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

[Complexity]

How would you define ghost, and how would science define it.

Something imagined by fools, something not real, ...

 

[nvidiot]

Complexity, I of course defer to your long standing here and many informative posts I have read on many forms of woo in these forums, but I must say you're not being very E in JREF. In fact you just appear to be insulting others because of what I perceive as frustration. I understand your feelings, in my line of work I come across all kinds of woo. But you aren't doing yourself, or the opposing side of the discussion, any favours.

Something my mother used to say about not having anything nice to say comes to mind.

Right, with that put of the way, I would appreciate an answer from radrook on the subject of biological evolution as it is understood today:

What is the main evidence you see as missing from the modern synthesis? What evidence would you accept as showing the theory of evolution to be true?

Pls forgive my post if it seems harsh too Complexity, absolutley exhausted from a day dealing with idiots and I'm coming down with some kind of virus.

 

[Belz...]

Ignorance and arrogance are a lousy combination

And unfortunately they often go hand-in-hand.

 

[Belz...]

Complexity, I of course defer to your long standing here and many informative posts I have read on many forms of woo in these forums, but I must say you're not being very E in JREF. In fact you just appear to be insulting others because of what I perceive as frustration. I understand your feelings, in my line of work I come across all kinds of woo. But you aren't doing yourself, or the opposing side of the discussion, any favours.

Something my mother used to say about not having anything nice to say comes to mind.

Right, with that put of the way, I would appreciate an answer from radrook on the subject of biological evolution as it is understood today:

What is the main evidence you see as missing from the modern synthesis? What evidence would you accept as showing the theory of evolution to be true?

Pls forgive my post if it seems harsh too Complexity, absolutley exhausted from a day dealing with idiots and I'm coming down with some kind of virus.

Well, Complexity is one of our resident WMDs (Weapons of Mass Derision). We need some of those, to say what most people won't dare say (or what Articulett dared say and got banned for. A word of warning to Complexity, on that!)

 

[Hadron]

"If you could reason with religious people, there would be no religious people." -House

 

[Dancing David]

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.

Ah, well, sort of, the Monliths alter extant lines of creatures, they do not create them.

 

[Dancing David]

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.

And the evidence of ID is?

 

[Dancing David]

Can I haz a cheeseburger.

"We don't know" what exploded. And really it doesn't look like an explosion.

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'.}

 

[Jono]

Lately I have discovered that I seem to have developed an interest in science as presented by guys like this (Dr. Kent Hovind) who seem to me, to have a good understanding of science

A good understanding, really? Hovind? This is the guy who once asked how you can possibly use the C-14 method to prove that dinosaurs lived over 65 millions of years ago.

For starters, I recommend you read the following refutations of Hovind's paper; "Several Faulty Assumptions Are Used in all Radiometric Dating Methods. Carbon 14 is used for this example".

Here's how he's wrong:

1. The Atmospheric C-14 is Only 1/3 of the Way to Equilibrium
2. Radiometric Decay Rates are Not Constant
3. The Initial C-14 Content Cannot Be Known
4. It is Difficult or Impossible to Rule Out Contamination
5. There is Too Little C-14 to be Accurately Measured
6. The Decay Curve is Based on Too Few Points

 

[Jono]

Here is some reading that you are sure to enjoy then:

http://sebso.de/kent-hovind-doctoral-dissertation.pdf

Ok, forgot the smiley.

Wowie, thanks for the link. I've never read it before. I have now. What the hell kind of fake Mickey Mouse University gives out doctorates based on this crap?! It's not science, it doesn't fall into religious studies either. Hmm. My respect for academic titles just keep spiraling downward, I think I'm at the seventh circle of Hell at this point.

 

[excaza]

Wowie, thanks for the link. I've never read it before. I have now. What the hell kind of fake Mickey Mouse University gives out doctorates based on this crap?! It's not science, it doesn't fall into religious studies either. Hmm. My respect for academic titles just keep spiraling downward, I think I'm at the seventh circle of Hell at this point.

Remind me to begin my masters thesis with an autobiography

I didn't make it out of the first paragraph without laughing. Plus, what the hell is up with the formatting? It starts centered, then randomly gets aligned right, then goes back to centered. There's no abstract, no works cited (other than the bible), no page numbers, no table of contents, if this was submitted to my 4th grade teacher I'd probably have to redo it so I wouldn't fail.

I'm not even going to get into his 'arguments' against evolution. His opening statement is completely fallacious.

Where in the world did the idea come from that things left to themselves can improve with time?

You, in your dissertation.

Who would start a crazy idea like that?

You, in your dissertation.

This idea is the opposite of everything that we observe in the world today.

Correct, because your idea is wrong and does not reflect anything contained in the theory of evolution.

For instance, all the highways in our nation today left to themselves decay, deteriorate, and fall apart. A house left to itself will become a wreck.

A highway or a house are not analagous to biological life. Sorry. I can come up with irrelevant analogies too! Wine gets better with age, proof of evolution!

This is typical Hovnid, sensationalizing his own lack of understanding. His 'arguments' are directed at those who share the same complete lack of understanding by appealing to their knee-jerk reaction to anything more complex than making a peanut butter sandwich.

I'm half tempted to go through this stupid dissertation and point out everything that's wrong, but I've already managed a couple pages with just the first paragraph. I think laziness will win.

 

[iknownothing]

They aren't simply throwing up their hands and saying "We must believe in ID because there is nothing better". They are saying that the EVIDENCE they detect is too compelling to ignore.

They don't have evidence. All they have is opinions, that things that are really complex or really awesome must have been designed by someone. In forming those opinions, they disagree with existing ideas that explain these things by evolution, simply because they like the 'designer' idea better. They can call that "evidence" all they want, but the word doesn't fit. It's not evidence; it's just opinions.

And your idea that the designer doesn't need to be a deity...well, if it was superintelligent aliens, then who designed them? (And of course, if it God, who designed him? But then they get to use the little mental trick of sounding really, really deep by calling him "the uncaused cause" or something and escaping answering.)

Henson is uneducable.

I think that is true. When he says essentially, "I know nothing about science but I can totally refute it all," and refuses to answer (or even acknowledge the existence of) dozens of really well thought out answers, yeah there's no point.

 

[X]

What you are missing or ignoring in all this is that there are scientifically trained minds which evaluate that work and math and after that careful work of evaluation conclude that it is bogus. That's the part you seem unable to accept.

<snip for brevity>

This post is mostly a placeholder.
I have read your post, and I will get around to a more detailed response when I have the time*.

However, while it is failry simply to tap out a post on one topic over my lunch break, writing a reply which addresses multiple points (with the attendant background research) will take a little longer. So I probably won't be able to write it over my breaks.

Nor do I think I'll have the time to write it while at home.
Or rather, I will have the time, but I'd better not waste it on the internet.
I'm not saying that addressing concerns raised about my post is unimportant. It's merely that I have a violin recital on Sunday, and I really haven't been practicing as much as a should. So, until Sunday, that takes priority.


* If someone else responds to your post and raises the points I would have, I may just refer you to their post.


Edit: Since it's going to be a few days, could you please post a link to the works of scientists you were referring to?
That way, I can respond to what they are saying (and what you are referring to), rather than having to guess what publications to read.

I was wondering when you were going to start name calling since your quasi reserved diatribes were just barely on the fine line between utter contempt and decency. But hey? No problemo!

Zooterkin was correct. The "bible-believing moron" comment was not aimed at you, or anybody else in this thread. Although the individual in question has been referred to inthis thread...

 

[David Henson]

We haven't observed atomic evolution? What do you have to say to the people of Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

Blinded them with Science, didn't they. I don't understand what that has to do with anything. There was a big bang but the similarities ended there. It wasn't a case of nothing expanding.

Evolution hapens in tiny increments. You'd know that if you actually knew anything about the subject.

So I've been told. Over and over.

You're the one who is obstinately refusing to learn about something that threatens you dogma. This rejection of that which you do not understand betrays the fact that you are simply looking to rationalize your dismissal of that which threatens your indoctrination.

I'm not the one not answering the questions. My dogma and indoctrination are not in question here, yours are.

And I suspect that you are here to reassure yourself that your superstitions are real.

I don't need to threaten someone elses beliefs in order to create my own, you do.

It doesn't matter what you reject, as long as you can reject it histrionically enough you can make science seem silly in your mind and be reassured that no one has any evidence that you superstition is fantastic. Maybe if you call science a "dumb doody head" you'll feel even better. There is nothing wrong with using the term evolution to describe different phenomena that involve change over time. If I am mistaken then please explain exactly why without resorting to simply claiming "that's stupid".

What exploded in the Big Bang and how do the complete changes the theory has undergone in a short period of time reflect upon it and the methedology which produced it as being science fiction?

You are wrong. Even science says that science can be wrong. All sceintific knowledge is held provisionally, pending further discovery.

And until one thing replaces another which threatens your scientific inquiry the former is as good as fact. You see? You need to believe in evolution. And evolution is perfect because it obviously is never going to be replaced as long as scientist keep "observing" the theory into the facts. A bump on the head of a fish is an indication that it "evolved," a moth's camoflauge becomes a case for evolution so it must be true.

I have addressed it. You simply lack the knowledge to understand the answer.

You haven't addressed anything other than I disagree with you. You have no answer. No evidence. You simply must believe it.

 

[Marduk]

Clarification
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.

can you see how the statement above matches this statement from your OP

Lately I have discovered that I seem to have developed an interest in science as presented by guys like this (Dr. Kent Hovind)

OR DO YOU THINK THEY ARE DIFFERENT KINDS

 

[David Henson]

Close, but no. More accurately both people and fish can likely trace back to a common ancestor. Not quite the same thing.

And like the Big Bang it started out as nothing. There is no evidence of the Big Bang because there was nothing there before it. You can't get something from nothing - except evolution. No evidence of a common ancestor, only an old theory that is clung to like blind faith.

Also, this was originally posted for David but I would really appreciate it if you could answer it too: At what point do we start to disagree? http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=6011725#post6011725

We begin to disagree when you start preaching your science fiction propaganda like a litmus test for intellectual dishonesty.

 

[David Henson]

That's certainly possible, and yeah - if faced with it I might refer to it as a fish. But I want to be as clear as possible since we're dealing with people who are confused on how this works. And it's also possible that this common ancestor had some key differences from any modern creature we would call a fish and so I want to acknowledge that.

What isn't possible in this imaginary hypothesis?

 

[joobz]

You have no answer. No evidence. You simply must believe it.

Ok, let's talk evidence of the big bang (even though it makes no sense to do so in a thread about evolution).

If you wish to see evidence of the big bang, look into the data surrounding the cosmic background radiation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_microwave_background_radiation

That is the data which scientists have used to confirm the big bang theory.

Your claim that there is no evidence is false.

 

[excaza]

And like the Big Bang it started out as nothing. There is no evidence of the Big Bang because there was nothing there before it. You can't get something from nothing - except evolution. No evidence of a common ancestor, only an old theory that is clung to like blind faith.

Translation:

There is plenty of evidence, you're just not willing to look at it.

 

[excaza]

Ok, let's talk evidence of the big bang (even though it makes no sense to do so in a thread about evolution).

If you wish to see evidence of the big bang, look into the data surrounding the cosmic background radiation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_microwave_background_radiation

That is the data which scientists have used to confirm the big bang theory.

Your claim that there is no evidence is false.

No, talk about the Big Bang in another thread. Big Bang Theory is irrelevant to the discussion of evolution. Stop feeding the troll.