100 Reasons Why Evolution Is Stupid (Part 1 of 11)
- Thread starter David Henson
- Start date
-
- Tags
- evolution kent hovind religion
temporalillusion
Technical Admin
Hardly Christ-like...
Evolution doesn't say how life started, just like gravity doesn't say how molecules form.
So for the purposes of the discussion of evolution, let's say that God started it all, god created the first live organism (single cell, whatever). Now we can continue talking about evolution.
Sure that's possible, it would be nice if that god actually made it a fair test then.
But that's irrelevant to the discussion of evolution as accepting evolution does not mean rejecting god.
That's fine, discovering the depth of his creation and how the diversity of life arose should be something he wants, not something that makes us his enemy.
Are we his enemy for discovering atoms? Electrons? Quantum mechanics? Gravity? Math? Are we his enemy for pursuing geology? Astronomy? Archeology? Why are we then his enemy in your eyes for pursuing biology?
Of course not.
When evolutionary theory is so-distilled down to the irreducible
it is obviously so absurd that no one, even you God-haters, can accept it.
Safe-Keeper
My avatar is not a Drumpf hat
temporalillusion
Technical Admin
Evolution does not tell us about how life started any more than gravity tells us about how molecules come together.
How can you not understand this? If you want to talk about abiogenesis, which is about how life started, then say so.
Using the correct word to refer to the correct thing is so basic, otherwise how do you expect to be understood?
I doubt anyone here hates god.
Foster Zygote
Dental Floss Tycoon
- Joined
- Jun 24, 2006
- Messages
- 22,108
I'm telling, I'm telling...
Can you not understand how my only several posts prompted more than 40 posts with more than 60 questions
and complaints about why I wasn't answering questions?
So you go and tattle-tell.
Reported. Reported.
Marduk
Banned
- Joined
- Apr 26, 2009
- Messages
- 10,183
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
dropzone
Master Poster
- Joined
- May 24, 2009
- Messages
- 2,033
David, this shows just how wrong you are: Most of us disagree with Bill as a matter of course, but we come together regarding just how wrong you are.
temporalillusion
Technical Admin
You're the one making the posts, if you can't deal with volume of the responses then stop making 10 different statements in every post. Say it's too much, ask people to slow down, or pick a very specific and focused thing and stay on that. Or just pick one or two people to interact with and tell the others to be patient, they'll have their day.
If you show that you are actually willing to have a back and forth discussion and stay focused on a single item and work from there then it would be a lot easier for you.
EDIT: Or have the thread moderated yes.
John Jones
Penultimate Amazing
Tricky
Briefly immortal
Okay, I'm going to go a little off track here and talk about general evolution, not biologic evolution.
The word "evolution" strictly means "change over time" but in common usage it means sustainable change over time. Things chage all the time, but if it is a brief, ephemeral change, it is not preserved and possibly nobody knows it even happened. So we're talking about things that hang around long enough to be observed or otherwise evidenced. Well, stars and planets that fall into stable orbital arrangements (when other forces don't destroy them) are preserved. Elements and compounds that fall into stable configurations, like hydrogen and iron and oxygen and water are preserved. Crystals that fall into stable arrangements are preserved, and may even provide the seed for new crystals of the same arrangement, thus further preserving themselves. The Big Bang is not exactly preserved, but it is strongly evidenced.
So it goes. Stable arrangements stick around. But just being stable is not enough. What if by chance the stable arrangement is destroyed? Is that the end of the arrangement? Probably not. If it is truly stable, things will fall into that stability well again. But some things, like crystals, go even farther. They promote making copies of themselves. That not only provides stability, but causes their "kind" to increase.
So why should organic compounds be different? Organic compounds are much more complex than crystals, but the same rules of stability and self-reproduction apply to them as well. Maybe the process takes more steps. Maybe there are more intermediate forms, but in the end, an organic compound becomes abundant because the process that makes it is repeatable. Maybe not perfectly repeatable (leading to hithero unheard of organic compounds) but repeatable enough to assure that lots of them exist. Think "amino acids". And our knowledge doesn't stop there. We know of numerous self-replicating "organic" compounds. No, they aren't what we call "life" but they have a complex route to stabilty.
So when does it become "life"? This is an important but misunderstood question. After all, what is "life"? Well guess what. There isn't firm agreement on that. Sure there are characteristics that we define for what "life" must do, but there is no universal agreement on what those characteristics are. Some people say viruses are "life", some don't. Some say they are "sometimes alive".
But here's the point. "Life" is what we define it to be. It is a human designation that has a fuzzy boundary. The word is the product of what humans love to do; Classify things.
What are species? They are what humans have defined them to be. What are organic compounds? They are what humans have defined them to be. What are crystals? They are what humans have defined them to be. In every case, there are species, compounds, crystals that humans will argue over as to whether they fit our definition or not.
Our definition.
When did non-life become life? It depends on "our definition". If we had not required metabolism in our definition, then viruses would not be in doubt. If we had not required organic compounds and DNA, then maybe crystals could be defined as "life". But we made definitions and separated things into them as best we could, as humans are wont to do. We did the same thing with Kingdom, Phylum, Class, Order, Family, Genus, Species and Subspecies. We draw the lines. We do the dividing. No matter that stuff gets reclassified all the time, we will have a filing system.
But the fundamental rules of longevity persist. If something stays around long enough, it will be classified. Many of the common ancestors of various related groups of organisms have been classified, but many also have not. We don't have enough information to classify them. Does that mean that they never existed? Does that mean that they are not a "kind"? Does that mean... anything at all? Well, yes. It means our classification system still needs work.
But let us not be so enamored of our classification system that we toss out anything that doesn't fit. Let us not say that "since this ancestor is neither a sheep nor a goat, it cannot have been possible". That, my friends, is hubris. It is putting ourselves above reality and evidence. It is like trying to claim that The Iliad is worthless because we can't tell for sure which parts are are history and which are fiction.
Evolution is a reality in everything we do. Not just organic evolution, but evolution of the universe and evolution of a computer operating system. If a trait has survival qualities, then those qualities will be passed on, whether or not you still call it the same "species" or "OS".
The word "evolution" strictly means "change over time" but in common usage it means sustainable change over time. Things chage all the time, but if it is a brief, ephemeral change, it is not preserved and possibly nobody knows it even happened. So we're talking about things that hang around long enough to be observed or otherwise evidenced. Well, stars and planets that fall into stable orbital arrangements (when other forces don't destroy them) are preserved. Elements and compounds that fall into stable configurations, like hydrogen and iron and oxygen and water are preserved. Crystals that fall into stable arrangements are preserved, and may even provide the seed for new crystals of the same arrangement, thus further preserving themselves. The Big Bang is not exactly preserved, but it is strongly evidenced.
So it goes. Stable arrangements stick around. But just being stable is not enough. What if by chance the stable arrangement is destroyed? Is that the end of the arrangement? Probably not. If it is truly stable, things will fall into that stability well again. But some things, like crystals, go even farther. They promote making copies of themselves. That not only provides stability, but causes their "kind" to increase.
So why should organic compounds be different? Organic compounds are much more complex than crystals, but the same rules of stability and self-reproduction apply to them as well. Maybe the process takes more steps. Maybe there are more intermediate forms, but in the end, an organic compound becomes abundant because the process that makes it is repeatable. Maybe not perfectly repeatable (leading to hithero unheard of organic compounds) but repeatable enough to assure that lots of them exist. Think "amino acids". And our knowledge doesn't stop there. We know of numerous self-replicating "organic" compounds. No, they aren't what we call "life" but they have a complex route to stabilty.
So when does it become "life"? This is an important but misunderstood question. After all, what is "life"? Well guess what. There isn't firm agreement on that. Sure there are characteristics that we define for what "life" must do, but there is no universal agreement on what those characteristics are. Some people say viruses are "life", some don't. Some say they are "sometimes alive".
But here's the point. "Life" is what we define it to be. It is a human designation that has a fuzzy boundary. The word is the product of what humans love to do; Classify things.
What are species? They are what humans have defined them to be. What are organic compounds? They are what humans have defined them to be. What are crystals? They are what humans have defined them to be. In every case, there are species, compounds, crystals that humans will argue over as to whether they fit our definition or not.
Our definition.
When did non-life become life? It depends on "our definition". If we had not required metabolism in our definition, then viruses would not be in doubt. If we had not required organic compounds and DNA, then maybe crystals could be defined as "life". But we made definitions and separated things into them as best we could, as humans are wont to do. We did the same thing with Kingdom, Phylum, Class, Order, Family, Genus, Species and Subspecies. We draw the lines. We do the dividing. No matter that stuff gets reclassified all the time, we will have a filing system.
But the fundamental rules of longevity persist. If something stays around long enough, it will be classified. Many of the common ancestors of various related groups of organisms have been classified, but many also have not. We don't have enough information to classify them. Does that mean that they never existed? Does that mean that they are not a "kind"? Does that mean... anything at all? Well, yes. It means our classification system still needs work.
But let us not be so enamored of our classification system that we toss out anything that doesn't fit. Let us not say that "since this ancestor is neither a sheep nor a goat, it cannot have been possible". That, my friends, is hubris. It is putting ourselves above reality and evidence. It is like trying to claim that The Iliad is worthless because we can't tell for sure which parts are are history and which are fiction.
Evolution is a reality in everything we do. Not just organic evolution, but evolution of the universe and evolution of a computer operating system. If a trait has survival qualities, then those qualities will be passed on, whether or not you still call it the same "species" or "OS".
Last edited:
I am ONLY here because that is not even remotely true.I don't hate any gods, but I bet you'd like to see me burn in hell for eternity, wouldn't you?
John Jones
Penultimate Amazing
Fine. I have no ill-will for any of you.So how's that been working out for you?
Vortigern99
Sorcerer Supreme
154, you tend to ignore the most salient posts and address mainly the snarky or overtly anti-religious ones. In doing so you've neglected some really excellent points by temporalillusion, who among other gems has said:
That's fine, discovering the depth of his creation and how the diversity of life arose should be something he [God] wants, not something that makes us his enemy.
Are we his enemy for discovering atoms? Electrons? Quantum mechanics? Gravity? Math? Are we his enemy for pursuing geology? Astronomy? Archeology? Why are we then his enemy in your eyes for pursuing biology?
Are we his enemy for discovering atoms? Electrons? Quantum mechanics? Gravity? Math? Are we his enemy for pursuing geology? Astronomy? Archeology? Why are we then his enemy in your eyes for pursuing biology?
dropzone
Master Poster
- Joined
- May 24, 2009
- Messages
- 2,033
Yeah, but when his pal Satan shows up on Poker Night and the two of them start making side bets it sucks the fun right out of it.
Kibbitzing that is NOT welcome:
God: dropzone is drawing into a busted flush.
Satan: But Bill drew to an inside straight and lost.
Both together: So Tom's pair of deuces wins, after all!
And they buy each other a drink.
If they'd keep their darn mouths shut it would help, but they are so used to talking with mortals they don't think of it. Which especially sucks when they think about mortals they're pissed at and some poor schizo overhears and thinks it's a mission from God to kill all the fornicating teens at the nearby summer camp that is closed for the season.
Though it can be rewarding when one thinks, "This stupid $4 keyboard just died. I wish the SOB who built it dies," and it happens.
Dude, and his buddy, can be annoying bastards. They live outside Time Itself. Can't they stop being pins in the ass of EVERYBODY ELSE who ever lived?
Last edited: