• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

100 Reasons Why Evolution Is Stupid

DLH

DLH

Member
Joined
May 22, 2015
Messages
352
Location
Indiana
Basic Beliefs
Bible Believer
First of all, I came here to get the opinions of the people active in this community. I can look up a link in rebuttal to Kent Hovind's presentation so please don't just give me what I can find myself. If you want to reference a link in rebuttal excerpt the relevant point and leave the link for reference. Don't just give me a link and say there's your answer.

Now. Before we conclude I wan't you to address the question "Why not consider Kent Hovind's 100 Reasons Why Evolution Is Stupid?"

For my part, I will answer the question "Why consider Kent Hovind's 100 Reasons Why Evolution Is Stupid?"

The answer is that on the subject of evolution, along with David Berlinski, he makes the most sense to me.
 
Are you ok? That post is barely coherent.

We are supposed to consider Kent Hovind before we conclude what?

We've considered Hovind. Years ago. Try the archives.
 
100 reasons why gravity is stupid.

Discuss.

ps. Biological evolution is a natural process. It is neither stupid, nor smart. It is simply how nature works. Perhaps the OP would be better stated as "100 reasons why the theory of biological evolution as I understand it is stupid"? But then again, I suspect the OP is not interested in a discussion, nor able to make the distinction between biological evolution (the natural phenomena) and the theory of biological evolution (a man made description of how the natural phenomena works).
 
I think we can all agree that evolution is stupid. However, that has no bearing on whether or not it is true.
 
Sarpedon said:
Are you ok? That post is barely coherent.
Click to expand...

Barely coherent? I thought it was coherent.

Sarpedon said:
We are supposed to consider Kent Hovind before we conclude what?
Click to expand...

I want to consider reasons why Kent Hovind might not be worthy of your further consideration, before we conclude the thread with a discussion of his "100 Reasons Why Evolution Is Stupid."

Sarpedon said:
We've considered Hovind. Years ago. Try the archives.
Click to expand...

Okay, in other words I'm too late for this sort of discussion.
 
atrib said:
100 reasons why gravity is stupid.

Discuss.

ps. Biological evolution is a natural process. It is neither stupid, nor smart. It is simply how nature works. Perhaps the OP would be better stated as "100 reasons why the theory of biological evolution as I understand it is stupid"? But then again, I suspect the OP is not interested in a discussion, nor able to make the distinction between biological evolution (the natural phenomena) and the theory of biological evolution (a man made description of how the natural phenomena works).
Click to expand...

Fine. Whatever.

- - - Updated - - -

RavenSky said:
No, you didn't
Click to expand...

Yes I did.
 
I haven't seen that in ages. It's in a talk he gave, yes? Tell you what; provide a list of the hundred reasons in text, and I'll go point by point on as many as I can stand before I get bored.
 
beero1000 said:
I think we can all agree that evolution is stupid. However, that has no bearing on whether or not it is true.
Click to expand...

What about, Hovind? He was a science teacher for what? 15 years? In public schools. But there is that crazy as bat shit Dinosaur / Bible theme park. His theology is retarded. Pagan myth and typical fundi. There's the prison tax problem, but can you give the law demanding income tax? No. No one can. I don't know much about his legal case, but what he says regarding evolution makes sense to me.

- - - Updated - - -

RavenSky said:
:hysterical:

And DLH won't ever see the irony of his last two responses

:hysterical:
Click to expand...

Perhaps you could point it out to me?
 
DLH said:
Now. Before we conclude I wan't you to address the question "Why not consider Kent Hovind's 100 Reasons Why Evolution Is Stupid?"
Click to expand...

To that I respond: "why should I?"

Oh look, you actually answered that question... let's take a look...


For my part, I will answer the question "Why consider Kent Hovind's 100 Reasons Why Evolution Is Stupid?"

The answer is that on the subject of evolution, along with David Berlinski, he makes the most sense to me.
Click to expand...

So... you're not really telling us why we should consider it... you're just telling us that you think he makes the most sense. You don't explain why you think this or in what way he makes sense... and you don't explain why any of that matters to the point that we too should consider it.

So, I'll just reiterate my question: Why should we?
 
krypton iodine sulfur said:
I haven't seen that in ages. It's in a talk he gave, yes? Tell you what; provide a list of the hundred reasons in text, and I'll go point by point on as many as I can stand before I get bored.
Click to expand...

That sounds like a good idea. Thanks. Lets do it one at a time.

"The word evolution has at least 6 different meanings. Only 1 is scientific. 1 Cosmic evolution - the origin of time, space and matter, ie, Big Bang. (no evidence for that whatsoever, but we'll get into that later)
2. Chemical evolution - the origin from higher elements from hydrogen. How did we get 92 elements? Plus the synthetic ones. How did the chemicals evolve? They don't talk about that much but that would have to happen."

Please respond to the above quoted by Hovind on his video presentation.
 
No, I mean we can discuss it again, but it may be that you could more easily find what we think from AN old thread.

I almost forgot about that guy. There are 150 threads in the archive with his name in the title.
 
Sarpedon said:
No, I mean we can discuss it again, but it may be that you could more easily find what we think from AN old thread.

I almost forgot about that guy. There are 150 threads in the archive with his name in the title.
Click to expand...

Whoa, struck a nerve then, did he? Was he converting the unwashed heathens?
 
DLH said:
2. Chemical evolution - the origin from higher elements from hydrogen. How did we get 92 elements? Plus the synthetic ones. How did the chemicals evolve? They don't talk about that much but that would have to happen."
Click to expand...


Wow. The Stupid...it hurts!
 
dystopian said:
To that I respond: "why should I?"

Oh look, you actually answered that question... let's take a look...


For my part, I will answer the question "Why consider Kent Hovind's 100 Reasons Why Evolution Is Stupid?"

The answer is that on the subject of evolution, along with David Berlinski, he makes the most sense to me.
Click to expand...

So... you're not really telling us why we should consider it... you're just telling us that you think he makes the most sense. You don't explain why you think this or in what way he makes sense... and you don't explain why any of that matters to the point that we too should consider it.

So, I'll just reiterate my question: Why should we?
Click to expand...


To defend wonderful theory of evolution for those poor lost forms of life out there who are confused regarding the threat from some mean ol' nasty fundi? No.

Uh . . . then, because this is a forum on science and the subject has been introduced? Again.

Maybe not. Maybe you shouldn't. I don't know. Its up to you, isn't it.

- - - Updated - - -

Ford said:
DLH said:
2. Chemical evolution - the origin from higher elements from hydrogen. How did we get 92 elements? Plus the synthetic ones. How did the chemicals evolve? They don't talk about that much but that would have to happen."
Click to expand...


Wow. The Stupid...it hurts!
Click to expand...

Clever response. Very thorough and convincing. Couldn't find anything on Wikipedia?
 
Whoa, struck a nerve then, did he? Was he converting the unwashed heathens?
Click to expand...
No I can't think of anyone he managed to convert. You may be the first, so speak for yourself. Most of the threads seem to involve his fraud conviction or his stupid park.
 
DLH said:
Sarpedon said:
No, I mean we can discuss it again, but it may be that you could more easily find what we think from AN old thread.

I almost forgot about that guy. There are 150 threads in the archive with his name in the title.
Click to expand...

Whoa, struck a nerve then, did he? Was he converting the unwashed heathens?
Click to expand...

More like "he spammed the board"
 
DLH said:
Clever response. Very thorough and convincing. Couldn't find anything on Wikipedia?
Click to expand...

Do you seriously need to be told why the idea that chemical elements 'evolve' in the same way that biological beings evolve is stupid? I actually thought better of you.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom