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

[SOdhner]

Reported. It's spammy enough to quote lengthy posts, or series of posts, just to post a short answer, but doing it just to point, well, nothing?

Please refrain from publicly stating that you have reported a post though, since that tends to achieve nothing more than further derails and bickering.

You're not wrong, of course, but... just FYI.

154 and David and Radrook respond to posts in a way that is highly unlikely to happen by accident. The chance of a direct reply is inversely proportional to the validity and relevance of the comment. So if you post something off topic, or partially inaccurate, or somehow ambiguous, they respond. If you post a detailed rebuttal or specifically ask them to explain something they said... nothing.

This is normal and expected if they are trolls.

My point is that we can't be surprised at replies like the one 154 made. It's par for the course, and anyone who has been hanging around this subforum for a while knows it. The best thing would be to just put all three of them on our ignore lists and move one, but most of us (myself included) aren't strong enough or feel there's still some merit to posting rebuttals in case someone slightly more rational is lurking and reading.

But let's not make a big deal out of yet another non-response. It's just not uncommon enough to be interesting.

 

[Maia]

Okay, I've read the OP and I've made an atempt to skim this thread, but I have to admit that at some point, I just gave up. So I've got a question: is this some kind of thread record for length achieved in such a short amount of time? It's been less than a DAY, and it's already eleven pages.

BTW, Happy Birthday To Me! Cake for everyone!

 

[six7s]

Apart from that waste of our time, anything good you guys want to discuss? Seen anything good on the telly recently?

Not so much the telly... more the tubes...

I have (thanks to this thread) recently re-watched two superb videos by cdk007:

Evolution IS a Blind Watchmaker
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mcAq9bmCeR0

Once again, creationists / ID supporters miss the basic concept of evolution entirely. No biologists believes, nor is there any evidence that complex systems form spontaneously in one fell swoop. That would be creation.

The Origin of Life - Abiogenesis - Dr. Jack Szostak
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6QYDdgP9eg

This video summarizes one of the best leading models. Yes there are others. Science may never know exactly how life DID start, but we will know many ways how life COULD start. Don't be fooled by creationist arguments as even a minimal understanding of biology and chemistry is enough to realize they have no clue what they are talking about.

 

[slingblade]

You did not come from a rock by accident.

Nope, I came from two people bumping uglies until one sperm wriggled into one egg.

There is a God that you are answerable to.

Nope, there's not.

He is not your enemy unless you make Him so.

He's not my enemy because he isn't real.



Oh, and HAPPY BIRTHDAY, MAIA!

 

[Hokulele]

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. ...

Minor nitpick, the original implication of "evolution" was a sort of "unfolding", not simply changing. This can best be seen in how astrophysicists use the term "stellar evolution". For stars along the main sequence, there is a very consistent, predictable path they take from formation to whatever their final end state may be (nova, supernova, black dwarf, etc.). So at least for stellar evolution, there is an end result that can be predicted based on how the star formed.

This is completely untrue for biological evolution, where there really is no goal, nor any single path an evolving species can take. This is one of the reasons Charles Darwin originally rejected the term "evolution" in favor of "descent with modification". It is more accurate, if quite a bit more cumbersome.

Sadly, almost every Creationist understands it to mean the "unfolding" version, rather than the "changing" version, hence the obsession with randomness and chance. If it isn't following a predetermined path (hello, god!), it can't fit in with the rest of the stuff that uses the term "evolution", hence it can't exist.

 

[MattusMaximus]

There's been about six pages of posts since I last posted in this thread earlier today, and I don't feel like reading through all the usual bickering.

Can someone point me to where, specifically, David Henson provided a concrete definition of what he means by "kind"? I think that in order to have a productive conversation with him, we have to have the answer to this question - otherwise, we'll all just be spinning our wheels.

Thanks in advance.

 

[kerikiwi]

So there is none, and everything must conform to the operating assumption or be mocked and rejected.

Things will only be mocked or rejected if they are worthy of mocking and rejection.
There is no 'operating assumption', just as there is no scientific explanation for how life evolved other than, well, evolution.

 

[Maia]

Minor nitpick, the original implication of "evolution" was a sort of "unfolding", not simply changing. This can best be seen in how astrophysicists use the term "stellar evolution". For stars along the main sequence, there is a very consistent, predictable path they take from formation to whatever their final end state may be (nova, supernova, black dwarf, etc.). So at least for stellar evolution, there is an end result that can be predicted based on how the star formed.

This is completely untrue for biological evolution, where there really is no goal, nor any single path an evolving species can take. This is one of the reasons Charles Darwin originally rejected the term "evolution" in favor of "descent with modification". It is more accurate, if quite a bit more cumbersome.

Yay! Thanks for pointing this out, Hokulele. I think that this should be emphasized much more than it is, because even a lot of people who do believe in evolution don't really understand that there's no
"ultimate goal to it all," and that in truth, it's not really leading anywhere. We are not the crowning achievement of biological evolution (well, nothing else is, either, so we shouldn't feel bad. Bacteria are the closest things. ) (waves the Stephen Jay Gould flag)

 

[six7s]

...there's still some merit to posting rebuttals in case someone slightly more rational is lurking and reading

On behalf of all readers/lurkers (few, if any, of which could be even slightly less rational) :

Yes, please​

 

[six7s]

------
ETA
Happy Birthday Maia!

 

[Hokulele]

Yay! Thanks for pointing this out, Hokulele. I think that this should be emphasized much more than it is, because even a lot of people who do believe in evolution don't really understand that there's no "ultimate goal to it all," and that in truth, it's not really leading anywhere. We are not the crowning achievement of biological evolution (well, nothing else is, either, so we shouldn't feel bad. Bacteria are the closest things. ) (waves the Stephen Jay Gould flag)

Thanks, Happy Birthday, and a wave of the Gould flag back atcha!

 

[Pup]

Liar. Who thinks that's a bad thing? Nobody. We learn. 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.

In my quote, the word "that" refers to what you said earlier: "recogniz[ing] today's imposed orthodox foolishness."

Are you really saying that religious people don't think it would be bad if their current orthodoxy turns out to be foolish? Seems to me that most of them claim their answers are designed to be unchanging and for all time, and they hate to see anybody upsetting their applecart. Kinda like how they were mad at Gallileo, and they're mad at Darwin now. They change because they have to, but its downplayed and its grudging, not something they usually brag about.

 

[dio]

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.

Incorrect.
Because of all the evidence from different fields, evolution is now widely accepted. That's why it's taught in science class.

The only ones not accepting it (because it offends their particular MagicMan® mith) are some rare psychopathic religious nutters, concentrated in insignificant, shrinking pockets of stupid.

 

[Safe-Keeper]

Okay, I've read the OP and I've made an atempt to skim this thread, but I have to admit that at some point, I just gave up. So I've got a question: is this some kind of thread record for length achieved in such a short amount of time?

Nope. The Gaza Flotilla thread achieved a thousand posts in what, 12-24 hours? Granted 50% of those posts were made by only two (very zealous) posters, but still...

 

[six7s]

Incorrect.
Because of all the evidence from different fields, evolution is now widely accepted. That's why it's taught in science class.

The only ones not accepting it (because it offends their particular MagicMan® mith) are some rare psychopathic religious nutters, concentrated in insignificant, shrinking pockets of stupid.

Alas, even if you regard the USA as insignificant, this ain't so

Public Acceptance of Evolution

By SCIENCE MAGAZINE, JON D. MILLER, EUGENIE C. SCOTT, SHINJI OKAMOTO
From Science 11 August 2006, Vol 313
<snip/>
Beginning in 1985, national samples of U.S. adults have been asked whether the statement, "Human beings, as we know them, developed from earlier species of animals," is true or false, or whether the respondent is not sure or does not know. We compared the results of these surveys with survey data from nine European countries in 2002, surveys in 32 European countries in 2005, and a national survey in Japan in 2001 (5).

Over the past 20 years, the percentage of U.S. adults:

accepting the idea of evolution has

declined from 45% to 40% and​

the percentage of adults overtly rejecting evolution

declined from 48% to 39%.​

The percentage of adults who were not sure about evolution

increased from 7% in 1985 to 21% in 2005.​

After 20 years of public debate, the public appears to be divided evenly in terms of accepting or rejecting evolution, with about one in five adults still undecided or unaware of the issue. This pattern is consistent with a number of sporadic national newspaper surveys reported in recent years <snip/>

Source: http://richarddawkins.net/articles/706

 

[Tatyana]

It bears repeating. Kent Hovind literally has the worst understanding of science (and the law) I have ever seen in an adult. Roy Comfort is BAD. Ken Ham is AWFUL. Kent Hovind is on a whole different level.

I know that sounds like just another stab at the man but I think I failed to express my dislike of him sufficiently the first time.

Seriously?

I have only seen the really retarded banana thing by Comfort.

Surely someone can't be more retarded than this?

I fear for humanity if this is true.

 

[six7s]

See http://www.kent-hovind.com/

The purpose of this site is to analyse the logic and science used in the presentations of a Creation Science Evangelist named Kent Hovind. This analysis will mainly focus on objective science issues related to Kent Hovind's "seminars" but detours will be made into understanding the nature of Kent Hovind the man. There will not be analysis of Hovind's theological position, Communist conspiracies, New World Order or Mark of the Beast claims (See conspiracy quotes). <snip/>
Obviously Young Earth Creationism is in conflict with mainstream science in general and Evolution Theory (which only truly applies to biology) in particular. Note - the word 'evolution' can be applied to almost anything which changes or has changed over time.
<snip/>

Why make a web site about Kent Hovind? Around the time of the dot com craze (remember those crazy days?) I wanted to make a web site but didn't have a topic. It was then I realised that my exploration of the Young Earth movement had accidentally provided the background knowledge to understand the flaws of Kent Hovind's claims. I also noticed that no one had bought together all this critiquing into one place.

 

[kerikiwi]

...

And your point is?

 

[kerikiwi]

1.You did not come from a rock by accident.

2.There is a God that you are answerable to.

3.He is not your enemy unless you make Him so.

1. Well, at last, something on which we can agree. We did, indeed, not come from a rock, by accident or by design.
2. Evidence please.
3. Certainly no imaginary being is my enemy.


But, just what is the relevance of these little snippets to evolution?

 

[Tatyana]

See http://www.kent-hovind.com/

Ta.

I know this is a ad homimen, but Kent Hovind looks like a gormless twonk.

I also find it fascinating that there are so many people that can delude themselves to such an extent.

I find it very frightening that there are so many people with such a loose grip on reality.