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

[paximperium]

Yeah, but it needs more cowbell.

I believe the flogged carcass can no longer perform to anyone's specifications.

 

[Vortigern99]

DH, it's no wonder you think evolution is stupid. You have no idea how it works and you have no interest in examining the evidence for it. Science bores you, as you've admitted, and you lack education in its complexities and methods. Of course you could learn, just like anyone with a mind and the ability to read, but you have no willingness to do so. Of course, you dismiss it as "stupid"! You lack the most fundamental knowledge of what it is and how it works.

 

[Maia]

I accept your retraction.

However, unless you can enlighten me, I'll stick with my conclusion that David is in good company in not knowing what energy is.

It has absolutely nothing at all to do with knowing or not knowing what energy is. It has everything to do with picking out one sentence and not even reading the sources you quoted or knowing what their context is (or knowing where they came from, IMHO.) This small piece of a Feynmann lecture came from the lectures he gave to undergraduate students at Caltech in 1961–63. It was reprinted in Six Easy Pieces: Essentials of Physics By Its Most Brilliant Teacher (find it at Amazon! So the context is that this explanation is meant for people who don't really understand what energy is; it's supposed to be extremely simple and basic. As such, it does not go into any details. If you want details, my guess is that you should read Feynmann when he writes/lectures for more educated audiences (and read the entire thing from beginning to end). Reading one sentence as if it were written to provide a very convoluted level of detail is obviously going to give a ridiculously misleading impression, even it it wasn't taken completely out of context, which it was.

NO knowledge of math or physics is required to figure out these extremely basic points: know the context of your information before you start randomly throwing it around. This could have been about the mating habits of the purple-fuzzed snuzzledorf rather than the nature of energy in physics, and the point would have been exactly the same. It takes ten minutes at most to check out the nature of your evidence and avoid embarassment. It's much too late now!

 

[Pup]

Has not this entire thread grown exactly as one would predict a thread that began with a declaration of prisoner Hovind's scientific expertise should?

It does seem to have evolved in a very predictable way.

 

[kerikiwi]

It does seem to have evolved in a very predictable way.

By means of natural selection.

 

[Complexity]

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.

Hi, nvidiot.

I'm only interested in being educational on occasion. While JREF is set up for that purpose, members of the forum aren't under any obligation to be educational.

I used to be a college teacher. I got out of teaching when I got tired of not having enough students who were interested in learning what I had to teach. (Last college - not very good students, previous college - students were far more motivated but the administration sucked).

I don't try to teach unless someone wants to learn. When they do, I teach my heart out.

When someone on this forum has potential, even though s/he's ornery, abusive, and hard as hell to talk to (e.g. becomingagodo), I've been known to invest many hours over the course of months trying to reach and work with them. Even though it can be frustrating, I get a lot of pleasure out of it.

It isn't my job to educate anyone. Period. I do what I do for my pleasure. If someone wants to learn something and doesn't piss me off to much, I'll do what I can to teach them some of what I know.

The types of posters that you don't think I am treating very well are not, in my opinion, interested in learning anything. In fact, they exhibit disdain and contempt for learning, curiosity, honesty, dedication, justice, and a life of study and thought - things that I love and respect.

These people deserve nothing from my - not my time, my patience, my courtesy, nor my respect. They will get as little civility from me as the rules of this forum permit.

Why am I angry at them, why treat them with contempt?

They share responsibility for the damage that has been done to millions; for injury to people, institutions, and activities that I love, and for reducing the prospects of our future being a good one.

I despise them, their beliefs, and their lack of morals.

Sometimes I do strike out verbally when frustrated. I've been increasingly frustrated and angry for the past half year - I've had to be off of my antidepressants due to lack of insurance for many months (long story), and quickness to anger is one of the consequences. I'm trying to manage this until I can go back on medication in about a month.

In general, however, my anger is characteristic and appropriate, for I think it is wrong not to call attention to injustice and misbehavior, wrong to fail to identify it and condemn it.

I'm here for my benefit and pleasure and for the benefit and pleasure of others who haven't lost my respect. I owe those who have lost my respect nothing. I participate in the discussions as I please.

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

I'm afraid that I think that your mother, while trying to be civil, is quite wrong. People need to be called out publicly on their lies, delusions, irrationality, and the harm that they and their beliefs do to others.

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.

I also come to the forums quite tired and a bit frustrated. I haven't had time to read many posts yet, so my frustration levels are still fairly low.

I appreciated your post very much and understand where you are coming from. I don't agree, I'm afraid, but I think your remarks are quite well intentioned. I will attempt to be more thoughtful about whether my reactions are appropriate in each case, for I have struck out inappropriately on occasion. My reactions won't change much, but I may have to make fewer apologies.

Thank you for your thoughtful post.

 

[Complexity]

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!)

Thanks. I'm well aware of what happened with Articulett on her road towards banning. She and I had many private discussions. I very much agreed with her and left the forum for nearly two years because of what was happening before she was banned. We have been in touch occasionally since.

Being a member of the forum has its pleasures and rewards, but for some the cost can become too high. I've been near that point myself.

I'm not there now, and am taking some precautions to avoid accidental immolation while off my meds. Your caution is appreciated and appropriate.

 

[Complexity]

I've had an epiphany.

You can't fight stupidity with logic. Stupidity will always win, because it doesn't have to work nearly as hard.

You might as well fight it with mockery. It's just as effective and more entertaining.

Welcome to my world.

 

[Dancing David]

You are absolutely right, and that is the way it should be. I apologize for my mistake. I should have said to consider the possibility of it being or not being the work of a creator shouldn't be the place of science, but from the perspective of those who study the Bible that is exactly what science minded atheists do with science. Not that science proposes either one of those things.

The evidence is lacking either way. MU!

 

[Dancing David]

Learn something new everyday. I did not know that. Thanks.

Yup, a ghost in the machine.

 

[Hokulele]

So Big Bang only in name.

Correct.

 

[Hokulele]

And having skimmed a bit more of the posts that were written since I last logged in, I am not sure if anyone has made the following point yet.

There seems to be some confusion about facts and theories and how that ties in with evolution, cosmology, and science in general. For example, the observation that if you throw a rock, it describes a parabolic arc before hitting the ground (unless you can throw it really, really hard and have it enter low earth orbit) is a fact. The observation that most of the observable mass in the universe is moving away from our perspective is a fact. The observation that certain fossils are always found in certain strata and can be lined up to show changes within a lineage of an organism is a fact.

What a scientist does is take all of these facts and use them to construct a theory such as Newtonian gravity, the Inflationary theory, or the theory of natural selection. So far, this can all be dismissed as idle speculation, as David Henson and Hovind do, but that is because they do not move on to the next step in the scientific method: testing the theory.

You see, any theory worth the pixels used to explain it not only shows how the facts fit together, but also allows you to make predictions about future observations. The scientist can then design an experiment to test these predictions (much like the fertilizer example given earlier). The results of the experiment either weaken or strengthen the theory. So, for example, accurate observations of Mercury weakened the Newtonian theory of gravity since the predictions made by the theory didn't match the observations. Enter Einstein.

To date, all of the experiments and predictions made based on the current theory of evolution have only strengthened the theory, not weakened it. As others have mentioned, there are observations that could be made that would weaken it, but as of yet, those observations have not been made. As long as we keep testing Relativity, the Inflationary Theory (a much more accurate term than Big Bang), and the Theory of Evolution and they keep passing, we can accept these as being strong theories and models of reality.

Since the god of the bible has pretty much claimed that it can't be tested, as far as science goes, it is useless. Much like all of Hovind's theories.

 

[temporalillusion]

Good post and good point, especially since David specifically used the word guess and this shows how it's different than a guess.

 

[jsfisher]

And having skimmed a bit more of the posts that were written since I last logged in, I am not sure if anyone has made the following point yet....

Pearls...swine...lather...repeat.

 

[David Henson]

DH, it's no wonder you think evolution is stupid. You have no idea how it works and you have no interest in examining the evidence for it. Science bores you, as you've admitted, and you lack education in its complexities and methods. Of course you could learn, just like anyone with a mind and the ability to read, but you have no willingness to do so. Of course, you dismiss it as "stupid"! You lack the most fundamental knowledge of what it is and how it works.

Just because I don't have any idea how it works and have no interest in examining it doesn't necessarily mean I think it is stupid. I have no idea how the Hubble Telescope works and have no interest in it but I don't think it is stupid.

Am I educated in it? Well, I was taught it in public schools and I never failed a science class.

You sound like a fanatic or fundamentalist tyrant. You see this?

I think it is stupid because I think it is stupid.

 

[DevilsAdvocate]

I have read the thread and I still have some questions about what David brought up in the OP. I understand that the topic of this thread is not 100 reasons why evolution is stupid, but rather “100 Reasons Why Evolution is Stupid”, a video series by Hovind, and specifically about Part 1 of 11 of that series in which Hovind argues against the evolution of the universe (and not the evolution of species) and specifically the Big Bang Theory.

Here is the summary and comments about the video that David posted in the OP:

Regarding cosmic evolution he uses the unscientific Big Bang. He asks "What exploded?" He points out that according to Isaac Asimov, Georges Edward Lemaitre's notion of the big bang was that it was a mass of "no more than a few light-years in diameter." (about twelve trillion miles). In 1965 this was reduced to 275 million miles, in 1972 down to 71 million miles, 1974 down to 54 thousand miles, 1983 down to a trillionth the diameter of a proton. Now they say that nothing exploded.

Now it is believed that all the matter in the universe started out as being no bigger than a period at the end of this sentence. Eventually all the matter in the universe will be compacted down to the size of a period again and that this cycle happens every 80 to 100 billion years. They call this science and they teach it to children in schools.

I think some of these have been answered. I’ll take a shot at addressing these points, but I’m certainly not an astrophysicist (most of my knowledge about BBT is actually from Wikipedia), so please correct me where I am wrong.

He asks "What exploded?"

Nothing. It was just that everything inflated or expanded and everything continues to expand. If we ask, “What was in the everything that expanded?” it seems the answer is: very hot, highly pressurized, dense energy.

Eventually all the matter in the universe will be compacted down to the size of a period again and that this cycle happens every 80 to 100 billion years.

It appears that the 80 to 100 billion years timeframe is what is claimed. However, is the cyclical oscillatory universe the currently preferred cosmology?

He points out that according to Isaac Asimov, Georges Edward Lemaitre's notion of the big bang was that it was a mass of "no more than a few light-years in diameter." (about twelve trillion miles).

I don’t know why anyone would depend on Asimov’s recollection of Lemaitre’s notion rather than what Lemaitre himself actually said. I have been unable to find a source for this quote or this figure, either from Asimov or Lemaitre. All of my searches turned up only creationist websites without any references. I can’t find any reliable information about exactly how big Lemaitre’s notion of the “primeval atom” was.

In 1965 this was reduced to 275 million miles, in 1972 down to 71 million miles, 1974 down to 54 thousand miles, 1983 down to a trillionth the diameter of a proton.

I cannot find any references to a big bang starting at 275 million miles, 71 million miles, or 54 thousand miles other than creationist websites, most quoting Hovind. I have no idea where Hovind gets this information and I can find no references. The only reference to a specific measurement of the big bang is based on Planck where we cannot determine what happened at an earlier time/smaller universe. Perhaps Hovind is basing these measurements on something I can’t find, or perhaps he is just throwing out dates and numbers to make a point.

Did the Big Bang Theory actually evolve such that scientists determined that the “primeval atom” (or whatever you wish to call it) became smaller and smaller? If so, why did this happen? If there is any truth to this, I would just make a wild guess that science did not say that the big bang started with any particular size, but only that the universe could be traced back with any degree of certainty to a particular time/size, which grew progressively earlier/smaller as science was able to trace back the origin of the universe with increasing accuracy. But I don’t know and would like to hear an answer from someone who does.

Now it is believed that all the matter in the universe started out as being no bigger than a period at the end of this sentence.

I’m guessing this is based on the Planck epoch.

Now they say that nothing exploded.

Scientists never actually said anything exploded, or even that “nothing” exploded. What occurred prior to the Planck epoch is unknown, but possibilities have been speculated of a “singularity” or even something coming from nothing or from somewhere else (like another dimension or a black hole). Of course those speculations are just guesses and are not science and have no evidence. We don’t know what happened before the Planck epoch or how things (energy) came to be before that point.

So if some knowledgeable people could correct my mistakes and answer my questions, I think we can wrap up Part 1 of 11.

 

[Marduk]

The human one. This is a picture of animal skulls and human skulls, no?

What are you reading into it?

Fail
they are all human skulls

 

[Complexity]

Am I educated in it? Well, I was taught it in public schools and I never failed a science class.

You should never have been passed. You learned nothing of value.

Shame on them.

Also, shame on you. You wasted the opportunity to actually learn something rather than merely get by, comfortable in your delusions.

 

[paximperium]

Just because I don't have any idea how it works and have no interest in examining it doesn't necessarily mean I think it is stupid. I have no idea how the Hubble Telescope works and have no interest in it but I don't think it is stupid.

I think it is stupid because I think it is stupid.

No Davey-boy. This is a lie. You're not thinking at all. You've pretty much proven that you are uneducated, are proud of your ignorance and pretty much uneducable.

You've not thought about anything at all. You haven't even gotten one actual fact or even one basic premised about the theory of evolution or even the Big Bang theory correct and yet you claim it is stupid.

Since you haven't done any thinking at all, one can conclude that you are aping and merely repeating criticisms that you found one some random website that you believe solely because they have the same believes that you do. You don't even understand what they are saying so you've never been able to sound anything less than an ignoramus.

So yes Davey-boy. You are ignorant and uneducated and pretty much proud of your stupidity.

 

[nvidiot]

Thanks for the reply complexity, it's this kind of civil discourse that makes these forums my most recent addiction.

@David and Radrook (again)

What would convince you that the modern synthesis of evolutionary theory is right? What evidence do you see as lacking?