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

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

[Baraonda]

"No one but a creationist would claim that evolution tries to explain the origin of life."

Then don't!

There goes the theory up in smokes.

[Quark2005]

Wonder if I'll ever get an answer to post 1819? I'm guessing no, since it pertains to actual scientific evidence.

Lurkers tend to notice stuff like that, too.

[Dimensio]

There goes the theory up in smokes.

Once again you lie shamelessly about the theory of evolution. Not surprising, considering that it is obvious that you are nothing but a fraud.

[Baraonda]

Erratum est...

"Thanks to RunningWolf who have been exposed to that which you accuse me."

Should have read: "Thanks to RunningWolf who has exposed you to that which you accuse me."

[RunningWolf]

You cant and wont see it but everyone else does and thats what counts.

Like Mr. Obvious pointed out to me, it don't take a rocket scientist to see these things.

Wolf

[Baraonda]

"It is not so important how a man dies, but how he lives."

So true. So true.

[RunningWolf]

Once again you make no case for evo-cultism

CUS U CANT

Wolf

[FOG724]

I miss all the fun. Sigh.

You and me both.

[Deadshot Drifter]

Thanks for the ping to this thread, tho I see I am late coming to the thread, which is really of no consequence to anyone, as by and large I am just a lurker on these evo/ID threads... But this thread has really been interesting, informative, and revealing...of course, the usual name callers have showed up, with no substantive thing to say, nothing to add to the subject matter of the thread, they just need to be here, to spew filth out of their mouths... And then there are the usual ones who turn up, to tell us that somehow they have a better understanding of the Bible, than the rest of us, that they think they have some special secret information from God about who will go to Hell and who wont...that their particular interpretations of the Bible, must be believed by everyone, or else they just are not 'Christians',(now where does this poster get his/her authority to decide who is a Christian and who is not?...certainly God does not give them this authority, so I guess they are taking on their own self important authority)... And then there are those who use their own made up definition of 'Theory', and refuse to understand how that word is used and what is means in reference to scientific investigation...I guess if you cannot argue the facts, then you sink down, and try to change the definitions..of the words...truly an infantile tactic...its truly amazing to me, that how often the a list of the words like 'theory' are given with their precise meaning in scientific investigation and how often the ID/creationist people refuse, absolutely refuse to see that, and want to insert their very own special meaning... And then there are the posters who argue logically, provide useful information, provide useful, current links, and attempt to help those of us who have a meager scientific understanding, to better understand what evolution is really all about... This thread is a real eye-opener...Note, I mentioned no posters screenname...I think everyone can figure for themselves, in what category I might put them... I know that there are many more just like me out here, who lurk, rather than post, and I am sure that they(regardless of what side of this debate they fall into),like me, are grateful for threads like these...

your great post deserves to be repeated. I too, mostly lurk. I'm far from a scientist and sort of a poor mans theologian. I throw my two cents in when I feel like it, but not as eloquently as you.
For anyone that has ever wondered...we lurkers do notice and appreciate the difference between the two "camps".
Those that believe in evolution and make an intelligent, reasoned case for it, often providing links and scientific data. They almost always stay calm but enjoy poking the other side in the ribs(and honestly how could one not, when a lot of the other side believe that man lived with dinos and the earth is only 6000 years old) Some believe in God,others don't.

I have seen creationists, some in scientific or mathematic fields, argue for their side the same way. But by far, the majority resort to all CAPS tirades about burning in hell, evolution is a religion, bizarre conspiracy theories about evo out to persecute and destroy christianity, no christian could believe yadda yadda yadda and still be a True Christian...and so it goes.
And I gotta say, a lot of times you can detect an obvious form of *higher education envy* on the part of some in the more hateful hysterical posts.
These debates are the most educational, interesting and entertaining threads on FR.

[RunningWolf]

I have been caught doing what, exactly?

Well for starters.., being a demented nut-ball of a kookcase in some bizarre fantasy land LOL

Wolf

[RunningWolf]

*higher education envy*

That may be your perception, but it is wrong.

Wolf

[RunningWolf]

No.., you said

//Humans and monkeys share common ancestry//

You make this claim

//Humans and monkeys share common ancestry.//

So what is the common ancestry? Real and specific facts...

NOW.... pathetic LIAR!!

Wolf

[Ichneumon]

[you're still playing coy, I *don't* understand. Why not just be an adult for a change, instead of continuing to play your childish taunt/evade/taunt/evade games? Hey, here's my research, bucko -- I'm *asking* you.]

This is the logically fallacy of suppressed evidence.

No, that's you being coy and evasive again, dodging a plain and simple question so that instead of furthering the conversation, you have a cheap excuse to play more puerile games. The only one here withholding relevant evidence, is *you*, when you refuse to answer direct questions.

