• 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)

temporalillusion said:
Now keep in mind this was how the thread started out:



So right off the bat David you've characterized BBT as unscientific, and unscientific based on the opinion of someone who's been demonstrated to misrepresent and misunderstand what science actually says.

You then go on to ask "What Exploded", which tells everyone that you don't know what BBT actually is and that you aren't in a position to evaluate if it's scientific or not.

And then you claim that no one has given you reasonable answers and only offered insults. But right from post 22 there were direct reasonable answers.

And then you say the answer has been "space and time".. let's look at what the answers actually were:

...

I'm sure I missed some, but that's a lot of responses.
Click to expand...

Bravo on the effort it took to compile those quotes. Too bad it won't do any good.
 
David Henson said:
I will explain this again. This thread is the first of 11 parts dealing with the subject of evolution as given in 6 definitions, the first being Cosmic evolution - the origin of time, space and matter. Big Bang.

If there are objections to that being what you would term as "evolution" please state why it isn't and then address the two points of contention I raised from the video.

1. What Exploded? Which has been addressed as space and time, which I don't think is a very good answer but it is the best I have from this forum.

2. Why the Big Bang Theory has changed so much in a relatively short period of time? Which has been addressed as being what science does.

My next post will be Part 2 of 11.
Click to expand...


I think these are threats!
 
SumDood said:
Bravo on the effort it took to compile those quotes. Too bad it won't do any good.
Click to expand...

Second on the Bravo but Dave ignored them once and I'm sure he'll do it again.

Will it be the ignore direct or the ignore by handwave.

Or strawman, incredulity ect, ect, ect.
 
Complexity said:
I think these are threats!
Click to expand...

Please, you are taking him way too serious.

He will not even commit to any religion or lack of it of his own.

Any honest christian would at least admit to following the learnings of Moses's boi, jesus, the one sired by the spirit, born of the Pharaohs daughter, and who after his "daddys" death at the Pharaohs hands led the jews into the desert.

There were some stories of rains of blood, fish, and bread keeping the desert fertile, and that was why they stayed there for 40 years.
 
Toke said:
Well, the alternative would be to let tomatoians like you run un-opposed, and mess up the true way of FSM. :mad::mad::mad:
Click to expand...

It is said in the Book, "spare the tomato, spoil the Pasta". I'm just trying to save you from an eternity without Pasta where you will be boiled al dente in a vat of tomato sauce.:( :sad:
 
Toke said:
Please, you are taking him way too serious.

He will not even commit to any religion or lack of it of his own.

Any honest christian would at least admit to following the learnings of Moses's boi, jesus, the one sired by the spirit, born of the Pharaohs daughter, and who after his "daddys" death at the Pharaohs hands led the jews into the desert.

There were some stories of rains of blood, fish, and bread keeping the desert fertile, and that was why they stayed there for 40 years.
Click to expand...

The lack of commitment has bothered me too. Dave believes the Bible but is not a Christian which seems contradictory since all of the NT is about Christ and his followers.
 
tsig said:
The lack of commitment has bothered me too. Dave believes the Bible but is not a Christian which seems contradictory since all of the NT is about Christ and his followers.
Click to expand...

I don't know if you are familiar with Lil`abner a rather old comic-book, but it have a presidential candidate whose only claim to fame is to have never held an opinion or done anything. The idea is that he will not earn enemies. :D
 
tsig said:
The lack of commitment has bothered me too. Dave believes the Bible but is not a Christian which seems contradictory since all of the NT is about Christ and his followers.
Click to expand...

But no, he doesn't believe in the Bible either. Or in any generally-understood definition of God. (Omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient.)
 
David Henson said:
I will explain this again. This thread is the first of 11 parts dealing with the subject of evolution as given in 6 definitions, the first being Cosmic evolution - the origin of time, space and matter. Big Bang.

If there are objections to that being what you would term as "evolution" please state why it isn't and then address the two points of contention I raised from the video.

1. What Exploded? Which has been addressed as space and time, which I don't think is a very good answer but it is the best I have from this forum.

2. Why the Big Bang Theory has changed so much in a relatively short period of time? Which has been addressed as being what science does.

My next post will be Part 2 of 11.
Click to expand...
.
No, that's all right.
Your ignorance of the subject as modified by Hovind is well advertised by yourself in all of your posts.
Invincibly ignorant, as the Jesuits would term it.
Part (anything) can't improve on the nothing that is Part 1.
 
iknownothing said:
But no, he doesn't believe in the Bible either. Or in any generally-understood definition of God. (Omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient.)
Click to expand...

Yes his line seems to that he is against.
Without offering anything positive whatsoever.
 
100 Reasons Why Evolution Is Stupid - Part 2

100 Reasons Why Evolution Is Stupid - Part 2

From the mistakes of the first part of this series I make a few clarifications.

1. I don't agree with Hovind on much, I just think, quite possibly in my admitted ignorance, that he has raised some good points. If you take your science so seriously that you don't have the time to rewrite "Evolution for Dummies" for me then this thread isn't for you. Move on and save us both a great deal of time.

2. The subject here is, to me, more religious than it is science. I'm sorry, that is just the way I see it. Before I ever saw Hovind. What I am interested in is gaining some perspective on what science minded atheists think about the points I raise as inspired by the video series. I would like to think that if I were an atheist and I wondered why Creationists thought the heavens and earth were created in 144 hours the Hebrew yohm (day), bara (create), asah (make), ohr (light) and maohr (light source) would be explained.

3. I don't hate science I just have a lack of interest in it. I'm not trying to argue or debate with you I just see some interesting difficulties which, although I certainly don't consider myself qualified to debate I would like to discuss. This isn't a creation / evolution debate. I am trying, with a great deal of success, I might add, to avoid the subject of God and the Bible throughout most of this thread. I'm not a "Creationist." I believe in the creation account of Genesis but not in the "unscriptural" or "unscientific" interpretation of the creationists.

4. The jist of the video, in my opinion, is that evolution isn't science, it is religious. Belief. Unscientific. I know that almost all of you disagree with this. You don't have to argue it. I ask that you answer or address the points being made.

Here is the second part of the video in case you would like to see it. It isn't necessary as I am only drawing my points from it. I will present each point clearly, simply and briefly.

1. Termites. The "little critters" in termites stomachs which digest the cellulose can't survive without the termites and the termites can't survive without the critters. Which evolved first?

2. Hovind doesn't know where God comes from and says that science doesn't know where the "dirt" or matter came from as a result of the Big Bang, and since it isn't known he assumes it isn't science. It is religion.

3. Conservation of Angular Momentum - If the universe began as a swirling dot why do some planets (2) and moons (6) spin "backward"?

4. Galaxies and voids - If the Big Bang were true why isn't matter evenly distributed?

5. Novas and supernovas - If stars evolve why do star deaths not equal star births? Supernova are observed every 30 years but there are less than 300 of them in billions of years. (keeping in mind that I don't believe in a YEC)

6. Radio polonium halos - If the Earth formed from a hot mass 4.6 billion years ago then why would the polonium halos not have melted?
 
Last edited:
Here is a quote I find interesting: Not saying it isn't somehow flawed, just interesting.
Feel free to object or crticize.

Another way to imagine the impossibilities of evolution is to think about what evolutionists claim.... that the habitat of an animal (or person) will cause them to develop traits or functions that better suit them to that environment, through information-gaining mutations and natural selection of those added traits. Let’s take a man and his wife, and say they live by the ocean. They swim in the ocean all the time, and hold their breath and swim underwater every day. Then they have kids, which also swim all the time, and hold their breath to swim underwater, because they are all pearl divers. Generation after generation of this family stays by the ocean, each son and daughter marry other people who live by the ocean and swim all the time. How long will it take before one of the children has the ability to breath underwater? The correct answer is never, but evolutionists believe that in a situation like this, eventually one of the children will be born with gills, and will be able to breath underwater. A logical person would realize this is impossible; a human would never develop gills, because the capability to breath underwater is not in the human genome. Evolutionists pretend that fish grew legs and lungs because for some reason “it was beneficial for them to leave water.”
http://www.themythofevolution.com/Site/Myth of Evolution.html
Click to expand...
 
David, if you don't understand science and aren't interested in learning, how do you expect anyone to respond to you with anything you'll read and understand?
 
So, you are not really into the religious or scientific aspects, have no ideas of your own, and are not particularly interested in the answers?
 
And I've yet to understand why he's assuming Hovind's point have any validity.

ETA: If I had questions about science, I'd talk to a scientist, or even a high school student, before asking Hovind.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom