Jump to content


Photo

Salmon-stock Geneticist Stumps Yec'r Kent H*vind


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
22 replies to this topic

#1 Designist

Designist

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 37 posts
  • Age: 58
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Toronto

Posted 30 October 2009 - 12:57 PM

At dbfL1jkpmJg you will notice how a certain geneticist from Belgium stumps Kent H*vind, a Young Earth Creationist.

I was disappointed by the manner in which Kent answered this geneticist.

At this point, I am not seeking to debate a case for or against a young earth position. I am merely attempting to find a qualified YEC response to a video that is probably convincing a lot of Young-Earthers to abandon ship.

I believe that the best people to consult when attempting to find out how a Young-Earther would look upon and interpret the evidence that this Salmon-Stock Old-Earther/evolutionist and geneticist speaks about are YEC's who are working in the same field, the same capacity, and are as familiar with the same experiments as this geneticist happens to be working and conducting experiments in.

It hardly seems fair to anyone who is serious about finding irrefutable proof for either a young earth or old earth to take seriously any discussion between two people such as Kent H*vind (clearly a YEC High school teacher/textbook researcher or clearly not a Salmon-Stock geneticist and clearly unaware of the scientific research in the field of Salmon-Stock genetics) and an Old-Earther/evolutionist, like the geneticist who has called in to speak with Kent H*vind through the call-in talk show in which Kent H*vind is the guest to whom all calls are addressed.

I have emailed ICR (through http://www.icr.org) for a response to this video. But, the reply I recieved left me with the impression that no one had time to view the video or respond to it. Needless to say, I have had a very difficult time trying to find a qualified YEC from ICR or anywhere who could respond to a video that I am sure is convincing a lot of people that irrefutable proof for an old-earth is out there, although not very many YEC's may be aware of it yet.

I am attempting to find at least one YEC here who is as qualified as the geneticist happens to be and who is capable of providing serious students of science with irrefutable proof that the geneticist is hiding something or that he is not being straightforward or that the way(s) in which he and others like him are interpreting the evidence that he is speaking about contain at least one serious flaw.

Perhaps, at least one or more of the YEC's that are here can provide me with a better response than the one that Kent H*vind provided, in answer to the call-in geneticist that is featured in this video. I am hoping, one way or another to get a serious and informed YEC response to this video.

Again, please keep the folowing in mind when replying to this post and topic:

At this point, I am not seeking to debate with either YEC's or Old-Earthers. I am merely attempting to find a better response to the call-in geneticist than the response everyone is receiving from Kent H*vind in this video. Thank you!

One more thing! Can anyone here tell me why everytime I type H*vind correctly the "*" always replaces the letter "o", which is the letter I am actually typing in that space everytime I type that name? Also, can anyone here tell me why the "*" doesn't replace "o" anywhere in the body of this post other than immediately after the capitalized letter "H" in Kent's surname?

#2 scott

scott

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1749 posts
  • Age: 21
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • mississippi

Posted 30 October 2009 - 03:53 PM

I can help, Creation is not applicable, it's a belief that God created the earth in 6 days. You don't apply it... It's history.

Everything this video deals with is simple micro-evolution, or adaptation which does not contradict YEC in the least. The breeding process used by the Salmon Farmers is the exact same thing the farmers down here in Mississippi use with our catfish. Absolutely nothing magical happens with this process as evolutionist would have you believe. The same old dusty information is used each time we breed our catfish, and make specialized breeds. Same with cattle, dogs, fish, and cats. It's all the same, even with humans.

Evolution Theory is only applicable in Micro-evolution, and even then it cannot be accurately called evolution because it's just adaptation. Evolutionist simply believe that Micro-evolution will eventually turn to Macro-evolution with time. Most evolutionist don't believe in Micro or Macro, and consider those as non-applicable words because they believe evolution happens regardless of what the breeding process shows as true.

The Failure of the addition of new information inside the genome still holds true each and everytime with the Breeding process. Evolutionist want genetic manipulation to so dearly be evolution that they will claim it as such.

Oh yes and one more thing. Kent H*vind is a well known Creation Scientist or supporter, and his name has been censored like that, because many people like to call him stupid/idiotic, and claim all sorts of false accusations on him for.

#3 AFJ

AFJ

    AFJ

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1625 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Baton Rouge, LA
  • Interests:Bible, molecular biology, chemistry, mineralogy, geology, eschatology, history, family
  • Age: 51
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Baton Rouge, LA

Posted 01 November 2009 - 02:45 PM

I can help, Creation is not applicable, it's a belief that God created the earth in 6 days.  You don't apply it... It's history.

Everything this video deals with is simple micro-evolution, or adaptation which does not contradict YEC in the least.  The breeding process used by the Salmon Farmers is the exact same thing the farmers down here in Mississippi use with our catfish.  Absolutely nothing magical happens with this process as evolutionist would have you believe.  The same old dusty information is used each time we breed our catfish, and make specialized breeds.  Same with cattle, dogs, fish, and cats.  It's all the same, even with humans.

Evolution Theory is only applicable in Micro-evolution, and even then it cannot be accurately called evolution because it's just adaptation.  Evolutionist simply believe that Micro-evolution will eventually turn to Macro-evolution with time.  Most evolutionist don't believe in Micro or Macro, and consider those as non-applicable words because they believe evolution happens regardless of what the breeding process shows as true.

The Failure of the addition of new information inside the genome still holds true each and everytime with the Breeding process.  Evolutionist want genetic manipulation to so dearly be evolution that they will claim it as such.

Oh yes and one more thing.  Kent H*vind is a well known Creation Scientist or supporter, and his name has been censored like that, because many people like to call him stupid/idiotic, and claim all sorts of false accusations on him for.

View Post


Thanks Scott,

My gosh, as though every variation is from a mutation--it's not! With all due respect, this geneticist's suggestion that all the variation in salmon could not take place in 6000 years. How does he know when he doesn't know the what the original genetic material contained or how much potential variation there was to start with?

Yet we find that in the Cambrian Explosion fossils with all kinds of rich variation and extinct phylla. When interpreted as a large deletion from the entire gene pool, there is the possibility that today's individual salmon do not contain as many recessive traits as perhaps they did before the flood.

What about recombination when two gametes form a zygote. Look at the variation that can come from two people--let alone from many gametes. Variation in alleomorphic factors can vary in heterozygous traits. Look at eye color alone. Not every one is either brown or blue--there are all kinds of different shades, combinations and tints of both.

Then he was not talking to a fellow geneticist. Let this man take on a creation geneticist like Dr. Georgia Purdom of Ohio State U. This "debate" was a set up.

#4 AFJ

AFJ

    AFJ

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1625 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Baton Rouge, LA
  • Interests:Bible, molecular biology, chemistry, mineralogy, geology, eschatology, history, family
  • Age: 51
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Baton Rouge, LA

Posted 01 November 2009 - 05:55 PM

Here's an interesting article on how three genes can bring alot of variation:

Coat Variation in the Domestic Dog Is Governed by Variants in Three Genes
Published Online August 27, 2009
Science DOI: 10.1126/science.1177808

Science Express Index
Reports

Submitted on June 16, 2009
Accepted on August 14, 2009


Coat color and type are essential characteristics of domestic dog breeds. While the genetic basis of coat color has been well characterized, relatively little is known about the genes influencing coat growth pattern, length, and curl. We performed genome-wide association studies of more than 1000 dogs from 80 domestic breeds to identify genes associated with canine fur phenotypes. Taking advantage of both inter- and intrabreed variability, we identified distinct mutations in three genes, RSPO2, FGF5, and KRT71 (encoding R-spondin-2, fibroblast growth factor–5 and keratin-71, respectively), which together account for the majority of coat phenotypes in purebred dogs in the United States. This work illustrates that an array of varied and seemingly complex phenotypes can be reduced to the combinatorial effects of only a few genes.

In another paper on AiG on the subject of dog hair variation, research shows that knocking out the same gene in dogs and mice has totally different effcts.

RSPO2 Insertion Furnishing Moustache and Eyebrows:
A study in mice where this gene was knocked out (destroyed) resulted in mice that suffered abnormalities in the bones of the midfacial region, loss of the distal limbs, and underdeveloped lungs. In fact, the mice died at birth from respiratory failure.4 This is in contrast to the increased expression of this gene in dogs, which provides for interesting variety with minimal negative effects.

#5 CTD

CTD

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2059 posts
  • Age: 44
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Missouri

Posted 01 November 2009 - 09:33 PM

Haven't watched the video, but it's hardly news that Kent H*vind is not omniscient. Are you? It's a bit much to expect any man to be knowledgeable in every field of science.

On the other hand, I cannot imagine how anything in genetics could even begin to discredit creation science or creationism. There are patterns and there are things that break the patterns; this is so with all aspects of design and it confounds all forms of evolutionism, for evolutionism can either be set up to explain patternless life or life which is fully compliant with patterns, but not both. A gene which breaks the pattern is every bit as compatible with creationism as one that complies.

I'm guessing this is simply another case of emotional oneupmanship. H*vind didn't know, so he loses, whether or not a sound argument is presented, huh?

Now I suppose I should try to dl the thing and see just how funny it turns out...

#6 Designist

Designist

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 37 posts
  • Age: 58
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Toronto

Posted 01 November 2009 - 09:43 PM

Scott and AFJ:

I want to thank both of you from the bottom of my heart for a much better response to the geneticist in the video than the response we received from Kent H*vind.

I am hoping that someone who knows how to use YouTube might share that response to the YouTube audience that is aware of that video.

I hope you don't mind if I refer to your posts in any future dealings I may have with evolutionists and Old-Earthers if ever they should engage me in a discussion about Salmon Stock and whether or not it blows a hole in the YEC position.

I am greatly relieved! I was afraid there was no such response from a YEC.

Thank God for this forum and the well-informed YEC members that participate in it.

Scott:

Thank you also for answering my question regarding the * replacing the "o" in Kent's surname.

AFJ:

The article you posted is too technical for me to grasp it as I'd like to. Many words in it are too technical for me. For this reason I and I'm sure many others really apreciate it if someone who fully understands it would get the hay down out of the loft and put in on the ground where the cows can get at it, so to speak.

CTD:

I wish to thank you also for your contribution to this discussion.

I am a little puzzled though, as to what you were thinking when you suggested I thought that Kent ought to know at least as much as the gneticist in the video knows about Salmon Stock.

I am not aware of any place within my first post under this discussion that even remotely suggests that I was expecting Kent to be either omniscient or as scientifically informed as any scientist might be any single field of science that he may attempt to discuss. If you can make me aware of just one place within that post that would clearly suggest that I thought that Kent was supposed to be as informed as you suggest I think he ought to be, then please feel free to show me where. I will be more than happy to correct it.

Otherwise, the points you have made can be included with the other reasons I have for rejecting an Old-Earth position and sticking to a Young-Earth position, regardless of what Old-Earthers may say in any attempt to persuade me to abandon ship, so to speak.

#7 CTD

CTD

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2059 posts
  • Age: 44
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Missouri

Posted 01 November 2009 - 11:06 PM

Do not bother taking the stupid link. It is a complete waste of time.

At you will notice how a certain geneticist from Belgium stumps Kent H*vind, a Young Earth Creationist.

I was disappointed by the manner in which Kent answered this geneticist.

At this point, I am not seeking to debate a case for or against a young earth position. I am merely attempting to find a qualified YEC response to a video that is probably convincing a lot of Young-Earthers to abandon ship.

I believe that the best people to consult when attempting to find out how a Young-Earther would look upon and interpret the evidence that this Salmon-Stock Old-Earther/evolutionist and geneticist speaks about are YEC's who are working in the same field, the same capacity, and are as familiar with the same experiments as this geneticist happens to be working and conducting experiments in.

It hardly seems fair to anyone who is serious about finding irrefutable proof for either a young earth or old earth to take seriously any discussion between two people such as Kent H*vind (clearly a YEC High school teacher/textbook researcher or clearly not a Salmon-Stock geneticist and clearly unaware of the scientific research in the field of Salmon-Stock genetics) and an Old-Earther/evolutionist, like the geneticist who has called in to speak with Kent H*vind through the call-in talk show in which Kent H*vind is the guest to whom all calls are addressed.

I have emailed ICR (through http://www.icr.org) for a response to this video. But, the reply I recieved left me with the impression that no one had time to view the video or respond to it. Needless to say, I have had a very difficult time trying to find a qualified YEC from ICR or anywhere who could respond to a video that I am sure is convincing a lot of people that irrefutable proof for an old-earth is out there, although not very many YEC's may be aware of it yet.

I am attempting to find at least one YEC here who is as qualified as the geneticist happens to be and who is capable of providing serious students of science with irrefutable proof that the geneticist is hiding something or that he is not being straightforward or that the way(s) in which he and others like him are interpreting the evidence that he is speaking about contain at least one serious flaw.

Perhaps, at least one or more of the YEC's that are here can provide me with a better response than the one that Kent H*vind provided, in answer to the call-in geneticist that is featured in this video. I am hoping, one way or another to get a serious and informed YEC response to this video.

Again, please keep the folowing in mind when replying to this post and topic:

At this point, I am not seeking to debate with either YEC's or Old-Earthers. I am merely attempting to find a better response to the call-in geneticist than the response everyone is receiving from Kent H*vind in this video. Thank you!

One more thing! Can anyone here tell me why everytime I type H*vind correctly the "*" always replaces the letter "o", which is the letter I am actually typing in that space everytime I type that name? Also, can anyone here tell me why the "*" doesn't replace "o" anywhere in the body of this post other than immediately after the capitalized letter "H" in Kent's surname?

View Post


H*vind isn't stumped in any way. No genetic issue is raised at any time - the man simply claims to work as a geneticist. He also falsely claims H*vind denies variation among salmon. It's nothing but fast-talk evobabble with no content.

I have reported the post.

#8 CTD

CTD

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2059 posts
  • Age: 44
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Missouri

Posted 01 November 2009 - 11:28 PM

H*vind isn't stumped in any way. No genetic issue is raised at any time - the man simply claims to work as a geneticist. He also falsely claims H*vind denies variation among salmon. It's nothing but fast-talk evobabble with no content.

I have reported the post.

View Post

Anyone interested in the "tip-offs" or "tells" which provoked me to investigate is encouraged to PM.

#9 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 02 November 2009 - 12:17 AM

What kind of the response does one expect to get when all through the conversation the guy tries to continually insult H*vind?

Because like yourself, there are several H*vind haters. And because of this the H*vind name puts us in search engine areas that bring H*vind haters that cuss at everyone on the forum.

One more thing! Can anyone here tell me why everytime I type H*vind correctly the "*" always replaces the letter "o",


Also note that trying to go around any word filter is a bannable offense. Just thought I would forewarn before someone does this. We filter certain words for a reason. One is to also keep the peace by not attracting very hateful people.

Also if the thread turns into a pick on H*vind fest that starts a fight, I will close it. I don't mind H*vind being dicussed in length. But some people are only bent on one angle by bringing it up. And that is to start a war of words. Threads that do this are non-productive, prove nothing, get people susended and possibly banned. So I hope that is not where this thread is going.

#10 CTD

CTD

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2059 posts
  • Age: 44
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Missouri

Posted 02 November 2009 - 02:08 AM

Those who've already watched the junk will understand how clearly this "Geneticist" failed to stump Brother Kent.

Had even one of the dozens of assertions he spammed been unanswerable, the smartest thing to do would be to shut up, and let the lack of response become evident. Instead, he just continually interrupted, betraying that he was afraid to have any response heard. The babbler either didn't have enough sense to behave as if he was winning, or didn't think he was.

Refuse to shut up ≠ win.

Edit by ikester7579. Large letters are considered shouting. In some threads it's not a good idea to promote this when there could be trouble already brewing.

#11 Designist

Designist

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 37 posts
  • Age: 58
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Toronto

Posted 03 November 2009 - 03:06 AM

Anyone interested in the "tip-offs" or "tells" which provoked me to investigate is encouraged to PM.

View Post

Thanks so much CTD! Your observations are reassuring to me.

I would definitely be interested in taking a look at your individual response to each of the concerns or questions that the "geneticist" was bringing to Kent's attention.

How would you respond to the question raised by the same, which goes along the lines of:

What applications do YEC's (or any creationists) see emerging in the future?

OR

How would a creationist, a YEC in particular, attempt to apply his/her theory(ies) in any way that might, for example, be applied to cures for cancer and other diseases?

It appears to me as if the caller was insinuating that Old-Earthers, primarily evolutionists, were capable and Creationists (primarily YEC's) were incapable of proving that their theories or positions are responsible, for instance, for cures that are now being discovered for cancer and other diseases.

Also, it appears to me as if H*vind was stumped because the answers he was proposing were quite obviously answers to questions that the caller had not raised or even hinted at raising.

On the contrary, it appears to me as if H*vind was trying desparately to steer clear of the question altogether. Knowing what I know about his debating skills and knowledge of science, I find it too difficult to believe that he wouldn't understand the question the caller was asking him.

In my eyes, the caller made H*vind look embarassingly clumsy everytime he attempted to provide an answer. Maybe the caller was a more skillful debater. I don't know.

All I know is that H*vind's handling of the caller's question was not the sort of behaviour I had come to expect from a man who, for the most part, was successful at making leading evolutionists look stupid, whenever he debated them and/or their colleagues in public.

You said you reported the post.

Does that mean you didn't think the post was fair to other YEC's who may click on it or does it mean you are afraid that, should it remain much longer, too many here will see it as the final straw that broke the YEC's back, so to speak?

The simple answer you have provided may very well be reassuring to me. But I have just realized that it is also the sort of answer that one who does not wish to tackle the question head on might use to defend his/her bias.

That is why I am asking how you would answer the question that was raised by the caller who confronted H*vind.

If your answer is no more reassuring to me than H*vind's, then I might understand why you would not want the post with the link to remain much longer than it has remained. But that is the sort of behavior that might destroy my confidence, not to mention the confidence of many others who may be following this discussion, in the integrity of both this forum and this site.

#12 CTD

CTD

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2059 posts
  • Age: 44
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Missouri

Posted 03 November 2009 - 06:36 AM

Refuse to shut up ≠ win.

Edit by ikester7579. Large letters are considered shouting. In some threads it's not a good idea to promote this when there could be trouble already brewing.

View Post

I was not intending to shout. The "does not equal" sign is difficult to make out in the tiny font. But this is okay. There is more than one issue to consider, as you correctly point out.

#13 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 02 January 2010 - 12:31 AM

What applications do YEC's (or any creationists) see emerging in the future?

OR

How would a creationist, a YEC in particular, attempt to apply his/her theory(ies) in any way that might, for example, be applied to cures for cancer and other diseases?


What does "empirical" medical science have to do with origins?LOL

But I can tell you who pioneered the medical sciences and pretty much all other sciences.

http://www.evolution...indpost&p=24125

In fact,Steve Fuller wrote in his book that the Neo-Darwinists are parasitic on Creation research and have never discovered anything useful or unique.

http://www.evolution...indpost&p=21714


Enjoy.

#14 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 02 January 2010 - 04:42 PM

Here is a good peer reveiwed paper that gives a better classification of "Mutations" than evolutionists are able to do.

http://www.answersin...on-of-mutations

Mutations are normally classified according to their proximal effect on an organism’s fitness, whether beneficial, deleterious, or neutral. While this is a very useful first-pass categorization of mutations, the realization that mutations are not always haphazard, but in fact may be part of a regulated design, means that creationists should be looking for a deeper classification of mutations based on whether or not they conform to their organism’s design. Design-consistent mutations are those which occur within the pattern expected by the genome’s architecture, and design-inconsistent mutations are those which occur outside of the genome’s architecture. Features such as metabolic consistency, mutational mechanism, mutation rate, reversibility, and preservation of genome semantics can be used by biologists to assess whether or not a mutation is design-consistent or design-inconsistent.





Evos assume that any change is a random mutation,but creationists see deleteious mutations as random.There are examples of "adaptation" which is not random,but occurs because the organism has a predetermined propensity to do so.




Enjoy.

#15 MarkForbes

MarkForbes

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 995 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Africa
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Waverley

Posted 28 February 2011 - 10:41 AM

Here is a good peer reveiwed paper that gives a better classification of "Mutations" than evolutionists are able to do.

http://www.answersin...on-of-mutations

Mutations are normally classified according to their proximal effect on an organism’s fitness, whether beneficial, deleterious, or neutral. While this is a very useful first-pass categorization of mutations, the realization that mutations are not always haphazard, but in fact may be part of a regulated design, means that creationists should be looking for a deeper classification of mutations based on whether or not they conform to their organism’s design. Design-consistent mutations are those which occur within the pattern expected by the genome’s architecture, and design-inconsistent mutations are those which occur outside of the genome’s architecture. Features such as metabolic consistency, mutational mechanism, mutation rate, reversibility, and preservation of genome semantics can be used by biologists to assess whether or not a mutation is design-consistent or design-inconsistent.

Evos assume that any change is a random mutation,but creationists see deleteious mutations as random.There are examples of "adaptation" which is not random,but occurs because the organism has a predetermined propensity to do so.
Enjoy.

View Post

I came about this with the "most mutations are neutral" argument. I think that's a result one would get, if one defines "neutral" very broadly. "Neutral" being anything that isn't fatal or doesn't obviously impair the system in question. It's kind of saying that any rock thrown at your vehicle that doesn't force you to go to the garage is just a neutral change to your car. Sometimes it's the sum of damages that shows the damaging character of that kind fo mutation.

#16 Spectre

Spectre

    Philosopher

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPip
  • 577 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Pensacola, FL
  • Age: 26
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Pensacola, FL

Posted 28 February 2011 - 10:47 AM

I know Kent H*vind personally. I'll be back to watch this video and provide an appropriate response when time permits. :D

#17 Spectre

Spectre

    Philosopher

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPip
  • 577 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Pensacola, FL
  • Age: 26
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Pensacola, FL

Posted 28 February 2011 - 12:00 PM

There are several issues with this video:

The genocist constantly interrupted H*vind, he rarely got a chance to finish a point. H*vind is not the kind of guy to talk over people who are talking because he has manners.(Take it from someone who knows H*vind.) This is why he fares better in an organized debate setting. If you give the guy a chance to speak, he is actually very intelligent.

The genocist kept talking about applications, but is either ignorant or just a fool. There is no issue with studying evolution, what H*vind was trying to tell him is that where H*vind's problem with evolution was common descent. There is nothing about common descent that has helped us make any sort of advancements in operational science. What has help us understand genes, viruses, etc, better was observing in real time how these organisms evolve.

He makes a statement too which I found to be quite bizarre. He is saying that there is so much variety in the specimens that he studies that they couldn't possibly have evolved in six thousand years. How does he know what progress can be made in evolution in six thousand years? Was he there? It has been shown and and again through observed mutations that evolution, especially in bacteria, happens very rapidly. Bacteria always has fared best in natural selection because they are more likely to have mutations that are beneficial due to their higher rate of mutation. This guy is using conjecture when he makes this argument.

When the salmon subject came up, H*vind barely had a chance to speak due to the genocist interrupting him, that is why H*vind was never able to give a response. H*vind's courtesy really harms him in radio debates. He is a very devout Christian who loves the Lord and he tries his best to be as much like Jesus as possible. I don't agree with him on everything, but without a doubt, he is an intelligent guy.

Back to applications, the way Creationism can be applied is that we would continue to stop studying this crackpot theory of darwinism and put the money that would go towards supporting darwinism into science that actually helps us make advancements in technology and medicine. The value of operational science has been degraded to the point to where it is sickening. We need to stop spending money at making blind swings at a natural explanation of origins and continue to study present evolution so that we may be able to figure out how to use genes to our own advantage to a better extent. That is the application for Creationism; our scientists wouldn't waste so much money on theories such as materialistic evolution.

This genocist is a fool, I'd love to debate him. If Kent had the chance to speak he would of beat him into the ground too.

In the end, H*vind was right, and the other guy was a moron.

#18 performedge

performedge

    Don - a Child of the King

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 400 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Carolina
  • Interests:Being a logician. Debating the origins controversy. Going to heaven. Taking others with me. Seeing the creator.
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Rock Hill, SC

Posted 28 February 2011 - 04:48 PM

Hi Designist,

I can see your valid dissapointment with H*vind's answers, but we must forgive him, because much of our knowlege of genetics has just happened in the last ten years, and unfortunately this video is several years old.

I'm quite sure that Dr. H*vind is quite aware of much of the genetics research in the last few years. And much of it supports YECism including the aforementioned salmon stocks.

Now if you listen closely to his argument agains YEC, he claims that...(paraphrase)

The wide variation in salmon is so large that the mutational load in salmon in a 6000 year period would lead to their demise (extinction).
He is 100% correct in his argument. What he is wrong about is the evidence that is staring him right in the face. Salmon are becoming extinct! And yes, in this short 6000 year period.

Here is an article, but there is loads of this on Google.

Scientists conservatively estimate that well over one-quarter of native Pacific salmon populations spawning in rivers and lakes from California to southern British Columbia have gone extinct.From what they've gleaned out of archaeological reports and historical accounts left by explorers, surveyors and early settlers, researchers at the US National Marine Fisheries Service figure there were 1383 Pacific salmon populations in the western contiguous United States before Europeans arrived. Each population is a geographically cohesive group of fish that essentially does not spawn with any others, rendering it genetically isolated and distinctive from all other salmon. Over time, the individual populations have adapted to their particular environment.

Since the year 1770, a total of 406 or 29% of these genetically-distinct populations have disappeared. More than one-third of the remaining 977 populations are listed as threatened or endangered under the US Endangered Species Act.


So the evidence is clear that salmon stocks are rapidly going extinct in this 6000 period time frame.

Dr. Sandford, a well published geneticist has done a tremendoust amont of work on this subject. He has created Mendell's accountant which is a forward population genetics modelling software. What it shows is that is you use biologically realistic mutation rates and other species genetic data, that the mutation load does cause extinctions. He is now an avid YEC.

You can find much of his work at the link above, but more publications are in his future. The practical application of this software is that it can be used to predict extinctions and other population genetic data. A real beneficial use of this model is our current knowledge that virus populations generally have a high mutation rate, and we know that they become extinct in relatively short periods of time. Today, many cancers are caused by viruses. But if we realize that evolution really deteriorates populations, then we can use this to more rapidly mutate and destroy virus populations, before they destroy us. There will be papers on this soon also.

The real danger is in the false belief that this variation took place in millions of years. Sandford has some data on human populations that accurately agrees with the biblical model. It's just amazing how true our God is!

Have faith. Molecular genetics is in our favor, not against us.

#19 AFJ

AFJ

    AFJ

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1625 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Baton Rouge, LA
  • Interests:Bible, molecular biology, chemistry, mineralogy, geology, eschatology, history, family
  • Age: 51
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Baton Rouge, LA

Posted 01 March 2011 - 08:07 PM

At dbfL1jkpmJg you will notice how a certain geneticist from Belgium stumps Kent H*vind, a Young Earth Creationist.

I was disappointed by the manner in which Kent answered this geneticist.

At this point, I am not seeking to debate a case for or against a young earth position. I am merely attempting to find a qualified YEC response to a video that is probably convincing a lot of Young-Earthers to abandon ship.

I believe that the best people to consult when attempting to find out how a Young-Earther would look upon and interpret the evidence that this Salmon-Stock Old-Earther/evolutionist and geneticist speaks about are YEC's who are working in the same field, the same capacity, and are as familiar with the same experiments as this geneticist happens to be working and conducting experiments in.

It hardly seems fair to anyone who is serious about finding irrefutable proof for either a young earth or old earth to take seriously any discussion between two people such as Kent H*vind (clearly a YEC High school teacher/textbook researcher or clearly not a Salmon-Stock geneticist and clearly unaware of the scientific research in the field of Salmon-Stock genetics) and an Old-Earther/evolutionist, like the geneticist who has called in to speak with Kent H*vind through the call-in talk show in which Kent H*vind is the guest to whom all calls are addressed.

I have emailed ICR (through http://www.icr.org) for a response to this video. But, the reply I recieved left me with the impression that no one had time to view the video or respond to it. Needless to say, I have had a very difficult time trying to find a qualified YEC from ICR or anywhere who could respond to a video that I am sure is convincing a lot of people that irrefutable proof for an old-earth is out there, although not very many YEC's may be aware of it yet.

I am attempting to find at least one YEC here who is as qualified as the geneticist happens to be and who is capable of providing serious students of science with irrefutable proof that the geneticist is hiding something or that he is not being straightforward or that the way(s) in which he and others like him are interpreting the evidence that he is speaking about contain at least one serious flaw.

Perhaps, at least one or more of the YEC's that are here can provide me with a better response than the one that Kent H*vind provided, in answer to the call-in geneticist that is featured in this video. I am hoping, one way or another to get a serious and informed YEC response to this video.

Again, please keep the folowing in mind when replying to this post and topic:

At this point, I am not seeking to debate with either YEC's or Old-Earthers. I am merely attempting to find a better response to the call-in geneticist than the response everyone is receiving from Kent H*vind in this video. Thank you!

One more thing! Can anyone here tell me why everytime I type H*vind correctly the "*" always replaces the letter "o", which is the letter I am actually typing in that space everytime I type that name? Also, can anyone here tell me why the "*" doesn't replace "o" anywhere in the body of this post other than immediately after the capitalized letter "H" in Kent's surname?

View Post

I went to an Institute for Creation Research seminar--Ken Ham, the late Henry Morris, Steve Austin--but no Kent H*vind. Go to ICR, Creation Ministries International, or Answers in Genesis. I get the impression they are not for or against anything he has to say. But he is not seen as a 'credible' scientist by most creationists. I am not judging him, because he is creationist like myself. I'm just saying there seems to be silence about him and his credentials.

Also, is he a geneticist? What is his educational background? Maybe the genetecist should rather question Dr. André Eggen, Dr. Georgia Purdom, Michael G. Todhunter,
Maciej Giertych.

#20 Spectre

Spectre

    Philosopher

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPip
  • 577 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Pensacola, FL
  • Age: 26
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Pensacola, FL

Posted 01 March 2011 - 11:52 PM

I went to an Institute for Creation Research seminar--Ken Ham, the late Henry Morris, Steve Austin--but no Kent H*vind.  Go to ICR, Creation Ministries International, or Answers in Genesis.  I get the impression they are not for or against anything he has to say.  But he is not seen as a 'credible' scientist by most creationists.  I am not judging him, because he is creationist like myself.  I'm just saying there seems to be silence about him and his credentials.

Also, is he a geneticist?  What is his educational background?  Maybe the genetecist  should rather question Dr. André Eggen, Dr. Georgia Purdom, Michael G. Todhunter,
Maciej Giertych.

View Post

H*vind is an intelligent guy who is just strongly against kids being lied to at a young age. The main issue with the way that he debates is that he simplifies terminologies and sticks terminologies together, which some people view as intellectually dishonest. I don't agree with Kent H*vind on everything, but I also don't agree with Ken Ham on everything either.

The main issue with this video is that the genocist kept interrupting him. I assure you that if H*vind had a chance to speak he would of fared better in the debate.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users