All the rest of your scattershot insults and blather are merely padding and distraction and gameplaying.

If you're not going to answer a plain question, then you have no right to be offended when I have no option but to continue to draw my own conclusions about the answer, and I have nothing to "apologize" for.

If you can't grasp even that, then you're way out of your league on these discussions, much less in your struggling attempts to outwit us "elitist egg-heads" (your words) by being so clever as to, well, act like a petulant child. It's not working, and you're not impressing anyone by it, except perhaps yourself.

From your various posts over the past months, you've made it quite clear that you have an enormous chip on your shoulder regarding those you see as "elitist egg-heads", and as a result you pick fights in order to try to "show them up" in some way.

All you show instead is your own emotional issues and your own inability to prevail in a direct test of wits or knowledge, so you substitute trying to "win" by scoring "points" in peurile rhetorical games only you care anything about. For example, if you can act pigheaded enough that someone says something derogatory about you, you score yourself a "point" by having "proven" that the egg-head isn't as completely objective as (you presume) he thinks he is, etc. You've played that particular game on a number of threads. If that's what it takes to stroke your own ego, and assuage your obvious animosity towards "egg-heads", then that's pretty pathetic.

[Ichneumon]

You make this claim //Humans and monkeys share common ancestry.// So what is the common ancestry? Real and specific facts... NOW.... pathetic LIAR!!

Post #892.

[Quark2005]

So what is the common ancestry? Real and specific facts...

At least 4 points of evidence are mentioned in post 1819. Still waiting for a creationist to post a lucid answer to my question. Here it is in reprint for the scrolling impaired:

If the common ancestry of apes and humans is nonexistent, how does one explain the presence of the twenty or so discovered intermediate steps in the fossil record connecting apes and humans to a common ancestor, the sequencing commonalities between ape and human DNA, the fact that junk DNA mutation accumulations in common genes show a divergence in mutation rates between chimps and humans consistent in time with that interpolated from the fossil record, and the fact that fossil hominids demonstrating this pattern have been traced to the region of the world (namely Africa) inherent from the biogeographical distribution of modern day ape species?

Ichneumon also referenced you to a post containing a vast amount of information describing simian common descent. Are you going to discuss any points of evidence, or are you just going to yell at Dimensio all night?

NOW.... pathetic LIAR!!

Blessed are the meek, Wolf. (Quoted from your homepage.)

[Deadshot Drifter]

Well said. Are you listening Mumsie?

This is the second or third time you have mocked/made fun of her screenname.
Are you proud of yourself? What do you think Jesus would think of that? Surely you are familiar with John 19:26-27....

26When Jesus therefore saw his mother, and the disciple standing by, whom he loved, he saith unto his mother, Woman, behold thy son! 27Then saith he to the disciple, Behold thy mother! And from that hour that disciple took her unto his own home.

It seems Jesus loved and respected His mother, and I dare say all other moms too. You have all the class of Michael Moore.

[Virginia-American]

make a scientific prediction based on your supposed 'law' [sic] of evolution.

If there are descendents of people in, say, one million years from now, they will not have wisdom teeth.

Granted, it's a bit hard to test with present technology..

But, it's easily seen to be true: Once in a while, even with modern dentistry, someone of breeding age or less, dies from an infection that started with a bad widsom tooth. His or her genes do not get passed on. Since it is a fairly rare event, selective pressure is low, but it's still there.

IS there any ID or Creationist reason this prediction should not be true?

[Havoc]

Copout? I thought it was a rather useful question.

[Havoc]

Not a double standard. I didn't make an assumption there at all. I noted that his assumption of the absence of one changes the outcome of the bs he was shovelling. When you ultimately don't know the conditions, assuming the conditions only tells us what would be IF you were right. That's a pretty big IF. Amazing how you choose to construe it. Assuming light speed was constant - that was a major screwup on the part of science - one with far reaching consequence still being felt in the community. Accumulation rates for 14C were assumed constant - look where that got you. Seems it's only reasonable to you that everyone play stupid so you can have your way until you're proven utterly wrong again. What I find reasonable is saying "I don't know" when you don't know. But that doesn't make you look smart - apparently. I assume that's bad.

[Virginia-American]

I didn't realize that Stalin was against Darwinists

Do a google search on Lysenko or Lysenkoism. IIRC, the ToE is "bourgeois idealism" in Marx-speak.

Short version, the quack Trofim Lysenko had a "theory" that allowed him to convert winter wheat to summer, or some such. Got Stalin's favor, put the real biologists and geneticists in the Gulag, starved a few million Soviet citizens, set Russian biology back by decades.