Creation evangelist derides evolution as ‘dumbest’ theory [Kent Hovind Alert!]

University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee Post ^ | 17 December 2005 | Kayla Bunge

[freedumb2003]

LOL!

I LOVE Larson. Also Weller (from whom I posted).

[Thatcherite]

Some of them look like shills to me.

[Thatcherite]

BTW, just to show how busted SOH can get on these threads, you nearly got a flame from me on post #220 before I read some more of your posts. I need to lighten up.

[Uri’el-2012]

Please explain how evolution fails to be a theory in the full scientific sense of the word.

214 posted on 12/17/2005 11:23:42 AM MST by Thatcherite (F--ked in the afterlife, bullying feminized androgenous automaton euro-weenie blackguard)

I guess it all starts with your world view.

Yours begins with the belief that you are the most important person in the whole world.
And anyone who believes as you do is smart.

I started there in Mensa, prep school and college.

However I've come to an understanding from the Anthropic principle
that this universe was wonderfully formed for mankind.
I don't believe that a tornado going through a junk yard can create a 747.

I look to the Princples of Thermodynamics, and see a path to chaos.

b'shem Y'shua

[freedumb2003]

Some of them look like shills to me.

*Doh* I am suffering from "Saturday Morning Slow Brain Syndrome."

Trolls love to do that (actually, I do the same over on DU):

1. Pretend to be a "Relgious Conservative."
2. Post over-the-top stupid psuedo-argumentation that ANYONE could drive a truch through
3. Scurry back over the Dirty Underpants
4. Drive a truck through the hole left open earlier
5. Use as an example of how narrow-minded and stupid ALL conservatives are.

All in all, not a bad plan.

Whenever I have tried the same at DU, I have gotten tombstoned, bacause any deviation from the Narrow Leftist PC Gospel is immediately punished.

[wireman]

"Well, you don't have to wait for long. It is the last sentence you wrote in your post 201."

Let's not try to confuse the lunatic fringe with facts.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

" I don't believe that a tornado going through a junk yard can create a 747."

If you honestly believe the above is in any way analogous to anything that evolution claims, Mensa needs to raise it's standards.

"I look to the Princples of Thermodynamics, and see a path to chaos."

Don't tell me, the 2nd Law? lol

[Stultis]

"A dog, is a dog, is a dog."

Of course you can easily cheat just by looking at the link addresses, but just for fun (anyone) how many and which of the following, if any, are NOT dogs (i.e. members of the Family Canidae, i.e. canids)? Each pic is linked to a larger image.

1. 
2. 
3. 
4. 
5. 
6. 
7. 

[VadeRetro]

That's not creation evidence, that's the skeleton of a typical creationist.

[freedumb2003]

BTW, just to show how busted SOH can get on these threads, you nearly got a flame from me on post #220 before I read some more of your posts. I need to lighten up.

LOL -- I have often thought that FR needs a "cc:" option so somone listed in the To: knows they are not the target of the post. I have SOOOOO been there where I unleash the Hellfires on someone who is supporting my position and included me in a post that sounds attacking.

I usually try to include a little "this is to xxx not yyy" but I forget.

That probably means my post was too generic.

[stormer]

I don't believe a tornado going through a junk yard can create a 747 either. What does that have to do with evolution?

[VadeRetro]

Except her feet are missing.

[Alter Kaker]

I started there in Mensa, prep school and college.

Wow you must be really smart then. I promise to pay attention.

Yours begins with the belief that you are the most important person in the whole world.

You're projecting again. Creationists like yourself believe that the entire universe was constructed for the benefit of human beings. If that isn't hubristic, nothing is. Regrettably -- and this is despite your obviously admirable intelligence -- you're just not all that important.

I look to the Princples of Thermodynamics, and see a path to chaos.

Not that old canard again, I hope. You are aware that the laws of thermodynamics apply only to closed systems?

[Coyoteman]

"The anti-Christs can hide, but can't run away from the stake."

70 posted on 12/17/2005 10:37:58 AM EST by Baraonda
(Comment #70 Removed by Moderator)

For the lurkers, this is the kind of "reasoned debate" scientists are often up against. This post provides a good glimpse into the nature of those who oppose science in general, and evolution in particular, with such vehemence.

The current battles to include religion and ID in science classes are largely coming from implementation of the Wedge Strategy set forth a decade ago. Take a look.

Finally, if these folks win, will we see the following?

It is a truism that almost any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so, and will follow it by suppressing opposition, subverting all education to seize early the minds of the young, and by killing, locking up, or driving underground all heretics.

Robert A. Heinlein, Postscript to Revolt in 2100

(And no, evolution is an established science, not a "sect, cult, or religion." It is dishonest to claim otherwise.)

[Baraonda]

"Well, you don't have to wait for long. It is the last sentence you wrote in your post 201."

I did not write that sentence. That sentence and its whole paragraph is a quotation at the link provided at post #122

Kent Hovind's $250,000 Offer

It reads: "Creationist Kent Hovind has widely publicized his "standing offer" to pay $250,000 for scientific evidence of evolution. He argues that the "failure" of anyone to claim the prize is evidence that the "hypothesis" of evolution is not scientific but religious in nature. What is the real meaning of Hovind's challenge?"

Pay more attention next time.

[freedumb2003]

Don't tell me, the 2nd Law? lol

"Nature must obey orders given to it by Humans, except where it conflicts with the 1st Law"

;)

[Uri’el-2012]

XS>If you would have ever taken a course in the "Philosophy of Science" You would know that the "Theory of Evolution" has never advanced past a hypothetical construct.

From an NSF abstract:

Those who oppose the teaching of evolution often say that evolution should be taught as a "theory, not as a fact." This statement confuses the common use of these words with the scientific use. In science, theories do not turn into facts through the accumulation of evidence. Rather, theories are the end points of science. They are understandings that develop from extensive observation, experimentation, and creative reflection. They incorporate a large body of scientific facts, laws, tested hypotheses, and logical inferences. In this sense, evolution is one of the strongest and most useful scientific theories we have [emphasis added].

Modified from RadioAstronomers's post #27 on another thread.

223 posted on 12/17/2005 11:30:07 AM MST by Coyoteman (I love the sound of beta decay in the morning!)

Do you understand the concept of Deconstruction or Post-Modernism?

[Baraonda]

Those who promote the destruction of Christianity cannot but be the anti-Christians. A Christian does NOT promote its demise.

[PatrickHenry]

For the lurkers, this is the kind of "reasoned debate" scientists are often up against.

You should try to be more charitable. They're doing the very best they can, with the intellect the good Lord gave them. True, it's not very much, but let them enjoy what they have.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

Don't forget this,

"In another time, another age, its adherents used to be burned at the stake or given the rope."(post 70)


and

"Big Brother is watching the anti-Christ!

To know the enemy is to annihilate it."(post 83)

Very telling indeed.