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

[paximperium]

Never said that. That is your idea.

Great since you brought it up.

Would you care to present the Intelligent Design Hypothesis and the evidence to support this claim? Thanks.

Wow us Raddy.

 

[Cainkane1]

Exactly. I assume you are talking about Evolutionists. If their science says nothing exploded and millions of years later apes became men which they are anyway there is actually no disagreement with the Bible.

They will have to come up with something else, like Aliens planted life on the backs of crystals . . . heh . . .

Or something absurd like blowing on a pile of dust and voila man is created.

 

[paximperium]

The soul is the blood or the life of any living creature, it dies. Hell is the common grave. A god is anything or anyone that is venerated or mighty. You didn't know that.

Nobody knew someone could string together such incoherent claims with such arrogance. Congrats.

 

[Marduk]

The soul is the blood or the life of any living creature, it dies. Hell is the common grave. A god is anything or anyone that is venerated or mighty. You didn't know that.

The soul is a non existent fallacy

Hell is a fantasy made up land

God is an primitive way of explaining nature

you apparently don't know that

 

[David Henson]

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.

And will continue to do so unless it has become religious in nature. How many scientists have posted in this thread? How many who venerate science and see all hope in a utopian science idea?

 

[Cainkane1]

The soul is the blood or the life of any living creature, it dies. Hell is the common grave. A god is anything or anyone that is venerated or mighty. You didn't know that.

Thats just one of many descriptions. God is somewhere between a hairy thunderer and a cosmic muffin.

 

[technoextreme]

You do realize that, according to the Biblical kind if humans are apes then no evolution took place? The Biblical kinds are divisions of life forms wherein each division allows for cross fertility within its own limits. The boundary then is drawn where fertilization ceases to occur.

Now according to science can an ape and a human produce? According to the Bible they can't. Which one is right.

I know that isn't a fair question because evolution is stupid and the Bible is true, but it was fun.

So what you are saying is that the Bible draws no distinction between an horse and a donkey. Do you even think about what you write before you put it down on paper?

 

[paximperium]

You do realize that, according to the Biblical kind if humans are apes then no evolution took place? The Biblical kinds are divisions of life forms wherein each division allows for cross fertility within its own limits. The boundary then is drawn where fertilization ceases to occur.

Sure. According to your definition. I can accept that.

Now according to science can an ape and a human produce? According to the Bible they can't. Which one is right.

According to science humans and apes cannot reproduce. According to your definition, humans and apes cannot reproduce.

However, science has actual evidence of the entire lineage of humans all the way down to apes that show that humans could reproduce with proto-humans that could reproduce with proto-apes.

What do you have?

I know that isn't a fair question because evolution is stupid and the Bible is true, but it was fun.

I'm sorry. Your lack of education and ignorance is not a valid argument. Please try again.

 

[drkitten]

You do realize that, according to the Biblical kind if humans are apes then no evolution took place?

Not at all. Humans are apes, but humans are different both from the protoape that was the ancestral form, and also different from all other modern apes that are also descendants of that protoape.

What biologists mean by "evolution" doesn't care about the arbitrary divisions of "kinds" that the Bible suggests; to the extent that these kinds are anything smaller than "life itself," evolution simply disregards them as being arbitrary and false divisions -- if you accept instead that all life is a single "kind," then the Biblical view reduces to a meaningless tautology.

The Biblical kinds are divisions of life forms wherein each division allows for cross fertility within its own limits.

Really? Could you please point me to the particular Bible passage where this definition is offered?

The boundary then is drawn where fertilization ceases to occur.

The problem with this is that biologists also have a term for this. It's a "species boundary." Which has nothing to do with the Bible (in fact, it didn't even derive from it).

... but evolution has also been observed that crosses the species boundary. Meaning that evolution can cross "kinds" if you use "kind" as a synonym for species.

Now according to science can an ape and a human produce? According to the Bible they can't. Which one is right.

How can you ask "which one" when you've only given one alternative?

Science says that an ape (let's say a gorilla for specificity) and a human cannot interbreed (they are different species) but that they come from a common ancestor.

The Bible says that an ape and a human cannot interbreed.

Which one is true? Well, at this level of detail, both of them.

Of course, if you misread the Bible to say that an ape and a human cannot interbreed and that they share no common ancestors,.... well, in this case, the Bible does contradict science. But in this case, the right one is probably science. It's certainly the one that's supported by more evidence.

 

[Shalamar]

Exactly. I assume you are talking about Evolutionists. If their science says nothing exploded and millions of years later apes became men which they are anyway there is actually no disagreement with the Bible.

They will have to come up with something else, like Aliens planted life on the backs of crystals . . . heh . . .

The Big Bang, and Evolution have nothing to do with each other.

And if new evidence comes to light that changes what we know about either the Big Bang, or Evolution, then so be it. That is what Science is, acceptance of new evidence to better understand the world, and the universe around us.

 

[paximperium]

And will continue to do so unless it has become religious in nature. How many scientists have posted in this thread? How many who venerate science and see all hope in a utopian science idea?

I'm sorry. I'm still waiting for Davey to actually present an actual criticism on the theory of evolution that is not based on Davey's uneducated ignorant and stupid based thing that he claims is evolution. Until then, your ignorant claims continue to be irrelevant nonsense.

 

[Cainkane1]

And will continue to do so unless it has become religious in nature. How many scientists have posted in this thread? How many who venerate science and see all hope in a utopian science idea?

True science will never become religious in nature because while religion does change with time the books don't. Everybody can respond to this thread scientist or not because even a non scientist can know enough science to carry on an intelligent debate. You aren't a scientist are you?

 

[Marduk]

Or something absurd like blowing on a pile of dust and voila man is created.

Or even better mixing Gods spit with the mud on the ground
or in the earlier version
Mixing the blood of a dead dragon with clay
or in the earlier version
baking clay shaped into men and women in an oven until they come alive and start worshipping you

These apparently are the best 4 attempts by religion to explain how we got here

All of them arrived at before evidence like this became available

While I have your attention David, 1 question
which of the above skulls represent the Human being that God created in a garden and how do you explain the others ?

 

[zooterkin]

You do realize that, according to the Biblical kind if humans are apes then no evolution took place? The Biblical kinds are divisions of life forms wherein each division allows for cross fertility within its own limits. The boundary then is drawn where fertilization ceases to occur.

Now according to science can an ape and a human produce? According to the Bible they can't. Which one is right.

Leaving humans aside, just to show your faulty logic:

Gorillas and chimpanzees are both apes. Are they both the same kind? They can't cross-fertilize, as far as I know, but by your logic they can't both be apes.

Are lions and tigers the same 'kind'?

 

[drkitten]

How many scientists have posted in this thread?

About twenty, by my offhand count.

How many who venerate science and see all hope in a utopian science idea?

"veneration - idolatry: religious zeal; the willingness to serve God" (WordNet)

Zero.

Feel free to identify a single poster on this thread who "venerates" science. Of course, you'll also be asked to identify in what way he "venerates" it, so you better be prepared to identify venerative practices or statements....

 

[Twiler]

There are two simple things that, so far, I have tried to stress throughout this thread.

1. What exploded in the Big Bang.

2. How do you explain the rapid transmogrification of the BBT?

So, throughout this thread on evolution, you have been trying to stress questions about the big bang?

Aren't you just changing the subject to avoid inconvenient questions?

 

[elbe]

There are 14 pages of responses to my OP so far. I'm on page 4 going down through them all. No one has even attempted to answer my questions thus far.

How do you seriously expect any sort of rational conversation when you're intellectually dishonest?

 

[temporalillusion]

Exactly. I assume you are talking about Evolutionists. If their science says nothing exploded and millions of years later apes became men which they are anyway there is actually no disagreement with the Bible.

Sorry, making a conclusion based on grade school level misunderstandings of things doesn't make a very compelling argument.

Copernicus and Galileo's opinions were at one time well outside the mainstream of scientific consensus not t mention the religious one as well. consensus per se means nothing if it is a consensus of error.

And yet the consensus changed.. not because they decided to go with Copernicus's authority or Galileo's authority but because they were compelled to change their minds based on the evidence.

And saying the consensus is in error is a mis-characterization (intentional?). A prevailing theory is the best theory that explains all observed phenomenon. Newton's theory of gravity was the best explanation at the time, until eventually things started to be observed that didn't match the theory. Then Einstein came along. Newton's theory isn't a "consensus of error", it's just right most of the time, but Einstein explains the things Newton can't so Einstein's theory overtakes Newton's.

So if you want to supplant the current theory of evolution, provide a better theory.

BTW
Isn't that an appeal to bandwagon?

You don't understand what the fallacies mean. Appealing to "the bandwagon" would be a fallacy if you were appealing to it simply because it was a bandwagon. Appealing to it because it has demonstrated the consensus is the most correct theory available isn't.

as scientific history has repeatedly borne out via the need o revamp, backtrack, and begin all over again with what was once considered certain.

Examples of this being all over again? You still seem to misunderstand science. You might benefit from reading this.

Noit at all. The general drift on this thread has been to ridicule the unbelievers in evolution as being unscientificasll;y minded. In some cases that is so. In others it's patently not, The point is not top make all-encompassing generalizations and attempts to represent a belief as totally accepted by all scientists. That simply isn't true.

The objections to evolution in this thread have been completely unscientific in nature, so no there's no cases in this thread where it's "patently not".

Furthermore, ask many of the persons purporting ting to know how evoilution profduced the vast variety of species and their answers ill be tantamount to faith in what some scientists said he found. Scratch beneath the surface a bit abnd thgats all you will find. A mind indoctrinated since youth to believe what it is being taught until it broaches no other concept and defends what it has been taught uncritically.

Doubtful, but lets grant that for a moment.

Even if that's true, that still doesn't reduce the actual validity of evolution one iota, so it's a meaningless point.

And even if that's true, it's still not "tantamount to faith", it's trust in the scientific process. The scientific process has demonstrated reproducible and real results, has radically altered our lives, and proven that it does what it claims it does. That's not faith any more than accepting that gravity will work tomorrow when you wake up is faith.

And even if it's true, it's not true of everyone. There are many here who have gone into the details of evolution themselves and decided for themselves.

Again, consensus isn't the panacea you seem to think it is. If it were we would still be thinking that the earth is the center of the universe, that the galaxy is the whole universe, or that the sky is inherently blue.

You are still missing the point of why and how the consensus changed.

 

[technoextreme]

Leaving humans aside, just to show your faulty logic:

Gorillas and chimpanzees are both apes. Are they both the same kind? They can't cross-fertilize, as far as I know, but by your logic they can't both be apes.

Are lions and tigers the same 'kind'?

I like my donkey and horsey comparison better. There is no way in hell he can wheedle out of the fact that what he claims about the bible directly contradicts reality.

 

[Hokulele]

Of course, if you misread the Bible to say that an ape and a human cannot interbreed and that they share no common ancestors,.... well, in this case, the Bible does contradict science. But in this case, the right one is probably science. It's certainly the one that's supported by more evidence.

And it makes things even more interesting if you want to discuss organisms that do not reproduce by breeding.

Dave, does this mean there is no such thing as a Biblical "amoeba kind"? How about a "bamboo kind"?