• Welcome to Christian Forums
  1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Why evolution is so stupid

Discussion in 'Creation & Evolution' started by JediMobius, May 15, 2006.

  1. SLP

    SLP Senior Member

    Do you understand the 'science' behind the claims in the first place?

    That is, if someone takes the timew to refute these claims, will you accept the refutations or merely dismiss them, as John et al. routinely do?
  2. SLP

    SLP Senior Member

    A video! Well, slap my fanny and call me aunt Millie! If it was in a creationist video, it HASTA be true!
  3. SLP

    SLP Senior Member

  4. Split Rock

    Split Rock Conflation of Blathers

    *TheLowly Tortoise*

    This thread is a trainwreck. If you are serious about discussing these issues, I recommend that you abandon this thread and start a new one. Don't call it "Why Evolution is so Stupid," and pick just one point out of your long list. Perhaps you could start with the "6 types of evolution" and why you think they are wrong or non-scientific. Cite any sources you use.
  5. _Origen

    _Origen New Member

    Evolution is foolish because it rejects the biological law of biogenesis, the 1st & 2nd laws of thermodynamics, and the simple fact that the big-bang as zero singularity. It takes an Immaterial Cause to create a material world. Furthermore, evolution theory says: Be better than your neighbor; but the law of Christ says: Love your neighbor as yourself. When one adds all this together, you have enough evidence to know that God is absolutely evident.
  6. OdwinOddball

    OdwinOddball Atheist Water Fowl

    And when you add your entire post together, we have enough evidence to know that you know almost nothing about the Theory of Evolution, and what little you have learned came not from Science but from Creationists.

    Please educate yourself on what the ToE is before coming here and soudning foolish.

    Try the Quiet Thread or TalkOrigins as a start.
  7. Ryal Kane

    Ryal Kane Senior Veteran

    Again, you've been lied to.

    Biogenesis isn't part of the theory of evolution.

    Evolution doesn't violate thermodynamics any more than a seed growing into a plant.

    The Big Bang isn't part of the theory of evolution.

    The theory of evolution doesn't perscribe human behaviour.

    You have been lied to.
    You don't know what the theory of evolution says.

    Whether you chose to continue believing those lies or try to learn more is up to you.
  8. Silent Bob

    Silent Bob Guest

    And I thought that evolution theory was about how species change over time. Thank you for correcting this I cannot believe that no serious source in science or education ever mentioned this! How insightful.
  9. rmwilliamsll

    rmwilliamsll avid reader

    Furthermore, evolution theory says: Be better than your neighbor; but the law of Christ says: Love your neighbor as yourself. When one adds all this together, you have enough evidence to know that God is absolutely evident.

    the science of TofE says nothing about human morality. evolutionary psychology does but you dont have to listen to them, they are all crazy. *grin*

    to go from descriptions of what is to prescriptions of what ought to be is not the task of science, it is the task of ethics (and maybe politics and religion). Social darwinianism is not science it is ethics and social criticism drawn out of science, but exceeding the reach and domain of science.
  10. Abongil

    Abongil Veteran

    The first and second laws of thermodynamics dont apply to evolution because the earth is not a clsoed system, energy is introduced into it all the time from the Sun and other stars. The Big Bang was not a singularity, the Big Bang is a name for the actual act of the expnasion, and we dont really know if it was a singularity or not.
  11. Gracchus

    Gracchus Senior Veteran

    How is that? As a matter of fact, can you state that law? If you are talking about Pasteur et al. demonstrating that spontaneous generation of complex organisms from non-living progenetors does not occur, that has nothing to do with the modern theories of abiogenesis.

    How? The first law is:

    The second law is nearly as simple:

    Evolution does not "reject" or contradict either law.

    Perhaps you could explain this? It isn't even grammatical.

    If anything, it takes a material cause to create a material world, because an immaterial cause cannot effect anything in the material world.

    No it doesn't. It says that population growth will always reach limits, making it impossible for some organisms to survive long enough to reproduce. It says that there are phenotypic differences in populations arising from genetic variations, and that some of these variations are more likely to survive than others under environmental stress. These statements have been verified by observation and are consistent with reason.

    ...even when your neighbor hates you. So it is the "law of Christ" that says, "Be better than your neighbor."

    When we add all this together we have enough evidence to know that you, _Origen, are ignorant of biology, thermodynamics, logic, and cosmology. I suspect you are an adolescent on a mission from GOD. I am not impressed. I question the authenticity of your mission. I don’t think God would send you into any intellectual discussion unless it was to teach you a lesson in humility.

    If you aren’t an adolescent…grow up!

  12. MewtwoX

    MewtwoX Veteran

    That's Abiogenesis, not Evolutionary Theory.

    2nd Law of Thermodynamics has been shown time and again to have no application to Evolutionary process.

    The First Law of Thermodynamics is also a non-sequitur to Evolutionary Theory.

    If you want to argue these points ,you're going to have to explain why they are against Evolutionary Theory.

    Elaborate. Also, note that the Big Bang Theory is not a scientific Creation account for the universe.

    Not necessarily, there has yet to be any argumentation that material causes cannot either (A) Be uncaused causes or (B) Be axionomic to existence.

    1. Evolution doesn't provide a moral theory, it merely describes how species change. There's no reason why humans must follow it as a moral theory.

    2. The Theory of Evolution doesn't reject the existence of a deity. It remains separate from such an issue.
  13. Pete Harcoff

    Pete Harcoff PeteAce - In memory of WinAce

    Other Religion
    Congratulations. You have single handidly falsified 150 years of scientific inquiry made by hundreds of thousands of scientists. And all in a single paragraph on an internet message board. Your Nobel prize awaits.
  14. BigRed11

    BigRed11 Awesome science-freak

    I had some fun with this one.
  15. Edx

    Edx Senior Veteran

    I assume the next 9 pages are of people showing you your ass, but I figure its fun to reply to such a newbie. You Hovindites just make it too easy, really.

    The question is, will you reply and defend Hovinds nonsence, becuase he wont. He refuses written debate where all the points he raises can be responded to and refuted individually.

    And only one of which is the ACTUAL "Theory of Evolution". All the rest the good Dr has seen fit to conflate several different fields of study that he doesnt agree with under one umbrella term, "Evolution".

    "Organic Evolution" is really what science calls the field of study "abiogeneis". It too, is not Evolution.


    Evolution never says one animal should ever change into another kind of animal. And it certianly doesnt say that a pig should ever be able to give birth to a sheep. That example is so wrong for so many reasons, any of which would falsify Evolution if observed, not prove it.

    Oh and I love how he calls everything that isnt Evolution, Evolution, except the last one "micro Evolution" he manages to get half right yet thinks it would be better called "variation".

    No it doesnt.

    Someone didnt learn plate tectonics in school.

    This is a bad caricature of abiogenesis not evolution.

    Slow variations?


    Wasnt the example the good Dr gave for "macro Evolution", a pig giving birth to a sheep?

    Out of context quotation on purpose just proves you are dishonest, not right.

    And dont claim you have a legitimate Phd, Hovind, or that you know what you are talking about. Of course, youve been doing this for years and years so theres no way you dont know all of this already.
  16. Edx

    Edx Senior Veteran

    Well thats not strickly true at all is it? Even Dr Ken Miller writes text books.
  17. Edx

    Edx Senior Veteran

    Are you kidding, Shinbits has gotten a LOT worse.
  18. Edx

    Edx Senior Veteran

    How rude! :D
  19. JediMobius

    JediMobius The Guy with the Face

    United States
    Forgive me, evolution seems to be a term which often changes meaning, and becoming so complex that it cannot be put simply. Perhaps, one of you here could define the term more accurately?

    Is that to say, all we know is the universe was once smaller, and has been expanding since? The bible says that, though not in so many words.

    Undersight on my part.

    I'm not sure what bearing the explosion of a grenade has on events in a vacuum.

    Some astronomer or group of scientists must be curious enough to know. After all, nebulae and new stars are searched out often enough.

    Interesting, I've simply never heard of such a thing. My search on the birth of stars (a shallow search, but a search nonetheless) only showed nebulae of already born stars.

    Doesn't this refutation rely on the assumption that none of the halos were from polonium?

    Of course, it must be assumed that the earth is old for this hypothesis to hold.

    Even if a few amino acids were produced without bonding to some other molecule first, how did they know how to assemble themselves neatly into a pattern of life?

    It's just as plausible that these markers are simply similarities, and not evidence of common ancestry.

    Fossils? This link only shows that yes, birds have similar hyoid structures, but the woodpecker's is still abnormally long. It also lists species of woodpecker in order of length of hyoid/tongue structure. These species are dispersed in many areas, often seperate from each other. There's no proof of a common ancestor other than a woodpecker.

    If the termite was able to digest cellulose, then why did it need the trichonympha? If the termite was not able to digest cellulose, then what did it eat that the trichonympha would survive in its stomach? Symbiotic relationships can't simply be explained away by slow change.

    What I've seen is that, evloutionists admit variations in C14 content in the atmosphere. Still, a certain base amount of C14 is assumed for fossils that are radiometrically dated

    I'm asking for proof or at least sound reason, I want to know why everyone should believe in evolution. I haven't seen that.
  20. Micaiah

    Micaiah Well-Known Member

    Provide a response to the questions asked. What was the rate of the supposed expansion rate during the first stages of the universe?

    Was there energy associated with this explosion?