Creationists Say There’s Zero Proof Of ‘Darwinian Evolution'
Вставка
- Опубліковано 8 вер 2024
- We all know how impressive creation science is... and it's totally believable and makes way more sense than what actual scientists have observed. So when Creation Today Ministry have Eric Hovind explain why there's no proof of 'Darwinian Evolution' and the alternative is creation science... or just words in a book... I knew it was time to put my learning cap on and get some knowledge...
Oh... wait... Evolution is actually verifiable. never mind!
More Hovind Hilarity - • Hovind Hilarity
Another EH Video - • How To Blow An Atheist...
Erics Video can be seen here - • Beyond Darwin: A Scien...
** T-Shirts Are Here - my-store-cf9db... **
Patreon - / theskeptick
Facebook - / theskeptick
Instagram - / theskeptick
Twitter - / the_skeptick
TikTok - tiktok.com/thes...
Everything in this video is just an opinion, and should be treated as such - though it is important to ask questions. Any humour or sarcasm is aimed towards the words and actions of the individuals, and not intended to be a personal attack on any individual themselves, under the act of free speech
Title - Creationists Say There’s Zero Proof Of ‘Darwinian Evolution'
tags - evolution,darwin,natural selection,creation,creationist,young earth creation,is evolution true,atheist,atheism,atheist vs creationist,creationist vs atheist,the alternative to darwin,was darwin right,is evolution wrong,why atheists are wrong,eric hovind,hovind,skeptick,darwinian evolution,zero proof,no proof
Science : We keep learning
Religion: One book has everything in it and I refuse to learn anything else
Religion is for those who cannot show their work, ever !
@@aubreyleonae4108
What can you show?
@@uthman2281 That the Earth isn't flat, as the bible describes, that humanity isn't descended from a created Adam and Eve, as the bible describes (twice), that the Noachian Flood didn't happen, as the bible describes, and that Hovind is a wilful ignoramus who has had verifiable reality explained to him time and time again, to which he has offered no valid response and just repeats his unevidenced supernaturalist view that isn't even shared by that many Christians.
Brilliant
@@uthman2281 Here’s what creationism has to show ua-cam.com/video/lCCwBYcPads/v-deo.html
Saying evolution doesn't happen because a few species have remained relatively unchanged, is like saying brains don't exist just because Hovind doesn't know how to use his.
100%! 🤣😂
I'm not entirely sure Eric has one. At least, not one with a frontal cortex.
Evolution is magic
@@condorboss3339
Dp you believe you have a brain?
@@condorboss3339 well, he definitely has an enlarged anterior cingulate cortex, given that is the location of ego.
Some species, such as the crocodile, alligator, sharks, and others, are perfectly suited to their environment. Therefore, they have no pressure to change. That’s why they haven’t changed. It’s pretty simple, actually.
The thing is they have changed They just haven't changed very much because exactly as you said. I'll add in the Coelacanth (or whatever) and the horseshoe crab. Though just like the ones you listed. They're very different but basically the same.
Also additional fun fact Russian paddlefish can interbreed with the American sturgeon Those guys aren't even in the same genus
Change "perfect" to "near perfect", and "no pressure" to "little pressure", and we good.
For both crocodiles and sharks, I beg to differ. They heavily evolved, you don't see much hooved crocs or anvil sharks nowadays.
But yeah those lineages hit a very effective, very resilient body plans very early.
@@borttorbbq2556 exactly. every species changes every generation. but these "prehistoric" species just havent had a lot of new adaptations in a long time. but genes have still changed. its just not that noticable.
While Eric Hovind is consistent in being dishonest and willfully ignorant, this floating circle appreciates critical thinking and demonstrable science just as much as I do! And that's something I can appreciate on any day of the week and, by extension, year.
Eric has been clearly and thoroughly corrected, to his face, multiple times. At this point, it must be about the money or the feels.
So has his dad. It's about the money they can make with the ministry. They don't care that they're wrong, just as long as they get paid
It's about a very lucrative business that has no government oversight or consequences for abuse. He has no boss or personal accountability. The perfect business for those that have no conscience.
Unless, like daddy, you fu♡k with the IRS. What an idiot.
Power over their useful idiots. Eric scams people out of enough money that I don't think he needs it. Kent fools women into paying everything for him. It's about lording it up over their followers, at this point. I'd say that, if anything, money is a way for them to keep score, nothing more. That's how it is for other, richer psychopaths, after all.
Maybe both. The money, and the feels. 🤔🤔
The one real god for him and is daddy "Money"
As a former toddler myself, I understand Eric's complete lack of understanding of how rationality works.
As a toddler, what does rationality mean?
Well, using his logic, he hasn't evolved since being a toddler 🙄
and then you turned 6 xD
@Hotpants87 you know it's bad when your a kid questioning the Bible and the "adult" gets angry with you and only responds with "it's not your place to question.😂😂😂😂
@@dougm4160 i can only imagine, as i wasn't raised to be religious.
Breaking news! Creationist lies about science! Full story at 11!
“It’s 11:00. Do you know where your creationist is?”
Or, specifically for Eric Hovind: “It’s 11:00. Do you know where your inmate’s son is?”
"Tonight we also cover the breaking story of fire still being hot! What can you do to protect yourself?"
The most enlightening thing for me was a Junior College level Biology course that used David Quammen's 'The Song of the Dodo' as a textbook for understanding the theories of evolution and its many methods that allow for certain groupings of species inside a contained environment. It's why you don't see snow leopards in the Sahara. It's why you don't see large predatory animals on small islands.
That sounds like a great book - I think I’ll get a copy :)
It wasn't newspapers that coined the term Big Bang. It was Fred Hoyle who was making fun of the model. What should I expect from Eric though, he didn't even know what he said wasn't Greek *or* Hebrew. It was Latin.
It was Fred Hoyle. Lemaitre gave solutions for the equations of General Relativity showing an expanding universe. Hoyle is also known as the tornado in a junk yard guy.
@@mrapistevist Oh shit, I'm dumb and just went off memory. Guess I can't make fun of Hovid too much.
@@830toAwesome Oh, go ahead, he's so deserving. 🤣
@@830toAwesome Well, unlike the Hovinds, you admitted to, and corrected, your mistake. People err, smart people correct their errors. So, go ahead, make as much fun of the Hovinds as you want.
@@Mark_Agamotto1313_Smith If one is unable to correct themselves, they're the biggest fool alive. Still feel like an idiot though lol. I appreciate the pass.
It's fantastic how some creationists wants everything to be special and amazingly designed just for them. When reality is, sometimes things are just very boring and straight forward with no fanfare.
It's why they cling to religion so hard. They know on some level that they aren't special in any meaningful way compared to other humans, and they are desperate to be super special! Their religion tells them they are so special because their god made them to worship him. It's really sad.
@@jasonsabbath6996 That they'd rather be a god's "special butt-kisser" than just be a regular human being comes across as so sad and pathetic to me...
It is amazing how godless and souless idiot are so stupid to die alone as godless idiot
Their cult promises that to them, and they're trained to have no empathy. They grow up thinking "this is how everyone does it" and lose the ability to put themselves in other people's place. You know all that voter fraud bullshit going on in the USA lately? The ones complaining the most about voter fraud are the ones committing it. Why? "Because they do it too, so I'm just fighting fire with fire".
Cultists are made to feel special and the center of the universe, so they believe everything else is a cult that makes the same nonsensical promises. They think Darwin is our messiah because they have a messiah.
You see this in all kinds of ways, too; if you point out that Jesus, if he ever existed, was just some wandering charlatan, then his cultists will assert than he must've been the Biggestmost Bestest Charlatan Ever(tm)! You know, the liar/lunatic/lord trilemma thing? They can't accept their messiah as being just some other unimportant criminal loser, Jesus has to have been either the biggest liar ever, the craziest lunatic ever, or the goddiest god who ever godded. Because Jesus *_HAS_* to be special, no matter what. So anyone or anything that runs in opposition to Jesus has to replace that unrealistic super-ness. They commit voter fraud, so they can't conceive that other people don't commit voter fraud, figuratively speaking, and they use that lack of empathy to justify their shitty behavior.
Cults have had thousands of years to develop these kinds of sophisticated mental trapping devices. The really frustrating part is, anyone who's not in the cult can see the trap because it's the most obvious goddamn thing in the world.
Creationists want to pretend that a planet covered in salt water, deserts, and glaciers, as well as packed full of predators and parasites, all destined for heat death was somehow made specifically for us hominids.
You’d need to be a certain blend of arrogant and ignorant to actually believe any of that.
At a certain point, a creationist has to decide to be one of two things: being honest or being a creationist because he or she can't be both.
It's more of an uninformed Creationist can be honest. But it informed creationist cannot be.
Same thing can be said about Evos
embarrassing when nonexistent drone doesn't listen to the wind and healthactiveness
You're at a unknown place, vortexs the number amount(vortex spheres) scattered throughout the universe with portals and powers, and that the human brain is a computer
Yes, if conditions fall out of a narrow parameter we won’t find life, like on Mars, Pluto, Venus, and billions and billions of other planets in the universe. So if I’m an “intelligent designer” why wouldn’t I design the life and/or the universe to be more conducive to life?
And even earth is covered by water, that last time I checked, humans can’t breath water. 🤷🏻♂️
And the vast majority of the water on Earth can not be consumed by humans! If Earth were designed for us, wouldn't all the water be drinkable? Wouldn't ever animal be suitable for us to consume? Why would their god design harmful bacteria, cancer, or anything that can kill us? The more questions you ask these people, the more they just close their minds and just say "God did it, God did it". 🤦♂️
It's a really tiresome creationist catchphrase because all it's saying is "If things were different, they wouldn't be the same."
Which, I know, this is the absolute peak of creationist intellectualism so it shouldn't come as a surprise that you have to be that goddamn clueless to be a lying YEC, but still. It's a _geocentrist_ argument, for fuck's sake. VenomFangX pulled this shit back in the day. "If the Earth was even one inch further from the Sun we'd all freeze to death instantly!" not caring that the orbit is not perfectly -spherical- circular and the planet changes its distance to the Sun by way more than one inch every day.
This is flat Earther levels of stupidity. It's really weird how the Hovinds aren't flat Earthers when they 1) believe the bible is inerrant and it says the Earth is flat, and 2) are so cozy with flat Earther arguments.
He created all those other imperfect worlds to show how perfect our world is…./s
Amazing isn't it that in the "perfectly designed" Universe, 99.999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999% of it will kill you in a heartbeat, and the other 0.000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001% isn't totally comfortable either.
Only saying this because we'll never ever travel outside this Solar system so the figures are about right. If someday, we do ever reach Proxima Centauri, by the time anyone came back to tell us what it was like, humans on Earth would have evolved into something radically different to what the crew of the spaceship that returned had developed into.
Always some mental gymnastic explanation that they’ll make up on the spot when you point out god making consistently odd choices for his universe.
“because we are special to god”.
“God is testing our resilience”. Or some other crap
Eric is a perfect example of what happens when a child is subjected to abuse.
His Dad has made some truly horrifying statements about beating him as a child. It's a sad world.
Guy never had a chance to become a normal functioning adult
Eric is a perfect example of a con man.
@@roetchen it wasn't him, it was his other kid. I'm sure Eric got some beatings but the one he talked about: The dentist appointment was not Eric. I think his other kid is named Kevin.
@830toAwesome That would be even worse. I believe the other son has disabilities.
Christians: " It's impossible that man could be descended from other life forms."
Also Christians: " Man was created from dust when God blew life into him, that's a fact."
Gotta love it when Christians say it's impossible man came from a mud puddle ( wet dirt). Then turn around and say man was made from the dust ( dry dirt) of the earth. LOL
And women come from a rib! 🤦♂️
@@jasonsabbath6996, I want my rib back. LOL
@@samuelschick8813 with or with out BBQ sauce? 😂🤣
at least there is water in the wet dirt😂
@@jasonsabbath6996, What to say but:
ua-cam.com/video/B6P-G86u0_g/v-deo.html
Pro tip, Eric: the moment you inject the Supernatural into the debate. is the moment you lose the debate.
Re: _”the moment you inject the Supernatural into the debate. is the moment you lose the debate.”_
Evolutionary motto: *Time Works Miracles*
-"Time is the hero of the plot… Given so much time the 'impossible' becomes possible, the possible probable and the probable virtually certain. One has only to wait: time itself performs miracles."
_
- _George Wald (1967 Nobel Laureate in Medicine), "The Origin of Life," Scientific American, vol. 191 1954, p. 46_
@@alanclarke7 , Five months of searching. and all you have is some out-of-context, quote-mined, irrelevant twaddle? Is that supposed to prove something?
@@philo5227 Prove something? I feel that the arguments here (yours included), are more philosophical and ideological. For example, both your reply, and the following have nothing to do with science: _”the moment you inject the Supernatural into the debate. is the moment you lose the debate.”_ So, I was responding in like fashion.
@@alanclarke7 , "I feel that the arguments here (yours included), are more philosophical and ideological. For example, both your reply, and the following have nothing to do with science:"
But saying, "GOD DID IT!" is NOT "philosophical and ideological", and is some real, actual, legitimate science, right?
@@philo5227 Re: _But saying, "GOD DID IT!" is NOT "philosophical and ideological"... right?_
No, that would be philosophical/ideological just as would be a person believing (or claiming) that the origin of the universe & life was effected by natural causes. The converse of creationism is naturalism. Naturalism is philosophical & ideological.
Wow Eric even lied about what the Dessent from Darwin said.
And lied by calling them all professors. And he knows this, he's been corrected on this numerous times.
The Hovinds aren’t the most ethical folks :(
I'm pretty sure he knows he's lying. But the god of "money" is much stronger than his fear of "a liar does not go to heaven".
I paused on the first several pages and noticed that at least one of the signatories is a nutritionist. While I am perfectly willing to consult with a nutritionist on food and dietary advice (because that’s what they study), yet I wouldn’t necessarily consult with one on biology. On that topic, I’d rather take my chances with-I don’t know, just a guess-a biologist. It seems a prime example of the saying of recent years: “Stay in your lane.”
@@thomash.schwed3662 Ages ago, someone went thru the list and there were park rangers and other stuff on it. And he narrowed it down to just the biologists and he contacted them, and I think he said only one really seemed to be into ID and stuff, many of them did sign it because the wording is valid, basically remain skeptical like any scientist does. And they didn't realize that they were basically signing up for some ID Creationist BS and they regretted signing it because of how its being used.
Just Worship HealthActiveness and Justice(the wind breeze)cool heart and hate will show you
I loved the "imagio dei, is that Hebrew or Greek?" bit.
No, Eric, it's not anything. "Imago dei", though, is Latin.
He could just have used the English but then he wouldn’t be able to try looking clever. Of course by getting the language wrong he just looks silly
@@molybdomancer195 Remember, though, that this is the guy who exercises faith that 16•2 is 34. So, we now know that neither biology nor mathematics nor linguistics are his strong suit. I would say that he’s a couple of cards short of a full deck; however, he’s actually couple of cards short of even a couple of cards.
@@thomash.schwed3662 Give him a break. He was educated using the "educational" gargabe they peddle to the believers.
You know, Kent implies in one of his sermons that the reason microwaves leave cold spots in food sometimes is because the "top" part of the "wave" is hot and the "bottom" part is cold.
Here, Eric is suggesting that the inverse square law that governs the strength of gravitational attraction between the Earth and Moon would cause them to smash together because of how far apart they are.
Eric thinks if you want to heat up your soup you should put it in the freezer. What is _wrong_ with that goddamn family?
Someone needs to snack Eric over the head with the Roche limit.
I like this passage from the Bible to describe Eric Hovind (and his ilk): Ecclesiastes 10:1 - ... a little stupidity can cancel out the greatest wisdom.
Indeed! “Dead flies are what cause the oil of the ointment maker to stink, to bubble forth.” The inmate’s son positively reeks of stupidity-both his own and what he’s inherited from the inmate.
12:53 JWST was sent on this mission precisely to get data to test theories. It wasn't sent just to take pretty pictures!
If the earth is only 6000 years old explain civilizations that existed 10000 years ago.
He’s gonna say something along the lines of Satan planted the evidence of those civilizations to test our faith. The classic scapegoat
Obviously god put that evidence there to trick stupid atheists! And that sarcasm for the people that didn’t get that. And yes I have to include that because it is as believable as other creationist justifications.
Or trees that are older than 6000 years.
Better yet, explain OPAL stones !
mysterious ways or something
3:23 to make this argument, you have to.make two baseless assumptions:
-Human life, or any at all, is intentional
-The universal constants could have been different
And that's not even getting into theories that propose multiple universes that, if accurate, would make any sort of potential chance more likely to have happened.
If you look at the locations that the fossilized Coelacanths are located in they were all shallow marine or coastal environments which means fossilization can happen the absolute worse place for fossils to form is deep sea marine. The current Coelacanth lives in deep sea marine environments so even though modern Coelacanths look like their ancient fossilized ancestors there have been massive changes between them.
They're recognizable as part of the same family but honestly they're so different.
coelacanths are also an entire order of fish. like lizards are an order of reptiles. and an iguana is very different from a gecko
@the flying dutchguy that's true though as only 1 or 2 species exist anymore I think it's fine as anyone would know
@@theflyingdutchguy9870 Exactly, Iguana's grow to be 30 stories tall, and breath a radioactive blast, whereas Gecko's sell insurance.
9:45 putting source aside, I'm amazed he understands what a misnomer the big bang name is.
quite a suprise indeed. shows he can actually listen. but also shows how dishonest he is. it shows he isnt as stupid as he appears to be. so he is deliberately lying
Only because he can use the misnomer to discredit it in the eyes of his audience
My very first step towards shaking off the shackles of my religious indoctrination was when I was 16 and thought “…er…hang on a tick…” when our vicar said “…we absolutely accept evolution…evolution guided by God to produce humanity…” And so it was suddenly revealed to me that being religious requires you to distort reality to fit your beliefs. It still took me another 10 years or so until I finally broke free but I remain permanently grateful to that silly vicar for saying something so stupid. And here’s Eric Hovind still being equally stupid! 😂 All hail Lisa the 🌈🦒, 🍃 b upon u. 🙏
The more theists I listen to, the more confident I am in atheism, and the more I wonder *why* aNyOnE can take their apologetics seriously.
My five-year-old niece has extemporized more coherent arguments “proving” that unicorns are real… 🦄
Just Worship HealthActiveness and Justice(the wind breeze)cool heart and hate will show you
Talking evolution to a Creationist is like trying to teach a blue heeler to play trombone. The absoluet best possible outcomrt is still gonna be reallly disappointing,
If they just understood the puddle analogy, it would make sense to them. But they just don’t get it.
@@mbrum3230 it's a family tradition .
im pretty sure both at least knows what evolution is. he just makes it sound as idiotic as he can make up. so he can keep his following ignorant. it has been explained to them countless of times but they always go straight back to their script. they know. but are lying their ass off.
Like most evolution deniers here on UA-cam, Eric has had the theory of evolution painstakingly and earnestly explained to him so many times a normal rational person would qualify for a masters degree in evolutionary biology from Cornell.
If other people understood the puddle analogy, their income drops. Which is why they don't want other people to understand it.
I just want to ask Eric two questions. 1) how many species were on the Ark? 2) how many species are there now, supposedly 4000 years later?
There are about 925,000 identified species of insects in the world (and 75% of those are beetles), leading to the hypothesis that there might be anywhere between 2 million and 30 million species in total, you've got to ask yourself - why would any creator do that?
There are approximately 1.4 BILLION live insects for every human being alive today - why would any creator do that?
Source: Royal Entomological Society.
17:02 "It's time for us to move beyond Darwin." - Eric Hovind
Please, please do! The rest of us, including the entire legitimate scientific community (particularly those parts that deal with evolutionary theory) did so over a century ago. Darwin has about as much to do with the modern study of evolution as Hippocrates does modern medicine.
I don't know if this anecdote about Abraham Lincoln is true. Nevertheless, someone asked him, "How tall are you?"
Lincoln answered, "I'm tall enough for my feet to reach the ground."
The absurdity meant as a joke is the exact logical fallacy that supports the fine tuning argument. (Or any other version of the teleological argument.)
@@samuelschick8813
So your issue is the physical equipment and not cultural then?
@@stylesrj, I stand with reality and biology and facts. Things that trans ideology avoids at all costs
@@samuelschick8813
So what's the issue you have then if male and female are biological?
Oh let me guess, it's about sportsball isn't it?
@@stylesrj, I can clearly see the point of the quote went completely over your head so get out your crayon and paper and take notes. First there is no issue with biological male or female. The issue is with men and women who think they can become the opposite gender, and that is the point of Abraham Lincoln quote. Just because they count themselves as the opposite gender does not make them the opposite gender. They are still the tail and not a leg.
Now if the point of the quote and how it applies to trans ideology is still too hard for you to understand, that's your problem and no one else's.
@@samuelschick8813 that is my favorite. its a bit of a trick question but it does teach a valuable lesson.
Honestly, just show them the cleaned skulls of an english bulldog and a wolf next to each other and ask them if those two animals are related.
Its just getting down to the ranting of an narcissistic human being terrified that their not 'special' or their ego is going to disappear when they die.
Eric Hovind is as honest as Matt Powell is.
But to be completely fair, he's not as vile as Mattie boy.
in am pretty sure they are BF on FaceBook.
😂😂😂
@@MrCanis4 _"in am pretty sure they are BF on FaceBook."_ Isn't Powell working for Hovind's organisation?
I hope Mark Rober takes up your suggestion, SkepTick. But I'd like of offer a suggestion for the "Glitter Bomb". Instead of glitter, don't put anything in the hoppers, but mark the hoppers with "Didn't see any glitter? We didn't see God, either." Or maybe change the recorded message to the above.
But go ahead and leave the fart spray . . . .
Hahaha. That’s a genius idea!!!
The concept of "The blind leading the blind", definetly comes to mind!
Eric: " the universe evolved from absolutely nothing". The next sentence, "Hubble believed the universe came from a singularity........". Am I taking crazy pills?
If Eric gets confused by crocodilians wait until he discovers sharks.
Someone is
I like the one where they say something cannot come from nothing and never answer where did god come from
It's a strategy. Disinformation, gaslighting, call it what you want, it's intentional. Being as absolutely wrong about everything as it is possible to be makes sane people have to waste time and effort, exhausting us until we simply can't be bothered to counter their bullshit anymore and move on. This leaves the field open for them to spew their bullshit unopposed.
Same idea as the Gish Gallop, really. Eric's crap achieves two things: it comforts cultists into thinking that "don't worry about it it's all been taken care of", and it makes critics give up on correcting them after the fifty billionth time with no observable effect.
It's why the older I get and the longer I do this the more I think the better solution is punching people like Eric in the teeth with a brick tied to your foot until they stop being lying assholes. Eric *knows* how full of shit he is and he doesn't care; treating him like a reasonable person who can be persuaded is a waste of time and effort *which is according to Eric's plans.* We really shouldn't be playing into their hands like this.
@@phillipharrison886 (Smugly) That’s because God has always been here. But the conditions that led to the early universe can’t have been eternal. Because… er…. (Runs away in apologetics)
Just Worship HealthActiveness and Justice(the wind breeze)cool heart and hate will show you
If I recall correctly, there was a creature that looked VERY similar to a modern crocodile millions of years ago. It's completely unrelated to modern crocodiles and was actually a very large gecko. Just because fossils LOOK exactly like something that currently exists, doesn't mean they didn't evolve, because it might not even be the same SPECIES!! (meanwhile for those who are confirmed to be related, like the Coelacanth or the Horseshoe Crab, they have found a niche in the world that worked for them and they didn't have much pressure to change. Just like Eric here was born into the niche of a scam artist and so felt no need to change! So Eric Hovind is a scam artist just like his father!)
Convergent evolution
I think you're thinking of the ancient amphibians that filled the same niche as crocodiles in the past.
Also, not being the same species isn't that big a deal, species is the smallest clade.
FYI, Coelacanth refers to an entire Order.
For comparison Carnivora is also an order, it includes all wolves, dogs, cats, raccoons, bears, weasels, hyaenas, seals, walruses and more.
So comparing two Coelacanths and thinking of them as the same works on the same level as a walrus and a chihuahua are the same.
@@lordsrednuas Oh was it an amphibian? I must have misremembered! I'm a bit sick rn so my memory isn't perfect (and it's been a while since I read/watched videos about it)
I also didn't know coelacanth was an order! That's incredible!! I really should do more research on them. Either way, that makes it more ridiculous for creationists to say they haven't evolved!
That was a crocodile in the video, and they did evolve. It wasn't hard to find several articles discussing them. They did evolve more slowly, but they have evolved.
One thing Eric didn't do here, but is common among creationists, is to quotemine Stephen Gould, who was a proponent of punctuated equilibrium. The point of this theory is that changes in external structure have long periods of stability and short bursts of rapid change, because the external structure is harder to successfully change. But it's the external structure that we see in the fossil record, not the DNA transitions which are much smoother over time. Both coelacanth and crocodiles show slow but definite evolution in their DNA, and not much change to their outer appearance over time.
