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

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

[Baraonda]

>>What have you ever done for anybody? What progress has ever been made by the application of your theories? Anyone?

>How about the prediction that bird flu might one day become a human flu?

Is that the basis of evolution - predictions?

I, too, can make a prediction or a number of them. One of them, someday, is bound to come true or close to being true.

I'll say this though: making a prediction is a safer bet than stating: "Your grandpa was a monkey."

[Dimensio]

But I was talking specifically about the theory of evolution, and it's generally accepted (actually it's almost a law) that evolution is made up of speculations, assumptions, unsubstantiated "facts," unobservable "observations, sub/semi-theories all topped with a sprinkle of lies as the final touch to give it the appearance of a solid theory, which is not of course.

And I'm sure that you can explain exactly how this is the case.

Oh, wait, you can't. You just come in here and fire baseless pot-shots at evolution without referencing a single fact. And you ignore any factual information presented to you, dismissing it without even looking at it, because you -- like so many other creationists -- don't care that you have to use lies to support your agenda.

[Quark2005]

But I was talking specifically about the theory of evolution, and it's generally accepted (actually it's almost a law) that evolution is made up of speculations, assumptions, unsubstantiated "facts," unobservable "observations, sub/semi-theories all topped with a sprinkle of lies as the final touch to give it the appearance of a solid theory, which is not of course.

I guess one could think this if he/she hid from the vast amounts of evidence backing such a very well-supported theory.

Now, that is my educated opinion on the subject.

Obviously not very well-educated in the science surrounding evolution. Strange that virtually 100% of biologists, who know the science best, stand in support of the theory, isn't it? The advent of genetic science has put the last nails in the coffin of any doubt surrounding whether or not evolution occurs. Read up on the subject (from real scientific literature) before posting such silly statements.

[js1138]

Now, that is my educated opinion on the subject.

I have to assume you are home-schooled.

[RunningWolf]

I guess you don't like people who expose liars like you.

Your guesses (like 99% of your posting) have a legitimate reality only in your fantasy world and to those that latch into it.

Wolf

[darbymcgill]

I guess you don't like people who expose liars like you.

Please read my post again for content... I never said I didn't like you... And you may also note, I didn't call you any names or make reference to your state of mind...

Now can you see why I usually skip over your posts....?

[Baraonda]

"I have to assume you are home-schooled."

I guess you can. I mean, afterall evolutionists make a lot of assumptions about their pet theory. So, one more won't make your theory that much less ridiculous.

Do not hesitate to homeducate!

[RunningWolf]

//to give evo the appearance of a solid theory.//

And I'm sure that you can explain exactly how this is the case.

Oh, wait, you can't.

That right demented, you cannot make the case for evo.

For one thing you really never make the case for evo. Just scream 'liar coward' like a street maniac at anyone happens by in the forum and does not drink the evo koolaid.

I don't know what gains for evo you think you are making. If you and your cohorts think these are victories for evo intelligentsia, and academia, then you are sadly mistaken.

Wolf

[Dimensio]

I mean, afterall evolutionists make a lot of assumptions about their pet theory

Name some of these assumptions. Or do you just make baseless assertions but never back them up because you don't actually think that far ahead in your lies?

[Baraonda]

Sorry didn't see your post.

"And I'm sure that you can explain exactly how this is the case."

But I already did in post post #1758

"Oh, wait, you can't."

Uffah! I already did, unless you want me to re-reexplain why evolution is a myth.

[js1138]

You don't need to explain anything. We know you are smarter than the tens of thousands of scientists in all fields who have lived during the past couple hundred years.

[Baraonda]

"I guess one could think this if he/she hid from the vast amounts of evidence backing such a very well-supported theory."

Yes, one could, if it were a solid theory, but it ain't and, therefore, one must expose the truth just as I have done tonight.

[Dimensio]

But I already did in post post #1758

Asserting something is not the same as explaining it.

Uffah! I already did, unless you want me to re-reexplain why evolution is a myth.

You didn't explain anything. You made an assertion and provided no evidence for it.

[Quark2005]

I already did, unless you want me to re-reexplain why evolution is a myth.

Please do. Everyone would like to know what some of these "baseless assertions" and "lies" are. I'm sure there's a good place in a refereed journal for you if you can make a good case. Till then....

[dread78645]

bump

[dread78645]

1776

[Baraonda]

"Name some of these assumptions."

All theories incorporate assumptions and so does evolution. Some theories are solid, while others, like evolutions, just aren't.

I have named some of these assumptions innumerable times in prior posts. I'm not gonna do the search for you, not at this hour of the night. But, I will come back and reiterate all of the assumptions underlying the shaky theory of evolution for the umpteenth time. I think I'm going in circles here repeating the same things over and over. Evolution has been discredited by many and useless to try to give it the appearance of solidity when it's waving in the wind.

Good night now, and remember: God loves you too.

[andysandmikesmom]

You can think of JackChick what you want...all I know is the name of the poster, which was 'JackChick', and that what he was saying, corresponded exactly to what I found to be on Jack Chicks website...

Now, I do suppose its possible that someone else, took his name as their screename, and posted exactly the same stuff that is on his website...however, I took him at his word...he used the screenname JackChick...

Believe whatever you want to believe...it really makes no difference to me at all...

[Baraonda]

"You don't need to explain anything. We know you are smarter than the tens of thousands of scientists in all fields who have lived during the past couple hundred years."

No way. You're much too generous.

But thanks anyway.

[Baraonda]

"Asserting something is not the same as explaining it."

An assertion as a declarative sentence, can and does explain, just as I have done in the above post. Reread it and you'll find in it the reasons why evolutions is a myth and a dogma.

Within the assertion lies the explanation.