Muslim fundamentalist and Christian fundamentalists – what strange bedfellows

It also appears that academic dishonesty also crosses the religious divide. havekoranwilltravel has plagiarised the entirity of his/her post from “In the Beginning…Soup?” .

Biochemistry is out of my league so I can not comment of the accuracy of the claims made, however, I note the argument boils down to the logic fallacy of Argument from Ignorance and God in the Gaps. If a process is unknown and/or mysterious that does not mean it is the result of the supernatural. Such a line of reasoning has hitorically had a 100% failure rate.

I knew I heard about the life from a meteor someplace before. It clicked in my head so I looked it up. It was in the movie Creepshow from 1982 in the segment “The Lonesome Death of Jordy Verrill”. A meteor came down and created plant life.

Nice to know where the inspiration is for the expenditure of our tax dollars in grant research. Since we can’t prove life came from a rock here, we need to use rocks from somewhere else. Let’s just ignore the heat of entry into the atmosphere and how the meteor would have gotten the materials necessary to create life in the first place. (same problems + more complications = more wasted money)

I wonder what other scientific “advancements” we can get from Hollywood.

Vasahond has several good points. I was just dusting off my debating style as it had gotten a tad rusty.

A couple things about me:
I’ve got a pretty good baloney meter when I hear arguments. Why? Best example is something I did in college on a term paper for an argumentative English class. I wrote a paper on “Bart Simpson Is Not an Underachiever” and backed it up with 14 resources. I got an A on it. Both the professor and I knew it was total baloney, but I followed the criteria for the essay. So I know how easy it is to make a load of baloney sound good.

Next, I’m a former teacher and now a father. I will always fight for the children. Adults can mess up their own lives the way they want to. But I feel, they don’t have the right to ruin the lives of children because of the choices of the adult. (Long background on that stance.) For that reason and others, I agree with Hovind and his campaign to get the false information out of textbooks. Also, I’m all for comprehensive, age appropriate study of topics in the education setting. The evol vs. creation debate is a complex topic which begs the question of what grade level it belongs in. No one can convince me it belongs in the K-6 curriculum. So what is the purpose of teaching at that level? Likely, it isn’t a beneficial reason for the betterment of society or education. (Subjective arguments)

As for Hovind and his debates, there is a simple observation. (Not content related) Most professors and “experts” in any given field stink in a public forum. The best I’ve seen are those with training in public speaking, professional orators, or former K-12 teachers. The same “experts” do shine in written forums where they can edit what they say. It’s pretty simple really. Side note: I’ve been around long enough to observe there are very few true unbiased experts in any given field.

As for his “pride” in his family, I’m all for his shouting out his love for his family to the world. If you don’t like it, oh well don’t listen. Freedom of speech

On the whole E vs C debate, there is one thing that irks me. Changing the definition of science so only naturalistic explanations are acceptable is flat out lame. If you tried that in a debate forum (pick any topic), you’d automatically lose the debate and be considered a fool. If you tried that on a argumentative essay for an English college class, you’d be flagged for a poor argument. If you tried that on an exam or essay for a final grade, you’d flunk. Just try that on a Geometry test and see how far that gets you. Changing the definition of a word to make you automatically correct is just pathetic.

Hovind is totally correct on a number of common sense points. Evolution can’t be proven (realistically). Fossils do not provide evidence to support it because they can’t. There are only two ways you can solve the debate. Neither is realistic for the debate. 1) You’ll need to die. Then if evol is true, you will never know. If Creationism is true, you’ll know it when you meet God. But it is too late to admit your mistake. 2) Travel back in time to document your observations scientifically. Then share the technology so your research can be duplicated. Careful though, if you pick the wrong time you may end up materializing in nothing and end up dead.

So Vasahond is correct. We’ll never know while we live. Maddox’s statement was correct. Pick what you want to believe. You’ll find out when you pass on if you were right or not.

When I read Dr. Edward E. Max’s article titled “Plagiarized Errors and Molecular Genetics”, I found him to be respectable and honest. He identified the concept of evolution as a hypothesis. That is 100% correct. To summarize his conclusion, he stated his conclusion was based on his best interpretation of the data with the information we had so far in that dynamic field of study. Translation, it was his opinion or best guesses. That is all any speculation on origins is – a best guess, a hypothesis.

Hence it is my stance that any guess in science shouldn’t be in the textbooks. Math doesn’t permit room for much philosophy to distort it. Science used to be taught the same way. Now we are teaching leaps of logic in science and wondering why scores go down in math. If we were to allow children to answer test questions the same way this highly contested hypothesis is being pushed, education will falter and the US hold on intellectual advancements will erode.

(This part is a nod to darling.) Now on the topic of electrons, we know electricity exists. We can readily observe it. We may hypothesize about electrons but currently we lack the tools and skills to observe it. Evolution and electricity are two totally different concepts.

Forensic science is a very good criminal justice TOOL with limitations. It can reconstruct the cause of death given sufficient amounts of data. Forensic science will not give you a motive though. Also, the further back in time you go for a forensic study the less effective it gets. (Cleopatra documentary showed this.) Why? The amount of environmental data and societal data worsens as you try and backtrack. This requires more assumptions and increases the potential for error. Forensic science can never tell you if a subject had children just from the study of a given subject. Insufficient data and information.

The fossils in the fossil ‘record’ are the same. First, the quantity of fossils found of vertebrates is very small. Complete or near complete fossils are extremely rare. Definitely far too insufficient to paint grandiose pictures of the past and teach it as fact. Second, if the animal wasn’t in the process of giving birth when fossilized, there is no way to know if there were any offspring.

So in review Matthew, there are problems abounding in proclaiming your “truth”. Where, when and how life began are problems for naturalistic science. Endtimes in the ATW thread spelled out a batch more. Fossils aren’t an argument for it either. All origin talk is about belief. If you don’t want to believe Creationism, fine. Evolution is merely a hypothesis – a guess. If you want to believe it, fine. Just don’t support teaching your belief to my daughter at my expense.

I’ll keep reading stuff. But I’m waiting for someone to give the only honest answer there is in the origins of life topic (from a scientific or naturalistic statement) – there is insufficient information available to make any definitive conclusion on the origins of life. Honesty and humility would be a welcome change. Until then, keep reading and learning but Vasahond is correct. There is no point in beating each other over the head. I proved in a paper Bart Simpson wasn’t an underachiever, that doesn’t make it fact or the “truth”. I definitely don’t waste my time declaring I know the “truth” about Bart Simpson.

I’ll keep fighting for honesty and the children. You do what you want Matthew.

God Bless
Maturekid

Nobody knows “how” God did it. I would even argue against the creationists knowing how God did it. Evolution is just like us telling God that we know how He did it, because we’re so “enlightened,” wonderful, and brilliant. May I say to you, God must surely be laughing at how pitiful we truly are… And also saying “Where were you when I laid the foundations of the earth? Tell Me, if you have understanding.”

I don’t care who you are, what degree you have, or what “evidence” you have to support your pathetic origin theory. You’ll never know how God did it. The great thing about Creation is that creationists don’t attempt to show how God did it; they just show the evidence that illustrates the fact that we were created and that the Bible is, indeed, accurate — contrary to popular belief. Also, the majority can be wrong. Just look at the lemmings. If one goes over a cliff, the rest follow. Just because popular belief says that evolution is true does not mean that it’s right.

That’s the only understanding that we need — and also, let me remind you… It’s useless to argue or reason with people that are not open to your opinion. If they’re sincerely opposed to it, nothing with change that. So Christians, do yourselves a favor and don’t bother casting your pearls to the swine. Oh, and I’m blunt. Make no mistake; I’m not about to beat around the bush.

Living cells are the only places in NATURE where proteins are made because they contain the information to put amino acids in the right order for each individual protein, and have tiny machines that link them together. No proteins ever form in nature outside of already living cells. Never!

Amino acids come in two kinds: Half are called left-handed and half right-handed. Only left-handed amino acids will work in living things. Proteins which contain any right-handed amino acids have the wrong shape and will not connect properly to the proteins around them. It is like taking a piece out of a puzzle, turning it upside down and trying to put it back in. It is the same size and shape, but it won’t fit. Amino acids formed in nature or in experiments like Miller’s will not work to make the proteins of living things because they are half left, and half right-handed. This evidence, added to the fact that proteins never form outside of cells, makes it even more clear that life could not have come from organic soup.

In spite of the difficulty, already living cells can make proteins because:

If you think of DNA as the cell’s library, and RNA as a book that can be checked out of the library, one kind of RNA checks out information from the DNA to line up left handed amino acids in the precise order for a particular protein.
The amino acids are then linked together by a “molecular machine” made of another kind of RNA and several proteins. Each cell has many kinds of molecular machines.

amino acids:

Do not concentrate in the ocean. They disperse and break down.
Outside of cells, amino acids will not link together in nature to form proteins, not even when scientists help them by buying all left-handed amino acids from a chemical supply house to make the perfect organic soup.
Proteins could not get together with DNA in a primordial soup because DNA does not form outside of cells either. Scientists can’t even make DNA in the laboratory.

“Scientists have not been able to cause amino acids dissolved in water to join together to form proteins. The energy-requiring chemical reactions that join amino acids are reversible and do not occur spontaneously in water. However, most scientists no longer argue that the first proteins assembled spontaneously. Instead, they now tell us that the initial macromolecules were composed of RNA, and that RNA later catalyzed the formation of proteins.”1

The idea that RNA, rather than proteins, formed in primordial soup, is also false. RNA and DNA are made of nucleotides, a bit like proteins are made of amino acids. Fry states:

“…water greatly interferes with the linking of amino acids and nucleotides into chains, a crucial step in the origin of life.”2

In fact, even when the nucleotides are dry, RNA cannot be made except by already living cells:

“…no one has yet succeeded in creating RNA.”3

Many atheists today are abandoning the false argument that life began when proteins formed in primordial soup to believe the even more false claim that RNA did. Not only can RNA not be formed anywhere except in living cells, it contains sugars which must all be right-handed. If left-handed sugars were present, and were included, RNA would never work even if it could form. Hiding these facts, some schoolbooks now make the formation of RNA sound as easy as they made protein formation sound to previous generations of students. Here is an example:

“First, RNA nucleotides formed from simple gas molecules in much the same way as in experiments similar to those done by Miller and Urey. Nucleotides then assembled spontaneously into small chains…. These small chains were able to make copies of themselves. Once replicating molecules like these appear, natural selection and evolution are possible.”4

This is science fiction. Perhaps the authors have confused nucleotides, which will not form, with bases, the main ingredients of nucleotides. Scientists have repeated the experiment of Stanley Miller and his teacher, Urey, many times in many variations. Neither RNA nor nucleotides, their building blocks, will form, nor could nucleotides sort for all right-handed sugars if they did form. This is real evidence, and has been put to the test.

“Perhaps RNA was the first self-replicating information-storage molecule. After it had formed, it could also have catalyzed the assembly of the first proteins….”5

Before you get too enthused over the marvelous powers of “perhaps RNA,” remember that years of research have not been able to make RNA form, nor does RNA catalyze the assembly of proteins.

“Though a few organic substances-for instance, certain simple amino acids-can form relatively easily under prebiotic conditions, other biochemical building blocks, such as nucleotides and lipids, require for their synthesis a ‘real factory.’ … The synthesis of these substances involves a series of reactions, each reaction following the previous one in utmost accuracy.”6

The “real factory” that can make nucleotides is any living cell. Some other atheistic scientists also tell it like it is:

“Some of the steps leading to the synthesis of DNA and RNA can be duplicated in the laboratory, others cannot.”7

The fact that RNA does not form in nature outside of living cells and scientists cannot even make it from scratch in the lab is scientific evidence, and can be tested. In the case of both proteins and RNA, atheists have opposed my evidence by pointing out smaller and simpler molecules which do form in nature. This is true, but so what? Proteins do the work of the cell with the direction and help of RNA, and DNA. All three are often called macromolecules because they are so large and complex. None of them form in nature outside of living cells.

Proteins must fold perfectly

When a cell has made a new protein, while it is still moving into place, it folds into the exact shape which will allow it to connect with the proteins next to it. Some scientists use the illustration of a hand in a glove to describe how a protein must fit. Others liken it to the way a key fits in a lock. How does a new protein know how to fold? IBM is building the world’s most powerful super computer named Blue Gene, hoping to figure this out. The Oregonian describes the new super computer:

“The machine, dubbed Blue Gene, will be turned loose on a single problem. The computer will try to model the way a human protein folds into a particular shape that gives it its unique biological properties.”8

IBM writes:

“To make proteins, agents known as ribosomes connect amino acids into long strings. These strings loop and fold around each other in a variety of ways. However, only one of these many ways will allow the protein to function properly.”9
“… proteins fold into a highly complex, three-dimensional shape that determines their function. Any change in shape dramatically alters the function of a protein, and even the slightest change in the folding process can turn a desirable protein into a disease.”10

Because Blue Gene will unleash tremendous computing power, by running it day and night it should only take, “about one year to simulate the complete folding of a typical protein.”11 Living cells, however, fold such proteins in less than a second. This evidence shows that the One who invented the way proteins fold in cells is much more intelligent than the new super computer.

In the lab, intelligent scientists have learned how to link amino acids together to form some of the smaller proteins. However, unless the amino acids are all left-handed and the proteins fold properly, they are no better than miniature spaghetti as far as biological activity is concerned.

Addressing proteins

Even though there are huge numbers of wrong places for proteins to go, there is only one correct place in which each newly made protein can fit and function. Proteins are worthless except in the one spot they fold to fit. How do proteins find their way?

“… newly minted proteins contain an amino acid string that determines their eventual home.”12

The amino acid string which forms the address is usually added as a tail on the end of the longer string of amino acids which make up the protein. This tail has been compared to the address on an envelope.

Before you claim this evidence does not matter, put a bunch of your letters in the mail box without addressing them. If the right addresses form spontaneously, let me know! Science News says,

“Misplacing a protein is more serious than losing a letter, however. There are diseases where proteins are mistargeted in cells.”13

In 1999, “The Nobel Prize for Medicine went to Dr. Guenter Blobel of The Rockefeller University in New York”14 for discovering the amino acid address tags that direct each protein to its proper place in the cell. All available evidence indicates that creating the correct information for each address, and expressing it in code requires intelligence. Cells can’t live unless each of their many proteins not only folds correctly, but receives the correct address tag. Things which will not work at all unless several things were in place and working together from the very first are called “irreducibly complex.”

Turning proteins on and off

The cell also needs the right amount of each protein. If there was even one protein that the cell did not stop making after it had made enough, the cell would soon be jammed so full of that protein that it would pop. The production of every individual protein is, and must be, turned on and off at just the right moments.15

If a first cell did not contain the information to correctly turn on and off the production of each protein, that cell would have died. This is evidence that the divine programmer who coded in the necessary information knew when to turn protein production on and off.

So what?

The proteins that make up cells do not form anywhere in nature except in already living cells. One reason cells can make them is because the instructions for constructing them and then turning their production on and off are already present in the cell’s library of information. Once made, proteins could not function unless they were properly folded and addressed. Neither making proteins, folding, addressing, nor regulating their production could invent itself, yet no cell could live unless all were in place and coordinated. These are scientific facts; evidence for a very intelligent Creator who plans ahead.

Textbook authors who replace scientific evidence with atheistic theory contribute to the “dumbing down” of students. Students are not taught the important scientific facts we have just seen because they contradict atheistic theory. Instead, class time is taken up learning propaganda that is contrary to real science.

A Cell Needs a Membrane

Each cell is contained inside a two layer membrane made of lipids (fats).1 Lipids are only formed by living cells. Here is a quote that we read earlier, when we were considering nucleotides, the building blocks of RNA and DNA. It is important here as well:

“Though a few organic substances-for instance, certain simple amino acids-can form relatively easily under prebiotic conditions, other biochemical building blocks, such as nucleotides and lipids, require for their synthesis a ‘real factory.’ … The synthesis of these substances involves a series of reactions, each reaction following the previous one in utmost accuracy.”2

Cells can’t live without lipids, and lipids are only produced by already living cells.

What does the cell’s membrane do?

Alberts writes:

“A living cell is a self-reproducing system of molecules held inside a container. The container is the plasma membrane – a fatty film so thin and transparent that it cannot be seen directly in the light microscope. It is simple in construction, being based on a sheet of lipid molecules…. Although it serves as a barrier to prevent the contents of the cell from escaping and mixing with the surrounding medium…the plasma membrane does much more than that. Nutrients have to pass inward across it if the cell is to survive and grow, and waste products have to pass outward. Thus the membrane is penetrated by highly selective channels and pumps, formed from protein molecules, that allow specific substances to be imported while others are exported.”3

A lipid membrane without its protein pumps and channels would let water enter the cell, but would keep nutrients out, starving the cell,4 so proteins had to work together with the lipids from the first. This is evidence of carefully planned irreducible complexity.

If cells had really formed by themselves, we would expect their important parts to be made of substances that are easily formed under natural conditions. Amazing! Not one of the four: lipids, proteins, RNA, or DNA, can be formed in nature except by a living cell, yet for a cell to live, all four must be up and running, each one doing its job.

If God had wanted to shout to us that He is here, and show us proof that He created, can you think of a better way for Him to do it? Run, don’t walk, to the nearest Bible and get to know your awesome Creator personally through His Son, Jesus Christ! Start with the book of
John.

1George B. Johnson, Peter H. Raven, Biology, Principles & Explorations, Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1996, p. 235.
Return to text

2 Iris Fry, The Emergence of Life on Earth, 2000, p. 245.
Return to text

3 Peter D. Ward, Donald Brownlee, Rare Earth, Why Complex Life is Uncommon in the Universe, 2000, p. 65. See also 62-6.
Return to text

4 Holt, Annotated Teacher’s Edition, Biology, Visualizing Life, 1994, p. 201.
Return to text

5 George B. Johnson, Peter H. Raven, Biology, Principles & Explorations, Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1996, p. 230.
Return to text

6 Iris Fry, The Emergence of Life on Earth, 2000, p. 126, 176-177.
Return to text

7 Peter D. Ward, Donald Brownlee, Rare Earth, Why Complex Life is Uncommon in the Universe, 2000, p. 63.
Return to text

8 Justin Gillis, The Sunday Oregonian, June 4, 2000, A5.
Return to text

9 November 2001, IBM Research News, October 1, 2001.
Return to text

10 http://www.research.ibm.com/bluegene/press_release.html
Return to text

11 Robert F. Service, Science, 12/17/99, p. 2250.
Return to text

12 Tom A. Rapoport of Harvard Medical School, Science News, 10/16/99, Vol. 156 Issue 16, p. 246. See also Britannica Biography Collection, Guenter Blobel.
Return to text

13 Rapoport, Science News, 10/16/99, Vol. 156 Issue 16, p. 246. See also Britannica Biography Collection, Guenter Blobel.
Return to text

14 www4.cnn.com/HEALTH/9910/11/nobel.medicine.03/index.html
Return to text

15 Susan Aldridge, The Thread of Life, The Story of Genes and Genetic Engineering, Cambridge University Press, 1996, p. 47-53.
Return to text

1Bruce Alberts, Essential Cell Biology, An Introduction to the Molecular Biology of the Cell, 1998, p. 348, 363.
Return to text

2Iris Fry, The Emergence of Life on Earth, 2000, p. 126, 176-177.
Return to text

3Bruce Alberts, Essential Cell Biology, 1998, p. 347.
Return to text

4Essential Cell Biology, p. 347, 356-357.
Return to text

-To quote him directly “…go there and check out the article about petrified polystrata fossils.” He does not use the phrase polystrate, however polystrata and polystrate are the same thing. If the trees get buried in mud and petrify rapidly, how is that a contradiction?

**You are correct, he does use that tautological description for the fossils (I hadn’t noticed it). Regardless, the contradiction occurs because he gives an example of the trees washed into Spirit Lake being buried vertically through potentially multiple layers of past (and possible future) layering.

-Not confused…let me rephrase, ‘okay, that particular portion does not fit our old age uniformitarian process, therefore it was formed quickly and not at the same rate as these other layers that took millions of years to form’.

**What we have hear is confusion between 19th century Uniformatarianism and modern Uniformatarianism (more accurately called Actualism). Modern geologists acknowledge the lithosphere is a dynamic place. The 19th Century idea that something could be dated by calculating how long it was deposited for is generally NOT used as a dating mechanism with some exceptions for things like lake varves.

-Would you be willing to entertain the possibility that a worldwide flood did it? Side from multiple volcanic eruptions all around the world similar to mount st. helens, I do not see any other good way to explain them. However as I said before, is there evidence of volcanic activity near every polystrate fossil site?

**Mechanisms to form polystrate fossils (in no particular order): pyroclasitic flows, floods, landslides and sand drift. I’m sure there are more but we can agree there is no shortage of these types of events.

-And if you are willing to admit that these layers formed quickly, why not all the other layers around the world?

**The problem for such a suggestion is the existance of formations which can only form slowly, for example, chalk deposits such as the White Cliffs of Dover. It is impossibe to form that amount of diatom accumulation in a short time frame. We won’t mention how chalk deposits remained free of flood debri.

Actualism (modern Uniformatarianism) can handle both slow and fast events over long periods of time. Catastrophism can offer an explanation for fast events but trips up on the long period events.

Maturekid:

Like I said, I like links. So please substantiate your statements with a link to the refuting source. My numbers 1-17 were copy-pasted so I could find out what Matthew had to say. If you checked it out, my link titled 12 – is the identical article to what your 2nd link was (after searching the site for it). So provide me with something to substantiate your statement on Maddox’s supposed illogical rationale. Matthew did. Thanks Matthew.

**The “refuting source” is myself. It doesn’t take any great skill to spot the flaws in Maddox’s argument. Or are you suggesting that it is in fact true that ANY three point mutations are lethal because cystic fibrosis is caused by three SPECIFIC mutations? Notice how his argument morphs from 3 specific mutations into any three random mutations.

Maddox: Cystic fibrosis is caused by tiny (point) mutations in chromosome 7, leading to deletion of a single amino acid in as=m ion transport protein, 1,480 amino acids long. [...] The cystic fibrosis genetic mutation involves a random change of not more than 3 nucleotides. The important point is that science has now quantitated that a genetic mutation of as little as 1 billionth (.0000001%) of an animal’s genome is relentlessly fatal! [...] And a random change of only 3 nucleotides is fatal to an animal (and of course the death of a crippled mutant animal ends all possibility of further change).

I hope everyone at least acknowledges that Maddox is not a “leading genome researcher”. I would love to know how that urban legend started.

p.s. I can’t help it if Jesus Christ is the Lord God Almighty. He did all that. If you don’t like it, get hold of a King James Bible, turn off all major media disinfo outlets, read your KJV, and prove Him wrong. But you gotta read it, though. Ah…there’s the rub.

Looks like Gordon_Comstock can’t address my points, so he’s reduced to:

*name calling*
*repeat conspiracy theory*
*personal attack*
*more name calling*
*call to repentance*

How odd.

Hovind winning debates is questionable because those in the audience tend to favour Hovind’s position. Also, has there ever been a vote on declaring who is the winner and is it by the audience or by a judging panel? Hovind has used ad hominem attacks in his seminars, particularly wiht Darwin. He also blames evolution for Columbine, rise of crime, out-of-wedlock births, teen suicide and STDs.

He may have pride of a loving family, but don’t flaunt it. I know people have a problem with homosexuals flaunting their lifestyle style.

I’ll admit that I don’t have expertise in genetics or any scientific field, just going on what the experts have to say, someone with knowledge in the field. This is why I don’t trust Hovind’s arguments since he is diploma is theology and not scientific.

I’m not going to do any name calling. Feel assured of that. Lessons derived from my odd siblings, their spouses, and former students have taught me many valuable skills. But this isn’t the forum for that.

We can go dancing around and around the fire of legalilty, intent, etc until we’re exhausted. The US Constitution was written to curtail the federal government and keep the federal government servants to the people. Not the people being the servants to the government. Trusting politicians to do the right thing because they made it a “law” gives unnerving historical flashbacks. Of the top 10 most dishonest professions, car salesmen, politicians, lawyers, and journalists/media dominated the list. Most of the members of Congress were former lawyers. Do I personally trust the government? No. Am I fairly convinced our government has become corrupt? Yup, try and find governments that aren’t. Do I think we are dangerously close (or already have) to repeating horrid historical decisions? Yes, it appears that way. Since the 7 deadly sins were brought up, the two focal ones are Lust (for power & control) and Greed seems to be the clarion call of the day. But let us agree to disagree.

As for electrons, electricity, forensic science, etc. those are tangent topics and getting off track. But don’t worry, I’ll address them later.

Matthew,

Speaking of the 7 deadly sins, I wasn’t the one to mention them to you. But I’ll comment and get on with the rest of our topic.

“Hovind is proud to tell people that he often defeats evolutionists in debates (this is questionable)”
I haven’t watched all of the debate videos. But from the ones my wife and I have observed (me being a debate judge and her having been in formal debates), we’ve observed a few things regarding the debates in question.
1) The vast majority of trained individuals in specific fields have a devil of a time in a free-form public forum.
2) The specialists (Chemists, IT guys, etc.) tend to not bring it down to the audience’s level and get flabbergasted quite easily.
3) Hovind does have a noted edge in debate forums with experience on his side.
4) His opponents sometimes have a tendency to cross the debate protocol line and do personal attacks. Strict no-no in debates.
So from a sheer debate judge standard (not content standard), yes Hovind gets the nod.

“that often he tells about his “beautiful” wife and family”
I would conclude from this statement that you are single. Correct? My dad has the best line I’ve heard. “Happy wife, happy life.” If all men took such “pride” in demonstrating their love, care and adoration for their family, many of our social ills would be gone. I commend Kent Hovind on his stance as a father and husband. I don’t know him personally but those who have spoken to his humble and caring nature show he’s a good man at heart. That’s a good father and husband.

“and that no one can prove evolution happened.”

Heh heh, this is why we are debating. So are scientists. That leads me to my next questions as I work my way through all the info.

Do you agree with Edward E. Max, M.D., Ph.D. in the article you gave me titled “Plagiarized Errors and Molecular Genetics”? Do you have any critique of the article yourself?

I for one like the links provided. But I’m an information sponge and researching geek. Personal preference thing.

CMaryChurch,

Like I said, I like links. So please substantiate your statements with a link to the refuting source. My numbers 1-17 were copy-pasted so I could find out what Matthew had to say. If you checked it out, my link titled 12 – is the identical article to what your 2nd link was (after searching the site for it). So provide me with something to substantiate your statement on Maddox’s supposed illogical rationale. Matthew did. Thanks Matthew.