• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

100 Reasons Why Evolution Is Stupid (Part 1 of 11)

David Henson

Banned
D
Joined
Mar 24, 2010
Messages
720
Lately I have discovered that I seem to have developed an interest in science as presented by guys like this (Dr. Kent Hovind) who seem to me, to have a good understanding of science but not so much the Bible, so I'm interested in what "evolutionist" have to say about that more than his religious beliefs. What interests me is that he sees evolution as a religious belief, and so this thread is in religion rather than science.

Personally I disagree with his modern day Christian perspective, such as the Bible being inerrant, as well as his position on the universe being only 6,000 years old, dinosaurs existing alongside humans and - well, his views on returning that which belong to Caesar to Caesar, aside from all of that, the main points in this video (part 1 of 11) which make sense to me are as follows.

1. Evolution is a slippery word. His definition allows for 5 unscientific and purely theoretical possibilities, namely; Cosmic evolution (the origin of time, space and matter), Chemical evolution (The origin of higher elements from hydrogen), Stellar and planetary evolution (Origin of stars and planets), Organic evolution (origin of life), and Macro-evolution (Changing from one kind into another), as well as 1 possibility which is scientific (observed) and in harmony with the Bible and that is Micro-evolution (variations within a kind).

Regarding cosmic evolution he uses the unscientific Big Bang. He asks "What exploded?" He points out that according to Isaac Asimov, Georges Edward Lemaitre's notion of the big bang was that it was a mass of "no more than a few light-years in diameter." (about twelve trillion miles). In 1965 this was reduced to 275 million miles, in 1972 down to 71 million miles, 1974 down to 54 thousand miles, 1983 down to a trillionth the diameter of a proton. Now they say that nothing exploded.

Now it is believed that all the matter in the universe started out as being no bigger than a period at the end of this sentence. Eventually all the matter in the universe will be compacted down to the size of a period again and that this cycle happens every 80 to 100 billion years. They call this science and they teach it to children in schools.

That is the end of part 1.
 
Last edited:
Is there a point to this? You'll just get upset at all the people poking holes in your posts, then run away for a few months. Why not just find a nice creationist forum where you can all pretend that science doesn't exist?
 
Sledge said:
Is there a point to this? You'll just get upset at all the people poking holes in your posts, then run away for a few months. Why not just find a nice creationist forum where you can all pretend that science doesn't exist?
Click to expand...

Well, I don't want a long debate that goes on until one of you are demonstrably right, that would take forever.

In this particular thread I'm not interested in God, the Bible, or religion, except for that what I have been saying all along about Evolution being a religious belief is true.
 
Anyone who knows anything about science knows Hovind's delusional version of "evolution" is stupid. Even he agrees.
So Davey boy...did you have a point or are you just posting his well known stupid for everyone to laugh at?
 
Kent Hovind has little to no grasp of evolutionary theory, or of the sciences that support it -- biology and geology among them. He constantly makes errors of conflation, confusion and omission.

If, as you contend, his understanding of the Bible is even less, then we're talking about a know-nothing hack who obfuscates factual knowledge in order to promote a belief in ancient texts which he himself does not understand.
 
David Henson said:
Lately I have discovered that I seem to have developed an interest in science as presented by guys like this (Dr. Kent Hovind) who seem to me, to have a good understanding of science ...
Click to expand...

Oh sweet mother of mercy! Look elsewhere! Every word from that man's mouth is nonsense.
 
David Henson said:
Lately I have discovered that I seem to have developed an interest in science as presented by guys like this (Dr. Kent Hovind) who seem to me, to have a good understanding of science but not so much the Bible, so I'm interested in what "evolutionist" have to say about that more than his religious beliefs. What interests me is that he sees evolution as a religious belief, and so this thread is in religion rather than science.
Click to expand...

This immediately disqualifies you from serious consideration.

It's like saying "Genghis Kahn seems to have a good understanding of peaceful conflict resolution."
 
David Henson said:
1. Evolution is a slippery word. His definition allows for 5 unscientific and purely theoretical possibilities, namely; Cosmic evolution (the origin of time, space and matter), Chemical evolution (The origin of higher elements from hydrogen), Stellar and planetary evolution (Origin of stars and planets), Organic evolution (origin of life), and Macro-evolution (Changing from one kind into another), as well as 1 possibility which is scientific (observed) and in harmony with the Bible and that is Micro-evolution (variations within a kind).
Click to expand...

Yeah, it's a slippery word if you use it in all sorts of ways that reveal that you have no clue what you're talking about. Color me not surprised.
 
David Henson said:
Lately I have discovered that I seem to have developed an interest in science as presented by guys like this (Dr. Kent Hovind) who seem to me, to have a good understanding of science but not so much the Bible,
Click to expand...

He has more or less no understanding of science at all. There's a fairly detailed site devoted to analysis of his claims. Indeed, his understanding of science is so bad that even fellow creationists have taken him to task for his flawed "arguments."

In particular, the microevolution/macroevolution distinction that Hovind proposes (and you evidently believe in) is entirely unsupported within the scientific community and much of the creationist community as well. Again, even Answers in Gensis (another fruitcake creationist community) rejects this particular argument.
 
David Henson said:
Well, I don't want a long debate that goes on until one of you are demonstrably right, that would take forever.

In this particular thread I'm not interested in God, the Bible, or religion, except for that what I have been saying all along about Evolution being a religious belief is true.
Click to expand...

but your "scientist" started his speech with the bible.....

:rolleyes:

oh i have already wasted some time with his nonsense on youtube.
 
Last edited:
TraneWreck said:
This immediately disqualifies you from serious consideration.

It's like saying "Genghis Kahn seems to have a good understanding of peaceful conflict resolution."
Click to expand...

Be fair. The opening poster thinks Hovind understands science. You think he doesn't. From a distance, those both look like unsupported offhand opinions.

Why don't you think Hovind understands science?

(This applies to most of the rest of the dogpile as well. If you're going to criticize, you should educate as well.)
 
David Henson said:
Well, I don't want a long debate that goes on until one of you are demonstrably right, that would take forever.
Click to expand...

No, it won't take forever. We already are right.
Evolution is not a religious belief.
There. That was quick, wasn't it?
 
I hope you're all realising now why I didn't even try to address the specific contents of David's post.
 
paximperium said:
Anyone who knows anything about science knows Hovind's delusional version of "evolution" is stupid. Even he agrees.
So Davey boy...did you have a point or are you just posting his well known stupid for everyone to laugh at?
Click to expand...

Yeah, I wanted you to say something other than that that which you don't agree with is stupid. I wanted you to tell me why.
 
I think the original post makes it clear that we are not doing a very good job of teaching science - not what we've learned from science, but what science really is.

Unfortunately, many people think science is a collection of theories and facts without any understanding of how we've come to learn those things. Only someone who doesn't understand what science really is can label the Big Bang as "unscientific" or evolution as a "religious belief."

Science is a process that allows us to overcome our prejudices and foibles to understand how the natural world really operates.

-- Roger
 
drkitten said:
Be fair. The opening poster thinks Hovind understands science. You think he doesn't. From a distance, those both look like unsupported offhand opinions.

Why don't you think Hovind understands science?

(This applies to most of the rest of the dogpile as well. If you're going to criticize, you should educate as well.)
Click to expand...

Well "spoken," thank you.
 
Evolution, as a religion, IS stupid. And, I am sure there are some people on this planet who DO follow it like it is one. (The stupid schmucks.)

Evolution, as a science, on the other hand, would not be stupid: It has a proven track record for being highly productive in biological investigations.

But, you don't want to talk about evolution as a science. You would rather talk about its role, for some, as a religion. So, I have no further comments for you.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom