If you're really, really bored, this is a 2-hour video. I only watched the beginning.



Here is one quote: ""Evolutionists believe a dog came from a rock"

Someone should skip ahead and try to find some gems.

I'll take some time to wreck this a bit later.

Thanks for finding it, Dexter.

The guy is entertaining at least.

He actually asks a few good questions about science, he just doesn't bother trying to find the answers.

3:01 defining the word “Stupid” with a dictionary.

3:54 defining the word “evolution” out of his ass. smears to other realms of change over time. The progress of energy to matter to heavy elements is NOT the same process as biological evolution. He’s lumping these things all together to minimize the scope of what he is fighting against into one entity, rather than a diverse array of disciplines which all began their study independently and only through discovery has it been shown that these are really all different elements of the same underlying thing.

In other words, these converging theories are all arriving at the same answers from independent starting points.

3:54 “Nobody has ever seen a star form”



There it is. This is a stellar nursery, but the creation of a star does not work in human time scales. It takes millions of years for a cloud of gas to collapse into a star.



4:28 misleads audience how stars form for the purpose of erecting a straw man, or because he does not in fact know how that process works. Both, most likely.

4:40 Defines “Organic evolution” as the process by which life gets started from non-living material. That is NOT what evolution is. The above process is called abiogenesis which is a different topic than evolution, for evolution deals with descent with modification and describes the process by which DNA based life changes over time through replication. This is a misleading statement, especially since he noted he’s been in over 50 debates and this has SURELY been pointed out to him in the past.

4:52 Life would have to come from non-living material. We’ve never seen it happen, and there’s no evidence that it can happen.

It’s true that life would have to come from non-life, as that is the only way for it to have happened. And it still happens now. Herbavours, Carnivors and omnivors eat other life, but photosynthetic creatures, upon which all others feed, derive their energy from the sun, breaking CO2 into O2 which it gives off as waste, and holding onto carbon to utilize in creating biomass. That is life from non-life in itself. Abiogenesis is still being worked out, but there are already promising developments in that field.

Here’s a TED talk on the subject. This team is creating chemical globs which display some amazingly life-like qualities. This is not the end of the line of study, but it is a strong hint how these things happen.

http://www.wimp.com/linelife/

4:58 “macro evolution”.
Makes unnecessary distinction between micro evolution which is not what he described it to be, and macro evolution which according to him is where an animal turns into a different kind of animal.

First, micro and macro evolution are talking about the same thing, in different proportions. The difference between the number 1 and the number 1,000,000,000 for instance. They are both the same thing, but macro-evolution is really microevolution over a very long period.

Second. Animals do not turn into “different kinds of animals” what they do is differentiate into a different species of the same “kind” of animal. Lions and lynx are sister species to the same great-great grandmother. Dogs do not turn into lizards.

5:03 “nobody’s ever seen a dog produce a non-dog”.
Nor is that implied possible by evolution, or anybody you have ever spoken with about evolution. That is nonsense cooked up by creationist opponents. It is for this reason that people are still apes in exactly the same way they are still mammals, and vertebrates.

5:07 The evolutionist believes a dog came from a rock.
This skips all the intermediate steps in order to undermine evolution, but this is fundamentally true. Not a rock, but carbon based, non-living chemical compounds are the basis of all living organisms. (that we know of). He is skipping all the intermediaries in the same way I would skip intermediaries to say that your car runs by burning dinosaur crap.

5:13 “micro evolution” doesn’t like using this term because he cannot deny it has been readily observed in and outside of the lab and does not want to admit to even this much.

5:20 the above “definitions” are not part of science.
True, but largely because he has misunderstood them on every level. They do not require belief, but instead rely on a preponderance of evidence which can be confirmed whether you want to believe in the evidence or not. Tell somebody to look HERE for THAT, and there it will be regardless if you would rather not believe in it. BUT, the things which he mis-labeled and intentionally misrepresented are in fact in evidence and abundantly observable.

The big bang, Star formation, thermo-nuclear-synthesis, abiogenesis, and evolution all have abundant evidence in support and it is simple enough to find the evidence. That’s what google is for.

5:37 The big bang was 20 billion years ago.
Wrong. The big bang was approximately 13.7 billion years ago and that number was derived from studying the cosmic back-ground radiation level, and the rate of galactic recession observed through red-shift of elemental frequency signatures.

5:40 “what exploded?”
Everything. As far as we know. This is an area of uncertainty. Light takes time to travel to us and as a result the further you can see the further back in time you are seeing. One of the limits that is imposed on us is at about 100,000 years after the big bang the cosmos was so hot and dense that the whole thing was plasma. Plasma is opaque to the passage of light and so it is not possible to observe states further back in time than that optical “wall”. As a result we are dealing with calculated states rather than direct observation. These calculations have proven accurate in simulations of the big bang such as those being conducted now at the Large Hadron Collider, where the collisions of particles are bearing out exactly as predicted in the standard model of physics with accuracy equivalent of measuring the distance from London to new York down to the accuracy of one human hair.

One example of what might have “exploded” is the origin of the universe from nothing into something. A vacuum state quantum fluctuation that seperates a neutral (nothing) into a positive and negative charged state. This would account for why the total energy of the universe is actually zero. Add all the positives you find throughout the whole universe and the negatives and you get zero.



here’s professor Kraus on this very subject. He is far more familiar with the topic than I am. Have a listen.

7:00 the preceeding talk about correcting numbers for the initial state of the big bang are a result of better understanding of the laws of physics. Listing the numbers consecutively without any context for why the adjustments are made is as impenetrable and arbitrary as you can make the subject. Of course that is by design of this speaker. How about this.

You dig up some metal. Run it under some heat. Smack it with a hammer, feed it dinosaur crap, and BOOM! You got a car!

7:18 talks about the big crunch.
In the same video I posted above Krause explains what the expansion and contraction of the universe would mean and how that would be observable. To summarize, there will be no big crunch, and instead the universe will expand forever, becoming less and less energy dense until eventually the temperature cools, the stars go out, and the universe returns to blackness.

8:00 applies “common sense” to the workings of hyper dense, hyper-energetic states which we have no experience in dealing with at our energy states, speeds, and time frames. This “common sense” approach also brought us geocentric solar systems, and flat earth theories. He demonstrates a lack of understanding of the topics he discusses and dismisses them apparently because he doesn’t understand them. The same theory which brings us the big bang is also responsible for computers, the internet, and GPS. Your being ignorant of the subject does not amount to a solid argument against it.

8:55 talking about singularities.
Apparently having trouble understanding things being compressed to smaller than a proton. That is another relic of “common sense” analysis of quantum physics. The problem is there is no “stuff” in stuff. Everything that we think of as solid is in fact competing fields of energy. Electrons don’t like to let other electrons into their space. They repel one another and this repulsive force is ENTIRELY responsible for the fact that you cannot walk through walls.

At extreme pressures and high energies other forces are capable of overpowering this repulsive force as is the case in the hearts of stars where protons are jammed together, despite the protest of electromagnetism, and form heavier elements. Because the forces at work in the nucleus are about a million times stronger than the electron, but have very short range. So if the protons are close enough, this other force out-muscles the electromagnetic force and the result is a new, heavier element. The force responsible for shoving these protons together is the accumulated force of gravity which continually squeezes these atoms together until their electromagnetic repulsion is overcome, and once they are close enough, the strong nuclear force binds protons together into heavier nuclei which are at the center of heavier elements. You know how you can force magnetic poles of like charge together with enough force? Same thing, only much, much, more powerful. In the process of fusion a very small amount of matter is converted to a huge amount of energy and released along with an electron neutrino. There are about one hundred billion electron neutrinos passing through every square centimeter of the earth at any given time. Electron neutrinos only interact with the nucleus and through the weak nuclear force, so they rarely have any impact on matter. Again, this is because matter is not an impervious clump of “stuff” that blocks anything from passing. It’s billions of bubbles of territorial electron orbits. They don’t interact with neutrinos very much, so there is almost no effect on earth, or your body.

