Evolution Sucks!
POSTED BY: dougp59
UPDATED: Monday, July 27, 2026 16:36
VIEWED: 32323
PAGE 15 of 20
Y'know, I hope I'm not the only one to check Dougp59's profile; this guy's first log-on was the same day he started this thread. He has no footprints on the site except for this one thread. This guy ain't no browncoat, he's just a fanatic with an axe to grind. I wonder how many other unrelated websites he's posted his link on.
As for "Intelligent Design"--
"Intelligent Design is not science - not even BAD science - but it is bad religion. After all, any religion that has to lie about what it is in order to sneak into the building needs to take a long hard look at some of its own tenets regarding morality and integrity...
...I believe that eventually our science will be good enough that we can explain to God how we think He did it, and He'll say "Great job! You get an A! It would have been an A+, but you left 'Dark Energy' in place as a fudge factor. Now here's a nebula full of hydrogen. Show Me what you can build."
Until then, however, I'm not going to use the book of Genesis as a template for a scientific theory. The answers may be in The Book, but we're expected to show our work. That's the only way that we can enjoy the fruits of DOING the work." -- Howard Taylor
For the record, Mr. Taylor is a devout Mormon, and also a hard science fiction writer. Check out his Webcomic "Schlock Mercenary" for some good clean fun.
"I'm sorry my karma ran over your dogma." -- George R.R. Martin
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Chris, Dreamtrove, Citizen – you guys have made this a really interesting thread, even though the astrophysics is way beyond my understanding! I always thought the Big Bang sounded suspiciously like modified-Creationism, but everything I’ve read, seen, or been taught suggested it’s well accepted in the scientific community (rather like evolution). I was also taught that the speed of light in a vacuum is absolutely constant. I don’t understand Dreamtrove’s arguments and they run counter to what I know, but I can’t dismiss them out of hand based on the overall quality of Dreamtrove’s posts.
I nominate Hitler for the prestigious award of “Worst Christian in History”. Any seconds?
Rocketjock – Doug’s lack of a FF history has been noted by others on the thread. Nice quote!
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by dougp59:
There is a misconception that all ID theorist are creationistst. They are not. If you were to ask some of the leading ID theorists if they were creationists, a suprising number would say no.
Many retain old earth, old heavens viewpoint.
This is the crux of my concern. Intelligent Design is sold as a theory distinct from Creationism, but if this were really true every ID theorist would say he’s not a Creationist. Instead of replacing Creationism with a new scientific theory, Intelligent Design just lumps religion in with philosophy to sneak them both into the science classroom. I would guess the majority of ID theorists are Creationists, with a few Deists and Agnostics thrown in for variety. I think the definitions below would distinguish between religious fundamentalists trying to debunk science, and scientists who believe in god. Of course, I suspect that’s the complete opposite of the ID agenda.
Creationism – the universe was created by God, as defined by belief in religious texts; some variation in the details (age of the universe, etc.), but absolutely contrary to evolution; a religion
Intelligent Design – entity/entities played some part in creation, as concluded by reason rather than adherence to religious texts; covers a lot of possibilities, but largely coexists with evolution (entity/entities set up evolution, subtly guide it, etc.); a philosophy
Irreducibly complex systems don’t disprove evolution any more than not having every single transitional fossil. Again, rather than proof of ID, it's percieved problems with evolution. At best, they may show the theory needs some minor tweeks. Here’s how I think of it:
Under creationism, my laptop would have popped into existence with no previous forms. No punch cards, no rooms filled with tapes, no desktop computers. Just my Inspiron 6000. Under intelligent design, many changes were attempted at each step of the modification, and customers created a natural selection, but the designers only tried those changes they thought would be an improvement. Because the designers showed some degree of intelligence, we went from the Difference Calculator to my Inspiron in less than 200 years. Computers could have developed via random changes, with designers trying all ideas regardless of merit, followed by the same customer-based selection, but then my laptop would be on pre-order for something like the next 10 billion years. Complexity is not evidence of intelligent design, even if you can’t imagine how it came about. However, if pigs develop wings in the next 100 years I will definitely convert to your camp.
If you want to know what I do for a living, read my other posts. Maybe you’ll learn some thing about this thing we call Firefly…
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Orignally posted by Dreamtrove:
Citizen, please desist this really annoying rhetorical style of trying to misrepresent other people's position. Clearly mine is the competitive theory, and is a collection of a lot of other people's works who are not dogmatic in approach, and what you posted is straight line non-competitive dogma. Saying that I don't like competing ideas because I fail to bow to the uncompromising wrote theories which have more basis in old time religion than science is, well, it's beyond absurd. I think you just intentionally just tries to invert my position as a form of argument and it's the second time in a row and I'm rather annoyed by it. I'm beginning to suspect it's not a mistake, but a form of blatant dishonesty.
Dreamtrove, my comment was not based on your not accepting the theory; it was based on the fact that you said it was because you saw it all as mathematical posturing.
To be honest this tired old argument that gets dragged up every time someone disagrees with you for more than two posts is annoying and somewhat insulting. It's not just me you level this at either, it's seemingly anyone who disagrees with you, so either I'm to believe everyone on this site is constantly lying to beat your perfect argument, or that your as fallible as the rest of us, and tend to back up your arguments with personal attacks, and accusations that your opponent is lying.
Quote:
Sorry, but this is nonsense. The theory of creationism over eons rather than seven days was very similar to big bang, and preceded big bang. Actually, it is big bang. This is the way I first heard it in college "There was this theory, and it didn't have the evidence it needed, then we found that evidence in background radiation." Yeah, there was this theory called yay jesus, and then we pinned something to it. Back ground radiation is not about the big bang, it's dead light from beyond the edge. At least so says my competing theory.
Your theory isn't all that different to creationism over eons either, DT, so I'm not at all sure how you can refute the theory on this count.
But please continue to paint me as someone who says yay Jesus and jumps on the bandwagon of this crazy non scientific creationism, that happens to be supported by prominent physicists, who are also obviously crazy creationist nuts.
Quote:
That a near infinite particle can spontaneously come into being? This shows no understanding of how particles come into being. It's not just statisically improbable on a level that it would happen in 16 billion years, it's actually impossible.
It doesn't necessarily have to have spontaneously come into being. There's lots of ways that the original singularity could of come into being, this statement shows a fundemental misunderstanding, wilfully or un-wilfully, of the big bang theory.
Quote:
I think I just gave you half a dozen things.
I'm asking for evidence Dreamtrove, not your say so.
Quote:
Now you're just being absurd and offensive because you have no answers to any of the problems I suggested with the theory, and all of these points have been raised by scientists before, so I'm not making them up.
No you’re stating a theory as fact that not only is there scant information on but you've shown me nothing to back it up yourself. So okay here's the answer to your original point, we know black holes aren't like our universe because our universe is not inside a black hole. That statement is every bit as valid as yours.
Quote:
I assume you know that the universe is a black hole since you seem big on the math, I would assume you already did the math and found that to be the case.
Neither the Schwarzschild or Kerr geometrics support that.
But thanks for proving how low an opinion you have of me. If any mathematics I had done or seen supported you I'd of said so.
Quote:
You're argument that god created the universe and that he does exist is based on nothing and related to nothing.
Right okay I'm doing the twisti
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Space is space time, to say that space time is an entity really confuses the issue, space and time are both derived from the fabric, but in different ways, it is the space quality that was being addressed, to say that space and time are the same thing is to not understand time.
But, speaking of time, I work in excess of 80 hours a week, and I really don't have time for this. I gave you the items which shake the theory, there is a ton already written on the subject by people who can do the material better justice than I can.
Ojectively, Citizen, I judge everything from an ultra-pragmatic position. I look at the data, and apply common sense. Clearly I have no scientific degrees and am no kind of professional, but I did go through all that accepted science, and the accepted science is mathematical posturing, it's a model which explains behavior, and that in itself does little to support the idea that the underlying assumptions are correct. I reviewed the data and the competing theories, and have no axe to grind, and nothing to gain, and no absolute answers to give, but I have a serious hunch that the accepted science is wrong, in the way that Mr. Monk walks into a murder scene and has a hunch that the Captain's conclusions are flawed.
The theories are not my own, I said I assembled all this of stuff I read, and these are the individual pieces which strike me as being in the direction of correct, and I was applying them to oppose certain absurdities in the accepted theory. A singularity is everybit as absurd as infinity, as is an infinite mass particle. It's like God. If you have theories which explain what we see and don't require this sort of divine intervention and made up fantasyland stuff, then they are worth taking a look at.
Finally, I posted this stuff because I thought you and others might be interested in what some scientists outside of the mainstream but not over in looneyland like space wizard are saying, and the thought that maybe interested people could look into it. It benefits me zero to win this argument, so I'm not arguing.
If anything were worth arguing for me on this board right now, it would be to see if Fletch can present me with a system that provides for the needs of the people that he thinks need providing for without creating a giant web of government control.
So, Fletch,
I hope you see my connection on the govt. control. Socialism is govt. control, and it's cooperative in nature, and so sure, it could work, but it's always going to be far easier to drive in the wrong direction as a well ordered system is, than a more independent and individualistic one would be, should something untoward happen. Equality, social safety net, correct me if I'm wrong, but the things you think a govt. should provide, healthcare, housing for the homeless, welfare for the poor, whatever it be - can you see that this demands a government power structure which then in turn threatens those civil liberties we both cherish?
It happens all the time here in New York. The democrats propose a new social program to help poor people, which they do all the time, and faster than you can say 'beaurocracy' that same program is being used by the same people to interfere in those people's lives on a drastic level, from telling them what type of education (liberal slanted) they're children must have and sending them to counseling, to taking their children away and making them wards of the state and forcing them onto medication, - and all of this for behavior which might seem relatively innocuous, and would not lift an eyebrow if a wealthier person did it (ie. we're not talking about child abuse here, but joining religious groups, going out to a bar or even restaurant, leaving the kids with an aunt for a night, - and my personal favorite - not fastening a seven year old in the back seat into a child restraint device (not free to the family) - a crime which resulted in all of the kids being taken away (the child in question was not injured in spite of the absense of the device)) And that last was just one story from
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Okay Dreamtrove, I don't want to have a 'falling out' with you. I will only reply to one thing, and then I will drop it. I promise.
Quote:
Space is space time, to say that space time is an entity really confuses the issue, space and time are both derived from the fabric, but in different ways, it is the space quality that was being addressed, to say that space and time are the same thing is to not understand time.
Space-Time IS the fabric of space. Under Relativity Space is four, not three, dimensional, with the fourth dimension being time. It is wholly correct to talk of Space-Time, and not Space. It is, under relativity, Space-Time that is warped, not space. There is no misunderstanding of time there.
No properly worded description of Relativity will say 'Space is warped' it will always refer to 'Space-Time'.
But as I promised I'll leave it there.
If I can ask a question though, and feel free to ignore me, some of your assertions seem to suggest you think Relativity is wrong, while others suggest that you think it is right. Where do you stand on Relativity, I won't argue the point, I'd just like to know?
More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
The statistics on sanity are that one out of every four persons is suffering from some sort of mental illness. Think of your three best friends -- if they're okay, then it's you.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Citizen,
Thanks. I think that time is more complex, or perhaps simpler, but what i meant was strands fluctuate from A to B creating frequency and wavelength, in so doing they create space. In so doing they also create time, but time and space build on that initial fluctuation in different ways. It's like languages come about by the interaction of humans, and societies also come about by the interations of the same humans, but that's not the same as saying languages and societies are the same thing. That was my only point, not arguing that time is entirely separate from space, but it is also not entirely the same. The semantic point I thought was nitpicky when you posted it elsewhere, so I ignored it, which was this: if someone is talking about the spacial properties of space-time, it's perfectly fine to say space, because this is a language issue, not a science one, and everyone understands what they mean.
