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

[Lord Emsworth]

Amid the sad statistics it really amuses me that the Scandinavian countries are the only ones with a cross in our flags.

Hmmm ... Switzerland's got a cross, Slovakia's got one of them double-cross things, UK's got two crosses even, Malta's got a cross (OK, they don't count), Portugal has a bunch of Coat-of-Arms things arranged to a cross ...

 

[Aitch]

... and St Patrick

Do you remember the version without?

Not quite, you young whipper-snapper!

I just had a senior moment and forgot to mention it.

 

[Radrook]

Well that can be explained by magic. God did it.

Science, on the other hand, is hard.

A chromoewhatsit did what with a monkey? VS Oh, God did it, cool.

Some scientists don't consider it magic at all. In fact, some see it as the only logical explanation.

Fred Hoyle (British astrophysicist):

"A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question." (2)Hoyle, F. 1982. The Universe: Past and Present Reflections. Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics: 20:16.

 

[Hokulele]

Yes, because we all know that astrophysicists are the best people to ask about theological issues.


News flash, smart people can say or believe stupid things.

 

[John Jones]

Some scientists don't consider it magic at all. In fact, some see it as the only logical explanation.

Appeal to authority fallacy.

Besides, Hoyle was wrong.

 

[Radrook]

Yes, because we all know that astrophysicists are the best people to ask about theological issues.


News flash, smart people can say or believe stupid things.

That's strawman.

Religion is irrelevant to the issue. This scientist is making a statement based on what his scientifically trained mind perceives about nature. Which is tampering by a superintelligence or an-an ID. Contrary to popular opinion, an ID need not be viewed as a god or God.

BTW
I hold the same view. Indeed. smart people can say stupid things. They can say they have fish as ancestors and that water spontaneously sprouts life. Stupid things like that.

 

[paximperium]

Some scientists don't consider it magic at all. In fact, some see it as the only logical explanation.

I'm sorry, where in your ignorance does that have to do with evolution? Please try to keep up.

 

[temporalillusion]

Then you need to answer your own question - how do you know? What's your definition?

I'm not the one claiming there's a difference, so I'm not the one that needs to define it first.

Some scientists don't consider it magic at all. In fact, some see it as the only logical explanation.

A LOT has happened in cosmology since 1982. And this ignores any possibility that things that appear independent and happen to fall into right values are actually related and can only fall out one way.

The reality is that there is simply not enough known about the first instants of the universe and how it got to be in the state it was in to know for sure. So just like when people didn't know why the rivers rose and flooded the village and blamed the gods you are welcome to attribute the universe to god but there's no good scientific reason to do so.

That you reject mountains of scientific data on one hand so you don't have to believe in evolution and then clasp tightly to tiny shreds and quotes on the other hand to try and scientifically justify a different belief speaks volumes.

And even if it was ultimately determined that the universe IS fine tuned and that intelligence is the only explanation, then that still doesn't point to god. Powerful aliens in the previous universe who wanted to stop the cycle of big bang / big crunch are a better one.

 

[paximperium]

That's strawman.

Religion is irrelevant to the issue. This scientist is making a statement based on what his scientifically trained mind perceives about nature. Which is tampering by a superintelligence or an-an ID. Contrary to popular opinion, an ID need not be viewed as a god or God.

No. This scientist is making crap up based on his incredulity. In other words, he is wrong.

Do try to keep up.

BTW
I hold the same view. Indeed. smart people can say stupid things. They can say they have fish as ancestors and that water spontaneously sprouts life. Stupid things like that.

No. Dishonest morons like Creatards can say things like that.
Smart people avoid saying the obviously idiotic starwman statements that have nothing to do with evolution.

 

[John Jones]

That's strawman.

Religion is irrelevant to the issue. This scientist is making a statement based on what his scientifically trained mind perceives about nature. Which is tampering by a superintelligence or an-an ID. Contrary to popular opinion, an ID need not be viewed as a god or God.

BTW
I hold the same view. Indeed. smart people can say stupid things. They can say they have fish as ancestors and that water spontaneously sprouts life. Stupid things like that.

I guess we can add "Straw man Fallacy" to the list of things you don't understand.

 

[temporalillusion]

Religion is irrelevant to the issue.

Not really, people's religious views can affect their ability to accept reality. "This can't be right because it disagrees with the Bible".

This scientist is making a statement based on what his scientifically trained mind perceives about nature.

Appeal to authority. Other scientifically trained minds disagree.

Hoyle also rejected the Big Bang, he was wrong there so I guess his scientifically trained mind didn't help him there.

 

[Hokulele]

That's strawman.

Religion is irrelevant to the issue. This scientist is making a statement based on what his scientifically trained mind perceives about nature. Which is tampering by a superintelligence or an-an ID. Contrary to popular opinion, an ID need not be viewed as a god or God.

It need not, but are you saying you are not posting that quote in context of the OP?

Hmmm...

BTW
I hold the same view. Indeed. smart people can say stupid things. They can say they have fish as ancestors and that water spontaneously sprouts life. Stupid things like that.

Indeed, that is stupid. Can you please point me to someone who says that?

 

[Tricky]

Religion is irrelevant to the issue. This scientist is making a statement based on what his scientifically trained mind perceives about nature. Which is tampering by a superintelligence or an-an ID. Contrary to popular opinion, an ID need not be viewed as a god or God.

So you say, but they generally do view it as a god or God. That's why the Intelligent Design book that was in issue in the Kitzmiller vs. Dover case was altered to change "Creationism" to some "cdesign proponentsists". The book was being pushed by religious people. Indeed the only reason that the term "Intelligent Design" exists is because religious people needed a term to cover for the fact that they were trying to teach religion.

I hold the same view. Indeed. smart people can say stupid things. They can say they have fish as ancestors and that water spontaneously sprouts life. Stupid things like that.

The first of those things is quite obviously true in essence, though it would probably be worded differently, and there is a great deal of evidence for it. The second is indeed quite stupid, and it is only spoken by people making a strawman of evolution, generally creationists or cdesign proponentsists. It doesn't mean they aren't smart in other ways though.

 

[154]

My point is that we can't be surprised at replies like the one 154 made.

Do you honestly expect me to come in here for an hour, post several times, respond to a handful of questions, and then spend the next eight hours responding to 6 dozen more questions? Maybe some of you can stay here all day, but I can't.

 

[Tricky]

Do you honestly expect me to come in here for an hour, post several times, respond to a handful of questions, and then spend the next eight hours responding to 6 dozen more questions? Maybe some of you can stay here all day, but I can't.

If you want to save time, you can try answering the questions instead of just responding to them.

 

[John Jones]

Do you honestly expect me to come in here for an hour, post several times, respond to a handful of questions, and then spend the next eight hours responding to 6 dozen more questions? Maybe some of you can stay here all day, but I can't.

I can't recall you ever making a substantial reply. Cheer-leading, scripture-quoting, misrepresenting evolution theory, strawman arguments and appeals to incredulity are all I recall ever seeing you making on any thrread.

 

[Toke]

Well, I suppose that technically the Union Flag doesn't have 'a cross' in it, as it combines the crosses of St George and St Andrew.

The English flag does not much exposure compared to the British, at least not here. So that does not count.

Hmmm ... Switzerland's got a cross, Slovakia's got one of them double-cross things, UK's got two crosses even, Malta's got a cross (OK, they don't count), Portugal has a bunch of Coat-of-Arms things arranged to a cross ...

Those are not real crosses.

And I do not wish any more fact based objections from you two.

 

[Radrook]

So you say, but they generally do view it as a god or God. That's why the Intelligent Design book that was in issue in the Kitzmiller vs. Dover case was altered to change "Creationism" to some "cdesign proponentsists". The book was being pushed by religious people. Indeed the only reason that the term "Intelligent Design" exists is because religious people needed a term to cover for the fact that they were trying to teach religion.

The term intelligent design need not involve a god, gods, or a God. Of course it can be suggested that scientists who perceive design in nature are pushing religion. But the same can be said of those who don't perceive an ID in nature-that they are pushing atheism. However, both accusations are totally irelevant to the real issue which is what does nature itself indicate from a purely objective viewpoint.

The first of those things is quite obviously true in essence, though it would probably be worded differently, and there is a great deal of evidence for it. The second is indeed quite stupid, and it is only spoken by people making a strawman of evolution, generally creationists or cdesign proponentsists. It doesn't mean they aren't smart in other ways though.

I wasn't attempting to make any connection between abiogenesis via water and biological evolution. Also, I am aware, that Religion and evolution are not mutually exclusive.

BTW
Hyperbole is an accepted method of emphasizing a point and is expected to be understood as such.

 

[Toke]

Intelligent design without a designer?

That is a new one.

 

[Robert Oz]

And after all this, no matter how slow and gradual you like,
a dog never yields anything but another dog, be it Mastiff or Chihuahua.

Did you read X's post? If you did, your response shows that you didn't comprehend it.

The growth of a zygote into an old man is so slow and gradual that x second = 'adult' is never followed by x+1 second = 'old man'. You can do this at any stage of life.

Based on this, a zygote never becomes an old man?

The fact that so many creationists make it even more absurd by saying a fish can't give birth to a man, please provide evidence of x second = zygote being followed by x+1 second = 'old man'.