Why evolution is so stupid

[JediMobius]

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?

I take full responsibility for that (not that I have a choice) I wanted to get a reaction, and surely did I get one.

 

[Nightson]

Forgive me, evolution seems to be a term which often changes meaning, and becoming so complex that it cannot be put simply. Perhaps, one of you here could define the term more accurately?

Change in the frequency of alleles in a population over time.

 

[JediMobius]

Thanks John.

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



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.

Oh, am I glad I actually want to learn.

I'll take this time to apologize to all you evolutionists for calling evolution (and by blanketing this term over, abiogenesis and others) stupid. Though I still find it flawed, I've learned a lot from many posters here (including a little humility, I hope) and I'll try not to equate confusion to impossibility.

Thank you all.

 

[JediMobius]

A video! Well, slap my fanny and call me aunt Millie! If it was in a creationist video, it HASTA be true!

That's not what I said. . . turns out the man preaching about lies mixed with truth had some lies mixed in with truth. My point wasn't that being a video makes it true, but that I spent more than 5 minutes doing research (though my fact-checking skills are nearly non-existant)

 

[Lilandra]

you don't here apologies often around here.

Oh, am I glad I actually want to learn.

I'll take this time to apologize to all you evolutionists for calling evolution (and by blanketing this term over, abiogenesis and others) stupid. Though I still find it flawed, I've learned a lot from many posters here (including a little humility, I hope) and I'll try not to equate confusion to impossibility.

Thank you all.

 

[Lilandra]

Knowledge beyond what is taught in public schools. Often, what is taught is just very basic princaples of evolution without too much detail of the proof for it. This would mean that anyone who doesn't do thier own research on it or don't further thier education after high school can have the "basics" exploited and manipulated.

Make sense?

http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=24088194#poststop
It is a baby step in the right direction.

Are you kidding, Shinbits has gotten a LOT worse.

 

[David Gould]

Oh, am I glad I actually want to learn.

I'll take this time to apologize to all you evolutionists for calling evolution (and by blanketing this term over, abiogenesis and others) stupid. Though I still find it flawed, I've learned a lot from many posters here (including a little humility, I hope) and I'll try not to equate confusion to impossibility.

Thank you all.

Excellent stuff. I wish all posters were like this, including me.

 

[JediMobius]

you don't here apologies often around here.

What can I say? I've noticed I like to learn things the hard way.



Well folks, I'm off to do a little more research. . . trouble with that is, it can be so hard to tell these days who knows what they're talking about! This discussion surely helped. I'm not running away though I'll be back.

 

[David Gould]

My advice is to read scientists who actually work in the field. For example, don't read physicists talking about biology; don't read lawyers talking about the laws of thermodynamics. And so on.

 

[Vainglorious]

Is that to say, all we know is the universe was once smaller, and has been expanding since? The bible says that, though not in so many words.

The Bible says lots of things with the aid of creative interpretation.

I'm not sure what bearing the explosion of a grenade has on events in a vacuum.

Kent Hovind uses the flawed argument that pieces breaking away from a rotating object all have to spin in the same direction. This is false.

Additionally, we have the fact that Hovind's description of the Big Bang process doesn't even come close to representing the theory. In debate speak it is known as a strawman argument.

Of course, it must be assumed that the earth is old for this hypothesis [of Grand Canyon formation] to hold.

Hold up there. The original argument by Hovind was that it was impossible for the canyon to form at all. The fact there is a rather mundane natural explanation for the observed data destroys Hovind's argument.

Fossils? This link only shows that yes, birds have similar hyoid structures, but the woodpecker's is still abnormally long. It also lists species of woodpecker in order of length of hyoid/tongue structure. These species are dispersed in many areas, often seperate from each other. There's no proof of a common ancestor other than a woodpecker.

There is not a single evolutionary link which is not "a variantion of the kind" which came before.

If the termite was able to digest cellulose, then why did it need the trichonympha? If the termite was not able to digest cellulose, then what did it eat that the trichonympha would survive in its stomach? Symbiotic relationships can't simply be explained away by slow change.

It is not a question of if termites could digest cellulose without bacteria but do they digest better with the relationship. It is not a question of if digestive bacteria could survive elsewhere but do they survive better in a symbiotic relationship.

Positive survival value creates a feedback loop where each species becomes more specialised in exploiting the relationship.

What I've seen is that, evloutionists admit variations in C14 content in the atmosphere. Still, a certain base amount of C14 is assumed for fossils that are radiometrically dated

Notice we are now talking about known variation of C14. Yet you were told by Kent Hovind that "it is assumed there is no variation". So, was Kent Hovind lying? (Or maybe he doesn't know squat about the subject).

The amount of variation calibrated for an age calculations is a few percent either way (younger or older). There is no known way to make 30,000 years of usuable C14 dating fit into a young Earth.

I'm asking for proof or at least sound reason, I want to know why everyone should believe in evolution. I haven't seen that.

Evolution Theory (and all the other fields of science Hovind mixed into the name) is not a religion. You can be skeptical if you want. But please be skeptical because you know the subject not because you got sucker punched by a Hovind video.

 

[dlamberth]

The Bible says lots of things with the aid of creative interpretation.

And all of it seen through the focused lens of a particular trajectory of religious beliefs.

.

 

[DirectAnim]

And all of it seen through the focused lens of a particular trajectory of religious beliefs.

A very nice metaphor, but I'm not really sure where you stand. If you're being genuine, then I'm a little at a loss regarding why you would make such a circular statement.

You mention a "focused lense". Well, who crafted this "lense"? If it was God, then why do some people disagree on matters of faith? If it was the individual, then how did the individual select this lense? If it is the texts themselves that specify the lense, then the statement doesn't reduce the problem--a different interpretation could result in an alternative "lense".

 

[Nightson]

A very nice metaphor, but I'm not really sure where you stand. If you're being genuine, then I'm a little at a loss regarding why you would make such a circular statement.

You mention a "focused lense". Well, who crafted this "lense"? If it was God, then why do some people disagree on matters of faith? If it was the individual, then how did the individual select this lense? If it is the texts themselves that specify the lense, then the statement doesn't reduce the problem--a different interpretation could result in an alternative "lense".

Psst, dlamberth is saying that YECs interpet everything with the very narrow construct of YEC theology.

 

[TooCurious]

Wow, looks like I'm a little late to the party...

TheLowlyTortoise, since you've expressed an honest desire to learn about what's being discussed here (and I'm grateful to see that! ), I'd like to mention one important detail that I saw mentioned briefly a few pages back, but I think was drowned out by the other arguments going on. This is valuable to any honest attempt to understand evolution, or any scientific theory:

Science does not deal in "proof." Proof is for mathematics and alcohol. Science deals in evidence. Scientists study phenomena and gather data, and from that data they formulate possible explanations. These possible explanations are tested in laboratory conditions (if the type of science in question lends itself to such tests), or more data is collected and compared to the explanation to see if it still fits. These possible explanations are shared with the scientific community and examined and tested by many other scientists. Sometimes the explanations are modified, to better explain certain pieces of data. If a given explanation withstands repeated barrages of testing, examination, and peer review, then it becomes a scientific theory, which means "the best explanation of a given phenomenon that is currently available." It is provisionally accepted as accurate, with the acknowledgment that new data may be discovered that might contradict the theory in part or in whole.

This is as good as it gets for any idea in science, be it germ theory, the theory of gravity, or the theory of evolution.

As such, when discussing scientific ideas, it is not useful to ask for "proof," because science doesn't work that way. It is entirely reasonable, however, to ask for evidence, bearing in mind that evidence and proof are not the same thing.

I hope that helps in some measure.

 

[SLP]

It's just as plausible that these markers are simply similarities, and not evidence of common ancestry.

You have never seen DNA sequence data, have you?

Here, take a look and tell me how you will attribute it all to simple similarities.

 

[Tomk80]

Provide a response to the questions asked. What was the rate of the supposed expansion rate during the first stages of the universe?

Was there energy associated with this explosion?

The problem is not the rate of expansion or the energy involved. If I inflate a balloon really quickly without breaking it, is it suddenly an explosion?

Even inflation doesn't describe the phenomenon completely accurately, although at least it is a bit better. The problem is that people will always picture something expanding into something else (for example, air). An inflation of a balloon is still an expansion of space (the balloon) within other space (the air surrounding it). This is already inaccurate, because in the big bang model space itself expands. The best way to imagine it is imagining the distance between two points getting increasingly bigger. This is not an explosion of space, but an expansion of space.

 

[Edx]

http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=24088194#poststop
It is a baby step in the right direction.

A drop in the ocean. Ive seen him acting far worse now than I remember him before.

 

[Edx]

You have never seen DNA sequence data, have you?

Here, take a look and tell me how you will attribute it all to simple similarities.

Hmm, for someone that hasnt studied genetics all that is rather meaningless though.

 

[Abongil]

Hmm, for someone that hasnt studied genetics all that is rather meaningless though.

Still kinda cool, even if I have no idea what does what. At least I know what the A C G and T stands for.

 

[DirectAnim]

In any case, proposing that there never was a big bang itself introduces a host of problems. Explanation of background radiation, the red shift, and stellar metabolism are just some of the things which become impossible if you assume that the universe didn't have a singular origin.