Of this thread? There isn't one. I think it was suppose to be about refuting the man's many theories. It was somewhat difficult to listen to. But with love, anything is possible. Do you want to debate that?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
100 Reasons why Evolution is Stupid - Dr. Hovind
- Thread starter Sculelos
- Start date
Of this thread? There isn't one. I think it was suppose to be about refuting the man's many theories. It was somewhat difficult to listen to. But with love, anything is possible. Do you want to debate that?
Why do you think calling your ideas "gibberish" is a personal attack on you?
You did not read my post about that. I said you would say that. Now, how did I know it? It is not a personal attack. :flirt:
Just out of curiosity, may I ask how old you are?
If you think it is correct that how life started is irrelevant to whether evolution is a sound scientific theory, then why did you bring up the origin of life in the first place?
FranklinMichaelV.3
Well-Known Member
Because his whole point was to get you guys to admit the possibility of God.
Alceste
Vagabond
I don't care whether people believe in deities. I think many theistic beliefs are quite beautiful and inspiring, although I don't share them. FranklinMichael's beliefs, for example, are lovely.
I do want people to accept what is true, though, and not reject the truth on account of religious indoctrination. I find that sad and destructive, both to oneself, one's family and society. The truth is beautiful. Exploring the truth is fascinating and exciting. Knowing your understanding of the world is based on evidence rather than indoctrination is a wonderful, liberating feeling.
Nope, you are right.
I watched right up until his first point, where he claimed the theory of evolution has four different meanings. It doesn't. What else is there to say? And if Hovind gets something that big wrong right out of the gate, why watch two hours of it? Life is short.
मैत्रावरुणिः;3424035 said:Namaste,
A dude that can swindle tax money like that! ...is no idiot, folks! The man's a genius!
M.V.
Not if he's sitting in prison for it.
He's lying and making things up. It's very lucrative, you know. These creationists pay way better than any university or laboratory.
Tell you what, please pick a single one if his "hundred" points and start a thread on it and I'll talk about it with you at length. This video uses a technique called the Gish Gallop: the fictions are coming out of Hovind so thick and fast there's no way anybody could ever get through all of them.
No, the controversy is that a politically powerful sect of Christians is relentlessly trying to impose a religious curriculum into secular science education, with disastrous effects on the quality of American education. There is no controversy about evolution. Everybody who understands it accepts it.
I believe it is touched upon in the video. Did you watch it?
Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
Certainly appears so. An equal question would be directed towards theists in getting them to admit the plausibility that there is no god as well.
You do not know if it would have been true that all true Christians would have "minded their own business" if the present authority never put into it's public textbooks lies and half truths. There may be a crazy few who want their children to know only what the Bible says. I am certain Dr. Someone just wants the lies removed. Did you watch the film?
Alceste
Vagabond
Is that the part where he claimed that among the four meanings of evolution are chemical evolution and the evolution of the universe?
It's just nonsense. Check the wikipedia entry on evolution. Do you see anything about "four definitions"? Anything about the big bang? Abiogenisis? Chemistry? No. Pick up any secular science book and see if you can find a single secular science writer, ever, anywhere, who has conflated so many separate disciplines together under the banner of evolution.
It's total nonsense. It could only possibly make any sense to you if you are living inside the echo chamber of creationist propaganda and have never peered out into the world.
It's so easy to do. Just poke your head out. Read one non-religious popular science book. Just one. Please, I can recommend some fantastic ones. Bill Bryson's Short History of Nearly Everything is very enjoyable. Just take one breath of the air outside the echo chamber, then you can go back inside - if you still want to.
dust1n
Zindīq
Let's put it this way.
Evolution has nothing to do with whether God created the universe or not. Evolution has much to do with examining the physical world for changes in alleles of populations of the course of 3+ billion years, using other sciences to formulate and very thorough understanding over the change of how cells works on the atomic level.
There are no kinds in evolution. Everything came from a common ancestor. The history of the Earth, built off a science that relies on every other science and philosophy, looks something like this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_evolutionary_history_of_life
"In its 4.6 billion years circling the sun, the earth has harbored an increasing diversity of life forms:
Whether God exists or initiated the circumstances in which evolution happened is not a matter of concern to anyone who has came to the conclusion that evolution is, in fact, very, thoroughly real.
Evolution has nothing to do with whether God created the universe or not. Evolution has much to do with examining the physical world for changes in alleles of populations of the course of 3+ billion years, using other sciences to formulate and very thorough understanding over the change of how cells works on the atomic level.
There are no kinds in evolution. Everything came from a common ancestor. The history of the Earth, built off a science that relies on every other science and philosophy, looks something like this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_evolutionary_history_of_life
"In its 4.6 billion years circling the sun, the earth has harbored an increasing diversity of life forms:
- for the last 3.6 billion years, simple cells (prokaryotes);
- for the last 3.4 billion years, cyanobacteria performing photosynthesis;
- for the last 2 billion years, complex cells (eukaryotes);
- for the last 1 billion years, multicellular life;
- for the last 600 million years, simple animals;
- for the last 550 million years, bilaterians, animals with a front and a back;
- for the last 500 million years, fish and proto-amphibians;
- for the last 475 million years, land plants;
- for the last 400 million years, insects and seeds;
- for the last 360 million years, amphibians;
- for the last 300 million years, reptiles;
- for the last 200 million years, mammals;
- for the last 150 million years, birds;
- for the last 130 million years, flowers;
- for the last 60 million years, the primates,
- for the last 20 million years, the family Hominidae (great apes);
- for the last 2.5 million years, the genus Homo (human predecessors);
- for the last 200,000 years, anatomically modern humans.
- 2.4 billion years ago, many obligate anaerobes, in the oxygen catastrophe;
- 252 million years ago, the trilobites, in the Permian–Triassic extinction event;
- 66 million years ago, the pterosaurs and nonavian dinosaurs, in the Cretaceous–Paleogene extinction event.
Whether God exists or initiated the circumstances in which evolution happened is not a matter of concern to anyone who has came to the conclusion that evolution is, in fact, very, thoroughly real.
OK Chemical compounds did not "evolve". Stars did not evolve. Live did not evolve from non-life. So all these, if they did not develop gradually, esp. from a simple to a more complex form, then how did they appear? Suddenly? Well, God believers believe God appeared suddenly in relation to this universe. There was nothing (except The Holy One) then God said "Let it be" and it was. So.....how do you explain the development of non-life forms and where did energy come from? BOTH things are needed for your theory of evolution to work.
Let's start again right there. Question: Is there an essential requirement for life to evolve? Yes, or no?
Let's start again right there. Question: Is there an essential requirement for life to evolve? Yes, or no?
Alceste
Vagabond
The trouble is, they are not lies. It's science. We've agreed as a society that it is important for our children to learn about science. Not only will it help them develop a rich and stimulating relationship with the world they live in, it's the gateway to a vast range of job opportunities in our technological society. Not just jobs in science, either. When I wanted to apply for an apprenticeship as an electrician, for example, I had to have completed high school physics.
Just science. That's all it is. That's all it's suppressed to be. It's not supposed to threaten your faith. That's not what it's for. It's for the two of us to even be having this conversation over hundreds of miles, me standing in the kitchen tapping this all out on my touch screen phone, you using whatever technology you've got handy. To have any of this stuff, we have to have science.
You can still have religion, but when you're attacking science you attack the very foundation of our highly technological society. You attack our medicines, our vacuum cleaners, our computers, our exploratory unmanned missions to other planets, our trips around the moon...
Science gets stuff done. It's unfair to our kids not to let them in on all the fun.
Last edited:
It's too bad you won't watch the film. There is "true science" in more than one public textbook. The "true science" does not agree in each textbook. That is the problem. No? Is it a problem to teach something is true if it isn't?
He was funny and correct in his own way. For evolution to work all the other stuff had to be created first. If you didn't have the amino acids you wouldn't have gotten life. If you didn't have planets no life. He calls it all evolution and points out that each is different. Science has given it all different names but with out each of his steps none of it works.
I live outside the echo chamber and like him enjoy reading science, unlike him I believe evolution with its flaws is still the best story we have for how life began. I also believe evolution is not a science, and religion is a much closer definition of what evolution is.
dust1n
Zindīq
First and foremost, regardless of what the answers to any of these questions are, none of it has anything to do with the information I just presented.
Before I respond, do you or do not you agree with the timeline for evolution of life from a common ancestor?
There are many essential requirements for life to exist, let alone evolve.
I.S.L.A.M617
Illuminatus
There is "true religion" in more than one religious text. The "true religion" doesn't agree in each religious text. That is the problem. No? Is it a problem to teach something is true if it isn't?
freethinker44
Well-Known Member
Evolution isn't a thing, it's a process. It's like asking when did the wind start. Nothing started it, it's a process. I guess if you absolutely have to have a start point for evolution you could say it started the moment life began or when the first DNA formed. You are acting like it's some force to be measured, it's not, it's a biological process.