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

[Dancing David]

Energy. But. Dr. Hovind says that the Big Bang Theory started out at 2 trillion miles across and was reduced to nothing. Is energy nothing? Was energy thought originally to have taken up 2 trillion miles?

Nope, the BBt states that the theory breaks down at t<10^-36 seconds. So "started out at 2 trillion miles across and was reduced to nothing" is Dr. Hovind's mis-statement about the BBt.

It started from very small compared to it's current size but it issuggested that one inifinity is smaller than the other.

 

[SOdhner]

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

Please, please don't start a new thread. The objections will be the same, the discussion will be the same. There's no need to spam the forum with eleven of these.

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

I actually agree on that point. I would like clarification from EITHER of you. See, when looking for the context all I found was this:

"It is important to realize that in physics today, we have no knowledge what energy is. We do not have a picture that energy comes in little blobs of a definite amount."

Which is a bit longer and indicates that he may have been talking about some more specific aspect of energy... but honestly, I'm not really clear on the intent of that quote. Certainly we can all give a dictionary definition of energy - what is he talking about in this quote?

 

[David Henson]

Nylon-Eating Bacteria. QED.

Seriously, do you have me on ignore ?

I don't have anyone on ignore.

 

[Dancing David]

Space and time exploded?!

That is your answer?!

What exactly are space and time and how did these things explode? Or expand is what I heard.

Now that is a question for SMT, I can't give the exact answer, Zig or Sol I and many others would get much closer.

the correct answer is that it did not explode.

yes, it expanded and it was actually space that expanded. Now the boffos could tell you how they describe space/time in the tensors of the hamilton matrix space (or something like that), but it is part of GR.

the universe was comparitively smaller than it is now, it appears to be expanding at this time, the cosmological redshift is the possible evidence of that.

the BBt is the theory of what if that expansion is correct.

 

[Dancing David]

So Big Bang only in name. Curious.

It was given that name as a pejorative by Hoyle , a detratctor.

No words can describe it properly? That would explain why 15 pages of arguing about dogs preceeded any answer . . .

that is true of all theories.

YA THINK?!



Absolutely unbelievable!

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

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

So, would I be correct in assuming that what you are really trying to show is how ignorant Dr. Hovind is about this field?

You've done a remarkable job of it. Thank you.

 

[Radrook]

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

Many you can't reason with. Others you can. It all depends how we define reasoning and what we expect as a result from that reasoning process. Very often people throw up their hands and say others can't reason when they don't see things their way. I had this lady who kept screaming at us that we would all burn in hellfire if we didn't attend church. When my parents refused she concluded that we couldn't be reasoned with. Even Hitler concluded that others couldn't be reasoned with because they didn't agree with his murderous policies. So the conclusion can become extremely dependant on subjective criteria if we aren't careful.

 

[David Henson]

He's ignoring all the posts with sentences that are damning to his faith, if I understand correctly.

You don't.

Why post on a skeptics forum dedicated to education and understanding if one has no intention of learning ???

From Dr. Hovind I learned Evolution, beginning with this first part in a video series, that Evolution is questionable.

From this forum I learned that many of you disagree, but I see it as a matter of faith. Not mine. Yours. Collectively.

 

[Dancing David]

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

Um current theory is that the universe will expand forever until the end of whatever.

Dr. Hovind is referring to cyclical theory which is out of vogue.

 

[Radrook]

How about the examples of ring-species already offered in this thread, which shows spatially what is usually happening temporally?

The problem is that 'species' is not a fixed entity. It's defined by the current gene pool of a collection of individuals. After a few generations of selection, it is quite possible that the resulting individuals would not have been able to breed with those in the initial generation. While the individuals born in each generation will appear to be the same species as their parents (because they are), if selection pressure is operating, those with characteristics which fit them to survive better will be those who reproduce.

It doesn't require mutations for this to happen, either, though they will occur and introduce wider variation. The shuffling of genes produced by sexual reproduction is enough to produce variation in offspring to be selected from. The selection may produce individuals with certain combinations of genes; genes which were always in the population, but maybe not in those particular combinations.

I have never disagreed nor do I disagree with natural selection.

Ring Species
A classic example of ring species is the Larus gulls circumpolar species "ring". The range of these gulls forms a ring around the North Pole.
The Herring Gull L. argentatus, which lives primarily in Great Britain and Ireland, can hybridize with the American Herring Gull L. smithsonianus, (living in North America), which can also hybridize with the Vega or East Siberian Herring Gull L. vegae, the western subspecies of which, Birula's Gull L. vegae birulai, can hybridize with Heuglin's gull L. heuglini, which in turn can hybridize with the Siberian Lesser Black-backed Gull L. fuscus. All four of these live across the north of Siberia. The last is the eastern representative of the Lesser Black-backed Gulls back in north-western Europe, including Great Britain.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_species

BTW
It's the temporal effect conclusion that we don't agree on. Evolutionists take it to the point of fish ultimately changing into people. Something which I just don't by and neither do some others who are trained in the natural sciences.

 

[tsig]

I don't know anything about the Bible, and really don't want to know. I find it boring. However, I do know that the Bible says we must all smear ourselves with feces and make human sacrifices. Therefore, the Bible is stupid.

What's worse is that according to the Bible we're supposed to sacrifice babies and eat their raw flesh while draped in their intestines.

Evolution shows us it is better to cook them first.

 

[excaza]

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 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.

This argument doesn't make any sense. How a species diverged from a common ancestor has absolutely nothing to do with how it works. Saying an intelligent being designed all life on Earth absolutely stagnates any discussion on evolution. Evolution has absolutely nothing to do with the discussion of how life works, but how it got from whatever starting point to what we observe now. How life 'works' is biology.

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.

Not nearly as annoying as people who disagree with evolution without looking at the evidence, instead working off of sensationalized ignorance from people like "Dr." Hovnid. If someone came here and presented actual evidence as to why the current theory of evolution is completely wrong, they should be taken seriously. When you come into a discussion of evolution and start using the Big Bang, you don't deserve the same consideration.

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.

Why would it? That's like saying me believing in the boogeyman would prevent me from figuring out how much energy is required to launch an object into low earth orbit. Makes absolutely no sense.

ID very much discourages thinking on the topic of evolution, along with abiogenesis. I don't really understand how you can seriously say otherwise.

 

[Shalamar]

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

Mr. Hovind is flat out wrong. Cosmology does not state that anywhere.

 

[David Henson]

No. The OP was the Theory of Evolution.
You and Hovind decided and you could claim that the Big Bang Theory was somehow related to the Theory of Evolution because of plain simple stupidity and dishonesty.

Pay attention to what I say to you. I don't care if the Big Bang is evolution or electronics. It is taught as fact in classrooms, correct?

Remember that this entire thread, though dealing with things like Evolution and the Big Bang, is really about paradigms. Religious beliefs.

 

[tsig]

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

Is Hovind inspired by god?

 

[excaza]

Even Hitler concluded that others couldn't be reasoned with because they didn't agree with his murderous policies. So the conclusion can become extremely dependant on subjective criteria if we aren't careful.

Godwin's law surfaces

 

[David Henson]

Mr. Hovind is flat out wrong. Cosmology does not state that anywhere.

I'm talking about the history of the theory. The video points out that it changed from 2 trillion miles to nothing.

 

[excaza]

Pay attention to what I say to you. I don't care if the Big Bang is evolution or electronics. It is taught as fact in classrooms, correct?

NO

It is presented as exactly what it is, a theory!

 

[David Henson]

Is Hovind inspired by god?

Of course not. He is an idiot who either knows the limits of scientific dogma or he just knows how to push your collective buttons. I want to examine which of the two is most relevant.

 

[Twiler]

Pay attention to what I say to you. I don't care if the Big Bang is evolution or electronics. It is taught as fact in classrooms, correct?

Remember that this entire thread, though dealing with things like Evolution and the Big Bang, is really about paradigms. Religious beliefs.

Then why does the title talk about reasons for evolution being stupid?

Remember, Oceania is at war with Eurasia. Oceanis has always been at war with Eurasia.