Kent Hovind #fundie

Kent Hovind #fundie kenthovindblog.com

1.Cosmic evolution: the origin of time/space/matter from nothing in the supposed “Big Bang”
2.Chemical evolution: all the elements “evolved” from hydrogen
3.Stellar evolution: stars formed from dust clouds
4.Organic evolution: life formed from non-living matter
5.Macro-evolution: plants and animals produce offspring different than their ‘kind’
6.Micro-evolution: variations develop within the kind such as big dogs and little dogs; bacteria becoming resistant to drugs; etc.

[...]

I would love to see Bill’s (or anyone else’s) best evidences for any of the first five definitions of evolution. Looks to me like anyone with one eye and half a brain can see that “God created the Heaven and the earth.”

BTW, world events s-u-u-u-r-e make ya think we are getting close to the end just as the Bible predicted. Meanwhile — WIN SOULS!

33 comments

old comment by Happy Atheist

Just calling it evolution does not make it so, Mr Hovind.

Your 'cosmic evolution' is simply called the 'Big Bang Theory', and whilst knowledge about it is admittedly scarce, red shift, should you care to read into it a little more, suggests it to be true.

Your 'chemical evolution' for one is actually called 'nuclear fusion' and we can do that already. See: Hydrogen Bombs.

Your 'stellar evolution' is simply 'star formation' and it has been observed through means other than sight. See: Wide-field Infrared Survey Explorer

Your 'organic evolution' is called 'abiogenesis' and can even be further broken down into geophysical, chemical, and biological abiogenesis. Again, it's early days for this science, but the Miller-Urey experiment has shown that amino acids, that is to say the building blocks of life, can be created in conditions similar to early Earth.

The only things on your list that are actually accurately described as evolution are 'macro-evolution' and 'micro-evolution' and these two things are in fact one and the same. Macro evolution is micro evolution plus time. Just as nanoseconds ticking away will eventually cause a millennium to pass.

Evolution is the origin of species. The keyword there is species, not origin. Evolution does not mean origin. But if you are going to try and muddy evolution by associating it with a bunch of other scientific fields in an attempt to call it into question, perhaps use some that are more contested by the scientific community and the world at large, Mr Hovind.

old comment by Big Jilm

Yes, you are dumb.

Astronomy != Biology first of all.

No one nor the Big Bang theory claim everything came from nothing so you can drop that lie, as any conclusion you make based on that faulty premise will be wrong. Everything existed and then changed form. Why is that so difficult to understand. Irrelevant to Evolution, though.

Yeah, we're not any closer to the end than previous times in History. Maybe you should learn some, considering the Dark Ages humanity was waaaaay closer to extinction (the Black Plague, for example, killed of a major part of the European population).

You fucks have absolutely no credibility and no one should take your ill-informed, insane ramblings as anything serious.

old comment by Dr. Razark

1. That's not evolution. Attempting to redefine "evolution" does not make it so.
2. That's not evolution. Attempting to redefine "evolution" does not make it so.
3. That's not evolution. Attempting to redefine "evolution" does not make it so.
4. That's not evolution. Attempting to redefine "evolution" does not make it so.
5. That's not evolution. Attempting to redefine "evolution" does not make it so. Also, "kind" has no scientific meaning, so it has no place in a discussion of science.
6. Holy crap, you finally got to evolution. Now, what happens when a bunch of small changes take place over a long period of time in two different populations?

old comment by Swede

1. Not from "nothing", but from a tiny singularity, that might be the imploded "remains" of an older universe.
4, 5 and 6. Organic evolution consist of micro and macro evolution, nitwit. Micro are the first steps on a mile-long walk, macro are the final steps. Macro evolution is just a whole bunch of micro evolutions. Dog isn't a species, wolf is. Dogs are micro evolutions of wolf. Give it another million years or so, and the different types will no longer be able to procreate, and you'll have macro evolution.

Evolution is about adaptation and diversity of life, through random mutation and natural selection. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the "creation" of the Heaven and the Earth, silly.

The End was supposed to happen within the lifetime of the disciples, dumbass! THAT is what the Bible predicted. Meanwhile, IS is "winning" souls for your god in millions, in the old favorite fashion; CONVERT OR DIE!

old comment by Pmorg

1) Not evolution, we're working on that, though. Number of hypotheses on that.
2) Not evolution. That's called NUCLEAR FUSION. And we have PLENTY of evidence it exists. Aside from the fusion we've managed to do, all you need do is look at the sun.
3) Not evolution. Closer to a 'life'. We have plenty of evidence of this again. Look it up.
4) Not evolution. Chemistry. Found a fair bit of evidence that organic molecules can be formed via chemical processes that can occur in a lifeless environment.
5) You believe in micro-evolution. Micro-evolution would compound over time to induce macro-evolution.
6) Genes. Mutations. Genetic experimentation. You know, all those things' we've proven, induced and such?

old comment by John

I would love to see Bill’s (or anyone else’s) best evidences for any of the first five definitions of evolution.

Following supernova SN1987A, we observed the light signatures of the various radioactive elements as they went through the same decay progressions they go through on earth. That tells us that (a) the elements were newly created, and (b) the laws of physics (and the speed of light) are the same there as they are here. That dispense with (2) and (3). (5) is useless until you define "kind". Creationists won't do that, because they know that if they do, sooner or later science will prove them wrong. That's why the Roman Catholic Church knew better and abandoned literal interpretations of Genesis 1,600 years ago.

Kent Hovind #fundie kenthovindblog.com

33 comments

Confused?