Finally! Kent Hovind accepts evolution!

Originally posted by wolfgang59
As if anyone believes a fish with lungs!!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bichir

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lungfish

Originally posted by RBHILL
How about this if you think that the Bible is written by flawed man how can you trust any other books ever written? Or even any other idea?

Why are there millions of diet books? Why haven't they figured it out? One book is all you needed why have the other 999,999 health books?

If you want to know how much merit any given explanation has (for anything), you begin by looking at the logic of it. If it's not even logically consistent you can dismiss it right there and then. If it passes the logic test, you take a look at the assumptions made in the explanation. How many assumptions are made, and how much support do we have for making those assumptions? If the assumptions turn out to be wrong, you can usually dismiss the explanation given. If there are unsupported assumptions you withhold judgement until you can check those assumptions. If the assumptions are reasonabłe, given what we already know about the world, you look at the evidence for this specific explanation. At this point it should be easy to interpret the evidence to figure out if they support or contradict the explanation. All this you may file under the category of critical thinking.

If, after all this, you've identified holes in the explanation, or you have a lack of evidence, or your assumptions are weak, you withhold judgement, study half your life to become a competent scientist, and do real science for the next half of your life. Hopefully that'll do it. In the end it may turn out that the explanation was erroneous, but at least you'll know that then.

Oh, and listen to people much smarter than you when they point out holes in your logic, flaws in your assumptions and problems with the evidence. If you really use bad logic, flawed assumptions and invalid evidence, they should be able to demonstrate that to you, assuming you're interested and intellectually honest.

Hope it helps. 🙂

I could be wrong though. 😕

Originally posted by C Hess
Don't be mad at potholer. It is Hovind who says that two groups of non-interbreeding animals are still the same kind if they share common ancestry, and that common ancestry is determined by what isn't a banana.

Incidently, there's a good fossil record demonstrating that whale ancestors (not modern whales, nor bananas) had legs. If you want to close your ey ...[text shortened]... . Lungs evolved into the swimbladder in modern fish.

Your post is just more creationist crap.

I am not mad at Potholer. I was only pointing out his illogic. But I am happy to see one evolutinists admit that gills never turned into lungs. 😏

Originally posted by RJHinds
...I am happy to see one evolutinists [sic] admit that gills never turned into lungs. 😏

What evolutionary biologist ever claimed that gills evolved into lungs? I've never heard that before.

Originally posted by RJHinds
I am not mad at Potholer. I was only pointing out his illogic. But I am happy to see one evolutinists admit that gills never turned into lungs. 😏

Can you show me an 'evolutionist' who says that gills turned into lungs?

Originally posted by sonhouse
Can you show me an 'evolutionist' who says that gills turned into lungs?

I don't keep up with the changing beliefs and so-called theories of the evolutionists since I don't believe them and it is not worth my effort.

Originally posted by RJHinds
I don't keep up with the changing beliefs and so-called theories of the evolutionists since I don't believe them and it is not worth my effort.

In other words, you made that up. No evolutionary biologist ever claimed that lungs evolved from gills.

Originally posted by C Hess
In other words, you made that up. No evolutionary biologist ever claimed that lungs evolved from gills.

It has been a long time, so I don't remember who I heard it from now, but I believe it was an evolutionist.

Originally posted by RJHinds
It has been a long time, so I don't remember who I heard it from now, but I believe it was an evolutionist.

Since you bestow anyone who's not a creationist with the title evolutionist, that statement means nothing. You could have been talking to the "evolutionist" equivalent of yourself, for all I know. What matters is what evolutionary science has to say about how different organs have evolved.

Originally posted by C Hess
Since you bestow anyone who's not a creationist with the title evolutionist, that statement means nothing. You could have been talking to the "evolutionist" equivalent of yourself, for all I know. What matters is what evolutionary science has to say about how different organs have evolved.

Getting back to the thread idea, Kent Hovind has always agreed that one could call changes within kinds during reproduction "evolution" even though he prefers the term "variation" instead. However, he has never agreed that all kinds have evolved from one common ancestor as the theory of evolution supposes.

So it is dishonest of Potholer to pretend to use logic and reason while discarding common sense in an attempt to convince others that Hovind now accepts evolution in the same sense that Potholer does.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Getting back to the thread idea, Kent Hovind has always agreed that one could call changes within kinds during reproduction "evolution" even though he prefers the term "variation" instead. However, he has never agreed that all kinds have evolved from one common ancestor as the theory of evolution supposes.

So it is dishonest of Potholer to pretend to use ...[text shortened]... tempt to convince others that Hovind now accepts evolution in the same sense that Potholer does.

It is illogical of Hovind to say:

1. Things bring forth after their own kind, if they can produce offspring, they're the same kind
2. Variation through natural selection is possible, and may lead to groups of the same kind not being able to interbreed

That's like saying, things bring forth after their own kind, or not.

3. We know that groups are still of the same kind even if they can't interbreed, if we know they have a common ancestor
4. We can know which ones have a common ancestor by comparing them with something that's very different from them (like a banana)

By that logic you can arbitrarily choose three mammals (say), and a banana, and it's obvious that the three mammals are more alike each other than either of them are like the banana, therefore they have a common ancestor, therefore they are of the same kind, by Hovind's own logic.

If Hovind is illogical, that only weakens his position further. You can hardly accuse potholer of dishonesty for merely pointing out the flaws in Hovind's reasoning.

Originally posted by C Hess
It is illogical of Hovind to say:

1. Things bring forth after their own kind, if they can produce offspring, they're the same kind
2. Variation through natural selection is possible, and may lead to groups of the same kind not being able to interbreed

That's like saying, things bring forth after their own kind, or not.

3. We know that groups are sti ...[text shortened]... an hardly accuse potholer of dishonesty for merely pointing out the flaws in Hovind's reasoning.

There is nothing wrong with premise 1 and 2. Those are correct.

However, premise 3 and 4 is invalid logic and a misrepresentation of the example given by Hovind. Anyone with common sense should know Hovind was not including everything in existence, except a banana, as being the same kind.

Yes, I accuse Potholer of being, not only dishonest, but also, a liar. 😏

Originally posted by RJHinds
There is nothing wrong with premise 1 and 2. Those are correct.

However, premise 3 and 4 is invalid logic and a misrepresentation of the example given by Hovind. Anyone with common sense should know Hovind was not including everything in existence, except a banana, as being the same kind.

Yes, I accuse Potholer of being, not only dishonest, but also, a liar. 😏

The second statement contradicts the first. To say something is and is not, is to say nothing of value. It's illogical.

As for 3 and 4, Hovind argued that it's so easy to classify a kind that even a five year old can do it, and then used the banana to allow a six year old to do the classification. He should have realised where that logic would lead. The fact that he didn't, tells me he's an intellectual clown, not worth taking seriously. I'm sure you can see that too by now, but you can't back down. I'll make it easy for you.

{walking away}

What Mr Hinds needs to do is get the opinion of average reasonable people. I showed the video to my employees (22), they all thought it highly amusing and could not believe there were still people out there who believed in creationism.

Originally posted by C Hess
The second statement contradicts the first. To say something is and is not, is to say nothing of value. It's illogical.

As for 3 and 4, Hovind argued that it's so easy to classify a kind that even a five year old can do it, and then used the banana to allow a six year old to do the classification. He should have realised where that logic would lead. The fa ...[text shortened]... u can see that too by now, but you can't back down. I'll make it easy for you.

{walking away}

The second premise does not contradicts the first. They are just two seperate premises. The first premise is pointing out the fact that if they can reproduce, then they are the same kind. The second premise is not saying that not being able to reproduce automatically means they are not the same kind as you seem to think.

Kent Hovind enjoys amusing and entertaining his audience as he teaches. The banana example was obviously given to get laughter. However, the other three were all canines and did not violate logical truth in the way the examples Potholer gave did.