Answering Dr. Dino: a handy reference

[wilfulton]

(I'd also like to know why some planets spin the other direction--is it the way they are formed, or is it their magnetivity?)

No, different magnetic fields will not change the rotation of the planets. The retrograde revolutions of Venus et. al, may be due to collisions during the formation of the Solar System iirc.

Err, actually, considering that every action in the universe has an equal and opposite reaction, I would not be surprised to see as many as half the planets in the universe spinning in the opposite direction.

[Lord Zentei]

(I'd also like to know why some planets spin the other direction--is it the way they are formed, or is it their magnetivity?)

No, different magnetic fields will not change the rotation of the planets. The retrograde revolutions of Venus et. al, may be due to collisions during the formation of the Solar System iirc.

Err, actually, considering that every action in the universe has an equal and opposite reaction, I would not be surprised to see as many as half the planets in the universe spinning in the opposite direction.

You misunderstand the post. It refers to the planets of a given solar system. The invocation of the action reaction law is inappropriate in this instance.

Due to the conservation of angular momentum, the rotation of the planets is that of the rotation of the solar nebula from which the solar system formed. A planet rorating in the opposite sense is an anomaly for that solar system. Other solar systems will have the majority of their planets rotating in the same direction (though not neccesarily the same direction as those of other solar systems).

[wolveraptor]

Ultimately, it depends on the planet's formation. When matter begins to clump together, it starts to spin, like the water in your faucet begins to swirl as it's sucked in. I have no idea why it does this, or what determines the direction it begins to spin. The same thing happened with the formation of the solar system, which is why most planets rotate in the same direction.

[Plushie]

I don't mean to sound like the upstart newbie, but there are a few questions that could be more intellectually honestly answered (Not A therefore B, AKA false choice fallacies are the result of saying "Then where'd God come from?", not any real arguement, though it does make your opponent think)

1. Where did the space for the universe come from?

We don't know.

It really is that simple. One of the great things that attracted me to a more materialistic viewpoint was the ability to say "I don't know, but I'm working on it".

Lack of knowledge on the subject does not, of course, give anyone the right to inject fantasy into it. We used to not know what lightning and thunder were, but did the "Zues throws thunderbolts" and "God gets angry" answers satisfy the men who eventually harnassed electricity?

Of course not. While you're free to hold your own beliefs, they mean exactly nothing to anyone but yourself until there's some substantiation.

(Repeat for questions 2 and 3)

4. How did matter get so perfectly organized?

Well, how do you define organized? Stable and predictable? So the crystal lattice of solid matter counts as organized? Well, you have to take into account the fact that, under different conditions, the lowest energy state of any specific matter might as well be "organized".

Perfectly organized? Well, when you consider things such as radioactive decay and natural nuclear fission (Oklo Reacter), it doesn't look like matter is all so perfectly organized.

5. Where did the energy come from to do all the organizing?

Matter will naturally tend towards its lowest possible energy state (a falling object loses potential energy as it falls and will lose all energy when it hits bottom and all its kinetic energy is converted into heat, sound, ground compression, and a small bounce). When the lowest possible energy state happens to be, say, quartz, then the matter will find itself in the state of quartz.

6. When, where, why, and how did life come from non-living matter?

We don't know for sure, but we've got several very promising theories on it. I highly suggest subscribing to some biology journals and finding a decent biologist at some university to chat up, you'll find the whole thing quite interesting.

7. When, where, why, and how did life learn to reproduce itself?

This is another thing that we don't know for sure but have some rather tantilizing ideas about. Again, check with the modern scientific community to learn about these fascinating hypotheses and theories.

8. With what did the first cell capable of sexual reproduction reproduce?

The leading theory at the moment is, I believe, that sexual reproduction is an offshoot of cellular genetic migration (the summer is far too advanced for me to remember the exact term, it starts with a D or an M or something, possibly a C) where two cells with simply exchange genetic material and move on. Eventually the roles become specialized so as the facilitate more efficient and total transfer.

9. Why would any plant or animal want to reproduce more of its kindsince this would only make more mouths to feed and decrease the chances of survival? (Does the individual have a drive to survive, or the species? How do you explain this?)

Quite simple. Those species that do not have a drive to reproduce will die out rather quickly. Those that do will survive and continue to thrive.

10. How can mutations (recombining of the genetic code) create any new, improved varieties? (Recombining English letters will never produce Chinese books.)

Mistake creates an extra chromosome, latter mistakes change the content of that 'some. Even something as simple as genetic duplication of a few codones could count for creating novel genetic code while still maintaining the previous.

11. Is it possible that similarities in design between different animals prove a common Creator instead of a common ancestor?

Yes, but always remember to not multiply beyond necessity. If you can adequetely explain things with a creator-less system, than the requirement of a (for now) additional supernatural entity are cut away as un-needed.

12. Natural selection only works with the genetic information available and tends only to keep a species stable. How would you explain the increasing complexity in the genetic code that must have occurred if evolution were true?

Natural selection indeed only acts upon available genes (imagine the surprise on a researchers face when he sees a group of bacteria he is studying selected for traits they do not possess), but they do not tend to keep species stable. It selects for the most environmentally beneficial trait. If a species has been evolving in the same niche for so long that they have become particularly well adapted to it and concievable mutations that could be drastically beneficial (enough so that they are strongly selected for) are few and far between, such as is the case with sharks and several other creatures, then it will remain basically the same until some completely novel mutation gives it such a great advantage over its competitors that its genes become dominant within the population over the next several generations.

13. When, where, why, and how did:

* Single-celled plants become multi-celled? (Where are the two and three-celled intermediates?)

Well, to condense your questions into a "how" or "why" type answer: two heads are better than one. In this case, two cells that worked together towards a common goal have a better chance of accomplishing it than one cell. Eventually, through continued contact and perhaps even many instances of conjugation (I remembered the word!) their individual genetic material become intertwined.

Look up the kingdom protista, its a beautiful kingdom full of multi-celled but still microscopic "colony" organisms arranged in a wide variety of shapes and sizes.

* Single-celled animals evolve?

Well you'll have to be more specific here. There is no such thing as a single-celled animal. Hell, the very definition of the kingdom Animalia includes "multi-celled". If you mean Eubacteria that resemble animals in characteristic outside mutli-celled, than it would take quite a while to explain.

Needless to say, all it requires is self-motivation and predatory habit, two things that addressed quite constantly on more scientific forums.

* Fish change to amphibians?

I believe there are several fish nowadays that are capable of hopping up on shore for a while (lung fish and mud skippers, I believe). These are perfect examples of an intermediary between sea-dwelling organisms and land ones. The ones that could stay out longer could avoid predators for longer and be in a position to ambush prey that stalked shallow waters. This the type of advantage natural selection selects for.

* Amphibians change to reptiles?

The development of primitive amniotic sacs seperates amphibians from the ancestors of all synap, anap, and diap sidas.

Reptiles change to birds? (The lungs, bones, eyes,reproductive organs, heart, method of locomotion, body covering, etc., are all very different!)

To be completely honest, Reptiles didn't turn into birds, Dinosaurs did. While dinosaurs and modern reptiles are both diapsidas, they are part of different genera. Whilst reptiles are subset of their own, dinosaurs are a further specification of the subset archosauria.

That being said, dinosauria is not all that remarkably different from aves, or birds.

Overall, you're asking for a lot of information without specifying what exactly you want. If you could be more specific, then I'd be happy to provide. if not, then I'm sorry Dr Dino, but I don't think it worth visiting your website again.

*SNIP*

I'm not going to do your research for you. Kindly consult the available literature and researchers on the subject.

22. *What kind of evolutionist are you? Why are you not one of the other eight or ten kinds?

As far as I know, I'm not any kind of "evolutionist", just someone who reads, enjoys, and understands various fields of biology enough to accept the facts and logic that point to evolution.

23. What would you have said fifty years ago if I told you I had a living coelacanth in my aquarium?

Show it to me.

24. *Is there one clear prediction of macroevolution that has proved true?

Define macroevolution.

25. *What is so scientific about the idea of hydrogen as becoming human?

(I hope this particular sentence is a direct copy and paste and no mistake of yours Mr Wong, for it took me a few reads of it to get what was being asked)

The evidence that confirms current models allows for it. What more is needed to make it scientific?

26. *Do you honestly believe that everything came from nothing?

I believe that, at the moment, we do not know exactly where "everything" came from or whether or not everything ever really had a "come from" part to it. I perfectly comfortable in accepting my ignorance on the fact and am so only because I and others continually work to correct this fact.

1. Are you sure your answers are reasonable, right, and scientifically provable, or do you just believe that it may have happened the way you have answered? (Do these answers reflect your religion or your science?)

Most of all my answers are scientifically viable and most all of them have some more-than-circumstantial evidence for them. Of course, it is quite impossible to study fossils of the first single-celled organisms if they either don't exist or were destroyed long ago, but other evidence still supports this theory.

2. Do your answers show more or less faith than the person who says, "God must have designed it"?

Much less, as I only make the assumption that my eyes aren't lieing to me, whereas the religious person will not only assume their eyes are lieing to them, but also they will imagine what their eyes don't see to be true.

3. Is it possible that an unseen Creator designed this universe? If God is excluded at the beginning of the discussion by your definition of science, how could it be shown that He did create the universe if He did?

It is always possible. Of course, it is also always possible that the entire world came into existance a few moments ago due to the trans-universal scream of a business man who's anus has just been gored by the invisible pink unicorn.

4. Is it wise and fair to present the theory of evolution to students as fact?

As far as science goes, all they teach students are the facts about evolution: the mechanism and the implications it has for biology. You have to go out of your way and take voluntary classes to get into the theoretical, origins part of evolution.

5. What is the end result of a belief in evolution (lifestyle, society, attitude about others, eternal destiny, etc.)?

Er, tomato pie as opposed a sausage an onion pizza? I don't know, I don't generally associate my moral and ethical standings with my views on the way the world works.

6. Do people accept evolution because of the following factors?

* It is all they have been taught.
* They like the freedom from God (no moral absolutes, etc.).
* They are bound to support the theory for fear of losing their job or status or grade point average.
* They are too proud to admit they are wrong.
* Evolution is the only philosophy that can be used to justify their political agenda.

I dunno, I am me, not "people". If you were to ask other "people" you might get a sufficient answer. Try asking all however many people there are that follow the science of evolution, understand it, and apply it to their knowledge.

7. Should we continue to use outdated, disproved, questionable, or inconclusive evidences to support the theory of evolution because we don’t have a suitable substitute (Piltdown man, recapitulation, archaeopteryx, Lucy, Java man, Neanderthal man, horse evolution, vestigial organs, etc.)?

As far as I know, some of those aren't out-dated/disproven/questionable/inconclusive and those that are are not longer in use.

8. Should parents be allowed to require that evolution not be taught as fact in their school system unless equal time is given to other theories of origins (like divine creation)?

No, there is a rather implicit seperation of church and state within our country.

Not to mention that science has given us the internet and the moon trip because it was taught in our schools. As far as I know, all we got from religious morality being taught in schools was the gilded age

9. What are you risking if you are wrong? As one of my debate opponents said, "Either there is a God or there is not. Both possibilities are frightening."

What am I risking? My intellectual integrity and honesty? My one good shot at having fun (as most every concept of afterlife I've heard of barring Valhalla sounds either boring or terrifying)? I dunno, I don't really think about it. I'll worry after I'm dead.

10. Why are many evolutionists afraid of the idea of creationism being presented in public schools? If we are not supposed to teach religion in schools, then why not get evolution out of the textbooks? It is just a religious worldview.

[/quote]

Actually, an arguement could be made that logic is an unsubstantiated philosophy no better than religion. Of course, nihilism always wins in philosophical debates when you throw out logic, so we avoid that.

In truth, though, unless you're willing to dismiss all of science (something I highly doubt considering that you're typing on a computer, communicating with millions of people through the internet), arbitrarily labeling evolution as a religious worldview (even when science doesn't even really fit any truely rigorous definitons of religion) is fallicious and downright shameful from an intellectual standpoint.


...


So, after wasting all my time typing that (and changing my attitude half-way through), is there anyway I cans end an e-mail to this "Dr Dino" (does he frequent any use.net groups?) or was that just a brain exercise?

[DPDarkPrimus]

The problem is, you can't say "I don't know" or "it's a possibility", because then Hovind can point to you and say "SEE! THEY DON'T HAVE ALL THE ANSWERS! I WIN!"

[Plushie]

The problem is, you can't say "I don't know" or "it's a possibility", because then Hovind can point to you and say "SEE! THEY DON'T HAVE ALL THE ANSWERS! I WIN!"

Well then, he doesn't look all too smart an individual then, does he? If you beat him down enough levels, all he can say about his entire theory is "I don't know".

ie.

"God did it"

"How?"

"Well, he just did"

"But how?"

"Well, I don't know, leave me alone already"

[DPDarkPrimus]

Hovind panders to his masses, though. He doesn't need an answer for why god did it, because all his audience cares about is that god DID do it. He 'debates' only in front of select audiences that he knows he doesn't have to answer hard questions for, because they'll accept whatever he says.

[Plushie]

Hovind panders to his masses, though. He doesn't need an answer for why god did it, because all his audience cares about is that god DID do it. He 'debates' only in front of select audiences that he knows he doesn't have to answer hard questions for, because they'll accept whatever he says.

Well then, it doesn't seem entirely worth worrying about him. If he isn't going to debate in front of an audience that'll at least be able to grasp what is being talked about, why bother debating at all? Science was never about being popular and widely accepted by the masses (indeed, many of the great early scientists faced criminal charges from the church and various governments), it's just the search for knowledge.

[wolveraptor]

You realize that that's exactly why creationism is gaining ground among the public? Today, with legislators being arrogant little bitches, thinking they can decide, instead of scientists, what science is, science NEEDS to be popular.

[Lucifer]

That is sad. I hope it doesn't come down to "sorry, we're not giving you any medicine because you don't 'believe' in science. You can just pray and hope it works." It would suck if we couldn't share science with people, simply because they reject it for something like creationism and things that sound and look the way you want them to, but have no substance.

[Wicked Pilot]

We need a new Carl Sagan to come put these bitches back in their place.

[Singular Quartet]

That is sad. I hope it doesn't come down to "sorry, we're not giving you any medicine because you don't 'believe' in science. You can just pray and hope it works." It would suck if we couldn't share science with people, simply because they reject it for something like creationism and things that sound and look the way you want them to, but have no substance.

Hmm? You mean like fundamentalist Christian Scientists? Except without any of the "take medicine part" and more of the "just pray" part. It should be noted that not all CSs are like that. Just the scary ones.

Anyways, Boston Globe just had an article for refrence on the topic.

I'd prefer my links to be nudist, but oh well.

[starhunter]

1. Where did the space for the universe come from?

It inflated out of a space smaller than an atom.

2. Where did matter come from?

The theory of nucleosynthesis explains how all chemical elements on the Periodic Table were fused: hydrogen, most helium and some lithium were produced from the Big Bang, all other elements up to Uranium from the supernovae of stars that formed before our sun.

3. Where did the laws of the universe come from (gravity, inertia, etc.)?

As the early universe inflated, the gravitational, followed by the strong and weak nuclear and electromagnetic forces emerged to govern interactions between particles and later atoms and molecules. This emergence of forces is called Symmetry Breaking. Inertia seems to be proportional to mass, and some now think it is a characteristic of the inflationary vacuum itself. The forces travel as energy defined as Bose-Einstein Statistics, interacting with matter, known as the Fermion-Dirac Statistics in the quantum model. As for the “why” behind the laws of physics, and the cause behind the Big Bang, no scientific evidence has been found to address these questions.

4. How did matter get so perfectly organized?

Matter and energy interact based on consistent, predictable rules in which the forces exhibit different strengths at different distances, and matter, in the form of quarks are the building blocks of neutrons and protons, which make up the nuclei of atoms, orbited by electrons governed by rules based on energy levels and covalence.

5. Where did the energy come from to do all the organizing?

As the universe inflated, all of the energy packed in the orignal space rushed out to fill the growing space, almost as a balloon expands as you inflate it. The kinetic energy came from the Big Bang event, the rules that govern the strengths of the various forces determine the way energy interacts with matter.

6. When, where, why, and how did life come from non-living matter?

Life probably began on Earth about 3 billion years ago. Why and how life began are questions as yet unanswered by science.

7. When, where, why, and how did life learn to reproduce itself?

Organisms reproduce according to the genetic instructions specific to it. At first all organisms reproduced asexually, each organism simply divided, creating clones. Later on, organisms of some species specialized as male and female, each with specific zygotes, and reproduced sexually. Since sexual reproduction produces more genetically diverse offspring, sexual species better survived natural selection over time, and today most species consist of male and female members.
8. With what did the first cell capable of sexual reproduction reproduce?

In order for species to reproduce sexually, member organisms at first had to come to specialize as male and female carriers of the different zygotes. As number of offspring and mutations increased with each generation, that species came to include more and more specialized male and female members.

9. Why would any plant or animal want to reproduce more of its kindsince this would only make more mouths to feed and decrease the chances of survival? (Does the individual have a drive to survive, or the species? How do you explain this?)

The drive to survive is exhibited in each individual organism. Instinct, sexual attraction between male and female members and more favorable changing environmental conditions produced greater numbers of a species.

10. How can mutations (recombining of the genetic code) create any new, improved varieties? (Recombining English letters will never produce Chinese books.)

If enough mutations produce a genetically diverse population, then as environmental conditions change, those members with the most adaptable genes tend to survive and express in the next generation of offspring more successful and “improved” members of the species.

11. Is it possible that similarities in design between different animals prove a common Creator instead of a common ancestor?

Science is an investigation based on observation of physical things, so the scientific conclusion must point to a common ancestor, not a common Creator, who is not observable and measurable in physical terms.

12. Natural selection only works with the genetic information available and tends only to keep a species stable. How would you explain the increasing complexity in the genetic code that must have occurred if evolution were true?

Natural selection favors those organisms that can adapt to environmental changes. The environmental changes must have been favorable, and increasingly so over a long enough period of time to allow for population explosions (and long term explosions in the diversity of species).

As the population of single cell species increased, an increasing number of the member organisms began to form “communities” in which each member could specialize for the mutual survival of the whole. These communities of specialized cells became the first complex animals (such as jellyfish and medusae), and over time during favorable conditions, more complex species came to dominate. The human body can be thought of as such a community of specialized cells, a highly complex and relatively recent lifeform in evolutionary history.
13. When, where, why, and how did:

* Single-celled plants become multi-celled? (Where are the two and three-celled intermediates?) See above – multi-celled communities reproduced as one organism
* Single-celled animals evolve? I don’t know.
* Fish change to amphibians? Species of fish that exhibited more amphibian-like genes were better adapted to environmental changes, and as the climate and techtonics shifted over time, amphibian genes allowing these animals to forage and lay eggs on land came to dominate. Today there are still fish and amphibian species living side by side, each successfully adapted to its current niche in the environment.
* Amphibians change to reptiles? Through a similar process.
* Reptiles change to birds? (The lungs, bones, eyes,reproductive organs, heart, method of locomotion, body covering, etc., are all very different!) Dinosaurs are the ancestors of birds, and we now know that dinosaurs were not reptiles, because they were warm-blooded. Theories of micro and macro-evolution address the evolution of specific organisms and features shared by many species.

How did the intermediate forms live? These intermediate species are the links in the fossil record between related species over time. Generally they are extinct and so are called intermediate species.

14. When, where, why, how, and from what did:

* Whales evolve? Descendents of land mammals
* Sea horses evolve? I don’t know, but previous answers address some general issues.
* bats evolve?
* Eyes evolve?
* Ears evolve?
* Hair, skin, feathers, scales, nails, claws, etc., evolve?

15. Which evolved first how, and how long, did it work without the others)?

* The digestive system, the food to be digested, the appetite, the ability to find and eat the food, the digestive juices, or the body’s resistance to its own digestive juice (stomach, intestines, etc.)?
* The drive to reproduce or the ability to reproduce?
* The lungs, the mucus lining to protect them, the throat, or the perfect mixture of gases to be breathed into the lungs?
* DNA or RNA to carry the DNA message to cell parts?
* The termite or the flagella in its intestines that actually digest the cellulose?
* The plants or the insects that live on and pollinate the plants?
* The bones, ligaments, tendons, blood supply, or muscles to move the bones?
* The nervous system, repair system, or hormone system?
* The immune system or the need for it?
Questions that can be answered by evolutionary biologists, paleantologists and professionals in allied fields of science.

16. There are many thousands of examples of symbiosis that defy an evolutionary explanation. Why must we teach students that evolution is the only explanation for these relationships?

Evolutionary theories are generally well-tested and sound products of scientific investigation. Science is a process for addressing relationships between organisms and species.

17. How would evolution explain mimicry? Did the plants and animals develop mimicry by chance, by their intelligent choice, or by design?

Interesting question, I myself don’t know. There was plenty of time for such evolutionary developments to emerge.

18. When, where, why, and how did man evolve feelings? Love, mercy, guilt, etc. would never evolve in the theory of evolution.

Feelings are based on instincts, cognition, conscience and are regulated by brain chemistry. The instinct of a parent to protect young from danger could be an origin of love, guilt resulting from the parent’s failure to do their instinctual duty to preserve the species. Humans inherited their complex feelings from earlier, now extinct primate species. The origin of conscience, cognition, culture and morality is open to much debate.

19. *How did photosynthesis evolve?

20. *How did thought evolve?

21. *How did flowering plants evolve, and from that?

22. *What kind of evolutionist are you? Why are you not one of the other eight or ten kinds?

I’m not an evolutionist, I’m not even a scientist.

23. What would you have said fifty years ago if I told you I had a living coelacanth in my aquarium?

I’d like to see it.


24. *Is there one clear prediction of macroevolution that has proved true?

25. *What is so scientific about the idea of hydrogen as becoming human?

This question makes no sense. Hydrogen is a component of water, and the human body is about 70% water. Hydrogen is the most abundant element in the universe, it is present in every organic process. We can detect the hydrogen atoms in our bodies, and get a pretty good count of how many there actually are there.

26. *Do you honestly believe that everything came from nothing?

All the matter and energy in the universe had to come from something, but science cannot investigate the cause behind the Big Bang.

After you have answered the preceding questions, please look carefully at your answers and thoughtfully consider the following questions.

1. Are you sure your answers are reasonable, right, and scientifically provable, or do you just believe that it may have happened the way you have answered? (Do these answers reflect your religion or your science?) As a non-scientist, I did the best I can, but the science is so complex, that these questions could be better answered by a whole panel of scientists. These answers reflect my understanding of science, they’re not based on faith.

2. Do your answers show more or less faith than the person who says, "God must have designed it"? These answers are based on basic scientific inquiry, because a Creator described by religion is not physical, science cannot observe him, and consider his presence as a conclusion.

3. Is it possible that an unseen Creator designed this universe? If God is excluded at the beginning of the discussion by your definition of science, how could it be shown that He did create the universe if He did? It is possible to imagine this, and of course we can believe in a Creator, but questions about the physical laws of the universe are best answered through science. Science cannot address the existence of a Creator that cannot be observed as a physical form.

4. Is it wise and fair to present the theory of evolution to students as fact?

As scientific fact, yes. But as facts open to criticism by science, through experiment and observation. Evolution must be based in the scientific process, regardless of our faith and beliefs that cannot be corroberated by scientific investigation. Science is not a religion or dogma, it is a way of explaining phenomena of the universe, it is open to revision, and may be disproven by better theories.

5. What is the end result of a belief in evolution (lifestyle, society, attitude about others, eternal destiny, etc.)? I don’t think one’s morality or faith suffers from acceptance of the science of evolution, one’s beliefs and behavior is the product of many more factors.

6. Do people accept evolution because of the following factors?

* It is all they have been taught.
* They like the freedom from God (no moral absolutes, etc.).
* They are bound to support the theory for fear of losing their job or status or grade point average.
* They are too proud to admit they are wrong.
* Evolution is the only philosophy that can be used to justify their political agenda. Evolution is not a philosophy, it is a scientific theory that is open to criticism, modification and even rejection by those who present more credible evidence for an alternative theory to explain the diversity of species on the Earth.

7. Should we continue to use outdated, disproved, questionable, or inconclusive evidences to support the theory of evolution because we don’t have a suitable substitute (Piltdown man, recapitulation, archaeopteryx, Lucy, Java man, Neanderthal man, horse evolution, vestigial organs, etc.)?

8. Should parents be allowed to require that evolution not be taught as fact in their school system unless equal time is given to other theories of origins (like divine creation)? No. Evolution is a scientific theory that belongs in a science course. Divine creation is not a theory of science, and faith is certainly not based on theory. Discussions of Creationism, Intelligent Design and related topics belong in a philosophy or theology course.

9. What are you risking if you are wrong? As one of my debate opponents said, "Either there is a God or there is not. Both possibilities are frightening." I’m risking nothing if I’m wrong. In defending science, I’m not rejecting the notion of a Creator, nor can I prove or disprove his existence, as I’m am required of a scientific theory.

10. Why are many evolutionists afraid of the idea of creationism being presented in public schools? If we are not supposed to teach religion in schools, then why not get evolution out of the textbooks? It is just a religious worldview.

Creationism has nothing to do with science. Does it make sense to discuss possible scientific explanations for the miracles described in the Bible in a course on theology? I don’t think so. No credible scientific theories could possibly explain or explain away these miracles. Science does not threaten faith. We’ve solved many mysteries about life and the universe, and still people attend church services, study the Bible and chose to believe in God. Do you think a phony “religion of science” could compete with God in people’s hearts? Does studying science encourage young people to do drugs, run away from home, be promiscuous sexually and have babies before marriage? Of course not!

The technology that gave us the internet, cell phones, electricity, air and space travel, genetics and personal computers is founded on the very equations and theories that reveal a 14 billion year old universe and a 4.5 billion year old Earth. How can this fact weaken anyone’s faith?
[/b]

[DPDarkPrimus]

Adam Kisby actually met Hovind's challenge a year or so ago. It's all available to read right here (PDF) and is also printed in the latest issue of Skeptic.

[Wicked Pilot]

And his park just got closed. Where's your god now bitch?

Local Story

[Ted C]

Interesting little potential transitional form that I saw on Blue Planet a night or two ago...

The Spotted Handfish

In case there's any question of how fish might have evolved the ability to move around on land.

[Walsh]

Just for the record, this guy won't be giving us too much trouble for a while .

'Dr. Dino,' wife guilty.

I wonder how much of that 288 years maximum sentence he will actually get.

[Prometheus Unbound]

Anyone got any improvements to suggest?

Just a pointless "did you know?" post:

Regarding the mimicry point, you mention chameleons - chameleons don't actually mimic their environment - they change colour when they sense danger / experience fear, and it just so happens that occasionally the colour they turn to is the same one as their environment by way of chance. Take a green chameleon and put it on brown leaves, it wont turn brown.

Different species around the world are different colours (some brown, some green, some with a bit of blue etc) and they blend into their natural surroundings in the same way lions have evolved to look like the dry grass they live in, or polar bears in snowy climates.

Incedently, most polar bears are not left handed

A very minor point which has no bearing whatsoever on the debate, but thought I'd post it.

[Zablorg]

Only improvements are nitpicks about the amphibians and reptiles. Since they are both classes of animals, I think it would be somewhat impossible for and animal to be both at the same time.

[Darth Servo]

From the "Why People Laugh at Creationists" series on Youtube, the videos that directly address Hovind stupidity and lies:

Hovind thinks a large comet impact would produce the ice poles, freeze mammoths standing up and produce "massive cold spots" rather than vaporizing a large part of the planet.

Hovind thinks one drop of water can cover the world

Hovind's various contradictory "pre-flood atmosphere" theories and his ignorance of the effects of pressure on the body. Doesn't understand just how quickly ice melts.

Hovind doesn't understand what does and does not block X-rays or the aging process

Hovind imposes his beliefs of Humans being the apex of creation onto evolution. Thinks humans are getting weaker and dumber with time. Dinosaurs supposedly explained by increased atmospheric pressure before the flood while at the same time saying "the genes for largeness are gone". Thinks primitive hunter-gathers made hunting tools on the spot when they found their prey

Hovind butchers the biochemistry of meiosis and sexual reproduction. He further doesn't know what the difference between a chromosome, genome, base-pair, gene, molecule or atom.

Hovind quoting Bill Gates out of context and other quote mining

Hovind thinks DNA is more complex and holds more information than every computer program ever written

[Darth Servo]

Hilarious video demonstrating Hovind's stupidity and lies about carbon dating: "There's no <bleep> Carbon in it!!!"