tumbleweed41
Resident Liberal Hippie
If you understood the basics of cosmology, astrophysics, geology, biochemistry and biology, you would know the Video misuses the term to a point of making it meaningless.
-
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
Alceste
Vagabond
That's completely false, as I have already explained. There is only one theory of evolution, and it refers only to the development of life.
Not what science teaches. There was 'something', out of which everything came.
What theory teaches this?
No one claims to know what caused the big bang.
Not directly. This like saying the big bang formed our planet. Well, not exactly. The big bang caused an expansion of plasma which cooled forming particles, forming atoms, etc.
Stars formed within regions of space with collections of gases. Technically these were not galaxies yet.
Technically no. The matter from exploded stars collected around various gravitational bodies to form planets and other stellar objects. It's not like the stars birthed planets like a mother spewing out babies.
Not exactly. If you mean there was a surface to the bodies, sure. But it's not exactly like it grew 'ground' or something.
That's a curious image.
Water from a rock? No, the lighter elements embedded with the mass once super-heated rose to the surface and collected in an atmosphere to collect the water molecules together. Again, no. Water does not create bacterium. That's like saying a bag of rice produces mice!
What??? Are you thinking of a stick turning into a walking stick, or something?
Plants did not evolve into animals! Whoever in science said this? This sound like that same creationist nonsense that says we evolved from monkeys. No scientist says this. Did plants and animals have a common source on this planet? Perhaps so, but that is very different than saying we evolved FROM a plant.
Absolutely not!! Fish came before insects. Life began in the ocean, not on land. What is your source for this material?
Fish evolved into reptiles, yes.
No. Birds are not descended from reptiles. They are descended from dinosaurs, which were not reptiles. Very few scientists think this anymore.
Incorrect. Humans are mammals. Whales are mammals. Your dog is a mammal. Mammals did not change into humans as some sort of non-mammal!
Only according to a fairy-tale book on the shelves of creationists!
No "evolutionist", whatever the hell that term means anyway, believes the above fiction.
Are there assumptions made in the theory? Sure, but it doesn't negate what we have been able to verify again and again and again in many diverse fields of science. Creationists have nothing to offer in the discussion of science. They have no science to offer. They are nothing but critics spouting errors of their own understandings in an attempt to disprove science, while offering nothing of value themselves.
I love this statement from the Botanical Society of America on Evolution and Creationism. This is just an experept of the whole statement I wish to highlight some key points on:
"What would the creationist paradigm have done? No telling. Perhaps nothing, because observing three wheat species specially created to feed humans would not have generated any questions that needed answering. No predictions are made, so there is no reason or direction for seeking further knowledge. This demonstrates the scientific uselessness of creationism. While creationism explains everything, it offers no understanding beyond, thats the way it was created. No testable predictions can be derived from the creationist explanation. Creationism has not made a single contribution to agriculture, medicine, conservation, forestry, pathology, or any other applied area of biology. Creationism has yielded no classifications, no biogeographies, no underlying mechanisms, no unifying concepts with which to study organisms or life. In those few instances where predictions can be inferred from Biblical passages (e.g., groups of related organisms, migration of all animals from the resting place of the ark on Mt. Ararat to their present locations, genetic diversity derived from small founder populations, dispersal ability of organisms in direct proportion to their distance from eastern Turkey), creationism has been scientifically falsified."
[emphasis mine] Read whole statement here: Statement on Evolution, Botanical Society of America
What value does creationism have to the discussion of evolution? None.
Sculelos
Active Member
Honestly, have you ever taken a basic biology course in your life?
[/B][/COLOR]
Yes I have, however I have never got any answers when asking my teacher about these things except that he didn't know what order things would have occurred in.
If I was speaking about Biological evolution only I would say from a single celled bacterium you would have to logically develop in this order if evolution was even remotely true.
However certain kinds could never come from the same kind so several different kinds would need to be developed simultaneously for evolution to even have a slight chance of working.
1. Plants would need to evolve separate.
2. Insects would need to evolve separate.
3. Reptiles would need to evolve separate.
4. Mammals would need to evolve separate
5. Birds would need to be a hybrid reptile/mammal because they lay eggs yet they are warm blooded.
Usually typical characteristics of different types.
Plants- Cold Blooded / Bound to Earth / Lays Eggs
Insects- Cold Blooded / Unbound / Lays Eggs
Reptiles- Cold Blooded / Unbound / Lays Eggs
Mammals - Warm Blooded / Unbound / Live Birth
Birds - Warm Blooded / Unbound / Lay's Eggs
Bacteria - Doesn't have Blood / Splits itself / Bound to decaying matter.
Virus - Doesn't have Blood / Doesn't Reproduce / Changes the DNA and RNA of living cells when it is inserted in living matter.
It seems clear to me that Bacteria is non-living matter since life is in the blood and Bacteria don't have Blood a Bacteria is similar to a Virus.
Therefore if you are so smart tell me how would each kind change to different kinds?
"Kinds" is a pre-scientific biblical term, rather than a term used by scientists. Try again.
I.S.L.A.M617
Illuminatus
It's near impossible to debate science with a person who has no understanding of basic science...
tumbleweed41
Resident Liberal Hippie
Please, at least get the basics of biology right before making such statements. Your only embarrassing yourself.
Sculelos
Active Member
Well the separate kinds that the Bible specifically states is.
Fowl or Birds : Warm blooded and Lays eggs typically.
Cattle or Mammals: Warm blooded Animals that Give Live Birth.
Insects: Small, Cold blooded animals that split themselves or lay eggs.
For some reason Reptiles are considered not Animals but an extension of Plants. And they have hybrid genes of any of the above creatures Fish are considered reptiles and reptiles are considered fish.
And to my point, what you hear in your mind, does not reflect reality. You make judgments based on your fears and assumptions. I very much believe that everlasting life, to use that expression, is directly tied to knowing God. But you wouldn't understand that, apparently, because I don't repeat the party line of a particular group of so-called 'believers'. Correct?
God. That Light that shines in the darkness (of religious fears as well as basic human ignorance), that the darkness cannot comprehend.
You really don't know what I believe, but make lots of assumptions it must be 'wrong' since it doesn't follow the party-line rhetoric from the evangelical manuals on God and creation.
Jesus was seen as of the devil. I'm happy to be accused of this as well by those who's God is their religion.
The greatest Christian mystics of the world refer to God as "it", and "itself". The reason for this is because reducing God to a male gender is to limit God to a "thing". God is neither male nor female, but Spirit. What gender do you refer to Spirit as? And why do you use genders at all, for that matter?
Meister Eckhart says it well here, "I pray God to make me free of God, for [God's] unconditioned Being is above God and all distinctions.". Count me in his camp. Distinctions are useful only up to a point, at which point, they halt you from knowing God as God is, "beyond all distinctions". Get it?
BTW. you will note I said "life" and said "its unfolding" in reference to life? That these things frighten you so, is worth looking into for for yourself.
No, you do not understand. Life is the expression of God. Read John chapter 1! "In him was life, and that life was the light of men." "All things were created through him [Logos]. The Logos is the express image of God, the Manifestor of God. Life, is God expressing [His] being in and through creation itself.
This is all very much within your own understanding, if you can see beyond the literalness of your symbols.
Is God his own Son? Is not the light from the sun the expression of the sun itself and how it gives life? God is not some separate object outside creation, but is the image of God in form. And we, as humans, are awakening in ourselves to that image, but not in limiting the light that hits these eyes, ears, and heart.
I.S.L.A.M617
Illuminatus
And the Bible specifically makes these exact classifications... where?
Sculelos
Active Member
Genesis has a lot of them.
Plants.
Whale not only refers to what we call a Whale but also of Dolphins and all Sea living Mammals that give live birth like Walruses.
Here we see Cattle which refers to any animal with a Hoof and Beast refers to any animal with a paw and the creeping thing refers to insects.
And we see mankind as last, mankind is different then all other mammals because we have a frontal cortex that allows us to imagine things. Animals can not imagine as they are run by instincts.
Even if it did, that's besides the point. A scientific theory has absolutely no responsibility to fit the Bible. It would be like demanding that chemistry account for Jesus turning water into wine.
And sloths have metabolic rates less than half that of other mammals their size. All animals have something that make them unique. Our brains make us unique. Bat wings make them unique. Uniqueness is not unique.
I.S.L.A.M617
Illuminatus
I know this; just wanted to see a response because I know the Bible says nothing of the sort.
I.S.L.A.M617
Illuminatus
So where in any of those "examples" does it say insects are plants and fish are reptiles?
Sculelos
Active Member
I'm not saying it has to but Evolution is based off everything coming from the same root source which is a single cell bacterium.
Basically these reasons are the reasons I don't believe in Evolution because I see no logical way around these issues.
1. How can a Cold Blooded Animal change into a Warm Blooded Animal?
2. How could a Plant or Insect evolve a Skeleton?
3. How could a Fish turn into a Mammal when they are almost exact opposites?
4. How could Bacteria evolve Blood?
5. Why did Humans uniquely evolve a Frontal Cortex when it seems absolutely pointless from a evolutionist point of view?
6. How would a species change from a egg laying species to a live birth species and why would this occur and how would it occur?
See I don't really have beef with the whole Variation of small changes build up over time but certain things like going from Egg laying to giving live Birth would not happen in a Million times a Trillion years because it defies logic. It would be easier to have species that were completely separate with no linkage whatsoever all evolve separately then it would be to cross awkward and unnecessary gaps.
If Evolution worked in an intelligent way why not simply evolve a species that can live forever?
You seem to be under the erroneous assumption that there was only ever one species that had to change into something else. There are, and were, lots and lots of species with lots and lots of variation. You also seem to be under this erroneous impression that there are clear cut, definitive lines cut between plants, animals, fish, reptiles, etc, when really there is no such thing. It all melds and moves and changes. The words make the illusion that distinctions are a lot more concrete than they are.
Besides, most if not all, of the things you cannot logically understand occurring do in fact have mechanisms that have been discovered by biologists. You would know this if you spent as much energy into understanding evolution as you do in crying about how you don't understand it.
Also, it seems pretty strange to argue that a big brain wouldn't provide an advantage to a species. You might want to rethink that one.
Logic has nothing to do with it, son. Ignorance does though.
I have absolutely have no idea how computers work. It "defies logic" that I can have access to all of human knowledge with a device I can hold in the palm of my hand. If we had told someone about this 100 years ago, they would think it was magic.
But the fact that they-- and I-- can't comprehend how this is possible doesn't mean that our reply, in the face of the science and evidence regarding computation, is that is can't possibly occur by means any other than magic.
I have absolutely have no idea how computers work. It "defies logic" that I can have access to all of human knowledge with a device I can hold in the palm of my hand. If we had told someone about this 100 years ago, they would think it was magic.
But the fact that they-- and I-- can't comprehend how this is possible doesn't mean that our reply, in the face of the science and evidence regarding computation, is that is can't possibly occur by means any other than magic.
tumbleweed41
Resident Liberal Hippie
Biological Evolution is not "intelligent"
.Intelligence would imply a conscious force behind it, that is Creationism.
Read through this to get a basic understanding.
Welcome to Evolution 101!
Sculelos
Active Member
Computers work like anything else. Positrons and Neutrons combine with electricity and magnetism to bring this message from me to you. Saying that a computer will never design itself as every single computer on this planet has had a designer.
Biological Evolution is not "intelligent"
Intelligence would imply a conscious force behind it, that is Creationism.
Read through this to get a basic understanding.
Welcome to Evolution 101!
All I get is circles and wheels when looking for an explanation of evolution. This is why I have referred to it as circular phycho babble from time to time.