• 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:
What does that even mean? Once science has stated its opinion the matter is closed? That isn't dogma?
Click to expand...

No. I mean science is not decided by debate. Science is not opinion.

It is the evidence.

If someone comes up with a new theory, and shows the evidence, others will look at the evidence and see if it is reproduced. See if it leads to the same conclusions. They will check each others work, to ensure that it is correct. Sometimes it is.. Sometimes it isn't.

That is why you have people building large hadron colliders, and working with studying the evolution of e-coli. To see if new evidence still leads to the same conclusions.

It grows, it changes, and it is re-written all the time. New evidence is added, new conclusions are written.

This is why you see the conclusions changing all the time. As our technology and understanding grows, so does our capacity to perform new experiments.

Science is not decided by people building strawmen, declaring science is wrong just 'because'.

If yourself, and Mr. Hovind really wanted to show that evolution or the big bang is wrong or stupid, then why don't you do the work? Study the actual evidence, perform the experiments. Educate yourselves?

Kent Hovind debates by yelling loudly 'NO YOU'RE WRONG!' and declares himself the winner.

As has been pointed out, everything we know could be shown to be incorrect tomorrow, causing new conclusions to be written and studied.

It is religion that is static, and unchanging and dogmatic.

If you really want to learn about that which you are trying to argue against, there is a wealth of knowledge to study and exlore.
 
David Henson said:
From Dr. Hovind I learned Evolution, beginning with this first part in a video series, that Evolution is questionable.
Click to expand...

Perhaps you should actually learn from people who know what they're talking about.

From this forum I learned that many of you disagree, but I see it as a matter of faith. Not mine. Yours. Collectively.
Click to expand...

And why do you see it as a matter of faith ?

It seems to me like you're not actually listening to what people are telling you, and using the fact that you're not to then claim that no one said anything, and then conclude that it's a matter of faith.

If I'm wrong, perhaps you could explain why you refuse to adress people's points, and why you keep saying no one has answered you even though it's patently wrong.
 
David Henson said:
Of course there is. He thinks that the earth is only 6,000 years old. I would start by explaining the Hebrew word yohm to him.
Click to expand...


Be sure to explain the morning and the evening to him as well.


David Henson said:
He thinks dinosaurs existed and were reported in the Bible. I would examine his examples and point out his error.
Click to expand...


Wait. You don't think dinosaurs ever existed? What are all those fossils?
 
sphenisc said:
Thanks, but no thanks - quote it here and explain my error. It's more educational that way.
Click to expand...
There is a fact, or if you wish, a law, governing natural phenomena that are known to date. There is no known exception to this law; it is exact, so far we know. The law is called conservation of energy; it states that there is a certain quantity, which we call energy, that does not change in manifold changes which nature undergoes. That is a most abstract idea, because it is a mathematical principle; it says that there is a numerical quantity, which does not change when something happens. It is not a description of a mechanism, or anything concrete; it is just a strange fact that we can calculate some number, and when we finish watching nature go through her tricks and calculate the number again, it is the same.
Click to expand...
A mathematical abstraction of a system is a far cry from we don't know. I don't even know where the hell you quote mined that quote from but I would expect that from David and not an actual skeptic. It was what I was alluding to in the original post. Leave it to a Nobel Laurette to explain far better than I could have.
 
Last edited:
David, do you know what a straw man argument is ?

Do you understand why most, if not all, of Hovinds arguments are strawman arguments ?
 
excaza said:
What does it matter?

Your belief is that some super-de-duper thing created everything. You call it God. Others call it a pantheon of gods. Others think it was aliens.

There's no evidence, no matter what you call your super-de-duper thing, besides your disbelief that something complex could just 'happen'.
Click to expand...

Yeah, right, and your explanation is, allegedly, that something complex could just happen so long as it isn't attributed to a creator.
 
LandR said:
David, do you know what a straw man argument is ?
Click to expand...

Yes, It is a non-defense defense used by atheists. Like a half dozen other ways to dismiss something you can't honestly deal with. Word Salad. True Scotsman . . . the list goes on and on.

LandR said:
Do you understand why most, if not all, of Hovinds arguments are straw man arguments ?
Click to expand...

Of course I do. You can't answer or address criticism or dissent.
 
David Henson said:
I don't think God is omnipotent, omniscient or omnipresent, and there is no evidence from the Bible to think otherwise.
Click to expand...


Okay, let's redefine. Boy, heaven must be so crowded with so many different gods up there.

David Henson's God:

A supernatural being existing outside space-time that is not omnipotent nor omniscient, but is powerful and knowledgable enough that it created everything in existence through will alone, but that, itself, is eternal and, therefore, does not need a creator.
 
David Henson said:
Yeah, right, and your explanation is, allegedly, that something complex could just happen so long as it isn't attributed to a creator.
Click to expand...

No, not at all.

Evolution is lots of very simple things happening over long stretches of time that add up to a complex result.
 
technoextreme said:
A mathematical abstraction of a system is a far cry from we don't know. I don't even know where the hell you quote mined that quote from but I would expect that from David and not an actual skeptic.
Click to expand...

You've quoted something completely different from my original quote and then accuse me of quote-mining?

I admire your chutzpah, I suggest you don't dig your hole any deeper.
 
Robert Oz said:
Okay, let's redefine. Boy, heaven must be so crowded with so many different gods up there.
Click to expand...

Yes. It is. The Bible calls angels gods. It also calls Moses and the Judges of Israel gods. And Jesus, and Satan . . .

Robert Oz said:
David Henson's God:

A supernatural being existing outside space-time that is not omnipotent nor omniscient, but is powerful and knowledgable enough that it created everything in existence through will alone, but that, itself, is eternal and, therefore, does not need a creator.
Click to expand...

What is supernatural? Science can't test the supernatural, can it? So from a scientific perspective, even in almost complete ignorance, you can't deny God any more than I can confirm him.
 
David Henson said:
Yes, It is a non-defense defense used by atheists. Like a half dozen other ways to dismiss something you can't honestly deal with. Word Salad. True Scotsman . . . the list goes on and on.



Of course I do. You can't answer or address criticism or dissent.
Click to expand...

No.

An example, Hovind will say that evolution tells us that we evolved from a rock and so evolution must be wrong.

In the real world, evolution doesn't say that we evolved from a rock, that is an argument that Kent Hovind invented to try and convince you, dishonestly, that evolution is false.

Hovind has his own version of evolution, this is different to the view of evolution of the rest of the thinking world. We could have a very interesting discussing on evolution as it really is. We could look at the many converging lines of evidence that leads us to know that evolution is a fact.

What we can't do is have a rational, intelligent discussion on Hovinds warped view of evolution because it is just so bonkers crazy and out of touch with the real world.

Another example of a Hovind fallacy, he says that evolution encompasses the big bang theory and the origin of the universe. It does no such thing.

The Theory of Evolution has nothing to say on the big bang theory, it doesn't even have anything to say on the origin of life. Evolution explains the diversity of life and only kicks into action once life exists in a form which can reproduce and reproduces with variation.

Would you criticise the theory of evolution because it can't be used to work out the circumference of a circle or because it can't be used to work out the length of a hypotenuse on a right angled triangle ? No, of course you wouldn't because they are completely different fields of study. Yet you accept the failure of the big bang theory to explain the origin of the universe to an accurate enough degree to be a problem with evolution ? Do you understand why that doesn't make sense ?
 
Last edited:
David Henson said:
Yes, It is a non-defense defense used by atheists.
Click to expand...


David, a strawman argument is an argument that is not an argument being made by the person you are debating, but is only being used so that it can be torn down.

For example, you specifically said that you don't believe the Bible says the universe was created in six literal days. If I now start to argue against a six-day creation and begin to show evidence against it, it is a strawman argument. I am tearing down an argument that you are not actually making.
 
David Henson said:
For some reason you have to eliminate the possibility that you are wrong even while acknowledging that possibility.

That is religion. A world view. Not science in a complete and factual conclusion other than this is what we like to think happened because you can't accept God did it.
Click to expand...

It sounds to me that you are equating aknowledgement of the lack of absolute omnipotent certainty with religion (and let's not do semantics on this one), when the two are more often than not on the opposite ends on this note.
 
sphenisc said:
Didn't you find the full quotation on the Energy page at Wikipedia explained it satisfactorily?
Click to expand...

You just did exactly what the person you were criticizing did. I'll take that to mean you don't understand the quote you used, then?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom