100 Reasons Why Evolution Is Stupid

[DLH]

"3. Stellar and planetary evolution. Origin of stars and planets. No one has ever seen a star or planet form. The theory that in order to form 1 star 20 would have to be destroyed seems stupid. "

 

[atrib]

Tell me about it! The other day I had a throbbing headache, but instead of taking a couple Advil I just prayed to Jesus really hard.

Well to be honest I did take a couple of no-brand ibuprofin tablets and didn't pray at all, but the headache went away, so praise Jesus, right?''

So you think that's the way it works? You have a headache and pray to Jesus and he will heal you from the headache? People here keep telling me to shut up about science until I educate myself, why doesn't that apply to theology?

You seem to know as much about theology as you appear to know about science. That's why.

 

[atrib]

"3. Stellar and planetary evolution. Origin of stars and planets. No one has ever seen a star or planet form. The theory that in order to form 1 star 20 would have to be destroyed seems stupid. "

I assume you are quoting that bit of information from the Disco Institute site. This is exactly why we keep telling you to read what actual scientists have to say about the subject, not what a group of fundamentalist Christians are saying on their webpage designed only to promote faith in the Bible to the exclusion of all facts that contradict the Bible. Creationists lie. All the time. If you read older threads in these forums you would understand why we say that. Or better still, you could actually make an effort to educate yourself. But you won't do that because it is apparently not your intent to engage in honest discussion, but to provoke an angry response from those who do know what they are talking about. I am not allowed to call you a troll under forum rules, but I am free to discuss the content of your posts, and form my own conclusions as to your intent.

We have photographs of star and planetary disk formations that were recorded by Hubble, which confirm what scientists have hypothesized based simply on the physics. It is up to you to find said images along with the explanations of what these images show as written by astronomers and planetary scientists. The professionals who actually study these things and have extensive training in the subject. Again, I suspect you know all of this already.

 

[skepticalbip]

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.

Both that you listed have scientific meanings. However, you strangely left out the one that you are most interested in, biological evolution.

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)

Evidence. We observe that all galaxy clusters are receding from each other. This year they are all further apart from each other than they were last year. Therefore last year they were all closer to each other, also the year before, and the year before, etc. Look back far enough in time and they would have all have been at one point.... the origin of the big bang.

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."

Stars are formed by the collapse of dust clouds, mostly Hydrogen. The star begins fusing Hydrogen into Helium once the density, internal pressure, and temperature reach sufficient levels. As the star ages, much of the Hydrogen in the core is spent and it is mostly Helium. The star collapses further under gravity since the pressure from Hydrogen fusion has stopped until the pressures, density, and temperature becomes sufficient to fuse Helium. This process continues with heaver elements that were created until the the result of the fusion produces Iron. Creation of heaver elements is an endothermic process so fusion stops. If the star is massive enough, the ensuing collapse creates a nova or supernova creating sufficient pressure to fuse Iron into the heaver elements. The nova explosion scatters all those newly formed elements out into space where they will later form dust clouds that collapse into new stars and planets containing all the elements we find on Earth.

 

[skepticalbip]

"3. Stellar and planetary evolution. Origin of stars and planets. No one has ever seen a star or planet form. The theory that in order to form 1 star 20 would have to be destroyed seems stupid. "

Who the hell says that 20 stars need to be destroyed to form one star? Is that just something you pulled out of your ass because you don't know any better? There are stars that are thousands of times more massive than our sun. When one of these goes supernova, they spread enough mass into space to form thousands of stars.

We, as humans, don't live long enough to watch the full process. But we do see stars forming in various stages and can deduce the full process because we have "snapshots" from stars in different stages of forming. We see dust clouds collapsing, centers of the collapsing clouds becoming denser and hotter, very hot central regions with a ring of dense dust orbiting it, new stars just beginning their life.

We also can't witness a redwood tree grow to full size because we don't live long enough but we can deduce that redwoods grow the their massive height by seeing enough of them in various stages of their growth. We don't assume that god planted them already fully grown. Stars take millions of years to form but the redwoods only take centuries to reach full size. However no human lives long enough to witness the full process of growth of either.


ETA:
Kent Hovind is an ignorant ass and an amazing example of the Dunning-Kruger effect. Typical of such creationists, he basses his objections on the fact that he doesn't understand so just makes up something he can understand even though his ideas are so absurd as to be beyond laughable and into the pitiful.

 

[atrib]

That is how science works.

I stopped reading there. I don't care how science works.

What did you want to discuss when you created this thread?

Do you really believe any meaningful discussion can be had about the scientific theory of biological evolution without actually discussing the science of biological evolution?

 

[skepticalbip]

I stopped reading there. I don't care how science works.

What did you want to discuss when you created this thread?

Do you really believe any meaningful discussion can be had about the scientific theory of biological evolution without actually discussing the science of biological evolution?

I think it is the case that he doesn't want the science presented to him because if he happened to understand it then it would destroy his current beliefs. Can't have that - better to believe nonsense than understand reality.

 

[bilby]

Modern medicine doesn't work. I used to work for one of the biggest Pharmaceutical companies in the world, Eli Lilly,

Really? In what capacity? I mean, your opinion on the effectiveness of modern medicine, based on your experience as chief research chemist at Eli lilly would be one thing; while you opinion based on your position as a cleaner or forklift driver at Eli Lilly would be quite another.

and modern medicine is about as effective as the Placebo.

Modern medicine is based on establishing the difference between medicine and placebo. So no.

The medical profession as we know it was founded by the tycoons of the 19th century who influenced the North American politicians to get rid of the competition so they could profit from patented synthetic medicine.

Oh, really? So all those European pharmaceutical companies are what, chopped liver?

Modern medicine is stunted, no, retarded compared to what it could be due to money. Like science is. Research dental amalgams, mercury, and the formation of the FDA.

and chemtrails, 9/11, and fluoride, while we are at it.

- - - Updated - - -

"3. Stellar and planetary evolution. Origin of stars and planets. No one has ever seen a star or planet form. The theory that in order to form 1 star 20 would have to be destroyed seems stupid. "

Kent Hovind seems stupid. Yet he exists. Go figure.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Okay, hands up.
Back when DLH was all "I'm just getting warmed up" to go a whuppin' on the atheists, who was terrified that he had "Dr." 'Fell For Onyate Man' yet to play?

 

[Ford]

Okay, hands up.
Back when DLH was all "I'm just getting warmed up" to go a whuppin' on the atheists, who was terrified that he had "Dr." 'Fell For Onyate Man' yet to play?

Terrified as in "oh not this sorry shit again?"

 

[Valjean]

"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)
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."

This is irrelevant.
Are we arguing about homonyms? Are we disputing science, or semantics?

Of course "evolution" has multiple meanings, both colloquially and in different scientific disciplines, but there's no correlation between them. The mechanisms responsible for the evolution of Dixieland into Bebop, Latin into Italian or hydrogen into iron have nothing to do with the mechanisms that changed a bovine-like creature into a whale.

Please respond to the above quoted by Hovind on his video presentation.

Is there a link to this presentation somewhere?

I just heard Dr. David Berlinski say in the video I provided that scientific theory doesn't need evidence and that plenty of them have existed without evidence. This makes sense to me. It is theory. And who am I going to believe, him or you? Why don't you shut your mouth.

Apparently Berlinsky doesn't know what a scientific theory is, or how the scientific method works.
Nothing in science advances to the status of theory, or even theorem, without massive evidential support.

 

[atrib]

This is irrelevant.
Are we arguing about homonyms? Are we disputing science, or semantics?

Of course "evolution" has multiple meanings, both colloquially and in different scientific disciplines, but there's no correlation between them. The mechanisms responsible for the evolution of Dixieland into Bebop, Latin into Italian or hydrogen into iron have nothing to do with the mechanisms that changed a bovine-like creature into a whale.

Please respond to the above quoted by Hovind on his video presentation.

Is there a link to this presentation somewhere?

I just heard Dr. David Berlinski say in the video I provided that scientific theory doesn't need evidence and that plenty of them have existed without evidence. This makes sense to me. It is theory. And who am I going to believe, him or you? Why don't you shut your mouth.

Apparently Berlinsky doesn't know what a scientific theory is, or how the scientific method works.
Nothing in science advances to the status of theory, or even theorem, without massive evidential support.

Or Berlinsky knows what a scientific theory and chooses to lie in order to support his claims. Christians lie for Jesus all the time, in my experience.

 

[skepticalbip]

This is irrelevant.
Are we arguing about homonyms? Are we disputing science, or semantics?

Of course "evolution" has multiple meanings, both colloquially and in different scientific disciplines, but there's no correlation between them. The mechanisms responsible for the evolution of Dixieland into Bebop, Latin into Italian or hydrogen into iron have nothing to do with the mechanisms that changed a bovine-like creature into a whale.

Is there a link to this presentation somewhere?

I just heard Dr. David Berlinski say in the video I provided that scientific theory doesn't need evidence and that plenty of them have existed without evidence. This makes sense to me. It is theory. And who am I going to believe, him or you? Why don't you shut your mouth.

Apparently Berlinsky doesn't know what a scientific theory is, or how the scientific method works.
Nothing in science advances to the status of theory, or even theorem, without massive evidential support.

Or Berlinsky knows what a scientific theory and chooses to lie in order to support his claims. Christians lie for Jesus all the time, in my experience.

Or it could just be for the financial rewards, not for Jesus. Christians pay a hell of a lot for books and to hear lectures by people who will say things that support their beliefs. Look at people like the Bakers, Benny Hinn, etc. all have made millions feeding the delusion. I sometimes wonder about Kent Hovind. He seems dumb enough to believe the stuff he says but I find it hard to believe anyone is really that stupid and not just putting on an act for the massive rewards.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Okay, hands up.
Back when DLH was all "I'm just getting warmed up" to go a whuppin' on the atheists, who was terrified that he had "Dr." 'Fell For Onyate Man' yet to play?

Terrified as in "oh not this sorry shit again?"

No, no, no! Terrified of the incredibly compelling 'sounds right to me' argument from authority.
Gosh, it's like you're not even trying.

 

[dystopian]

Modern medicine doesn't work. I used to work for one of the biggest Pharmaceutical companies in the world, Eli Lilly, and modern medicine is about as effective as the Placebo. The medical profession as we know it was founded by the tycoons of the 19th century who influenced the North American politicians to get rid of the competition so they could profit from patented synthetic medicine. Modern medicine is stunted, no, retarded compared to what it could be due to money. Like science is. Research dental amalgams, mercury, and the formation of the FDA.

Okay, so the next time you get sick, by all means don't go to a doctor.

In fact, I demand it.

Bedrlinkski doesn't, as far as I know (I have only recently discovered him) propose or endorse any intelligent design, at least not of a Biblical nature. He is a fellow of Discovery, but I've not heard anything about a Creator from him except as a possible alternative. There are more possibilities than the two, you know. One of which would be "I don't know."

Just because he doesn't explicitly endorse it doesn't mean he isn't tacitly endorsing it. It's like I said, an obvious smokescreen. "Now I'm not saying it's intelligent design... but all this non-intelligent design stuff is wrong which leaves intelligent design as the only explanation! But I'm not saying it's intelligent design because that would make it too obvious what I'm doing!"

"3. Stellar and planetary evolution. Origin of stars and planets. No one has ever seen a star or planet form.

Wrong. We have observed both. Some examples:

Planetary formation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HL_Tauri

Stellar formation: https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/SOFIA/13-099.html#.Va368PnKExA

The theory that in order to form 1 star 20 would have to be destroyed seems stupid. "

The author of the above obviously does not understand that there are vast size and mass differences between types of stars. The most massive star known to man is RMC 136a1; it is 265 times as massive as our own sun. By comparison, the least massive known star is AB Pictoris, with a mass of just 0.01296 that of our own sun. Ignoring everything else about stellar formation, we could say that if RMC 136a1 would die and expel all mass, the stellar nursery created could potentially give birth to 265 stars like our own, or well over two million stars like AB Pictoris. Conversely, it would take the death of 7716 stars like AB Pictoris to form enough mass to give birth to the sun.

 

[krypton iodine sulfur]

Thanks. Lets do it one at a time.

No. Not all of them are worth addressing. Some of the points don't really make much sense, and some don't fall within my areas of interest. I care about biological evolution, but I'm not that interested in cosmology, even if I respect it. Biological evolution and cosmological evolution are two different fields despite the shared use of the word 'evolution' [which I am not certain is a term which has the same salience in cosmology as it does biology]. The way chemical evolution is used in that quote is not consistent with the way I've encountered it, which is basically a term in the same vein as 'abiogenesis'. Certainly these things are all as connected to each other as much as they are connected to the natural universe itself, but they are largely subjects which exist in their own regard.

I am not aware that people claim elements evolve, or that chemicals do either, for that matter, though chemical reactions are of course relevant to evolution. The process by which organic matter could form from inorganic is an important question, but it doesn't need to be answered to observe that evolution happens in the organic life which already exists. In a similar sense, I can observe that a firearm can be used to kill a person and that observation can be correct, even if I don't understand the underlying physics of how the projectile is launched, of its flight path, and of it's impact on the target. the fact that I don't know everything doesn't undo the validity of my observations, even if it makes my observations less complete.

 

[Atheos]

Nobody has ever watched a process that takes millions of years to complete from start to finish so they can swear they watched the whole thing. Therefore the only possible explanation is that god did it.

This is the underlying foundation of every argument Kent Bovine shits out.

 

[krypton iodine sulfur]

Nobody has ever watched a process that takes millions of years to complete from start to finish so they can swear they watched the whole thing.

I asked God to TiVo it, but he didn't set it up right.

 

[Zaphod Beeblebrox]

Bedrlinkski doesn't, as far as I know (I have only recently discovered him) propose or endorse any intelligent design, at least not of a Biblical nature. He is a fellow of Discovery, but I've not heard anything about a Creator from him except as a possible alternative. There are more possibilities than the two, you know. One of which would be "I don't know."

Yet his claims concerning evolution are frequently found in creationist rhetoric, such as those concerning the eye, the Cambrian explosion and transitional fossils. Even if he did not openly endorse ID, he uses the same arguments.

 

[Zaphod Beeblebrox]

Nobody has ever watched a process that takes millions of years to complete from start to finish so they can swear they watched the whole thing. Therefore the only possible explanation is that god did it.

This is the underlying foundation of every argument Kent Bovine shits out.

It's never another religion's deity/deities, is it? Well, that's likely an exaggeration, but still.