Next,
Relativity is essentially correct. Correct is not an absolute though. I believe the truth is an unreachable ideal, and in that sense, everything will always be "wrong" in that it will fail to explain everything that could conceiveably be derived from it. I consider something to be essentially "right" if it is closer to the truth then what came before, and that no one will ever have a need to 'undo' it in order to get closer to the truth.
Newton isn't wrong. It's right, because it explains the way things work, and no explaination requires that physics would be better off without newton. But in cosmology, Newton is not *as right* as Einstein.
Relativity is a mathematical model, it never predended to be anything more, and as a mathematical model it is more applicable to cosmology than is Newton. I argue with some of the assertions and derivations because they are inconsistant with other laws, but I don't argue the theory of "this is generally how things interact, according to these formulas."
Where Relativity breaks down is when it approaches quantum mechanics. Einstein was very well aware of this, and was not able to find a way to reconcile the problem. In his later years he became quite bitter about it, and argued that quantum mechanics must be absolutely wrong, because if it weren't, Relativity could not be absolutely right.
But there are no absolutes, and Quantum Mechanics is far from absolutely wrong, in fact it is right, because it explains the interactions of things on a very small scale to a much greater degree than anything which came before, in the same way that Relativity explained things on a very large scale, and no one in science would benefit from undoing quatum mechanics.
So the problem which presents itself is when forces of cosmology have to operate on a very small scale, and then they break down, and quantum mechanics becomes more the guiding model. It's roughly analagous to when Newton is applied on a somewhat large scale, say one such as the Solar system, where it can be generally correct, but the more you need to involve elements of the cosmos, even planets, Newton needs to give way to Einstein in order to get accurate results.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by RocketJock:
Y'know, I hope I'm not the only one to check Dougp59's profile; this guy's first log-on was the same day he started this thread. He has no footprints on the site except for this one thread. This guy ain't no browncoat, he's just a fanatic with an axe to grind. I wonder how many other unrelated websites he's posted his link on.
But it's so much more fun to ignore that and continue the thread. That's why I say, give him the benefit of the doubt, not because I think he is a Browncoat, but rather because bringing up trolling will get us sidetracked.
Of course we are sidetracked, but in a different way.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Aerin:
Chris, Dreamtrove, Citizen – you guys have made this a really interesting thread, even though the astrophysics is way beyond my understanding!
Thanks.
Quote:
I always thought the Big Bang sounded suspiciously like modified-Creationism, but everything I’ve read, seen, or been taught suggested it’s well accepted in the scientific community (rather like evolution).
The thing is, the important thing is, that it is not. The similarity has led some (a Pope included) to believe it to be a vindication of Genisis' "Let there be light" but it is hardly creationism.
It is no more creationism than the belief that the big bang was caused by a "big crunch" is Hindu.
-
I don't know where to stand on it, it is over my head, but I do know it is firmly science.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Finally, I posted this stuff because I thought you and others might be interested in what some scientists outside of the mainstream but not over in looneyland like space wizard are saying, and the thought that maybe interested people could look into it. It benefits me zero to win this argument, so I'm not arguing.
We are interested in what the scientists are saying, we are interested in what you believe, Citizen included, we just want references.
Please, provide links to these scientists outside of the mainstream, tell us where we can find the papers the published and the results of experiments they preformed.
No theory can be adequately explained on a message board, you need to let us see what you have seen, show us where to find the data of competing theories.
If you are not linking to it because it is not online tell us the names of the papers, books or journals that you found the data in.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME