• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

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

154 said:
Nonsense. Almost all mutations are a scrambling of information that is counter-productive in result. No mutations add improved information.
Click to expand...

Those are unsupported claims that the scientific illiterati frequently make with little or no supporting evidence.

I've been reading your stuff, and you're no different.

Nice try. Better luck next time. :)
 
154 said:
That's easier than admitting you have no clue and NO MAN can explain it.
Click to expand...
There are several valid hypotheses at present but none can answer this question.

You seem to have an answer. Would you care to present the data and hypotheses for review here?
 
154 said:
I'm not aware of any, so please elaborate on the dissenting perspectives and dissenters?
Click to expand...

I asked you. So.. Then.. Gravity is as invalid as Evolution in your mind?

Do you hold to Intelligent falling, or Intelligent Holding Things Down?
 
154 said:
I'm not aware of any, so please elaborate on the dissenting perspectives and dissenters?
Click to expand...

So if you aren't aware of any, why aren't you dismissing it like you are dismissing evolution? Why isn't GOD the source of gravity? Magnetism?
 
154 said:
That's easier than admitting you have no clue and NO MAN can explain it.
Click to expand...

Do you believe women are a different species? Or is it because of your religious indoctrination towards male chauvinism that makes you say things like that?
 
Shalamar said:
This sort of thing seems to be something that the die-hard fundamentalists cling to. They are passionate and committed wholly to their faith, that they cannot perceive any other way. And they take their blind faith and passion and ascribe it to science, treating it as any other religion.

They can not be more wrong.

Science is the question to find a better answer than the one we currently have. And that answer is quite often 'I don't know'.

I don't know. A wonderful, fantastic answer. It drives us, it consumes us to find what what the real answer is. So to David, Radook, and 154, that is what scientists strive for. The answer to 'I don't know'. They want evidence, facts. things that can be seen, measured, felt.

To the religious, there is no 'I don't know'. There is only 'God'. What created the universe? 'God!' Where did we come from? GOD! What is lightning and thunder? God! What is over that next hill? GOD!

If that were the case, Humanity would still kbe cowering at the back of a cave while the witch doctor screamed that God is angry at us, and that is why the sky lights up and shakes.

But there were those who answered 'I don't know. Lets find out!'. And so we find out what is over that hill, beyond the ocean, what stars are made of. Where humans and all other life came from. How the universe began.

We still have to answer some things as 'I don't know'. What was there before the big bang? I don't know. But we may find out some day!

Even then, the answers may change. New evidence, new information, a new branch of mathematics. Science changes based on what we discover.

The problem with the author of the OP's video, is that he simply is not interested in the answer. In fact, he has his own personal answer. God. And nothing could possibly change that. He will throw away evidence, and manufacture other evidence out of whole cloth to fit his already built conclusion. He will mis-state, on purpose, what the science says in order to attempt to discredit it.

That leads us to Evolution. To be a little more specific, The Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection.

There is a great deal of evidence in favor of the theory to support the fact. We know life changes over time. There is no discounting that. The theory is the explanation on how, and why this occurs.

Will a dog ever give birth to something that is not a dog? In all probability, no. And the Theory of Evolution really doesn't state otherwise. Why? Because individuals do not evolve. Life is not pokemon. However, populations do evolve, and mainly over a very very very VERY great deal of time. Mutations occur within populations. Some harmful, some beneficial, and most neutral. The harmful ones will tend to be weeding out, and the beneficial ones will help the carriers of it spread their genes to the next generation.

Take a single population of dogs, for example. Split them up into two groups, and make sure they cannot interbreed. Place them into two differing environments, and give it oh.. lets say a 50 thousand generations. What will they look like? Will they be able to interbreed with each other? Good questions. And hard to speculate on. Chances are, however, they they would still superficially resemble the animals in generation 1, but the two new populations will be unable to inter breed with other, and may not even look like each other. They would be two different species, with a common ancestor, that would *no longer exist*.

The fossil record shows this. Genetics even shows this. This is the best answer we currently have to the question of 'How did life become so diverse?'

And yet, this could all be undone tomorrow. A scientist could have new evidence that what we know is in fact, not true. This evidence will be studied, and examined, and if indeed factual, a new theory will be written, or the existing theory will be altered. Science marches on.

There are many many branches of science. Some related, some not. Abiogenesis, for example, is related to Evolution, for example. But they do not rely on each other. While we now know the answer as to how life became so diverse, we are not quite so certain on where life began. But we've got some pretty good ideas and potential answers!

Same with the Big Bang. We know the Universe began from a single point. How big was it? What did it contain? What was there before the big bang? I don't know. But I can't wait to see the answers that are found!


Sadly, however, out there, the witch doctors are still screaming that we're going to die, because the thunder means that the gods are angry.
Click to expand...

Re-posting this, since it seems that 154 and his ilk missed it.
 
154 said:
Meanwhile, you believe all the magnificence of life is a meaningless and purposeless cosmic accident.
Click to expand...

Just because that's the only alternative you can think of other than "God did it" doesn't mean that that's true of everyone else.


154 said:
Some of us, however, are in a hurry to exalt our own limited understanding as quickly as possible to eliminate the concept of God, but that only to assuage their consciences from dealing with that which they don't like to deal with. Some others of us are not in such a hurry.
Click to expand...

"You reject evolution because you are in a hurry to reduce your own understanding as quickly as possible to eliminate any discomfort with being unable to answer why things happen as quickly as possible and create the concept of God so you can throw it all on God and not have to think about the hard questions and deal with life's ambiguity and deal with the results. Some others of us are not in such a hurry."

See, I can make up statements about your motivations and thoughts too. :rolleyes:

Accepting evolution does not equate eliminating the concept of God, you keep saying that but it just isn't true. Most Christians accept evolution.

The concept of a blue collar god who makes each animal individually is inferior to the concept of a supremely intelligent god who starts a universe with a few simple parameters that eventually gives rise to life all by itself.

It's like the difference between being able to write "I will not make copying mistakes" 10 times on a page, and inventing the printing press.

154 said:
I question every authority, even yours, so you don't understand "believers" near as much as you think you certainly do.
Click to expand...

Yeah, being in churches and in ministry, teaching, preaching, leading worship, etc leaves me not understanding believers.

You have two authorities you do not question.

I don't have authorities, I don't accept evolution because an authority tells me it's true, I accept evolution because I've examined the evidence myself, for many years before changing my mind.

154 said:
For instance, give me YOUR objections to the "scientific authorities" that proclaim evolution as the truth explaining origins.
Click to expand...

First your request here is flawed to begin with... first "scientific authorities" makes no sense, second I'm not sure what you mean by truth, but if you mean "Truth" in the sense religious people mean it then that doesn't exist in science, all truth is provisional, and third evolution doesn't explain origins, it explains the history of life after it originated (something that I'm sure has been said to you many many times, why do you not understand that?).

But I'll answer the spirit of the question.

Well at first my objection was simply that it contradicted what the Bible said. Once I was forced to give up my simplistic view of the Bible based on learning church history and the history of early Christian writings, I could start to examine specific claims and things individually. Like the creation account, is it meant to be historically accurate, or is it a story told to communicate a theological point?

Then my objection was one along the lines of "it's too complicated", which is just an argument from ignorance. So I educated myself on what evolution actually does say rather than what churches had (intentionally?) falsely told me evolution says in order to properly equip myself to combat it.

Unfortunately god created me with this unfortunate quirk called intellectual honesty, so as I learned I was forced to change my view from a young earth creationist to an old earth creationist to a deist type view. I didn't change because I wanted to, I changed because I was forced to.

That a good enough 50,000 foot view? Recapping a decade of education and thought is kind of hard to do in a few short sentences.

154 said:
"Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools."
Click to expand...

Actually that completely misrepresents how most scientists would feel about their craft... the beginning of wisdom is first knowing you are ignorant is probably a better representation.
 
154 said:
I'm not aware of any, so please elaborate on the dissenting perspectives and dissenters?
Click to expand...
And no one seems to be aware of any dissenting perspective on the scientific theory of evolution except for people who don't know science or what they are talking about.

Would you care to present the actual hypothesis and actual evidence that would be a valid alternative to evolution?
 
154 said:
That's easier than admitting you have no clue and NO MAN can explain it.
Click to expand...
Someone correct me if I am wrong but isn't this what has happened with quantum mechanics. We essentially know what is occurring but the why is an entirely different story.
 
Shalamar said:
I asked you. So.. Then.. Gravity is as invalid as Evolution in your mind?
Click to expand...

I can OBSERVE the action evidencing gravity all the time, every time, at the drop of a hat, literally.

Beyond the variety WITHIN species of micro-evolution, no one has ever observed macro-evolution, anywhere ever, yet it is accepted by some most willingly.

paximperium said:
And no one seems to be aware of any dissenting perspective on the scientific theory of evolution except for people who don't know science or what they are talking about.
Click to expand...
Typically, as always, those who do not tow the party line are dismissed and disparaged, as if there can be no acceptable dissenting opinion.

temporalillusion said:
Actually that completely misrepresents how most scientists would feel about their craft... the beginning of wisdom is first knowing you are ignorant is probably a better representation.
Click to expand...
"The reverential awe of God is the beginning of wisdom."
Forsaking God is forsaking wisdom.
 
Last edited:
paximperium said:
I'm curious.
Do our Creaotards have actual criticisms of the Theory of Evolution or are they just busy attacking their own ignorance and exceptionally stupid version of it?
I can wholeheartedly agree that their version of "evolution" is exceptionally stupid.
Click to expand...
Why has 154 not answered this simple question yet?
Why has 123 abandoned his mutation argument?
Why has 987 not presented a single criticism of the actual Theory of Evolution yet?
 
:covereyes I need to stop reading this tonight before I smash my head through my desk
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom