I remember 6 years ago when I became an atheist, I thought I was alone. I then went online and discovered there were millions and millions of people out there like me. Back then, I only used Myspace. Eventually, I used YouTube for the first time, and bit by bit found some great video channels and subscribed to them: thunderf00t, Aron Ra, AndromedasWake, FSAthe1st, ExtantDodo, DonExodus2, potholer54, and ThetaOmega.
Back then, I recall how incredibly
popular it was to disprove creationism. It was so easy to disprove creationist BS. And a
favorite target was MISTER Kent Hovind. I mean, come on, the guy
thought a single drop of water could cover the whole planet.
I remember mountains of creationist
arguments was destroyed by numerous YouTube atheists, agnostics, and
even theists alike. Pretty much every single creationist argument
under the sun was addressed and destroyed, often many times. AND YET,
ALL THESE YEARS LATER, one particular creationist still repeats the
same old arguments that have been addressed a thousand times over the
past 6 years.
And I know for a fact he has been
correct many times about practically every one of these objections to
the theory of evolution. The only explanation left as to why he
continues to lie is that he is just a liar. Hence I call him Lie2Lie,
it's the most proper name for him.
So for this bog, I intend to do a bit
of YouTube digging and show that these objections to the theory of
evolution have been addressed, though I will provide my own rebuttals
and links to other sources for further explanation.
Lie2Lie made a video to a atheist
YouTube user TheLivingDinosaur, therefore I will list each of
Lie2Lie's questions to TLD (which will be in bold italics)
and my response will follow in normal font.
"I am not professional in making videos."
Nor are you a "professional"
in science, in ay branch. TheLivingDinosaur is not only a talented
video producer, he is an actual scientist.
“If I see something wrong in your videos, I will correct it.”
If only you had that same mindset to correct yourself. As I will demonstrate, every objection you raise against evolution is old and gravely incorrect, but you will likely remain as willfully ignorant as ever.
“If you are supporting the false dogmatic religion of evolution, I am going to correct it whether you like it or not.”
Then you will have nothing to correct, due to the fact that TheLivingDnosaur and myself do not follow or support any religion.
“The curriculum that you are apart of TheLivingDinosaur, is corrupt.”
Says the guy whose mindset is warped by a convicted tax-evading charlatan and ignorant conspiracy promoter.
“Another thing, that icon in your picture. You call yourself TheLivingDinosaur but that is not a living dinosaur. That's a bird, a perching bid. For those of you who don't know, there are quite a bit differences between a dinosaur and a bird. But which is it, by the way? Did dinosaurs go extinct, or did dinosaurs turn to birds?”
Birds are avian-dinosaurs. The non-avian dinosaurs have gone extinct. The evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of birds being the descendants of a maniraptoran dinosaur.
“If you are upset with people like me, if you are bothered by people like me, why don't you go to North Korea, you don't have to worry about Christians there.”
We are not bothered by Christians,
Christians accept and defend evolution. Many scientists who accept
evolution as fact are also Christians. The
early pioneers of evolutionary science were all initially Christian,
(including Darwin) and many leading proponents of modern evolutionary
science are still Christian today. For example, microbiologist Dr.
Ken Miller, (who testified against intelligent design creationism in
Kitzmiller v. Dover) -is a Catholic. Another outspoken proponent of
evolution, Dr. Robert T. Bakker, (who has PhDs from both Harvard and
Yale) is not only one of the leading, and most recognizable
paleontologists in the world today, but he also happens to be a
Bible-believing Pentecostal preacher; though he interprets Genesis
differently than literalists would. In his book, Bones,
Bibles and Creation,
he says that to treat the Bible as though it were common history is
to degrade its eternal meaning. One of the earliest geneticists,
Theodosius Dobzhansky was an Orthodox Christian who many times
professed his belief that life was created by God, but that nothing
in biology made sense except in light of evolution. All these men
agree that even if there really is a god, and even if that god is the
Christian god, and even if that god created the universe and
everything in it, -which they all believe- evolution would still be
at least mostly true, and creationism would still be completely
wrong.
What we are bothered about, by people like you Lie2Lie, is that you are shameless willfully ignorant liars.
“Why is it that dinosaur bones and human bones have been found together in the same rock strata?”
There is no evidence of this happening.
Ever.
There have been periodic claims of human footprints, teeth, etc. being found together with dinosaur tracks or other fossils. None of this fossil evidence is credible; all cases of "human remains" from the time of the dinosaurs have been investigated and found to be either forgeries or misidentifications. For more detailed information, visit 'The Texas Dinosaur/"Man Track" Controversy'.
Ever.
There have been periodic claims of human footprints, teeth, etc. being found together with dinosaur tracks or other fossils. None of this fossil evidence is credible; all cases of "human remains" from the time of the dinosaurs have been investigated and found to be either forgeries or misidentifications. For more detailed information, visit 'The Texas Dinosaur/"Man Track" Controversy'.
“Btw, did you know that no human and no chicken bone has ever been fond together in the same rock strata. So we must conclude that humans and chickens have never lived together.”
“Why is it that sea shells have been found on top of mountains like Mt. Everest? Now, I don't believe that the Flood water was over Mt. Everest, I think Mt. Everest was under the water. The last parts of the Flood, mountains rose, the valleys sank down, and the water rushed off. Why are sea shells on top of these mountains if the evolution theory is true?”
"Now, I don't believe that the Flood water was over Mt. Everest, I think Mt. Everest was under the water."
THAT'S THE SAME THING.
“Why is it that the human genome research has actually found out that all these supposed races are actually one race? There are no races of people, there are people groups. Like they even show in this Creation magazine that there are these twin girls that were black and white. That' right, all people are related.”
This is no objection to the theory of evolution, which says that everyone shares a common ancestor.
“Why is it that many dictators throughout history used the evolutionary theory to fuel their eugenics movement to wipe out supposed inferior races? Why? Just questions.”
This video by Aron Ra was made 5 years ago.
“Why is it that Ernest Heckle admitted to lying? He as convicted of fraud when he admitted to faking the drawings of these embryos.”
This video by Aron Ra was made 6 years ago.
“With the supposed evolution of man, why is it that Nebraska man, all they have found for Nebraska man was just one tooth that was later found out to belonged to an extinct pig? Why is it that Piltdown man, which was a human skullcap and a ape's jaw bone put together to fool all the experts? It was in the textbooks for over 40 years, yet it was a fraud. Why is it that Neanderthal man was discovered to be nothing more than an old man with arthritis? The Neanderthals are nothing more than a perfectly normal human people living to be 300 to 400 years old because a dentist found out that the bones on you face never stop growing. You never notice it until you reach 70, 80, 90, or 100 years old, but the bones of your eyebrow ridge stick out so that the Neanderthals were nothing but perfectly normal people who lived to be over 300 and 400 years old, which actually proves the Bible.”
This video by Aron Ra was made 6 years ago.
“Why is it that Lucy was discovered only to be nothing more than a chimpanzee? And why did they put human feet on Lucy when not one foot bone was found?”
We did not just find one Lucy fossil. We've found a dozen or so Lucy specimens, which did have feet. Plus we have found footprints of Lucy (Australopithecus afarensis) in the late 1970's at Laetoli, Tanzania.
To lean more how we know Lucy walked upright at was one of our ancestors, read more here.
To lean more how we know Lucy walked upright at was one of our ancestors, read more here.
“Why is it that they are discovering now that the differences between apes and humans much bigger than they thought it was? They supposedly say that 95% of you – even if that is true, that is a gap of 48 million nucleotides when only a change of three nucleotides is fatal to ay animal?”
This is based on a quote shared on most comon creatnist sites.
"Geneticist Barney Maddox reported from a study in 1992 that science has now quantitated that a genetic mutation of as little as 1 billionth (0.0000001%) of an animal’s genome is relentlessly fatal. The genetic difference between human and his nearest relative, the chimpanzee, is at least 1.6% Calculated out that is a gap of at least 48 million nucleotide differences that must be bridged by random changes. Any random change of only 3 nucleotides is fatal to an animal. It is now held that random change in a complex, specific, functioning system destroys that system."You won't find this "three nucleotides are fatal" thing in any scientific paper or research - Maddox pulled it out of his rear-end. Anyone who knows anything about genetics understands this, but Maddox isn't talking to people who understand genetics, he's spreading misinformation to people who already misunderstand.
“Why is it that life can't evolve with or without oxygen? I mean, the Miller-Urey Experiment was proven to be a fraud when they filtered out amino acids and all they made was mostly tar and most of these things that are harmful to life?”
Scientists have actually discovered oxygen may not be required after all to form complex life.
The Miller-Urey Experiment was not proven to be a fraud. It still remains a valid scientific experiment examining the possibility for the building blocks of life to form naturally.
Chemistry Nobel laurete Harold Urey,
Miller’s advisor at the University of Chicago, was so skeptical
that he did not encourage his student to use this as a Ph.D.
dissertation. Miller persisted and enclosed water vapor (H2O),
ammonia (NH3), methane (CH4) and hydrogen (H2) in a glass flask and
used electrical discharges, stimulating lightening, as a source of
energy to facilitate chemical interactions.
Even Miller was astonished by the
results. At the end of the week of allowing these reactions to occur,
the water in the flask was deep red and turbid. About 10 percent of
the available carbon was converted into organic compounds (including urea (CO(NH2)2),
hydrogen cyanide (CHN), acetic acid (CH3COOH), and lactic
acid (CH3COH2COOH) ) of which
two percent were amino acids, the building blocks of proteins. These
remarkable findings stimulated research around the new world and
started a new field of investigation in primitive earth or prebiotic
chemistry. Importantly, some of these studies also showed the
formation of short chains of amino acids known as peptides.
In 1969 a meteorite fell in Murchison,
Australia. Analysis of its chemical composition showed that it
contained the same amino acids in the relative amounts as the
compounds produced in Miller’s experiment. These findings supported
the Oparin-Hypothesis about how organic precursors to primitive life
could have been made. The Miller-Urey experiment was only a start
toward understanding the possible origins of life on earth.
Lie2Lie must be referring to the cyanide and formaldehyde discover amongst the mixtures. However, Cyanide and formaldehyde are necessary building blocks for important biochemical compounds, including amino acids (Source: Abelson, P. 1996. Chemical events on the primitive earth. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science USA 55: 1365-1372.). They are not toxins in this context.
“Why is it that the lower rib is the only bone in the human body that can grow back if you take it out?”
Ugh, dude, any rib can grow back.
“Why is it that human and dinosaur footprints have been found together in the same rock strata?”
Example????
“Why is it that so many giant human skeletons have been found, which actually confirms the verse in the Bible in Genesis 6:4 that there were giants on the earth in those days?”
Most of these "giant skeletons" have been proven to be hoaxes.
Potholer54 made this video 2 years ago.
Here is a video made 8 years ago that reviews each of Kent Hovind's examples of giants (starting @ 15:15).
Potholer54 made this video 2 years ago.
Here is a video made 8 years ago that reviews each of Kent Hovind's examples of giants (starting @ 15:15).
“Why are there petrified trees found, even upside down, connected in many of these different rock layers? That just hows that those rock layers aren't millions of years old, and they formed at the same time together.”
This video by potholer54 was made 4 years ago.
“Why is it that there are lot of bent rock layers all over the Earth's surface? As both you and I know, rock does not bend very good. That just confirms that they were still furling a unfurling off, which fits perfectly well with Biblical flood. You ay say 'oh because it was molten earth, and all these layers were able to bend he rock because they were not solid yet' well sedimentary rock is non-volcanic.”
Rocks do fold without breaking when bent very slowly under pressure.
Laboratory experiments demonstrate as much (Source: Friedman, M., R. H. H. Hugman III and J. Handin, 1980. Experimental
folding of rocks under confining pressure, part VIII -- forced folding
of unconsolidated sand and of lubricated layers of limestone and
sandstone. Geological Society of America Bulletin 91: 307-312.). Increased temperature can also increase the flow rate.
Some rocks ("weak" ones) flow more easily than others ("competent" ones). Layers of different rocks will sometimes have broken rocks in some layers and not others.
Deformation is not limited to sedimentary layers. There are deformed quartzite pebbles near Death Valley.
Some rocks ("weak" ones) flow more easily than others ("competent" ones). Layers of different rocks will sometimes have broken rocks in some layers and not others.
Deformation is not limited to sedimentary layers. There are deformed quartzite pebbles near Death Valley.
“Why is it that human artifacts have been fond in rocks supposed to be millions of years old? You know, it's just a fact hat you've got to question the Geologic timescale, which was made up out of the thin clear blue sky, and the fact at it is not millions of years old. You've got to question the Geologic Column.”
This video by potholer54 was made 3 years ago.
“Why is it that Darwin is considered a great scientist when he only ever got a theology degree?”
Because of his SCIENTIFIC discoveries.
How hard is that to understand?
How hard is that to understand?
“Why is it that a lot of explorers have gone out to the Congo in Africa (and even into the Amazon, and many other secluded lakes in the world, especially in northern Japan) have reported live dinosaurs swimming in these lakes, in these rivers, in all these secluded areas? I mean, they often ask the question ' how did the dinosurs go extinct?' That's the wrong question, the real question is 'did the dinosaurs go extinct?'”
The reputed "dinosaur,"
Mokele-mbembe, is folklore. O'Hanlon (Source: O'Hanlon, Redmond.
1997. No Mercy: A journey to the heart of the Congo. New York:
Knopf. pg 373. See also: Book reviews. Smithsonian Magazine, 1998
(Aug.),
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/smithsonian/issues98/aug98/bookreview_aug98.html)
reported the answer upon asking a native if he had seen
Mokele-mbembe:
"What a stupid question," said Doubla, looking genuinely surprised. . . . "Mokele-mbembe is not an animal like a gorilla or python. And Mokele-mbembe is not a sacred animal. It doesn't appear to people. It is an animal of mystery. It exists because we imagine it. But to see it--never. You don't see it."
Other reports, though some treat
Mokele-mbembe as real, are also folkloric; they make good stories,
but there is no tangible evidence. It is nigh impossible that a
population of very large, very distinctive land animals could have
eluded human exploration so completely.
The photo provided by Mr. Kent Hovind
(as well as other young earth creationists) is a sketch drawn by Earl
and Bonnie Snellenberger, who are obviously not Congo pygmies. They
are illustrators for children's books, more specifically ''children's
creationist book''! These children's books still teach that dinosaurs
are still alive today. So Ken's evidence that there might be a
dinosaur because of the remarkable physiological characteristics
found in the drawing is based on the fact that it was deliberately
drawn that way by two creationist artists. We might as well conclude
that people kept dinosaurs as pets based on what we see in the
cartoon show "The Flintstones."
"Why is it that the whale has not been proven to have a "vestigial pelvis" wen those bones are used for reproduction"I recall several video years ago addressing this, but it seems the channels are no longer active.
But I am a fan of a actual scientist on YouTube from Alaska, who has made many videos refuting creationist nonsense. This video by LithodidMan was made 3 years ago.
"Why hasn't it been proven that humans do not have a vestigial tailbone? 9 little muscles connect to that tail bone, and that tail bone is now used for balance when you are sitting down."Our current tailbone may have nothing to do with a tail, the whole point it that it once did.
Our tailbone may function as a shock absorber, but we can and have proven that we once had actual tails which we lost. Atavisms are great examples, were many babies are born with long tails (most have them surgically removed shortly after birth).
The coccyx was already addressed, and yet creationist still think that scientists claim that vestigial means "useless" -- this is incorrect. "Vestigial" does not mean an organ is useless. A vestige is a "trace or visible sign left by something lost or vanished."
Even if creationists can still rule out the human coccyx (which they haven't) they still turn a blind eye to other vestigial organs in other animals, such as leg bones in snakes, eye remnants in blind cave fish, extra toe bones in horses, wing stubs on flightless birds and insects, and molars in vampire bats.
"Why is it that it has also been proven that your appendix is not even vestigial. You can live without your appendix, but you are going to have far higher chance of quite a few diseases. And the fact that you can live without something -- I mean, you can live without both your arms ad both your legs and both your eyes, that does not mean yo don't need it. And the fact that you can live without something, proves the amazing design of your body. How many parts of car have to be right in order to make it work? All of them together. Only one loose screw can scatter you all over the highway. But the fact that you can live without something from your body, that's amazing design. That's amazing revelation, amafzing credit goes to God, and glory for him."Vestigial does not mean functionless. The appendix appears as part of the tissues of the digestive system; it is homologous to the end of the mammalian caecum. Since it does not function as part of the digestive system, it is a vestigial part of that system, no matter what other functions it may have.
"Why is it that radio polonium halos have actually been found that prove the earth was never a hot molten mass? Why? Just questions."Plutonium halos have been refuted.
"Why is it that there have been vegetarian lions and vegetarian sharks and vegetarian bears discovered all over the place? You might say 'oh because they mutated, they're not doing what they are supposed to do' well, perhaps ts a through-back to original Creation when everything lived in harmony, and everything was vegetarian. There is evidence of lions have been vegetarian, that bears have eaten grass. Ken Hovind had a friend who said he saw his bears at grass in his front yard for over two hours."There is only one example of a vegetarian lioness, Little Tyke. Only one. Out of an entire population o lions and other felines.
Bears are omnivores.
Name one example of a vegetarian shark, NAME ONE
"Why is it that erosion marks in places that hardly ever rain on this Earth? I mean, that is evidence of great flooding on this planet."
"Why is it that they say the Shara desert is no more an 4,000 years old? If the Earth is millions of years old, why don't we have a bigger desert?"True, the Shara Desert is only a few thousand years old. (Source: The Times Atlas of World History. 1978. Edited by Geoffrey Barraclough Hammond Incorporated, Maplewood, New Jersey 07040) But it has nothing to do with the age of the earth as a whole, just the Sahara Desert.
"Why does the Big Bang contradict science? Big bangs make big messes. If the Big Bang Theory were true, matter would be evenly distributed throughout the universe, and it's not."The Big Bang does not contradict science. At all.
In fact, scientists have recently confirmed another prediction of the Big Bang theory: the Inflation. For tho who are slow of learning (Lie2Lie), here is a comic that explains what Inflation is.
"Why is it that evolution does no explain morality, right and wrong? See, people are often borrowing from the Christian worldview that something is RIGHT or WRONG. Evolution has no foundation, where man sets the rules which leads to all sorts of immorality and moral relativism."Evolution has no more need to explain morality than the theory of gravity. Gravity says if you drop something, it will all. Does that mean it's okay to drop babies?
Saying people who use morality are "borrowing" from the Christian worldview (which has borrowed so much from earlier religions and pagans) is false and hilariously ludicrous. To understand the degree of stupidity of such a claim, it is like someone claiming that any person who uses grammar in their speech are "borrowing" from the English language.
There are many secular methods of morality. Claiming that only morality with a god, or to say God is the source of goodness, is irrational or superfluous, as you can read about here: God and Goodness.
You may also want to read My Systematic, Naturalistic Empowerment Ethics
So, if you think that the theory of evolution is useless, billions of healthy and well fed people prove you dead wrong.
The truth is, most of the scientific branches were invented by the Greeks and Romans, who were PAGANS.
Oh really???? Is that why it only mentions it only two times?
This video as made 8 years ago, start watching @ 5:35 for the flood myths.
"Why is it that evolution has not given us any advancement in science whatsoever. Can you name me one advancement humans have the because of the evolutionary theory? There's nothing, it's just useless."The theory of evolution is not useless nor has it contributed nothing to humanity. Humanity owes a great deal to the theory of evolution, especially in medicine and agriculture. In fact, Norman Borlaug, the man who fed a billion people worldwide was awarded a Nobel Prize, due to his understanding of evolution, he was able to grow plants faster and more abundantly, thereby feeding people all around the world.
So, if you think that the theory of evolution is useless, billions of healthy and well fed people prove you dead wrong.
"I just want to tell you that most branches of science were created by biblical creationists."Wrong!!!!!!!
The truth is, most of the scientific branches were invented by the Greeks and Romans, who were PAGANS.
- Aristotle performed numerous dissection and vivisection experiments in animal anatomy and physiology - composing the most scientific range of zoological works then known.
- His successor, Theophrastus, extended this work to botany and plant physiology, and produced the earliest known works in pyrology, mineralogy, and other fields.
- His successor, Strato of Lamsacus, extended their experimental method to machines and physics - by which many of Aristotle's physical theories were altered or abandoned.
- A research institute was built in Alexandria, Egypt in the third century BCE, in which Ctesibius and Philo completed the first known scientific works in experimental pneumatics.
- Eratosthenes invented the science of cartography and was one of the first scientists in history to measure the diameter of the earth (he was off by 15% - not bad), and he analyzed the effect of the moon on the tides.
- Herophilus became the first scientist to dissect human cadavers. Also, he and his pupil Erasistrus originated neurophysiology, establishing with detailed experiments that the mind is a function of the brain and the specific mental functions were controlled in specific areas of the brain, and they distinguished motor from sensory nerves and mapped them throughout the body. Altogether. their study of the human body and its bones, muscles, and organs, was so thorough that we still use much of their anatomical terminology.
- In Sicily, their colleague Archimedes was advancing sciences of mechanics and hydrostatics, and discovering, describing, or explaining the first mathematical laws of physics.
- Aristarchus began measuring the distances of the moon, sun and planets, and proposed the first heliocentric theory.
- In Rhodes, Hipparchus discovered and measured celestial precession, observed the first supernova, established the first detailed scientific star charts, made numerous advances in planetary theory, and developed the first scientific system for predicting lunar and solar eclipses.
- Seleucus of Babylon discovered the effect of the sun on the tides (not just the moon), and developed the first mathematical lunisolar tide theory.
"The Bible has given credit to a lot of scientific advancement. Did you know the word "science" appears in the Bible twice? Nebuchadnezzar took for himself young men who we cunning in knowledge and understanding science. Paul said "Timothy, be careful of science has falsely so called." Evolution is no part of science, and that is the point ware trying to get across you."//The Bible has given credit to a lot of scientific advancement.//
Oh really???? Is that why it only mentions it only two times?
"Why is it that they are sill discovering water under the crust of the Earth? I mean, there is no other explanation other than the fact that that is just left over water from when the fountains of the deep opened. Water is now in the oceans."
The chemistry of water may be measured
as to its constituents, as any municipal water authority already
knows. Under flood conditions, the water chemistry in a confined
aquifer would have changed as lower elevation aquifers would contain
more salt than higher aquifers as the flood waters diluted the salt
content in the recharge zone. Not only is this behavior not shown by
any known confined aquifer, but the age of such water according to
the laws of physics is vastly older than any flood may have
deposited.
Furthermore, the "fountains of the deep" is illogical, implausible, has no evidence, and in fact contradicts the available evidence.
Even two miles deep, the earth is boiling hot (260 to 270 degrees C at
5.656 miles in one borehole), and thus the reservoir
of water would be superheated. Further heat would be added by the
energy of the water falling from above the atmosphere. As with the
vapor canopy model, Noah would have been poached.
The escaping waters would have eroded the sides of the fissures,
producing poorly sorted basaltic erosional deposits. These would be
concentrated mainly near the fissures, but some would be shot thousands
of miles along with the water. Such deposits would be quite noticeable
but have never been seen.
"Why is it that there are flood legends in culture all over the world, which have never even heard of the Bible? Why? Just questions."Lie2Lie must be refering to Kent Hovind's list of "flood legends" where Hovind tries to stretch and misinform his viewers that there are flood myths around the world that look like the Noah story.
This video as made 8 years ago, start watching @ 5:35 for the flood myths.
"Why is it there is evidence that petrification does not take long? It does not take millions of years. A petrified hat was once found."This video by potholer54 was made 4 years ago.
"Why is it that there is evidence that coal a oil are able to reform quickly? Just another fact that it doesn't take million of years -- that's one hundred years worth. There are stalactites under the Lincoln memorial. There were coalmines that were shut down for 55 years, and when they opened them up, there were huge cave formations in just 55 years."
It depends on the mineral that composes
the growing stalactites. Limestone (calcium carbonate) is only
slightly soluble in water and requires acidic water. Deposition is
therefore very slow, especially considering hat water must seep
through the soil ad limestone rock about the cave. (Source: Polyak,
V. J., W. C. McIntosh, N. Gien and P. Provencio, 1998. Age and Origin
of Calsbed Cavern and related caves from 40Ar/39AR of alunite.
Science 279:1919-1922. See also Sasowski, I. D., 1998.
Determining the age is not there. Science 279: 1874.)
Concrete, on the other hand, creates a large amount of calcium
hydroxide. Calcium hydroxide is several hundred times more soluble in
water than calcium carbonate. (Source: Moore, George W. and Nicholas
G. Sullivan. 1978. Speleology: The study of caves Zephyrus Press,
Inc. Teeneck) When you take into account that these rapidly forming
stalactites occur near leaking pipes, their rate of formation cannot
be used to correlate natural stalactite formation.
"Why is it that the moon's distance from the Earth does not fit in well with the Big Bang Theory in a Evolutionary worldview? The moon moves farther from the Earth every year, about 3 inches a year. You can't claim that just about 1.2 billion years go, it was touching the Earth. So that explains what happened to the tall dinosaurs."Math Check: Rate of moon recession: 3.8 cm/yr and Distance from moon to earth: 3.85x1010 cm. Therefore, 3.85x1010 cm / 3.8 cm/yr = ~1.0x1010 yr. That's 10 billion years. The earth is only 4-5 billion years old. See the problem?
“Why is it that the Earth's Magnetic field is declining? And there is no fact that it has reversed. And it fitsinto the timescale that it can't be olde than 25,000 years. I mean, it becomes so powerful that in the past, it would be to powerful for life exist.”
The "decaying electric core"
model has been obsolete for many years. Furthermore, measurements
used to support the theory only used dipole field measurements. The
dipole field is only part of the earth's total magnetic field.
(Source: Barnes, Thomas G. 1973. Origin and Density of Earth's
magnetic field, ICR Technical Monograph No. 4 El Cajon, CA:ICR) The
actual evidence supports the dynamo model. (Source: Elassar, Walter
M. 1946-1947. "Introduction effects in terrestrial magneticism." Physical Review, series 2, vol. 69, pg. 106-116; vol. 7 pg.
202-212) This model allows for magnetic reversals which have been
documented. (Source: Gee, J. S. et al. 2000. Geomagnetic intensity
variations over the past 780 kyr obtained from near seafloor magnetic
anomalies. Nature 408:827-832) Finally, the dipole field has
been observed too increase. (Source: McElhinny, M. W., and W. E.
Senanayake. 1982. "Variations in the Geomagnetic dipole I: The
Past 50,000 years" Journal of Geomagneticism and
Geoelectricity 34:39-51).
As for Mr. Hovind's logic that the
earth's magnetic field is weakening, lets show why this is absolutely
ridiculous. Yesterday, the temperature was 1 degree warmer than
today. This overwhelming and obvious evidence must mean that the
earth is cooling. Trace it back, last year the earth must have been
365 degrees hotter. Based on world-wide experience (and common sense)
this did not happen. The earth's magnetic field does shift, and what
is the real mystery is how Mr. Kent Hovind is so easily willing to
shamelessly lie to the audience. Polar reversals have been documented
worldwide, not just at the Midatlantic Ridge, but at many oceans and
lava flows. The claim that the stronger magnetic field would not
allow life is demonstrably false. First proposed by creationist
Thomas G. Barnes (another creationist with a phony PhD), which he
claimed that a stronger magnetic field would not allow life to
survive more than 10,000 years ago. Unfortunately, he failed to
provide any evidence for his idea, furthermore his speculation that
the field strength is and always will be declined by experts as
totally meaningless, because w can and have actually measured the
historical field strength and proved that it fluctuates.
“Why is it that dinosaur and blood tissue have been found that is not even fossilized? They are not gone away or decayed yet. It's not 65 million years old. If you want to believe that, sure go ahead."
There was no blood. This video by potholer54 was made 4 years ago,
"You title your videos "Holy Hallucinations" -- but come to think about it, I've never had a hallucination in my life."Given your history of chronic lying, don't be surprised when I don't believe this.
"Why is it that there isn't anything scientific abut the Evolutionary Theory? Why is it that you are defending a theory that say we came from a rock? I would like to ask, why don't we see evolution happening? You may try to say 'well, that it because it happens slowly over millions of years' well why don't we see that in the fossil record? You may say 'oh well evolution happened quickly' you just contradicted yourself. See, the fact is, I don't need an answer from you for all these questions. These are questions that don't need an answer, these are questions designed to change somebody's attitude, and I feel that you, TheLivngDiosaur, have a attitude d I don't appreciate that."
We are not defending a theory that says we com from a rock. It is easy to say that any theory is not scientific when you have absolutely no understanding of it.
95% of scientists accept evolution, not creationism. Whose in the minority now?
Evolution is not a "worldview" anymore than gravity. Evolution is a fact just like gravity.
Was there even a Jesus?
I will write a blog on this in the very near future.
Kent Hovind can't even read a 8th grade science book correctly, should we expect he can even read his beloved holy book?
Evolution
explains how life diversifies, not how it began. Since evolution at
every level is -by definition- limited to the variation of allele
frequencies inherited over generations of living organisms, then it
obviously can’t operate where no genomes yet exist. The
evolutionary process starts with genetics and can’t start before
it. So how the first genes came about may seem similar to evolution,
and may even involve a form of natural selection in some way, but it
is in fact a very different chemical process called 'abiogenesis'.
We do observe evolution happening, both in the lab and in nature. We have observed speciation, the
emergence of a distinctly new species (ie. macroevolution).
"You are free to believe whatever you want, you can mock me, but what you have to understand is that you're in the minority and that your worldview is contradicting the clear scientific evidence. And you are calling Jesus a liar. And all you atheists can say is "na-na-nee-ner-you're-so-stupid' but you can make fun of us all you want, but that does not make you right. Swearing does not make you right."A perfect example of ultimate projection.
95% of scientists accept evolution, not creationism. Whose in the minority now?
Evolution is not a "worldview" anymore than gravity. Evolution is a fact just like gravity.
Was there even a Jesus?
"Did you know that Einstein's hero was Michael Faraday, Isaac Newton, and James Clerk Maxwell, who were all biblical creationists."To quote TheLivingDinosaur from Holy Hallucinations 7:
"They weren’t just religious – they were also rationalists. I very much doubt that if these individuals were of “your kind”, they would have made the progress they did because your absolute dogmatism, your smug insistence that your books are true, does nothing but stifle the quest for knowledge since you already know the answer to everything: “God did it.” While these men were working, “your kind” were making themselves useful by calculated how many angels could fit on the head of a pin.
And, in fact, besides not contributing to humanity’s progress, your kind has actively retarded it. The middle east used to be the world’s center of learning before Islam reared its ugly head, and the Muslim equivalents of your kind seen to it that it has remained in a time warp.
In Europe, progress ground to a halt for over a thousand years as any ideas that countered you bible were crushed ruthlessly by your kind. In fact, it’s particularly telling that Copernicus delayed publication of his “On the revolutions of the heavenly spheres” because he feared the scorn and perhaps the retribution of “your kind”, that your kind jailed Gallieo for expounding helio-centric model and that your kind did not allow the publication of Copernicus’ book for almost 300 years after his death.
And today it is your kind that’s trying to remove evolution from science class or insist that your stupid stories are taught beside it. It’s your kind that helped prevent stem cell research that could save millions from devastating disease, and it’s your kind that sticks its nose into the private lives of others when its none of your fucking business.
So as you can see, my earlier criticism wasn’t against the religious in general. It was against that subset of believers that refuse to think. That refuse to shift their unbending dogmatic positions against a constantly changing reality. That try their hardest to drag our modern world back to the dark ages. Those moronic, retarded religious nutjobs like you."
"You, TheLivingDnosaur, might say 'well, what about all the contradictions in the Bible?' well there aren't any. Just watch this video here."
I will write a blog on this in the very near future.
Kent Hovind can't even read a 8th grade science book correctly, should we expect he can even read his beloved holy book?
"See, evolution is a religion. And you are always trying to prove evolution wrong. And that is what I'm trying to do, I'm trying to prove evolution wrong."Wrong.
Evolution as religion has even been rejected by the courts:
Assuming for the purposes of argument, however, that evolution is a religion or religious tenet, the remedy is to stop the teaching of evolution, not establish another religion in opposition to it. Yet it is clearly established in the case law, and perhaps also in common sense, that evolution is not a religion and that teaching evolution does not violate the Establishment Clause.The court cases Epperson v. Arkansas, Willoughby v. Stever, and Wright v. Houston Indep. School Dist.
"I will come out at say that Yes I am a big fan of Kent Hovind. Back in the past, when people used to say 'oh he's stupid, he's wrong, he's not an educated scientist' sure I vulnerably caught into it and I just said 'okay.' But the more I researched, the more I studied, the more I searched it up for myself, I keep on finding that this man was right all along."
Right all along?
You are defending the man who said that a drop of water can cover the whole Earth.
The guy who doesn't understand the difference between a genome and chromosome.
The idiot who thinks clouds blocks x-rays, as well as water existing above the atmosphere.
The idiot who thinks lizards never stop growing.
The idiot who thinks peach pits cure cancer, when in fact they are very poisonous.
You are defending the man who said that a drop of water can cover the whole Earth.
The guy who doesn't understand the difference between a genome and chromosome.
The idiot who thinks clouds blocks x-rays, as well as water existing above the atmosphere.
The idiot who thinks lizards never stop growing.
The idiot who thinks peach pits cure cancer, when in fact they are very poisonous.
"And I want to you, TheLivingDinosaur, you can't compare gravity and evolution. It's just utter silliness, and you're comparing apples and oranges."
It is not silliness or comparing apples to oranges. Darwin’s
theory is actually better-supported than Newton’s theory of
gravity.
Let’s
look at the facts. Remember that a fact is merely data, a
demonstrably accurate observation which is indisputable because it
can be objectively verified by either side arguing about it. So let’s
demonstrate the fact of gravity. We see that things tend to fall
down. What’s that mean? Well, nothing yet; a fact on its own is
meaningless. We need to understand it more specifically. When seen on
an astronomical scale, we can determine a universal rule; that matter
attracts matter. This is the law of gravity; a law being a general
statement of nature which is always true under a specific set of
circumstances. Now why does matter attract matter? That’s the
theory!
Now
let’s look at the fact of evolution. Since the dawn of livestock
cultivation and agriculture, we’ve seen that species diverge, with
new races branching out of older family trees, each with its own
distinct traits and features which are in-turn inherited by new
variants diverging thereafter. This is a readily evident fact in any
lineage one cares to examine, and is implied at every level in
taxonomy. Now creationists try to say that this doesn’t count
because it’s only “microevolution”. But that isn’t true
because we’ve actually witnessed the emergence of new species too.
But even if that were true, this would still count because it is
still evolution according to the laws of population genetics and
descent with inherent modification which is all evolution really is.
"If you have a theory, but the facts don't fit your theory, throw you're theory away. People would've thrown away evolutionary theory a long time ago, except they don't have another replacement except creationism."
There
is no other theory. Creationists only ever had a few hypotheses, and
all of them were utterly refuted; although they’ll never accept
that. They’re still trying to revive arguments that have been
already proven wrong at least a century ago. Evolution with natural
selection is the only explanation of biodiversity with either
evidentiary support or scientific validity. There has only ever been
one alternative theory against it, and it was an earlier version of
evolution.
It
is a fact that evolution happens; that biodiversity and complexity
does increase, that both occur naturally only by evolutionary
mechanisms and according to the laws of population genetics.
It
is a fact that alleles vary with increasing distinction in
reproductive populations and that these are accelerated in
genetically isolated groups.
It
is a fact that natural selection, sexual selection, and genetic drift
have all been proven to have predictable effect in guiding this
variance, both in the scientific literature and in practical
application.
It
is a fact that significant beneficial mutations do occur and are
inherited by descendant groups, and that multiple independent sets of
biological markers exist to trace these lineages backwards over many
generations.
It
is a fact that birds are a subset of dinosaurs the same way humans
are a subset of apes, primates, eutherian mammals, and vertebrate
deuterostome animals.
It
is a fact that the collective genome of all animals has been traced
to its most basal form through reverse sequencing, and that those
forms are also indicated by comparative morphology, physiology, and
embryological development as well a chronologically correct placement
of successive stages revealed in the geological column.
It
is a fact that everything on earth has definite relatives either
living nearby or evident in the fossil record, and that the fossil
record holds hundreds of definitely transitional species even
according to it’s strictest definition of that term.
It
is a fact that both microevolution and macroevolution have been
directly-observed and document dozens of time both in the lab and in
national controlled conditions in the field, and that instances have
all withstood critical analysis in peer-review.
It
is also a fact that evolution is the only explanation of biodiversity
with either evidential support or scientific validity and no would be
alternative notion has ever met even one of the criteria of being a
theory.
Evolution
is a fact!
Despite
the fact that creationists will lie about everything in this list,
these are the FACTS of evolution, meaning of each of these points are
demonstrably true and measurably accurate, thus it is a matter of
knowledge rather than mere belief.
"I'll tell you, there's loads of evidence, mountains of evidence, that people are not being shown. And liberal-biased classrooms ave prone New World schools. And you have loads of questions, loads of fallacies, loads of accusations, that Kent Hovind might have ready answered in his seminars -- which I am betting you haven't even seen yet."I have already seen each and every one of Kent Hovind Seminars, and I am not the only one...
These videos were made 8 years ago
Age of the Earth
Given that I have given multiple examples of videos addressing numerous of Lie2Lie's "questions" - he is not one to talk smug about not seeing certain footage.
In conclusion, these "loads of evidences for creationism"are non-existent. Lie2Lie is just as dishonest as ever.
