Dawkinswatch

Exposing Evolution As A Mess and Atheism As Hot-Air!

Kent Hovind:How Many Scientistists Believe in Evolution?

with 7 comments

Kent Hovind :Why Do Scientistist believe in Evolution if it is not true

I have said it before that Science is contrary to the Scientific Method in my series Evolution is a lie.

But why do scientists have to believe in the theory if it is not based on the truth? Science does not happen in a vacuum and whoever funds scientific projects has the upper hand, and can dictate which theory is fashionable. You can see the same thing with Global warming, I want to start a series on the lie that is Global warming.

Global warming is natural but they are using it for political reasons.

Advertisements

7 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. I have to congratulate you on a correctly spelled post. We do need to have a talk about commas, however, and random capitalization.

    Personal Failure

    July 27, 2009 at 5:19 pm

  2. “How Many Scientistists Believe in Evolution?”

    Look up “Project Steve” sometime.

    “I have said it before that Science in contrary to the Scientific Method in my series Evolution is a lie.”

    Yes and you were as wrong then as you are now. Why do you continue to use your old posts to back up your misguided claims, they have already proven false. Do you remember anything?

    “But why do scientists have to believe in the theory if it is not based on the truth?”

    It’s based on evidence, it’s based on facts, it is based on observation. It is not however based on folklore and that is what you alternative appears to be.

    “Global warming is natural but they are using it for political reasons.”

    Do you think that mankind has contributed in any way to global warming?

    Nobody

    July 27, 2009 at 9:35 pm

  3. Today’s reading comes from the Book of Darwin: The Origin of Species.

    Chapter VII: Miscellaneous Objections to the Theory of Natural Selection

    We read:

    “I will devote this chapter to the consideration of various miscellaneous objections which have been advanced against my views, as some of the previous discussions may thus be made clearer; but it would be useless to discuss all of them, as many have been made by writers who have not taken the trouble to understand the subject. Thus a distinguished German naturalist has asserted that the weakest part of my theory is, that I consider all organic beings as imperfect: what I have really said is, that all are not as perfect as they might have been in relation to their conditions, and this is shown to be the case by so many native forms in many quarters of the world having yielded their places to intruding foreigners. Nor can organic beings, even if they were at any one time perfectly adapted to their conditions of life, have remained so, when their conditions changed, unless they themselves likewise changed; and no one will dispute that the physical conditions of each country, as well as the numbers and kinds of its inhabitants, have undergone many mutations.”

    Amen. Darwin be with you.

    zunedita373

    July 28, 2009 at 6:32 am

  4. If evolution is true and humanity is the pinnacle of the evolutionary process, why does a process as basic as human reproduction fly in the face of everything that evolution holds true? Does it?

    World of Science

    July 30, 2009 at 6:04 pm

  5. @ Nobody global warming is natural, it is a cyclical affair. Many might have contributed to pollution but not to the warming of the planet.

    @zunedita373 If it Darwu=ins theory why were the head of the Rosicrucians Sir Francis Bacon able to write it before Darwin?

    @ World of Science, Please clarify your point- evolution says that man will become god like Nitsche claims.

    dawkinswatch

    August 7, 2009 at 1:38 pm

  6. “…global warming is natural, it is a cyclical affair. Many might have contributed to pollution but not to the warming of the planet.”

    So I take it your answer to my original question – “Do you think that mankind has contributed in any way to global warming?” is no? You do say however that we “might have contributed to pollution”; does that include greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide? Most greenhouse gases are the result of human activities – we know that greenhouse gases warm the planet. Carbon Dioxide emissions, in case you don’t know, is pollution. Therefore, once again you are wrong.

    Nobody

    August 8, 2009 at 1:50 am

  7. […] Kent Hovind Scientist Do Not Believe In Evolution […]


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: