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

[David Henson]

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.

In other words he doesn't agree with you.

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.

That is just being silly on his part. Many uninformed Bible skeptics make similar remarks about God and the Bible.

ETA: Like this . . .

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.

His complete lack of understanding of what the theory of evolution is plainly evident to those who have actually looked at what it says.

I have seen the guy mop the floor with professors at universities who should know what they are talking about and those guys respond the same to him as the people here.

No answers, only an insistance that anyone who doesn't agree can't be educated on the subject. That is dogma. Religious. If they can't give an answer it is a moot point.

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.

It doesn't matter because you can't anwer his criticism with anything other than faith. Believe as I say. Don't question.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

.
Anyway, Fruit flies were subjected to mutagenic chemicals and radiation and non of the offspring turned into anything other than mutilated inferior fruit flies. Natural selection offers no convincing evidence as well:

I'm shocked that it took this long before one of you guys brought up this bit of ridiculousness. You really should check your playbooks more carefully.

 

[Robert Oz]

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.

It is assuming that 12 o'clock is the starting point of the diversification.

Like this:

12 can breed with 1 and vice versa;
1 can breed with 2 and vice versa;
2 can breed with 3 and vice versa;
3 can breed with 4 and vice versa;
4 can breed with 5 and vice versa;
5 can breed with 6 and vice versa;
6 can breed with 7 and vice versa;
7 can breed with 8 and vice versa;
8 can breed with 9 and vice versa;
9 can breed with 10 and vice versa;
10 can breed with 11 and vice versa; BUT
11 cannot breed with 12 and vice versa.

11 and 12 are by definition, different species. But at what point along the path does this macro-evolution occur? Now replace this geographic problem with a time problem and the absurdity of saying something as ridiculous as a dog giving birth to an ear of corn becomes clear.

 

[Shalamar]

In other words he doesn't agree with you.



That is just being silly on his part. Many uninformed Bible skeptics make similar remarks about God and the Bible.

ETA: Like this . . .





I have seen the guy mop the floor with professors at universities who should know what they are talking about and those guys respond the same to him as the people here.

No answers, only an insistance that anyone who doesn't agree can't be educated on the subject. That is dogma. Religious. If they can't give an answer it is a moot point.



It doesn't matter because you can't anwer his criticism with anything other than faith. Believe as I say. Don't question.

Science is not decided by debate. Science is determined by the evidence. You are taking it solely on blind faith. because you do not like the evidence.

 

[Radrook]

I'm shocked that it took this long before one of you guys brought up this bit of ridiculousness. You really should check your playbooks more carefully.

Heckling mode-right? No problem at all my friend.

 

[David Henson]

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.

You shouldn't have done that. What is God?

 

[excaza]

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.

They were placed in an unnatural environment, why do the results surprise you? If you picked up a bunch of chihuahuas and dumped them in Siberia, they'd die. Evolution must be false

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.

This logic is awful. How is that evidence against natural selection? The capacity for the bird's beak to 'change' based on the season is a significant advantage over birds whose beaks don't change. Sounds like natural selection to me.

My dog grows a thick undercoat in the winter and sheds it in the spring, is that evidence against natural selection? The oak tree in my front yard sheds its leaves in the winter and grows them back in the spring, is that evidence against natural selection?

hint: no

 

[excaza]

You shouldn't have done that. What is God?

What does it matter?

Your belief is that some super-de-duper thing created everything. You call it God. Others call it a pantheon of gods. Others think it was aliens.

There's no evidence, no matter what you call your super-de-duper thing, besides your disbelief that something complex could just 'happen'.

 

[David Henson]

Science is not decided by debate. Science is determined by the evidence. You are taking it solely on blind faith. because you do not like the evidence.

What does that even mean? Once science has stated its opinion the matter is closed? That isn't dogma?

 

[temporalillusion]

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.

Lol, anyone who's read the thread knows this is nonsense. People did explain why it was wrong, and have said why Big Bang Theory is accurate.

They've even offered to send you a book about it! Going to accept that offer?

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.

I suggest a rudimentary education in science, you don't understand the difference between a theory and a hypothesis.

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.

Nope, a conclusion based on all available evidence. There's zero evidence that God did it.

 

[tsig]

You shouldn't have done that. What is God?

A super human that agrees with you Dave.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

Heckling mode-right? No problem at all my friend.

What else is there to do with such misinformation?

Do you suppose that the intent of fruit fly experiments was to create new life forms or that they have been doing it for eons? It is simply wrong to imply an intent to an experiment that is not a part of the experiment.

 

[iknownothing]

In other words he doesn't agree with you.

Is there any possible criticism of him you would not dismiss the same way?

I have seen the guy mop the floor with professors at universities who should know what they are talking about and those guys respond the same to him as the people here.

The same way you think you're mopping the floor here?

 

[David Henson]

You tell me. You're the one who wants to believe that some super-de-duper being created everything.

That is your explanation of God. A super-de-duper being?

What about panspermia? Is even your basic uninformed and bias explanation of what my God might be so different?

 

[Robert Oz]

You shouldn't have done that. What is God?

An ominpotent, omniscient, supernatural being existing outside space-time that created everything in existence, but that, itself, is eternal and, therefore, does not need a creator.

What does that even mean? Once science has stated its opinion the matter is closed? That isn't dogma?

No. Once science has provided enough evidence to support an opinion, the opinion is provisionally accepted as being an accurate representation of reality. That is not dogma, that is scientific scepticism.

 

[David Henson]

Is there any possible criticism of him you would not dismiss the same way?

Of course there is. He thinks that the earth is only 6,000 years old. I would start by explaining the Hebrew word yohm to him. He thinks dinosaurs existed and were reported in the Bible. I would examine his examples and point out his error.

The same way you think you're mopping the floor here?

I don't think I'm mopping the floor here, I pity the guy who would have to mop up the mess I'm trying to wade through.

 

[Belz...]

The Big Bang was the OP.

Still irrelevant.

 

[Belz...]

The same proof we would claim if we found an arrowhead on another planet.

And yet we've found nothing of the sort on Earth.

 

[David Henson]

An ominpotent, omniscient, supernatural being existing outside space-time that created everything in existence, but that, itself, is eternal and, therefore, does not need a creator.

I don't think God is omnipotent, omniscient or omnipresent, and there is no evidence from the Bible to think otherwise.

No. Once science has provided enough evidence to support an opinion, the opinion is provisionally accepted as being an accurate representation of reality. That is not dogma, that is scientific scepticism.

[Laughs]

 

[temporalillusion]

Well, that all depends on what that 3 is.

WHAT? So you decide if addition is correct or not by if it leads to a result you like or not?

Well there's your problem.

You accept some change over time of life, but not too much change. What stops that change from accumulating beyond a certain point?

I haven't even seen the question yet! I have to scroll the whole thread just to find where my post is!

I've asked it a number of times, but I'll ask it again. How many mutations do you think there are between the genetic code of your parents and your genetic code?

I'm not asking you to provide a supported answer, just your gut level instinct answer, one that makes sense to you. You could even guess less than one (meaning that mutations happen less than every generation).

So what's your best guess?

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

That's got nothing to do with my question.

Natural selection offers no convincing evidence as well:

That article doesn't understand evolution either, it complains that changes are reversible.. well no kidding, natural selection doesn't claim to be a ratchet only going one way.

But lets ignore natural selection for the moment, and start with the mutations.. how many mutations do you think you have?