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

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

[VadeRetro]

Please make your point explicitly... I think I'm beginning to get it.... but that don't mean I'm buying it...

This is looking mightily like the creationist argumentum ad You-can't-make-me-see-um. In the post to which you respond, I linked an example of a post which utterly eviscerated Hovind on the content of his lectures. That would tend to falsify any pretense that nobody is addressing Hovind's points.

I'm going to leave you to sort things out from here as an exercise for your mental development.

[Stultis]

A dog, is a dog, is a dog.

Ah. I didn't realize this previously, but some species of dogs have different chromosome numbers! And there are homologies in their chromosomes to other carnivores (e.g. cats) although the canids do appear to be monophyletic.

The pattern of phylogenomic evolution of the Canidae [Abstract]

Canidae species fall into two categories with respect to their chromosome composition: those with high numbered largely acrocentric karyotypes and others with a low numbered principally metacentric karyotype. Those species with low numbered metacentric karyotypes are derived from multiple independent fusions of chromosome segments found as acrocentric chromosomes in the high numbered species. Extensive chromosome homology is apparent among acrocentric chromosome arms within Canidae species; however, little chromosome arm homology exists between Canidae species and those from other Carnivore families. [...] In addition, painting probes from domestic cat (Felis catus), representative of the ancestral carnivore karyotype (ACK), and giant panda (Ailuropoda melanoleuca) were used to define primitive homologous segments apparent between canids and other carnivore families. Canid chromosomes seem unique among carnivores in that many canid chromosome arms are mosaics of two to four homology segments of the ACK chromosome arms. The mosaic pattern apparently preceded the divergence of modern canid species since conserved homology segments among different canid species are common, even though those segments are rearranged relative to the ancestral carnivore genome arrangement. The results indicate an ancestral episode of extensive centric fission leading to an ancestral canid genome organization that was subsequently reorganized by multiple chromosome fusion events in some but not all Canidae lineages.

[Ichneumon]

Given that there is no evidence that atomic decay has been anymore constant than the speed of light or 14C accumulation

ROFL!!! We'll add nuclear physics to long list of fields you're greatly ignorant about.

[Ichneumon]

[You can believe that evidence exists for anything you choose, but that doesn't make it actually exist.]

LOL!! That's been my whole argument against parading evolution as fact...

You miss my point. The point is that *you* rely on your *belief* about what evidence exists, *we* rely on what evidence *actually* exists.

Gee Wiz am I in a twightlight zone or parallel universe?

Yes, that seems likely. You're definitely in a world of your own.

[VadeRetro]

My mistake on the KJV. So, your keyboard is stuck as far as typing an "o" yourself but you can cut and paste one?

[Ichneumon]

The river bed wasn't "gullies in ash". Sorry.

Even your creationist friends at AiG disagree with you.

The mudflows choked the river and damned it up until the water backed up overflowed the mudflow and cut through it.

No, the mud dam piled up until it gave way, and the FLOWING MUD washed out over the pre-existing pyroclastic deposits and cut into them. Look at photos of the actual "canyon" walls sometime, you can clearly see that they're tuff (hardened ash), not mud.

That is what I am referencing. If I'm comparing one river system with another, comparing "gullies in ashe" with a dammed river is not a proper comparison.

Indeed -- my point exactly. Thanks for agreeing that your comparison is invalid.

Given that the river enters the canyon well below the top line of the carved sediment, that would be a miracle in and of itself;

So you're grossly ignorant of geologic uplift too, I see.

[Ichneumon]

Go back and look at the exchange. The poster claimed Hovind to be wrong without any real discussion and apparently in ignorance of the fact that Hovind does provide citation, that is why I jumped on it. Had they any first hand information on what Hovind was actually saying/presenting, they'd have known this. They did not. And it was apparent from the git go. The poster had no real argument, he merely had a slur he couldn't support and resorted to nonsensical games when pressed. It isn't my claim to support. His assertion was challenged and he couldn't back it up by debunking the citation or Hovind either one or he'd have done it. And I'm still waiting for that party to show they know the first thing about whence they speak. So far, nothing. If you're going to be dishonest, I'm going to point it out to others. And that was just plain dishonest. If you got a problem with that - tough. If you're going to slander the guy, back it up. If you can't, shut up.

Your bluster and frantic accusations only makes quite clear that you have, yet again, failed to support your own claim. Clearly you can't. Typical of you.

[longshadow]

Festival of the Tractionless Trolls Memorial Placemarker

[tallhappy]

If you want to open that discussion, state concisely what your argument is -- the one you gleaned from a post at the talk origens blog.

We'll go from there.

Keep it one paragraph.

If you have an open mind you'll learn something.

[Free Baptist]

"raindrop imprints"

There were no raindrops before the rain that brought about the flood of Genesis chs. 6 and 7. (Genesis 2:5, 6)

The truths of Noah's flood are confirmed by our Lord Jesus Christ (Matthew ch. 24; Luke ch. 17), as He spoke of the "days of Noe (Noah)" giving His own credibility to the Genesis account. He did not speak of it as a parable or in any other figurative form. Since Jesus Christ, God manifest in the flesh (1 Tim 3:16), is the Creator (Colossians 1:13-17; Hebrews 1:2, 3; other), we must believe Him or call Him a liar.

[Dimensio]

Do you have an actual response to Ichneumon's argument?

[Ichneumon]

Havoc did respond to you then and will now as well.

Horse manure. You never responded to post #809 of that thread. Period. And while you did "respond" to the original post #142 where I pointed out your lie concerning the dating of two different parts of the same animal, YOU FAILED TO ADDRESS THAT POINT IN ANY WAY IN YOUR "RESPONSE". Your lie on that matter is *still* unresponded by you, and you *still* made that lie again after it had been shown to you that it *was* a lie.

The topic was dating something using "ice rings". The examples grabbed for were used as commonly referenced errors in dating. Any number exist so it's not as though my entire opinion on the matter is lost on either or both of the examples. There are plenty to go around as any honest person would admit. The examples merely highlight the point - that all the dates are arived at by assumption - not by technical know how. The assumption is the weakest link. And the assumption is usually that there is a constant involved - be it 14C accumulation, or radioactive decay rate, etc. With "ice rings" the matter of assumption is the time period represented by the layers of ice. The specific point being that in absence of accumulation data there is absolutely no possible way to KNOW what the layers represent. And the opposition did their level best to cloud that point. They don't want it made. As for lying, well, I'll leave that to you.

Blah, blah, blah. SON, CAN'T YOU EVEN READ AT A GRADESCHOOL LEVEL? No, the topic *wasn't* "ice layers", the topic -- which *you* introduced -- was your claim that two different pieces of "the same creature" had been dated at thousands of years apart.

As I documented and explained in detail -- to a degree that no one who isn't braindamaged could possibly have mistaken it for a discussion of "ice layers" -- was the fact that your source, Kent Hovind, lied when he said that two different parts of the same animal had been dated to thousands of years apart. THIS WAS A LIE. The source that Hovind himself "cites" in "support" of this lie QUITE CLEARLY SAYS THAT THE TWO SAMPLES WERE FROM DIFFERENT ANIMALS, COLLECTED AT DIFFERENT SITES. Period. It doesn't get any simpler than that. You repeated Hovind's lie, then after the lie was explained to you, you blew off the documentation of that lie and then turned around and LIED AGAIN about it shortly thereafter.

Hovind was caught lying, and you were caught lying *twice*.

Even *now* you can't face up to it, you just bluster and irrelevantly blather about "ice layers", which has nothing to do with the lie you were caught making.

Sheesh, what exactly is wrong with your brain?

[Stultis]

just for fun (anyone) how many and which of the following, if any, are NOT dogs (i.e. members of the Family Canidae

Didn't have any takers on this, but just to report back... Five of the seven are dogs, two aren't.

1. NOT A DOG! It's a hyena.
2. Doesn't really look like a dog, does it? But it is. It's Nyctereutes the Racoon Dog of Asia, a member of the Canid family.
3. Atelocynus, the Small-Eared Dog (or "Zorro") of South America is also a dog, despite it's stocky build and weasel-like face.
4. NOT A DOG! Ichneumia is a member of Herpestidae, that is a type of mongoose.
5. DOG. Lycaon pictus, the African Wild Dog.
6. DOG (believe it or not). Speothos is the very unusual Bush Dog of South America.
7. DOG. Otocyon, the Bat-Eared Fox of Africa.

[Free Baptist]

"Do you have an actual response to Ichneumon's argument?"

Is Ichneumon's argument one used to destroy the faith of young science students in the veracity of the Word of God? Does it recognize and honor the Creator of the universe?

Do you believe that there were "raindrop imprints" placed in sand in a laminar lay in the Grand Canyon before there was rain?

[b_sharp]

Braggart. I'm still trying to get my first McDonald's coupon. You don't know anybody that works there do you? If so, think you can score me a coupon?

[Free Baptist]

Scientists would find all of their research enhanced ("blessed"), and progress accelerated if they would acknowledge the Creator, and stop the on-going PC course of attempting to discredit the written Revelation He wants men to believe and in which He wants mankind to find His Son.

[VadeRetro]

One cannot understand the DittoJed2 opus without The Infamous BadJoe Thread. It got funny about post 905 when Ditto decided to raise her crevo grievances. To me it was like the end of Blazing Saddles when the cowboy movie fight spills out of the sound stage into a whole other movie.

[Stultis]

The Infamous BadJoe Thread

Was that the one where he insisted on spitting into the wind and tugging on Superman's cape, even though we warned him you don't mess around with Jim?

[PatrickHenry]

Prime coming up.

[PatrickHenry]

1600?