Fine, so we are on the same page regarding it not being purely random. Then tell me, why does it hurt your butt so much to know that there is a random component in the nature?
-
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
Fine, so we are on the same page regarding it not being purely random. Then tell me, why does it hurt your butt so much to know that there is a random component in the nature?
Sculelos
Active Member
If God did not create random selection all of us would be exactly the same and that would be boring now, wouldn't it?
You have to Remember that Kent Hovind only has an IQ of About 102 however for someone with a very average intelligence he has a lot of insight. True it might be that he wasn't very bright thinking he could get away with not paying his taxes and advertising it on video tape as well (I think he could have if he just shut up about it and not broadcast it to the World)
As for Evolution itself the theory is simple. Basically things change slowly overtime accumulating minor differences to make a major difference eventually.
This is pretty simple to understand however the Mechanics are not. And I'll give a quick explanation why each mechanism is faulty for the purpose of evolution.
1. Natural selection in real life examples always keeps alive the already working models, never leading to new developments of existing models. I'd love to see information prove me wrong but right now I haven't seen any.
2. Mutation in 99.999% of cases is useless at best and harmful to the participant at worst and the most major kind of mutation in humans which is dwarfism aka Down Syndrome leads to the Death of 85% of the people inflicted with it and even with the people who survive to their adult years they usually do not have children of their own in most cases.
3. Genetic Drift aka Variation is known to cause differences but yet it has never been known to give any new abilities to it's participants, for evolution theory it fails to the best of my knowledge.
4. Genetic Hitchhiking sounds fancy but really I see no difference between this and variation.
5. Gene flow again is not proven at all. Dogs can breed with Wolfs, Camels can breed with Horses, Lions can breed with Tigers, Camels can Breed with Lamas, Horses can breed with *****, Bison can breed with Cattle, Monkeys and Apes can breed. Deer can breed with Antelope. Zebra's and Camels can breed, Zebras and Horses can breed. I could go on and on and on with these hybrids but it's definitely proven that Gene flow does not favor nor fit in with the general thesis of Evolution at all.
So tell me this, what am I forgetting if anything from Darwin's Theory?
outhouse
Atheistically
Why not watch real science on the topic by credible scientist
[youtube]GdNaP5BYaeU[/youtube]
Abiogenesis - origin of life - YouTube
[youtube]GdNaP5BYaeU[/youtube]
Abiogenesis - origin of life - YouTube
Sculelos
Active Member
I watched the whole video. It wasn't bad, but let me say RNA is only the physical part of DNA. RNA can not exist separate from DNA and form a living substance. RNA must do what the DNA tells it to first and the DNA must be present in the RNA strands before the DNA tells the RNA what to do. If you don't have RNA and DNA communicating together with mtDNA and mRNA also present at the same time it will never form life.
However DNA, mtDNA and mRNA must never be directly exposed to oxygen or they will die almost immediately. However RNA must always have oxygen available to it or it will breakdown.
So basically to create all at the same time all you would need is 4 lightning bolts striking the same exact areas each 1,208,925,819,614,629,174,706,176 times in a sequenced row all at the same exact time, it's quite um complicated really.
Do you not understand that evolution does not say any of these things? Those are philosophical, or religious ideas that people have looking at the data. I don't share that perspective at all. Nor do you have to. Evolution does not say anything about these things.
You're making my point, that in your mind you think it means the death of God. I do not. What makes that difference between you and me?
Well, random is only part of a process towards order. Is it so random then?
Nope. It's only chucking your previous notions about what the Bible is about. Nothing wrong in modifying your beliefs. After all, truth is bigger than our preconcieved ideas. To honor Truth, means we embrace knowledge without fear. To reject things like this in the way the science-deniers do, is to dishonor Truth. Why can't your beliefs bow to faith? Or do you bow to your beliefs? Again, I see this as fear and a lack of faith.
You still don't see it. You see the whole thing as external to yourself as who gets to tell you what to believe. That is not faith. Faith is from within, to trust you will be safe, no matter what changes come along, including those things you believe.
As I've said, being married to your beliefs, is denying God.
Well I don't believe that. God is God. God cannot die. But God's Word is not so god, is it? If I get brainwashed by you guys here on forum, I must call the writer of The Bible a liar. Why shouldn't I? How can I be in God's image if I am not?
Brainwashed? You still do not understand it is not the authors are the Bible are "liars". It's that how you believe is simply limited. You cannot seem to fathom your ideas are not equal to the Truth of God. You serious don't believe they are, do you?
I accept that evolution is valid science. I also believe I am formed in God's image. How? How can I be comfortable with this, while you cannot? Again, what explains that difference? Please attempt to tackle this question.
McBell
Unbound
Not if one is determined that he was "taking a stand"...
McBell
Unbound
One wonders why you are so convinced that your "understanding" of the Bible is 100% perfect...
Monk Of Reason
༼ つ ◕_◕ ༽つ
By definition you would be breaking out of your own brainwashed state. Not necessarily a jab at religion but there are certain things are are simply instilled in us as children. Many of our morals are given to us this way. Religion is one of them. It follows the exact same construct as brainwashing but its a normal thing.
When you reach the age of reason and questioning and you beging to use your frontal lobe to make decisions (this starts about about 19) you can examine your previous views and then either subsidate them or remove them. Some cling to them unconditionally which is sad.
By about age 30 generally these things that were instilled in your as a child and were not thrown out after critical thinking is sort of engraved in your mind. You become "set in your ways". Its why no amount of evidence will convince certain people after a certain age. Several teenagers, children and young adults can have their minds opened.
This is not specificaly directed at religion but religion is encompassed in this. A good example is My father was racist. He instilled in me racist and homophobic morals and I accepted this as the norm till I grew older and examined my beliefs. I am now 23 and can honestly say I am no logner racist. Had I for whatever reason never confronted my psychological instillments and I passed into my 30's or 40's I most likely would be racist till the day I died. Probably like my father will.
The point I"m getting at is what you have been raised in would be your brainwashing. Critical thinking and examination brought on by questioning your beliefs is the exact opposite of brainwashing.
Alceste
Vagabond
Oh my heavens! Lol. That was funny reading. I read a big chunk of Hovind's "thesis" when it was first leaked and it's highly amusing.
Nothing is too sad to be true these days.
Alceste
Vagabond
Sculelos
Active Member
To be put bluntly Kent Hovind's brilliance does not come from himself as he is at best a very averagely educated man probably only at par with an average high school graduate.
However Kent's major ability is he is a brilliant examiner and he also has an excellent memory so with those two abilities he can strip the circle babble talk of most evolutionist down to something so simple that a Jr. High student can easily understand him.
I'm reading some of his Doctoral Dissertation which I understand as a unfinished piece and not the actually finished completed work however he does make some excellent points even in the first few pages.
"Christians are often guilty of neglecting or twisting the Bible to fit their lifestyle or their preconceived ideas."
I would say this is exactly on point, but I'd even go further to say that EVERYONE just not Christians is guilty of neglecting and twisting FACTS to fit their lifestyle or their preconceived ideas.
I'm still waiting for anyone to debate my prior post in this thread or to show me in a logical manor how any of the mechanisms for evolution work in real life examples.
OK. Then you deduce every living thing is in God's image imo. Every living thing developed by the same process according to evolutionary precepts. So then you and a virus causing cancer are both in God's image.
By the way I also accept evolution as a valid science.
And God saying "let it be" means what to you, please?
Really? Everybody likes this guy...
I have no clue, zero imagination, about what that means. And I don't care.
I have a thought to add in here that may shed some light on the objections that the pseudo-scientists of Creationist schools have appeal to many who believe in God. What I think the objection is is that to most people, it is natural to see themselves as the center of creation. Humans tend to want to see that their existence, their form of body and mind, were specifically intended to be as it is. Humans see themselves as the top of the pyramid, the crowing jewel of creation, as it were. And so, as Savagewind brought up, the 'randomness' of how evolution moves us forward implies that our form as humans was an 'accident'. We are therefore, in their understanding, "not made in the image of God".
That's the underlying objection, and why all the irrational responses to what science is exposing. It suggests to them we aren't special. And that therefore not the apple of God's eye, or the focus of salvation, and the whole way in which we speak about ourselves in our stories and religions are 'fictional'. All the rest of the so-called counter-arguments, trying to discredit science and scientists, stems from this deep existential anxiety about a perspective that to them suggests 'meaninglessness' to their own existence. All tit for tat arguments about Kent Hovind versus the actual scientists' research, is a red herring to distract themselves from the greater question touching into a philosophical and spiritual level.
Inject a shadow of doubt, means they don't have to face such questions head on, and continue assuaging themselves of doubt on the deepest levels of their own being. As I've said, it's all fear based. But it is fear on the deepest level. Existential fear.
Here's an answer to that objection to consider. One that first struck me as I first was exposed to the actual theory of evolution, was that I saw that we were not the crowing achievement of evolution on a biological level, but rather than reducing our value, it elevated it! It took this self-image we like to assume as the top of the heap, and instead moved us as one of countless other creations on a wonderful branched tree of life. Rather than seeing ourselves in a hierarchical sense, we became a beautiful shining jewel, uniquely shining our own light of being, along with all the other shining jewels that emerged so wondrously from Life. In that humility, came elevation, came beauty, came release, came joy.
What the key to understanding this is that we evolved out of this thing called life, and life created us as part of its own unfolding. We are not the center of the universe, but we are a wondrous and magnificent expression of the whole! Our form could be any form. The body is not the point. The body, this body, is simply a vehicle for that movement, through whatever mechanisms that turns out to be, to become, to emerge in this world, to know, to see, to experience, to be.
Are we made in God's image? Certainly. But what does that mean? A body with two arms and two legs, an a human face? Or does this mean something vastly deeper than that? Might it not have to do with the conscious mind? Might it not have to do with simple being? Might it not have to do with the heart of all creation? As we become aware of ourselves, that understanding moves deeper and deeper in the Heart of all creation. To know that Source within us, and to be that Source in this form, in this body.
What is the fear then? Isn't that fear simply that we cling to what we think gives us meaning, such as the images we create for ourselves as being the top of the heap, the apple of God's eye in some 'special creation'? All creation is special. We are special in our own way, and can "live and move and have our being" within that which gives life to all.
Clinging to one's models of ourselves can prevent us from seeing into the Deep, and knowing ourselves as we are.
That's the underlying objection, and why all the irrational responses to what science is exposing. It suggests to them we aren't special. And that therefore not the apple of God's eye, or the focus of salvation, and the whole way in which we speak about ourselves in our stories and religions are 'fictional'. All the rest of the so-called counter-arguments, trying to discredit science and scientists, stems from this deep existential anxiety about a perspective that to them suggests 'meaninglessness' to their own existence. All tit for tat arguments about Kent Hovind versus the actual scientists' research, is a red herring to distract themselves from the greater question touching into a philosophical and spiritual level.
Inject a shadow of doubt, means they don't have to face such questions head on, and continue assuaging themselves of doubt on the deepest levels of their own being. As I've said, it's all fear based. But it is fear on the deepest level. Existential fear.
Here's an answer to that objection to consider. One that first struck me as I first was exposed to the actual theory of evolution, was that I saw that we were not the crowing achievement of evolution on a biological level, but rather than reducing our value, it elevated it! It took this self-image we like to assume as the top of the heap, and instead moved us as one of countless other creations on a wonderful branched tree of life. Rather than seeing ourselves in a hierarchical sense, we became a beautiful shining jewel, uniquely shining our own light of being, along with all the other shining jewels that emerged so wondrously from Life. In that humility, came elevation, came beauty, came release, came joy.
What the key to understanding this is that we evolved out of this thing called life, and life created us as part of its own unfolding. We are not the center of the universe, but we are a wondrous and magnificent expression of the whole! Our form could be any form. The body is not the point. The body, this body, is simply a vehicle for that movement, through whatever mechanisms that turns out to be, to become, to emerge in this world, to know, to see, to experience, to be.
Are we made in God's image? Certainly. But what does that mean? A body with two arms and two legs, an a human face? Or does this mean something vastly deeper than that? Might it not have to do with the conscious mind? Might it not have to do with simple being? Might it not have to do with the heart of all creation? As we become aware of ourselves, that understanding moves deeper and deeper in the Heart of all creation. To know that Source within us, and to be that Source in this form, in this body.
What is the fear then? Isn't that fear simply that we cling to what we think gives us meaning, such as the images we create for ourselves as being the top of the heap, the apple of God's eye in some 'special creation'? All creation is special. We are special in our own way, and can "live and move and have our being" within that which gives life to all.
Clinging to one's models of ourselves can prevent us from seeing into the Deep, and knowing ourselves as we are.
That makes sense and I do not disagree. But my stubbornness has little do do with anything that was "instilled in [me] as a child". I love Yeshua. Love is the only real thing. I don't think love can be learned. Love is love. Someone says you can love God and also believe God does not tell the truth. No you can't. I realize what God tells can be deciphered many ways, but in the end what you have is NEVER a lie.
If all life formed in primordial soup, like you say, then I cannot be in God's image because God, according to evolution, is nothing, and I am something. Nothing is not the image of something. Is it?
I.S.L.A.M617
Illuminatus
The theory of evolution says nothing about the existence or non-existence of a god, or his image...
I.S.L.A.M617
Illuminatus
What is that even supposed to mean? Real life examples?
You are right again! How does it feel? LOL
The theory of evolution has EVERYTHING to do with God's Word and even has to do with the Saints' written word, doesn't it?
In the beginning the word was and the word was god. OR
In the beginning there was no life and then there was.