• 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)

Aren't there many different meanings to 'Christianity'?

Or is it an umbrella term?

If that's the case, why can't evolution also be an umbrella term?
 
David Henson said:
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.
Click to expand...


I'll take a swing at the above, even though the thread is nominally about evolution.

First, the universe is expanding. Indisputable fact. If it is expanding, then if you wind the clock backwards then it must have been smaller in the past. Go back far enough and it's all compressed into a point from which everything originated.

Second, the universe will not someday be heading towards a Big Crunch. The universe's rate of expansion is accelerating, not slowing. So it's going to expand forever.
 
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.

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.
Click to expand...

Please spare us the other ten parts.What is the point?
 
Evolution is proven by the fossil record and by DNA comparisons which show the relationship especially between humans and primates. I'm no scientist though so I'll leave the arguing to the more qualified.
 
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...

The Hovind theory said:
Noah's family and two of every "kind" of animal (including young dinosaurs)[40] safely boarded the Ark before a −300 °F (−184 °C) ice meteor came flying toward the earth and broke up in space. Some of the meteor fragments became rings and others caused the impact craters on the moon and some of the planets. The remaining ice fragments fell to the North and South poles of the Earth, concentrated towards those regions by the Earth's magnetic field.

He explains the fossils were created by billions of organisms that were washed together by the mass destruction of the worldwide flood, completely buried, and rapidly fossilized.[41]

The resulting "super-cold snow" fell near the poles, burying the mammoths standing up.[39] Ice on the North and South pole cracked the crust of the earth releasing the fountains of the deep, which in turn caused certain ice age effects, namely the glacier effects. This made the earth "wobble around" and collapsed the vapor canopy that protected it.

During the first few months of the flood, the dead animals and plants were buried, and became oil and coal, respectively. The last few months of the flood included geological instability, when the plates shifted. This period saw the formation of both ocean basins and mountain ranges and the resulting water run-off caused incredible erosion – Hovind states that the Grand Canyon was formed in a couple of weeks during this time.[42] After a few hundred years, the ice caps slowly melted back retreating to their current size and the ocean levels increased, creating the continental shelves. The deeper oceans absorbed much of the carbon dioxide in earth’s atmosphere and thus allowed greater amounts of radiation to reach the earth's surface. As a result, human lifespans were shortened considerably in the days of Peleg.
Click to expand...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kent_Hovind#The_.22Hovind_Theory.22
So you were saying David that this is a good understanding of science

hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahhahahahahhahahahahahhahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahhaahhahahahahahhahahahahahahhaahaahahahahahhahahahahahahahahhahaahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahhahahahahhahahahahahhahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahhaahhahahahahahhahahahahahahhaahaahahahahahhahahahahahahahahhahaahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahhahahahahhahahahahahhahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahhaahhahahahahahhahahahahahahhaahaahahahahahhahahahahahahahahhahaahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahhahahahahhahahahahahhahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahhaahhahahahahahhahahahahahahhaahaahahahahahhahahahahahahahahhahaahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahhahahahahhahahahahahhahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahhaahhahahahahahhahahahahahahhaahaahahahahahhahahahahahahahahhahaahahahahah
 
good understanding of science means for some bringing it into accordance with the bible.
 
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...
Even though I have not yet presented in this thread, I feel this rebuke acutely. I do find myself becoming dismissive and short with things I think are mundanely obvious. I will attempt to steel myself against such behavior.

David Henson, you have responded to drkitten's admonition of other posters, but have failed to actually comment on his/her analysis of your post. Do you agree with drkitten or disagree? Why, or why not?
 
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...



*Shrug* Here. The first paragraph is about Massimo Pigliucci's memories from his debate with Kent Hovind.
I guess it allows one to see the man's understanding of the theory he so extensively criticize. To call it abyssal would be quite the insult to abyss the world around...
Hovind's undertanding, for FSM sake, is so poor that even fellow creationists call him out on it...
 
Regardless of what they say, fundamentalists DO believe in evolution. In response to arguments that Noah couldn't have fit millions of different species into the Ark, they say he kept only two of each kind. That means a WHOLE lot of speciation has occurred since then, according to fundamentalists.

They not only believe in evolution, they believed in a kind of SUPER evolution that can generate millions of new species in just a few thousand years.
 
aggle-rithm said:
Regardless of what they say, fundamentalists DO believe in evolution. In response to arguments that Noah couldn't have fit millions of different species into the Ark, they say he kept only two of each kind. That means a WHOLE lot of speciation has occurred since then, according to fundamentalists.

They not only believe in evolution, they believed in a kind of SUPER evolution that can generate millions of new species in just a few thousand years.
Click to expand...
Not to forget they also believe nothing is wrong with incest as the bible tells them incest populated the Earth twice. Not to mention that the genealogy of Jesus not only has a prostitute (Rahab) but also Judah and Tamar which was an incestuous relationship. In other words, fundamentalists believe god is from Alabama :)
 
aggle-rithm said:
They not only believe in evolution, they believed in a kind of SUPER evolution that can generate millions of new species in just a few thousand years.
Click to expand...
Super Sailor evolution + Super fertility + Super Gene variance
that allows one semitic sailor to have descendants of every colour of humanity living in billions on every continent
in just a few thousand years
:D
 
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...
What is the problem? Why do you call the various kinds of evolution that you mention "unscientific"?

Your use of the term "purely theoretical" suggests that you are unaware of the definition of "theory" as used in science.

The word "evolution" means "change over time". Why do you think the use of the word "evolution" is made less valid when it is applied to different phenomena that involve change over time? The scientists involved in the various fields that you mention are careful to distinguish the type of evolution that they discuss.

Regarding cosmic evolution he uses the unscientific Big Bang.
Click to expand...

What is unscientific about Big Bang cosmology?

He asks "What exploded?"
Click to expand...
A reasonable question. The answer is: The universe "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.
Click to expand...
This is how science works. As more information is gained theories are refined. In the early nineteenth century it was thought that the known elements were composed of distinct atoms, one for each element. Does the fact that the sub-structure of atoms has been gradually understood in greater and greater detail since then invalidate atomic theory?

Now they say that nothing exploded.
Click to expand...
What they mean is that there was likely no "before" the Big Bang as we currently understand it. "Before the Big Bang" is probably as nonsensical as "North of the North Pole".

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.
Click to expand...
This was considered to be one possible outcome of the universe. But today this cyclical universe has been abandoned because new data has shown that the expansion of the universe is accelerating.

They call this science and they teach it to children in schools.
Click to expand...
Do you have anything to offer beside arguments from personal incredulity? The sources you are relying on to tell you what science is are deeply flawed.
 
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...

Hmmm I always thought this refered to the life cycle of a star or planet. I musta been wrong about that
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom