Creation evangelist derides evolution as ‘dumbest’ theory [Kent Hovind Alert!]

University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee Post ^ | 17 December 2005 | Kayla Bunge

[Stultis]

regarding the real Jack Chick. He is a true gentleman in every regard.

Ridiculous. Only a bigoted, anti-Catholic (for starters) extremist could say that. Oh, wait, never mind... Maybe this is reasonable appraisal for you.

[onewhowatches]

You missed one. Check #820.

[b_sharp]

Dimensio: Humans and monkeys share common ancestry.

Baraonda: There you go! I knew I had read it someplace. I'm sure it has been asserted more than once. But because these threads are long ones, they (the evolutionists) hope that we won't be able to find their quotes.

Humans and old world monkeys do share a common ancestor - new world monkeys. Sequences of fossils lead us to believe this, and shared non-conserving sequences of DNA back this conclusion. Using those non-conserving sequences of DNA gives us approximate dates for the split, dates that roughly correspond to dates previously approximated through fossil evidence.

[b_sharp]

"You have really beat them when they ignore you, but they talk about you in other posts.. LOL!!

As you are doing here? Does this mean you have been beaten?

[Coyoteman]

What about the scablands?

What about the scablands?

For the lurkers, the Channeled Scablands are primarily in central and eastern Washington State, and resulted when an ice dam back toward Montana broke (probably many times) at the end of the last Ice Age. This released huge amounts of water which created very distinctive soil formations on the way to the Columbia River and the ocean.

The Channeled Scablands are not proof of a global flood. The ages are pretty well understood (and way too old for the global flood), the limits pretty easy to track (and are not global), and the effects are quite interesting. But, compared to the global flood story, this would have been a leaky faucet.

I did a few field trips to the area in grad school (in paleoecology courses), so have a little experience with the area.

So, What about the scablands?

[b_sharp]

You are equivocating.

The closest non-human ancestor to humans, one that we share with chimpanzees, is indeed not a monkey. This particular common ancestor is usually the focus of discussion and is what we 'evos' generally address. However going farther back than the common ancestor between Humans and chimps, and of humans and gorillas and of humans and orang utans, we do end up sharing an ancestor with monkeys. The first 'monkey' relative we have are old world monkeys with whom we share the common ancestors of new world monkeys.

The phylogenic tree, which was originally based solely on morphology, is being shown to be highly accurate by corroborating evidence taken from genomics.

[b_sharp]

The original argument was about common ancestors, not about our direct ancestor. Baraonda is conflating the two.

[js1138]

Baraonda is conflating the two.

I noticed this, and have been posting accordingly. But the ignorance here is invincible.

[VadeRetro]

The closest non-human ancestor to humans, one that we share with chimpanzees, is indeed not a monkey.

Not everyone on these threads seems to know that chimpanzees are not monkeys. Not sure that's the problem here but it does seem to come up from time to time.

[b_sharp]

"One need not be a rocket scientist when it comes to common sense.

Beware of relying on 'common sense' too much, it is neither common nor reliably sensible. Different cultures, including sub cultures within a larger culture such as ours, have variations in commonality of what you consider common sense. Common sense has been shown to be unreliable by various disciplines of science, one example of that being quantum physics.

Relying on it as a 'proof' of anything is counterproductive and silly.

[b_sharp]

"I do not believe I have ever lied abut anything here, and people that know me in 'the real world' know that the lie is not what I'm about.

We have your word on that?

[b_sharp]

You know, you might find it more profitable, even enjoyable, if you would pull your own chain for a while.

Your intent here is far too obvious to work much longer.

[GraniteStateConservative]

Is he the same guy who came on the Ali G show?

Indeed.

[b_sharp]

Quick draw McGraw?

As a child I had all the gear from 'Have Gun will Travel' including Paladin's double holster with derringers.

[b_sharp]

"Not a double standard. I didn't make an assumption there at all. I noted that his assumption of the absence of one changes the outcome of the bs he was shovelling. When you ultimately don't know the conditions, assuming the conditions only tells us what would be IF you were right. That's a pretty big IF. Amazing how you choose to construe it. Assuming light speed was constant - that was a major screwup on the part of science - one with far reaching consequence still being felt in the community. Accumulation rates for 14C were assumed constant - look where that got you. Seems it's only reasonable to you that everyone play stupid so you can have your way until you're proven utterly wrong again. What I find reasonable is saying "I don't know" when you don't know. But that doesn't make you look smart - apparently. I assume that's bad.

Why are you still beating the light speed and decay rate dead horse? Did you not read my post to you regarding this issue? Did you not verify it for yourself by performing the calculations I suggested you do?

Why have you not tested the assumptions you have about the assumptions science uses? Are your assumptions not subject to test and verification?

[b_sharp]

Havoc, Havoc, Havoc. What happens in the past leaves marks, observable evidence, of those events. Some of those 'marks' still exist today, especially those that are so extreme they directly affect all life on earth. If the decay rates and the speed of light (they are both subject to E=MC² equally) were at one time fast enough to result in the magnitude of error you claim, no life would exist on Earth now, other than bacteria (and their ilk).

Hovind has to warp, twist, and mangle the laws of physics (such as his favourite 2LoT) to make his points sound reasonable.
Without that mangling, his ideas are ridiculous.
With his mangling, the laws of physics are ridiculous.

If you agree with the latter point, then you must be open to the idea that the universe could self create and produce matter from non-matter (remember you agree that the laws are ridiculous by accepting the latter).

[b_sharp]

"I've a middle aged nephew and his wife that accepts everything Dr. Dino says as fact. I've the sense they have been led to believe they must accept Dr. Dino's teachings to prove their faith in God and Jesus Christ or heaven will be lost to them. That's scary as heck.

I'm sorry to hear about your nephew.

"The Dr. Dino crowd do the same exact thing the evolutionists do. They try to make things fit their theories, but really only succeed in misleading people."

I'm also sorry to hear you believe we intentionally mislead people. That isn't true, but I understand why you believe so. I suspect you have been exposed to a strawman version of the theory and the evidence for evolution. I suggest you visit Ichneumon's and PatrickHenry's home pages to get more accurate information. If you feel they may be too biased, I suggest you visit talkorigins.org which is a resource for information from biologists and other evolutionary scientists whose only concern is imparting accurate information. All of the articles at talk origins cite the primary or secondary (which cites the primary) documents their information comes from. (This is true of both Ichny's and PH's sites as well).

[b_sharp]

Gotta thank the person responsible for maintaining that 'Black Wall' source of information, don't we. Hell uva guy.

[balrog666]

When many such remarks come in later, well after the ping (as in this thread) then I ignore them, but by then everyone's already in the thread, and some of us find the psychology of trolls to be entertaining.

The thread psychology grows more entertaining.

[b_sharp]

"There is no evidence that is problematic to man and "dinosaurs" living on the planet at the same time. The only problem is your "spin".. and I don't see that as a problem."

Except that despite all the dinosaur fossils we have found and despite all the archaeological communities we've uncovered we have not found any human and dinosaur remains in the same stratum. In fact they are separated by many strata, strata that have been absolutely and relatively dated. Both the order of the strata and the radiometric dating show a relative difference in date. Even if you do not believe that radiometric dating is absolutely accurate, you will find it far more difficult to dismiss as a measure of relative dates. The geological evidence, the archaeological evidence, the paleontological evidence, astronomical evidence all show there was a well defined and substantial gap between the time dinosaur fossils stopped appearing and Homo fossils started appearing.

Hydrodynamic sorting, as proposed by creation 'scientists', does not answer the relative position problem because all dinosaur fossils, whether extremely small or extremely large, whether extremely agile or slow and lumbering, whether forest dwelling or tundra dwelling, are all found in lower strata (older) than any human remains.

We should not be so arrogant as to assume that archaic humans did not observe dinosaur fossils and incorporate them into their mythology.