A Ridiculous (and Religulous) Case Against Evolution by Mr. Daniel Vijayaruban Samuel

February 15, 2009 — Lee Young, 李阳

Sunday February 15, 2009

A Case Against Mr Darwin

I WAS very much intrigued by the article Celebrating a revolutionary by Richard Ingham (People, StarMag, Feb 8). Charles Darwin who was a seminary drop-out with absolutely no science degrees or any scientific authority at all, is exalted to the same status as Isaac Newton, Albert Einstein, and Galileo.

Many eminent scientists say because of Darwin, many ground breaking discoveries were made in the realm of science. A mere “theory” has evolved and made its way into today’s science books as the absolute answer to the origin of man.

On the contrary, what was regarded as the truth since the beginning involving the master designer and creator of life is now considered a religious belief and therefore not scientific.

As a believer of creation science, I reckon that Darwin’s theory is more of a fairytale than science. Darwin’s theory is no different from the fairytale of a frog that became a prince when kissed by a princess except for the added ingredient of “millions and millions of years”.

The “origin of species” requiring billions of years to support the plausibility of life’s emergence and of subsequent evolution from “amoeba” to man is considered science today!

Before I open the Darwin can of worms, let me make clear that creationists are not a bunch of religious evangelists who know nothing about science.

Many Nobel Prize winners in science and scientists from renowned universities such as Oxford, Cambridge, Harvard, and Yale are great writers and contributors to creation science. Browse the following website to discover great creation scientists who have made significant contributions to science: http://www.creationinfo.com/list.htm.

Three major religions of the world believe that man is God’s work. Christianity, Islam and Judaism believe this awesome truth, that man was uniquely created and did not come into existence by chance or evolve from an ape.

Darwin’s theory advocates that out of nothingness came matter and life, which evolved from the most primitive single cell organism to a supreme being like the human. It advocates that billions of things are supposed to have developed upward, becoming more orderly and complex.

This totally contradicts the Second Law of Thermodynamics, where it’s partially a universal law of decay; the prime cause of why everything ultimately falls apart and disintegrates over time, and so does life.

Darwin went outright against the Bible, the Quran, and the Torah in presenting his theory and thus creating a religion called Evolution, luring many “weak links” into believing his folly.

Daniel Vijayaruban Samuel

Well.

I couldn’t help but to believe that Mr. Samuel know nuts about evolution.

I WAS very much intrigued by this article “A Case Against Mr. Darwin” by Daniel Vijayaruban Samuel. Mr. Samuel who does not know about science, who immerses himself in the superstitious belief of creationism, who indulges his mind in the pool of pseudo-scientific claims tries to stand up and talks about evolution!

First of all, he does not even understand the principle and terminologies of science.

“A mere “theory” has evolved and made its way into today’s science books as the absolute answer to the origin of man.”

Clear enough, he is ignorant of the word “theory” in science. For the umpteenth time, I repeat, a theory in science is a repeatedly justified, re-examined, and widely acknowledged set of explanation for a particular event. Mr. Samuel seems to mess up between “hypothesis” and “theory”. What foolishness.

Besides, he appeared to think that scientists think of scientific theory as immutably true. “Absolute answer”, he says. For one thing, science does not deal with “absolute knowledge” as religions do. In science, the word “absolute” is bigoted and unacceptable.

What’s more, Mr. Samuel said that Darwin has was a seminary drop-out, with no scientific authority and all… What I can see is that he was trying to smear Darwin. Although what he presented was in fact correct, but Darwin has shown his love in nature at young age and he understands and studies nature. The word “scientific authority” seems interesting to me. What’s important in science is not authority, but truth. No matter how insane or stupid a person is, as long his proposed theory is true, then it is true.

“As a believer of creation science, I reckon that Darwin’s theory is more of a fairytale than science. Darwin’s theory is no different from the fairytale of a frog that became a prince when kissed by a princess except for the added ingredient of “millions and millions of years”.”

This evidently shows up all his ignorance and feeble-mindedness in science and evolution. “As a believer of creation science” is the phrase that has lead him to be inane of evolution. I doubt whether he had ever leaned what evolution is all about, given that he was lambasting and ridiculing evolution and Darwin without even the slightest idea of the subject he was talking about. That is the most ridiculous part of all.

“The “origin of species” requiring billions of years to support the plausibility of life’s emergence and of subsequent evolution from “amoeba” to man is considered science today!”

I wonder how many fabrications do I need to read across this short article. It is filled with the most misleading falsehood and most preposterous claims. From “amoeba” to man? Since when did Darwin or any evolutionist said that? It is absurd to the highest possible degree because amoeba is a modern organism and it is not a prokaryote or any of our evolutionary ancestors. I am sure that he had never read about the facts of evolution and Darwin’s theory because Darwin’s theory of evolution does not deal with abiogenesis at all. Such fatuous inanity he was voicing.

“Before I open the Darwin can of worms, let me make clear that creationists are not a bunch of religious evangelists who know nothing about science.”

Darwin can of worms, I wonder what alien is in creationism’s can then? Mr. Samuel was trying to make a foolish stand for creationism till the extent of distorting science! I am very aware that creationists are indeed a bunch of religious bigots who know nothing, really nothing about science and tries to smear, distort, and skew science to their favour. Ludicrously, they name their pseudo-science’s  “research” and “theory” “creationism science” or “intelligent design”.

He further made his claim that “many Nobel Prize winners in science and scientists from renowned universities [...] are great writers and contributors to creation science.” Many. Read it? Many! I wonder how many scientists have even believed in things such as creationism. If his “many” is just as much as 100 religious scientists, then it is still acceptable. But how many scientists are there in the world? By accounting the number, we can safely say that his “many” is far from being “many” after all.

“Three major religions of the world believe that man is God’s work. Christianity, Islam and Judaism believe this awesome truth, that man was uniquely created and did not come into existence by chance or evolve from an ape.”

Religions are not in par with science in discovering nature because it uses the explanation of yet another higher unsolvable mystery namely god. This creates yet another greater question on the existence of god. Mr. Samuel said that “… man was uniquely created and did not come into existence by chance or evolve from an ape.” Well, certainly, humans as well as any other animals do not came into existence by mere chance. I wonder which blockhead interpreted evolution as a chance process and certainly he might just be as foolish as this Mr. Samuel here. By thinking that evolution is a chance process has already devastated the whole principle of natural selection, the vital ingredient of evolution. To the contrary, natural selection is the driving force of evolution and is the exact opposite of a chance process. Although mutations are random, but natural selection is definitely not. Surely these “scientific” creationists know nothing about this! And it is categorized as “fact” that humans share a recent common ancestor with chimpanzees and monkeys and we were evolved from apes.

Continuing his claim, he briefly states the theory of evolution, though not very accurate but still acceptable, and stated a strange refute: the second law of thermodynamics.

The second law of thermodynamics states that the net entropy within an isolated system is always increasing or remains constant. It is important to note that Earth is not an isolated system because it is constantly receiving energy from sun and radiating energy into outer space. Thus this argument is not valid at all. Creationists, when arguing with this stand, tend to omit the word “isolated” when stating the law of thermodynamics. Since Earth is not an isolated system, thus evolution is valid. Earth receives energy from sun and the energy is being transferred to form more orderly systems (thus evolution). Although the entropy of Earth decreases, but the net entropy in our system is still increasing because of the increment of entropy of the sun as it radiates energy. Thus the second law of thermodynamics is still not violated in this case.

Finally, he summarizes that Darwin had created a religion called evolution and luring people into his folly. I wonder who is presenting fabricated, nonsensical, ignorant claims here.

To sum up, all the arguments of creationists are categorized as “the arguments from scientific ignorance”.

To learn more about evolution science and debunk creationism science and intelligent design, do visit TalkOrigins. A very resourceful site that is contributed by numerous scientists.

Also, if you’re interested in reading the fatuous claims of creationists (as well as the refutals), do visit here.

Posted in Article, Biology, Creationism, Evolution, Physics. Tags: , , , , , , , . 71 Comments »

How Real is Our Perception?

January 19, 2009 — Lee Young, 李阳

Given that atoms consist almost entirely out of empty space, why can’t I walk through a wall?

An atom, as we know, is empty. Its electron(s) that surround(s) its nucleus occupy not more than 2% of the total mass of the atom. The remaining 98% of the mass is situated in the dense nucleus. Although the nucleus consists most of the atom’s weight, but its size it so incredibly small when compared to the size of the whole atom. Let’s imagine the size of an atom to be as huge as a sports stadium. On the same scale, the size of its nucleus would not be larger than the size of a housefly. Yet it has most of an atom’s mass inside (this implies that the nucleus of an atom is very dense).

Now imagine if there are two houseflies in the stadium. What is the possibility that they both will run into each other? The probability is, of course, exceedingly small. So what would it be if there are only two houseflies but in an area of 2 sports stadiums? That is the exact situation of the atoms in our body, our computers, our tables… and all are facing (set aside the repulsive force of the electrons).

Like charges repel. The electrons that surrounds the atoms are constantly repelling other atoms with significant force. This repulsion generates force that is more than enough to prevent the two atoms from meeting each other. Even if the external force overcomes the repulsive force, the nuclei of the atoms will also generate the same repulsion force to further prevent the nuclei to meet. However, if the external force is sufficiently great enough to push the nuclei together, nuclear fusion will occur.

Anyway that’s only under extreme conditions which we most probably wouldn’t come across. In daily life, we are constantly standing, sitting, typing on the basis of electron’s repulsive force.  Now, does it seems weird that we are constantly standing on an infinite forces of repulsion at each and every second? Given that the atoms is near-empty and we only prevented uncountable nuclear fusions from “mere” repulsive forces- how real is our perception? Does the feeling of solid really solid? Isn’t it mere repulsive forces? And why can’t we see through a wall if atoms are near-empty?

How we feel, how we hear, and how we touch has actually gone through an aeon-long process called evolution. Evolution has made and structured our brain so that it thinks and interprets data according to our environment. We see colours solely because it is vital for our survival. The scope of our vision depends on the environment we live in. For instance, we can see from red to violet while insects can’t see red but can see ultraviolet. This is because humans and insects are exposed to different environments and we live in different niches. And from this we can infer that by seeing ultraviolet it helps the insects in survival.

Similarly, we feel hardness in a different way from how it really is. The reason here is not because of our brain, but rather because we are large organisms. Now we look into the feeling of “touch”. Try this: raise your forefinger, and slowly, very slowly, touch your table. Do it as slow as possible. Do you feel the strong signal saying that you’ve “touched” the table? At that instant when your finger “contacted” the table, it is immediately clear that you’ve “touched” the table. But is it so? The atoms in your finger never really contacted the atom of the table. It is the repulsion. The repulsion of the electrons of the table increases acutely in a small range and when our finger came into the range, it is strongly repelled- thus leading us to think it as “touch”. It is interesting to note that we have never really contacted with anything. When I was typing I hasn’t contacted the keyboard keys. The repulsion force is helping me to push the key downwards, but not my finger.

The feeling of touch is unlike the perception of colour or sound or taste. Touch, although different from what it really is, isn’t labelled and interpreted by our brain into something radically different. As we examine, study, and investigate our world, we (will) eventually find out the truth about all our perceptions- which is artificial.

Posted in Biology, Evolution, Physics. Tags: , , , . 21 Comments »

Does Colour Exist?

January 12, 2009 — Lee Young, 李阳

When you look at the nature: the azure seawater, so clear that you can see the beautiful, small little clown fishes below; then you looked skywards: the beautiful red evening sky with golden-yellow clouds… ahh, how beautiful is this world with colours.

But here’s the bombshell: colours do not exist. Yes, colours do not exist. You may ask: then why we see colour? The answer is simple: our brain.

When you look at the vast spectrum of electromagnetic wave, did you realize that there’s this particular segment in between that differs from others? Yes, the “visible light” spectrum. More significantly, they have colours. These colours are what we called “visible light”. In fact, this particular range of electromagnetic wave is no different from any other wavelengths of electromagnetic wave, say, gamma rays. Then why it could be detected by us and exhibit colours?

Our eye is a near-perfect organ. It works so perfectly that the lens changes it shape so that image can be formed at the sharpest focus on our retina, and our retina has numerous highly-sophisticated photoreceptor cells that can detect even the slightest amount of photons that falls on it, being even more sensitive than a digital camera sensor. Light that falls on a person’s retina is detected by the photoreceptor cells and converted into electrical impulses. The electrical impulses are then fired to his brains to be read. And now the interpretations are being made by our brains.

Experiments have tell us that light is no more than mere electromagnetic waves. The vast electromagnetic wave spectrum covers from radio waves to gamma rays, all are invisible but the segment in between- light rays. Now here’s the question: why light has colours? Why mere waves can have something as beautiful and interesting as colours? Aren’t they just waves? Well yes, they’re just waves, and they don’t exhibit colour as we see.

When the electrical impulses were read by the person’s brain, they were interpreted into something different from what it is per se. Of course, our brain knows that they are just electromagnetic waves, but it purposely changed their contexts and added extra stuffs into the recipe, making light radically different from what it really is. For example, our brains attributed the colour “red” to this specific wavelength of 620 – 750 nm of the electromagnetic wave, and “blue” for 450 – 495 nm. The reason for these “additives” are simple: for surviving. Attributing colour to certain wavelengths of electromagnetic wave means that an animal is easier to differentiate between objects and, in nature, predators.

Now we see that colours are just representation of something dull which is the electromagnetic spectrum from 380 nm to 750 nm. In fact, there are many things that are dull intrinsically that have been converted and interpreted by our brains into something interesting. An example is taste. Have you ever wondered, how can chemicals exhibit properties radically different from what it really is? How can some atoms, bond together to form a molecule, exhibits sweetness? The answer again, is our brain.

Posted in Biology, General Science, Physics. Tags: , , , , , . 18 Comments »

Have We Regressed?

January 3, 2009 — Lee Young, 李阳

We humans, homo Sapiens, are intelligent animals with very well developed brain suited for survival. In evolutionary terms, we are the fittest among all and are even able to artificially select organisms to our favour.

But lets have a closer look on ourselves: other than our huge brain, we are very fragile animals that could extinct easily. We appear to be very artificial. We don’t have thick fur for insulation. We only bear one child at a time. We don’t have claws for self-defence. Actually, we don’t even have any well developed self defence mechanism. Except our brain.

If humans don’t have a brain this huge and powerful, we might go extinct pretty fast. Numerous encounters of wildlife attacking human beings shown that we are weak and defenceless against predators. But the reality is that because humans are armed with his supercomputer, thus he’s able to survive.

Initially, we used our brains to aid on our survival in wild. We walked on two legs so that our hands are free to use tools. We made defence mechanisms as well as weapons. This have made surviving more hopeful. Later, given that we have a very high possibility in surviving, we used our brains for luxury. We made things that contributed nothing for survival but aims for comfort and convenience. Bowls, for example. Then we thought of numbers and science, and begin discovering the universe. We explored the world, found out about electricity and make use of it. We build water pipelines, aqueduct, that made surviving so assuring. We’ve forgotten that we are physically weak and dependant on the things we’ve invented.

A significant difference (physically) between modern humans and our predecessors or relatives is, we humans have very little fur. Our insulation from cold weather no longer came from thick fur, but rather, from heaters. Our digestive system had became so weak that the slightest dirt in our food can cause us diarrhoea. This may be the side effect of centuries or millennia of clean foods.

In short, have humans regressed?

Posted in Biology, General Science, History. Tags: , , . 13 Comments »

Debunking Young-Earth Creationism

October 23, 2008 — Lee Young, 李阳

The person in the video below is Shawn, a creationist who is quite popular in the YouTube community recently. In this video, he argues that the Earth is only 6,000 years old. As a “modern” creationist, he uses science to “prove” that out planet is younger than the oldest tree known. Unfortunately, his “science” is only pseudo-science: It is not based on evidences, facts, up-to-date measurements, and logics. People tend to believe in everything said in the name of science, and most of them can’t differentiate between pseudo-science and real science. This has lead many incautious people who do not do researches believe in creationists’ pseudo-science.

Here’s the video:

Behold! Don’t get lured into his “creationism science” trap (undeniable, this video is very good for brainwashing. Don’t you think so?). All his “proofs” were repeated many times by creationists, and the most famous creationist scientist is Kent Hovind. Remember, you should do sufficient researches and be sceptical on everything. Talk Origins is an excellent source to know about our Earth (the link is the perfect answer for this video). Now I list out all of his points and refute it accordingly (Let’s ignore his biblical calculation first because it’s just a baseless, hasty conclusion):

  1. If the sun has been consuming hydrogen for the past 6 billion years, its diameter would have swallowed Earth.
  2. The moon is collecting dust at a constant rate. If we divide the thickness of the dust layer collected on the surface of the moon by the rate of dust collection it equals to roughly 6,000 years.
  3. Since the moon is moving away from Earth at a consistent rate, it couldn’t be moving away from Earth for billions of years.
  4. Life wouldn’t have started if the moon is very near Earth because Earth will be flooded 4 times a day.
  5. Comets are constantly losing its mass in the universe. If the universe is billions of years old, there would be no comet left.
  6. Comets couldn’t be formed in outer space: no one has observed it before.
  7. God sped up light from the stars to reach the Earth.
  8. We are at the centre of the universe, the red shifts have showed that.
  9. The stars are being hurled through space time, thus their lights are reaching us now.
  10. The sea is getting saltier at a consistent rate, and after calculation the Earth wouldn’t be older than 4,400 years (time of the hypothetical great flood).
  11. Water eats over the canyon at a consistent rate, and calculation of the recession of Niagara falls deduces that Earth is 4,400 years old.

His claims seem to be reliable, yes? Actually it’s full of fabrications.

“Some scientists say that the Earth is about 4.5 billion years old.” Some scientist, hmm. I can assure you, (almost) all scientists acknowledge the age Earth to be about 4.5 billion years old.

1. First of all scientists didn’t claim that the sun is 6 billion years old. The correct number should be 4.57 billion years old. Secondly, he fabricated the statement that “if the sun has been consuming hydrogen for the ‘past 6 billion years’, then the sun would have been large enough to swallow the Earth in just a million years ago“. I don’t think he studied much about stellar evolution. For the sun to be large enough to swallow Earth it must be a matured red giant star and its age must has been around 9-10 billion years old. So even if the sun is 6 billion years old it wouldn’t have been large enough to even swallow Mercury.

2. This may be quite believable to those who don’t do any research. This person here surely did not do any research at all! The figure he is using is so severely outdated- it’s an obsolete argument- this shows that creationists never do any outside reading. The creationists’ figure of the rate of moon dust collection is actually a 1960 (or even older) measurement that was proven inaccurate by later measurements.

In 1989, Walter Brown (a young-earth creationist) came out with the 5th edition of his booklet In the Beginning. He was no longer quoting Pettersson (which is outdated) as was the case in older editions. Nevertheless, he calculated that in 4.6 billion years 2,000 feet of dust should have accumulated on the moon.

Brown says his figure is based on data from two sources, Stuart R. Taylor’s Lunar Science: A Post-Apollo View (New York: Pergamon Press, 1975, p.92) and David W. Hughes’s “The Changing Micrometeoroid Flux” (Nature 251(379380), 4 October 1974). Hughes gives no basis for any calculation.

(Schadewald, 1990, p.16) As for Taylor’s paper, Schadewald identifies the appropriate distribution equation, makes use of the calculus, and shows that in reality, even if we extend the range of particles way beyond what was actually detected, we would get a layer about 1 inch deep! Schadewald was left wondering where Brown got his 2000 feet of dust, and he concluded that he may have had moon dust in his eyes when he made the calculation.

This shows that the figures and calculations creationists use are flawed- a magnitude of more than 25,000 times!

3. What he’s saying here is that if the moon is too near (inside the Roche limit), it will break apart and there will be no moon at all- but where are the figures? He simply came to a conclusion that moon wouldn’t have been receding for billions or years without any calculations. Here I cite Dave Matson’s “how good are those young-Earth arguments?”:

The tides, chiefly caused by the Moon’s gravitational attraction and the orbiting of Earth and Moon about a common point, act as a brake to slow down the earth’s rotation. The nearer tidal bulge, which carries the greater effect, runs slightly out of alignment of the Moon overhead; the gravitational interaction between it and the Moon serves to speed up the Moon in its orbit even as it slows down the earth’s rotation. As it speeds up, the Moon moves to a higher orbit.

The effectiveness of this tidal brake on the earth’s rotation strongly depends on the configuration of the oceans. Thus, we should inquire as to whether the current arrangement is an average value or not.

The present rate of tidal dissipation is anomalously high because the tidal force is close to a resonance in the response function of the oceans; a more realistic calculation shows that dissipation must have been much smaller in the past and that 4.5 billion years ago the moon was well outside the Roche limit, at a distance of at least thirty-eight earth radii (Hansen 1982; see also Finch 1982).

(Brush, 1983, p.78)

Thus, our moon was probably never closer than 151,000 miles. A modern astronomy text (Chaisson and McMillan, 1993, p.173) gives an estimate of 250,000 kilometers (155,000 miles), which agrees very closely with Brush’s figure. Thus, the “problem” disappears!

Note: Although the moon is highly unlikely to be caught to orbit Earth (it’s because of its mass and the speed of free objects; not like how a person slaps you on your face), but there have been observations of asteroids caught into orbit around larger asteroids.

4. Another fabrication. If the moon is very near Earth, it will only flood our planet 2 times a day because of the tidal bulge. Also, he didn’t realize that life was formed in the ocean! Since life was formed in the ocean, the early life wouldn’t be affected by the great floods that happened everyday.

5. Comets are not constantly losing mass in the universe- it only loses mass when approaching the sun. Actually, this argument is not valid at all since he cannot prove that comets can’t be formed and replenished- what if comets can be produced? That’s my next point.

6. He’s clearly invoking “lack of observation” as a “proof” that comets can’t be formed in outer space (let alone his “ice and rock can’t merge” explanation: the moon, the Earth, and all the planets were highly likely formed by the continuous accumulation of rocks). Just outside our solar system there lies a cloud of ice and rocks which we called the Kuiper Belt, where short period comets came from.

The Kuiper Belt probably has anywhere from 100 million to several billion comets, which probably formed there when the planets formed. The gradual pull of the giant gas planets over time continually send a few of those comets towards the sun. Thus, the short-period comets are replenished from the Kuiper Belt. The Kuiper Belt is no longer “just” a theoretical construct. As of 1998, more than 60 of the larger objects in the Kuiper Belt have been directly observed! That translates to some 70,000 objects out there whose diameter exceeds a whopping 100 kilometers—not to mention countless numbers of normal-sized comets. Jim Foley was kind enough to pass along an Internet site for those of you who may be interested in these new discoveries. The Kuiper Belt web page (http://www.ifa.hawaii.edu/~jewitt/kb.html) is maintained by David Jewitt, who personally discovered many of these objects.

Thanks to the Hubble Space Telescope, astronomers have finally proven that short-period comets come from a vast region of space beyond Neptune. This is the realm of the Kuiper disk — an enormous population of shadowy mini-ice worlds that slowly orbit the Sun in near total darkness.

It is evident that comets are replenished constantly from the Kuiper Belt (and the theoretical Oort Cloud). Lack of observation? Not really.

7. Actually, he don’t need to inform that Harvard university student stopped light, it’s reasonable to think that light could be sped up and all. Since he was relating to God, it generally means that he don’t have a clue- it’s a shrug of the shoulders, an “I don’t know” dressed up spiritually. Anyway, by pointing towards God, one actually doesn’t need logic at all. Since God is omnipotent, well he can do anything illogical, like turning your cat into a dog or so.

8. This is definitely wrong. It just shows out human’s self-centeredness. The universe is finite but unbound: means, it has no boundary, thus no centre. The red shifts we seen is a universal expansion of the universe: all objects are moving apart from each other- thus we can see red shifts on every object. If there are other intelligence on other planet far away, they’ll see the exact same motion (red shift) as we do. We are not sitting at the centre- we’re sitting… somewhere in the universe.

9. “Stars in outer space are being hurled through space time at an incredibly rapid speed”, haha! That must be approaching the speed of light! But stars, as we observed, move at much lower speed than this. Perhaps he’s referring to time dilation- but that’s not true as when an object gains velocity its time slows down, which makes the light to reach us even slower. Thus, starlight must have been travelled for an enormously long time before we can see it.

10. Where’s the calculation? After research I found out that the calculation is flawed, again. They have seriously neglected the residence time (time for an element to stay in seawater before it’s removed), causing such great error. If the accumulation of Aluminium in seawater is taken into account, according to their calculations and reasoning, the Earth will be only 100 years old. How fraudulent.

11. Fabrications, lies! This discloses the ignorance of creation “scientists”! The age of Niagara Falls is simply not the age of Earth. Geologists estimate that Niagara Falls was formed some 7,000 years ago after the last glacial episode- and this is nothing related to the age of Earth.

Science has completely debunked young-Earth creationists’ “scientific claims” that the world is 6,000 years old. Creationism is just a myth, without any evidence and science behind it. It still amazes me that there are so many people that believe the world is 6,000 years old! It’s the poison of religion.

Posted in Creationism, General Science, Video. Tags: , , , , . 11 Comments »

Creation-Evolution Headline: Utterly Miserable

October 16, 2008 — Lee Young, 李阳

I’ve found out another more ridiculous site: http://crev.info. It’s title: Creation-Evolution Headlines. In fact, “Hythloday Headline” suits it more (check out Thomas More’s Utopia). The writer shows his lamentable ignorance on science and the principles of evolution thoroughly in all his posts. If only I have enough time, I would like to create a website titled “Creation Truth” and slams creationism utterly. By the way, let’s have a look at one of the pathetic posts in this creationist’s daily updated site:

Describing Star and Galaxy Growth Without Looking

August 30, 2008 — Astronomers seem to know a lot about star birth and galaxy growth.  This is a strange thing, since no one has watched the process from start to finish.  Stars and galaxies are clearly observed in various shapes, sizes, and patterns.  How reliable is it to arrange them into an evolutionary sequence?

One way is with computers.  National Geographic News reported on work by astronomers at University of Edinburgh who got their computers to generate stars as spin-offs of black holes.  Imagine a gas cloud approaching a black hole.  “It begins rotating, and gas at the leading edge experiences a kickback of energy that flings it outward from the black hole and forms new stars.”  One astronomer outside the study had this to say: “As satisfying as the new results are, the case for disk fragmentation as the origin for the disk stars remains unproven.”  He pointed out that no such clouds are seen coming anywhere near the supermassive black hole assumed to exist at the center of the Milky Way.

How do galaxies grow?  That was the question asked by the title of an article on PhysOrg.  More audaciously, Science Daily added the line, “Massive Galaxies Caught in the Act of Merging.”  It seems that the European Very Large Telescope (VLT) and Hubble Space Telescope found some cluster members 4 billion light-years away that show peculiar arrangements that suggest mergers are happening.  “This discovery provides unique and powerful validation of hierarchical formation as manifested in both galaxy and cluster assembly,” the article claims.  Not only that, the astronomers claim that the stars were born 3 billion years earlier and were not affected by the mergers.

Science should thrive on controversy and alternative models.  It is disturbing to see astronomers make statements that go far beyond the evidence with impunity.  Imagination may roam free among the stars, but the fact is, our bodies are stuck on Planet Earth.  Our theories should be grounded in that reality.

My reply:

Stupid, ignorant fool! Thrive on controversy and alternative models! You think it’s so easy to form a theory like you writing these nonsense here? Controversy? Why not? There are many different theories proposed by scientists- but only one or few specific theories are widely recognized because of observations, evidences, and calculations! “It is disturbing to see astronomers make statements that go far beyond the evidence with impunity”- your silliness and feeble-mindedness is even more disturbing than I can stand. How far are the astronomers’ statements beyond evidences? Not far at all- these astronomers are making statements based on observations and evidences! Also, it is important to note that these astronomers are not theoretical scientists- to them, to make statements without any supportive observations is totally fatuous. The news up here is not about hypotheses or theories- it is regarding real, concrete evidences by observations.

*Also, it’s illogical to say that theoretical scientists are making senseless statements: theoretical scientists such as Albert Einstein and Stephen Hawking formed their theories not based on mere a priori thoughts but based on calculations- calculations that take everything into aspect for the most precise prediction- and they are often proven right.

Posted in Article, Astronomy, General Science, News, Websites. Tags: , , , . 6 Comments »

Ridiculous “All About SCIENCE”

October 13, 2008 — Lee Young, 李阳

I’m quite outraged when I found out that a website, bearing the name of science, misinterprets it so preposterously and ignorantly. Visit this page: http://www.allaboutscience.org/evolution.htm

All about science. All about science! Ridiculous! Nothing is more terrible than this. I hate this kind of pseudo-science, impostors. The author is distorting and smearing evolution with profound ignorance. He surely knows nuts about evolution- he even got his very first sentence wrong:

“Evolution, in this context, can be defined as: the belief that all living things, including man, resulted by natural changes from lifeless matter, with no supernatural intervention involved.”

He seems to mix up between abiogenesis and evolution, which are two totally different thing. Having put like this, it seems that evolution is specifically pointed against God, which is also absolutely wrong. He then continues:

“If life on earth really came to be in this manner, by chance and from lifeless matter, then why are there so many intelligent people — even PhD scientists — who reject the theory?”

Chance, chance! Profound ignorance. For the utmost time, evolution is exactly, totally the opposite of chance process! And what, PhD scientists reject the theory! It’s defamation, seriously. I bet he doesn’t even dare to show the statistics. The fact is, there are way more PhD scientists who believes in evolution than rejects it. Yes there are some scientists who deny the theory, but it’s just the minority, and they can’t even provide satisfying facts to support themselves.

The second title of the article reads: “Evolution – Scientists are Fallible People“. The author then points out that there are “many” examples of errors done by scientists, and also intentional fraud made by them. I do not deny this, but is it really “many”? Are there many such scientists when compared to honest scientists? Is Sahara desert big? It’s big when compared to your house, but it’s nothing when compared to the whole universe. The author’s claim is totally unconscionable. The title is then followed by creationists’ favourite argument against evolution: evolution is not science.

“Science is based on gathering observable, empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning. The scientific method consists of the collection of data through observation and experimentation, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses.”

Evolution is exactly science. Scientists have long gathered the fossils and remains of ancient animals, and the effects of evolution on the fossils are clearly shown. If science needs direct, exact observation on the process, then there will be no science. In chemistry, no one have ever seen the electrons transferring between atoms to form compounds- and yet this is not science? No one have ever seen force and energy- that’s not science? You can’t see gravity- you can only see its effects- and that’s not science? Evolution is just the same. Its process is too long for us to directly observe it, but its effects on animals are devastatingly clear. The DNA composition also presents an unalterable support towards evolution.

“Many proponents in the field of science have been selling a philosophy rather than presenting scientific evidence.”

Nonsense! It’s precisely because you know nothing about evolution you don’t know that it’s supported with massive amount of evidences!

“Most scientists are no experts in the relevant fields, such as microbiology and genetics, and merely have an opinion on the subject like anyone else.”

Another sentence by the hopeless author. It sounds as if he has more knowledge than any of these scientists. “Merely have an opinion on the subject like anyone else”, what absurdity! He thinks that scientists never read anything other than what’s regarding their fields! I dare to say that even a physicist knows more about evolution than him.

The author then claims that it’s the pressure of fashionable ideas that caused people to accept evolution. This is another misstatement: it’s not because of the pressure from fashionable ideas that caused scientists to accept evolution- rather it’s the evidences, which is so overwhelmingly massive and ubiquitous.

“Fashionable ideas…which are advanced with such force that common sense itself becomes the victim. A person under such pressure may then act with an irrationality which is almost beyond belief.”

I think this is best suited to explain why quite a number of past scientists believe in god.

The author then takes off his mask and shows his real face: talking of God.

“They (the scientists) have their minds set with the idea that there is no Creator. Things had to happen without supernatural intervention. Having determined this in their thinking, absolutely nothing can cause them to consider anything that is not a materialistic explanation. No matter how hard-pressed such a person may be for lack of evidence or logic, especially in the light of recent discoveries in microbiology, he must search around for some way to explain things without an intelligent inventor.”

This is so distorted! The sole reason scientists doesn’t believe in anything supernatural is lack of evidence and logic! Moreover, the author puts it in a way that it seems that scientists are pinpointing against god and intend to do against him in every aspect. And he make it seems like scientists are researching in a premise that there’s no god. The fact is scientists are considering every aspect and possibility seriously, and the reason they dismiss God is because it is not science at all as it has no observation or evidence.

“In fact, only belief in an intelligent Creator can provide a really adequate worldview or cosmic philosophy that can encompass the whole range of things.”

Yeah it does provide an answer for unknowns. But it’s a crooked, false, and illogical answer. By believing in god and seeks for explanation from religion, it corrodes our nature of finding for truth through knowledge and science.

He then mocks scientists by saying “Many scientists close their minds to considering God; they are like the small boy who shut his eyes and told others: ‘You can’t see me.’” The author truly shows some essence of humour in him as well as some lamentable ignorance.

“Darwin, Huxley, Spencer, and other early evolutionists did not start in that direction (towards evolution) primarily because of scientific evidence, but because of emotional and spiritual bias against God, the Bible, and Christianity.”

There are simply too many nonsense in he article. Huxley was definitely not against God because he was a truly neutral agnostic, not like what the author claim. Also, it’s undoubtedly because of the massive evidences (fossils) that overwhelmed and lead Darwin to form his theory of evolution!

He then moves on to say that evolution is “an act of faith”.

“Many phenomena have been observed so regularly to occur under certain conditions that they are taken for granted, and it is not realized that faith in the uniformity of nature is being exercised. But the situation is quite different with regard to the theory of evolution, for many alleged phenomena in the evolution of life are mysterious, and to accept them requires faith.”

Mysterious? Seems like a myth huh. We’ve now understand the mechanism and process of evolution, and I do not know what is meant by “mysterious” here. Again, this bloke who wrote this article know nuts regarding evolution.

“Evolution, it has been said, requires of its devotees a higher degree of faith in the unknown than does creation. Evolutionary doctrine is based on a long series of assumptions, many of them groundless and the others uncertain.”

Such fatuous claims without any evidence! “Assumptions” actually means “hypothesis” here- well of course you need hypothesis in order to form a theory! “Many of them groundless and the others uncertain”- what? Not even a single scientific claim is groundless, or else it’s not called science! And I find that to postulate an intelligent creator that created us is much more absurd and groundless.

“But over time, any worldview which is not true will unravel because of the accumulation of counterevidence or the discoveries of contradictions and inconsistencies within the worldview itself.”

Counterevidences and contradictions? He doesn’t even have any facts and evidences to show it out! he’s just barking hollowly. As a matter of fact, there aren’t any evidences to disprove evolution, because if there is any, evolution will be straightly dumped open-heartedly by scientists. That’s the virtue of science.

“There are too many missing links, discovery disconnects, anatomical and functional complexities, and unexplained genetic changes, and too overwhelming a number of inexplicable and improbable coincidences, for evolution to be placed among proven scientific theories. An enormous, rapidly growing, tidal wave of missing links is closing in on Charles Darwin’s beach, yet some of the shoreline residents cannot hear the roar. Some may always be deaf.”

This is another favourite argument for creationists: the “missing link”. This had been repeated in PZ Myer’s debate with Dr. Simmonds, and he utterly destroyed this claim. One explanation for this: Analogy of The Sorcerer’s Apprentice.

“In this scientific climate most researchers seem to feel that they must relate all research to the evolutionary scheme of things.”

Really? From where you’ve heard of this? There’s no way for such universal theory in science, and scientists do not relate all of their researches to evolution.

“The growing evidence against evolution will eventually force evolutionists to face the fact that the position is untenable. ‘A healthy science is a science that seeks the truth and lets the evidence speak for itself,’ says Dr. Paul Nelson.”

“Growing evidence against evolution”- that’s the greatest myth I’ve ever heard, besides the existence of god. I repeat, there’s no such thing as “evidences” and “proofs” against evolution. These are pure baseless fabrications made by creationists.

“There were two factors in particular that were decisive (for me to believe in God). One was my growing empathy with the insight of Einstein and other noted scientists that there had to be an Intelligence behind the integrated complexity of the physical Universe. The second was my own insight that the integrated complexity of life itself – which is far more complex than the physical Universe – can only be explained in terms of an Intelligent Source…. It was the evidence itself that led me to this conclusion.”- Anthony Flew, Professor of Philosophy

To straightly attribute something unexplainable to an intelligent source is a disgrace towards our knowledge and truth-seeking nature. Why should god be the explanation of everything? It’s not. It’s a shrug in the shoulder, a spiritually dressed-up “I don’t know”.

The theory of evolution is an established, re-examined and justified scientific theory with massive amounts of evidences and facts that can be found ubiquitously. We are the products of evolution. It requires abysmal ignorance to deny evolution- either the person doesn’t know about it, too ignorant to understand it, or simply because it contradicts some holy book. The author definitely falls on the second and third category.

Posted in Article, Biology, Creationism, Evolution, Websites. Tags: , , , . Leave a Comment »
« Older posts
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.