100 Reasons Why Evolution Is Stupid - Part 2
From the mistakes of the first part of this series I make a few clarifications.
1. I don't agree with Hovind on much, I just think, quite possibly in my admitted ignorance, that he has raised some good points. If you take your science so seriously that you don't have the time to rewrite "Evolution for Dummies" for me then this thread isn't for you. Move on and save us both a great deal of time.
Fair enough.
2. The subject here is, to me, more religious than it is science. I'm sorry, that is just the way I see it. Before I ever saw Hovind. What I am interested in is gaining some perspective on what science minded atheists think about the points I raise as inspired by the video series. I would like to think that if I were an atheist and I wondered why Creationists thought the heavens and earth were created in 144 hours the Hebrew yohm (day), bara (create), asah (make), ohr (light) and maohr (light source) would be explained.
3. I don't hate science I just have a lack of interest in it. I'm not trying to argue or debate with you I just see some interesting difficulties which, although I certainly don't consider myself qualified to debate I would like to discuss. This isn't a creation / evolution debate. I am trying, with a great deal of success, I might add, to avoid the subject of God and the Bible throughout most of this thread. I'm not a "Creationist." I believe in the creation account of Genesis but not in the "unscriptural" or "unscientific" interpretation of the creationists.
4. The jist of the video, in my opinion, is that evolution isn't science, it is religious. Belief. Unscientific. I know that almost all of you disagree with this. You don't have to argue it. I ask that you answer or address the points being made.
Here is the second part of the video in case you would like to see it. It isn't necessary as I am only drawing my points from it. I will present each point clearly, simply and briefly.
1. Termites. The "little critters" in termites stomachs which digest the cellulose can't survive without the termites and the termites can't survive without the critters. Which evolved first?
Well coeveoled would be my guess, but most likely I would say it went like this.
1. A social insect.
2. A bacteria that coexists with the social insect.
3. The insect starts to eat the product that contains cellulose.
4. A bacteria starts to develop the ability to digest the cellulose, this gives it a productive edge.
So the bacteria.
2. Hovind doesn't know where God comes from and says that science doesn't know where the "dirt" or matter came from as a result of the Big Bang, and since it isn't known he assumes it isn't science. It is religion.
We know where the dirt and matter came from, the energy. We do not know where the universe came from.
Science describes approximate models of how things might work.
Newton did not know why gravity existed, yet he tried to models it, also Kepler used a similar method to determine the orbits of planets, neither knowing the source of the effect labeled as 'gravity’. However both as models about the movement of objects work very well, but neither can say where the ‘gravity’ comes from.
3. Conservation of Angular Momentum - If the universe began as a swirling dot why do some planets (2) and moons (6) spin "backward"?
The overall momentum which is a vector is conserved. So it the mass and velocity that creates the vector, angular momentum is the product of a constrained system such as object that are solid or in a gravitational field.
So two partial answers:
1. The conditions of the dot are not well modeled, as I have stated (and you would have to ask the boffos at SMT forum), that dot is smaller than the current univers., However after the expansion past the Plank length, it was small but contained an infinity. More of that counter intuitive stuff that blows my mind.
2. You can have objects that have different partial angular momentum. Think of a car crash between two cars heading the same direction. One car can end up traveling backwards to the direction of motion it started with, as long as the overall momentum is conserved. So as long as the other car moves forward faster to compensate the overall momentum is conserved.
4. Galaxies and voids - If the Big Bang were true why isn't matter evenly distributed?
This is a huge question in cosmology and one that they have worked on since almost the start of the theory.
When matter first began to condense out of the energy it would have done so with some sort of distribution, this creates a less that orderly distribution of the early matter, in other words some will be closer and some will be farther apart. Random does not mean orderly (as in evenly distributed). These small differences become larger as the universe continues to expand, these closer aggregates of matter start to make clumps.
There are lumps in the CMB, the cosmic microwave background, which represents the energy of the universe when the universe cooled enough that photons formed, after the passage 13.7 billions years and being stretched by the cosmological expansion, they appear as microwaves, which look like this
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:WMAP_2010.png
You will notice that the pattern is not homogenous, it has clumps and holes. So it is theorized that this represents the non homogeneity at ~380,000 years after the big bang event.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_microwave_background_radiation#Temperature
Now the neutrinos are theorized to have decoupled very early on, and they do have mass, so they to would be creating lumps in the universe.
5. Novas and supernovas - If stars evolve why do star deaths not equal star births? Supernova are observed every 30 years but there are less than 300 of them in billions of years. (keeping in mind that I don't believe in a YEC)
Star birth and supernovas are different processes. Stars and planets are formed in the condensation of molecular clouds, and Hubble has some great pictures of those.
First not everything becomes a star, some are very small, some are planets , some are very large, but not large enough to fuse.
These are called brown dwarf
WP stars, they are larger than Jupiter but they are not so large that they condense to create nuclear fusion.
Larger and you become a main sequence star, which have various life trajectories, the many of them go through the sequence as our star will and end as a white dwarf
WP.
Now strange things happen when you get above three solar masses, instead of becoming a white dwarf you can become a neutron star after a nova.
Super novas are very rare and related to certain conditions by the theory.
Really large stars reach the Eddington limit and blown apart when they start to fuse.
So we have a distribution of star formation and a distribution of star lifes and deaths.
The question is then are the numbers of brown dwarfs , main sequence stars, white dwarfs ,neutron stars, nova and supernova relate to the creation rate of stars.
It sure seems that they are.
6. Radio polonium halos - If the Earth formed from a hot mass 4.6 billion years ago then why would the polonium halos not have melted?
That is a new one to me.
