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

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

[ml1954]

Show me a fish evolving to a man right now, and I might believe your stupid ass theory...

Make note of the qualifier 'might'. This implies continuing skepticism even in the event that what is proposed was observed. Which in turn implies an idiot.

[sirchtruth]

I think that's why it's called the THEORY of evolution. Words DO mean things.

It can be called whatever you like, still parading it as FACT is a lie.

[balrog666]

Based on previous readings on these threads, I'm beginning to think that 'ilk' is an insult.

In the early days of NTN, "ilk" was on the list of forbidden names and I have always wondered just how stupid those people were who were so incapable of consulting a dictionary.

[PatrickHenry]

It just keeps getting better: THIS IS YOUR BRAIN ON CREATIONISM .

[Ichneumon]

[Do you have an actual argument to present for your side,]

You know my argument by now, so why continue to show you absolute ignorance of it?

Actually, the fact that he's aware that you haven't got any actual argument to present shows that he *is* quite familiar with your material.

[forsnax5]

Show me a fish evolving to a man right now, and I might believe your stupid ass theory...

This looks like a good spot for a placemarker.

Give a man a fish, and you'll feed him for a day. Give him a religion, and he'll starve to death while praying for a fish. -- Timothy Jones

[darbymcgill]

Make note of the qualifier 'might'. This implies continuing skepticism even in the event that what is proposed was observed. Which in turn implies an idiot.

Does the same apply to extinct really means thought extinct in the scientific community.... ;)

[MRMEAN]

Show me a fish evolving to a man right now, and I might believe your stupid ass theory...

If we watched "a fish evolving to a man right now," you would no doubt, and with good reason, declare that as evidence of a great miracle, and it would no doubt throw into doubt many accepted ideas in evolutionary science. It would be (the first) evidence for Intelligent Design.

[sirchtruth]

To me, it is much more reasonable to believe in a supernatural being that created everything than to believe everything we see happened by chance, popping out of nowhere!

That's why evo is such a ridiculous theory! God says let there be LIGHT, but they don't buy that, but they'll believe SOMETHING exploded from NOTHING?

These same people who champion the theory would be the first ones to decry any halftruth in any other field!

They're duped with a little bit of truth that makes this illusion of evolution...and those are the most intellegent ones, it's really sad.

[b_sharp]

Wolf, old buddy, you may feel you are simply supporting your fellow creationists but in the case of Hovind I suggest you think twice before blindly giving support.

[PatrickHenry]

Make note of the qualifier 'might'. This implies continuing skepticism even in the event that what is proposed was observed. Which in turn implies an idiot.

No need. The pure quote is sufficient.

Show me a fish evolving to a man right now, and I might believe your stupid ass theory....

[sirchtruth]

Creationists should NEVER use the word "proof" in their feeble arguments. It makes thos arguments even more feeble.

Yes, the same way evolutionist shouldn't LIE about THEORY being equal with FACT.

[Ichneumon]

Is it the contention of all you evolutionist that just because I've had something explained to me that mean I should just automatically belive in the cult of evolution?

No, we merely expect you to be able to learn something from the explanations.

Sadly, even in that modest expectation, we are repeatedly disappointed.

New information you choose not to accept -- no matter how well established or sourced -- merely bounces off your forehead with a sharp "ping", and leaves no trace of its passage. (A classic example of Morton's Demon in action.) Meanwhile, anything you want to believe, no matter how goofy, gets swallowed uncritically as gospel.

[b_sharp]

It is necessary to keep lies as short as possible, directly linked to an appeal to emotion and to move on to a different lie as seamlessly as possible. If the audience is allowed to dwell on the lie for any more than a few seconds, they may develop questions that will expose the lie.

[RunningWolf]

Now thats an appealing fantasy

[Ichneumon]

but they'll believe SOMETHING exploded from NOTHING?

Your poor understanding of the Big Bang is as bad as your misunderstandings about most other topics. The Big Bang neither involved an "explosion", or something coming from "nothing". Try learning some physics before you attempt to critique it.

These same people who champion the theory would be the first ones to decry any halftruth in any other field!

Indeed, which is why we decry halftruths (and "notruths") in creationism as well. Thanks for noticing.

[b_sharp]

Although the posts on FR are available through Google (giving a bigger audience), it may be an idea to issue the challenge directly to Hovind. I suspect Hovind has a couple of email addresses, one where he 'bots' replies to the faithful, and one he actually reads. Anyone know an email address that will actually reach Hovind?

[RunningWolf]

Hey sharp,

Well why don't you guys take him on. If you win the debate you win the debate, irregardless of if he has the $250K. I think if the debate actually was going to happen ,the $250K would materialize from somewhere.

Wolf

[sirchtruth]

Interesting isn't it sirchtruth?

It's all interesting, especially when I think I'm debating intellegent people who will just not THINK about what they believe.

I have no problem with people believing in evolution, but not at the expence of them touting it as fact. Also, Hovind gives just as logical explanation for life as any evolutinist I've ever heard...The problem is evo's can't stand the compitition.

[Ichneumon]

Yes, the same way evolutionist shouldn't LIE about THEORY being equal with FACT.

We don't. We're well aware of the difference between the two. However, it's no contradiction to say that Evolution is a Fact and a Theory.