100 Reasons Why Evolution Is Stupid

[DLH]

Clever response. Very thorough and convincing. Couldn't find anything on Wikipedia?

Do you seriously need to be told why the idea that chemical elements 'evolve' in the same way that biological beings evolve is stupid? I actually thought better of you.

Here is what was said:

"Chemical evolution - the origin from higher elements from hydrogen. How did we get 92 elements? Plus the synthetic ones. How did the chemicals evolve? They don't talk about that much but that would have to happen."

I assume he is going to get into that later, since he is, in effect, only introducing variations of evolution amounting to 6, 5 of which he alleges are unscientific. He asked how and he says "they" don't talk about it much. Y'all aint said nothing so far except that his remark is stupid. At least when he makes the claim he supports it. That's why, so far, I would listen to him over you all.

 

[Ford]

Y'all aint said nothing so far except that his remark is stupid.

Because it is astonishingly stupid.

The chemical elements didn't "evolve" at all. They exist as a result of very well understood process called stellar nucleosynthesis which is explained in the above-linked Wikipedia article.

Perhaps the reason he believes "they don't talk about it much" is because he has deliberately ignored the better part of a century of scientific research into the process.

 

[DLH]

Because it is astonishingly stupid.

The chemical elements didn't "evolve" at all. They exist as a result of very well understood process called stellar nucleosynthesis which is explained in the above-linked Wikipedia article.

Perhaps the reason he believes "they don't talk about it much" is because he has deliberately ignored the better part of a century of scientific research into the process.

Since reading comprehension doesn't seem to be particularly detectable in the educated science minded ilk let me reiterate the first line in this thread.

"First of all, I came here to get the opinions of the people active in this community. I can look up a link in rebuttal to Kent Hovind's presentation so please don't just give me what I can find myself. If you want to reference a link in rebuttal excerpt the relevant point and leave the link for reference. Don't just give me a link and say there's your answer. "

Having said that, what is nucleosynthesis and how do you know it had anything to do with anything? Keep in mind, I haven't watched this video in a long while and assume it is expanded upon later, so only a basic summation is required.

Perhaps I should also reiterate that he, at this point, has only asked how the chemicals evolved, mentioned that "they" don't talk about it much, and concludes by saying it would have had to have happened. 1 Question and 2 assertions.

 

[Sarpedon]

If you are too lazy to educate yourself on this issue, why is our job? Why do we have to retype everything, and then attempt to dumb it down to a level you can understand, just because you are too lazy to click a link? Since you admit you are too lazy to do your googling for yourself, and too lazy to click a link to find an article, why would we waste our time trying to explain it, when you are obviously too lazy to make the effort to understand it?

Your sense of entitlement is breathtaking. We owe you nothing.

Frauds like Hovind prey upon people like you. It's so easy to believe the easy, reassuring lies. And it hardly costs anything at all.

 

[RavenSky]

"First of all, I came here to get the opinions of the people active in this community.

No you didn't. If you had, you would not be saying shit like:

Since reading comprehension doesn't seem to be particularly detectable in the educated science minded ilk let me reiterate the first line in this thread.

You might... possibly... get a better discussion if you didn't flounce about declaring that you "came here to get the opinions of the people active in this community" while demanding we *discuss* what you want, when you want it and how you want it; then making yourself look like a fool by trying to malign everyone who bothers to comment in your waste of a thread.

On the other hand, it is likely too late. You've shown your ass to everyone, and most are unlikely to give you another chance.

 

[dystopian]

To defend wonderful theory of evolution for those poor lost forms of life out there who are confused regarding the threat from some mean ol' nasty fundi? No.

I... what? What does that sentence even MEAN?

Uh . . . then, because this is a forum on science and the subject has been introduced? Again.

Evolution is a matter of scientific consensus, and has been since well before either of us were born. It serves no scientific purpose to indulge the delusions and rantings of people who can't comprehend or accept scientific facts; nor does this forum exist to indulge those things either. Especially not time and time again; there comes a point when even the most indulging of individuals will say 'enough, stop bothering me with this idiocy'.

The reason you have provided is insufficient. Perhaps you would like to try again to come up with a reason.

 

[atrib]

I haven't seen that in ages. It's in a talk he gave, yes? Tell you what; provide a list of the hundred reasons in text, and I'll go point by point on as many as I can stand before I get bored.

That sounds like a good idea. Thanks. Lets do it one at a time.

"The word evolution has at least 6 different meanings. Only 1 is scientific. 1 Cosmic evolution - the origin of time, space and matter, ie, Big Bang. (no evidence for that whatsoever, but we'll get into that later)

What are your specific objections on this subject? Are you claiming that the universe does not change?

2. Chemical evolution - the origin from higher elements from hydrogen. How did we get 92 elements? Plus the synthetic ones. How did the chemicals evolve? They don't talk about that much but that would have to happen."

Elements do not evolve in the sense populations of living things do. Lighter elements (up to Iron) are formed through the process of nuclear fusion in the hot, dense cores of stars, while heavier elements require supernovae explosions and/or collisions of binary neutron stars (there is some fairly recent research on this subject that seems to point to the latter scenario as being more likely to produce the conditions necessary for that to happen).

Again, I suggest you educate yourself at least a little before you open your mouth and display your ignorance for all to see.

 

[DLH]

If you are too lazy to educate yourself on this issue, why is our job? Why do we have to retype everything, and then attempt to dumb it down to a level you can understand, just because you are too lazy to click a link? Since you admit you are too lazy to do your googling for yourself, and too lazy to click a link to find an article, why would we waste our time trying to explain it, when you are obviously too lazy to make the effort to understand it?

Your sense of entitlement is breathtaking. We owe you nothing.

Frauds like Hovind prey upon people like you. It's so easy to believe the easy, reassuring lies. And it hardly costs anything at all.

I can only conclude that no one here can. They have no thoughts on the matter whatsoever. Their answer to everything is do a quick search, skim the surface, hand over a link and it's done.

This is their idea of a discussion? Of Reasoning?

Okay, lets play it your way. Stellar nucleosynthesis? Nonsense.

 

[DLH]

I... what? What does that sentence even MEAN?

Uh . . . then, because this is a forum on science and the subject has been introduced? Again.

Evolution is a matter of scientific consensus, and has been since well before either of us were born. It serves no scientific purpose to indulge the delusions and rantings of people who can't comprehend or accept scientific facts; nor does this forum exist to indulge those things either. Especially not time and time again; there comes a point when even the most indulging of individuals will say 'enough, stop bothering me with this idiocy'.

The reason you have provided is insufficient. Perhaps you would like to try again to come up with a reason.

No. No thanks. I think your response says it all. Thank you for your input.

 

[atrib]

If you are too lazy to educate yourself on this issue, why is our job? Why do we have to retype everything, and then attempt to dumb it down to a level you can understand, just because you are too lazy to click a link? Since you admit you are too lazy to do your googling for yourself, and too lazy to click a link to find an article, why would we waste our time trying to explain it, when you are obviously too lazy to make the effort to understand it?

Your sense of entitlement is breathtaking. We owe you nothing.

Frauds like Hovind prey upon people like you. It's so easy to believe the easy, reassuring lies. And it hardly costs anything at all.

I can only conclude that no one here can. They have no thoughts on the matter whatsoever. Their answer to everything is do a quick search, skim the surface, hand over a link and it's done.

This is their idea of a discussion? Of Reasoning?

Okay, lets play it your way. Stellar nucleosynthesis? Nonsense.

Neutron stars:

It has been proposed that coalescence of binaries consisting of two neutron stars may be responsible for producing short gamma-ray bursts. Such events may also be responsible for producing all chemical elements beyond iron,[36] as opposed to the supernova nucleosynthesis theory.

You should feel free to follow up on the references cited, but then again, you likely would not understand any of the material presented.

 

[dystopian]

I can only conclude that no one here can. They have no thoughts on the matter whatsoever. Their answer to everything is do a quick search, skim the surface, hand over a link and it's done.

This is their idea of a discussion? Of Reasoning?

What you fail to understand is that virtually everyone here has spent years, even decades, arguing essentially this same topic... listening to the same weak theist arguments over and over again; discovering that no matter how many times these arguments are refuted the theists will dig their heads in the sand and keep repeating them. When you spend that much time trying to convince someone of basic scientific facts with them just refusing or unable to rise above their superstition and ignorance, you will eventually give up.

It is a scientific fact that evolution occurs. There is absolutely no controversy. We shouldn't have to keep explaining it to people who flat-out refuse to accept any argument or evidence anyway... just like we shouldn't have to keep explaining to flat-earthers that the world isn't flat.

 

[dystopian]

No. No thanks. I think your response says it all. Thank you for your input.

Oh the irony of you complaining that nobody here will bother with your questions.

Why did you decide to give up on coming up with a reason that will convince me to answer your original question of why we shouldn't consider kent hovind?

If you can answer me that, you should be able to understand why we won't bother.

 

[DLH]

What are your specific objections on this subject? Are you claiming that the universe does not change?

I'm not making any claims at this point. The video says that only 1 of the 6 applications of evolution are scientific. It hasn't named the scientific one yet, and promises to get to the big bang later. So let's leave it at that.

Elements do not evolve in the sense populations of living things do. Lighter elements (up to Iron) are formed through the process of nuclear fusion in the hot, dense cores of stars, while heavier elements require supernovae explosions and/or collisions of binary neutron stars (there is some fairly recent research on this subject that seems to point to the latter scenario as being more likely to produce the conditions necessary for that to happen).

Okay. So, elements do not evolve in the way that populations of critters do. The lighter elements are formed by nuclear fusion in the cores of stars, and heavier ones would need supernovae explosions or collisions of binary neutron stars. Most likely it would be the latter of the two.

Got it.

Again, I suggest you educate yourself at least a little before you open your mouth and display your ignorance for all to see.

No. It looks like it is going to have to be done through our exchange here.

 

[DLH]

Neutron stars:

It has been proposed that coalescence of binaries consisting of two neutron stars may be responsible for producing short gamma-ray bursts. Such events may also be responsible for producing all chemical elements beyond iron,[36] as opposed to the supernova nucleosynthesis theory.

You should feel free to follow up on the references cited, but then again, you likely would not understand any of the material presented.

It's only speculation. May be responsible, as opposed to . . . But I got it.

Oh, and, you all can knock off the looking down on me because I don't necessarily know that you are full of shit because you remind me of the Christians when I was an atheist. It kind of makes you look like dicks.

 

[DLH]

No. No thanks. I think your response says it all. Thank you for your input.

Oh the irony of you complaining that nobody here will bother with your questions.

Why did you decide to give up on coming up with a reason that will convince me to answer your original question of why we shouldn't consider kent hovind?

If you can answer me that, you should be able to understand why we won't bother.

We finished. Remember? A couple minutes ago.

 

[Keith&Co.]

I haven't seen that in ages. It's in a talk he gave, yes? Tell you what; provide a list of the hundred reasons in text, and I'll go point by point on as many as I can stand before I get bored.

Well, he starts with the complete lack of evidence for the Big Bang...
If he's that stupid, I can't see much reason to deal with the rest.

 

[DLH]

What you fail to understand is that virtually everyone here has spent years, even decades, arguing essentially this same topic... listening to the same weak theist arguments over and over again; discovering that no matter how many times these arguments are refuted the theists will dig their heads in the sand and keep repeating them. When you spend that much time trying to convince someone of basic scientific facts with them just refusing or unable to rise above their superstition and ignorance, you will eventually give up.

It is a scientific fact that evolution occurs. There is absolutely no controversy. We shouldn't have to keep explaining it to people who flat-out refuse to accept any argument or evidence anyway... just like we shouldn't have to keep explaining to flat-earthers that the world isn't flat.

You don't think that I can relate to that from my own theistic position? I've recently discovered this guy, an unbeliever, who I really like.

 

[DLH]

I haven't seen that in ages. It's in a talk he gave, yes? Tell you what; provide a list of the hundred reasons in text, and I'll go point by point on as many as I can stand before I get bored.

Well, he starts with the complete lack of evidence for the Big Bang...
If he's that stupid, I can't see much reason to deal with the rest.

That's pretty much the answer that everyone gives, buddy. Has it ever occurred to any of you how pretentious and dogmatic that is? How scientific? Listen to the David Berlinkski video I gave above. Anything that doesn't match your worldview apparently must and con only be dismissed as stupid. Like I said, at least he [Hovind] gives support. Don't tell me you already gave at the office or you might as well retire.

 

[atrib]

Again, I suggest you educate yourself at least a little before you open your mouth and display your ignorance for all to see.

No. It looks like it is going to have to be done through our exchange here.

It is not our job to educate you. To have a meaningful discussion about these matters it is incumbent on you to at least possess a minimum education of the subject. Otherwise it is just a waste of our time.

- - - Updated - - -

Well, he starts with the complete lack of evidence for the Big Bang...
If he's that stupid, I can't see much reason to deal with the rest.

That's pretty much the answer that everyone gives, buddy. Has it ever occurred to any of you how pretentious and dogmatic that is? How scientific? Listen to the David Berlinkski video I gave above. Anything that doesn't match your worldview apparently must and con only be dismissed as stupid. Like I said, at least he [Hovind] gives support. Don't tell me you already gave at the office or you might as well retire.

It is stupid because it ignores the knowledge available to us today. It might also be dishonest if this ignorance is deliberate.

 

[Keith&Co.]

It is stupid because it ignores the knowledge available to us today. It might also be dishonest if this ignorance is deliberate.

Well, he's supposed to have been a science teacher.
It'd be one thing if he claimed to have a better scientific interpretation of the evidence that IS available for the Big Bang, rather than claim there's NO evidence.