• 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)

Congratulations. You have passed doubt and reason. You accept without questioning and have taken the concept of blind obedience to heart.
I'm surprised you still use a computer though. After all it costs money and doesn't the bible say somewhere that the truly pious live in poverty?
And that you should share with the poor?

Don't worry, deeply religious people very rarely follow the actual teachings of their religion. They look for passages which support what they already _want_ to do, and then do it, justifying it with said passages.

Their god is a tool, not a lord.
 
The fact that the thread was started in this section is enough to dismiss it out of hand.

That and the fact that this Kent Hovind is being put forward as an authority. (I'd seen the name before, but managed to avoid any other exposure to this purveyor of claptrap, until now.)
 
You should say "a magic man in the sky with super powers who poofs things into existence with a though."

The best bit about the "God did it" bit is that they think "God did it" because believing in a God is more likely than us coming from a rock by accident. Then when you ask them who created God, he apparently poofed himself into existence before the universe was created. Thats so much more likely isn't it. God is some sort of super duper Harry Potter, but ya gotta remember, you don't get Harry without Voldemort, (who in this case God also created)
:D
 
I've just spent some more time reading this supposedly persuasive "thesis" by "Dr" Hovind! What an absolute load of garbage! This wouldn't even pass muster as a first-year undergraduate essay - the lack of references and the completely inappropriate style would be an immediate failure. Does he really start his doctoral thesis with the word "hello"?

I've just completed my PhD, and if I could have just asserted my findings by blind fiat in my second paragraph, my thesis would have been much less stressful!

Not only am I astonished at just how terrible a piece of work that document is, I'm even more astonished that anyone would find any part of it the least bit convincing!
 
I've just spent some more time reading this supposedly persuasive "thesis" by "Dr" Hovind! What an absolute load of garbage! This wouldn't even pass muster as a first-year undergraduate essay - the lack of references and the completely inappropriate style would be an immediate failure. Does he really start his doctoral thesis with the word "hello"?

I've just completed my PhD, and if I could have just asserted my findings by blind fiat in my second paragraph, my thesis would have been much less stressful!

Not only am I astonished at just how terrible a piece of work that document is, I'm even more astonished that anyone would find any part of it the least bit convincing!

All you have to do is write "God did it" at the bottom of each page and send it to Hovinds university
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriot_Bible_University
you'll be running your own "flintstones was real" amusement park in a matter of weeks
but
don't forget to pay your taxes
:D
 
The earth is a big rock, or a big speck of cosmic dust, upon which and from the marvelous complexity of life arose by random chance.

or, in other words,

you came from a rock by accident

or not.

Those are your choices, no matter how much you try to fluff it up.

Nope, the galaxy is full of organics, the molecular clouds from which planets and stars form are full of organics and ployaromatic carbons, you will find all sorts

like these here identified by radio spectroscopy
http://books.google.com/books?id=EW...interstellar molecular clouds organic&f=false

So the earth may be a rock and it is a tiny tiny tiny little bit but the precursors to life abound and fill vast spaces.

So we came from a rock covered with organic compunds.

ETA:

I love scale of astronomy,

If the earth was 1mm across
then the sun would be 110 mm and 11.82 meters away
a light second would be 23.6 mm
and a light year would be 747.6 km

alpha centauri would be 3192.4 km away
and the center of the galaxy would be 20.7 million km away!

Computed here!
http://www.exploratorium.edu/ronh/solar_system/
 
Last edited:
Thanks for the reply complexity, it's this kind of civil discourse that makes these forums my most recent addiction. :)

@David and Radrook (again)

What would convince you that the modern synthesis of evolutionary theory is right? What evidence do you see as lacking?

Nothing short of a monkey giving birth to a human will suffice. And please don't bother explaining how evolution doesn't work that way.:D
 
And having skimmed a bit more of the posts that were written since I last logged in, I am not sure if anyone has made the following point yet.

There seems to be some confusion about facts and theories and how that ties in with evolution, cosmology, and science in general. For example, the observation that if you throw a rock, it describes a parabolic arc before hitting the ground (unless you can throw it really, really hard and have it enter low earth orbit) is a fact. The observation that most of the observable mass in the universe is moving away from our perspective is a fact. The observation that certain fossils are always found in certain strata and can be lined up to show changes within a lineage of an organism is a fact.

What a scientist does is take all of these facts and use them to construct a theory such as Newtonian gravity, the Inflationary theory, or the theory of natural selection. So far, this can all be dismissed as idle speculation, as David Henson and Hovind do, but that is because they do not move on to the next step in the scientific method: testing the theory.

You see, any theory worth the pixels used to explain it not only shows how the facts fit together, but also allows you to make predictions about future observations. The scientist can then design an experiment to test these predictions (much like the fertilizer example given earlier). The results of the experiment either weaken or strengthen the theory. So, for example, accurate observations of Mercury weakened the Newtonian theory of gravity since the predictions made by the theory didn't match the observations. Enter Einstein.

To date, all of the experiments and predictions made based on the current theory of evolution have only strengthened the theory, not weakened it. As others have mentioned, there are observations that could be made that would weaken it, but as of yet, those observations have not been made. As long as we keep testing Relativity, the Inflationary Theory (a much more accurate term than Big Bang), and the Theory of Evolution and they keep passing, we can accept these as being strong theories and models of reality.

You seem a great deal more helpful and conversant on the subject than most. I appreciate that you explain it to me rather than simply dismiss me as an idiot or preach to me. I seem to recall that your mother was a school teacher? If you are any indication she must be a good one.

Since the god of the bible has pretty much claimed that it can't be tested, as far as science goes, it is useless. Much like all of Hovind's theories.

This I don't understand. Though I agree with the conclusion that God can't be tested as far as science goes I am curious to know why you would say that the God of the Bible has claimed this.
 
This I don't understand. Though I agree with the conclusion that God can't be tested as far as science goes I am curious to know why you would say that the God of the Bible has claimed this.

See if you can follow this logic
1.The bible is the inerrant word of God
2. The bible says
Ephesians said:
2:8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
3. Faith cannot exist with evidence, therefore there can be no evidence for God or according to that quote it would be impossible for anyone to be saved

Thought you'd claimed you'd read the book David, yet you consistently show no understanding from having done so. :p
 
You seem a great deal more helpful and conversant on the subject than most. I appreciate that you explain it to me rather than simply dismiss me as an idiot or preach to me.

There have been plenty of non-preachy, educational posts in this thread. You must have missed them.

One of the best tried to get you to define 'straw man'. Here is the definition from WIKI:

A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position. To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by substituting a superficially similar yet weaker proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position.

Once you understand this defintion and how Hovine uses this logical fallacy, you will be well on your way to enlightening yourself on the subject at hand.
 
Okay, I'll stop you when you are wrong . . .



Stop.

Ok, Kent Hovind thinks it is and its Kent Hovind who you have elected to represent christian science in this thread
so youre claim of "stop" isn't valid, unless you drop Hovind from captaining your team
;)
 
There have been plenty of non-preachy, educational posts in this thread. You must have missed them.

One of the best tried to get you to define 'straw man'. Here is the definition from WIKI:

A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position. To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by substituting a superficially similar yet weaker proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position.

Once you understand this definition and how Hovine uses this logical fallacy, you will be well on your way to enlightening yourself on the subject at hand.

Here is an example how misleading it is to use terms like straw man, word salad, true Scotsman, or any of the other terms atheists like to use in an argument.

It doesn't correct or educate the one making the claim, it simply dismisses them or feeds the fire.

If Dr. Hovind or I ask what exploded in the Big Bang theory and I get 327 responses calling us idiots, Creotards, straw men or tin men I'm just going to come back at you with more of the same. That it is my opinion that almost all atheists are just socially and or politically frustrated people in a "Christian" society I would imagine that an occasional scapegoat is exactly what you need, but the fact that you would stress the importance of education falls on deaf ears.

I have learned from this myself in just the last couple of days, though my terminology tends to be far more vulgar and politically incorrect it amounts to the same thing.
 
Last edited:
Here is an example how misleading it is to use terms like straw man, word salad, true Scotsman, or any of the other terms atheists like to use in an argument.

It doesn't correct or educate the one making the claim, is simply dismisses them or feeds the fire.

If Dr. Hovind or I ask what exploded in the Big Bang theory and I get 327 responses calling us idiots, Creotards, straw men or tin men I'm just going to come back at you with more of the same. That it is my opinion that almost all atheists are just socially and or politically frustrated people in a "Christian" society I would imagine that an occasional scapegoat is exactly what you need, the fact that you would stress the importance of education falls on deaf ears.

I have learned from this myself in just the last couple of days, though my terminology tends to be far more vulgar and politically incorrect it amounts to the same thing.

If you want to discuss the Big Bang, rather than Evolution as your thread title claims, then I suggest you start a new thread asking to discuss the Big Bang. I suggest the science forum, rather than the religion forum.
 
Ok, Kent Hovind thinks it is and its Kent Hovind who you have elected to represent christian science in this thread
so youre claim of "stop" isn't valid, unless you drop Hovind from captaining your team
;)

Not exactly because I pointed out in the OP that I disagreed with him on that exact point as well as a few others.
 

Back
Top Bottom