Why evolution is so stupid

[JediMobius]

Harsh wording, I know. I’m going to start off by stating my beliefs. I believe in creation, I believe that God (in one being with the Holy Spirit and the Lord Jesus Christ) created this universe and everything in it. I believe the bible from front to back is the closest thing we have to absolute truth on the face of this planet. In this post I will simply ask questions of all the evolutionists here.

This is generally how disbelievers of evolution are regarded by believers of evolution, “It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet someone who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked)” ~ Richard Dawkins Put Your Money on Evolution New York Times April 9, 1999 p. 35

This sort of poison serves often to discredit opposition to evolution with a smear campaign.

First, let’s define some terms:

Stupid: adj. 1 lacking normal intelligence 2 foolish; silly 3 dull and boring

We will also need to define evolution, which has at least 6 different meanings, only one of which is grounded in science.

1. Cosmic Evolution - the origin of time, space and matter, ie the Big Bang (No one saw it happen)

2. Chemical Evolution - the origin of higher elements from hydrogen (Supposedly, the big bang created hydrogen, and we got 92 elements out of that)

3. Stellar and Planetary Evolution - origin of stars and planets. (No one has ever seen a star or planet form.)

4. Organic Evolution - Origin of life. (According to evolution, life must have come from non-living matter, we’ve never seen that happen)

5. Macro-Evolution - Changing from one kind of animal into another. (No one has seen a pig give birth to a sheep)

6. Micro-Evolution - Variations within kinds. (the only observed fact within evolution, but could simply be called “variation.”)


So, a few questions for big bangers out there:

What exploded?. . . Where did it come from, and where did the energy come from?

According to the big bang theory in a general science text book, all the matter of the universe is drawn into this “dot” of matter spun faster and faster and faster, until finally it exploded in a big bang!

Physics law of the Conservation of Angular Momentum provides that from this spinning big bang, all of the matter released from this “dot” will spin in the same direction. If the whole universe started as a spinning dot, why do two planets and 6 moons in our own solar system spin backwards?


How about Stars? Star deaths have been observed (novas and supernovas), but no star births have been. About every 30 years a star “dies” and explodes into a [super] nova. Yet, there are fewer than 300 dead stars. If the universe is billions of years old, shouldn’t there be several hundred million dead stars floating around?

Supposedly, the earth formed from a large molten mass, and cooled down 4.6 billion years ago and formed a rocky crust. But, when scientists look into granite rocks all over the world, they find little radio polonium halos from when the polonium within the rock decayed. 218 Po has a half-life of 3 minutes. 214 Po has a half-life of .164 seconds. If the granite was hot, the particles sent out by Po to make the halos would have melted away. Thus, the polonium would have to be decaying in a rock that is already solid.

How about the grand canyon? Evolutionists maintain that the Colorado river carved the canyon over millions of years. The river enters the canyon at 2800 ft. above sea level. From there the height of the canyon has an uplift of 6900-8500 ft. That’s some river to be able to flow 4000 ft uphill and come out the end without a delta as evidence of the buildup of the sediment.


The theory of organic evolution (origin of life) asks us to believe that torrential rains soaked the rocky crust of earth for millions of years, creating great oceans. Swirling in the waters of the oceans is a bubbling broth of complex chemicals.

Apparently, we all evolved from rock soup. Where’s the record, the proof? Why haven’t we seen any examples of life evolving from rock soup?


Macro-evolution supposes that slow variations accounts for the diversity of life on this planet. Where are the records? Why can’t we see examples of this theory in recorded history? Shouldn’t there be millions or a t least thousands of these “missing links”? Yet, only a few fossils have been found to be examples of such, yet these fossils only prove one thing, it died. There is no proof some lung-fish had any children, much less different ones.

A woodpecker’s tongue goes all the way around the back of its head and comes on top of its left nostril. Are there any fossils that show intermediate species between a normal bird and a woodpecker?

Termites chew on wood, and they swallow it, but termites can’t digest it. The wood goes into their stomach and in the termites’ intestines are smaller organisms (critters) which actually digest the cellulose. These critters can’t live without the termite, nor the termite without the critters. Which one evolved first?


