossible standards). The article stated that Hovind was scheduled to debate “paleontologist Steven (sic) Jay Gould, a Harvard University professor.” Hovind went on to state, “I suspect Gould will back out.”
Hovind apparently had good reason to expect that Gould wouldn’t be there. Gould responded to this claim by saying, “I have never heard of the man and therefore cannot have agreed to anything with him.” Gould went on to comment about “the obvious phony tactic of claiming that he challenged me to a debate when he didn’t, and then claiming that I backed out when I didn’t appear.”
And that’s just the most easily documented of his lies. He has all sorts of tall tales in his video series – and either he is lying about science in them or he is quite ignorant. I’m not sure which is worse.
I would like to start by looking at the “evolution” of man from ape. Those who know anything about evolution will recognize these names. What follows is the supposed “evolution” of ape to man and evidence that disproves it IMO: Pardon my spelling PLEASE
“Lucy”–Nearly all scientists agree that Lucy was just a 3 foot tall chimpanzee
“Heidelberg Man”–Built from a jaw bone that most scientists conceded to be quite human.
“Nebraska Man”–Scientifically built up from a single tooth that was later determined to be a tooth that was extracted from a pig.
"Pritdern Man (Sorry I can’t read my notes on this one)–Built from the jawbone of a modern ape
“Peking Man”–Supposedly 500,000 years old, but all of the evidence has disappeared
“Neandrethal Man”–Discovered to be an old man suffering form arthiritis
“New Guinea Man”–This skeleton dates back to 1970.
“Cro-Magnon Man”–This has the brain capacity and skeleton shape of a man
“Modern Man”–This genius thinks that we evolved from apes!
Upon further examination, that particular tract also discusses the “six concepts of evolution”.
If I’m following along correctly, CollegeStudent’s next point should be that dating fossils based on the rock layer they’re found in is circular reasoning. Right?
Campbell’s Biology would be a good place to start.
Please forgive me for making this so long, but this is my last post for this thread, and I want to get everything off my chest.
After giving it some thought, I think I’m getting out of this debate. Not because I’m doubting my beliefs, but because this debate isn’t going to change anybodies minds on this. And arguing back and forth and getting nowhere eventually becomes counter productive, and I’m not the kind of person who likes to constantly argue. Two other reasons I’m getting out of this is, it’s hard to be in the minority (as I am here) arguing with the majority, and I’m not an expert in biology and bio-chemestry. I’m pretty much out of my leauge. I’m not compleatly against the possibility that evolution (one species evolving into another) is possible, I just see too many problems with the theory. I am however, going to continue to study both sides of the issue.
I just hope that everybody here on both sides keeps an open mind. One that that surprises me, maby it shouldn’t, but it does, is how…and please, I don’t mean this as a critisism, please don’t take this the wrong way, but I’m constantly surprised at the level of confidence most evolutionists seem to have. In my experiance, most of the evolutionists in my opinion seem to toataly believe in evolution, and are so dead set against creationism, they don’t think it has ANY valid points at all. For those who think like that, please remember that scientific theories usually are allways are being re-evaluated and usually allways changing. Of course everything I said goes as well for creationists that are dead set against believing in evolution. In my opinion, based on what I know so far, both sides have valid opinions, and both sides have their problems, but untill I am convenced that creationism just doesn’t work, I’ll stick with it.
Well,I’d better stop typing now before this gets any longer. One final thing. I didn’t realize I would upset some people by suggesting that most evolutionists are athiests. there are of course some religions that have no problem with evolution, and there are those within christianity, judaism, islam that belive in evolution. I apologise to those that I offended. I’m sorry.
If I may offer some advice… By all means, learn more about the topic. And by this, I mean read the actual, scientific literature on the subject, not the pseudo-scientific creationist jargon. Start with The Origin of Species. You are under no obligation to buy into anything, but the least you could do, if you truly wish to understand the topic, is to read ‘our’ stuff. Preferrably, on your own, not as part of a class. This way, you are free to evaluate the works on your own, without the influence and bias of others.
As for our (meaning ‘evolutionists’) strict adherence to the idea, well, as I said before, we didn’t make this stuff up. There are mountains of evidence supporting it. From our point of view, there is no evidence supporting creationism. So, yes, there is going to be conflict between evolutionsts and creationists. However, we don’t know all the answers. I’ll be the first to admit it (of course, I’m not…).
As you stated, scientific theories are constantly being challenged and theories reformulated. However, I submit that the creationists are the more rigid in thought, since they refuse to change at all. I hope that if you do, indeed, pursue such studies, you will do so with an open mind.
A person using a Chick Tract as their “evidence” in a scientific matter or their inability (or unwillingness) to cite said “source.”
Come back when you can use your own mind to decide something. Oh wait - You’re a fundie who thinks that the whole Bible’s meaning will crash and burn if Genesis was a metaphor. I guess that’ll never happen…
Yer pal,
Satan
[sub]TIME ELAPSED SINCE I QUIT SMOKING:
Three months, four weeks, two days, 5 hours, 5 minutes and 45 seconds.
4848 cigarettes not smoked, saving $606.06.
Life saved: 2 weeks, 2 days, 20 hours, 0 minutes.[/sub]
"Satan is not an unattractive person."-Drain Bead
[sub]Thanks for the ringing endorsement, honey!*[/sub]
That clause has a slight, probably innocent, error.
Assuming it is like any other deductive process, it starts with an hypothesis which, to the untrained eye, can appear to be a conclusion. The purpose of the exercise is to arrive at a conclusion that matches the hypothesis.
The only restriction is that you cannot use the hypothesis as one of your axioms, because that would make your argument circular. Perhaps the author meant that that is what Creationists do. If so, an example or unprejudiced cite might help, which is no different than what Evolutionists demand.
That’s quite a charge. It’s possible that some Creationists and some Evolutionists do that, but the author paints with an overbroad brush.
One example cited as a “lie” is this:
Well, goodness. Let’s say, for the sake of argument that the Peoria Journal Star gave an accurate report — a very generous “gimme”, something akin to letting a guy pick up a six foot putt, especially since the Journal Star cannot even spell the names right. “Was scheduled” could imply almost anything. Perhaps it was an open invitation made through the media, something akin to the alleged $10,000 reward that I had never heard of from Bob Eubanks.
At any rate, if any lying is to be assigned in the case of Hovind shown above, it must be assigned to the report, unless he wrote the Journal Star article himself. If that is the easiest one to spot, then the rest are tenuous indeed.
[… bracing myself for avalanche of righteous indignation …]
Uhm, wouldn’t reading only evolution liturature and not creationist literature defeat the pourpose of reading up on both sides of the issue? Of course you’re telling me this, because you firmly believe that creationism is bunk. That’s fine, but I don’t believe that. I still need to study and determine for myself. And as for The Origin of Species, isn’t that a bit outdated?
Yes, and you should have spelled it “atheist” too!
As for your other comments, substitute “Flat earth” for “creationism” and you’ll know why evolutionists seem so certain. You state that you think creationists have some points, but by your own admission you aren’t knowledgeable enough to have an informed opinion. Maybe that’s why creationism looks so good to you?
“To educate people regarding the vast amount of scientific evidence that supports Biblical Creation as the true account of origins … To show that Biblical Creation, because it is true, is the only “scientific” explanation of origins, and therefore is the only account of origins that can possibly be useful to science. … The account of origins presented in Genesis is a simple, but factual, presentation of actual events”
“1. The Bible is the written Word of God. It is divinely inspired and inerrant throughout. Its assertions are factually true in all the original autographs. … Scripture teaches a recent origin for man and the whole Creation. … By definition, no apparent, perceived, or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the Scriptural record.”
“The Institute for Creation Research bases its educational philosophy on the foundational truth of a personal Creator-God and His authoritative and unique revelation of truth in the Bible, both Old and New Testaments. … A clear distinction is drawn between scientific creationism and Biblical creationism but it is the position of the Institute that the two are compatible and that all genuine (emphasis added - JRF) facts of science support the Bible. … The Bible, consisting of the thirty-nine canonical books of the Old Testament and the twenty-seven canonical books of the New Testament, is the divinely-inspired revelation of the Creator to man. Its unique, plenary, verbal inspiration guarantees that these writings, as originally and miraculously given, are infallible and completely authoritative on all matters with which they deal, free from error of any sort, scientific and historical as well as moral and theological.”
"All members must subscribe to the following statement of belief:
The Bible is the written Word of God, and because it is inspired throughout, all its assertions are historically and scientifically true in the original autographs. To the student of nature this means that the account of origins in Genesis is a factual presentation of simple historical truths.
2 . All basic types of living things, including man, were made by direct creative acts of God during the Creation Week described in Genesis. Whatever biological changes have occurred since Creation Week have been accomplished only changes within the original created kinds.
The great flood described in Genesis, commonly referred to as the Noachian Flood, was an historic event worldwide in its extent and effect."
Therefore, several creationist organizations explicitly say that they start with the conclusion that Biblical Creation is given and may not be discarded or modified. Some creationist organizations appear to believe the same thing but are not as explicit about it. To be fair, a very few appear to be free of such a priori bias.
You might also be interested in The Wedge Strategy, although I can’t vouch for its authenticity.
No, the purpose of the excercise (of real science) is to test the hypothesis. Of course scientists hope that the test will support the hypothesis; but if the real world says the hypothesis is wrong, then a conscientous scientist discards or modifys the hypothesis.
That is indeed what I meant. A request for cites is certainly reasonable. See above.
Indeed it’s a broad brush. I am not aware of any such actions by evolutionists but there certainly could be some. There’s ample evidence of such actions by creationists.
Michael Behe claims (in “Darwin’s Black Box”) “only two articles even attempt to suggest a model for the evolution of the cilium that takes into account real mechanical considerations” and “There is no publication in the scientific literature - in prestigious journals, specialty journals, or books - that describes how molecular evolution of any real, complex, biochemical system either did occur or even might have occurred.” David Ussery points out that there are many more; see A Biochemist’s Response to “The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution”. Claiming that there is no literature, when anyone familiar with the field can come up with hundreds of cites in a few minutes, is a lie.
Some of these are a little old, and may not reflect current practice … but it’s likely that the do.
Not by me. IMHO it’s a lie, but far short of the lies that I cited above. Perhaps, yes perhaps, or perhaps … but there is no evidence that it’s otherwise than it appears on its face.
Kent Hovind would be very amusing if he weren’t actually influencing anyone to believe his particular form of insanity. I clicked about on his site and noticed a $250,000 prize to anyone who could prove evolution. “Interesting,” thought I, “a creationist’s version of Randi’s challenge.” Then I read his requirements!
**
He is requiring that someone provide empirical evidence that only evolution could give rise to the life we see today. What empirical evidence could ever rule out the IPU, Last Thursdayism, Zeus, or radioactive hamsters from Mars? Perhaps he would accept the evidence if I could artificially extend his lifespan to a few million years and transport him back in time so he could directly observe the events as they unfolded, but even that wouldn’t preclude the invisible hand of Jehova stirring the bowl’s contents. If anyone can come up with a way to win his prize within human capability I’ll proclaim Hovind to be Most Holy Emperor of Idaho and marry a chicken.
It appears to me, from your posts in this thread, that your sources are exclusively or almost exclusively creationist. I think that is the reason for MauveDog’s plea.
Personally, I encourage you to read and listen to both sides. Please also think about and evaluate all the arguments, considering both their content and the method of presentation. Where something appears not to make sense, check on it.
I venture to hope that the other evolutionists in this thread agree.
I did not suggest you read only evolution ‘literature’. I suggested you read some evolution texts, which apparently you haven’t done. I figure you’ve read plenty of the creationist stuff, so I didn’t feel it necessary to explicitly state you should read more. Yes, I firmly believe creationism to be bunk, but then, I’ve read what creationists have to say and I can only say that their case is less then persuasive.
And what ever gave you the idea that Origin is outdated?! As for the Bible, isn’t that a bit outdated…?
Thanks for the links. It seems he is not an unkown at all, but a pretty notorious huckster. One thing I did see that bothered me on one of the critique sites:
That means that Hovind is from my neck of the woods. That is really depressing (although not as depressing as if he were still here.)