As the energy from the nuclear fusion eventually subsides from running out of small elements to push together at those energy levels, stars are shoved in on themselves again due to gravity, but now there is no outward pressure from the nuclear fusion. This creates even greater pressure, shoving even harder and creating still heavier elements from the products of the last cycle. This is harder to do, requires more energy, and is the reason that it wasn’t done in the first cycle. Two hydrogen atoms are heavier than one helium atom. As they fuse they release energy (the thermo nuclear explosion that is our sun). Since together they are lighter, and therefore less energetic and more stable than they were apart it is relatively easy to make helium. This pattern persists all the way up to iron with diminishing returns. At iron, the energy budget swings the other way, and it requires energy be put IN to the atoms to fuse them together.

Each stage is provoked by the gravitational collapse of the star as the outward pressure of fusion dies away. A black neutron star is the point where gravity has pressed so hard that the whole thing is just one giant ball of protons and neutrons. The electrons have been shown the door.

The singularity of the big bang is different because electromagnetism, gravity, the strong and weak forces weren’t even present then. In fact, their arrival is responsible for the expansion of the universe. Just as burning wood breaks the bonds and releases energy, the fracturing of neutral space into charged space resulted in tremendous energy output.

There is still much to learn about the exact details of the big bang, but it was not an idea created out of a day dream. Observation is what lead scientists to this conclusion. They don’t WANT to believe this any more than anybody else. Famously, Einstein was not for the big bang. But even he can be wrong, especially when you decide what to believe on the basis of what you would RATHER be true, instead of what can be DEMONSTRATED to be true.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_big_bang

Go read up on it yourself! Good stuff!


The problem, as usual, comes from a gross general lack of knowledge on the topic. Tellingly, so far most of the discussion has been on the big bang which is not evolution. In the cases where people use the word evolution to discuss stellar nuclear synthesis they are using the term in it's common understanding, not in the scientific one. Just as the word "Theory" has two meanings, depending on it's context.

Ok. That’s ten minutes.

I’ll get some more later.

First, it's funny to me that he implies his questions were just SO hard to answer for a scientist.

I'm just a guy with what i consider to be an amateur interest in these subjects, and i've had NO PROBLEM whatsoever in answering every bit of this ignorance, point for point.

10:49 woodpecker’s tongue takes a strange detour around back of the head. Where are the intermediary fossils for this?

Be warned. This video does feature a dissected giraffe.



I can’t speak to the woodpecker specifically, but here’s an example that fits the mold pretty well. There is a nerve in your body that goes from your brain to the larynx. It only has to travel a very short distance, if it went there directly. Instead it travels down to the chest, loops through a main artery, then back up. The nerve follows the same path in a giraffe. All the way down the neck and back up again. That doesn’t make any sense. Ifeach animal has been specially created with no common heritage, and not retaining similar designs from their ancestors, then why would you ever run a nerve down the longest neck on earth and back up again, when you really only have to run it like a foot?

It turns out that this detour of nerve happens because of the neck. In our ancestors, way way back when our ancestors were fish-like, with no neck, the route of the nerve was very direct. It was only with the addition of the neck, slowly and by degrees, that this nerve was stretched into this unwieldy path.

11:06 Termites eat wood but can’t digest it. There are germs in their guts which do the work. Which evolved first?

They evolved simultaneously. Their roles have changed over time just as their body structures and digestive habits have changed over time. We also have a huge amount of bacterial life in our guts which does actually do most of the digestion for us. There are 100 billion bacteria per linear centimeter of your intestines. They make up ten to fifteen percent of your body’s weight. So if you weight 130 pounds, conservatively, 13 pounds of that is bacteria. We and the termites live in a symbiotic relationship with the bacteria. We are the environment in which they live, and as we change to adapt to our environment, they change to their environment.

11:32 I like to ask questions of people who believe in evolution. So I asked this professor about the big bang.
Evolution is not the big bang. He demonstrates time and again that he has not separated these concepts into their distinct areas of study, and so obviously does not understand the differences, and therefore does not understand what is involved in either subject. These are all arguments of ignorance.

11:45 where did all this matter come from? (Big bang question)
Matter is a state of energy. Like solid, liquid, gas. Matter comes from the interaction described by E=mc2, where energy is equivalent to mass and so is interchangeable in the right circumstances, such as in the hearts of stars, or at the LHC, or in a nuclear bomb. High energy photons left after the big bang spontaneously “gel” into a proton and anti-proton pair. This pair separates very briefly, then comes together to annihilate back into the photon. For reasons unknown, 1 in a billion of these photons generate a single proton, with no anti-proton. As a result when the energy levels cool off enough to prevent further E=mc2 conversions of this type, you are left with 1 proton for every billion photons and this accounts for all (the very very vast majority) of the matter we see in the universe.

11:56 If I say I believe the world was created about 6000 years ago and god did it, you’ll ask “where did god come from “ and I’ll say “I don’t know”. I believe in the beginning god, and you believe in the beginning dirt.

No. Science has demonstrated how this process works and there are nuclear reactors, bombs, radiometric dating, radiation treatments, atomic clocks, microchips, and the standard model as evidence. Dirt is at the end of a multi-billion year process. In the beginning the quark-gluon plasma. Not dirt.

God on the other hand has no evidence at all, and cannot be demonstrated in the least.

The scientific origin story was one earned through interrogation of nature. We didn’t come up with this story and then fit the data to it. We just report what the data says and fit the pieces together. God’s origin story starts with a book and disregards the real world whenever it disagrees with what’s in the book. Difference.

12:40 Evoluton is a religion.
No it isn’t. Evolution is a natural process. The science of evolution is the description and categorization of the processes observed to occur in nature in order to understand that process.



13:20 Religion and evolution are both beliefs.
Religious belief is based on faith. Science is based on confidence.

Faith is an expectation held without evidence, contrary to the evidence, and regardless of evidence. That means no evidence that ever gets to you will shake your faithful belief. If you ever do change your mind about an article of faith, then it’s because you have LOST your faith in that thing, and probably gained confidence in something else. Confidence is an expectation built on a historical record of corroborative evidence which all confirm and support that expectation. Theories of science, of which evolution theory is perhaps the best supported and successful theories, are based on a preponderance of evidence. The difference between faith and confidence is the entire purpose of the scientific method.

13:35 Evolution is tax supported.
So is religion by the fact that it is NOT taxed. The difference being that biology and the understanding of genetics brought to us through the unifying theory of evolution has brought us such things as immunization, gene therapy, and the possibility of genetic modification of plants that are easy to grow, but have few nutritional virtues. We could, however, make a potato just as nutritious as greens. So… we’re curing disease, treating genetic disorders, and feeding the world.

Religion has made a virtue of shame and ignorance. That’s why abstinence only sex ed has been so very successful these last few decades.

Well, that’s up to 13:40 now.
More later.

14:00 Where do the laws (of physics) come from?

The laws of physics come from the inherent properties of energy. And matter. Nobody is deciding how the laws work.

14:13 where does the energy come from?

The shattering of symmetry, as described before. Why did symmetry shatter? Why did gravity, electromagnetism and the two nuclear forces emerge as separate forces? We don’t know.

16:20 Speaking on angular momentum. Why do two planets spin backwards?

Conservation of angular momentum is not limited to the example he gave. Simply put, it just means that spin has to come from somewhere. A planet spinning in a different direction could come about in a variety of ways. If a foreign body passes through our solar system before the planets have formed, but while the dust clouds are still present, it could cause the particles to spin in a different direction. As those particles coalesce they will form a larger object also spinning in that same direction, but modified by the addition and subtraction of all the particles’ own spin as they come together.

16:55 God spun those planets backwards to make the big bang theory look stupid.

HAHA!!

The big bang theory is derived from a bonanza of observational data. Scientists were LED to that conclusion by the DATA. They didn’t come up with a fun story then try to push it on everybody. The evidence PUSHED them to that explanation. You not understanding angular momentum is not evidence against the big bang.

17:36 If there was a big bang, the universe would be uniform, but instead it is lumpy and full of galaxies.

The universe is lumpy, it seems, because nothing is perfect, and it takes time for gravity to pull.



Remembering also that nothing travels through the universe faster than the speed of light, it means that gravity does not act instantly across the universe. In other words, it starts to pull on nearer things sooner than far things. This creates even further irregularities in the distribution of matter which helps account for the clumping of matter.

There are mysteries to be resolved about this, but there are also plenty of ways to explain it. The fact that any of these explanations are plausible makes god’s intervention unnecessary.

17:50 Star births ought to equal star deaths.

Stars don’t pop out of nowhere. They are formed from the accretion of gas clouds. We do in fact see such clouds and the birthing of stars. See in my above post. New stars will continue to form long after the earth is gone, but that doesn’t mean we should see as many stars born as those that nova. Nova are also fantastically brilliant displays of power which are hard to ignore. A single star can output as much energy as an entire galaxy during it’s death and that can be seen even by the naked eye. Such events are recorded by pre-telescope cultures as “new stars” which can be seen even in the daylight for a time, then disappear. By comparison, new stars are dull and boring affairs.

18:20 Why do we only see about 300 dead stars? There should be millions.

There are millions. The total amount of sky we’ve observed in any detail is tiny. Why don’t you see the bacteria on your skin? Because you aren’t looking in fine enough detail, or with the right instruments, but that doesn’t mean they aren’t there.

Supernova are actually pretty rare, about 1 per galaxy every hundred years. But, there are billions and billions of galaxies and we’ve seen a whole lot more than 300 supernova actually taking place. In fact, because of the numbers involved, you can expect to see 2 supernova per night, on average, looking in any particular part of the sky with the right equipment.

18:26 “There oughta be trillions of them. If evolution were true.”

Once again… Super nova are not described by the theory of evolution. These are different topics. He does not understand even this much about evolution.

18:32 Quotes Hoyle’s doubt about the big bang.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Hoyle

Hoyle had a competing theory to describe the red shift of stars and was an outspoken proponent… of his own theory… which led him to disparage and even coin the dismissive term “the big bang”. His doubts were based on his feelings about the universe having a beginning, not the evidence.

Einstein likewise derided quantum physics with the quote “god does not play dice with the universe” but he was none the less wrong in his opposition.


up to 18:33 now.

The problem with the anti-evolutionists, be they creationists, intelligent design-ers, or magic mud believers, is that they 'know' the truth, and the rest of us are just ignorant. When you have such an ingrained belief, no amount of evidence is going to change your mind.

Regarding Einstein's "God does not play dice" quote, I read another, attributed to a fictional character living in the future:

"Not only does God play dice, the dice are loaded."

Thanks to all for this thread.

You have great patience, johnson. I find these entertaining, but I can only take so much at one time, especially as he can't even stay on topic.

Yeah, it's difficult.

It's that journey of a thousand miles. It seems to me that there is a litany of things to correct about nearly his every statement, and i'm left thinking, oh christ, now i have to explain how stars form just to reset people's brains who started off thinking that THIS guy was making even a lick of sense.

Just like that trek of a thousand miles, you gotta start with the first steps, haha.

I think it's important to challenge these nutballs. And i think it's important that it's people like us who do the challenging. I never did any real scientific research. I'm just an interested fan. If I can so readily pick apart the entirety of his shpeel, all the better.

It's like our recently burried, tin-foil-hat conspiracy theorist claiming that Dawkins was a coward for not crushing some religious idiot in a debate. Dawkins has real work to do in this field. Let me debate these guys in my spare time.

You don't take Hawking away from his black hole ponderings to squash a YEC. You get Tat Tvam Asi to do that while he's bored and has a few minutes to spare.

http://www.booktalk.org/young-earth-the ... tml?hilit= YEC

Where you at Tat?

And like i've said before, i'm under no illusions that i can change a True Believer's mind, but there are people out there who are just coming across these discussions for the first time. The lack of rebuttal can seem like a tacit admission of defeat. And i won't let that impression stand when all it takes is twenty seconds on wikipedia to clear all this garbage up.

18:44 They want to use tax dollars to teach “evolution” to kids in schools.
He has not yet once mentioned a problem with evolution. He has never demonstrated that he knows even the basics of evolution to the point where he disagrees with it. So far, he seems to just disagree with all the things he has no understanding of, which he has labeled “evolution”.

The points he has been scoffing about are to do with the big bang and his attacks amount to arguments of ignorance. He himself would very much benefit from going to school to learn at least some primers about the things he is trying to argue against.

18:47 implies that the big bang is part of a religious belief system.
The big bang is in no way a religious belief. The big bang theory is a description of the earliest events we have been able to determine in our universe. This data set implies nothing about how you should live, who you should hate, whether you should worship, or what goals you should be aiming for. Nor does it detail any afterlife. There is no set of rules implied about who you should gather with, or what you should do together, or in which direction you should kneel.

He is projecting his own flaws onto a thing he doesn’t understand.

19:18 contests projections of planetary transformation based on observation and empirical data based on his reading of a story book.

Fail.

Based on a statement that “god” whatever that is, moved on the face of the water before creation, he assumes everything going forward on that authority alone. Including the temperature of the planet and what the conditions must be like in order for there to have been water.

But we know conclusively that there was no water at the beginning of the universe because we know where heavy elements come from. And oxygen didn’t show up until a few billion years after the formation of the first stars which created oxygen through thermo nuclear fusion. There was no water, and just because you read it in a book written by people who ALSO had no idea what the hell was going on does not give your assertions authority over observation and the collective analysis of the most brilliant minds working toward consensus from myriad separate disciplines.

21:10 to 21:40 discussing the various ways he doesn’t understand abiogenesis, and that he hasn’t tried to find anything out in that subject.

Here’s an interesting video about how a soup of organic, yet non-living compounds can behave like life.

http://www.wimp.com/linelife/

Organic, by the way, doesn’t mean “with organs”, like a human has internal organs. Organic in this context means molecules based on carbon, as found in organic life. There is plenty of organic material just floating in space, and it wasn’t generated by anything living. It forms naturally, just like water, when the ingredients are available and the circumstances favor it.

21:51 “was your great great great great great great great grandpa soup?”
No, you had better add in a few more billion greats, and before you get to soup you had better toss the word “grandpa” because you are talking about non-sexual reproduction. He is appealing to the audience’s ignorance and “common sense”. He is rousing the mob, not informing the public.

21:55 believe what they want to believe, that’s fine, but don’t call it science.
But it IS science. Abundantly evidenced, and available to reproduce if you get off your ass and do it yourself. And you have thoroughly demonstrated that you have no business telling scientists what their research is about, or how to conduct their experiments.

22:01 talking about the Uri Miller experiments.

The video link I posted above is a continuation of that work. It speaks for itself.

24:17 They said that they didn’t have oxygen in their experiment to duplicate pre-biotic atmosphere. You need ozone to block UV light otherwise it would kill the life.

There are numerous compounds which can block UV light that are not ozone. Ozone can also be formed in a variety of chemical interactions which do not involve pure O2, and besides which ozone is even more oxidizing than O2, so probably was not part of the equation that they looked at for pre-biotic life.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ozone

24:24 “life cannot evolve without oxygen.”

Based on his incorrect reasoning about UV light, he throws out the climate model produced by the scientists who make their living studying this subject and comes up with an alternate view of the climate which he asserts to be true without having done anything to disprove the original hypothesis, or back up his own claim.

Oxygen is actually a more recent addition to the atmosphere. For a very long time there were only photosynthetic and therefore an-aerobic life. These organisms absorb CO2, utilize the light from the sun to break that molecule into carbon and oxygen, use the carbon to construct what they need in their bodies and release O2 as a waste product. Over abundance of O2 is poisonous to these organisms. Aerobic life, which uses oxygen’s aggressive chemical properties to it’s advantage came later. We are aerobic creatures. We use oxygen, and expel carbon dioxide.

24:24 uses air bubbles in amber which contain oxygen as proof that there has always been oxygen in the atmosphere.

Amber, which is fossilized tree sap, and trees being very definitely BIOTIC. Meaning, air from a period of time AFTER life had been evolving for many millions of years.

Fail.

Well, that’s up to 24:24. He’s still spinning his wheels on things he knows nothing about which AREN’T evolution.