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

[Segnosaur]

So... your definition of 'kind' is roughly the same as the definition that is commonly used for 'species'... Is that the definition you really want to go with?

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."

First of all, when you yourself defined what a 'kind' was, you suggested that it only involved the ability to interbreed with others. Your exact words were "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.". Nothing there about distinctive characteristics. You can see that back in post #168. Here's a link to it: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6011604&postcount=168

So now it looks like your changing your definition. You've gone from "a 'kind' is roughly the equivalent of a species" to "a kind can be a group of species as long as they have the same 'characteristics'.

You see, this is one of the reasons why people don't have much respect for creationists. You complain about changes/inaccuracies in scientific theories, yet you yourself cannot keep your own story straight even within the same thread...

Secondly, you claim animals are of the same kind if they "mutually posses one or more distinctive characteristic". So, what exactly do you define as a "distinctive characteristic"?

What about the number of limbs? Humans have 4... so do chimps, horses, and dogs. Are we all of the same 'kind' (as distinctive from, for example, the octopus or centipede)?

So, what is a 'distinctive characteristic'? How do you determine what a 'distinctive characteristic' is, and differentiate it from a 'non-distinctive characteristic'?

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

Except you've already said there can be multiple species within a 'kind'.... So did Noah have to bring house cats, lions, leopards, tigers, and lynx? Or did he just bring one 'cat'? After all, most would view these as separate species (although as others have pointed out some amount of interbreeding is possible.)

In that case, please explain the London Underground mosquito. This is a recent species, evolved from (but not necessarily fertile with) above-ground species. The London subway tunnels are only around 100 years old, so this species isn't one that could have been around since "god created everything".

So, by your definition (i.e. requiring cross-fertility) we've seen a brand new 'kind' evolve.

Now, what I suspect you will do, is probably use the argument but its still just a mosquito and thus not a new 'kind'... however, if you do, then you will have to come up with some other alternate definition of 'kind' (one that does not involve cross-fertility.)

It sounds to me like the Peper Moth.

But its not. Nobody claimed the pepper moth was an example of speciation, only of adaptation.

You discover a new mosquito and assume that it never existed outside of a specific area and so it must be something new.

Well, given the fact that that species has never been found outside the tunnels, and the tunnels have only existed for about a century, its a pretty darn likely that that's the case.

To assume otherwise would be to assume some group of mosquitos (you know, animals that have the ability to fly) used to live above ground, but all decided to move into the subway tunnels and leave none of their offspring above ground.

 

[jsfisher]

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

The video would be wrong, then, wouldn't it. No surprise there.

 

[sphenisc]

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?

Didn't you find the full quotation on the Energy page at Wikipedia explained it satisfactorily?

 

[Shalamar]

You don't.



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.

You are taking it on Faith that Mr. Hovind is correct. You believe evolution to be wrong, therefore it must be wrong, and Mr. Hovind is correct.

Since most of the rest of us here look and accept the evidence that leads to evolution.. we must be wrong?

I do not think you understand what faith is.

 

[David Henson]

NO

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

I see nothing wrong with that, so long as the distinction is clear.

 

[RoboTimbo]

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.

Let me see if I'm understanding this then.

You don't believe that your god designed or created the universe?

 

[Robert Oz]

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

It is demontrable, and has been demonstrated, that Dr. Hovind misrepresents the Theory of Evolution and only manages to tear down strawman arguments. No evolutionary scientist would agree with how Dr. Hovind describes the process of evolution. None.

It's like learning advanced mathematics from a home economics teacher.

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

We recognise Dr. Hovind's ignorance re: evolution and accept the actual Theory of Evolution based on evidence.

 

[Shalamar]

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.

No. You think it is so, but it is not.

 

[Segnosaur]

From Dr. Hovind I learned Evolution...

No you didn't.

What you 'learned' was not evolution, it was a bunch of straw men and inaccuracies that Hovind claimed was "evolution", but which no respectable scientist recognizes as such.

... beginning with this first part in a video series, that Evolution is questionable.

Except that its not questionable.

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

Our understanding of evolution is built on piles of scientific evidence going back over a century. It is accepted by >99% of the scientific community currently engaged in research in the field, including dozens of Nobel prize winners.

Your belief in creationism (or that evolution is wrong) is supported by Honvind, a guy who's PhD came from an unaccredited diploma mill, who's thesis adviser didn't even have his thesis proof-read for spelling mistakes or factual inaccracies.

 

[Shalamar]

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

Perhaps you are correct. That does not invalidate cosmology.

As new evidence is found, theories are revised, or even discarded.

Based on the current evidence, the current theory of cosmology, the Big Bang, is correct. New evidence could come to light tomorrow that shows a different result and a different conclusion. This is science. We follow the evidence wherever it may lead us.

It is only religion and faith that clings desperately to dogma, regardless of the evidence, and what has changed. We do not follow the writings of 4000 year old bronze age sheepherders. We look into the evidence of the NOW.

 

[excaza]

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.

He's very good speaker, I'll give him that. However, he speaks about things about which he does not possess the necessary fundamental understanding required for a logical discussion. He instead presents these fallicies and misunderstandings to people who share the exact same lack of knowledge. The way he presents himself (as a scientist), along with his speaking methods (logical fallacies, sensationalizing his lack of understanding) ensure that his audience doesn't think to question it.

The one quote that stands out to me, his "I don't have a tail, I couldn't have come from a monkey!" is probably the best example of this. His complete lack of understanding of what the theory of evolution is plainly evident to those who have actually looked at what it says. But to his audience, it 'makes sense,' they don't have tails, after all. All he does is build up these 'arguments,' along with oodles of other strawmen (BBT has changed! It's wrong!). Essentially he's a con artist, and a very good one.

 

[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.

You haven't accepted or declined the offer yet David.

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

The problem is Hovind misrepresents evolution for his own theological goals.

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

Not faith because we have evidence, Hovind has to misrepresent evolution to make his points.

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?

It's taught as a scientific theory supported by facts. How do you expect to discuss science if you don't even understand the basic ideas?

Big Bang Theory is supported by mountains of evidence, you and Hovind (purposefully?) misrepresent or misunderstand it to make some point. Big Bang Theory isn't about how the universe started, it's about the history of the universe from now to very very early.

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

It's not a religious belief if it's reproducible, makes accurate predictions, is supported by all available evidence, and doesn't have any contradicting evidence.

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

So the video points out, yet you haven't shown that that's actually what has happened to the theory. Evidence please.

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.

False dichotomy. Hovind misinterprets, misrepresents, and probably outright lies about evolution to support a theological point.

 

[temporalillusion]

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.

So you believe 1+1=2, but 1+1+1 can never add up to 3...

So tell us then, what stops the changes beyond a certain level?

You never answered the question, how many mutations do you think there are between you and your parents?

 

[Vorticity]

Huh? The bolded portion makes no sense to me.

The animal at 12 o'clock can breed with the animal at 1 o'clock, but not with the animal at 11 o'clock. (I think)

No, but that can't be true, since "can breed with" is a commutative relationship. If 12 o'clock can breed with 1 o'clock, then by definition 1 o'clock can breed with 12 o'clock.

 

[David Henson]

The video would be wrong, then, wouldn't it. No surprise there.

No. It wouldn't be surprising at all if the video were wrong, what surprises me is, not so much that none of you can explain why it might be wrong but that the possibility that it (the video's questioning of the Big Bang) could be right simply by default is unacceptable to you even though you can't state for a certainty anything else.

A theory means, you have told me, just guessing what might have happened by observing the evidence, so when someone asks where the evidence is you have nothing more to offer than possibilities. For some reason you have to eliminate the possibility that you are wrong even while acknowledging that possibility.

That is religion. A world view. Not science in a complete and factual conclusion other than this is what we like to think happened because you can't accept God did it.

 

[zooterkin]

No, but that can't be true, since "can breed with" is a commutative relationship. If 12 o'clock can breed with 1 o'clock, then by definition 1 o'clock can breed with 12 o'clock.

That's not what he's saying.
The animal at 12 o'clock can breed with the animal at 1 o'clock, but not with the animal at 11 o'clock.

 

[zooterkin]

A theory means, you have told me, just guessing what might have happened by observing the evidence,

Who told you this?

 

[Radrook]

.

So you believe 1+1=2, but 1+1+1 can never add up to 3...

So tell us then, what stops the changes beyond a certain level?

Well, that all depends on what that 3 is.

You never answered the question, how many mutations do you think there are between you and your parents?

I haven't even seen the question yet! I have to scroll the whole thread just to find where my post is! Anyway, Fruit flies were subjected to mutagenic chemicals and radiation and non of the offspring turned into anything other than mutilated inferior fruit flies.

Drosophila melanogaster
http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/3723



Natural selection offers no convincing evidence as well:

Even Darwin's finches from the Galapagos Islands off the coast of Ecuador tell us little of large scale evolution. The thirteen species of finches on the Galapagos Islands show subtle variation in the size and shape of their beaks based on the primary food source of the particular species of finch.

While the finches do show change over time in response to environmental factors-hence natural selection-the change is reversible! The size and shape of their beaks will vary slightly depending if the year is wet or dry (varying the size of seeds produced) and revert back when the conditions reverse. There is no directional change. It is even possible that the thirteen species are more like six or seven species since hybrids form so readily, especially among the ground finches, and survive quite well. Once again, where is the real evolution?


There are many other documented examples of natural selection operating in the wild. But they all show that whereas limited change is possible, there are also limits to change. No one, as far as I know, questions the reality of natural selection. The real issue is that examples such as the Peppered Moth and Darwin's Finches tell us nothing about evolution.
http://www.4truth.net/site/c.hiKXLb...suse_of_Artificial_Selection__Apologetics.htm

 

[sphenisc]

The quote's in the last paragraph.

http://www.leifiphysik.de/web_ph09/lesestoff/06_energie-feynman/what_is_energy.htm

This discussion from 2003 shows its continued relevance.

http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=4251

 

[excaza]

That is religion. A world view. Not science in a complete and factual conclusion other than this is what we like to think happened because you can't accept God did it.

Ok, God could have done it. Happy?

Now since there is absolutely no evidence for God, we need an alternative theory. We just happen to one that fits what we observe and can accurately predict outcomes of various experiments.