Crocodiles' most prominent outward change is a longer snout. Some things like cartilage that allow them to breathe through their nose while their mouth is underwater, something humans also have but few reptiles do, don't preserve well so it's hard to tell when they developed them.
It's also worth noting that Gould's definition of "short" and "rapid" are in the context of geological timescales, and still orders of magnitude longer than YEC allows for the entire history of the universe. I guess that's why you wrote "quote mine" as opposed to "quote", but I thought I'd mention it.
I don't think I've heard Hovind speak this long uninterrupted. Great format you've chosen, I like it 👌
I love it too. Makes it way easier to detect context.
Dr Becky has done a great video about the JWT galaxies.
I can't remember the exact details but essentially the teams involved in the first released papers have done their maths wrong and now there are more accurate papers coming out
Love Dr Becky!
Never found a Christian who could tell me who gave God its purpose to life.
I once did, I think. I asked why God created us for the sole purpose of worshiping him. Their answer was he wants to be loved. The exchange went silent after I asked why he wanted to be loved if, in all his omnipotence and omniscience, he created the concept in the first place.
or why and how a god can exist at all
I have never understood this at all from Christians. Why would a being with multiple omni's need worship??
It would be like me demanding my dogs sing hymns to me weekly just because i feed them.
I really don't get it.
@@robertbetz8461 More like ants thanking you for eternity for not killing them.
@@DocBree13 That one has had me stumped for quite a while now, and something no one has been able to even address yet alone explain or demonstrate; it's why I hesitate to describe myself as agnostic.
I've got to give credit here to Eric for not misrepresenting the big bang as 'an explosion in space', like so many other apologists do
I'm not sure about evolution but Ken and Eric certainly prove that devolution is definitely a thing.
It's been argued that intelligence may not be a long-term survival characteristic. Who knows what the line may become 😄
Since creationists tend to breed with creationists, their lineage may well go in a different evolutionary direction.
Evolutionist use De-evolution as proof of evolution.
That's like say yin, my arms are shorter den other hue men's, Dez changes are proof hue men's evolved legs. Diss is de logic evolutionist use.
indeed
Christianity has waged war on other religions the same way for centuries. First they go after those who don't care whom the holidays honor so long as they get them. Then they use superior numbers to ridicule the beliefs of the holdouts. This game plan has worked fairly well (well enough that, if one speaks of "religion" in the U.S. the vast majority of the time they mean "Christianity"). Their major flaw here is regarding science as another religion. Since science is based on fact rather than faith it polices its own statements. It also means that when a critic tries to sound scientific in their attack on science they just come off looking like an idiot. Thank you for showing us another example.
When people’s beliefs are proven wrong, they go out kicking and screaming.
When you are a godless ape without anything to teach to yourself or the world then you deserve to die alone as one
Everyone look, another racist has exposed himself....We will not mention it was white people that are the scientists that are disagreeing with more white Creationist. What has any POC contributed to any of this? 0
Do you remember the time when the supernatural was a thing: when the dead walked out of graves, witches roamed the earth, devils made deals with humans, demigods fought monsters, God's killed God's, etc. Those were the good old days, right hovind?
We literally are just a product of our ancestors who died less than the other ones.
Statistics work that way. 12:42
Just Worship HealthActiveness and Justice(the wind breeze)cool heart and hate will show you
If you look up ‘ignorance’ in the dictionary, it redirects to ‘creationism’
3:50 did he just say "they look at the data and try to come to a conclusion based off that. I go the other way"? So he has a conclusion and tries to make the facts fit?
Darwin's theory was not that evolution took place. It was pretty obvious to all scientific enquirers that evolution explained everything. What was not clear was what drove evolution. For instance, many assumed that natural causes would weed out any deleterious changes, thereby preventing evolution.
Darwin's theory was that *natural selection* drove evolution, and he showed how it did.
That was part of it also a sexual selection
Theist: "..Look at how impressive it is that all those very specific and close numbers i can present and claim that its needed like that for Life to be possible!.."
Also Theist: "..Therefore... an *ALL-Powerfull* imaginary Sky-Wizard must have created it!.."
The more a Theist talks about that presupper of Fine-Tuning... the less sense does this all-powerfull creator God-Thingy get.
That they dont even realize that is... weird.
Edit:
Theist: "..There is a Book that proofs that Evolution does not work! .. Look .. actual science shows those million years old fossils.. but compare it to the modern day creature.. no changes!.."
Flaw 1: He does not understand what Evolution is and that it does not "..make things better.."
Flaw 2: He accepts the science when it tells him about the super old age of those fossils.. and with that contradicts his ENTIRE CREATIONIST Worldview. Inconsistency!.. Cause he can not accept things as older than 6k Years if he want to claim that the world is not older than that. That Shows how dishonnest he is that he cherry picks science when it suits him, but denies it when it does not. Even tho its the exact same Science that came to those different Conclusions ins the first place.
Is that Creationist stupid or something?
Yeah gotta love it when they go "science isn't scientific" or "the earth is 6000 years old because this thing is 410 million years old and it hasn't evolved"😂
@@davidleedougherty6478
Yep. And that they tend to think that *evolved* means "..gotten better..".
I thought its actually the hard core Theists who called the Pokemon-Game "..Demonic..". But yet.. they seem to think that Evolution works like in Pokemon. XD
Yes.
"The inverse square law would take effect, and the Moon and the Earth would just crash into each other."
Eric is just saying math words without knowing what they mean and how that applies to the situation to sound like he's making a legitimate criticism of the model of the Moon's formation.
The Earth's rotation pushes tides ahead of the Moon's orbit, causing the Moon and tides to pull on each other. This causes the Moon's orbit to steal energy from the Earth's rotation.
That means the Moon gets further away in a higher, slower orbit while the Earth rotates more slowly.
So when the Moon was closer, it was traveling faster. The inverse square law means that the acceleration from gravity is stronger when the objects are closer...
If something is being accelerated toward a planet harder, it needs to be going faster not to fall into the planet. This is why the International Space Station flies around the planet every hour and a half while the Moon takes almost a whole month.
Eric should also be made aware that these effects are so easily measurable that we have to have "leap seconds" to account for days getting longer - because about 7,000 years ago during his alleged 6-day creation event would've been a couple of minutes faster.
The ancient people writing Genesis wouldn't have known this. When they open it by saying that he divided the light from the dark, they weren't aware that you could stand in the northern tip of Europe and experience daylight or darkness for several "days" in a row. They didn't realize that the length of the day changes depending on factors like the Moon moving, or the Three Gorges Dam changing the moment of inertia.
