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

[Radrook]

Right.
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.

Well, since the comment wasn't addressed at those "some" but at me, then it's only logical that I conclude it referred to what I posted.

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.

I know exactly how science works so please spare me the condescension.


You fail to realize that all truth isn't accessible via the scientific method,. There are truths which can only be reached via the application of cogent reasoning. Neither can a scientist divest himself of cogent reasoning requirements in his scientific experiments. When he does, which is often the case with evolutionist scientists, then his claims become suspect and can be rightfully challenged on that basis alone.

Furthermore, anyone can set up a scientific framework such as the evolution one and begin cherry picking via selective blindness. Under such a approach viable alternate explanations are routinely rejected in preference for those which support evolution. There have been cases where evidence to the contrary is unceremoniously swept under the rug. If it doesn't match-ignore it. To me that's tantamount to blind faith.

[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.

And what and others like me already believe is the product of research into the fantastic claims being made and deep logical thought in relation to these fantastic claims.

"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.

Well, until now it seemed to me that it was your scientist against a supposed blind faith? Let's even the table a bit then.

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 they'll change.

That;'s because any support offered will automatically be deemed insufficient. Especially when consensus says otherwise and we all know just how reliable scientific consensus is don't we?

 

[temporalillusion]

There are two simple things that, so far, I have tried to stress throughout this thread.

1. What exploded in the Big Bang.

I already answered that pages ago.

2. How do you explain the rapid transmogrification of the BBT?

You haven't stressed that, that's new. What do you mean by that, be more specific.

ETA: And of course none of that has anything to do with evolution. I can say powerful intelligent aliens created the universe and evolution of life on earth doesn't change one bit.

 

[Robert Oz]

You do realize that, according to the Biblical kind if humans are apes then no evolution took place? The Biblical kinds are divisions of life forms wherein each division allows for cross fertility within its own limits. The boundary then is drawn where fertilization ceases to occur.

If this is the biblical definition of 'kind', then 'ape' cannot be a 'kind' since, for example, chimpanzees cannot breed with orangutans or gorillas. Biblically, 'ape' is a grouping of 'kinds'.

In the ring speciation example I gave earlier, at what point around the lake, biblically, do the salamanders become differend 'kinds'? Remember Salamander 1 cannot breed with Salamander 12, but the chain from 1 to 12 allows fertilization. At what o'clock do the kinds change?

 

[zooterkin]

There are 14 pages of responses to my OP so far. I'm on page 4 going down through them all.

You are? You seem to be going backwards, you were on page 6 yesterday.

 

[John Jones]

I know exactly how science works so please spare me the condescension.

I've read a lot of your posts, and I haven't seen much reason to believe you understand the process of science at all.

 

[paximperium]

<yada yada waaaah>
That;'s because any support offered will automatically be deemed insufficient. Especially when consensus says otherwise and we all know just how reliable scientific consensus is don't we?

Great since you brought it up.

Would you care to present the Intelligent Design Hypothesis and the evidence to support this claim? Thanks.

Why so quiet? Why no evidence? Why no actual criticism of the actual theory of evolution?

 

[paximperium]

I know exactly how science works so please spare me the condescension.

I'm sorry. Your ignorance about science is pretty much fact.

Your statement is pretty much falsified by all your posts that show how uneducated you are concerning science related topics.

 

[Toke]

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 n.......

Intelligent design without a designer?

That is a new one.

Never said that. That is your idea.

Really?

 

[paximperium]

Really?

Well, there are trolls, fairies and booger monsters.

 

[Olowkow]

In the big bang, what exploded? Nothing new here, but I just have to put my 2 cents in.

Of course everyone would love to know, but the bottom line is that no one knows...yet. Apparently, it was not so much an "explosion" as an expansion of spacetime. Some think there are many "universes" which are born out of some sort of quantum phenomenon that we just don't understand.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang
As used by cosmologists, the term Big Bang generally refers to the idea that the Universe has expanded from a primordial hot and dense initial condition at some finite time in the past (best available measurements in 2009 suggest that the initial conditions occurred around 13.3 to 13.9 billion years ago)

It is pretty clear from all the data that the universe is expanding in time and the inference that one can trace back to a "beginning" seems to me to be a reasonable one. The problem is that when you get to "zero" time, the science is no longer able to describe this condition. Of course, one can just reject all the data in favor of another hypothesis, but this does not mean that "big bang" is wrong, or that the alternate is right.

Science merely gathers information, and very devoted and intelligent people attempt to bring it all together in a hypothesis that accounts for all these data. If a hypothesis is accepted by the community of those in the field, this is added to the "theory".

Researchers are not by any means trying to "conform" to currently accepted ideas for the sake of keeping their jobs. I have heard this over and over, and it is really a laughable notion. The best scientists at universities have tenure which means they get to say anything they want without fear of censure.

Disproving the present "big bang" idea, and publishing its replacement would most likely lead to a Nobel Prize.

 

[elbe]

Really?

There is the "alien" bone I've seen IDers throw to show that it doesn't have to be god. They still ignore the "where did the aliens come from" question.

ETA: Oi, maybe radrook thinks that earth life was seeded by aliens who were created by their alien god. So the aliens are the "chosen" species, and we're just an animal experiment. Cool.

 

[X]

Copernicus and Galileo's opinions were at one time well outside the mainstream of scientific consensus not t mention the religious one as well. consensus per se means nothing if it is a consensus of error.

Yes, but unlike most creationists and design proponents, Galileo and Copernicus went out and did the research, the studying and the maths to validate their ideas.

They didn't just say "No! it's wrong! Wah wah wah!

They did the work.

They gathered the evidence, followed where it led, and by dint of having a novel insight and slightly better data (Brahe), they were able to demonstrate that a Copernican model for the solar system described the observations better than the Ptolemaic model did. The Copernican model made predictions that could be, and were, tested. And still are, to this day.

Is the Copernican model perfect? No. It has trouble in extreme situations. But it was better than the Ptolemaic model (and even that didn't happen over night). But it isn't perfect.

So, more observations, more research, and another brilliant person, and we have General Relativity. Which can handle those extreme situations. But the Copernican model was so good that in situations other than those extremes, the two theories say the same thing ("say" being a reference to the language of math).

Is general relativity perfect? No. It has extremes where it breaks down too. But it extends further than the Copernican model can. it makes better predictions, and better explains observed reality.

That is all science is. An effort to better explain observed reality.

That is why it constantly changes.

That is why Evolution is accepted so widely.

And it is why Evolution will remain the accepted explanation for the diversity of life*, being continuously adapted and updated based on the newest observations, until a better explanation takes over.

To date, there is no better explanation.

Intelligent Design?
Completely and utterly untestable, no matter how much individuals like Mr. Behe might whine about his sciencey-sounding words.
The fundamental premise of Intelligent Design is Incredulity/Ignorance.
"I don't 'believe that'/'understand how' this "complex" feature could arise thorugh natural processes. Therefore GOD!"
It explains nothing, it predicts nothing, it adds nothing to the understanding of the natural world.
It is a capitulation to ignorance, and has no place in science.

Unless, that is, someone actually manages to objectively prove the existence of a "designer". Good luck.


So, until Evolutionary critics stop whining and actually perform some research, you aren't going to accomplish single damned thing. In fact, you merely join the illustrious ranks of 9/11 conspiracy theorists, geocentrists, solid-iron-surface-sun loons, and many other woo crackpots claiming persecution everytime their dearly held beliefs are shown to be wanting.
So stop crying about how "big science" is persecuting the righteous objector, and actually find something factual to base your objections on. Or else shut up. because unless and until someone does the research, you have less than nothing.

Another point: Scientific models are molded around and modified to fit reality and observation. Not the other way waround. Starting with your model and then looking for ways to fit what is observed into it is a recipe for disaster.




* NOT the origin of life, the origin of the universe, the formation of planets, or whatever other things a certain bible-believing moron wants to lump in there.

 

[temporalillusion]

Well, since the comment wasn't addressed at those "some" but at me, then it's only logical that I conclude it referred to what I posted.

It was direct at a specific comment you made and addressed it directly.

I know exactly how science works so please spare me the condescension.

I can only go by what you write, not by what you know.

You fail to realize that all truth isn't accessible via the scientific method,. There are truths which can only be reached via the application of cogent reasoning. Neither can a scientist divest himself of cogent reasoning requirements in his scientific experiments. When he does, which is often the case with evolutionist scientists, then his claims become suspect and can be rightfully challenged on tha basis alone.

If someone arrives at a conclusion based on flawed reasoning the conclusion is also flawed. That's part of the scientific process.

And you claim that that is the case with the millions of scientists who accept and support evolution with their work, but I don't see any evidence for this.

I think it's more a case that you reject evolution because it disagrees with what you want to believe.

But please, prove me wrong, please provide evidence that the reasoning of all the scientists who's work supports evolution is flawed. Specific examples so we can examine your claim.

Furthermore, anyone can set up a scientific framework such as the evolution one ad begin cherry picking what seems to fit in regardless of viable alternate explanations. Thats what evolutionists do as a matter of course. Fit things in with a preconceived notion.

Bare assertion. You're just making that up. Please, provide evidence to support this.

And what and others like me already believe is the product of research into the fantastic claims being made and deep logical thought.

I haven't seen any evidence of research or deep logical thought yet, just claims and assertions and examples of contrary opinions, not any actual data or evidence or deep logical thought about such.

Please provide the research, that's ultimately what everyone in this thread wants. Bring something meaningful.

Well, until now it seemed t me that it was your scientist against blind faith? Let's even the table a bit then.

I have no idea what you are saying here.

That;'s because any support offered will automatically be deemed insufficient.

Lol, you claim that science isn't reliable because it changes and becomes more accurate with time, then you whine that science isn't reliable because it rejects anything that doesn't meet the consensus. Your complaints about science seem to be whatever's convenient at the time.

But no you are wrong, any support won't be deemed insufficient because science has demonstrated over centuries that if something is supported it will be accepted.

Especially when consensus says otherwise and we all know just how reliable scientific consensus is don't we?

It's as reliable as it is, meaning that a prevailing theory is the best available theory at a given time that explains observed phenomenon. It has explanatory power, makes predictions that are confirmed, and explains the most things with the fewest parameters.

A replacement theory doesn't mean the old one was wrong, it means the new one is better.

See what I mean by going by what you say? You may in fact understand science, but I can only go by what you write, and what you are writing isn't an accurate representation.

ETA: Good post X!

 

[Toke]

There is the "alien" bone I've seen IDers throw to show that it doesn't have to be god. They still ignore the "where did the aliens come from" question.

Ok, it was new to me.
And what difference does it make if the "designer" is an alien, fairy, god, or gnome?
Evolution works just fine without a designer. (it is pretty much the whole idea of it)

 

[Belz...]

And will continue to do so unless it has become religious in nature. How many scientists have posted in this thread? How many who venerate science and see all hope in a utopian science idea?

Nobody. Next question.

 

[jond]

Yes, but unlike most creationists and design proponents, Galileo and Copernicus went out and did the research, the studying and the maths to validate their ideas.

They didn't just say "No! it's wrong! Wah wah wah!

They did the work.

They gathered the evidence, followed where it led, and by dint of having a novel insight and slightly better data (Brahe), they were able to demonstrate that a Copernican model for the solar system described the observations better than the Ptolemaic model did. The Copernican model made predictions that could be, and were, tested. And still are, to this day.

Is the Copernican model perfect? No. It has trouble in extreme situations. But it was better than the Ptolemaic model (and even that didn't happen over night). But it isn't perfect.

So, more observations, more research, and another brilliant person, and we have General Relativity. Which can handle those extreme situations. But the Copernican model was so good that in situations other than those extremes, the two theories say the same thing ("say" being a reference to the language of math).

Is general relativity perfect? No. It has extremes where it breaks down too. But it extends further than the Copernican model can. it makes better predictions, and better explains observed reality.

That is all science is. An effort to better explain observed reality.

That is why it constantly changes.

That is why Evolution is accepted so widely.

And it is why Evolution will remain the accepted explanation for the diversity of life*, being continuously adapted and updated based on the newest observations, until a better explanation takes over.

To date, there is no better explanation.

Intelligent Design?
Completely and utterly untestable, no matter how much individuals like Mr. Behe might whine about his sciencey-sounding words.
The fundamental premise of Intelligent Design is Incredulity/Ignorance.
"I don't 'believe that'/'understand how' this "complex" feature could arise thorugh natural processes. Therefore GOD!"
It explains nothing, it predicts nothing, it adds nothing to the understanding of the natural world.
It is a capitulation to ignorance, and has no place in science.

Unless, that is, someone actually manages to objectively prove the existence of a "designer". Good luck.


So, until Evolutionary critics stop whining and actually perform some research, you aren't going to accomplish single damned thing. In fact, you merely join the illustrious ranks of 9/11 conspiracy theorists, geocentrists, solid-iron-surface-sun loons, and many other woo crackpots claiming persecution everytime their dearly held beliefs are shown to be wanting.
So stop crying about how "big science" is persecuting the righteous objector, and actually find something factual to base your objections on. Or else shut up.

Another point: Scientific models are molded around and modified to fit reality and observation. Not the other way waround. Starting with your model and then looking for ways to fit what is observed into it is a recipe for disaster.




* NOT the origin of life, the origin of the universe, the formation of planets, or whatever other things a certain bible-believing moron wants to lump in there.

Once again, X marks the spot.

 

[Belz...]

It's certainly the one that's supported by more evidence.

Evidence ? You speak of it as thought it were important.

 

[elbe]

Ok, it was new to me.
And what difference does it make if the "designer" is an alien, fairy, god, or gnome?
Evolution works just fine without a designer. (it is pretty much the whole idea of it)

It seems, to me, that the IDers believe that if non-IDers can accept that intelligent design is possible if the designer is a sufficiently advanced civilization (which, I imagine, it is) then that's just a stones throw away from accepting jesus as your personal god and savior. Leaps in logic seem common in those circles.

 

[Lord Emsworth]

There is the "alien" bone I've seen IDers throw to show that it doesn't have to be god. They still ignore the "where did the aliens come from" question.

"Alien" bone? That is a new one to me. Got a quick link?

 

[NavyPack]

Under such a approach viable alternate explanations are routinely rejected in preference for those which support evolution. There have been cases where evidence to the contrary is unceremoniously swept under the rug.

The theory of evolution would be disproved by finding rabbit fossils in the Pre-Cambrian.

It is falisifiable. Therefore, I am intrigued to hear about "viable alternate explanations" which have been rejected. This should be very easy to do, since this is "routinely" happening.

Please produce a single, solitary instance of evidence ceremoniously or unceremoniously swept under the rug.

If you are unable to do so, I would hope that intellectual honesty would force you to revoke your declaration. However, I will refrain from forcefully keeping the same breath of air in my lungs until you do so.