• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

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

Lord Emsworth said:
"Alien" bone? That is a new one to me. Got a quick link?
Click to expand...

Ok, I was sort of expecting that. I've seen them argue that aliens where the designer. They don't believe it, but they hoped it would satisfy the non-IDers. The bone thing was just a turn of phrase.
 
Radrook said:
Religion and atheism are irrelevant to what nature itself tells us since nature itself is neither atheistic nor religious-it just is.
Click to expand...

Exactly. That's the problem with intelligent design or young-earth creationism and similar ideas. They seem to be based on the foundation that there is a god who did things in certain ways (usually tied into the Judeo-Christian Bible more or less), and therefore any observation of nature must be interpreted to support those ways. Not exactly unbiased.

There are scientific-minded deists who are nonetheless glad to explain why our current understanding of evolution is the best available explanation for the state of life on earth so far.

Are there any scientists who've concluded that evolution is the wrong explanation and who also don't have any religious beliefs to bias them?
 
Radrook said:
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?
Click to expand...

So ID "scientists" have support for their ideas but they aren't sharing it because people might disagree?
 
David Henson said:
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.
Click to expand...

If that kind of thing upsets you, you're probably better off sticking to religion, which offers the illusion of having all the answers.

Just realize that not everyone is bothered by realizing that our collective knowledge is continually increasing. Some people are actually inspired by it.
 
David Henson said:
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.
Click to expand...

I graduated in 1991. If all the German I learned in 3 years has been forgotten by me because it was useless in my life...then it must have been wrong.

If computer science has come a long way since the computer I worked on in the computer lab in high school...then what I learned back then must have been wrong.

I see now!
 
The Central Scrutinizer said:
When do we get parts 2-11? #1 was so comical!
Click to expand...



TemporalIllusion found them for you.



temporalillusion said:
Yeah let's get this over with.

Part 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=63IEsn4w1b0
Part 3: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_H8HQU4A4dQ
Part 4: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fMkItE5rfDU
Part 5: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sLm9NOT3qbE
Part 6: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JCyFykQ_wGI
Part 7: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bgo0J5OqGkY
Part 8: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_J28qdJxbJI
Part 9: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C0v1DFUZBiY
Part 10: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KkGIhRyDhik
Part 11: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UlEnFXdfcXM

There, all the parts linked, now we can avoid dozens of pages between each one.

The funny thing as as I was clicking each one I got to hear the first few seconds of each one, and almost all of them I knew exactly why what he was saying is wrong. :hypnotize
Click to expand...
 
elbe said:
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.
Click to expand...

To me the biggest problem with the alien designer is that all the design errors are consistent with the evolution process.

That is, a lot of small steps, each an improvement, but no way to go back or try radically new approaches.

(Ok, no need to tell you this)
 
NavyPack said:
Radrook said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

I'm sure NavyPack and I are not the only ones interested in "evidence to the contrary unceremoniously swept under the rug".

Could you provide what you consider is the most blatant example?
 
I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say that now that we've tried to get to specifics there won't be much activity from some posters, then later today there'll be another round of vague accusations against evolution or cosmology or whatever.
 
Paul W said:
The problem seems to me to be that science as taught in (at least one British) school (and probably the rest, since they all have to stick to the exam board syllabuses) as a collection of more or less random "facts". As Roger implies, but doesn't actually state, science is a way of thinking. "Facts" I can look up any time - at least, I can look up the current versions of them: "current" because the process of science means that what we believe today to be true might well be shown to be wrong tomorrow. This idea of continual changing ideas is something which the creationists have a problem with. To quote a TV programme:

Creationist: "But you keep on changing your minds."

Steve Jones (I think): "Yes, that's what science is about."

Thinking is a process which has to be learned, and isn't taught in schools. I still have a copy of a book which I bought somewhen in the late 50s/early 60s:

Somerville, John (1958): The Way of Science. London, Abelard-Schuman.

Long since out of print, but I have fantasies of writing a new version of it!

Waddington's "Tools for Critical Thinking" (don't have the full reference to hand) is also extremely valuable, but aimed at an adult audience.


BTW, I make my comments about school science from knowledge not from prejudice: I am a specialist support teacher covering (amongst other subjects) Biology, Physics and Chemistry at GCSE. Basically "science" is taught badly because the syllabuses are poor, not because the teachers are. Those I work with are outstanding: I wish all of mine had been when I did O-levels.
Click to expand...

I am not so stupid to think that arguing science and the Bible with evolutionist is a productive endeavor. I think it is important to try and examine the differences and from my perspective it has always been interesting to examine the way people react within certain schools of thought.

Though I don't think this is difficult to do it is easily corruptible if you happen to be in one school of thought which is opposed to another if the other one is the one you are trying to examine.

The Big Bang and Evolution theory are only speculative, just as my own beliefs are only speculative. I know the Bible inside and out but I didn't observe the things that Moses or John wrote about. I can't reproduce them. Even if I could produce a global flood or science could produce the Big Bang that doesn't mean that they happened in the past. Just because we have evidence for or against either of the two doesn't mean we know what might have happened.

When people say the Bible is changed to suit science they don't know what they are talking about and yet when science minded atheist claim that evolution is fact but at the same time tomorrow could be demonstrably false as certain cases of evolution have in the past (some of which are still being taught in science classes) it isn't surprising that anyone with any degree of intelligence would raise an eyebrow. Except for the faithful in the idea of evolution.
 
Last edited:
David Henson said:
Exactly. I assume you are talking about Evolutionists. If their science says nothing exploded and millions of years later apes became men which they are anyway there is actually no disagreement with the Bible.
They will have to come up with something else, like Aliens planted life on the backs of crystals . . . heh . . .
Click to expand...

First Evolution.

I’m not trying to be patronizing here, I just what to try and help you wrap your head around Biological Evolution.

I would like you to try this….
Find a coloring book picture of a dog, and a magic marker. Get a piece of tracing paper and trace the outline of the dog. Now without removing the tracing paper place another on top and again trace the dog. Do this a couple of hundred times, just keep adding one paper on top of the next and quickly trace.. You’re not trying to make the picture better or worse all you’re doing is quickly tracing the lines.

If you compare the first and last picture you’ll see quite a difference. Take it one step further and remove one piece of paper from the middle of the stack. Start the same process adding paper and tracing. Now you have a branch, something not like the first and unlike the last of the original stack. A new picture.

Every paper is a generation and after only a couple of hundred “generations” there is quite a difference.
I know it’s over simplified but this is how I explained how evolution worked to my daughter when she was young.

Now the Big Bang…

I’m sure you know that when people use the word evolution when it comes to anything other than biology they don’t mean Evolution by Natural Selection, right?

Here is what I know about the Big Bang… it was first used as a derogatory name for the theory by the steady state guys. It ended up being adopted and became the general name for the theory. It was Big, I would think, but it would not have been much of a bang as explosions go. It’s really just the name they gave to the rapid expansion of space-time.

Again a bit over simplified, but this is just my laymen interpretation.
 
Henson, 154, Radrook,

Some suggested light reading:

The Copernican Revolution
The Structure of Scientific Revolutions

Both by Thomas Kuhn

The Logic of Scientific Discovery by Karl Popper.
 
David Henson said:
When people say the Bible is changed to suit science they don't know what they are talking about and yet when science minded atheist claim that evolution is fact but at the same time tomorrow could be demonstrably false as certain cases of evolution have in the past (some of which are still being taught in science classes) it isn't surprising that anyone with any degree of intelligence would raise an eyebrow. Except for the faithful in the idea of evolution.
Click to expand...

So let me get this straight, because people can make mistakes (scientists are people too), it's evidence that evolution isn't true? And, like piltdown man, do you know who figures out the things that aren't true? Scientists. It didn't fit, they examined the evidence, and found it to be a fraud. What has intelligent design or creationism added to our collective knowledge? What flaws have they exposed through evidence? Nothing. They don't do anything but complain about things they don't like and don't understand.
 
devnull said:
Holy crap on a cracker :jaw-dropp

Ummmm, yes, I think Ill leave this well alone. Good luck and godspeed people!
Click to expand...

Honestly, I can't imagine a creationist fundamentalist Christian being so intellectually dishonest and arrogant in their faith as you are.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom