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

[excaza]

I was bored, so here you go:

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=469&pictureid=3110[/qimg]




And a pic:

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=469&pictureid=2941[/qimg]

many thanks

 

[MattusMaximus]

Oh holy hell...

There's been about six eight pages of posts since I last posted in this thread earlier today yesterday, and I don't feel like reading through all the usual bickering.

Can someone point me to where, specifically, David Henson provided a concrete definition of what he means by "kind"? I think that in order to have a productive conversation with him, we have to have the answer to this question - otherwise, we'll all just be spinning our wheels.

Thanks in advance.

If he never addressed the question, let me know that too - because then I can ignore this thread from now on.

Anyone? Buehler? Buehler?

 

[paximperium]

Oh holy hell...



If he never addressed the question, let me know that too - because then I can ignore this thread from now on.

Anyone? Buehler? Buehler?

Here

A Biblical kind is the divisions life forms which allows for cross fertility within its own limits. The boundary between kinds is drawn where fertilization is no longer allowed. Dogs make dogs, not cats.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6014601&postcount=464
and here...about 1/3rd down.

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.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=177556&page=15

 

[Maia]

How does that make the theory of evolution different from anything else? Anything that humans accept as "fact" could be wrong--we could all be brains in a vat dreaming everything, for example.

For practical purposes, though, most people accept some things as pretty well proven to be true, rely on them and call them "facts," for lack of a better word. We couldn't function otherwise.

For most people who don't have an emotional need to believe otherwise, evolution through natural selection seems the most reasonable explanation for why animals are the way they are. The evidence just keeps mounting and is available for anyone to read in textbooks, websites and other written materials. At a certain point, it becomes pointless to keep pussy-footing around and not use the term "fact." I mean, some flat-earthers or hollow-earthers might disagree that it's a "fact" that the earth is round and reasonably solid, but the average person can't be expected to keep an open mind on those points forever.

Well, yes. I wish it were possible to have a more nuanced discussion about these things with people who don't accept evolution in the first place, but that's kind of already ruled out by definition. For instance, scientists do have different views about what else goes into evolution besides natural selection, and how much importance should be allotted to different factors. Dawkins doesn't like catastrophism very much; Gould built a fairly large chunk of the basis of his theories about evolutionary biology around that concept. Dawkins and the Gould/Lewontin/Kamin school of thought have serious disagreements about the functions and implications of DNA. But they all are/were Darwinists (atheists, too) who accept that natural selection is the basic driving force of evolution. It just seems that these kinds of subtleties are lost or become more fodder for "aha, they don't agree about everything, so evolution doesn't exist!"

 

[David Henson]

You think that's a significant number of posts? Check out this troll's accomplishments. You've got a long way to go if you want to reach some sort of ubertroll status.

Oh, yeah, but shucks, MarkyMark. I'm the good stuff.

Quality.

 

[David Henson]

Is evolution stupid yet?

You will have to wait until the rest of them catch on.

My post on gays, midgets and intellectuals has gone missing, though.

Lets see which one shows up first. Whoops. Too late.

Okay. Evolution is stupid.

 

[Brainache]

You will have to wait until the rest of them catch on.

My post on gays, midgets and intellectuals has gone missing, though.

Lets see which one shows up first. Whoops. Too late.

Okay. Evolution is stupid.

I thought you said that evolution is religion... Are you saying religion is stupid? If so, it would be the only thing you've said in this thread that I might agree with.

Seriously, calling evolution a religion makes as much sense as calling religion a science.

Can you imagine theologians designing experiments to confirm predictions and then modifying their predictions depending on the outcome of the experiments? Then publishing their findings and inviting all the other theologians in the world to try to prove them wrong?

 

[paximperium]

You will have to wait until the rest of them catch on.

My post on gays, midgets and intellectuals has gone missing, though.

Lets see which one shows up first. Whoops. Too late.

Okay. Evolution is stupid.

I'm sorry Davey boy. We're still missing an actual criticism of the theory of evolution. All we've seen so far is your presentation of your ignorance and how science illiterate you are.
I can agree that your understanding of "evolution" as you call it is exceedingly stupid.

Would you care to present an actual criticism?

 

[paximperium]

Oh, yeah, but shucks, MarkyMark. I'm the good stuff.

Quality.

I'm sorry. I disagree. Your posts have made you look exceedingly uneducated, dishonest and stupid; the opposite of what a troll is suppose to do.

Some of these uber-trolls are at least driven enough to post a huge number of posts. You on the other hand are too lazy to even do that. You are a total failure even in such a simple thing. Have you ever succeeded in anything? Ever?

 

[Lukraak_Sisser]

See this is something that dissapoints me about you David.
You claim to post here to have a debate with those who have different views from yours.
In all your threads you claim:
1. not to know much about science, how it works and how each branch of science came to the conclusions that support the current main theories and
2. that they are wrong / stupid.

Yet when you start getting replies you steadfastly ignore those that are well crafted explanations, written for the layman on how these theories work. The ones that show that these theories are not plucked from thin air, but are based upon literally tens of thousends of manyears of work and observation and testing and re-testing.
Instead you focus on the quips or (percieved) attacks. And yes, you will get those in any thread, this is an internet forum.

One of your more outragous claims is that science is as dogmatic as religion. How do you know this? You said you've not studied any scientific field in detail. If you had you'd have seen how fluid most scientific theories are. Even the theories of the most revered persons in the history of science, like Newton, Einstein or Darwin have been altered, modified and updated as new information becomes available.
Someone claiming 'I don't believe this' does however not suddenly invalidate these theories unless they have compelling proof.

 

[Corsair 115]

Let's flip things around and ask the following, paraphrased from a question someone on the boards here once asked:

What lines of evidence other than the Bible indisputably and unequivocally lead to creationism being correct?

 

[Radrook]

Really?

What I said, and please read carefully this time-is that it need not involve deities. Remember the film "2001 a Space Odyssey"? That involved intelligent design but did not involve deities. Hope that clears it up.

 

[Maia]

Can you imagine theologians designing experiments to confirm predictions and then modifying their predictions depending on the outcome of the experiments? Then publishing their findings and inviting all the other theologians in the world to try to prove them wrong?

The Jesus Seminar comes about as close as you'll find, and it does fill the second criteria pretty much 100%. Actually, it could even be said that higher biblical criticism itself operates along similar lines, considering that it's using the tools of history, archaeology, and literary criticism rather than the scientific method. But it's no coicidence that this discipline is highly unpopular among Christians who don't accept evolution. I really doubt that anyone from that group has anything good to say about the Jesus Seminar,either, and if they do, I have yet to find it.

 

[paximperium]

What I said, and please read carefully this time-is that it need not involve deities. Remember the film "2001 a Space Odyssey"? That involved intelligent design but did not involve deities. Hope that clears it up.

And where did the aliens come from?
Great. Would you care to present the Intelligent Design Hypothesis and the evidence to support said claim?

 

[Vortigern99]

Evolution as DH understands it certainly is stupid. Life springing from rocks, explosions occurring at the beginning of the universe, dogs giving birth to bananas and ears of corn. Verily, the stupid doth burn.

Evolution as biologists, geneticists, anthropologists, and laymen with basic scientific knowledge, among others, understand it is an elegant, fact-based theory with applications in many disciplines and an opportunity to glimpse some small part of the workings of this amazing world.

 

[Radrook]

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.

But there we go again! An ID need not be considered a god nor does its methods need involve the supernatural. There is nothing in the definition fan ID that requires it. many things that humans do now would be considered supernatural by our ancient ancestors. Yet to us they would simply be technological accomplishments.,


Also, who or what or where the ID came or its location in existence is irrelevant to the detection of ID in nature. In short, one doesn't have to know everything about the builders of a machine in order to conclude that the machine is a product of intelligent design.

 

[paximperium]

But there we go again! An ID need not be considered a god nor does its methods need involve the supernatural. There is nothing in the definition fan ID that requires it. many things that humans do now would be considered supernatural by our ancient ancestors.
Yet to us they would simply be technological accomplishments.,

Indeed. Many of these previously magic and unexplained things are now actually understood by science and not just claimed as "designed" by some completely unknown thing by some unknown processes.

Also, who or what or where the ID came or its location in existence is irrelevant to the detection of ID in nature. In short, one doesn't have to know everything about the builders of a machine in order to conclude that the machine is a product of intelligent design.

Great. Would you be so kind as to actually present the Intelligent Design Hypothesis and the evidence to support this claim?

Any? Any at all?

 

[Chucky]

I'm not arguing against anything really.

I know nothing of science so I don't really argue it. Now the Bible I will argue, but that isn't what this thread is about.

I should have called this thread "The Emperor Has No Clothes."

No, you should have called it "Things I Don't Understand and Have No Intention of Learning About, So That I Recognize an Answer When I Get One, are Stupid"

 

[Lukraak_Sisser]

But there we go again! An ID need not be considered a god nor does its methods need involve the supernatural. There is nothing in the definition fan ID that requires it. many things that humans do now would be considered supernatural by our ancient ancestors. Yet to us they would simply be technological accomplishments.,


Also, who or what or where the ID came or its location in existence is irrelevant to the detection of ID in nature. In short, one doesn't have to know everything about the builders of a machine in order to conclude that the machine is a product of intelligent design.

As Paximperium asked. What proof is there of ID?
And more to the point, what use is the theory in science?
After all, if we'd have thought "someone designed it that way, so no need to figure out how it works" we'd still be stuck in the bronze age or before. Phylosophically it's fun to speculate about such things and it makes nice Scifi reading too, but a 'theory' that actively discourages thinking about how things work has no place in science.

 

[Sideroxylon]

I'm sorry Davey boy. We're still missing an actual criticism of the theory of evolution. All we've seen so far is your presentation of your ignorance and how science illiterate you are.
I can agree that your understanding of "evolution" as you call it is exceedingly stupid.

Would you care to present an actual criticism?

That would require a consideration of the informed argument in this thread and a degree of intellectual honesty.