100 Reasons Why Evolution is Stupid is Stupid

reply to post by FraternitasSaturni

So... its kinda hard to call it a coincidence.

That's because you don't have to call coincidence. Most early civilizations have flood myths because most early civilizations thrived near bodies of water such as rivers, oceans, lakes, etc. These bodies of water would, inevitably, flood. I think most of us have heard exaggerated tales of the giant fish that managed to break away from grandpa's fishing hook and the great blizzard of 'insert year here'. It might be said that the reason flood myths are common is because floods are fairly common themselves.

The myth of Noah's Flood, as in a deluge that covered the entire Earth while one man's family aboard a boat survived, is an absurdity that was laid to rest LONG ago.

There are those who suggest that, during melts from the end of the last ice age, large floods did occur which would have seemed essentially global to any living in the area. Folks like Graham Hancock seem to like this hypothesis. These floods would have been far from literally global and the jury is still out on whether any of these rapid melting/flooding events inspired any flood myths.

Hovind's idea that a global flood wiped out the dinosaurs, laid down the fossils, carved the grand canyon in a matter of weeks and created neat orderly layers of sediment is patently false.

reply to post by Titen-Sxull


Good job!

Evolution: A change in the frequency of alleles within a gene pool from one
generation to the next.

Creationism: The belief that oak-trees can outrun raptors when trying to escape
to higher ground during a global flood.

I was wondering, if one was to arrive on earth, 100 years from now, and find a "round up ready GMO corn kernal," and had no knowledge of how the item's genes got the way they are, would you consider that evolution or intelligent design?

reply to post by crankyoldman


If they could find the natural crop and compare it to the artificially created one they could figure out that it was altered by some intelligence. In other words if there were some intelligence directly interfering with life there would likely be evidence of some kind, instead what we see suggests evolutionary lineage via entirely natural processes.

Also keep in mind that something like alien intervention altering pre-existing life is separate from a religious creation event whereby life is created already complex usually via divine command or inexplicable supernatural power.

reply to post by Titen-Sxull


Damn; I'm glad I'm your friend !

he myth of Noah's Flood, as in a deluge that covered the entire Earth while one man's family aboard a boat survived, is an absurdity that was laid to rest LONG ago.

K
We know the story is absurd. That's why God gets involved

.Any way SnF for your efforts.

reply to post by randyvs


Actually Randy, if the story is to be believed God get's involved because he regrets making human beings because all of their thoughts and desires become wicked. This escalating issue of sin after the Fall is, according to most Christians, the source of all sin right down to this day, what's ignored is that immediately after Adam and Eve's sin God had every opportunity to wipe the slate clean. Instead of forgiving Adam and Eve or perhaps just drowning them, God curses all of creation and allows sins to pass from Father to son.

The story has very little bearing on evolution other than as a way for folks like Hovind to explain away the geologic column as being laid down by noah's flood. In order to do this Hovind must ignore basic geology and propose his ridiculous belief that if you shake up a jar of dirt and water you get distinct layers similar to the strata we see. Those who support this story as a way to weasel out of an old earth, however, only make their God out to be an immoral monster drowning the innocent alongside the guilty for a mistake that he had equal part in.

reply to post by Titen-Sxull

Those who support this story as a way to weasel out of an old earth, however, only make their God out to be an immoral monster drowning the innocent alongside the guilty for a mistake that he had equal part in.

We should do this at a different time.


i sure got what I asked for, being a solid critique.

If anybody still believes Hovind has any credibility whatsoever at this point, I honestly don't know what to say. It's the same as believing the earth is flat. His videos aren't even close to scientific. He spreads blatant lies to trick people into believing and keep fundies from going elsewhere. He's a proven liar and a fraud. He went to jail for fraud. Excellent post, OP. That's the most detailed debunk of Hovind I've seen yet. People need to accept reality. The world is billions of years old, we evolved on an ever changing earth, and there was no great flood. What exactly do you think happens when an ice age ends?

reply to post by Titen-Sxull

Actually Randy, if the story is to be believed God get's involved because he regrets making human beings because all of their thoughts and desires become wicked. This escalating issue of sin after the Fall is, according to most Christians, the source of all sin right down to this day, what's ignored is that immediately after Adam and Eve's sin God had every opportunity to wipe the slate clean.

Surely god is infailable? All knowing. So he made mankind knowing we would sin, it must be part of the design. So he made us to sin and be punished. He comes across as being more Miss Whiplash than Loving God.

How on earth did this story become a best seller?

reply to post by colin42


And of course there's the logical issue of where evil and imperfection even come from in a Universe created by an all powerful omnibenevolent deity.

Let's remember that when these stories were originally released most people were illiterate and science was something that a handful of Greeks knew about (among a few others) not exactly a lot of common knowledge contradicting these ideas back then. Why is REMAINS a best-seller is a mystery but I have a feeling it has to do with the fact that most Christians don't read the whole thing.

reply to post by Titen-Sxull


I don't understand why people debate this. Evolution is not out of step with belief in God. Evolution is God's time/space technique for creation. God can and does create beings that are fully developed and perfect, we are not that type of being. We are meant to be partners with God in our development. We grow through experience as nothing can take the place of actual experience.

Call it progressive evolution. God still initiated life, still designed it but has chosen to let it unfold over a period of time and in space.

If the Bible owned to "the serpent" actually being a allegory for a transsexual seductress and, likewise, the "the forbidden fruit" symbolising the 'taste' of thus transsexual femme fatale's offerings (as we all have long suspected to be the literal happenings in The Garden of Sodo... I mean Eden! ), I'd be a lot more inclined to believe the mealy-mouthed, non-interventionist, self-adorating, idol worshipping, intolerance purveying, intractable, unsubstantiatable gobbledygook of "God's word".

As it stands; sell stupid elsewhere. We're all stocked up here

An awesome thread and incredible work put in to it. You deserve a lot of credit for this.

I am a man of faith myself and study theology and religions at my local university. In my opinion people who swallow information like this Hovind character is proclaiming are merely ill-informed and gullible to this life basis *cough* theory *couch* via their insecurity towards their own life and or life after death.

What stands out in my opinion now is the fact that there really only are two theory's head on right now, and for a fact by our scientific knowledge and religous/faith/philosophic knowledge can't be proven correct or incorrect at this time.

Theory number one suggests that there is no god and that the theory/evidence of the big bang created the world is correct and that evolution occured do to a number of theorys. Logical theory and touchable.

Theory number two suggests the same princibles except that God is in the equation.

To me, these two theorys are the ones that stand out at this point in time, that there is no grand creator, or there is a grand creator.

Those literal fundamentalists that swallow every word of the bible to be like they are written, instead of being fables, historical story telling which you have to wrap your head around and look for an inner meaning and look at cold hard scientific evidence. Those people are to be ignored and left to argue among themselves until they start to do like any ignored person. Self observation, outwards observation and finally/hopefully come to these two theories.

Like Christ said: Look and you will find, knock and the door will open. Doesn't matter if you are a scientist, a man of faith or a drill sergeant in the army, if you study, you will learn.

Please argue my opinion in relation to the topic and have a nice day ATS.

I personally believe in God, but I do not see how anyone who understands current accumulated science can deny evolution. Evolution is a theory, meaning it is accepted as the mechanism of action for change in species over time. It has been a non-issue for over a century. No scientist would ever consider submitting a paper entitled "New Evidence for Evolution," because it has already been proven to work.

Think about this: For evolution to be the accepted theory, it has to work across all examples. But for those wishing to disprove it, it only takes one example. In all this time, not one example can be found to suggest that evolution is rubbish. Creationists make arguments under the guise of science, but it is really a theological argument, and contains no real science.

Darwin included ONE sentence regarding the origins of man in his "Origin of Species," and those who are too one-sided to think for themselves immediately began the attack. Do you know the gist of what that sentence was? It said something like this: "...much light will be shown on the origins of man." THAT is the sentence that sparked the fire that has yet to abate. It is utterly ridiculous, as examples of evolution are everywhere.

LaMarck was close to Darwin's form of evolution as well, and another important scientist stumbled onto Darwin's form of evolution before Darwin published his own work. Thus a joint paper was submitted, and eventually Darwin published his masterpiece. Before he would publish on evolution, he thought he should first undertake a study of barnacles, as there was one he didn't quite understand. He did this for 8 years. So his theory was not something that just popped into his head one day, and so he told the world. While it did pop into his head one day, he spent many years trying to REFUTE himself, only to fail, for the most part.

This could be argued however, because in Darwin's day they didn't know about heredity and genes, or DNA. So the actual mechanism of change remained unknown, and despite this ammunition against Darwin, those REAL scientists finally submitted themselves to the facts. Evolution is real, and for those who do not want to accept it, they are simply denying the reality we all experience here on earth.

Also, those creationists, imo, do not realize they are in a way smiting God with their beliefs, which is the opposite of what they think they are doing. This is because had God wanted to create a world via Evolution, who are YOU to say he did not or could not? There definitely is no ammunition to say that He certainly did not.

Originally posted by UB2120
reply to post by Titen-Sxull

 

I don't understand why people debate this. Evolution is not out of step with belief in God. Evolution is God's time/space technique for creation. God can and does create beings that are fully developed and perfect, we are not that type of being. We are meant to be partners with God in our development. We grow through experience as nothing can take the place of actual experience.

Call it progressive evolution. God still initiated life, still designed it but has chosen to let it unfold over a period of time and in space.

God still initiated life,

How?

reply to post by Kritter


I don't want to put words into UB2120's mouth. But If would be in liberty to explain one possibility to his claim I would suggest the possibility that God came out of nothing.
What is the one thing you can't imagine? Nothing, because when you concentrate on nothing you are still concentrating on something that you think/perceive as nothing, but still it is something.

What I'm trying to say here is that if there is a place where there is no time, no space, no nothing, and that there is something which manifested out of itself or something like that (hard to put these concepts into language other then my Icelandic tongue) and then caused this universe to form. Then it would be God because it made all the laws of this universe/cosmos and put laws to "govern" those laws.
If you read the "Hermetica's" first chaper (after Thrice-Greatest Hermes (a greek deity)) titled "Pæmandres, The shepherd of men" you will see further the description of the theory I'm putting forth here.

The idea that everything is pre-ordained up to a certain point is what UB2120 is trying to say here (correct me if I'm wrong )

But if that is the case, then is there free will? I would have to say up to a certain point. Anyway's that's how I feel about it, I only have free will up to a certain point, "I have to do this, that, whatever" and the fact that things happen to me caused by laws that govern this world and or other free will's that exist here. Now I'm rolling off topic here.

Anyway, read the Hermetica if you would like to get a clearer idea of this theory and please do reply and discuss other possibilities that are besides this particular theory.

Kærleikur!

Originally posted by ThisToiletEarth
is stupid is stupid? what what?!

Originally posted by Titen-Sxull
reply to post by ThisToiletEarth

 

Please read before posting. The title of the video I am critiquing is "100 Reasons Why Evolution is So Stupid", my claim is that the video itself is stupid. Hence the title "100 Reasons Why Evolution is stupid is stupid" I left out the SO so that the title would fit (please don't be confused by the two so's right next to each other in this sentence).

Originally posted by CALGARIAN

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
So what's our alternative? Creationism, aka Intelligent Design?

edit on 4-10-2012 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)

Kent Hovind covers this pretty damn well, if you ask me

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by CALGARIAN

 

You missed my point entirely. Try reading the picture; it was clearly mocking Creationism in favor of evolution.

Again, try reading. Are you not fluent in sarcasm? My apology, I'll include a manual next time. Oh, and you know those vestigial structures? We have one too. At the base of our tailbone. Thing is, it isn't vestigial. Know what it does?

Next time you have to go to the bathroom but opt for holding it, thank that bone. It anchors the necessary muscles.

edit on 4-10-2012 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)

I love you guys
*sighs*

Evolutionist have become absurd to present evoltuion theories as absolute truth about human origin.Then they go and push this agenda in shools and media and slam anyone who goes agaisnt as crazy in the head and whackos and stupid.You cannot even mention Jesus to them or they go nuts on you like your crazy and call you Tea Baggers and mentaly ill and schizoprhenic and demand you to understand their own interruptation of the bible.

reply to post by Titen-Sxull
[mor

Instead of drowning all of "his" creations... why wouldn't god just forgive his "children" for their sins right away?
After all... he's "God' right? Therein lies the absurdity.

Only man would think up a story so disgusting.

reply to post by Titen-Sxull
You don't need religon to tell you its stupid. I recently pointed out to a group of evolutionists that science had just reveiled that ADHD actually multiplies some genes and deletes others. As a result, evolutionists would have recognized this as an evolutionary change. So someone commented to me that no they wouldn't because its an epi-genetic change.

As though DNA transfered through off spring actually goes through a period and process where it isn't part of a living organism.

Just stupid.