It is said that it would take 30,000 years for the amount of C14 in the atmosphere to reach equilibrium, that is where the rate of new C14 matches the rate of decay. There is more C14 in the atmosphere now than there was 10 years ago, so that right there should be enough to prove that the earth is not more than 30,000 years old.

C14 occurs in the atmosphere at about .0000765% This percentage is taken into plants which use the carbon dioxide and C14 non-discriminatively and a certain percentage of the is eaten by animals and becomes part of them, only we don’t know for sure how much C14 was actually in the animal when it died. Carbon dating can measure the amount of C14 in a fossil, and the current rate of decay, but must assume how much C14 was originally there, and must assume a constant rate of decay with no proof that it is constant. No one’s been around long enough to observe that it reaches a half life in 5, 730 years.

“Living mollusk shells were carbon dated as being 2300 years old.” (Science vol. 141, 1963 p. 634-637) “A freshly killed seal was carbon dates as having died 1300 years ago” (Antarctic Journal vol. 6 Sept-Oct 1971 p. 211) “Shells from living snails were carbon dated as being 27,000 years old.” (Science Vol. 224, 1984 p 58-61) “One part of the Vollosovitch mammoth carbon dated at 29,500 years old and another part at 44,000.” “One part of Dima [a baby frozen mammoth] was 40,000, another part was 26,000 years old and the wood immediately around the carcass was 9-10,000 years old.” (Troy L. Pewe, Quaternaty Stratigraphic Nomenclature in Unglaciated Central Alaska, Geological Survey Professional Paper 862, 1975) “Lava from the 1801 Hawaiian volcano eruption gave a K-Ar date of 1.6 Million years old.” (Dalyrmple, G.B., 1969 40Ar/36Ar analysis of historic lava flows. Earth and Planetary Scince Letters, 6-47 55. See also: Impact #307 Jan. 1999)

Radiometric Dating:

Samples of Known Age --> Radioisotope dating doesn’t work

Samples of unknown age --> Radioisotope is assumed to work

You can believe evolution if you want to, it doesn’t bother me a bit, but don’t call it science!

 

[KerrMetric]

I'll stand back and watch the carnage.


(By the way you are a cut/paste artist and also likely a fake Creationist - that sure is a list of crap you posted)

 

[Grengor]

I'll stand back and watch the carnage.

Haven't seen one of these in a while. Ah, the memories...

 

[Pete Harcoff]

Yay, it's another hit 'n run copy 'n paste of Kent Hovind crapola.

Naturally, of course, everything has already been answered ad nauseum.

What's really stupid is why creationists even bother anymore.

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

Good Grief a Hovidite. Do you know what PRATTS are? You have just come up with a big list of them. Do you think we haven't seen all these before and refuted them many times over? Will you stick around and pay attention to the refutations or should we not bother. The problem is you are going to need some education in biology, physics and geology that you are apparently lacking in order to even understand the refutations. Where would you like us to begin?

The Frumious Bandersnatch

 

[aca_rev55]

Sigh...

 

[dawiyd]

What exploded?. . . Where did it come from, and where did the energy come from?

Wow im getting home schooled by someone who thinks the big bang theory is an explosion. *sigh*

 

[JediMobius]

Really, I'd like to see this refutation.

Quit stalling already

"Cut and Paste" or not, I stand by it.

 

[dawiyd]

Really, I'd like to see this refutation.

Quit stalling already

"Cut and Paste" or not, I stand by it.

I'll refute if you bother to answer any of the creationist challenges

 

[Abongil]

So, a few questions for big bangers out there:

What exploded?. . . Where did it come from, and where did the energy come from?

According to the big bang theory in a general science text book, all the matter of the universe is drawn into this “dot” of matter spun faster and faster and faster, until finally it exploded in a big bang!

It probably did not spin, it is unknown if time was present before the Big Bang and without time, you cannot have velocity or movement at all...

Physics law of the Conservation of Angular Momentum provides that from this spinning big bang, all of the matter released from this “dot” will spin in the same direction. If the whole universe started as a spinning dot, why do two planets and 6 moons in our own solar system spin backwards?

Collisions and depending on the direction their core, if it is molten, is flowing.

How about Stars? Star deaths have been observed (novas and supernovas), but no star births have been. About every 30 years a star “dies” and explodes into a [super] nova. Yet, there are fewer than 300 dead stars. If the universe is billions of years old, shouldn’t there be several hundred million dead stars floating around?

When stars die, they throw out all of their material into space, and usually nothing is left. What is left is not visible because it is a ball of iron about the size of a planet, and we cannot see planets in other solar systems. Star creation occurs from all this debris coming together and collecting around bigger masses, eventually the pressure becomes so great that it triggers nuclear fusion and a star is born.

Supposedly, the earth formed from a large molten mass, and cooled down 4.6 billion years ago and formed a rocky crust. But, when scientists look into granite rocks all over the world, they find little radio polonium halos from when the polonium within the rock decayed. 218 Po has a half-life of 3 minutes. 214 Po has a half-life of .164 seconds. If the granite was hot, the particles sent out by Po to make the halos would have melted away. Thus, the polonium would have to be decaying in a rock that is already solid.

Plate tectonics... next.

How about the grand canyon? Evolutionists maintain that the Colorado river carved the canyon over millions of years. The river enters the canyon at 2800 ft. above sea level. From there the height of the canyon has an uplift of 6900-8500 ft. That’s some river to be able to flow 4000 ft uphill and come out the end without a delta as evidence of the buildup of the sediment.

The Colorado river is millions of years old, rocks dont flow out of it in sediment like silt and dirt does in the Mississippi River, they get pushed downstream and out to sea, or are pushed out of the river during floods. The river probably did not travel uphill, but formed an undergroun river which eventually ate away at everything above it.

The theory of organic evolution (origin of life) asks us to believe that torrential rains soaked the rocky crust of earth for millions of years, creating great oceans. Swirling in the waters of the oceans is a bubbling broth of complex chemicals.

Apparently, we all evolved from rock soup. Where’s the record, the proof? Why haven’t we seen any examples of life evolving from rock soup?

Because it is hard to get those measurements. Water in the world right now is so contaminated with life that we would have to go through some serious filtration, or create mroe water from hydrogen and oxygen, then we would have to get organic materials in there to trigger the event. Simply enough, it may be occuring, we just dont notice because there are trillions upon trillions of microscopic organisms in the oceans and we cant keep track of everything and see if anything is being spontaneously created, or was created from one of the other organisms.

Macro-evolution supposes that slow variations accounts for the diversity of life on this planet. Where are the records? Why can’t we see examples of this theory in recorded history? Shouldn’t there be millions or a t least thousands of these “missing links”? Yet, only a few fossils have been found to be examples of such, yet these fossils only prove one thing, it died. There is no proof some lung-fish had any children, much less different ones.

Fossilization is a very very VERY rare occurance.

Termites chew on wood, and they swallow it, but termites can’t digest it. The wood goes into their stomach and in the termites’ intestines are smaller organisms (critters) which actually digest the cellulose. These critters can’t live without the termite, nor the termite without the critters. Which one evolved first?

The batcteria, it probably evolved to be symbiotic with termites after they evolved and they found their "intestines" to be a suitable place to live.

It is said that it would take 30,000 years for the amount of C14 in the atmosphere to reach equilibrium, that is where the rate of new C14 matches the rate of decay. There is more C14 in the atmosphere now than there was 10 years ago, so that right there should be enough to prove that the earth is not more than 30,000 years old.

C14 occurs in the atmosphere at about .0000765% This percentage is taken into plants which use the carbon dioxide and C14 non-discriminatively and a certain percentage of the is eaten by animals and becomes part of them, only we don’t know for sure how much C14 was actually in the animal when it died. Carbon dating can measure the amount of C14 in a fossil, and the current rate of decay, but must assume how much C14 was originally there, and must assume a constant rate of decay with no proof that it is constant. No one’s been around long enough to observe that it reaches a half life in 5, 730 years.

C14 is created from sunlight and nitrogen. Learn about Carbon 14 some. We know its half life becase we can observe how much of it decays every second, minute, hour... and since it is a CONSTANT it does not change.

Radiometric Dating:

Samples of Known Age --> Radioisotope dating doesn’t work

Samples of unknown age --> Radioisotope is assumed to work

You can believe evolution if you want to, it doesn’t bother me a bit, but don’t call it science!

The scientists more than likely contaminated the specimen, radiometric dating is very accurate when you know what youa re doing. If you dont accept it, then you cant use it to prove your own beliefs, which I see a lot around here (ie the Dead Sea Scrolls).

 

[rmwilliamsll]

Really, I'd like to see this refutation.

Quit stalling already

"Cut and Paste" or not, I stand by it.

The problems are:
asymmetry of the situation. You cut and paste from somewhere (not even a link to where) yet expect people to spend their time writing original matter to refute it. What takes you less than 5 minutes may required an entire 8 hour work day to effectively rebuttal.

we've been here before. You didn't even bother to google for rebuttals, nor did you search the forum for them. why should you expect us to do your homework and study for you?

Then after all of this, the Hovindists just shrug it all off, because they really aren't interested in the science, or they would have done their own homework. They disappear or state that you must have a special relationship with God in order to understand origins. in either case, all the work falls on deaf ears.

go read the link given already:
http://talkorigins.org/indexcc/

 

[Mocca]

[insert refute here]

You coulda saved yourself a ton of time just by linking to the CCs individually.

 

[Willtor]

First, it's dishonest for you to copy and paste without citing your source, as if this were your own work. Second, you should really read what you're cutting and pasting and make sure it actually addresses the issues it proposes to address. Not a single point of what you posted has anything to do with evolution. It all has to do with evolution as it exists in Kent Hovind's mind. What scientists mean when they use the word, "evolution," is substantially different from what Kent Hovind means when he says it.

This is why you have people posting that this is PRATT (Point Refuted A Thousand Times). Do you really think you're the first person to post these things, here?

 

[Abongil]

You coulda saved yourself a ton of time just by linking to the CCs individually.

Nah, FSM guided me through his noodly appendage to make some Ramen noodles, then write that refutation so now this PRATT is a PRATAOT.

 

[Grengor]

This is why you have people posting that this is PRATT (Point Refuted A Thousand Times). Do you really think you're the first person to post these things, here?

Or that he'd bring the entirety of science down around him with a few paragraphs?

 

[Mocca]

Nah, FSM guided me through his noodly appendage to make some Ramen noodles, then write that refutation so now this PRATT is a PRATAOT.

PRATAOT! Wewt.

 

[dawiyd]

Harsh wording, I know. I’m going to start off by stating my beliefs. I believe in creation,

Good, go stand up for you beliefs and refute the creationist challenge.

I believe that God
(in one being with the Holy Spirit and the Lord Jesus Christ) created this universe and everything in it. I believe the bible from front to back is the closest thing we have to absolute truth on the face of this planet. In this post I will simply ask questions of all the evolutionists here.

Theology dispute, but go on.

This is generally how disbelievers of evolution are regarded by believers of evolution, “It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet someone who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked)” ~ Richard Dawkins Put Your Money on Evolution New York Times April 9, 1999 p. 35

Harsh but true.

This sort of poison serves often to discredit opposition to evolution with a smear campaign.

O come on, get off your high horse *cough* Hovind *cough*

First, let’s define some terms:

Stupid: adj. 1 lacking normal intelligence 2 foolish; silly 3 dull and boring

ok..

We will also need to define evolution, which has at least 6 different meanings, only one of which is grounded in science.

Nope they all do.

1. Cosmic Evolution - the origin of time, space and matter, ie the Big Bang (No one saw it happen)

No but we observe the repercussions of the big bang.

2. Chemical Evolution - the origin of higher elements from hydrogen (Supposedly, the big bang created hydrogen, and we got 92 elements out of that)

3. Stellar and Planetary Evolution - origin of stars and planets. (No one has ever seen a star or planet form.)

Tell that to these guys

4. Organic Evolution - Origin of life. (According to evolution, life must have come from non-living matter, we’ve never seen that happen)

Eurgh they have conducted experiments on abiotic production of organic molecules.

5. Macro-Evolution - Changing from one kind of animal into another. (No one has seen a pig give birth to a sheep)

HOVIND ALERT! HOVIND ALERT! If you think that is how evolution happens I feel sad for you, say hello to Tiktaalik roseae, may I introduce you to our other transistion fossil friends?

6. Micro-Evolution - Variations within kinds. (the only observed fact within evolution, but could simply be called “variation.&#8221

Semantics

So, a few questions for big bangers out there:

What exploded?. . . Where did it come from, and where did the energy come from?

Nothing exploded!

According to the big bang theory in a general science text book, all the matter of the universe is drawn into this “dot” of matter spun faster and faster and faster, until finally it exploded in a big bang!

Already wrong. There was no explosion involved, nor was matter involved, at all. Thanks for playing. Try taking some real physics courses.

Physics law of the Conservation of Angular Momentum provides that from this spinning big bang, all of the matter released from this “dot” will spin in the same direction. If the whole universe started as a spinning dot, why do two planets and 6 moons in our own solar system spin backwards?

False, and again, this 'spreading out' notion is a facet of inflationary models, not of the actual event of the big bang. None of that has anything to do with the big bang. That has to do with gravity. So again, your ignorance is on display. Thanks!

How about Stars? Star deaths have been observed (novas and supernovas), but no star births have been. About every 30 years a star “dies” and explodes into a [super] nova. Yet, there are fewer than 300 dead stars. If the universe is billions of years old, shouldn’t there be several hundred million dead stars floating around?

*smacks head on desk*

Supposedly, the earth formed from a large molten mass, and cooled down 4.6 billion years ago and formed a rocky crust. But, when scientists look into granite rocks all over the world, they find little radio polonium halos from when the polonium within the rock decayed. 218 Po has a half-life of 3 minutes. 214 Po has a half-life of .164 seconds. If the granite was hot, the particles sent out by Po to make the halos would have melted away. Thus, the polonium would have to be decaying in a rock that is already solid.

Refuted here

If nobody refutes the rest, I'Il do it.

 

[Hydra009]

Yay, more garbage to pick apart.

Chemical Evolution - the origin of higher elements from hydrogen (Supposedly, the big bang created hydrogen, and we got 92 elements out of that)

Ever heard of nuclear fusion?

How about the grand canyon? Evolutionists maintain that the Colorado river carved the canyon over millions of years. The river enters the canyon at 2800 ft. above sea level. From there the height of the canyon has an uplift of 6900-8500 ft. That’s some river to be able to flow 4000 ft uphill and come out the end without a delta as evidence of the buildup of the sediment.

Asymmetrical uplift.

Macro-evolution supposes that slow variations accounts for the diversity of life on this planet. Where are the records? Why can’t we see examples of this theory in recorded history? Shouldn’t there be millions or a t least thousands of these “missing links”? Yet, only a few fossils have been found to be examples of such

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC200.html

How about Stars? Star deaths have been observed (novas and supernovas), but no star births have been.

lol

This is generally how disbelievers of evolution are regarded by believers of evolution, “It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet someone who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked)” ~ Richard Dawkins Put Your Money on Evolution New York Times April 9, 1999 p. 35

This sort of poison serves often to discredit opposition to evolution with a smear campaign.

And the presentation of Hovind's nonsense - disowned even by fellow young earth creationists - in the OP serves as an example of the point being correct in this instance. Maybe if creationists actually took the time to learn what they're talking about, such a claim would be readily disproven.

 

[Lucretius]

As someone already commented about C-14 dating, we know it is constant. In fact, it obeys the formula R=Re^(-t/k) perfectly.

Next, you want to argue the Big Bang? I'll be glad to have a debate with you in the debate subforum.

 

[dawiyd]

As someone already commented about C-14 dating, we know it is constant. In fact, it obeys the formula R=Re^(-t/k) perfectly.

Next, you want to argue the Big Bang? I'll be glad to have a debate with you in the debate subforum.

Big Bang = "Explosion"

This just isn't funny anymore.