• 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:
And like the Big Bang it started out as nothing. There is no evidence of the Big Bang because there was nothing there before it. You can't get something from nothing - except evolution. No evidence of a common ancestor, only an old theory that is clung to like blind faith.



We begin to disagree when you start preaching your science fiction propaganda like a litmus test for intellectual dishonesty.
Click to expand...
Scientists don't say there was nothing before the big bang. Lacking a time machine which you theists lack also they just don't know what it was. Life didn't evolve from nothing. Life developed from essential matter by processes unknown at this time. There are theories and you can see them yourself if you type abiogenesis into your search engine. You've been told this before but you ignore it.
 
SonOfLaertes said:
Radrook, tread lightly in this thread - David is a Christian who scoffs at your beliefs regarding not only biblical inerrancy but also many other core tenets of your faith.
Click to expand...

I'm not a Christian.

SonOfLaertes said:
Isn't it amazing? David (and Radrook) often bring up changes in scientific knowledge as proof that current knowledge may be flawed, yet - none of them can agree on a single sentence in the Bible. There are more denominations of Christianity than there are flavors of jelly beans, and many of them regard each other with absolute scorn (unless they are arguing with atheists, of course, only then do they put aside their significant differences and present a united front).
Click to expand...

Ahhhh! Now I see! Ben Stein was right! If you want to 'prove' evolution just make everyone agree with you. If you want published, tenure, funding you have to agree with everything they say. Spoon feed it to the masses through public schools and the media and crush all dissent.

Where did you guys get that model from? Christendom in the dark ages?

SonOfLaertes said:
They chide science, seeing progress as weakness, while turning a blind eye to their own complete lack of agreement on just about anything.
Click to expand...

If you had raised two simple points on a criticism of the Bible like I had in the OP I would have had an answer for you in the first page of responses and there isn't a Christian alive who could demonstrate, with any accuracy, that I was wrong. But if they could I would accept my error.
 
David Henson said:
Ahhhh! Now I see! Ben Stein was right! If you want to 'prove' evolution just make everyone agree with you. If you want published, tenure, funding you have to agree with everything they say. Spoon feed it to the masses through public schools and the media and crush all dissent.

Where did you guys get that model from? Christendom in the dark ages?
Click to expand...

Well, that agreement must come from 'brainwashing' instead of independently looking at the same evidence and coming up with similar conclusions. :rolleyes:

Again, why are you limiting your logic to evolution? Nearly everyone agrees with gravitation, electromagnetism, round earth, thermodynamics, etc. Following your logic, these things can't be true because they have pretty much total approval but could be wrong.
 
Last edited:
David Henson said:
And like the Big Bang it started out as nothing. There is no evidence of the Big Bang because there was nothing there before it.
Click to expand...
Why do people talk about the Evolution and somewhere along the line bring up the Big Bang, has if they to do with each other, THEY DON'T.

Why don't you just talk about how steel was first made and then throw in how cars have changed over the years.

Paul

:) :) :)
 
Last edited:
Segnosaur said:
So... your definition of 'kind' is roughly the same as the definition that is commonly used for 'species'... Is that the definition you really want to go with?
Click to expand...

From a biologic perspective a species differs in that it is any group of interfertile plant or animal which mutually posses one or more distinctive characteristic, so there can be many species or varieties within a single division of the Biblical "kind."

So, for example, Noah didn't need to have every breed of dog or cat.

Segnosaur said:
In that case, please explain the London Underground mosquito. This is a recent species, evolved from (but not necessarily fertile with) above-ground species. The London subway tunnels are only around 100 years old, so this species isn't one that could have been around since "god created everything".

So, by your definition (i.e. requiring cross-fertility) we've seen a brand new 'kind' evolve.

Now, what I suspect you will do, is probably use the argument but its still just a mosquito and thus not a new 'kind'... however, if you do, then you will have to come up with some other alternate definition of 'kind' (one that does not involve cross-fertility.)
Click to expand...

It sounds to me like the Peper Moth. You discover a new mosquito and assume that it never existed outside of a specific area and so it must be something new.
 
David Henson said:
From a biologic perspective a species differs in that it is any group of interfertile plant or animal which mutually posses one or more distinctive characteristic, so there can be many species or varieties within a single division of the Biblical "kind."

So, for example, Noah didn't need to have every breed of dog or cat.
Click to expand...

:covereyes This logic makes absolutely no sense. If Noah didn't bring every breed of dog or cat, where did the breeds come from?
 
David Henson said:
Ahhhh! Now I see! Ben Stein was right! If you want to 'prove' evolution just make everyone agree with you. If you want published, tenure, funding you have to agree with everything they say. Spoon feed it to the masses through public schools and the media and crush all dissent.
Click to expand...

Science works; if it didn't, you wouldn't be reading these words. Given that, where do you see the boundary between science which works, which demonstrates our understanding of the universe is correct, and, in your opinion, science which is actually some sort of conspiracy to hide the truth? How is that boundary enforced? How do you stop enquiring minds, those brilliant people who are pushing the boundaries forward in all aspects of science, from looking in certain areas and exposing the alleged fraud of evolution? Where's the join? What do you see as the motivation for this obfuscation?
 
Radrook said:
But there we go again! An ID need not be considered a god nor does its methods need involve the supernatural. There is nothing in the definition fan ID that requires it. many things that humans do now would be considered supernatural by our ancient ancestors. Yet to us they would simply be technological accomplishments.,


Also, who or what or where the ID came or its location in existence is irrelevant to the detection of ID in nature. In short, one doesn't have to know everything about the builders of a machine in order to conclude that the machine is a product of intelligent design.
Click to expand...

Let me see if I'm understanding this then.

You don't believe that your god designed or created the universe?
 
David Henson said:
Ahhhh! Now I see! Ben Stein was right! If you want to 'prove' evolution just make everyone agree with you. If you want published, tenure, funding you have to agree with everything they say. Spoon feed it to the masses through public schools and the media and crush all dissent.
Click to expand...
Ben Stein is a raving lunatic who thinks that all of science will lead to Nazism.
 
slingblade said:
So, where's part 2 of 11?
Click to expand...

Since I have gone through 10 pages of responses and the best answer thus far to the two simple points of the OP has been a reluctant "I don't know" and that only as a possibility rather than a commitment, I might as well post it today.

Should I start a new thread or include it in this one? I think I should start a new one.
 
David Henson said:
Since I have gone through 10 pages of responses and the best answer thus far to the two simple points of the OP has been a reluctant "I don't know" and that only as a possibility rather than a commitment, I might as well post it today.
Click to expand...

Because you're ignoring the answers you don't like, even though they're accurate. Blockhead.

There was only one question asked in the OP, which was "what exploded?"
This was answered, and your garbage paragraph on the 'slippery' meaning of evolution was also addressed.

Also, in case you missed it before:
BIG BANG THEORY IS IRRELEVANT TO THE DISCUSSION OF EVOLUTION
 
Last edited:
MattusMaximus said:
There's been about six pages of posts since I last posted in this thread earlier today, and I don't feel like reading through all the usual bickering.

Can someone point me to where, specifically, David Henson provided a concrete definition of what he means by "kind"? I think that in order to have a productive conversation with him, we have to have the answer to this question - otherwise, we'll all just be spinning our wheels.

Thanks in advance.
Click to expand...

It isn't even relevant to the OP. You never have addressed that.
 
David Henson said:
So, for example, Noah didn't need to have every breed of dog
Click to expand...
Dogs and wolves can interbreed.
So does that mean that Noah only brought a dog or a wolf?
Did wolves and dogs speciate after the flood?

Great Danes and Chihuahuas do not naturally or commonly mate. Based upon your definition, are they not a separate species?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom