100 Reasons why Evolution is Stupid - Dr. Hovind

[savagewind]

I have bookmarked this page for reading later.
The Origin of Life

 

[fantome profane]

Do you know what propaganda is? Yes, you do. It is twisting the truth so it comes out the way YOU want it to. He took college classes at an unaccredited school. Do you know what that means? It does not mean "his degrees are fake purchased from a diploma mill". It means no one who cares about the status quo cares about his degree. It doesn't mean he did not learn anything like you say. You are exactly the same as he is in my opinion.

And in what subject did he get this degree? What is his subject of expertise

 

[Alceste]

And in what subject did he get this degree? What is his subject of expertise

Flimflamology.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Do you know what propaganda is? Yes, you do. It is twisting the truth so it comes out the way YOU want it to. He took college classes at an unaccredited school. Do you know what that means? It does not mean "his degrees are fake purchased from a diploma mill". It means no one who cares about the status quo cares about his degree. It doesn't mean he did not learn anything like you say. You are exactly the same as he is in my opinion.

Perfectly describes Dr. Distortion. Good job!

 

[savagewind]

Perfectly describes Dr. Distortion. Good job!

Thank you. I did not say he doesn't use propaganda.

 

[gnostic]

He took college classes at an unaccredited school.

Classes that had nothing to do with science.

Religious education is not the same as education in science.

Just because he has fake PhD, doesn't mean that he is an expert in biology. And if he didn't learn biology, then his words are nothing more than craps when he is trying to refute evolution.

And what is more propaganda than young earth creationism? They based their theology on on faith, without any evidences to support their claim.

Isn't he (Hovind) the one who claimed that dinosaurs lived side-by-side (meaning "contemporarily") with humans before the flood?

Now that's baseless propaganda from YEC. Only other YEC-ists would be so gullible to believe such claim from Hovind.

 

[bobhikes]

We do. The degree is called biology and the properly trained "evolutionists" are called biologists.

Not all Biologists follow evolution, I personally know a few. I have also read the published book of at least one.

In biology there is no minor and no one officially goes by the term evolutionist. Only those that are trying to push there book on us state that they are an evolutionist.

If you want it to be treated as science have School trained professionals that have a degree in evolution or at least a minor. I would love to here from a Professor of Evolution. The field is huge and to be a general biologist an claim to be a evolution scientist is weak at best and lying more probably.

 

[Alceste]

Not all Biologists follow evolution, I personally know a few. I have also read the published book of at least one.

In biology there is no minor and no one officially goes by the term evolutionist. Only those that are trying to push there book on us state that they are an evolutionist.

If you want it to be treated as science have School trained professionals that have a degree in evolution or at least a minor. I would love to here from a Professor of Evolution. The field is huge and to be a general biologist an claim to be a evolution scientist is weak at best and lying more probably.

Well I don't know where you live, but in my country understanding evolution (and the evidence for it) is a requirement for getting a degree in biology.

Also, nobody calls themselves an "evolutionist". I don't call myself a "gravityist" or a "heliocentrist" either. I call my world view "empirical naturalism", which means that I simply accept whatever truth our physical evidence reveals. That includes everything from acarology to zymurgy, but doesn't include religious faith.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

wow this thread exploded.

Individuals do not evolve? Hm? Ever? What is it called when an individual experiences chromosome change?

Is this quote from Wiki not true?

Its called a mutation. When a single individual is born with a genetic alteration it is called a mutation and it is a mutant. Evolution has not technically occured untill the allel has spread into the population because it gives the organism an evolutionary advantage.

Also you have to be born with the mutation. You don't simply "mutate" naturally. You have the same DNA from the time you are born to the time you die. Eipgentics change a little but not necessarily your DNA.

OK so are you saying a mutation only counts for selection if it is duplicated within a population? How many simultaneous mutations within a population need be?

One. Then it passes on and eventually spreads. If you have two children and then your two children each have two children and then so on and so forth does that mean the population increases? Think about this really really hard now. If every single one of your decendants have exactly 2 children and to make things simple they only have one mate. Does the population grow, shrink or stay the same? And then ask how many decendants do you have after 5 generations? what about 10? what about 100?

Then you can see how a single allel can be spread to a whole population.

 

[Sculelos]

wow this thread exploded.

Indeed. Sometimes I don't really look into Evolution all that much because I know evolution takes faith to believe and I know that creation takes faith to believe. Both are religious concepts because both can not be proven.

However creation takes less proof to prove then evolution so it takes less faith to believe in, so therefore because I don't have much faith in things I can't see, I believe in that which is more apparent too me.

 

[Gjallarhorn]

Indeed. Sometimes I don't really look into Evolution all that much because I know evolution takes faith to believe and I know that creation takes faith to believe. Both are religious concepts because both can not be proven.

However creation takes less proof to prove then evolution so it takes less faith to believe in, so therefore because I don't have much faith in things I can't see, I believe in that which is more apparent too me.

Anyone want to play count the fallacies with me? It's a slow evening.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Thank you. I did not say he doesn't use propaganda.

Why do you take him seriously?

 

[SkepticThinker]

Not all Biologists follow evolution, I personally know a few. I have also read the published book of at least one.

In biology there is no minor and no one officially goes by the term evolutionist. Only those that are trying to push there book on us state that they are an evolutionist.

If you want it to be treated as science have School trained professionals that have a degree in evolution or at least a minor. I would love to here from a Professor of Evolution. The field is huge and to be a general biologist an claim to be a evolution scientist is weak at best and lying more probably.

How does that work??

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Indeed. Sometimes I don't really look into Evolution all that much because I know evolution takes faith to believe and I know that creation takes faith to believe. Both are religious concepts because both can not be proven.

However creation takes less proof to prove then evolution so it takes less faith to believe in, so therefore because I don't have much faith in things I can't see, I believe in that which is more apparent too me.

I think that if you really looked into evolution you would realize everything you said in this post was wrong.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Indeed. Sometimes I don't really look into Evolution all that much because I know evolution takes faith to believe and I know that creation takes faith to believe. Both are religious concepts because both can not be proven.

However creation takes less proof to prove then evolution so it takes less faith to believe in, so therefore because I don't have much faith in things I can't see, I believe in that which is more apparent too me.

It takes no faith whatsoever to accept evolution. There are mountains of evidence supporting it. You can see this evidence for yourself, should you take the time to look at it. It is not a religious concept in any sense of the word. At all.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Anyone want to play count the fallacies with me? It's a slow evening.

Four?

 

[Alceste]

Anyone want to play count the fallacies with me? It's a slow evening.

Sure! How do we play?

Edit: are we doing logical fallacies or just falsehoods?

 

[Alceste]

I got four for falsehoods. Logical fallacies are trickier, since nonsensical, ludicrous arguments can still be internally coherent if you accept the erroneous premises.

 

[Sculelos]

I got four for falsehoods. Logical fallacies are trickier, since nonsensical, ludicrous arguments can still be internally coherent if you accept the erroneous premises.

Perhaps If my mind thinks in fallacy perhaps I am less "Evolved" then the Evolutionist mindset?

 

[Alceste]

Perhaps If my mind thinks in fallacy perhaps I am less "Evolved" then the Evolutionist mindset?

No, you're just ignorant. Less educated, not "less evolved". You said you've never really looked into it all that much. Therefore, you are ignorant by your own admission. In order to NOT be ignorant, you need to look into it. It's not as if you are incapable of learning the facts about evolution, you just have chosen not to. You're as capable of understanding the facts as I am once you've had a glance at them, most likely.