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

[temporalillusion]

The term intelligent design need not involve a god, gods, or a God.

No, but the ID proponents out there currently are specifically advocating ID with the Christian God as the designer. See the wedge document for ID.

However, both accusations are totally irelevant to the real issue which is what does nature itself indicate from a purely objective viewpoint.

Which is what science has been up to for centuries, while the Intelligent Design started recently is an ideologically driven movement with no scientific basis.

Also, I am aware, that Religion and evolution are not mutually exclusive.

See 154, it's not so difficult to admit!

 

[Radrook]

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

Religion and atheism are irrelevant to what nature itself tells us since nature itself is neither atheistic nor religious-it just is. Furthermore, the scientists that are quoited aren't using the Bible as their guideline. So that is straw-man. They are saying very clearly that their scientific training investigation have led them to the fir conclusion that their is indeed a mind behind the phenomenon that they have scientifically observed with their scientifically trained minds.

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.

Not at all! I am merely pointing out that the claim to total scientific agreement claimed on this forum is bogus. As for Hoyle being wrong, scientists make mistakes. Are you willing to acknowledge that YOUR scientists make mistakes as well. Or are you reserving that for scientists who detect an ID in nature?

BTW
Einstein made the mistake of rejecting the Big Bang theory among other things.

Based on his cosmological model, Einstein rejected expanding universe solutions by Friedman and Lemaitre as unphysical,
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100414003318AAzHlMS

Does this provide a basis to reject his other concepts? Of course not. It's totally irrelevant.

 

[SonOfLaertes]

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

So, you have quoted a man whose opinion in many of the areas under discussion - abiogenesis, the big bang, evolution, etc. - lies well outside the manistream of scientific consensus. You have quoted a man who does not represent the opinion of the larger majority of experts in their fields. So what is your point? That on any topic, in any situation, you will be able to find some variation in conclusions? If so, I think we all would agree. You have accomplished your objective in pointing this out.

Now please understand that this fact does not advance your argument from Intelligent Design in any way. If we agree that there are some dissenters of evolutionary theory who are accomplished scientists, will you stop bringing it up? It gets in the way of the discussion at hand, as a few people feel obligated to respond to your posts and the thread is derailed for a stretch.

I repeat, we agree that a small, distinguished number of scientists hold divergent views from the overwhelming consensus. Point taken. You no longer need to bring it up.

 

[John Jones]

Not at all! I am merely pointing out that the clasim to total scientific agreement clsimed on thids forum is bogus.

Who has made such a clasim?

 

[nvidiot]

.... Or are you reserving that for scientists who detect an ID in nasture?

Can you please point us to an "intelligent design" that can't be described or developed by the far simpler modern synthesis of evolution?

Don't recall many being found myself, but I wait with anticipation!

It is interesting that all of these arguments and "evidence" put forward is either a bald faced lie or a simplistic interpretation of things with no substance or research behind it. The philosophical question of "Is there a creator?" is so far removed from the realm of scientific investigation it could be easily described in terms of not belonging in the same observable universe. And it has nothing to do with the ridiculous and transparently religious concept of intelligent design.

 

[SonOfLaertes]

Also, are you aware of the nature of Hoyles theories regarding how life developed on earth? As far as I know, he generally advocated that speciation was a result of bombardment from comets, which over time added new organisms which altered the developing life on this planet.

He does not say that goddidit and *poof* all the species on earth appeared. So your argument from Hoyle in no way agrees with your biblical interpretation of events.

 

[dlorde]

My opinion is that there is no evidence of Macro evolution but there is of "Micro-Evolution."

It depends what you mean by 'macro-evolution'. If you mean speciation (divergence to the extent of reproductive incompatibility), this is predicted to occur by the accumulation of micro-evolutionary change. There is a wealth of circumstantial evidence for it in various fields, plus it has actually been observed in numerous instances.

In other words a dog produces a dog. Nothing else.

It seems self-evident, but if you were to selectively breed a dog variety until it could no longer breed with other dogs to produce fertile offspring, would that 'variety' still be a dog? The most widely accepted definition of species uses success or failure of interbreeding to produce fertile offspring to distinguish between species. So when is a dog not a dog?

In other words, though science believes this now it could change and be found to be flawed.

Not exactly. It's not a question of belief - for any generally accepted theory, science holds it to be the best available explanation for the observed phenomena. It is always accepted that this could change, or be found to be flawed. The sceptical scientific method generally provides sufficient robustness of evaluation to ensure that any changes or flaws are generally a matter of adjustment or refinement, and it is unusual for an accepted theory to be found to be totally incorrect.

 

[paximperium]

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.

How about you just stick to one single argument or perhaps one single criticism of evolution that does not involve your stupid based version of what you call evolution?

 

[paximperium]

Has one of our Creatards or ID-iots presented an actual criticism of evolution?

All I see is 154 whining and Raddy presenting logical fallacies and irrelevant crap like Raddy tends to do.

 

[X]

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 don't think anybdoy expects you to respond to all the posts.
But a cogent, well-thought-out reply to one or two posts which directly question your claims would go along way to makig you appear honestly interested in debate and education.

Pick a couple posts which challenge your assertions, and explain why you disagree with what they say.

And do yourself a favour: Don't cheap out and go with the snarky replies. Pick posts of substance to reply to.

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'.

Damn. I should have thought of doing it algebraically.

 

[temporalillusion]

Religion and atheism are irrelevant to what nature itself tells us since nature itself is neither artheistic nor religius-it just is.

Right.

Furthermore, the scientists that are quoited aren't using the Bible as their guideline. So that is straw-man.

It's not a straw man because I wasn't referring to the specific person you quoted, I was talking in general indicated by the quote that some use.

They are saying very clearly that their scientific training investigation have led them to the fir conclusion that their is indeed a mind behind the phenomenon that they have scientifically observed with their scientifically trained minds.

That's not how science actually works though, what you think you see with a "scientifically trained mind" isn't a conclusion, what you can demonstrate with evidence is what's important. His conclusions weren't compelling or reasonable, otherwise they would have become the consensus view.

Not at all! I am merely pointing out that the clasim to total scientific agreement clsimed on thids forum is bogus.

Who claims that? There's always people taking contrary views to the consensus.. sometimes for good reasons, sometimes not. You pick and choose which ones you accept based not on their scientific merit though, you pick and choose based on what you already believe.

As for Hoyle being wrong, scietists make mistakes. Arre you willing to acknowledge thast YOUR scientists make mistakes as well. Or are you reserving that for scientists who detect an ID in nasture?

"My scientists" vs. "your scientists", are we in grade 8? My scientist can beat up your scientist.

Scientists make mistakes, the whole point of science is to eliminate those mistakes.

Scientists who detect ID in nature don't have any actual support for their position so their mistake is filtered out of the system. When they actually bring some compelling evidence then that'll change.

 

[David Henson]

Realistically, I doubt there is anything I or anyone can say that will persuade you to think differently, or scientifically, about evolution. You lack the basic understanding of the scientific method necessary to make sense of it. If I may recommend you begin with a basic scholastic textbook on biology, that would be a good place for you to start catching up with most of the people posting in this thread.

First of all, I graduated from High school in 1984. So, if all of the science I learned in school regarding specifically evolution has either been forgotten as useless or has been demonstrated to have been wrong since then it speaks a great deal, but that isn't the issue. I don't have to go back and catch up on the latest evolutionary sceince before it is demonstrated to have been wrong again until eventually it wises up. All I did was ask the people of the forum a couple of questions which they are completely unable to answer.

In the Big Bang "What exploded?"

Since the big bang started out as being 2 trillion miles across and ended up being nothing isn't it safe to say, that even though science can't come up with anything better it is ridiculous?

 

[paximperium]

First of all, I graduated from High school in 1984. So, if all of the science I learned in school regarding specifically evolution has either been forgotten as useless or has been demonstrated to be have been wrong since then it speaks a great deal, but that isn't the issue. I don't have to go back and catch up on the latest evolutionary sceince before it is demonstrated to have been wrong. All I did was ask the people of the forum a couple of questions which they are completely unable to answer.

I''m sorry. Since you are woefully uneducated about science and evolution, your claims by fiat concerning something you are ignorant about is pretty irrelevant and easily dismissed.

Do you have an actual criticism concerning the theory of evolution? Any at all?

In the Big Bang "What exploded?"

Space and time. What does this have to do with evolution?

Since the big bang started out as being 2 trillion miles across and ended up being nothing isn't it safe to say, that even though science can't come up with anything better it is ridiculous?

I'm sorry, your incredulity is not a valid argument. Please try again. What does this have to do with evolution?

 

[technoextreme]

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.

You didn't even respond to the questions. You wasted everyone's time by calling yourself stupid.

So, if all of the science I learned in school regarding specifically evolution has either been forgotten as useless or has been demonstrated to have been wrong since then it speaks a great deal, but that isn't the issue

So not only do you have a complete ignorance of evolution you somehow think that science is a monolithic unchanging entity. *Sigh*

 

[David Henson]

David Henson, one question: in your earlier definitions of macro- and micro-evolution you kept mentioning "kinds" of life-forms. Can you please provide a concrete definition of what you mean by "kind"?

A serious response from you will be necessary to continue this particular line of discussion in any meaningful manner. Thanks.

A serious response from you on the OP first.

In the Big Bang What exploded?

How can you take seriously the Big Bang Theory when it started out as being 2 trillion miles across and ended up being nothing? How can nothing explode?

 

[paximperium]

In the Big Bang What exploded?

Space and time. What does this have to do with evolution?

How can you take seriously the Big Bang Theory when it started out as being 2 trillion miles across and ended up being nothing? How can nothing explode?

I'm sorry, your incredulity is not a valid argument. Please try again. What does this have to do with evolution?

 

[Hokulele]

In the Big Bang What exploded?

The Big Bang is an expansion of space-time, not an explosion. As such, there doesn't have to be any matter to explode. This shows the inherent problem with trying to use words to describe advanced physical models rather than equations.

Secondly, the Big Bang is a model. As such, we know it doesn't reflect reality perfectly accurately. However, it does give us a tool to make phenomenally accurate predictions about portions of reality, and as such is incredibly useful. Other tools and models can (and hopefully, will) get us closer to an explanation of what happened at t=0.

 

[technoextreme]

A serious response from you on the OP first.

How about this for seriousness. The op is an idiotic attempt to somehow join multiple fields and theories that have nothing to do with each other into a giant straman.

How can you take seriously the Big Bang Theory when it started out as being 2 trillion miles across and ended up being nothing? How can nothing explode?

Because in the grand scheme of things this isn't even close to being the strangest thing that we know is true.

 

[temporalillusion]

In the Big Bang "What exploded?"

I already answered you pages and pages ago.

 

[John Jones]

In the Big Bang "What exploded?"

That's already been answered. You didn't like the answer, so you're putting your fingers in your ears.

Since the big bang started out as being 2 trillion miles across and ended up being nothing isn't it safe to say, that even though science can't come up with anything better it is ridiculous?

That's cosmology, not evolution. I take that back. That's a clown college parody of cosmology.

Start another thread.