Jump to content

Hovind / Shermer On Evolution Vs. Creationism


Recommended Posts

Wow...just listened to a debate between Michael Shermer (editor of Skeptic magazine) and Kent Hovind (right wing radical fundamentalist creationist freak) and DAMN if that Hovind doesn't know how to get you off the actual topic. One of his points (I SWEAR it) was "If evolution is true, how do we know right from wrong?"

 

:twitch: ...um... :twitch: ...what EXACTLY does that have to do with evolution? :twitch:

 

And his tactics...name-calling...ridiculing...no facts. What a fool.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And yet if you just scream loud enough, the idiot masses will follow.

 

We need more obnoxious people with bullhorns on our side I guess.

 

Boy, ethereal forces help us if that's what it takes to win the spiritual war.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One thing I learned from christian debators is that they never really answer questions, they just ask another question or try their best to change the topic all of a sudden. If someone says "God can't be proven" then they'll just say "God is invisible and not of the material world, so you're right in that he can't be proven, but we can know of his existence by what he's chosen to show us." But then 10 minutes later, they might respond to a question with "But God is everywhere." even though they just said otherwise. Just one reason why you can't argue with christians.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hovind's complete lack of understanding of evolution is astounding for his claim of having been a biology teacher for 30 years. For example, his insistent belief that when a "vestigial organ" in a creature is mentioned by an "evolutionist" (creationist term) as proof of evolution, they mean that the organ no longer has ANY useful function. Thus in his mind, the appendix in humans is not vestigial because it has been found to function in the immune system; the tiny pelvic and leg bones in a whale are not vestigial because they are anchor points for muscles related to reproduction; similar appendages in snakes are not vestigial legs but are used for mating since they "have no arms...and can't talk to say scoot over honey" (quote from Hovind in his debate with Shermer); and the human tailbone is not vestigial because it also has muscles attached to it that are vital for certain functions.

 

This guy was a BIOLOGY teacher. Did he not have to take any type of evolutionary biology in college to get his degree? Organs that become vestigial do NOT completely lose functionality and become useless hunks of bone or flesh just wasting space in the body. They lose their PRIMARY functionality and become relegated to some lesser function, some of which are so insignificant that the creature can completely live WITHOUT the organ. The fact that the organ still serves SOME function, be it minute or significant, does NOT mean the organ is NOT vestigial. *

 

I'd be willing to bet Hovind has been a fundie his entire life. His complete and utter ignorance of the evolutionary process can ONLY be the result of an all encompassing religious conviction to deny it because it is "a lie of satan."

 

I really just hate the ignorance of fundamentalists.

 

*http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/vestiges/appendix.html#misconceptions

Link to comment
Share on other sites

and the human tailbone is not vestigial because it also has muscles attached to it that are vital for certain functions.

Not to put too fine a point on it, but people who have their tailbones removed have no problems whatsoever with those "certain functions"

 

 

The whole idea that it's vital to those functions is just another Hovindesque lie...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.