• 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)

zooterkin said:
It was a name coined by Fred Hoyle, who didn't happen to agree with the theory. It was intended to be disparaging, not descriptive.
Click to expand...
If I had a time machine I would go back into time and bitch slap those people. That is the second time where an idiotic ad hominem confused the hell out of me.
 
David Henson said:
YA THINK?!
Click to expand...
What is your point, exactly? Newton's laws of gravitation don't perfectly reflect reality either (among many, many other things: why else would they use relativity in the design of GPS software?), but you have no problem with those.


David Henson said:
Absolutely unbelievable!
Click to expand...

Not really, accurate predictions have made using principles derived from the actual physics behind the BBT. But you're not interested in evidence, and I think any venture into theoretical physics would make your head explode since you can't even grasp simple genetics.
 
Last edited:
skip said:
Here is what I know about the Big Bang… it was first used as a derogatory name for the theory by the steady state guys. It ended up being adopted and became the general name for the theory. It was Big, I would think, but it would not have been much of a bang as explosions go. It’s really just the name they gave to the rapid expansion of space-time.

Again a bit over simplified, but this is just my laymen interpretation.
Click to expand...

Yeah. Big? It started out as big and then shrank to nothing, theoretically. From what Dr. Hovind said.
 
Has Davey-boy presented a single actual criticism of the theory of evolution yet or is he just insulting his uneducated and ignorant understanding of it...you know like bringing up the Big Bang Theory continuously and then laughing at all the answers that he doesn't understand and continue to look like a complete idiot?
 
David Henson said:
Yeah. Big? It started out as big and then shrank to nothing, theoretically. From what Dr. Hovind said.
Click to expand...

Can you use the actual theories and look at why they've changed (you know, the evidence) instead of "Dr." Hovnid's ignorant interpretations?
 
Last edited:
paximperium said:
No. Just follow his train of random replies. He is ignoring all the posts that he doesn't like or very likely doesn't understand.
Click to expand...

He's ignoring all the posts with sentences that are damning to his faith, if I understand correctly.

Why post on a skeptics forum dedicated to education and understanding if one has no intention of learning ???
 
David Henson said:
Yeah. Big? It started out as big and then shrank to nothing, theoretically. From what Dr. Hovind said.
Click to expand...
So you don't have a single actual citation except from someone already shown to be a dishonest ignorant preacher with no actual understanding of evolution?

The fella who doesn't even know the basic definition of the theory of evolution of what the Big Bang Theory actually says? That guy?
 
David Henson said:
The Big Bang was the OP.
Click to expand...
No. The OP was the Theory of Evolution.
You and Hovind decided and you could claim that the Big Bang Theory was somehow related to the Theory of Evolution because of plain simple stupidity and dishonesty.

Do you have any relevant criticism of the Theory of Evolution that is not based on your simple uneducated ignorance and false nonsense from some random nobody who doesn't even know the basic definition of what he talking about? Any at all?
 
Last edited:
David Henson said:
The Big Bang was the OP.
Click to expand...

Sigh

excaza said:
Relevance to evolution?

What exactly are you trying to accomplish in this thread? You start out with 2 completely unconnected 'points' (quotes, really). Neither one of which come remotely close to explaining why you feel evolution is 'stupid.' You refuse to answer questions specific to evolution because you want answers to your word salad about the BBT. Then you turn around and answer a couple of them, showing your complete lack of knowledge of what the theory of evolution actually states. When called out on this you either a.) throw out more ridiculous nonsense b.) say you don't care about science c.) say science is a religion or d.) go back to not answering because you didn't get an answer about BBT that agrees with what you're already thinking.

If you want to discuss theoretical physics, start a thread on theoretical physics.
Click to expand...
 
David Henson said:
Yes.

The Bible, and to a lesser degree, religion.
Click to expand...
That's nice. Now, do you have any relevant criticism of the Theory of Evolution that is not based on your simple uneducated ignorance and false nonsense from some random nobody who doesn't even know the basic definition of what he talking about? Any at all?
 
David Henson said:
The Big Bang was the OP.
Click to expand...

from the OP:

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.
Click to expand...

If you didn't want to discuss evolution, why did you put "Evolution" in the thread title and then lead the OP with a paragraph about evolution and "evolutionists?"
 
Last edited:
Robert Oz said:
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_bang (emphasis mine):

"As used by cosmologists, the term Big Bang generally refers to the idea that the Universe has expanded [not exploded] from a primordial hot and dense initial condition at some finite time in the past."

"Without any evidence associated with the earliest instant of the expansion, the Big Bang theory cannot and does not provide any explanation for such an initial condition; rather, it describes and explains the general evolution of the Universe since that instant."

Questions on the initial condition aside, there is plenty of evidence showing that the universe is expanding. There is no evidence to suggest the initial condition was God or was created by God. Without positive evidence, the only appropriate answer to the initial condition question is 'We don't yet know'.
Click to expand...

Thank you. Now we can move on to the second video.
 
David Henson said:
Thank you. Now we can move on to the second video.
Click to expand...
Do you have any relevant criticism of the Theory of Evolution that is not based on your simple uneducated ignorance and false nonsense from some random nobody who doesn't even know the basic definition of what he talking about? Any at all?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom