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

[aggle-rithm]

No. You are wrong about that. Most mutations (>95%) are neither harmful nor beneficial.

Not to mention the fact that whether a mutation is harmful or beneficial is completely dependent on the environment.

If an organism is born with missing limbs, is that good or bad? Extra limbs, good or bad?

Missing limbs on a whale: Good.

Extra limbs on a frog: Bad.

It's not difficult to imagine, though, an environment where those extra legs might come in handy.

Well, not for most people.

 

[aggle-rithm]

You did not come from a rock by accident.

There is a God that you are answerable to.

He is not your enemy unless you make Him so.

Worst.

Haiku.

EVER.

 

[Dancing David]

When I ask what exploded in the big bang and point out how the big bang has changed completely in under 50 years, which you didn't answer or address, how is it we are talking about dogs.

Here is what I say. Dogs produce dogs. Nothing else.

I don't know the answer to your question. Consider the mule. Hybrid. Sterile. So your question is irrelevant.

I did, and will be finding my post soon!
ETA: here it is!
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6010932&postcount=107

Oh, I remember that party! What I want to know is what about the fraction of a second before the alleged big bang? Is that permissible? To use lower case? Big Bang, sorry.

The BBT (big band theory) is a theory that attempts to explain the apparent cosmological redshift, first demonstrated by Hubble and his primo grad student.

It is post facto, and totally trying to describe the data and observations that exist.

Some thoughts about the BBT, it can only listen to the echoes of the music that the band played.
IE The theory is based solely upon the observations as they exist. And it does a really good job of that, including the Cosmic Microwave Background, elementary abundance and others.

The BBt can not tell you what the hall or the musicians looked like or who wrote teh score.
IE: as a post facto description, it breaks down at the point of the merger of QM and relativity, as those theories are not unified.
Under the current models in fact one can not see 'out of the universe' or 'before the big bang'. these are not able to be gathered under the current models.

The Big Bang falls apart as we go back and get closer to the event and even under what we know of QM and relativity it gets really weird, but without the reconciliation of the two theories, it will remain unknown. The theory starts at about t>10^-36 seconds...

As it involves both QM and relativity the concepts are counter intuitive and non-classical, when they start to talk about how after the speculative there is a small but expanding infinite space, my mind reels

Common mis-statements about the BBt:
1. "The universe came from nothing."
When point of fact the universe as it exists came from "We don't know". It may have come from something, it may have come from nothing, we do not know. Current candidates are very wild but still speculative: "colliding branes", "recursive inflationary space" and "quantum fluctuations". But still we do not know.
2. "All the matter of the universe was ... very small space "
Well actually due to the lack of reconciliation between QM and GR we don't know what it was like when it was below the Plank scale. You will here some great words however:'singularity', 'space time foam' and the like. Most of which might or might not apply, the current theory can go back to about 10^{-36seconds after the BBE (big bang event). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_Big_Bang#Planck_epoch 10-36 [urk="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_Big_Bang#Electroweak_epoch]Electroweak [/url]epoch This is the point at which current theory (theories are approximate models) seem to match the data fairly well. We don't really have good theories for t<10-36. However at the point right after the BBE (which is really a place holder), there was only 'energy' there was no 'matter' as we consider it. So there sure was a 'whole lot of energy' but not a whole lot of matter in a very small space. However the part that blows my mind is that that space while 'very small' compared to the current universe 'may have been infinite'.}

 

[Lucian]

Thats not really his doctoral dissertation, is it?

Please, please tell me it isn't.......

Sorry, but it is. Really.

 

[Toke]

If it is any comfort the title sounds like something they* just made up, with no standing out in the real world.

DISSERTATION FOR DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY IN
CHRISTIAN EDUCATION

*PATRIOT UNIVERSITY

 

[paximperium]

You mean the Twelfth Nobel Symoposium in Uppsala, Sweden in 1969?

Yes. What about this symposium that Creotards love to talk about? Do tell. You seem very versed in physics for someone who does not care about science at all.

 

[paximperium]

Clarification - I'm interested in "science" only in that I see some problems with evolution and am interested in it possibly being religious in nature - and more importantly perhaps, peoples reaction to the religious nature in their belief in evolution.

Great. Why haven't you presented a single criticism on the theory of evolution instead of attacking your own false and ignorant belief which you call "evolution"?

I have nothing against science, but am not at all interested in it in and of itself. In fact it bores the piss out of me.

I'm sorry, but your personal ignorance and idiocy is not a valid argument. Please provide an actual criticism.

 

[paximperium]

Well, duh.

Really? Do you actually knew that? How did you know that and where did you learn about it?

What I have always wondered is why is it thought that not within the short period of time of the global flood could have all of the necessary variations within each kind could have been produced.

What about that?

I'm sorry but please provide an actual criticism of evolution.
Proclaiming theoretical what-ifs based on your delusional fantasies is not considered an actual criticism. If you would like to provide the evidence to back up your uneducated claims concerning the sudden surge of variation that could occur within a few thousands years; you would falsify evolution. Now that would be an actual criticism.

Do try. You haven't even provided a single criticism yet.

 

[technoextreme]

Yes. What about this symposium that Creotards love to talk about? Do tell. You seem very versed in physics for someone who does not care about science at all.

Apparently, someone said something off the cuff about how carbon dating is ineffective.

 

[paximperium]

I have a lot of posts to respond to. When I get to the end (assuming that there will be an end) I will post the second part of the video for discussion. I am trying . . . real hard . . . to not respond to stuid, off topic posts or personal attacks. At the end if someone says I didn't respond to them I say that is because it was one of those, or I must have missed it and will examine it.

You could start by providing an actual criticism of the theory of evolution instead of criticizing your uneducated ignorant understanding of it. Thank you.

 

[excaza]

As a so called "religious" person I can tell you that what I object to is the notion that the theory of evolution is fact when it could be wrong. How do you explain this?

But you have no problem accepting gravity, electromagnetism, thermodynamics, etc. They could be wrong too. You could go outside one day and gravity could vanish due to some quantum process we were unaware of. I could be at the lake and suddenly it disappears because the oxygen didn't feel like being bonded to hydrogen today. That doesn't mean I'm going to say all these topics are incorrect. I've seen the evidence for these principles, I've seen things accurately predicted by the applicable theorems, so I can be reasonably confident that the basic theory is sound. The methods for deriving the principles and theories regarding those topics are the exact same as those used to derive the theory of evolution.

Or do you not make a fuss about them because there's nothing to contradict them in the Bible?

 

[paximperium]

As a so called "religious" person I can tell you that what I object to is the notion that the theory of evolution is fact when it could be wrong. How do you explain this?

That is not relevant.

Your objections about the validity of the theory of evolution continues to be unvoiced except that you don't have the education or intelligence to understand it.

You have yet to provide a single criticism concerning the theory of evolution as to why it could be wrong except to proudly show you don't understand a single thing you are criticizing.

 

[paximperium]

Madallch, I have read this post, most of which I have removed because I am trying to concentrate on the Big Bang. That was the first point in the video. I understand that what you posted wasn't off topic with most of this thread but it is with the OP. What we have been talking about as far as dogs and the Biblical kind is increasingly off topic of the OP, so I have to pass.

I'm sorry. This thread is about the Theory of Evolution.

Please provide a valid criticism of the theory of evolution. Please stop attacking your ignorance and uneducated beliefs.

 

[John Jones]

Apparently, someone said something off the cuff about how carbon dating is ineffective.

I can't tell you the number of times I've heard creationists reject the age of the earth/fossil dinosaurs because carbon-14 dating is inaccurate.

 

[kerikiwi]

I too am still waiting for the first reason why evolution is stupid...

 

[paximperium]

Apparently, someone said something off the cuff about how carbon dating is ineffective.

Apparently Creatards love to make up lies about this symposium. I await Davey-boy's "educated" explanation about this symposium and the decades of follow up research that came from it.

 

[John Jones]

Madallch, I have read this post, most of which I have removed because I am trying to concentrate on the Big Bang.[...].

You need to start a thread about the big bang then, because that's cosmology, not modern evolution theory.

 

[Toke]

I was planning to write a post on why creationism is stupid, using some strawman displaying complete ignorance of the subject.

Problem is that I cannot come up with anything sillier than the fundies already are arguing.

 

[slingblade]

It's exactly as if David starts a thread about baking cookies and instead talks about Volvos.

Ummm...yeah.

 

[temporalillusion]

I'm not arguing against anything really. I asked two questions, or made two points from a video which five pages of responses later I have yet to see having been answered or addressed.

Which is an absolute lie, you responded and quote a post where I did just that. I even quoted what I wrote and bolded the pertinent parts.

And someone posted a link to the Wikipedia page for the Big Bang which also addresses your question.

But instead of either accepting those or at least discussing them you continue your "oh my no one has answered me" lament.

Fake drama is fake.

In other words until I agree with your interpretation of science I am wrong and laughable. And there you have it. I have explained why you collectively laugh at my statements.

No your statements are laughed at because they are unsupported by anything other than wishful thinking.

All I want you to do is tell me what exploded in the Big Bang

It's been explained to you a dozen times why the question is wrong and meaningless. It's like me asking you why is redemption red? The question make no sense.

And the question has been addressed.

how do you know that

How do we know we don't know? That doesn't make sense.

could you be wrong

All knowledge in science is provisional.

do you explain that you could be wrong in your propagandist curriculum

Anyone who is taught science is taught that all knowledge in science is provisional. Some seem to not get it though.

and why has the space of the Big Bang gone from 2 trillion miles down to nothing in under 50 years.

You do understand that cosmology has changed significantly in recent decades right? Once it was discovered that everything is receding from us at a rate proportional to the distance then all sorts of experiments were concocted to test things. Satellites went up. Telescopes were pointed. Old data was re-examined looking for new information.

So when the first guess of an amount is given and then it gets refined over time that's because they keep doing experiments and making observations to refine the results.

I'd like to know where you get this 2 trillion miles number too, when I search for it the 3rd result is this exact thread, so that's not very promising. Is it like the Swedish convention which only seems to exist in creationist websites too?