100 Reasons why Evolution is Stupid - Dr. Hovind

[Sculelos]

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.

Besides Variation also called Micro-Evolution which is shared equally with creation, what facts are there about Evolution?

 

[Me Myself]

Besides Variation also called Micro-Evolution which is shared equally with creation, what facts are there about Evolution?

How on Earth would you expect macro evolution to not happen if you have micro evolution?

If you make little changes here and there for thousands of years, little+little+little will eventually equal "large" change.

Turn a dolphin into a wolf: change a bit of it`s face. Change another bit. Change another bit. Now do the same with the other parts of their bodies.

Until you get a wolf.

Of course, the process wouldnt be governed by "lets see in what we can turn this into!" but by survival.

 

[freethinker44]

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.

What do you mean there is no minor? There are a ton of different specializations under biology, including a field for evolutionary biology.

Evolutionary biology is a sub-field of biology concerned with the study of the evolutionary processes that produced the diversity of life on Earth. Someone who studies evolutionary biology is known as an evolutionary biologist.

Biology - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Edit: I tried to post the whole list of biology specializations but the apparently we can only post up to 10,000 characters at a time so the list of biology minors is that big.

 

[outhouse]

You are exactly the same as he is in my opinion.

That is not true :slap: and a insult to our friend here in this forum.

I trust Gnostic, and have never seem him promoting pseudoscience or telling lies or twisting the truth to meet his own personal need.

He is not a prisoner or a known criminal, nor has he tried to con anyone. I doubt he was ever handed a ten year prison sentence.


He is the exact opposite of the criminal you want us to watch.

 

[Alceste]

Besides Variation also called Micro-Evolution which is shared equally with creation, what facts are there about Evolution?

That question makes no sense.

Evolution itself is a fact. Do you have any specific questions? Like, for example, would you like to see some of the evidence that tells us why evolution is a fact? I would have to give you a general overview of the different categories of evidence first if you want to burrow down into specifics (there's more evidence for evolution than any other theory in the history of science), but I'm game if you are.

 

[Windwalker]

A man convinced against his will, remains of same opinion still.

 

[Skwim]

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.

Ever hear of an ecologist, one who specializes in ecology? Or an ichthyologist, one who specializes in Ichthyology? Or a palaeontologist, one who specializes in Paleontology? How about a pharmacologist, one who specializes in Pharmacology? Perhaps not, but believe it or not there are such people, just as there are evolutionists, those who specialize in evolution.

Branches of Biology
Biology, the study of life, has many aspects to it and many specializations within this broad field. Below is an alphabetical list of many of the branches of biology.


Agriculture
Anatomy -
Biochemistry -
Bioengineering -
Bioinformatics -
Biomathematics or Mathematical Biology -
Biomechanics -
Biophysics -
Biotechnology -
Cell Biology -
Conservation Biology -
Cryobiology -
Developmental Biology -
Ecology -
Entomology -
Environmental Biology -
Epidemiology -
Ethology -

Evolution or Evolutionary Biology - the study of the origin and decent of species over time

Genetics -
Herpetology -
Histology -
Ichthyology -
Macrobiology -
Mammology -
Marine Biology -
Medicine -
Microbiology -
Molecular Biology -
Mycology -
Neurobiology -
Oceanography -
Ornithology -
Paleontology -
Pathobiology or pathology -
Parisitology -
Pharmacology -
Physiology -
Phytopathology -
Pre-medicine -
Virology -
Zoology -
source
​

 

[Monk Of Reason]

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.

I"m sure you've heard of Richard Dawkins. He is most famous for his promotion of Atheism however his offical title is an EVOLUTIONARY BIOLOGIST. So it does actually exist as already explained a few timse.

 

[Freelance_Policeman]

That question makes no sense.

Evolution itself is a fact.

Well...not quite a fact. It's a widely accepted scientific theory that probably is true, but it hasn't–and can never–be proven, much in the same way it's not proven that matter cannot go past the speed of light, or that time travel is impossible. It will always be called into question by science-deniers—usually the same people who deny global warming, which has been proven, time and time again, and can even be proven with simple logic. If such an obvious thing can be prevented from being accepted as fact, something that is impossible to prove will definitely be called an "opinion" by so-called "experts."

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Well...not quite a fact. It's a widely accepted scientific theory that probably is true, but it hasn't–and can never–be proven, much in the same way it's not proven that matter cannot go past the speed of light, or that time travel is impossible. It will always be called into question by science-deniers—usually the same people who deny global warming, which has been proven, time and time again, and can even be proven with simple logic. If such an obvious thing can be prevented from being accepted as fact, something that is impossible to prove will definitely be called an "opinion" by so-called "experts."

It is a scientific fact. The scientific community understands this. There is no legitmate scientific denial of evolution. Zero.

 

[Ouroboros]

I am quite sure that if abiogenesis gets proven I will not have to search through many scientific journals to see the evidence. I think it will be breaking news and I will not be able to dodge it, if I tried with all my might. I'll be looking forward to it.

Ribonucleotides artificially created in lab: Life's First Spark Re-Created in the Laboratory - Wired Science. That was in 2009.

The first artificially synthesized cell: http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2008/06/harvard-team-cr.html. (2008)

And I'm certain there are other experiments like this.

 

[Ouroboros]

Wow! You know a lot. I wonder why you won't answer my question though. Isn't it unscientific to believe in something that had no start?

Science is about explanations.

One phenomenon -> study -> hypothesis -> test -> theory...

Chemistry is a science about how chemicals react, without having to know how Big Bang worked.

So, no, it's not unscientific to believe in something that had no start.

But it's very religious to believe in a God who had no start.

 

[Ouroboros]

Namaste,

A dude that can swindle tax money like that! ...is no idiot, folks! The man's a genius!

M.V.

Except for that he put it on videos and sold DVDs explaining how he did it. He was selling them to make money.

Kind'a dumb giving the court video confessions like that. LOL!

 

[Skwim]

Well...not quite a fact. It's a widely accepted scientific theory that probably is true, but it hasn't–and can never–be proven, much in the same way it's not proven that matter cannot go past the speed of light, or that time travel is impossible.

Consider.

ev·o·lu·tion [ èvvə loosh'n ]

"Evolution is the change in the inherited characteristics of biological populations over successive generations."
​

SOURCE: Hall, B. K.; Hallgrímsson, B., eds. (2008). Strickberger's Evolution (4th ed.). Jones & Bartlett. p. 762.
​

Think that a "change in the inherited characteristics of biological populations over successive generations." doesn't happen? Of course it does, which makes it a fact, and in turn means that evolution is a fact.

 

[Ouroboros]

I watched his sermon. Some snakes have both male and female reproductive organs and impregnate themselves. If snakes don't need mates, who's to say the first sexual organism did?

Like frogs, and many other animals.

Some humans are born with both genders, hermaphrodites (I think it's called?).

They don't exist according to anti-evolutionists. Any abnormality or anomaly is denied because of anti-science belief.

 

[Ouroboros]

"Virgin Birth" Seen in Wild Snakes, Even When Males Are Available

And the Wiki page about parthenogenesis: Parthenogenesis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Sculelos]

That question makes no sense.

Evolution itself is a fact. Do you have any specific questions? Like, for example, would you like to see some of the evidence that tells us why evolution is a fact? I would have to give you a general overview of the different categories of evidence first if you want to burrow down into specifics (there's more evidence for evolution than any other theory in the history of science), but I'm game if you are.

Variation is a fact. Evolution to be considered a fact must have definite links or chains that progress in a smooth progressive order. If I seen this I would consider it a fact, but as of now I have never seen any progressive links of fossil records nor have we seen smooth links in any living specimen of creature that have branched off each other. If evolution is to be considered true, then by association you must be related to a banana.

Edit: Well if we are looking at Banana's look at Panama Disease, it's fascinating. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panama_disease

Well...not quite a fact. It's a widely accepted scientific theory that probably is true, but it hasn't–and can never–be proven, much in the same way it's not proven that matter cannot go past the speed of light, or that time travel is impossible. It will always be called into question by science-deniers—usually the same people who deny global warming, which has been proven, time and time again, and can even be proven with simple logic. If such an obvious thing can be prevented from being accepted as fact, something that is impossible to prove will definitely be called an "opinion" by so-called "experts."

Global warming can be proven and I know the mechanism for Global Warming and it is not Carbon Emissions as they factor less then .001% of the total climate change.

It is a scientific fact. The scientific community understands this. There is no legitmate scientific denial of evolution. Zero.

I'd say no definitive proof makes evolution deny itself.

Ribonucleotides artificially created in lab: Life's First Spark Re-Created in the Laboratory - Wired Science. That was in 2009.

The first artificially synthesized cell: Harvard Team Creates the World's 1st Synthesized Cells. (2008)

And I'm certain there are other experiments like this.

It's funny that you mention it as all they did was combine non-living cells to have less non-living cells. I would not call that prove of anything except the law of atrophy.

 

[Alceste]

Well...not quite a fact. It's a widely accepted scientific theory that probably is true, but it hasn't–and can never–be proven, much in the same way it's not proven that matter cannot go past the speed of light, or that time travel is impossible. It will always be called into question by science-deniers—usually the same people who deny global warming, which has been proven, time and time again, and can even be proven with simple logic. If such an obvious thing can be prevented from being accepted as fact, something that is impossible to prove will definitely be called an "opinion" by so-called "experts."

To say that something is a fact is not the same as to say it is proven. Proof is for math and whiskey. Tis a fact that the sky is blue, but I cannot prove it.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

I'd say no definitive proof makes evolution deny itself.

Science doesn't work with proof. It works with evidence. And when an overwhelming amount of evidence is accumulated it becomes fact. It still remains a theory but it is considered fact. Though you sculelos have a very different world view than the vast majority of people in the world.

 

[Alceste]

Variation is a fact. Evolution to be considered a fact must have definite links or chains that progress in a smooth progressive order. If I seen this I would consider it a fact, but as of now I have never seen any progressive links of fossil records nor have we seen smooth links in any living specimen of creature that have branched off each other. If evolution is to be considered true, then by association you must be related to a banana.

Edit: Well if we are looking at Banana's look at Panama Disease, it's fascinating. Panama disease - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Global warming can be proven and I know the mechanism for Global Warming and it is not Carbon Emissions as they factor less then .001% of the total climate change.



I'd say no definitive proof makes evolution deny itself.



It's funny that you mention it as all they did was combine non-living cells to have less non-living cells. I would not call that prove of anything except the law of atrophy.

Why are you arguing with me already? Do you, or do you not, wish to explore the evidence for evolution?

I can't even reply to your post because it's all nonsense and gibberish. You're like Don Quixote, waving your sword at windmills. What you're debating against here isn't evolution - it's so bizarre and unfamiliar I don't even know what it is. But it's only nonsense because you know absolutely nothing about evolutionary biology. I'm offering to explain it to you. Do you want your future arguments against evolution to make sense to people who are not Christian fundamentalists, or don't you?

Are you interested, or are you not?