I am curious how evolutionism explains the Sun. There is not enough energy possible to sustain the Sun for one day let alone billions of years.
[11/1/2012 5:42:50 ]
Fundie Index: 112
I am so not ready for the stupid this morning.
"I am curious how evolutionism explains the Sun."
Apart from photosynthesis resulting in tree growth, thus said tree being cut down, turned into wood pulp, and resulting paper used at the printworks of "The Sun" newspaper,
I am curious how fundies can confuse Biology with
...oh, and don't forget, o good peeps of FSTDT; don't feed the troll...:
- as in ignoring - the loony Attention Whoring fucker.
Our whole universe was in a hot dense state,
Then nearly fourteen billion years ago expansion started. Wait...
I could point out what everyone has pointed out, that evolution doesn't explain the Sun because evolution is a biological theory and the Sun obviously falls under the purview of astronomy. But fuck it, I know what this creationist moron meant when he said "evolutionism", he means science. Science that doesn't agree with his fucktarded interpretation of his chosen Bronze age creation myth, which is basically all of science. Well science already knows exactly how the sun works, it's called nuclear fusion.
I am curious how evolutionism explains the Sun
It doesn't, for the same reason chemistry doesn't explain gravity. It's outside of its purview.
There is not enough energy possible to sustain the Sun for one day let alone billions of years.
Fundie doesn't believe in nuclear fusion?
Have a seat over there with
the fundie who almost discovered the sun.
I'm sure you two will have a lot to talk about.
It's a new one every day. Just over the horizon, there's a fucking huge pile of dead ones.
Of course! I can't believe I didn't see it until now: the Sun doesn't exist! This explains everything.
@Dr. Razark: "BTW- "evolutionism" is not a word."
Ha! You fell into my trap, er, his trap, er... Oh screw it, here's the stock answer.
You know, sometimes creationists get accused of making a word up when it just isn't so; like "Darwinist" (coined by Alfred Russell Wallace), or "macro/micro-evolution" (coined by entomologist Yuri Philipchenko) or "evolutionist" (which dates back at least to the 1870s, when T.H. Huxley used it in a letter to
, volume 1 no less).
But I was quite sure "evolutionism" was genuine "fundie wordsalad" dressing. Ahem...
"Permanence And Evolution: An Inquiry Into The Supposed Mutability Of Animal Types"
by Sidney Edward Bouverie Bouverie-Pusey (1882)
"[W]hile Darwinism proper is improbable, evolutionism in any form is as yet unproved; while, on the other hand, the more we investigate the facts of inheritance, the more we are compelled to regard differences so slight, that they would usually be considered casual variations, as within the limits of our existing knowledge strictly permanent."
Apparently, on further research, "evolutionism" seems to pre-date even Darwin, and historically referred to a "belief in the mutability of organisms". So in rejecting evolutionism, the poster is saying he doesn't think organisms can change in character at all and all the different breeds of dog, cat, cow, horse, sheep, duck, chicken, turkey, rabbit, goldfish, wheat, barley, corn, rye, hops, apples, oranges, grapes and bananas in the world are either individual creations by God or just figments of our imagination.
[* I found earlier examples, but how could I resist using the one written by someone called Sidney Edward Bouverie Bouverie-Pusey? Now that's a name!]
This is the funniest thing I have read on this site for ages. (There's also the added bonus of the username, as it seems to imply that America is somehow currently freeze-dried.)
Easy. The sun is fueled by creatards' stupidity. RA's stupidity is so profound it reached back through billions of years and ignited the sun's fusion process.
Are you for real?
Between this and the other post, this month of FSTDT is already off to an extra-crazy start.
A planet caught fire but still managed to breed with another planet and the child inherited onfireness and it spread from there.
1) Evolution has nothing to do with the sun, that's cosmology.
2) Science has explained what fuels the sun very clearly.
It doesn't. It doesn't have to, has never claimed to, was not intended to and is irrelevant to.
Well, if the sun were a living organism on earth, then evolution might have a hard time explaining it. Since it's not, evolution is not concerned with the sun.
What I'm concerned with, though, is how my fellow countrymen can be so incredibly stupid, and now understand why we're lagging far behind other countries in a lot of scientific areas.
"Easy. The sun is fueled by creatards' stupidity. RA's stupidity is so profound it reached back through billions of years and ignited the sun's fusion process."
If only Danny Boyle had factored Recuntstitfart America's more than infinite stupidity into the screenplay of his film "
", there'd have been no need to send out the stellar restarting ships
. Speaking of which...:
"Fundie doesn't believe in nuclear fusion?
Have a seat over there with the fundie who almost discovered the sun. I'm sure you two will have a lot to talk about."
Certainly the character in "Sunshine",
'The insane captain of Icarus I, the first ship that was sent to reignite the Sun. Pinbacker was inspired by the character of Sergeant Pinback from Dark Star. The character's disfiguring burns were influenced by the injuries suffered by F1 driver Niki Lauda.
Boyle described the character of Pinbacker as a representation of
'Mace finds a video left by Captain Pinbacker (Mark Strong), a radically religious man who states the mission was purposely abandoned,
thinking it was the "will of God" that humanity should die.
Pinbacker = Recuntstitfart America...? You decide.
"There is not enough energy possible to sustain the Sun for one day let alone billions of years."
well, if that were true, surely it wouldn't be up there, right? so, faced with that, you decide, what? god is the sun or something. it couldn't possibly be that you're wrong, and there is enough energy to sustain the sun.
11/1/2012 12:00:14 PM
Rob aka Mediancat
Leaving aside the massive amounts of stupidity in the second sentence, evolutionism no more needs to explain the Sun than archaeology needs to explain the ostrich.
11/1/2012 12:05:33 PM
Given that there is no such thing as "evolutionism"...
... Meanwhile, astro-physics explains the sun as a mid-sized, G-class, star in main sequence.
It is sustained by stelar fusion of hydrogen into helium
11/1/2012 12:24:29 PM
Fair do's. Your right, evolutionism can't possibly sustain the sun, so there is only one possible answer, a magic sky fairy must be doing it.
11/1/2012 1:03:55 PM
So...the sun is less than a day old?
11/1/2012 1:49:39 PM
Look, kid, when two stars love each other very much and decide to have a sun (or a planet, if you prefer), they...
11/1/2012 2:22:30 PM
Nuclear fusion. It makes the Sun shine. In the absence of fusion, the Sun would only shine for a few tens of millions of years before it cooled.
Evolutionary biology has nothing to do with it.
That is both irrelevant and wrong.
Yes, the Eye of Horus was big in Ancient Egypt - a right eye represented the Sun and a left eye the moon (
). But eye motifs are also big in Buddhist, Christian, Hindu, and Mississipian icongraphy among others. All this means is that people like telling stories about eyes (also about the Sun and the Moon).
You are using one particular form of Christian iconography and falsely equating it with all other forms of art in the world.
Also, Egypt isn't usually classed as an African region in archaeology. It's culturally far more Mediterranean or Middle-Eastern.
11/1/2012 2:31:50 PM
Twenty five words. All in a row.
11/1/2012 2:40:16 PM