Re: A question to creationists

Video Cam Direct Upload

Category:

Education

Tags:

• Atheism
• freewill
• soul
• New
• World
• order
• Bible
• evolution
• hate
• devils
• satan
• nwo
• aliens
• ufo
• nsa
• government
• planet
• nibiru
• 2012
• evil
• abortion
• love
• tribulation
• endtimes
• guns
• food
• life
• prolife
• Jesus
• alex
• jones
• Frankenfood
• genetically
• modified
• swine
• flu
• atheism
• atheist
• physicalism
• dualism
• philosophy
• God

[mbruck77]

Uups, I didn't see you already made a video on that before commenting on his all-caps comment :)

The strange thing is that he started claiming he could refute evolution. So he must at least have one specific definition that he thinks can be refuted. Why doesn't he at least present that one?

[gsusreloded]

Because he was too busy trying to parrot Hovind...

[SouthernRaisedAtheis]

The concept of evolution being vague is another hovidism. kent says that there are 6 types of evolution dealing universes, planets, etc etc. Basically trying to cram the big bang theory, abiogensis, and evolution all into one concept.

[gsusreloded]

Yeah, I know, Ive watched several of his debates. They are all the same, I instantly knew what this user was trying to do when he asked for the definition of evolution as if it was apparent in the context of the conversation...

[dytany]

not many people really understand the ''Big bang'' theory what really happen is there was and still is a red mist in the middle of the universe that is still creating u see our universe is still being made it is slowy getiin bigger and it is theorised that it will shrink eventually so we hav seen other areas of space being made... but according to u religious people god/gods do that. is it really that hard to see how stuff really happens its put in black and white for @#$& sake and im only 13

[a01011399]

EVOLUTION HAS MANY DIFFERENT MEANINGS, YOU CAN NOT BLAME ME FOR THAT....

Creationists are simply trying to determin the diferent types of evolution.

[a01011399]

when taking about biological evolution, I personally like to keep the term clear. Claiming that evolution is: change form generation to generation, is very ambiogios and general.

[a01011399]

agree, usually evolution is identified with biology, but since cosmical, chemical, and stellar evolution also contradic creation, creationists sometimes prefer to separate the topics.

I see no problem with that

[h8uall66]

Agreed, the term is in no way ambiguous. Only creationists pretend that they don't understand the definition. I can go to any college campus in the country and ask someone to point me to the evolution professors and NO ONE will think I'm talking about cosmology or chemistry. I find the "playing dumb" tactic used by creationists to be extremely bizarre. It gets them no credibility and makes them seem even more dishonest and clueless.

[SouthernRaisedAtheis]

how many more definitions of evolution do you really need to make up thinking that it will actually make what you are saying make sense?

[a01011399]

´´Basically trying to cram the big bang theory, abiogensis, and evolution all into one concept. ´´

no, we do the exact opposite, we try to make specific definitions of evolution, to prevent the ambiguity of this term.

even in biological contexts, the term evolution has different meanings, people have to guess the meaning of evolution, depending on the context where the term ´´evolution´´ is written.

[a01011399]

the term evolution is not exclusive to biology, scientists use terms like ´´stellar evolution´´ and ´´cosmical evolution´´ this terms where not invented by creationists.

this topics are unrelated to Darwinian evolution, but they oppose creationism. this is why Hovind separated this terms and refute one by one.

can you tell me exactly why it is a crime to separate the diferent kinds of evolution?

[SouthernRaisedAtheis]

It's not. Evolution is biology. Big Bang is physics. etc etc etc. If you would actually learn about evolution, you would know this.

[a01011399]

nooooooo, Kent Hovind was trying to reduce the ambiguity of evolution by proposing his 6 definitions.

I don´t see the problem with that... ¿why are evolutionists always trying to keep the term ambiguos?