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

[temporalillusion]

Since science is always correcting, eventually someday it will recognize today's imposed orthodox foolishness.

Doubtful, but if it does it'll do so based on based on what can be objectively demonstrated as accurate, not based on the fact that some people who don't understand what it is they argue against do so because they don't like it.

Disagreeing with conclusions isn't a problem (that happens in science thousands of times every single day), it's how one disagrees.

Just because a stopped clock is right twice a day doesn't mean it's worth keeping.

And I don't know who the freak you think you are, but your post is just as irrelevent too then. Really.

No it isn't. Your post was irrelevant because you were trying to undermine the conclusions of science by saying the individual scientists are fallible. But science works (and has demonstrated such for centuries) despite that, so that makes your point irrelevant to the question of scientists' conclusions.

Meanwhile my post specifically talks about how science overcomes personal fallibility, so it is completely relevant to your post.

Can someone direct me to a thread where all you objective skeptics demonstrate your objective skepticism in critical deconstruction of the inherent assumptions accepted within the "fact" of the theory of evolution?

Anyone skeptical at all?

Sorry when I changed my mind from being a creationist to accepting evolution I didn't do it in a thread.

What you are looking for is 150 years of public research by millions of scientists (a great many of them Christian, so the idea that one has to reject god to accept evolution is false) which is all referenced and documented and open for anyone to view and test and confirm or refute.

 

[David Henson]

So Hovind has you snookered and you pretend to want to know why the science says Hovind is an idiot, but you really don't want to know. Sounds like one of those 'lying for Jesus' posts where some snookered individual thinks he/she, (mostly 'hes' I'd bet, though I'm not sure why that is), is going to post some 'aha' moment and get all us dumb led by the nose skeptics to see the light.


Look, genetic science confirmed what all the other sciences already confirmed: evolution theory is correct. PERIOD, end of debate.

Of course some folks who recall evolution science from their 5th grade class some 30-50 years ago are totally unaware evolution science continued on its merry way for the last 50 years. Get over it, evolution is a fact and it is supported by so much scientific evidence if you really cared to look you'd be embarrassed that you continued to believe the Earth was flat for as long as you have continued to do so.

Ah, the familiar cry of the blind faithful! It is always the same, no matter what the religion.

 

[Cainkane1]

Well, you have to realize that each of these "definitions" are examined in the video series and the "unscientific" - heh - stupidity of them will be discussed, but basically they are "unscientific" in that they are not observed.

The 6th one, for example, is observed. Everybody knows that a dog will produce a dog and not an ear of corn.



When does a prediction become fantasy? When does science become fiction. Why am I here talking about something which I have very little interest in? It is because you believe in a religion that opposes another, and most interestingly, you don't know that you do that because you have been indoctrinated. I have always suspected this but here I am confirming it.



Yeah! It is so obvious, isn't it! Over and over and over again we have to stress how the word evolution is used. A person changes over time, but it doesn't change into an ear of corn.



If I say God exists because religion says so does that make it true? If I say that science may be wrong about the Big Bang you are not going to argue that, and you sure have not addressed the point about the Big Bang Dr. Hovind raised. What exploded? Where did what allegedly exploded come from? And the energy etc.




The universe exploded into the universe and you have to ask what is unscientific about the Big Bang?!

C'mon people!



The same question could be asked of religion, politics, the lottery or anything. When you say "This happened," that is fact. When you say "we think this might have happened," that is religion and science. When you confuse the two that is stupid. Evolution is stupid.



You are having a hard time with this, aren't you? What you are saying is that nothing exploded. Nothing really is nothing. Where did it come from? If you can't answer it just say you can't answer it. If you don't know say you don't know. Don't act as if there was nothing that you can't understand before the Big Bang because you have already more or less said nothing became nothing, like magic, what the hell do you have to lose at this point?!




Just answer the questions raised. That's all. Simple. You can't. No one can.

Theres nothing stupid about evolution. Its proven by the fossil record and by DNA comparisons. We keep going over and over the same material. Evolution can be observed because you can see microbes evolve under a microscope. Dogs produce dogs sometimes with mutations; over time say a million years something like a dog but not exactly will evolve. No a dog won't become an ear of corn. Incidentally corn is a cultivated grain that humans changed bit by bit through breeding. A sped up form of evolution.

A prediction becomes a fantasy when it doesn't happen. You know a prediction that jesus is comming again and 2000 years later it doesn't happen. You know. That type of fantasy.

One of the questions you seem to be tossing into our direction is the origin of the Universe. Well prior to the Big bang no one knows what happened. This includes theologians.

The evidence for and proof of evolution is very evident. The Hovind followers just ignore it because it intrudes into their world of fantasy.

 

[zooterkin]

Ah, the familiar cry of the blind faithful! It is always the same, no matter what the religion.

Yes, that's quite a good synopsis of what she was saying. Thankfully, science is not a religion.

 

[temporalillusion]

The 6th one, for example, is observed. Everybody knows that a dog will produce a dog and not an ear of corn.

Good thing evolution doesn't predict that then.

If I say that science may be wrong about the Big Bang you are not going to argue that, and you sure have not addressed the point about the Big Bang Dr. Hovind raised. What exploded?

Unanswered questions are not evidence of something else. I have many questions that are unanswered by the Bible but I don't believe in Allah just because they are unanswered.

Plus that's a grade school level misunderstanding of the Big Bang Theory... BBT isn't an explosion, BBT is the history of the universe from when it was very dense and hot to now. There was no "explosion" in the sense most people use the word.

If you (or he) has such a basic misunderstanding of something, how can one expect the questions asked about it to be good questions?

Where did what allegedly exploded come from?

There was no explosion. And as to how the universe was in a hot dense state that's still an open question with active research and lots of hypothesis.

"I don't know yet" is a perfectly good answer you know... when people didn't know why the rivers flooded or where lightning came from rather than just saying "I don't know yet" they attributed those things to god too.

And the energy etc.

You know the net energy of the universe is very close to if not exactly zero right?

 

[MattusMaximus]

Ahem, David?...

David Henson, one question: in your earlier definitions of macro- and micro-evolution you kept mentioning "kinds" of life-forms. Can you please provide a concrete definition of what you mean by "kind"?

A serious response from you will be necessary to continue this particular line of discussion in any meaningful manner. Thanks.

*taps foot impatiently*

 

[Undesired Walrus]

If people want to educate Dave, then stop with the personal attacks and stick to the evidence. It seems he is just responding to the former.

 

[David Henson]

I am less familiar with them.

Well, of course! You are an atheist, not a scientist.

The term evolution can be applied, the word means only 'change over time' but, in its common usage in science refers to the 'theory of evolution by natural descent'; Hovind kinda conflate that with a bunch of totally unrelated theories with murky the issue.

I suspect that these changes over time can be speculated upon and confirmed by science as evolution but the fact remains that not one example has ever been known to disagree with what we actually know. There is no evidence whatsoever, and there never has been, that something changes into something else. Apes produce apes, not men.

But a dog is only a kind of wolf.
And wolves are only one example among the carniforma.

You mean a wolf is a kind of dog? Wolves don't make bananas or corn or fish.

MAcro-evolution is but the sum of a large number of micro-evolutionary changes adding up overtime.

No it isn't. A dog doesn't change over time to be a horse, in fact, there is some pretty interesting "science" being taught in schools now that was proven by real science to be flat out wrong regarding horses but that is later on in the video series.

One step can take people a little bit apart. Multiply these steps a large number of time over a long period of time and people will be long separated...

What people can't do is respond to my OP. Stop preaching to me.

Creationists have to accept, finally, the 'micro-evolution' work, because of the great many evidences that it does, but argue that it, magically?, stop working for the biggest changes.

There is no evidence of these so called big changes. We know so called "micro-evolution" is real. When a farmer plants corn he knows he is going to get corn. He doesn't sit and wonder what evolution is going to grow for him. Watermelons? Catfish? Spiders? He knows! Corn! Everything else is just lame posturing. Pure speculation that is wrong.

They also introduce a new concept, the 'kind' that has no definition. Why not using a term from the already existing taxonomic system?

A Biblical kind is the divisions life forms which allows for cross fertility within its own limits. The boundary between kinds is drawn where fertilization is no longer allowed. Dogs make dogs, not cats.

But his integrity is important, it explains why the man can keep blathering about a subject he knows little about and can lie about whatever he does, finally, understand.

You can't argue with the points I have made from his video. No one here can or they would have by now. Not one point I have made has been successfully refuted and in fact, even approached. What do you think it means to me that you discredit him? Nothing! Nothing!

I don't care about him, I'm not in the Kent Hovind fan club. You have said nothing.

He is not questioning science, though, he is rejecting it outright and insulting people, smarter than him, that devoted their life to research the subject.
It is *********** arrogant.

I would like to think that you have better sense than this, but if I have to tell you how to do this then I will. Take the information from those people who are smarter than him and refute his points. The fact is that I have seen him debate those "smart" guys and he mopped the floor with them.

Religion. Stupid. Evolution.

 

[Marduk]

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

Nice touch.

The smile was for the people here who are able to comprehend my point, as you apparently haven't studied evolution and even less so studied the bible I don't see how anything you say in this thread is relevant

Hence I am here having a good laugh at your expense
sorry you missed it
heres another smile just for your inability again to get my point

 

[Vortigern99]

I addressed the OP point-by-point in what is now post #94. I've got no response.

 

[Marduk]

I addressed the OP point-by-point in what is now post #94. I've got no response.

Thats the usual response though for credible evolutionary evidence from religious fundementalists isnt it

pretend it didn't happen, then carry on pretending that theyre going to live forever because of what some Jews said thousands of years ago

 

[paximperium]

Has Davey-boy(or science-interested fella who does not want to bring in religion into a scientific debate but decides to around throw in fundie terms and pretends to not be a Creaotard) defined what a "kind" is yet?

 

[Lord Emsworth]

What interests me is that he sees evolution as a religious belief, and so this thread is in religion rather than science.

Going by that, a trash heap would have been a good place too.

No wait, I have to correct that.

Going by that, a trash heap would have been a good place too.



But seriously, but what do you and Hovind want to achieve with this word torturing? I mean, does it make you happy to call random things totally unapt names? But then again ... pffft. You must believe it.

 

[jadebox]

Yes, as a matter of fact, evolution theory has moved well beyond the stage of collecting evidence and well into the stage of being usable to develop predictions, carry out the experiments and confirm the predictions.

In The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution, Richard Dawkins gives several examples of predictions made based on the theory of evolution that were later confirmed. It's a book that Mr. Henson should read (but won't).

-- Roger

 

[Safe-Keeper]

He hasnt even responded to the plethora of objections to his other umpteen posts, and he starts another nonsense post where he believes that Kent Hovind debated 3 "evolutionists" and made them "look like idiots".

This, right here, is the reason why I agree with those who say science should not debate pseudoscience. Scientific facts are decided by empirical testing, not by debates in auditoriums. Debates are for politics and other subjective fields in which opinions count as much as science.

 

[David Henson]

Since you've mentioned dogs twice now, I'd like to understand your view of their micro/macro evolution a little better. You obviously agree that the various types of dogs have diverged substantially over the last few thousand years. Suppose there a pack of dogs got isolated on an island. Do you think that pack would eventually diverge enough that they would no longer be able to breed with the mainland dogs?

You mean like an Indian Wolf? Indus valley dogs crossed with indian wolves producing a dingo and taking them on boats to Timor and Australia?

Dogs make dogs.

 

[jadebox]

There is no evidence whatsoever, and there never has been, that something changes into something else. Apes produce apes, not men.

Aw, c'mon ... are you just trolling?

-- Roger

 

[zooterkin]

Well, of course! You are an atheist, not a scientist.

Further to my earlier post, these too are not mutually exclusive.

I suspect that these changes over time can be speculated upon and confirmed by science as evolution but the fact remains that not one example has ever been known to disagree with what we actually know. There is no evidence whatsoever, and there never has been, that something changes into something else.

A chicken doesn't change into something else, but the offspring of a chicken is not a clone of its parents, so it differs. The accumulated differences over many generations mean that what you have at the end of the time can be very different from the chicken you started with. With enough generations, and enough selection (natural or artificial) what you end up with is no longer a chicken.

Apes produce apes, not men.

Men are apes. (Some) apes produce men.

 

[David Henson]

or try Domestic sheep (Ovis Aries), you know that they were originally bred from wild sheep (Ovis orientalis) but because they have been separated from their ancestral stock for so long a domestic sheep can no longer mate with a wild one.
what word commonly used in the English language describes what happened there David
(Clue: it starts with an "E")

Evolution means change. How did the sheep change and what did they change into?

 

[paximperium]

This, right here, is the reason why I agree with those who say science should not debate pseudoscience. Scientific facts are decided by empirical testing, not by debates in auditoriums. Debates are for politics and other subjective fields in which opinions count as much as science.

Since pseudo-science crackpots can't debate the science; all they have have is an attempt to relabel everything "philosophical" or "religious".

It goes to shows the disdain that Mr Henson actually has towards religion and faith. Very sad.