Thanks C4J. I think this is the most I can expect, so I'll go ahead and respond now.
1).No hovind has debated many top professors of different universities, and destroyed them all, they are on on video, and the audience all sided with hovind. These were not hand picked audiences, these were secular universities that promote the fairy tale of evolution. I can show you fossils that have ben dated over 50 millions year old of scorpions, turtles, dragon flies lizzards etc and they look identical, no different to what they do today. please stop using the fossill record rubystars, do us all a favour, because its makes you look extremely foolish.
It's easy to convince an audience if you're more skilled at public speaking, know how to use humor, set up straw men that the audience won't realize are straw men, etc. The scientists by comparison have an almost monumental task in trying to both educate the audience AND respond to Hovind's points, all while having less rhetorical skill. Just because you "win" a live debate doesn't make you right.
One real problem I have with Hovind is that he outright uses falsehoods in order to "win" those debates. He never actually refutes any of the evidence for evolution effectively. Instead he tries to make evolution look silly by claiming it says we came from rocks. Nobody is going to believe we came from rocks!
2)How can you know more about something that doesnt exist??? if thats your claim to fame over me, then good luck to you. But i hate to break it to you, its nothing to brag about.
If you're going to argue against something, you need to have a good idea of what you're arguing against. Most creationists I've debated with have a very, very poor understanding of what evolution even is, or how it works.
Let me use an analogy. If a democrat criticizes the pro-life position, and says something ridiculous like "You want women to die in back alleys!" is that accurate? No, nobody on the pro-life side wants women to die in back alleys. However, they might go around saying that pro-lifers are all about killing women in back alleys. Of course people who hear this will be against the pro-life position, they might even win debates against pro-lifers with that. It's not even true. If they don't know what the pro-life position is, then they can't begin to argue against it in any real way without lying.
3) So why are there no half apes half mean still alive???ill let lee strobal school you on this one..
There were other hominids that lived at the same time as modern human beings, but they went extinct. Earlier hominids than that evolved into us or went extinct.
My response to the video's points:
1. Macroevolution and microevolution are the same process. The only difference is how much change has happened, a little, or a lot.
2. Future discoveries did bear out Darwin's basic theory (and expanded upon it).
3. Bats and whales both share the same basic mammalian skelton and mammalian characteristics. There are not too many fossil transitionals of bats because they are small and don't preserve well, but there are a lot of whale transitionals, and there are also early mammal remains which could have been their common ancestor (and ours).
4. I really have no idea why he thinks that list of universities that have professors that are against evolution is relevant. He never even said what their credentials are. They could be professors of physics, or theology.
5. If it's not a faith versus science issue, but a science versus science issue, then creationists really need to come up with some serious scientific arguments against evolution.
4) you simply described how a bomberdeer beatle works, lmao, that was shoddy ruby, and avoided my question.
I gave you 15 steps explaining how the bombadier beetle could have evolved its mechanism gradually, and not all at once. Please read it again more slowly and thoroughly. "Invagination" means like forming a pocket, a folding in.
5) As for that picture of the bird and the dinosaur, i can only assume you think i have iq of less than 40 with that.
I was trying to show you that the skeletons look very much the same, just slightly modified. There are dinosaur skeletons that look much more similar to the chicken than the T-Rex though, but I figured since its such an iconic dinosaur, I might as well use that one, since its similar enough to make the point.
I wouldnt even show a 3 year old to try and explain evolution, that was shocking rubystars. Im sorry, you have failed dramtically. Comprehensively failed at convincing me.
What can I show you that would be more convincing?
i think both you and KWRBT should give up on this thread, discuss topics you actually understand and exist, and quit making folls of yourself. As soon you to will be claiming that tobacco shares a common ancestor with humans.
You knew I was going to say this. Here goes, yes tobacco shares a common ancestor with humans.
out of 10 ruby, 1, and thats for grammar.
At least I got that compliment