Debate Competition

25 Responses to “hovind debate”

1. rationalanarchy on July 8th, 2010 at 10:33 am

   @MrBDM13 Do you …
   @MrBDM13 Do you even hear yourself? You are using a middle school punnet-square example and pretending that is the entirety of genetic interaction. It is so pathetic it nearly brings tears to my eyes.

   A mutations that is beneficial will be passed on, in aggregate, because the possessor of the gene is more likely to reproduce. The mate does not need to have that same mutation for this to occur. You literally made that up out of thin air. Show me the genetics journal that agrees with you.

2. rationalanarchy on July 8th, 2010 at 10:33 am

   @SlipperyJim17 No, …
   @SlipperyJim17 No, not just another HYPOTHESIS. Learn the difference. But it is a theory really, as the mathematical model is borne out by the physical evidence. You can ignore it if you want, but that is simply willful ignorance.

3. 9hello123 on July 8th, 2010 at 10:33 am

   @ovidiutu like you.
   @ovidiutu like you.

4. 9hello123 on July 8th, 2010 at 10:33 am

   @ovidiutu no hes …
   @ovidiutu no hes not hes a con artist that preys on the ignorant.

5. rationalanarchy on July 8th, 2010 at 10:33 am

   @MrBDM13 I am not …
   @MrBDM13 I am not assuming macroevolution occurred. There is no need to assume something that is physcially demonstrable. As I have said, macroevolution has indeed been observed many times. Of course, you have not yet defined what macroevolution is, though I have prompted you to do so several times. DEFINE THE TERM.

6. ovidiutu on July 8th, 2010 at 10:33 am

   Hovind is the best!
   Hovind is the best!

7. effelloh on July 8th, 2010 at 10:33 am

   @MrBDM13
   The …
   @MrBDM13
   The entropy level of a snow flake is lower than the entropy level of liquid water since the number of possible states of the containing particles is (much!) lower. You can lower local entropy as long as the overall entropy rises. If you actually had a look on the formula you’d know.

   If one stops using dumbed down definitions one might see that evolution doesn’t contradict the laws of thermodynamics in any way.

8. 9hello123 on July 8th, 2010 at 10:33 am

   @SlipperyJim17 …
   @SlipperyJim17 theres going to be a lot more supernovas discovered because 1) supernovas are a LOT easier to see. Much brighter and much bigger than a protostar and 2) supernovas happen for many many many years longer than the forming of a star does.

9. 9hello123 on July 8th, 2010 at 10:33 am

   @MrBDM13 erm.. …
   @MrBDM13 erm.. thats kind of what I said mong? I said that anyone can give birth to something with a deformity but your more likely to if you have a deformity. And trust me I know a LOT more about biology than you do.

10. JoshMcRay on July 8th, 2010 at 10:33 am

    @MrBDM13 “No one …
    @MrBDM13 “No one can prove blackholes” Yes, we can. We can tell they exist through their interaction with matter, scientists have seen gas spiral inward to a point where it completely disappears reaching extremely hot temperatures, we’ve seen countless examples of black holes pulling matter into them. “you think they’re interacting with nation” nope, I and the rest of the physics community know they interact with nature. Publish a paper proving black holes don’t exist, you’ll be famous.

11. Leehofooks on July 8th, 2010 at 10:33 am

    @ShevardnadzeII …
    @ShevardnadzeII He’s not so amazing. He lies constantly. He’s also not a real doctor. He has a fake PhD.

12. gmn545 on July 8th, 2010 at 10:33 am

    @MrBDM13 In science …
    @MrBDM13 In science, all hypotheses and theories must be falsifiable. I can think of several ways in which evolution could hypothetically be falsified (none of which has occured yet) and will list them if asked. Creationism ultimately fails because it’s unfalsifiable. No evidence can be submitted without the nonsensical “rebuttal” of “God just did it that way…He can do whatever he wants and he works in mysterious ways” being made. Since it is unfalsifiable, it’s automatically unscientific.

13. gmn545 on July 8th, 2010 at 10:33 am

    @MrBDM13 And in …
    @MrBDM13 And in case you appeal to “that’s an argument from authority!”, well sorry but we’re not talking about the opinions of the general population (most members of which are ignorant), but rather of the **experts** in their respective fields, who actually do the hard work and publish through peer-review.

14. gmn545 on July 8th, 2010 at 10:33 am

    @MrBDM13 It’s you …
    @MrBDM13 It’s you who needs further education, not 9hello123. You wanna talk about biology? One of the greatest biologists (and geneticist) to ever live, Theodosius Dobzhansky (a devout Orthodox christian, BTW), said “Nothing in biology makes sense, except in the light of evolution.” Dr. Francis Collins (geneticist; leadership role in Human Genome Project; evangelical Protestant) is one of the most accomplished scientists of our time. He fully accepts evolution…as do 99% of ALL biologists.

15. SlipperyJim17 on July 8th, 2010 at 10:33 am

    @SlipperyJim17
    And …
    @SlipperyJim17
    And,, if you want to get angry at some-one why don’t you direct your anger at the scientists that make up theories and preach them as fact to the gullible people like you.

16. MrBDM13 on July 8th, 2010 at 10:33 am

    BTW my example has …
    BTW my example has parents with same heterozygous gene for color. Even after the offspring is born with a mutation, it would have to find a mate with the same mutation to then have more offspring that have a chance at aquiring the change. For a mutation to become concentrated in an active form as time goes on is nonsense. It would become more diluted in it’s active form.(actually shows and is not dominated by another allele. Even if the allele were dominant, there is not 100% child will have it

17. SlipperyJim17 on July 8th, 2010 at 10:33 am

    @JoshMcRay No, …
    @JoshMcRay No, What we see a pretty dust cloud or nebula, with stars shining through from behind. You can theorize all you like but THATS A THEORY you yogurt! NOT FACT!
    According to NASA their computer models predict that clouds of dust spin and collapse under their own gravity into blobs. So, NO just another theory!!!!!!!!!!!! AND shouldn’t we be able to see lots of stars forming. A quick Googling gave about 5000 supernovas or there abouts recorded…..

18. MrBDM13 on July 8th, 2010 at 10:33 am

    @9hello123 you …
    @9hello123 you should finish high school biology first please. Two black animals could have a white offspring, and two white animals could have a black child. It depends on alleles and dominion over one another. The dominant one will show. 2 parents could each have 1 recessive allele, so when the have childeren, there is a 25% chance it will show the recessive phenotype. Doesnt mean that generations go from black coulor->white>orange>new appendage.

19. gmn545 on July 8th, 2010 at 10:33 am

    @MrBDM13 …
    @MrBDM13 Macroevolution is evolution occuring in isolated gene pools. In other words, if there’s no gene flow, it’s “macro”. In an evolutionary context, species are delimited through independent lineages (i.e. no gene flow). This means that speciation IS a macroevolutionary process, and we already know that speciation is an observed phenomenon. In case you weren’t aware, macroevolution is defined as evolution occuring AT or above the species level. Macroevolution is a fact…deal with it.

20. 9hello123 on July 8th, 2010 at 10:33 am

    @9hello123 this is …
    @9hello123 this is observed you can not deny this you can go and see it in your own lifetime. Anyone can have a child born with a deformity but someone born with a deformity has a large chance of passing on their deformity. If this deformity helps them reproduce and survive then they will end up reproducing more than other kinds of the species and the rest of the species will die out while the one with a deformity will keep reproducing. Then further down the family tree this will happen again.

21. 9hello123 on July 8th, 2010 at 10:33 am

    @MrBDM13 …
    @MrBDM13 Microevolution taking place IS proof of macroevolution.But since ur to a to disagree then2 black people having a kid will be black,2 white people having a kid will be white. White and black can be white,black,or mixture.This is a change in genetics which will effect down his family tree.Things like this happen with all things genetic including large mutations such as being born without a finger.There is no reason why this over a large time these mutations will not keep adding up.

22. MrBDM13 on July 8th, 2010 at 10:33 am

    @JoshMcRay is …
    @JoshMcRay is SliperryJim17 supposed to be scared of what will happen if he does? haha. Noone can prove blackholes, but humans can only predict what object would cause light to stop moving so abrubtly in a straight line. So you have faith in blackholes,,, you cant see them, but you believe in them because you think they’re interacting with nature. We believe in God. You cant see him but you can see how he interacted (literally made)with nature. The complexity of the simplist cell shows it.

23. MrBDM13 on July 8th, 2010 at 10:33 am

    @rationalanarchy …
    @rationalanarchy why would you even say that. if what i read is correct, your making the assumption that macroevolution occurred. Thats far from incorrect and there is no proof of such thing. Things will always reproduce to make more of their kind.

24. JoshMcRay on July 8th, 2010 at 10:33 am

    @SlipperyJim17
    1. …
    @SlipperyJim17
    1. No, we see stars forming? There are so many pictures you could take 5 secs to look up.
    2. No, that’s what we know. We have these little things called telescopes that allow us to see and study these things.
    3. Yes, we haven’t discovered them YET
    4. Nope, we have seen bacteria evolve..study after study after study confirms this.
    5. Good quote mining. “We have never seen one directly” because we can’t you moron!!! Go tell Steven Hawking blacks holes are a theory.

25. 9hello123 on July 8th, 2010 at 10:33 am

    @joerez8 well… I …
    @joerez8 well… I suppose you could call them morons for agreeing to do the debate which was obviously going to be very biased and rigged.

Leave a Reply