Kent Hovind is a tax dodging creationist lier. If you've never heard of him, just do a Google or (better) a Youtube search for him. One of many of Kent Hovind's bullshit arguments is the 6 types of evolution.
I tried to find a video Hovind using the argument but couldn't find one (I didn't look that hard) but I found one of his son using the argument with [sarcasm]pretty, pretty animation[/sarcasm].
Well lets get to it.
1. Cosmic Evolution: The origin of time space an matter.
Right off the bat: bullshit. The theory of evolution is a biological theory, not a cosmic one.
2. Chemical Evolution: The origin of all the elements we have today.
Um... No. Fusion reactions in the cores of stars fuse smaller elements like hydrogen into larger elements.
You notice (if you watched the video) that the animation shows molecules? Is he confusing molecules with elements? Is it the animator thats confused? Do they just not care because there going for an audience that doesn't know the difference?
3. Stellar Evolution: The origin of stars and planets.
Umm... Nnooo. Stellar evolution is how a star ages though its life time and it has nothing to do with the theory of evolution.
4. Organic Evolution: The origin of life from non-life.
Again: nnooo. Thats abiogenesis. By the way: in chemistry organic means "a compound containing carbon."
5. Macro Evolution: The origin of the major kinds of animals and plants.
At last! Biology!
What the hell is a kind? Is it a species? Genus? Family? Order? I'll assume it means "species" for the moment.
And nnnoooooo. Macro evolution is evolution between species; basically its speciation.
6. Micro Evolution: subtle variation within the kinds.
At last! he got something right! Assuming "kind" means species and ignore "subtle".
micro evolution is the only one that has been observed and tested.
Damn! Speciation has been observed multiple times, in the lab and in nature.
While "cosmic evolution" and "stellar evolution" are real terms used by scientists, he gets them wrong and they have nothing to do with the biological theory of evolution. The term "organic evolution" and "chemical evolution" were made up by Hovind. 1-4 he useas the . He gets macro evolution wrong, he only gets micro evolution right if kind means species and both micro and macro evolution are out dated terms no longer use by scientists.
© 2009 all rights reserved
Links and sources
[...] Comments Stupid Creationist Arguments 11: Hovinds 6 Types of Evolutions – Lone Wolfs Den on Stupid Creationist Arguments 12: Nature Tends Towards DisorderStupid Creationist Arguments 12: [...]
[...] Stupid Creationist Arguments 11: Hovinds 6 Types of Evolutions – Lone Wolfs Den December 30th, 2009 on 7:36 pm [...]
I have a suggestion for you…
You stated above that you looked for information, but couldn’t find it….but then you go on to argue against the information that you haven’t even heard!
To support Dr. Hovind: This is typical of MOST of the people arguing against him. You are simply babbling about something you know nothing about!
If you actually listened to Dr. Hovind’s argument, you would find that he is dead correct in his science!
The other thing you seem to be forgetting is that the theory of evolution is just that….A THEORY! How about taking the time to listen first…and then if you still think your argument has a leg to stand upon, feel free. Until then, you should just stay quiet. You’re simply displaying your own stupidity!
Jim Scranton, PhD in Molecular Sciences
Nnooo. I said I looked for a video of Hovind using the arguments and couldn’t find one. I could easly find a rebuttal video using Hovnd’s video but this post is a rebuttal.
Dead wrong. First of all: the theory of evolution is a biological theory that explains observed instances of evolution (changes in populations over time) with mutations and natural selection. It has nothing to do with the big bang, nucleosynthesis, planetary formation and abiogenesis. Second: In science theories are not guesses or conjecture, they are heavily tested explanations for observed phenomena. This is the basic bare bones of the theory of evolution and you can’t even get that right. This information is not hidden, it is readily available to any one who actually looks it up
When it comes to Hovend’s “science”, he fails epically.
Well that’s incredibly intelligent. “Evolution is a biological theory that has nothing to do with the other types, so we can ignore the massive flaws and problems with those!” Yeah, that’s great and dandy, and everyone knows that there is variation amongst species over time. What Kent Hovind tried to say is that, for example, humans did not arise from anything but a human. This is because there is a necessary distinction between the evolution of a cat into a slightly different cat, and the evolution of a slime to a human.
Your theory of “changes in populations over time” has everything to do with “the big bang, nucleosynthesis, planetary formation and abiogenesis”, because your theory just assumes all of those to be true. Is this correct? If not, then you best not call it the “Theory of Evolution” and make that necessary distinction that Kent Hovind did, and call it the “Theory of Microevolution”, so that the evidence you have of variation amongst species can be used to prove true that there is… Variation amongst the species over time -not so it can assume the others exist.
There is no evidence (zero, nada…its all been proven wrong) for evolution except “micro evolution” or variations within kinds…Dr Hovind is dead right!
The truth is that, In the Beginning God created everything….how hard is that to believe compared to….In the Beginning nothing created…its a no brainer!
for taxonomy, genetics, fossils, geographic distribution and of course observed instances of evolution including observed instances speciation.[1][2][3]
Microevolution: Changes with in a population beneath the species level. Macroevolution: Changes above the species level. They are no longer used by scientists as the mechanisms behind both of them are the same.[4]
Define “kinds”.
“Dr” Hovend got his doctorate from an unicredit diploma mill called Patriot University and he is in jail for tax evasion. Ironic isn’t it?
It is not enough to say it or believe it, you have to show evidence for your claims .
You know, a straw man arguments doesn’t actually deal with actual arguments, observations and theories. No scientist would say such a thing , only creationist liars and those who uncritically accept the lies they spew.[5]
1.
2. http://lonewolfsden.net/2010/10/03/stupid-creationist-arguments-49-no-new-species-have-evolved/
3. http://lonewolfsden.net/2010/01/21/stupid-creationist-arguments-there-are-no-transitional-fossils/
4. http://lonewolfsden.net/2008/09/18/evolution-part-3-micro-and-macro/
5. http://lonewolfsden.net/2009/10/30/stupid-creationist-arguments-1-something-from-nothing-or-is-it/
You do realize that many of the top universities in the world Cornell, Yale, Stanford, PSU, etc; teach courses in stellar, cosmic, organic and chemical evolution right?
You should really try to learn to use Google for 5 minutes before actually posting something as ridiculous as your claims.
Source?
First off: Tom, this is crap. I looked through Yale’s course
listing and it had nothing on evolution. Second, good job on this article, Lone Wolf. I checked out the ‘Creation Today’ site, as suggested in Stupid Creationist’s Argument number 18. Mr Eric Hovind is just as stupid and close-minded as his father. One article said, among other bullshit, that evolution is not a science because it cannot be observed or proven. It also contains common creationist arguments such as ‘how can something come from nothing?’ and ‘order cannot come from disorder’. When will they learn?
The whole “order cannot come from disorder” argument really annoys me. How can order not come from disorder? Take a paid of dice and roll them a hundred times, even if you ensure the rolls are truly random you’ll get a 7 more than any other outcome and 2 would be the least of all the outcomes. Even in a truly random system some order will come out of it.
They don’t care though. Its not about facts or evidence, it’s about their “Truth”.
Agreed. What really annoys me, though, is that last part – that for them, it’s not not about the facts. Even if you make it glaringly obvious that they’re wrong, they just move the goal-posts.
There are six types of gravity believed in by that graviteists
1. Cosmic Gravity: The belief that the universe was made by an explosion. What made it bang? Not science
2. Chemical Gravity: The belief that chemicals can create bonds. Not real.
3. Stellar Gravity: Stars made from non-stars? Yeah right!
4. Organic Gravity: Gravity that only uses natural fertilizer. Don’t exist
5. Macro Gravity: The Earth goes around the sun? Well clearly that’s ridiculous. I’m too dumb to understand it so it must be false.
6. Micro Gravity: Things fall. Only kind of gravity that’s real.
Stupid atheists believing in gravity! You can’t prove gravity, its a lie to trick you into worshiping Satan!
How can you trust someone’s intellect when they can’t even spell “liar”?
You chect to see if the back up what they say.