100 Reasons Why Evolution is Stupid

[VijchtiDoodah]

Kent Hovind is a well-known advocate of creationism.  As usual, he brings up many good points that are worth looking into.  The trouble is, however, that many of his points, while concrete to the average layman, tend to be vapid when scrutinized by an expert (I posted the rebuttals to his usual Young Earth creationist arguments in this thread).  In fact, almost every major point he has ever made hasn't withstood even weak scrutiny.  Nevertheless, he is a good discussion starter.

100 Reasons Why Evolution is Stupid: a presentation he gave discussing the problems with several different types of evolution.

Once you ignore the ad hoc arguments (which, sadly, constitute the majority of his presentation), the lies (or ignorance), and misrepresentation of facts, you begin to see that he brings up some very interesting questions and valid points.

Figured I'd put this out there.  Some of it is silly, quite a bit of it is truly entertaining, and it makes you think -- whether you can see the wholes in his arguments or not, but especially if you can't (there are a few that are messing with my head, but a little research on the internet can do wonders explaining most of his inaccuracies).

[Smegma]

He's a good entertainer!

Dogs come from rocks!?

Edit: I hate that reverse logic! "Why does the earth work in such a way that its 'perfect'"?

[Red_Dawn]

at lest hes not a radical that gos around telling me im going to hell cause im atheist

[Psycho]

hmm where did I put my 10 000 000 reasons god did not create earth ;P

Well I will check out this.

[blackdevil0742]

Here's proof of what will happen in the future.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0387808/

[Red_Dawn]

that was a good movie

[PANZERCATWAGON]

Vijchti, I believe this is a relevant place to ask this question, but do you believe in The Big Bang Theory? I can't explain some of the questions put forward by this guy and want to discuss.

[Dascoo]

Vijtch can you post the good points because I couldn't stand watching it.....

[Graham]

Dascoo is this the topic thats got all your feathers ruffled? Just relax man....

[VijchtiDoodah]

Vijchti, I believe this is a relevant place to ask this question, but do you believe in The Big Bang Theory? I can't explain some of the questions put forward by this guy and want to discuss.

I believe it's a pretty good idea that has quite a bit of sound scientific backing.  What can't you explain?

[tool]

BEST DISCUSSION EVER!!!!!! a bunch of fish humped eachother to the poit where they were sooooo knocked up they needed more room in there Halalalalalala''S so they got bigger and hairer, and here we are now

[Mangled*]

Evolution is the only rational explanation for how the world got to where it is now.

He does raise a few points which at this point in time can't be answered by Scientific understanding.. HOWEVER: That should not mean because science can't answer it at the moment that the question can be answered by religion. Let's remember that there's no evidence that anything in the bible is the word of God or that God even exists/existed.

Where he says that evolutionists believe dogs came from rocks it proves how little he understands (or how little he wants his christian audience to understand) about evolution.

He simply raises invalid points taken out of context.

[PANZERCATWAGON]

Ah, bugger, I was in the middle of writing out a huge reply and my computer crashed. Oh well.

Basically, I was able to either find reason as to why his arguments were wrong or find that his point was not relevant to the main point he was making, but there were some points I was going to discuss until I clicked on your link to the past thread.

I have to thank you for that link to that Matson paper, I must have misssed it, it's extremely interesting and I'm in the midst of going through it as I type. The only thing I cannot find an answer to in this, however, is a response to the argument brought up about the Miller experiment and not having enough amino acids to build (proteins and henceforth) a cell. I also can't find any answer for his point about the planets spinning in the opposite direction when angular momentum should have them all spinning the same way.

I'm fairly interested in all this stuff because, apart from being generally interested in it already, I am constantly challenged with arguments from evangelists and other types of hardcore Christian at my college.

[Dascoo]

BEST DISCUSSION EVER!!!!!! a bunch of fish humped eachother to the poit where they were sooooo knocked up they needed more room in there Halalalalalala''S so they got bigger and hairer, and here we are now

Fish don't mate by "humping eachother"

Also can someone post the good points? I can't stand him talking about his family. My computer is slow on streaming videos so I can't just skip him

[SirJamesaford]

I made it to him saying Dinosaurs were 4500 years ago and i turned it off.

[Dascoo]

I would have too. I'm going to guess he started going on about how they did carbon dating on a goat and it came out 40000000 years when the goat was only like 5.....

[SirJamesaford]

No he didnt say anything like that... he just said something about the earth being 6000 years old and dinosaurs being killed in the "Noah's arch flood" thing 4500 years ago.  I couldnt listen anymore.  Plus i had to leave my house.  But mostly cuz of the dino thing lol

[VijchtiDoodah]

The only thing I cannot find an answer to in this, however, is a response to the argument brought up about the Miller experiment and not having enough amino acids to build (proteins and henceforth) a cell. I also can't find any answer for his point about the planets spinning in the opposite direction when angular momentum should have them all spinning the same way.

His attack on the Miller-Urey experiment is a strawman argument.  Essentially, he's saying that Miller and Urey set out to prove that life originated from lightning strikes on a primitive earth.  They didn't.  They set out to disprove the notion that organic molecules could only be produced within organisms (hence the name).  And they did.  They demonstrated that something as simple as lightning strikes in the hypothetical primitive atmosphere could produce 13 of the 22 amino acids.

He further ridicules the results by saying that it was only 2%, but proving that any amino acids at all can be produced under such a process was astounding and shattered quite a few established ideas.  He also states that certain chemicals used in the experiment are toxic to life, but we have an entire classification of bacteria called extremophiles that can live in any number of toxic environments. 

Furthermore, experiments carried out recently has shown that a few other chemicals in the atmosphere can easily neutralize the toxic effects of certain chemicals while producing a brew of amino acids.  We've also found how to create both RNA and DNA as well as (and this is important to rule out the idea that a creator is necessary for complexity) a kind of unidentifiable resin that was too complex to even study.  And finally, recent discoveries have shown that the oldest known genes all use the exact amino acids that were created by the Miller-Urey experiment.



Now for conservation of momentum during the Big Bang.  Yes, there is such a thing.  If an object breaks apart, all of the pieces will end up spinning the same direction.  The problem with his argument, though, is that the Big Bang was not an explosion where one object became many -- it was many objects compacted into a tiny space which quickly expanded as separate objects.

Conservation of momentum also only works if no other forces are present.  However, there is the nagging problem of gravity which can easily induce alternate spins (think of pushing one magnet past a compass: if you do it fast enough, the compass will begin to spin in a direction determined by which side the magnet is moved past).

I'm fairly interested in all this stuff because, apart from being generally interested in it already, I am constantly challenged with arguments from evangelists and other types of hardcore Christian at my college.

Evangelists aren't worth your time.  They use the same flawed arguments over and over again.  If you successfully prove them wrong, they'll move on to another subject and ignore their loss -- and even then, they'll use the same argument on another person even though they know someone has proven them wrong before.  They regularly publish lists of "proofs" for their followers to use against the unsuspecting, many of which have been disproved for decades.

[Mr.Spoon]

Damn, these creationists REALLY use the same arguments all over... and these are dumb arguments anyway. The problem is, that they base their believes on only basic knowledge. They are not specialist for any of the facts they are talking about. And they start all their arguments with the understanding that god exists.

I heard a lecture at my university by someone not believing in evolution (yes, i use the term believe here), but that was an actual chemist. He had some valid points, but what he basically stated was, that there are some facts we can't explain (today) and that he doesn't believe in coincidence and rather thinks there was a creator. I went in there quite biased, but i must say, there really are serious people discussing that, they just aren't known to the general public.


[edit] Okay, i'd go into some of his arguments some more... but i don't have the time now. And i'd like to add the fact, that i now for a fact several of his arguments are flawed, because i either collected the information from several sources, or because i learned better in my studies. [/edit]

[VijchtiDoodah]

Evolution vs. Creationism.  A look into the debate from the point of view of scientists in the field.

Here is the rest of the series.