Home > FreeHovind > Content > General > Discussion: WHY HAVNT EVOLUTIONISTS WON?
WHY HAVNT EVOLUTIONISTS WON?
26 Comments - 53660 Views
Submitted By Peter on 09/03/25
FreeHovind, Peter, General 
This Discussion originally posted in the "FreeHovind" Group


soooo, why havent you won any scientific discussion, EVOLUTIONISTS? why don't you ever manage to downright expose the flaws you have with out "reasoning"?

i've looked at a large numer of posts on EVOLUTION topics and scientific topics, and so far haven't found a SINGLE ONE where an EVOLUTIONIST has either postign a conclusive remark annihalating the oppositions arguments OR has shown enough evidence to force that person in the intellectually honest submission, "i was wrong.".

on the other hand we (your opposition) have pointed out numerous strawmen, lies and misconceptions, and downright mistakes in your arguemnts and your "scientific" support.

and when we do that, you seem to almost always post a troll and then leave for the next discussion and act like nothing ever happened.

this OR i haven't looked enough into all the discussions here, where you might have won one.
If you DO find or know one, please post a link to it.

PS:
lets hope you give a little more of a reply to this, than to my post "why do you?".....

» Reply to Comment
Re: WHY HAVNT EVOLUTIONISTS WON?
1 day - 1,877v
Posted 2009/03/25 - 22:18 GMT
The sad thing is...this would actually be quite witty if not so misdirected.
» Reply to Comment
Re: WHY HAVNT EVOLUTIONISTS WON?
5 days - 8,142v
Posted 2009/03/25 - 22:45 GMT
kevin, you hurt my feelings :(
 
he actually copy pasted MY post and the changed the words "creationists" to "evolutionists"...
 
no credit to me ??:(
» Reply to Comment
Re: WHY HAVNT EVOLUTIONISTS WON?
1 day - 1,877v
Posted 2009/03/26 - 12:58 GMT
Yes yes...the message was witty as well.  I was just refering to the blatant copying and reinsertion of words to make a "point"...that being a "point" in the same since that Hovind is a "doctor".  Very often creationist arguments can be obliterated in this fashion...for example insert flying spagetti monster.  However this was such a sad pathetic attempt....it deserves epic pwnage.
» Reply to Comment
Re: WHY HAVNT EVOLUTIONISTS WON?
5 days - 8,142v
Posted 2009/03/25 - 22:44 GMT
ah gr8 ^^ a response.
 
wellll peter, would you please LINK those discussions?
 
asomething comes to mind when you say :"why don't you ever manage to downright expose the flaws you have with out "reasoning"?"
 
we have...and not just on the evolution part. we actually TRY and DO post how some opf your logic is inherently flawed, made on misunderstood grounds, made up OR your creationist favorite, a strawman.
 
http://forum.freehovind.com/view-2975
http://forum.freehovind.com/view-2152
http://forum.freehovind.com/view-2721
http://forum.freehovind.com/view-2649
http://forum.freehovind.com/view-2283 (not rly a creationists this 1)
http://forum.freehovind.com/view-2565
http://forum.freehovind.com/view-2606
http://forum.freehovind.com/view-2579
http://forum.freehovind.com/view-2248
http://forum.freehovind.com/view-2003 (my favorite ^^)
http://forum.freehovind.com/view-2060
http://forum.freehovind.com/view-2051
http://forum.freehovind.com/view-2466
http://forum.freehovind.com/view-2207
http://forum.freehovind.com/view-2226
http://forum.freehovind.com/view-2247
 
now that just a RECENT sampling, i could go on if you want...
 
(next time actually READ some posts ^^, good try though.)
 

"i've looked at a large numer of posts on EVOLUTION topics and scientific topics, and so far haven't found a SINGLE ONE where an EVOLUTIONIST has either postign a conclusive remark annihalating the oppositions arguments"
actually we have, look above.
 
"OR has shown enough evidence to force that person in the intellectually honest submission, "i was wrong."."
 
 well now ur not being fair. its EXTREMELY hard to get an bible literalist to take that leap of "faith" and take of their bible glasses. you ever spoke to a scientologist ? you get the picture i presume.
so it;s not that we haven't supplied the evidence, its just that you won't ever say : "I was wrong when i thought evolution encompassed the bigbang theory, abiogenesis, ect...OR I was wrong when i arugued from the position that scientific theories are the same as theories in the colliqual sense.."
^^
 
"on the other hand we (your opposition) have pointed out numerous strawmen, lies and misconceptions, and downright mistakes in your arguemnts and your "scientific" support."
 
THAT coming from you mean -1 on your "god score" for lying ^^ thats 1 more sin to get rid of .
 
"and when we do that, you seem to almost always post a troll and then leave for the next discussion and act like nothing ever happened."
 
w8, WHEN did i we (the opposition) NOT leave the last remark?
-1 again.
 
"this OR i haven't looked enough into all the discussions here, where you might have won one.
If you DO find or know one, please post a link to it."
 
...which you havent done....-_-
 
 
PS:
lets hope you give a little more of a reply to this, than to my post "why do you?".....
 
well at least thank you FOR replying to the other one, although i still think my " why DO you" is a little to hot for you...
 
over FAIl again for the creationist side ^^. keep it up. perhaps you might "convert" more people to ourside?
» Reply to Comment
Re: WHY HAVNT EVOLUTIONISTS WON?
4 days - 5,621v
Posted 2009/03/25 - 22:45 GMT

Joe (thebiblewas). You really need help man. No joke.
» Reply to Comment
Re: WHY HAVNT EVOLUTIONISTS WON?
5 days - 8,142v
Posted 2009/03/25 - 22:53 GMT
again bigdog, IM NOT JOE. aparts form the fact that this is yet another ad hominem (which i'll ignore for now)  referring to joe's sanity.
 
i already pointed out that i post at different times, and i usually there is a tiem difference between then that would indicate that it is highly unlikely that me and joe are the same person.
 
but allow me to make it easier for you and prove i am dutch 17 year old.
 
"Jij bent echt de zieligste poster die hier is, 9tails is miss nog erger als het op liegen aan komt, en Kent als het op arrogantie. MAAR JIJ, jij bent echt de zieligste, continue op de man spelen en ook nog eens rationele goed beargumenteerde reacties negeren. i kan met alle zekerheid zeggen: JIJ bent de zwakste schakel, tot ziens...
or in english that would be " You are the weakest link, goodbye."
 
(runnign that segment through babelfish will come up with some faulty translations, due to spelling errors and the crappiness of online translators, but you will come up with half of the text ^^)
 
PS, have u already looked at my exposure of the faulty math in your source for "chalk cliffs can form in a few thousand years and not millions." you might be inclined to do so, knakker.
» Reply to Comment
Re: WHY HAVNT EVOLUTIONISTS WON?
5 days - 8,142v
Posted 2009/03/25 - 22:57 GMT
say bigdog, how can you have time to reply to this (ignorign that this is an oppertunity for trolling) but not to
http://forum.freehovind.com/view-2721
(which you cant troll anymore due to the fact i crushed that source with math an ecology)
 
are you perhaps...a troll? :O
» Reply to Comment
Re: WHY HAVNT EVOLUTIONISTS WON?
4 days - 5,621v
Posted 2009/03/26 - 4:32 GMT
Are you perhaps, a lying gay man? Sounds like it. Because you're lying again. You didn't figure all that on your own like you write in the forum. I saw the same math on other old earth sites to the exact. So another LIE I caught you in. But anyway it still leaves to much speculation and NO solid evidence. Ross's study found here (http://static.icr.org/i/pdf/technical/Can-Flood-Geology-Explain-Thick-Chalk-Layers.pdf)

is just the start. It took a while to for us to figure out the junk science of radio metric dating and the other so-called columns, so don't put all your eggs in the basket of the chalk layer to prove an old earth. Because we've already proven other layers WITHOUT A DOUBT can form within a few years.
» Reply to Comment
Re: WHY HAVNT EVOLUTIONISTS WON?
5 days - 8,142v
Posted 2009/03/26 - 8:22 GMT
..................lie......you dare to call matha  lie.
 
lemi outline if for you again.
you have given numbers. in this cas 20 grams of calcium carbonate per square CM per year, produced from the top 200 metres of the ocean (photic zone).
now a wierd thing is that you manage to conver 20 grams per square Cm to 2 GRAMS PER CUBIC CM!! which just cant happen... for well.. obvious volume reasons.
 
so theres 2 thing:
1) we have the all the information to check your statement: 100 mtres in 1000 years.
since we know the density of chalk. which is 2499 kg per cubic metre
 
2) in nature, not only is the saturation point of algea really hard to reach (due to the massive amounts of parametres), but a maximuj saturation WILL block out the light after a couple of metres...or have you never seen an algea infested pool.this is where i found
"But anyway it still leaves to much speculation and NO solid evidence"
so hypocrit.
oooooh buRRRRNNNed. ^^
 
what your creation scientist did was take a lab situation, where they optimalized the envorement, and then extrapolated, as if the ocean was, for a long time, and optimal environment. now every biologist will tell you THATS being scientifically dishonest.
 
but again, i checked the math, and depending on wheter i took the cubic cm numbers (in which caese i came up at 80 cubic Metres per 1000 years) or the square cm number (in which case i came up with 800 cubic metres in 1000 years). both of which..as you will nhotice ARENT 100 METRES PER 1000 YEARS!!? i fact i could already tell that from the numbers given. if they wanted that exact amoun they should have given 2.5 grams per square cm.
 
of course they go along an dicredit themselves too, by suddenly stating, a paragraph further,  that 100 metres per 1000 years ACTUALLY means 100 PER 200 YEARS!!
and dude...i quoted THAT from your source, so no, you are lying again when i got that from an old earth site, or perhaps did YOU quote from there?
 
But lets make this even better on you. you claim to have seen it on a site that you consider completely biased, and then you reason: "therefore its a LIE!!" which is
SO INTELECTUALLY DISHONEST, ITS LIKE YOU SHOT URSELF IN THE FOOT WITH A SHOTGUN!!!!!
 
at least check the math BEFORE you say an equation is wrong. something you didn't do with your source.
bottom line, just because it doesn't confom with your wolrdview or current level of knowledge DOESN'T mean its NOT TRUE/....
doing that would be...wel VERY CLOSEMINDED AND INTELLECTUALLY DISHONEST.....
 
and that was you first arguemnts crushed. wierd you didn't post in on the actual topic but rather here where no one sees the math i did???
(people check the link to that topic i posted in and earlier response to bigdogs . you'll see how he can't wriggle his way out of that.
 
on to the next.
 
so called colomns ???!?! DUDE, LOOK AT ROCK FORMATIONS ALREADY. do you WANT to appear this ignorant?
radiometric dating junk science? hihi you are serious? you have no idea how constantradioactive decay is do you?
 
"Because we've already proven other layers WITHOUT A DOUBT can form within a few years."
soo other mean ALL in your universe?
i already explained that SOME layers will form in a few years, or even days. but they are very specific layers, like volcanic ones. but you take that fact and go apply it to all the strata layers ^^ how silly of you...
 
"so don't put all your eggs in the basket of the chalk layer to prove an old earth"
 
w8 what? when did i say that the SOME reason i had for assuming the earth to be old was the chalk layer? i just pointed out that that alone WILL discredit a young (6000 year old) earth. its to disprove, NOT to prove. that how science works btw, hope you might understand that one day.
 
"Are you perhaps, a lying gay man? Sounds like it"
well i wasn't lying. and you failed to prove that, or at least i rebuttaled it back to extreme doubt.
 
SINCE WHEN was my sexuality important? and does that even matter?
like, being gay makes my any less intelligent, kind, honest or passionate?
thats just trolling you troll! ^^
oh and before you catch me on this. I only showed that your source contains extreme flaws on basis of false calculations, and on the basis of selfrefutation, and therefore it should not be considered a trustworthy source.
» Reply to Comment
Re: WHY HAVNT EVOLUTIONISTS WON?
5 days - 8,142v
Posted 2009/03/26 - 8:30 GMT
FROM BIGDOGS SITE:
 
Creationist Responses
Two creationists have done much to provide a
satisfactory response to these objections against Flood
geology—geologists Dr. Ariel Roth of the Geoscience
Research Institute (Loma Linda, California) and John
Woodmorappe. Both agree that biological productivity
does not appear to be the limiting factor. Roth (1985)
suggests that in the surface layers of the ocean these
carbonate-secreting organisms at optimum production
rates could produce all the calcareous ooze on the ocean
floor today in probably less than 1,000 or 2,000 years.
He argues that, if a high concentration of foraminifera
of 100 per liter of ocean water were assumed (Berger,
1969), a doubling time of 3.65 days, and an average of
10,000 foraminifera per gram of carbonate (Berger,
1976), the top 200 m of the ocean would produce 20 g
of calcium carbonate per square centimeter per year,
or at an average sediment density of 2 g/cm3, 100 m in
1,000 years. Some of this calcium carbonate would be
dissolved at depth so the time factor would probably
need to be increased to compensate for this, but if
there was increased carbonate input to the ocean
out. Also, reproduction of foraminifera below the top
200 m of ocean water would likewise tend to shorten
the time required.
Coccolithophores on the other hand reproduce
faster than foraminifera and are amongst the fastest
growing planktonic algæ (Paasche, 1968), sometimes
multiplying at the rate of 2.25 divisions per day.
Roth suggests that if we assume an average coccolith
has a volume of 22 × 10–12 cm3, an average weight of
60 × 10-12 g per coccolith (Honjo, 1976), 20 coccoliths
produced per coccolithophore, 13 × 106 coccolithophores
per liter of ocean water (Black & Bukry, 1979), a
dividing rate of two times per day and a density of
2 g/cm3 for the sediments produced, one gets a potential
production rate of 54 cm (over 21 inches) of calcium
carbonate per year from the top 100 m (305 feet) of the
ocean. At this rate it is possible to produce an average
100 m (305 feet) thickness of coccoliths as calcareous
ooze on the ocean floor in less than 200 years. Again,
other factors could be brought into the calculations
to either lengthen or shorten the time, including
dissolving of the carbonate, light reduction due to the
heavy concentration of these microorganisms, and
reproducing coccoliths below the top 100 m of ocean
surface, but the net result again is to essentially
affirm the rate just calculated.
Woodmorappe (1986) approached the matter in
a different way. Assuming that all limestones in
the Upper Cretaceous and Tertiary divisions of the
geological column are all chalks, he found that these
accounted for 17.5 million km3 of rock. (Of course,
not all these limestones are chalks, but he used
this figure to make the “problem” more difficult, so
as to get the most conservative calculation results.)
Then using Roth’s calculation of a 100 m thickness of
coccoliths produced every 200 years, Woodmorappe
found that one would only need 21.1 million km2 or
4.1% of the earth’s surface to be coccolith-producing
seas to supply the 17.5 million km3 of coccoliths in
1,600–1,700 years, that is, in the pre-Flood era. He
also made further calculations by starting again from
the basic parameters required, and found that he
could reduce that figure to only 12.5 million km2 of
ocean area or 2.5% of the earth’s surface to produce
the necessary exaggerated estimate of 17.5 million km3
of coccoliths.
 
 
this all looks so reasonable, but when you read it you see that they make some big assumptions and that their math sucks. not to mention their understaning of the actual ocean environment.
 
 
» Reply to Comment
Re: WHY HAVNT EVOLUTIONISTS WON?
5 days - 8,142v
Posted 2009/03/26 - 8:33 GMT
FROM BIGDOGS SITE:
 
"Quite clearly, under cataclysmic Flood conditions,
including torrential rain, sea turbulence, decaying
fish and other organic matter, and the violent volcanic
eruptions associated with the “fountains of the deep,”
explosive blooms on a large and repetitive scale in
the oceans are realistically conceivable, so that the
production of the necessary quantities of calcareous
ooze to produce the chalk beds in the geological record"
 
what? soooo massively changing envorenment causes exponantion growth in single celled ocean organisms which require very specific circumstances to bloom?
ecology and biology fail....
» Reply to Comment
Re: WHY HAVNT EVOLUTIONISTS WON?
3 days - 4,645v
Posted 2009/03/26 - 15:17 GMT
Are you perhaps, a lying gay man?
 
That's the sort of comment I would expect from a middle-schooler, not an (ostensible) adult.
» Reply to Comment
Re: WHY HAVNT EVOLUTIONISTS WON?
1 day - 1,877v
Posted 2009/03/27 - 0:34 GMT

I have grown so weary of hearing the same worn out nonsense over and over again.  I generally try not to blatantly attack others…you know…like creationist often do…however there is a time when you simply must call someone out on their pigheadedness.

Bigdog...you are an idiot.  Simply stating that radiometric dating is an ineffective method in a repetitive fashion DOES NOT MAKE IT SO!  The MANY methods of radiometric dating are VERY well understood and have been highly scrutinized.  You provide NO evidence to cast doubt on the validity of these methods.  You consistently display an utter lack of understanding regarding the limitations of these methods or the mechanisms upon which they are developed.  In short, YOU HAVE NO IDEA WHAT THE HELL YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT AND YOU SOUND LIKE A DAMN FOOL TO ANYONE EDUCATED IN THE FIELD.  Do yourself a favor...you see there are physicist and likely other scientist on this forum....stay away from topics you do not understand.
» Reply to Comment
Re: WHY HAVNT EVOLUTIONISTS WON?
1 day - 1,877v
Posted 2009/03/26 - 13:07 GMT
Elmer (bigdog).  You really need help man. No joke.
 
OHHHH GOTCHA!! HAHAHAHAA!  PWND!!!
» Reply to Comment
Re: WHY HAVNT EVOLUTIONISTS WON?
3 days - 4,645v
Posted 2009/03/26 - 15:10 GMT
So, in other words: monkey see, monkey do.
 
Which is not at all surprising, since that seems to characterize most of the arguments that creationists rely on. It's basically the same tactic that elementary schoolers use to respond to insults.
 
"Nuh-uh! You say that Creationism is religious and unscientific? Well then evolution is religious and unscientific! Nyah-nyah-nyah-nyah, take that!"
» Reply to Comment
Re: WHY HAVNT EVOLUTIONISTS WON?
1 day - 1,984v
Posted 2009/03/26 - 16:35 GMT
Why does Bigdog really still think i have a secret shadow account? Hovind's conspiracy theories have made him a little paranoid...
 
And did anyone else feel the christian love with his latest ad hominem
 
"lying gay man" I feel like i should put in the language it deserves, the language of the playground, "Nya nya! you're a lying gay man!! HAHAHA! I TOTALY won that argument!!!"
 
» Reply to Comment
Re: WHY HAVNT EVOLUTIONISTS WON?
5 days - 8,142v
Posted 2009/03/26 - 18:35 GMT
uch..uch ...uch..
 
dammit joe.
i was eating cake when i read your post, had to laugh so hard i almost choked to death.
plz don't kill me. XD
» Reply to Comment
Re: WHY HAVNT EVOLUTIONISTS WON?
4 days - 5,621v
Posted 2009/03/26 - 21:19 GMT

Sorry I called you a lying gay man. I didn't mean to stoop down to your level.
» Reply to Comment
Re: WHY HAVNT EVOLUTIONISTS WON?
5 days - 8,142v
Posted 2009/03/26 - 21:28 GMT
apology accepted. but still i never called u gay. just a troll, which isnt all that bad. i mean i could have called you a 14 year old boy.. or a 16 year old girl. hell o could even have called you goatse! but i didn't.
» Reply to Comment
Re: WHY HAVNT EVOLUTIONISTS WON?
3 days - 4,645v
Posted 2009/03/28 - 5:56 GMT
I didn't mean to stoop down to your level.
 
Childish backhand apology accepted - not that it was directed at me, but since you believe we're all the same person anyway...
» Reply to Comment
Re: WHY HAVNT EVOLUTIONISTS WON?
1 day - 1,877v
Posted 2009/03/27 - 0:39 GMT
Because creationist are by definition conspiracy theorist...they reject evidence and draw nutty conclusions.  Many "creationist" are also moon hoax theorist and reject global warming.  His belief that you have some obsession with him is just another faucet of this irrational mental state.
» Reply to Comment
Re: WHY HAVNT EVOLUTIONISTS WON?
4 days - 5,621v
Posted 2009/03/27 - 4:22 GMT

No. It's because I don't like it when we're trying to have a scientific debate and some kid starts calling me dumb names. Both of you have made yourselves sound so immature and offensive that I doubt either of you belief in this monkey to man myth. It sure doesn't help your cause. I'll just talk to more mature people about these subjects in the ELITE forum.
» Reply to Comment
Re: WHY HAVNT EVOLUTIONISTS WON?
5 days - 8,142v
Posted 2009/03/27 - 8:35 GMT
"both of you have made yourselves sound so immature and offensive that I doubt either of you belief in this monkey to man myth."
 
ok NOW YOU WENT AND DUNNIT!!
 
for the hundreth time:
WE DON"T !!! THAT "myth" IS A CREATIONIST CREATION. it's ....a ...
 
STRAWMAN ARGUEMENT!!!!!!!!!
 
again bigdog, you have COMPLETELY ignored ALL of our previous rebuttals on that remark. you just blatantly repeated yourself and yet again shown that you are so goddamned dishonest.
 
this IS unacceptable behaviour for ANYONE who want's to have
" because I don't like it when we're trying to have a scientific debate"
 
YOU SIR, aren't having a SCIENTIFIC debate. in fact you've shown multiple times that you aren't even having a debate, ur just blatantly stating something, not supporting it OR supporting it with false or minimal arguements. and when it starts to get to rough and we've exposed your arguements and wilfull ignorance, you just up and leave for the nexxt topic. that sir is not debating. THAT SIR, is trolling, imo.
 
i've bunked your math. and you called it a lie, not even pointign out WHERE i made a miscalculation.
not scientific.
 
we've told you what are strawman arguements and so cannot be used in an honest discussion. you just kept repeating them.
not honest debating.
 
and i could go on, but i have class...
 
 
» Reply to Comment
Re: WHY HAVNT EVOLUTIONISTS WON?
1 day - 1,877v
Posted 2009/03/27 - 23:30 GMT

Bigdog, if you want these, "kids" to stop picking on you then I would suggest you display some level of maturity yourself.  You say you are trying to have a "scientific" debate yet you refuse to acknowledge any criticism or rebuttal to your horribly misinformed opinions.  You just stick your fingers in your ears and yell, "NU UH!!!! MY DADDY SAID THAT THE DINOSAURS DIED CAUSE THEY TOCHED THEMSELVES AT NIGHT AND MY DADDY ISNT A LIAR!!!!"  Honestly we treat you as a child because that is the level at which you approach a "debate".  You have no interest in learning about the subject at hand.  You seem to believe that an academically credible rhetorical style can be comprised of nothing more than bull headedness and repetitious assertions of long dismissed ideas.  If you want to be taken seriously, you need to at least show some evidence that you are making an effort to educate yourself with regards to the material at hand.

» Reply to Comment
Re: WHY HAVNT EVOLUTIONISTS WON?
3 days - 4,645v
Posted 2009/03/28 - 6:02 GMT
So, in other words, you can dish it out but you can't take it - so you're taking your ball and going home.
» Reply to Comment
Re: WHY HAVNT EVOLUTIONISTS WON?
1 day - 1,411v
Posted 2009/04/13 - 4:53 GMT
Big dog is there an elite forum where intelligent discussion actually takes place? You mean like Heaven? What language because these hair brains certainly dont understand english.


GenTime: 0.0661 seconds

Site Design and Graphics Copyright 2002 - 2020 by Aubrey
Use of this site constitutes agreement to our » Legal Stuff