• 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 said:
Interesting point. Just because it walks like a Christian doesn't make it Christian and just because it claims to be science . . . actually that doesn't work. Science is just observation, and, damn, blind as hell apparently.
Click to expand...


Science is a process. A discipline. It is not mere observation.
 
David Henson said:
We will get to the fossil record later, some pretty damaging stuff there, I can't wait.
Click to expand...

seeing as you believe this is true
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
Click to expand...

I'm sure we can't wait either, heres another prediction then, T rex bones have never been found unfossilised, but you don't know that
:p
 
David Henson said:
We will get to the fossil record later, some pretty damaging stuff there, I can't wait.
Click to expand...

I'm sure you can't wait. Given the intellectual six-car pileup you've left in your wake, I'd be gnashing my teeth trying to get out of this thread if I were you as well.

Did you ever come up with a definition of "kind" that makes the micro/macro-evolutionary distinction make sense?

Did you come up with a non-evolutionary explanation of how a dog can turn into a weasel?

Did you ever find any actual flaws in the evidence supporting the Big Bang theory?

Did you ever find a justification for how and why Hovind misrepresented the (then-)current state of cosmological science as badly as he did?
 
DC said:
good understanding of science means for some bringing it into accordance with the bible.
Click to expand...

No it doesn't. I often point out that when science tries to explain the Bible it misses the mark because it doesn't know the Bible.

When science says the darkening of the sun in the book of Revelation is an eclipse I point out that in the Hebrew scriptures the darkening of the sun was metaphorical for God's anger. When it says that stars falling to earth is meant to be asteroids I point out that in the Hebrew scriptures it symbolized social and political upheaval.

When science says that Moses parting of the Red Sea was a tsunami by putting Moses somewhere he wasn't I correct it.

A good understanding of the Bible allows this, a good understanding of 'science' apparently doesn't provide an intelligent response to Dr. Hovind's points, or have I missed something?
 
That's the problem with living one's entire life as a big appeal to authority; one looses the ability to recognize when the authority is blathering nonsense.
 
Simon39759 said:
*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 understanding, for FSM sake, is so poor that even fellow creationists call him out on it...
Click to expand...

Well, Simon . . . I don't understand then. If that is the case why is it that the few simple points I have taken from the first part of this video series have absolutely not been properly addressed?

[shakes head in wonder] Its . . . its . . . its like he is being discredited for simply not agreeing with whatever science dictates. Theres . . . theres . . . theres no intelligent response.
 
The mutated form of the L-gulano-y-lactone oxidase gene pretty much wraps up the issue of common ancestry between ape species. Among ape species in which this pseudogene has been identified, it is most similar between humans and chimpanzees, as predicted by evolutionary theory. How do you explain the presence of this hereditary feature among distinct ape species without invoking evolutionary theory?



David, you claim a desire to discuss the scientific evidence for evolution by natural selection. Several people have presented strong evidence and asked for your response, yet you ignore these issues. Why is that?
 
aggle-rithm said:
Regardless of what they say, fundamentalists DO believe in evolution.
Click to expand...

Fundamentalist scientists? Who cares what fundamentalists believe, that isn't an issue.

aggle-rithm said:
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.
Click to expand...

We will address that later.

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...

Uh-huh.
 
noreligion said:
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 :)
Click to expand...

And the voice of reason dictates to you that we came from a rock.
 
Marduk said:
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
Click to expand...

I couldn't help but notice that you support your complete inability to defend your position of "science" by gross ignorance of the Bible with a :D

Nice touch.
 
John Jones said:
Science is a process. A discipline. It is not mere observation.
Click to expand...

Scientists are men subject to all the biases, prejudices, agendas and politics of men.

Scientists are not reflections of scientific purity.

They have their own foundational assumptions.

They have their own unobserved beliefs.

They have their own faith.

Just like me and just like you.
 
Last edited:
drkitten said:
Did you ever come up with a definition of "kind" that makes the micro/macro-evolutionary distinction make sense?
Click to expand...
Micro. Great Danes and Shitzus are dogs.

Macro. Their great-great-great-great-great-great grandfathers did not come from a rock, or a fish, by accident.
 
Last edited:
154 said:
Great Danes and Shitzus are dogs.

They did not come from a rock, or a fish, by accident.
Click to expand...

I'm not seing a definition of "kind" there, so I assume that your answer to the question is "no, I don't have a definition of 'kind.'"

Fortunately, no one suggests that dogs came from fish by accident. They suggest that dogs came from fish via natural selection. Biologists understand the difference, even if creationists don't.
 
154 said:
Scientists are men subject to all the biases, prejudices, agendas and politics of men.

Scientists are not reflections of scientific purity.

They have their own foundational assumptions.
Click to expand...

That's why reproducibility, empirical evidence, predictive value, and the process of peer review are important aspects of the discipline of science.

You don't hear scientists talking about polywater, Piltdown Man, or Lysenkoism these days except in retrospect. Science has been self-correcting in those cases.
 
David Henson said:
So if the apes hadn't evolved into us they would have died?

You don't realize how stupid that is?!
Click to expand...

:covereyes A bunch of anthropologists just rolled in their graves.

Humans are part of the Hominidae family. Great apes.

In other words, Humans ARE apes.

Until you realize why Hovnid's "I don't have a tail so I'm not related to monkeys" is so utterly ridiculous, I don't think you should be arguing evolution.
 
Last edited:
154 said:
Scientists are men subject to all the biases, prejudices, agendas and politics of men.

Scientists are not reflections of scientific purity.

They have their own foundational assumptions.
Click to expand...

Yup they do, and Science is the process that allows us to know things without those assumptions.

Because if you make an assumption, 10 other scientists will question it and take your research and reproduce it with a different set of assumptions to see if there is a different conclusion. 5 more will test the assumptions themselves.

And if different conclusions are arrived at and can be demonstrated, then everyone will accept the new conclusions and discard the old ones.

Science has demonstrated for centuries to be self correcting and via its processes arrive at better and more accurate descriptions of reality.

So really your post is irrelevant.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom