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

[Dancing David]

Because he's not civil and polite!!!!!

The double standards are obscene, i.e. see every post from paximperium to me and then tell me about civil and polite.

Hypocrite!

Now why am I a hypocrite for reporting the news?

Are you sure I blamed him or anything like that? I am actually surprised.

If you feel a post is inappropriate then use the report feature, it is the button with the triangle and exclamation point on the lower left of the post. The mods will then investigate any report. My guess is that it involved a PM.

Just so you know:

I have received seven infractions and one suspension, I have tried to change my behavior.

 

[Dancing David]

How many more times must I proclaim that BOTH our positions ultimately rest upon faith- that is confident belief without absolute knowledge.

I am never absolutely confident of anything, a god may well have created the universe.

However the evidence as I understand it makes it look as though life was not created.

Although I admit a god could tweak the system, they may have shoved an asteroid to destroy the dinosaurs for example.

Now if you want to present evidence and engage in discussion that would be great.

When I was a Christian I tended to believe in a God that was much like the kabalistic AL, beyond all description, beyond all humans thought, the creator and sustainer of the universe.

 

[Dancing David]

Actually something comes from nothing all the time; quantum mechanics requires it.

Only if you call the vacuum field potential nothing.

 

[Belz...]

The theory of evolution is merely a religion

Edge, how many times must people tell you you're wrong before you start to realize it ? Why do you keep repeating this nonsense ? It seems you have no idea what a religion is, what evolution is, and you have no intention of learning.

that serves to discredit the Intelligent Designer Himself.

Ah, there's the problem, then. People who don't believe in god, don't really NOT believe in god, they just make believe they do out of rebellion, right ?

Wrong. Just because you can't fathom disbelief does not mean it doesn't exist.

 

[Olowkow]

....

It did and I should have said rubber like.

Just like you said it couldn't but it did. I dropped it because it freaked me out.
To do what it did it should have been hot and by that hot enough to burn you if you weren’t careful.

"Rubber like" is fine, I understand. It is still not possible in the real world. If it had been that hot, it would be discolored.

..........
I may even make a clip/movie to demonstrate that and probably if I can’t bend it will show you how it looked using a torch on it at the shop.

I don't know if it is worth the effort. I believe you believe this, but it is not possible, Edge, that a piece of metal can become rubbery because of some emanations from the mind.

....
somewhere I lost track of it, I did keep it for a while.

The only way I can get you to understand what I was doing is to demonstrate on my porch ceiling by making a movie.

And I agree with you there’s no way in the world that it could have happened, but it did.

Too bad you lost it. Is there any chance you were suffering from the heat, and frustration? I have no explanation for what you experienced, but I do know that what Geller claims is just lies. He uses magic tricks. It takes considerable 'power' to bend steel. Human minds cannot send this kind of power...it just is not physically possible.

I’ll give you all the factors and information that where going through my mind at the time, as I go through this my memory is coming back to me.

There is such a thing as "false memory" too. It has happened to me. Some weird combination of dreams and experiences and embellishing on the experience.

I’ll post this now and write about that when I post a movie, so you can see and understand that we do not know everything about the world and the forces that are in this world or the universe.

We do not certainly know everything about the world, but I am certain that the mind cannot bend metal.

One more thing, the metal wasn’t grounded to the earth so I believe that this force was from my mind, I know it sounds crazy but I have no other explanation.
This will take some time.

"Grounding" has nothing to do with anything. You cannot just have this either/or (grounded or mind) type of mindset here.

I don't think it sounds "crazy", Edge, but it sounds like you don't understand physics at all. Making these claims when you have no evidence for them, and you lost the "magic driver" that could have changed the world of physics, is a little on the crazy side though. The bend point could have been analyzed and it could have been proven that the metal had been heated, or not, at this point.

I think you should carefully consider if perhaps somehow, not sure how, you could be mistaken about the "rubbery" nature of the metal. I'm trying my best here to help out.

 

[Belz...]

Boy, that sounds smart so it must be the truth..

Translation: "I didn't read your post."

 

[JoeB]

So, I haven't finished reading the first sentence of the OP, let alone the whole almost 1,400 post thread, but I already know this thread is hilarious.

Lately I have discovered that I seem to have developed an interest in science as presented by guys like this (Dr. Kent Hovind) who seem to me, to have a good understanding of science

 

[Belz...]

I'm desperate for nothing.

A constant refrain of the Evolutionarily Faithful is that to disagree is to not understand because, of course, there can be no legitimate dissent from the orthodoxy.

And you think that saying "Boy, that sounds smart so it must be the truth." constitutes a legitimate dissent ? Perhaps if you could do something more than chant "la la la" it would go a long way towards making your "dissent" credible.

 

[Belz...]

Quote:
Occam's razor (or Ockham's razor[1]) is the principle that "entities must not be multiplied beyond necessity" (entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem). The popular interpretation of this principle is that the simplest explanation is usually the correct one.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_razor

You didn't post the above?

Except that "simplest" doesn't mean what most people thinks it means.

 

[Belz...]

I have never once, not even once, said anything close to resembling that those who reject Christ do so because they do not understand. In fact, what I have said is that it is primarily a question of the heart and will, not intellect or understanding.

Which is just about as silly an argument.

Of course, if any of you theists had an actual shred of evidence in your favour we wouldn't have threads like these.

How many more times must I proclaim that BOTH our positions ultimately rest upon faith

Once more: just because you know only faith does not mean that the reverse doesn't exist.

 

[Belz...]

There is more than ample evidence to substantiate The Faith, even though it necessarily falls short of absolute.

Who said anything about absolute ? Whenever ANY evidence is asked from believers, it is NEVER delivered. So how can you claim that there is ample evidence, unless ZERO is ample for you, and therefore the aforementionned definition of "faith" holds true ?

 

[Marduk]

Edge, how many times must people tell you you're wrong before you start to realize it ? Why do you keep repeating this nonsense ? It seems you have no idea what a religion is, what evolution is, and you have no intention of learning.

Thats what Texan blood will do for you

 

[dlorde]

So Big Bang only in name. Curious.

The term is said to have been coined perjoratively by Fred Hoyle, who supported the competing Steady-State theory, but it was cute, so it stuck.

 

[X]

I don't think he misrepresented it, he probably really thinks that's how evolution works.

My question for you, then, is what makes it not lamarckism? I reread it, just to make sure, and I still see it as lamarckism.

A quick and dirty definition of Lamarckism:
Suppose you were to do some bodybuilding. Because of this, you get big muscles.
Lamarkian theory would predict that your child would have big muscles as a result of your bodybuilding.

 

[paximperium]

The claim is that Radrook has misrepresented evolution as being Lamarckian.
But you're quite well aware of that, so I can only conclude this is intended to serve some rhetorical purpose.

Let me get this straight.
1)Raddy-boy posted an incredulous post from a Creaotard website that basically attempts to poke holes at Lamarkian ideas and falsehoods about what evolution actually claims based purely on their wonderful ignorance and incredulity.
2)People here call it Lamarkian and not Evolution and explain why.
3)You demand to know why it is not evolution.
4)You refuse to say why you think it even closely represents evolution.
5)Now you're whining when called to actually support this claim?

Yes, I do that's why I answered it. Not a courtesy you seem to have managed to return.

What answer? I must have missed it.
I must have missed the part where you provided evidence of this strawman done by the "evolutionists" who are posting here.
I must have missed the part where you provided an explanation as to why you believe Raddy-boy's strawman lamarkian post that is based on incredulity and ignorance is suppose to represent any actual criticism of evolution.

Would you care to post this "answer"?

@Simon:
Thanks for a nice basic primer of the difference between "Darwinian" evolution and that joke post that Raddy posted attempting to link Lamarkism, to modern evolutionary theory.

Not that it matters since elbe answered sphenisc's question within a few posts of him/her asking it and joobz even linked to that succinct post and it has been summarily ignored.

So sphenisc would you be so kind to answer elbe's question?
"What makes it not lamarckism?" or in more succinct terms,
What makes his explanation even close to modern evolutionary theory or even outdated Darwinism?
Which of these "criticism" seem valid to you?

I eagerly await your answer.

 

[dlorde]

Can you imagine theologians designing experiments to confirm predictions and then modifying their predictions depending on the outcome of the experiments? Then publishing their findings and inviting all the other theologians in the world to try to prove them wrong?

There was a time when theologians were scientists - see House of Wisdom. Sadly, they've mostly lost the plot.

 

[elbe]

A quick and dirty definition of Lamarckism:
Suppose you were to do some bodybuilding. Because of this, you get big muscles.
Lamarkian theory would predict that your child would have big muscles as a result of your bodybuilding.

Was that for my benefit? Because I already knew what lamarckism is.

 

[paximperium]

Was that for my benefit? Because I already knew what lamarckism is.

It's probably for sphenisc who doesn't seem to understand what it is.

 

[NavyPack]

Furthermore, anyone can set up a scientific framework such as the evolution one and begin cherry picking via selective blindness. Under such a approach viable alternate explanations are routinely rejected in preference for those which support evolution. There have been cases where evidence to the contrary is unceremoniously swept under the rug. If it doesn't match-ignore it. To me that's tantamount to blind faith.

It is falisifiable. Therefore, I am intrigued to hear about "viable alternate explanations" which have been rejected. This should be very easy to do, since this is "routinely" happening.

Please produce a single, solitary instance of evidence ceremoniously or unceremoniously swept under the rug.

If you are unable to do so, I would hope that intellectual honesty would force you to revoke your declaration. However, I will refrain from forcefully keeping the same breath of air in my lungs until you do so.

There is more than ample evidence to substantiate The Faith, even though it necessarily falls short of absolute. Absolute knowledge would require no faith now would it?

Who said anything about absolute ? Whenever ANY evidence is asked from believers, it is NEVER delivered. So how can you claim that there is ample evidence, unless ZERO is ample for you, and therefore the aforementionned definition of "faith" holds true ?

Turn your partner, dosey-do.

The more things change, the more they stay the same, etc...

PS

Explain what this is? (sdfee838KKKKsdfee838KKKK)?

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

 

[temporalillusion]

Only if you call the vacuum field potential nothing.

Something's gotta be!