Don't tell Eric about Planocraniidae (hoofed Crocodiles) or Carnufex carolinensis a 9 foot crocodile that walked on it's hind legs.
3:38 exactly ERIC we follow the FACTS were the LEAD you start with a CONCLUSTION and cram the facts INTO it
Actually the "big bang" was coined by George Lemaitre, a priest.
Don't think so. Lemaitre is the one who figured out the big bang was an inevitable result from the equations. Fred Hoyle coined big bang to ridicule the idea.
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Big_Bang_theory
No. Lemaitre developed the theory and did most of the legwork, but the phrase "Big Bang" originated with Fred Hoyle, who intended it as an insult.
You nailed it bro!! Excellent work!! Natural selection is real and people should know about it.
Dogs can be seen as evidence of the natural selection process.
Domestic dogs, which were once wolves, have undergone significant changes through artificial selection by humans.
Over many generations, specific traits such as size, coat color, and behavior have been selectively bred to create different breeds of dogs.
This process mimics natural selection, where individuals with beneficial traits are more likely to survive and reproduce, passing on those traits to future generations.
Dogs serve as a prominent example of how the process of selection can shape and diversify a population over time.
I’ve seen people exhaustively discuss these topics with Eric, so I know for a fact that he’s either lying or he’s mentally impaired and, seeing as how he’s memorized his father’s slideshow verbatim, I don’t think he’s mentally impaired.
A photographic memory actually works better when there’s less other brain activity to distract the process.
Children who can’t read yet do better at memory games, and so do chimps or someone whose left hemisphere has been (temporarily) disabled.
15:25
No, Eric, YOU all need to "move past Darwin".
We already have.
We've also moved past Edison, Capernicus, Pythagoras, Louis Pasteur, Galileo, and many other great thinkers.
Science doesn't come to a full stop every time something major is discovered. It builds upon its knowledge and hones its understanding of new ideas and theories. We quote these great minds to the next generation as cornerstones in our knowledge, along with new info.
They take the torch from there.
Science is always expanding.
You theists and your static, stagnant adherence to an unchanging, unyielding, dusty old book accomplish nothing.
"We have to move beyond darwinian evolution! Wah!"
We...we have Eric. Our understanding of Evolution is far superior to that of Darwins.
It's the creationist who are stuck in the past. 😂
Eric would be horrified by Hawking's top-down approach to cosmology, which he spend 20 years on working until his death. Hawking's collaborator Thomas Hertog recently published a book outlining the concept called "On The Origin Of Time" which is truly mind-blowing. Essentially, spacetime and gravity are emergent properties of a much deeper reality and life itself, rather than having to rely on the fine-tuning of certain physical constants, is an inevitable consequence of that deeper reality.
I love how he refuses to acknowledge that evolution moved beyond Darwin a long time ago🙄
It’s like saying that using leeches in medicine shouldn’t be done any more 🤣
Most of these apologists can't move on from Darwin. Other than Dawkins,it's their main 'bogeyman."
@@TheSkepTick Still ok to use leeches in recreation?
Coelacanths have most certainly changed over time.
1) Those changes are small.
2) They have lived in an environment that has been staggeringly stable for all of that time.
3) They are well adapted to that environment so they face no pressures that would select for larger evolutionary changes.
4) That environment is also very cold, which tends to lead to slow growth, slow metabolism, and very deep, which reduces exposure to cosmic rays. All conditions which inhibit genetic mutations.
5) Every last bit of of this is not only compatible with, but actually predicted by, evolution. Well adapted organisms in long term stable environments with reduced exposure to mutagenic forces will not change significantly over time because there is nothing *driving* them to change. Natural selection *keeps them the essentially the same* because they are already well selected.
Anyone else thought of Eric Idle's(?) part in "The Life Of Brian" where he preaches about the confused?
20:28 "Another important discovery made from the genome sequencing is that the coelacanths are still evolving today. While phenotypic similarity between extant and extinct coelacanths suggests there is limited evolutionary pressure on these organisms to undergo morphological divergence, they are undergoing measurable genetic divergence."
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coelacanth
Did Eric just admit at 3:40 that he presupposes his "truth" and then finds the data?
Like, I already knew he did that, but I think he actually just admitted it.
You must be new to this. When Eric started dating Sye Ten Bruggencate, he thought presup was the most brilliant thing in the world because Sye told Eric what a good boy he was and to keep massaging that spot.
Presups think "admitting" you're biased is a good thing. It's a show of Faith. Look how big and strong my half-inch faith cock is, God-daddy. The cultists are trained to respect people saying how much they love god. Anyone else would be disturbed, but for them it's bragging material.
It's common for cults to do this. Self-deprecation as virtue signaling. Ray Comfort does it too. After years of humiliation as Bananaman, he made a movie where he brags about how he loves being an idiot because he's an idiot for Jesus. You gain approval in the cult by making a big show of how humble you are.
Cults need to control people. Making good things bad and bad things good is a big one. God torturing people for all eternity is a good thing, hating your family and loving only Jesus is the best kind of love. That sort of thing. Destroy the language and you sabotage people's ability to think. Newspeak. Doubleplus ungood.
Yes! Exactly! I know these guys are idiots but usually they don’t admit it outright.
In starwars speak, the incredulity is strong with Eric.
Funny how Eric can twist reality to fit in to his giant book of fairy tales, AKA the Bible, and then ignores or misrepresents anything he can't twist easily to fit into his twisted narrative.
"the moon evolved"
Evolved, You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
All this time and money and still creationists can't find a flaw in evolution that creationism can fix.
3:42 - He admits to using pseudoscience (taking his preselected conclusion and looking for the evidence to support it)
Remember, every single time he brings up the A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism thing, feel free to bring up Project Steve and point out PS has almost 1500 qualified signatories while the DI has 12 with those qualifications.
😮☝🏻👏🏻
Evolution is still true. Creationists are still wrong.
Can you tell God once you die? And enjoy it
@@Mar-dk3mp wut
@@Mar-dk3mp which god?
How do you know it exists?
Does it happen to be the one your parents believe in?
How do you know it’s the right one?
If it turns out you were indoctrinated into the wrong belief, what will you say to that god after you die?
@@Mar-dk3mp which one?
Evolution is true, Evolutionism is false. Cars evolve,So de word evolution is true,But Darwin evolution does ant exist.
1. Harun Yahya? Seriously? He really went there? Harun Yahya (real name Adnan Oktar), was a notorious Turkish cult leader who briefly became internationally famous in the late 90s and 00s by spamming out a series of anti-evolution and antisemitic books, the contents of the former being lifted directly from Christian creationist drivel of the likes of Gish and Morris. Well, except for the pictures of fly fishing lures (complete with hooks) he used as "proof" that evolution has not occurred. Oktar, not surprisingly considering his former opulent lifestyle, is now serving an 8658 year prison sentence for financial fraud and sexual abuse.
2. Contrary to the image implied, Coelacanths did not abruptly disappear 410 m.y.a. We do in fact have a fossil record of coelacanth specimens spanning from the Devonian (420mya) right through to almost the end of the Cretaceous (at 66mya). So the "gap" is really only about 1/6th of that stated. In any case it was only the relative lack of known fossils in the early 20th century, and the relatively stable morphology of the fish (not unchanging, there are now at least a hundred different fossil species known), that led to the "living fossil" designation.
As for Liar Hovind Jr's question, though, as to "how much evolution has taken place on the coelacanth in 410my" ... the answer is of course 410 million years' worth. Modern coelacanths may look superficially similar (not identical) to their predecessors, but they are in fact completely different genera, with a good number of visible changes. Not to mention the probability of huge differences in soft structures and body chemistry that would not have been preserved in the fossil record.
Horseshoe crabs, too. There are quite a few morphological variations in the fossil record. They have not "not changed".
Not that any kind of "living fossil" causes problems to evolutionary theory, anyway. No organism "has" to evolve (except for the slow creep of genetic drift). It just has to maintain reproductive viability within the environment it exists in. If the environment remains stable, the creature will, too.
3:51 yeah he goes the other direction: the wrong one!
I'm not a physicist, but I'm pretty sure "if the moon were 70K miles away, the inverse square law would kick in, & they'd just crash into each other" was word salad. That's determined by gravity & the trajectory of the orbit. There is the Roche Limit, where the moon would be ripped apart by gravity, but what I'm seeing says that's less than 20K for the Earth-moon system.
Eric, AiG already believes in a process of evolution that would have to go much faster than anything scientists are proposing to explain how we get from "2 of every kind," whatever that means, to all the organisms we see on your timescale. And since you do that stupid creationist thing of calling every natural process "evolution," that means you also believe in a "geological evolution" that is insanely fast to carve features like the Grand Canyon in thousands of years. I think your explanation for the size of the universe is also that the speed of light randomly "evolved" to be much slower at some point, too.
I've been hearing these weird claims about how the timeline of the universe is all over the place & the Big Bang has been "destroyed" my entire life, & it's stayed pretty consistent over that time, so color me skeptical. Speaking of timelines, life is thought to have formed abetween 3.5-4 billion years ago, not 3 billion or less, & what do you mean by "man evolved 3 million BC"? As in the entire genus? If so, congratulations on getting something right, even though you phrased it in the stupidest possible way.
I have my doubts that Eric has an atheist friend, rather than someone he just pays to pretend to be an atheist. Obviously, I don't really agree with putting theism & evolution together, & it definitely doesn't work with creationism, which is designed to contradict evolution in every way. But it's not inherently any stupider than "the Bible says slavery is good, but it meant something different & the timeless, eternal, perfectly moral God changed the rules for us due to cultural relativism."
How many scientists recognize evolution, Eric? And why do you think a Muslim using the same arguments as you is proof of your religion? Shouldn't it prove Islam? Or, you know, that you're both using terrible arguments that don't lead to your respective conclusions.
Yes, Eric, I'm sure you can spend a lot of time cherry picking. What about the tully monster? We can't even figure out what it's related to. What about trilobites? We haven't observed those still living. Or dinosaurs? If they "all died in the flood," why didn't we have fossils of them until like 300mya? Why doesn't your list contain mammals that are billions of years old? Gee, it's almost like they couldn't have lived back then & had to evolve from the synapsids.
Thanks!
Since it was brought up, here's the background behind the name; "Big Bang"
The term that since the late 1960s has been almost synonymous with the standard model of modern cosmology. Ironically, the term was coined by Fred Hoyle in 1949 to characterize the kind of theory he much disliked and fought until the end of his life. Although it is widely agreed that Big Bang is a misnomer because it inevitably conveys the image of an explosion, the term has long ago become a staple part of cosmologists' vocabulary. More than a thousand scientific articles have been written with “big bang” in their title. As Hoyle said in an interview in 1995: “Words are like harpoons. Once they go in, they are very hard to pull out” (Horgan 1995).
A detailed study of the history of the name Big Bang reveals misunderstandings in the popular and scholarly histories of modern cosmology. For example, the epic cosmological debate in the period 1948-1965 is usually described as a fight between two rival world systems, the Big Bang theory and the Steady State alternative. This is to a large extent a misrepresentation in both a terminological and factual sense. It is “well known” that Hoyle coined the term “big bang” in a pejorative sense, to make fun of the idea of an exploding universe, but what is well known is not necessarily correct. It is also generally assumed that the name was adopted by the cosmologists at an early stage and widely used in the controversy. This was not the case. It took more than two decades until Hoyle's phrase became common in the scientific literature.
It is worth looking at the etymology of scientific names and phrases that catch on, because they influence how scientists and the public at large think about Nature. “Relativity theory” - a name for which Einstein was not responsible - may allude to relativism (“everything is relative”) in the same way that “big bang” alludes metaphorically to an explosive and noisy event at the beginning of time. Both convey unfortunate pictures, but it is difficult to find substitutes that are both apt and more appropriate.
The Belgian physicist and cosmologist Georges Lemaître is often mentioned as the father of the physical big bang, a concept he introduced in 1931. Incidentally, the origin of his finite-age model is often misdated to 1927, the year in which he developed a pioneering theory of the expanding (but non-big bang) universe. Even the authoritative Oxford English Dictionary states Lemaître's Big Bang theory to date from 1927. To describe in words the initial state of the universe he had recourse to metaphorical terminology, his favourite names being “primeval atom” and “fireworks theory”. One name he did not use was the “cosmic egg”, to which there are nevertheless several references in the literature, none of them with a source reference. With the benefit of hindsight we can today recognize in Lemaître's primeval atom hypothesis the germ of the later Big Bang theory, but in the 1930s it was scarcely taken seriously. Most astronomers either ignored it or dismissed it as “ _clever jeu d'esprit_ ”, as one critic called it.
It was only in the late 1940s that George Gamow and his collaborators Ralph Alpher and Robert Herman independently transformed Lemaître's spirited hypothesis into a sophisticated model of the early universe. They assumed the initial state to consist of a very hot, compressed mixture of nucleons and photons, thereby introducing the hot Big Bang model. On this basis they succeeded in calculating the amount of helium in the universe (about 30%), but unfortunately there were no reliable observations with which their calculations could be compared. Although Gamow did not associate the early exploding universe with a particular name or phrase, he did coin a name for the collapsing universe he imagined might have preceded the present expansion (Gamow 1951). He sometimes referred to the “big squeeze” in terms that were almost indistinguishable from the Big Bang, a name he resented. As he said in an interview shortly before his death in 1968, it was a cliché (Gamow 1968).
Eric just debunked himself. Wow he's just as smart as a dad. Well you know what they say the cocoNut doesn't fall far from the tree.
Soooooo, I was watching this while I was board at work, and went on a bit of a journey. Specifically, I paused the video with the 'Scientific dissent from Darwinism' and went on a bit of a google hunt. What I found out was basically that whole thing was written in 2001, and every now and again gets updated to include a new name or two. It's also been heavily criticised by most scientific institutions as misleading at best, as most of the scientists on the list aren't actually qualified to talk on the subject, as they aren't even biologists. And of the very few on the list that are biologists, only a handful are actually knowledgable enough to have an opinion worth listening to.
Also, big shock, they mis-represent the opinions of some of the signees on the document, in that they are not creationists, but have some issues with evolutionary theory but are not opposed to it as the creationists like to claim.
At times like these, I wish we were more like Klingons. They were smart enough to kill there gods.
just for the scientific correctness: gravity is not a constant but the gravitational constant is. The latter is used to calculate the force between massive objects. Fine tunning means changing variables to obtain a different output which you simply cannot do with Constants. Nature follows its own course which science tries to understand.
Was Eric's apparently willful stupidity created, or did it evolve?
It was inbred
@@Buttaman2218 brutal😂
At first it evolved, but then it solidified when he noticed he could earn an income from it.
@@PaulaBean I feel that it was created, by his sperm donor.
@@PaulaBean Agree. Creationist preachers are a perfect example of a parasite that has evolved to fit a niche.
As always, "Things have physical properties that interact with one another in consistent manners, therefore GAAAAAAAAWD."
Damn, just spend my last two dollars on a beer. Sorry Eric, seems I don't get to know your brilliant ... explenation this time.... ever.
Actually, the Moon was only about 40,000 miles away when it formed. The Earth rotated once every six hours or so at that time. Tides in the primordial oceans were extreme to put it mildly.
Every time I hear Eric saying 16 × 2 is 34 makes me laugh, it never gets old.
But Eric having library - that's a new joke to me. But also very funny
Him mentioning how a horseshow crab from now doesn't change from a 140 million year old one is such a bad choice of example because of the second word in its name. Crab. The insane ammount of things that are called crabs because they all look similar and yet they have nothing to do with one another, they even have completely different origins, is the perfect example to say that "looks similar" does not mean "is the same or at least hasn't evolved"
Has Eric never heard the puddle analogy?
Yes, but he doesn't understand it.
@@katherineg9396 he understands it but just doesn't care because creationism is $$$
The book he references, Atlas of Creation by Harun Yahya, is so bad as one example there's a photo in it purporting to be a caddis fly but careful observers point out that it's really a fishing lure with a hook visible.
"Imagio dei, is that Hebrew or Greek?" ...It's Latin.
Just like flat-earthers about the globe, creationists have been yapping that "evolution will be overturned replaced any day now" for almost 170 years now, and instead it's only gotten stronger and better established. This is a large part of why they focus on Darwin and cite older reference science papers for their quote mines, because they know it's a debate which they lost a long time ago in the scientific community.
It's all about the grift. Eric and his old man have been corrected too many times for them to claim ignorance. Neither of them will ever admit that they are wrong, or modify their claims, because their livelihoods are dependant on pumping out the same old lies.
Eric is just following in the family business, lying for money.
The "old teleological-organismic universe" 4:13 , so beautifully put!
He had a hard time saying that sentence. 😂
@@katherineg9396 He sure did. It seems they wish we would be back in the 14th century. Though I bet they wouldn't really like it if we were.
“If I admit that evolution by natural selection is probably right, I jeopardise my imaginary guarantee of eternal life worshipping a mentally unstable deity!” - Eric Hovind if he was an honest man.
The problem with fossils is that they only show skeletal structures. Lungs, circulatory system, sense organs, they're all soft tissue and don't show up. The horseshoe crab may have the ideal bone structure it needs, but without popping back in time to snag a couple of million year old examples to dissect, we have no idea if the soft tissue changed.
Still how can an animal become an human being???
@@Mar-dk3mp .
Human beings are animals.
Imagine the lack of brain function required to complain there's no evidence for one thing, and to support that, you put forth people who speculate without any justification that things were designed by an all powerful god, because things are the way they are...
Oh Eric, youbsingle handedly prove that as amazing a person as he is, Paulogias soft handed "Let's be friends with creationists" approach doesn't work. You'll "agree to disagree" to his face then make more videos like this, with the same nonsense in them as before.
"They are coming from the data the facts, the information, to deduce what happened"
"I go the other direction"
No facts? No data? No information?
OK then. 🤷🏻♀️🤦♀️
I kinda don't blame Eric for the way he turned out. Dishonest, lacking critical thinking skills, cringe worthy interviews. Having a father like his, who also braggs how abusive to him, he never had a chance. When he became an adult he was so indoctrinated there was no turning back.
Don't be an idiot. You absolutely can and should blame Eric for the way he turned out. He has had every opportunity to not knowingly lie to people. His upbringing might not have been ideal, but the moment he crossed the line from victim to abuser he lost any right to be forgiven for his past.
Excusing this behavior based on who his father is just encourages him, and it shits all over the many years and thousands of hours people have tried to talk sense into him. He's not some brainless mass of gelatinous victimhood unable to change his fate. People have overcome worse. Eric made the choice not to.
Actually the fact that some species do not seem to change is what pushed Gould to come up with the idea of punctuated equilibrium....
"They say time passes, but on my watch the pointers don't move and it still right to times a day, so the "Time theory" is wrong"
- Eric Hovind, probably
Yes they try to slap Darwin and Richard Dawkins on us and we will keep telling them atheism simply means you have a non belief in the existence of god or gods.