Why evolution is so stupid

[TheBear]

Biological evolution is a process with a beginning, true enough. What caused the beginning is debatable. There are many theories out there, including philosophical and religious, trying to get a grasp on the whole thing. The theory of evolution really doesn't deal with abiogenesis, the beginning - the start of it all, and first causes.

The theory of evolution trys to explain what happeded from that point forward.

Let's all of us, show each other some respect, even though there may be some disagreements between us.

(I posted this publically, as a reminder to myself as well.)

 

[Lilandra]

Is it ever too late for civility?

At least wait until they prove they are hit and run PRATT spewers before the gloves come off.

Was it the crack about evolution being stupid that set this off?

 

[rmwilliamsll]

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?

If you don't care to "do my homework and study for me," why are you here?

to do my own study and research. other than what appears to be a continuous stream of newbies, this can be a nice place to learn new things and to get some more incentive to study. It helps when books are a constant companion to have some interaction with people.

 

[Electric Skeptic]

Is it ever too late for civility?

At least wait until they prove they are hit and run PRATT spewers before the gloves come off.

Was it the crack about evolution being stupid that set this off?

It was certainly not a good omen. People who want to discuss a known and accepted scientific theory don't start off by calling the theory 'stupid', because it's obviously not. It's been accepted by scientists with vastly more knowledge, education, experience and qualifications than either the OPer or myself, so it can't be said to be 'stupid'. 'Flawed' would have been better, but 'stupid' certainly gives the apppearance that the OPer is just going to quote Hovind-esque lies and not trouble with the rebuttals that exist.

 

[Ryal Kane]

The problem Tortise is that you don't really know what the theory of Evolution says. You've been lied to.

Imagine if I started arguing that Christianity was false because it promotes human sacrifice and I know this because I read it on an Anti-Christian website.
You'd think I had an incorrect version of Christianity nd would try and correct me. If was adamant that I was right and accepted no attempts to explain, then that would be the end of the matter.

Likewise, you've been given a faulty view of evolution. Until we're debating the same topic, it's going ot be very messy.

But I will give you the benefit of the dout as a newcomer. Most of your points were answered here.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html

Some are even answered here.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/dont_use.asp

 

[Lilandra]

I don't know if you are familiar with shinbits but he started the same way.

Myself and other would give these detailed explanations to his questions.

For example, why are humans relatively hairless if they are apes? etc.

The amount of thought we put into aresponse to get a 10 second you are wrong response in most cases. No evidence as to why.

Even he is coming around a little.

I get frustrated too and can get snippy at times.

It was certainly not a good omen. People who want to discuss a known and accepted scientific theory don't start off by calling the theory 'stupid', because it's obviously not. It's been accepted by scientists with vastly more knowledge, education, experience and qualifications than either the OPer or myself, so it can't be said to be 'stupid'. 'Flawed' would have been better, but 'stupid' certainly gives the apppearance that the OPer is just going to quote Hovind-esque lies and not trouble with the rebuttals that exist.

 

[Nightson]

Why does everyone think I'm going to leave the thread?

Past experience. That is, it's pretty much what other creationists do, after awhile, it kinda gets expected. Kudos for you for staying, obviously the volume of responses is enough to overwhelm one person, feel free to take your time with it.

 

[Electric Skeptic]

I don't know if you are familiar with shinbits but he started the same way.

Myself and other would give these detailed explanations to his questions.

For example, why are humans relatively hairless if they are apes? etc.

The amount of thought we put into aresponse to get a 10 second you are wrong response in most cases. No evidence as to why.

Even he is coming around a little.

I get frustrated too and can get snippy at times.

I understand what you're saying here, but I believe there's a deeper problem. Creationists have to have this refusal to accept explanations, this tendency to hit and run and ignore the refutations, because if they didn't do so, they'd stop being creationists. If you come up with a question and somebody answers it, then you've got your answer. It's only if you ignore the answer or manage to avoid hearing it that you can keep asking the same question.

In short, if, in debates, creationists acted reasonably, they'd stop being creationists.

 

[dlamberth]

This is really funny...I'm sorry, but we go over this same stuff time and time again. I guess it takes a lot of patience to educate people. What makes it harder is that if one needs to cut and paste that much, my guess is that he doesn't really know the basics either.

.

 

[JohnR7]

The theory of evolution really doesn't deal with abiogenesis, the beginning - the start of it all, and first causes.

That is false advertising because darwins book claims to be about the origin of the species. You are right though in that he does not deliever and he does not talk about the origion of anything.

As Jonathan Weiner says in his pulitzer prize wining book: "The Beak of the Finch": Darwin's book does not document the origin of a single species, or a single case of natural selection, or the preservation of one favored race in the struggle for life.

 

[JohnR7]

we go over this same stuff time and time again.

Some people learn things the first, second or third time. For others it could take as many as 5 to 7 repetitions before they learn it. That is why people take notes, so they can go over the materal two or three times. I use to copy my notes from one note book into another so I could learn the material. I noticed it was not unusual for the instructor to go over the more important points four or five times before he felt the students learned it.

 

[Nathan Poe]

That is false advertising because darwins book claims to be about the origin of the species.

Origin of species,not the origin of life.

 

[Micaiah]

So the Big Bang wasn't an explosion. I find this a strange argument yet one that crops occasionally. Some how it is supposed to engender a sense of superiority in the person who responds to someones prodding that the idea the universe exploded out of nothing is ludicrous. Get two or three people chanting the same mantra and it is almost accepted as a conclusive argument, at least by evolutionists.

Research assignment.

Provide a profile of the rate of expansion with time after the big bang began. Then tell us the rate of gas expansion after a large bomb, say a nuclear bomb goes off. Compare the two. Then explain why the Big Bang wasn't.

 

[Garnett]

That is false advertising because darwins book claims to be about the origin of the species. You are right though in that he does not deliever and he does not talk about the origion of anything.

Thanks John.

TheLowlyTortoise, this is a perfect example of one of the reasons people haven't responded very positively to your posts.

Then why does darwins book have origions in the title?

"Origins of the Species", John, not "Origins of Life".

Look here to see the original post where John said exactly the same thing two weeks ago and got shown why he was wrong back then too.

It's a thankless task teaching those who refuse to learn.

 

[Garnett]

Research assignment.

Provide a profile of the rate of expansion with time after the big bang began. Then tell us the rate of gas expansion after a large bomb, say a nuclear bomb goes off. Compare the two. Then explain why the Big Bang wasn't.

Oooh. I'm gonna do my own. I'm gonna get a frog and write down its colour and then write down the colour of a green piece of paper, then I'm gonna compare the two, and then, if anyone wants, I'll tell you why this isn't science, and why Creationists will desperately try to create bogus experiments to support a flawed belief.

 

[Nathan Poe]

It's a thankless task teaching those who refuse to learn.

Thankless, and ultimately futile.

 

[KerrMetric]

So the Big Bang wasn't an explosion. I find this a strange argument yet one that crops occasionally.

Occasionally???? It should crop up all the time. Tell us why it should be considered an explosion?

There is no chemical/nuclear change occurrring powering the expansion. There is no shock front. There is no space external to the event. There is no space internal to the event that is not undergoing the expansion. There is no variation in the expansion properties anywhere in the expansion at a given time.

It certainly is not an explosion in the classical sense of one. BUT it is a big problem that many write ups (even on college websites) do use the word explosion as the metaphor of choice. Of course, they don't expect Creationists to twist the use of the word. We know better though, don't we Micaiah?

 

[Army of Juan]

Some people learn things the first, second or third time. For others it could take as many as 5 to 7 repetitions before they learn it. That is why people take notes, so they can go over the materal two or three times. I use to copy my notes from one note book into another so I could learn the material. I noticed it was not unusual for the instructor to go over the more important points four or five times before he felt the students learned it.

And how many times will it take for you, John?

 

[JohnR7]

And how many times will it take for you, John?

At times it takes four or five repetitions for me to learn something. Perhaps it has to do with the brains ability to store short term memory. When my dad was 86, he was amazed at all the long term memory he had, but he did not have as much short term memory. He could not remember what he ate for lunch, but he could remember a lot of things from his childhood.

 

[SLP]

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.”)

Hey!

Great, insightful and super-intelligent post!

I've never seen those things you listed, either - so I guess we can just dismiss things that we have not seen.


But.... wait a sec - I've never seen a burning bush... a parting sea.... a pillar of fire.... a miracle... oh dear....


You might want to rethink your criteria.