100 Reasons Why Evolution Is Stupid (Part 1 of 11)

[Dancing David]

Regarding cosmic evolution he uses the unscientific Big Bang. He asks "What exploded?" He points out that according to Isaac Asimov, Georges Edward Lemaitre's notion of the big bang was that it was a mass of "no more than a few light-years in diameter." (about twelve trillion miles). In 1965 this was reduced to 275 million miles, in 1972 down to 71 million miles, 1974 down to 54 thousand miles, 1983 down to a trillionth the diameter of a proton. Now they say that nothing exploded.

Wow way to derail your own thread on the Road to Strawland.

Now it is believed that all the matter in the universe started out as being no bigger than a period at the end of this sentence.

Nope.

Eventually all the matter in the universe will be compacted down to the size of a period again and that this cycle happens every 80 to 100 billion years.

Nope.

They call this science and they teach it to children in schools.

That is the end of part 1.

 

[Dancing David]

You certainly may. I seen him in a debate at a university with three evolutionist including one professor at that university, and though I pretty much disagree with his beliefs I couldn't help but be impressed with his presentation and ability to make those guys look like idiots.

Appeals to emotion does not equal science.

Ridicule does not equal debate.

Strawman does not equal refutation.

 

[paximperium]

Appeals to emotion does not equal science.

Ridicule does not equal debate.

Strawman does not equal refutation.

Hovind's nonsense does not equal "good understanding of science".

 

[Tricky]

This thread seems to be going downhill in a hurry. Please stop bickering, making personal attacks, posting off topic. In fact, don't breach the Membership Agreement. If you have a doubt whether or not you're breaching it, then err of the side of caution.

At present, I've issued no infractions, but if mods have to come back to this thread, that will probably change.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Tricky

 

[Cainkane1]

I think the biggest obstacle for Creationists versus science is that evolution makes sense and cannot be scientifically rebutted unlike the genesis story which can be rebutted and is scientific hogwash.

 

[dafydd]

David,

The mutated form of the L-gulano-y-lactone oxidase gene pretty much wraps up the issue of common ancestry between ape species. Among ape species in which this pseudogene has been identified, it is most similar between humans and chimpanzees, as predicted by evolutionary theory. How do you explain the presence of this hereditary feature among distinct ape species without invoking evolutionary theory?

Well David?

 

[Dancing David]

Oh, I remember that party! What I want to know is what about the fraction of a second before the alleged big bang? Is that permissible? To use lower case? Big Bang, sorry.

The BBT (big band theory) is a theory that attempts to explain the apparent cosmological redshift, first demonstrated by Hubble and his primo grad student.

It is post facto, and totally trying to describe the data and observations that exist.

Some thoughts about the BBT, it can only listen to the echoes of the music that the band played.
IE The theory is based solely upon the observations as they exist. And it does a really good job of that, including the Cosmic Microwave Background, elementary abundance and others.

The BBt can not tell you what the hall or the musicians looked like or who wrote teh score.
IE: as a post facto description, it breaks down at the point of the merger of QM and relativity, as those theories are not unified.
Under the current models in fact one can not see 'out of the universe' or 'before the big bang'. these are not able to be gathered under the current models.

The Big Bang falls apart as we go back and get closer to the event and even under what we know of QM and relativity it gets really weird, but without the reconciliation of the two theories, it will remain unknown. The theory starts at about t>10^-36 seconds..

as it involves both QM and relativity the concepts are counter intuitive and non-classical, when they start to talk about how after the speculative there is a small but expanding infinite space, my mind reels

 

[Cainkane1]

I need to ask this question. You're not going to ask us to discuss the other ten videos are you?

 

[drkitten]

I need to ask this question. You're not going to ask us to discuss the other ten videos are you?

Of course he is. Or at least a few of them. He'll also open a new thread for each of them and start from scratch, making the same mistakes of fact that have already been corrected in this one.

My hope is that he will get tired of being swatted around like a cat toy by about video four or five. I take further hope from the fact that he's already resorting to abusive PM's; the odds are quite good that he will suicide-by-mod in the next week or so.

 

[Pup]

They call this science and they teach it to children in schools.

I think that statement, from the OP, gets right to the heart of the problem.

There are two separate, unrelated issues. One is the teaching of what we currently understand to be the way things are. That's got nothing to do with science (the scientific method), really. Many of the finer points are subject to change at any time, but you have to teach people something. So you teach the best available current knowledge. In a generation, some of it might be wrong, but that's why people need to keep learning.

We can usually predict what will still be correct, what will be modified and what's just speculation that will be overturned, but not always, and even so, the degree of certainty doesn't always get conveyed or gets misinterpreted.

People who don't really buy into the scientific method, tend to think there's more certainty in stuff they want to be true and less certainty in stuff they hope isn't true, which is why you hear people going on about how evolution is "just a theory" or whatever. Well, so's gravity, but you don't hear people saying our knowledge about gravity will surely be abandoned soon, because they don't have anything emotionally invested in that.

Then there's science (the scientific method). That's taught in schools too, when kids are shown how to do experiments, eliminate variables and biases, and draw conclusions.

But science is a process, not a collection of statements. The statements are just the current results.

It doesn't work to mock the current conclusions derived by the scientific method unless you understand how they're derived and can argue against them based on the scientific method. Otherwise it just sounds like willful ignorance.

If you want to argue against science, it makes more sense to argue against the scientific method itself. But that's a lot harder to do.

 

[laca]

Of course he is. Or at least a few of them. He'll also open a new thread for each of them and start from scratch, making the same mistakes of fact that have already been corrected in this one.

My hope is that he will get tired of being swatted around like a cat toy by about video four or five. I take further hope from the fact that he's already resorting to abusive PM's; the odds are quite good that he will suicide-by-mod in the next week or so.

 

[David Henson]

Every form of life I can think of evolves and adapts. If species did not evolve, they would die.

So if the apes hadn't evolved into us they would have died?

You don't realize how stupid that is?!

 

[David Henson]

Wow, welcome back David. Does this mean you're actually going to adress the arguments made in response to your previous posts (some of which by me) that you left to languish?

Probably not. Had the arguments been made were worth a response one would have been provided, or the argument was buried in so much crap I couldn't get to it.

There isn't really much I could write in response to this post that hasn't been adressed yet.

Tell me something I wouldn't have guessed.

I would suggest that if you *really* are interested in science of any form (although evolution/geology seem to be the ones you focus on most) that you start by following a course in your chosen subject, or pick up the starter text books, work your way up until you understand the evidence presented by the scientific community over the years yourself and then either agree, or set up experiments that actually are reproducible and disprove the current theories. That way you don't have to rely on what others tell you one way or the other.

Believe like you believe or shut up? Like, uh, religion in the dark ages?

 

[Marduk]

So if the apes hadn't evolved into us they would have died?

You don't realize how stupid that is?!

whats stupid is that he is using ape as a generic term and you as a specific one.

the apes that didn't evolve into us did become extinct
thats a scientific fact
that some of them also evolved into the apes that are around today that arent us seems lost on you

This in effect means that your ideas about how evolution works is dumber than the apes are, they being a living example that evolution works and you being the same kind of living example but just much much slower on the uptake

 

[Damien Evans]

Lately I have discovered that I seem to have developed an interest in science as presented by guys like this (Dr. Kent Hovind) who seem to me, to have a good understanding of science but not so much the Bible, so I'm interested in what "evolutionist" have to say about that more than his religious beliefs. What interests me is that he sees evolution as a religious belief, and so this thread is in religion rather than science.

Personally I disagree with his modern day Christian perspective, such as the Bible being inerrant, as well as his position on the universe being only 6,000 years old, dinosaurs existing alongside humans and - well, his views on returning that which belong to Caesar to Caesar, aside from all of that, the main points in this video (part 1 of 11) which make sense to me are as follows.

1. Evolution is a slippery word. His definition allows for 5 unscientific and purely theoretical possibilities, namely; Cosmic evolution (the origin of time, space and matter), Chemical evolution (The origin of higher elements from hydrogen), Stellar and planetary evolution (Origin of stars and planets), Organic evolution (origin of life), and Macro-evolution (Changing from one kind into another), as well as 1 possibility which is scientific (observed) and in harmony with the Bible and that is Micro-evolution (variations within a kind).

Regarding cosmic evolution he uses the unscientific Big Bang. He asks "What exploded?" He points out that according to Isaac Asimov, Georges Edward Lemaitre's notion of the big bang was that it was a mass of "no more than a few light-years in diameter." (about twelve trillion miles). In 1965 this was reduced to 275 million miles, in 1972 down to 71 million miles, 1974 down to 54 thousand miles, 1983 down to a trillionth the diameter of a proton. Now they say that nothing exploded.

Now it is believed that all the matter in the universe started out as being no bigger than a period at the end of this sentence. Eventually all the matter in the universe will be compacted down to the size of a period again and that this cycle happens every 80 to 100 billion years. They call this science and they teach it to children in schools.

That is the end of part 1.

I'll save everyone else the bother:

 

[David Henson]

Don't go there. The evidence for biological evolution is too good to be associated with arguments like that.

Dude. You can't even address the OP. I've gone through so many posts and not one has addressed the OP. Really simple and short.

You are preaching to the choir.

 

[John Jones]

So if the apes hadn't evolved into us they would have died?

You don't realize how stupid that is?!

I agree that what you said sounds stupid, but that's not what anyone else has said. Some apes evolved into humans. Some apes evolved into more modern apes. Some went extinct.

Evolution is not goal-oriented.

Cheers

 

[David Henson]

Aren't there many different meanings to 'Christianity'?

Or is it an umbrella term?

If that's the case, why can't evolution also be an umbrella term?

Interesting point. Just because it walks like a Christian doesn't make it Christian and just because it claims to be science . . . actually that doesn't work. Science is just observation, and, damn, blind as hell apparently.

 

[John Jones]

Dude. You can't even address the OP. I've gone through so many posts and not one has addressed the OP. Really simple and short.

You are preaching to the choir.

The OP has been addressed several times. You just didn't like the responses.

 

[David Henson]

Evolution is proven by the fossil record and by DNA comparisons which show the relationship especially between humans and primates. I'm no scientist though so I'll leave the arguing to the more qualified.

We will get to the fossil record later, some pretty damaging stuff there, I can't wait.