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

[tsig]

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.

So a human being is the equivalent of a toaster?

 

[X]

Yeah. Big? It started out as big and then shrank to nothing, theoretically. From what Dr. Hovind said.

Since you seem so obsessed with the Big Bank (and since the name is what seems to be giving you problems), there's a book I suggest you read:

Big Bang by Simon Singh

In fact, I feel that it would be so worth your time to read (given your mis-education on the matter at the hands of Hovind), that I will send you my copy, free of charge (I'll even pay shipping!) if you promise to read it.



In regards to the OP, it clearly displays just how sorely misinformed you are.
You've latched onto Hovind's moronic idea that the Theory of Evolution covers all the bases.
It doesn't. T.O.E. refers to biological diversity. That is it and that is all.
Plainly, you intended to talk about the Big Bang theory (remember: it's just a name). The confusion in this thread, and the reason people keep asking you to get back on topic, is due to your conflating the two theories.
They are different.
You might as well open a discussion on the Theory of Gravity, and demand that it explain inertia.
This confusion could have been prevented if you had bothered to do even a modicum of research before creating this thread. Future reference: if Hovind is involved, assume he's wrong until proven otherwise. It's just safer.

 

[Robert Oz]

I'm curious, David, if you don't believe the universe has expanded and continues to expand, how do you explain that the Doppler shift of all galaxies shows them travelling away from us? Also, do you believe that the prediction made by the Big Bang Theory that the cosmic microwave radiation background would be discovered was just a lucky guess? Would Intelligent Design have made that prediction and, if not, how would ID scientists explain the CMRB once it was discovered by accident (unlikely since ID scientists would have no reason to go looking for it).

 

[tsig]

And the evidence of ID is?

Watches on beaches, mousetraps and bacteria tails.

 

[sphenisc]

You butchered the quote to make it look like Feynman doesn't know what energy is.

I've provided evidence of my claim, you've provided no evidence of yours. Do you understand how this forum works?

 

[technoextreme]

I've provided evidence of my claim, you've provided no evidence of yours. Do you understand how this forum works?

I'm giving you a chance to correct your idiotic mistake because anyone with half a brain can find the original quote on the Wikipedia article on energy.

 

[temporalillusion]

Since you seem so obsessed with the Big Bank (and since the name is what seems to be giving you problems), there's a book I suggest you read:

Big Bang by Simon Singh

In fact, I feel that it would be so worth your time to read (given your mis-education on the matter at the hands of Hovind), that I will send you my copy, free of charge (I'll even pay shipping!) if you promise to read it.

Quoting this to make sure David sees it.

I bet David won't take you up on the offer, he's too comfortable with his "I don't understand something but I know it's wrong" style of reasoning, but who knows.

Cmon David, get the book and learn something.

I've tried offering books to people in the past as well, and funnily enough I have never had to send a book to anyone, ever.

 

[tsig]

What isn't possible in this imaginary hypothesis?

A rabbit in the Cambrian.

 

[temporalillusion]

If you are really honestly interested in learning more about the Big Bang, we should compile your questions and create a thread in the Science subforum so actual scientists and cosmologists can answer your questions.

If you are really honestly interested.

 

[Paulhoff]

So Big Bang only in name. Curious.

First, what does the Big Bang have to do with evolution.

Second, why don't you look up who came up with the name "Big Bang", you may learn something.

Paul

 

[Robert Oz]

Thank you. Now we can move on to the second video.

If you accept the answer, you must also accept that Kent Hovind's arguments were pointless.

'Look, this theory can't explain what exploded. It must be completely wrong.' The fact is, the theory does explain a hell of a lot. I'll repeat my earlier question, do you think the prediction of the cosmic microwave radiation background was a lucky guess?

 

[tsig]

Scientists don't say there was nothing before the big bang. Lacking a time machine which you theists lack also they just don't know what it was. Life didn't evolve from nothing. Life developed from essential matter by processes unknown at this time. There are theories and you can see them yourself if you type abiogenesis into your search engine. You've been told this before but you ignore it.

They have their Bible. All they have to do is look in the book and all questions about the past, present and future will be plainly written* there.

*some interpretation will be required.

 

[sphenisc]

I'm giving you a chance to correct your idiotic mistake because anyone with half a brain can find the original quote on the Wikipedia article on energy.

Thanks, but no thanks - quote it here and explain my error. It's more educational that way.

 

[Dancing David]

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?

"We don't know" and it did not 'explode'.

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'.}

 

[Radrook]

As Paximperium asked. What proof is there of ID?
And more to the point, what use is the theory in science?

The same proof we would claim if we found an arrowhead on another planet.
Of what use to science were the truths discovered by Hume or Descarte?
Some truths are just truths and if rejected because they don't serve science, then wee wind up rejecting logic itself and mentally go back to the stone age.

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.

It doesn't necessarily follow . If we find a n intricate fascinating machine and logically conclude that someone designed it!" we don't then say "Well, since someone designed it, now I'm not interested in how it works!" In fact, that conclusion goes completely contrary to human psychology which is characterized by insatiable curiosity. The first hings humans do when they find intricate things is dive right in to see how they work.

Philosophically 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.

No, the scientists who disagree with evolution don't do it because it's fun. Neither do people who agree with these scientists. They and we do so because we find the evidence compelling as the quotes I posted pointed out. If you read them then you wouldn't or at least shouldn't be misrepresenting our position. It's annoying and makes for poor discussion.

BTW
When you say that a belief in an ID discourages thinking, you are probably thinking of the Catholic Church and its opposition to certain discoveries that would have made their false teachings suspect and undermined its authority.

Please take note that in China and the Arab world, which contributed substantially to human technological progress, belief in an ID proved no such hindrance.

 

[Dancing David]

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 -


.

The BBE did not come from nothing it came from "We don't know."
There is a whole lot of data that matches the BBT:
-elemental abundance in the universe (general proportion of H, He and Li)
-cosmological red shift
-cosmic microwave background

 

[tsig]

From a biologic perspective a species differs in that it is any group of interfertile plant or animal which mutually posses one or more distinctive characteristic, so there can be many species or varieties within a single division of the Biblical "kind."

So, for example, Noah didn't need to have every breed of dog or cat.



It sounds to me like the Peper Moth. You discover a new mosquito and assume that it never existed outside of a specific area and so it must be something new.

They don't "assume", they check out the facts as they exist in the physical world of reality.

Scientists aren't sitting in their ivory towers spinning inductive and deductive webs of illusion but are out in the field getting bit by those mosquitos and sweltering in the heat to discover those facts that you just wave away.

 

[Dancing David]

Since I have gone through 10 pages of responses and the best answer thus far to the two simple points of the OP has been a reluctant "I don't know" and that only as a possibility rather than a commitment, I might as well post it today.

Should I start a new thread or include it in this one? I think I should start a new one.

Some of us gave answers!

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'.}

 

[Radrook]

deleted

 

[Dancing David]

Still waiting for an answer.

My answer or your question?

Or your reply to my answer?