It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Darwin's Theory of (d)evolution

page: 3
0
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 23 2009 @ 04:49 PM
link   
I have to agree with you on the point of our schools teaching it as fact and not theory, but I do believe in this.

There will ALWAYS be a second question to how life was created.

"Well it was the Big Bang" - Well then what caused the Big Bang?

I think religion was created as just an easy way to say "Here's how it is. The story sounds legit, and we even made these seven rules that if you disobey, you'll suffer, so now everyone believes! No more questions!"




posted on Feb, 23 2009 @ 09:56 PM
link   
reply to post by Paramecium302
 


Because it is fact AND theory.
Read about it



posted on Feb, 23 2009 @ 09:58 PM
link   
reply to post by noobfun
 


hehe thanks for watching my back noob!

Those two posts going point by point his "objections" was one of the most tedious time consuming rebuttles I've ever done... LOL



posted on Feb, 24 2009 @ 12:32 AM
link   
How many here are Biologist? How many are research scientist? I ask because just as admittedly as a creationist defends his position so do many Evolutionist defend theirs, And by that I mean the entire strength of argument stands solely on "this is what I was taught" OR "this is what I was told"

I will quote an article here below

"Richard Lewontin is the Alexander Agassiz Research Professor at the Museum of Comparative Zoology, Harvard University.

As such, he is internationally recognized as one of the foremost “evolutionists” , Atheists and materialist in the world. We haven’t read a fraction of all that he has said, but he is apparently given to occasional bouts of blatant honesty.

He was previously and famously quoted for saying:

"We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism.

It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door. “….Billions and Billions of Demons, The New York Review, p. 31, January 9, 1997."

Also

Lewontin “led off a session titled ‘The Mind of a Toolmaker’ by announcing that scientists know next to nothing about how humans got so smart. ‘We are missing the fossil record of human cognition,’ Lewontin said at the meeting. ‘So we make up stories’” (Balter, 2008, emp. added). While Balter spent the rest of his article scrambling to show that Lewontin’s conclusions are not recognized by all in the scientific community, Lewontin’s devastating blow to evolution’s long-cherished scenario of human development could not be papered over so easily.

James Randerson, science correspondent for the United Kingdom’s Guardian, wrote an article titled “We Know Nothing About Brain Evolution” in which he, too, reported on Lewontin’s speech. Lewontin titled his speech, “Why We Know Nothing About the Evolution of Cognition.” Randerson reported that, in the lecture, the eminent Harvard professor “systematically dismissed every assumption about the evolution of human thought, reaching the conclusion that scientists are still completely in the dark about how natural selection prompted the massive hike in human brain size in the human line”

SO AS I said in my first post, EVEN evolutionary science is a fractured one, Incomplete and missing much of what is needed to "prove" IT and make it fact, TO simply state most here are simply NON-scientist arguing over things that minds far greater then ours, with far more research themselves admit is only a half picture of things.



posted on Feb, 24 2009 @ 12:40 AM
link   
Stephen Jay Gould, famous Harvard evolutionist said; “The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches … in any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the gradual transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and fully formed.”



posted on Feb, 24 2009 @ 12:41 AM
link   
This what Michael Denton, PhD, an evolutionist said about The Disappointing Promise of Molecular Biology for the Theory of Evolution–in an article of that name; “Instead of revealing a multitude of transitional forms through which the evolution of the cell might have occurred, molecular biology has served only to emphasize the enormity of the gap.

We now know not only of the existence of a break between the living and non-living world, but also that it represents the most dramatic and fundamental of all the discontinuities of nature.

Between a living cell and the most highly ordered non-biological system, such as a crystal or a snowflake, there is a chasm as vast and absolute as it is possible to conceive



posted on Feb, 24 2009 @ 12:46 AM
link   
A quote from Darwin himself, “the number of intermediate varieties which have formerly existed on Earth must be truly enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and strata full of such intermediate links?……….this perhaps is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory”.

Again, IT is an incomplete theory, lacking in many ways, Science has long taken a dogmatic approach to defend what it thinks it knows, IE:earth as the center of the universe, then the sun as the center of all, How many men of science faced persecution for trying to change what was held as fact? We must be careful not to become so sure of what we "know" that we shut down all chance that we really dont have a clue, as I believe it was Einstein that said it best "it is not what we do not know that gets us in trouble, IT is that which we know for certain"



posted on Feb, 24 2009 @ 01:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by nj2day
reply to post by noobfun
 


hehe thanks for watching my back noob!

Those two posts going point by point his "objections" was one of the most tedious time consuming rebuttles I've ever done... LOL


yeah it fun when you get to do those over and over

i didnt feel like jumping on it at the time and when i checked you had done it already

and now i get to go look up actual quote and see how many are quote mines pretty sure the Gould quote is mined .... can someone explain why you need 4 whole post for 4 quotes?



posted on Feb, 24 2009 @ 04:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by benrl
How many here are Biologist? How many are research scientist? I ask because just as admittedly as a creationist defends his position so do many Evolutionist defend theirs, And by that I mean the entire strength of argument stands solely on "this is what I was taught" OR "this is what I was told"


or maybe this i what i read in a sceintific paper?
or a scientific journal?
or popular scientific media
or read in a book
or saw in a documentary
or spoke to professors or sceintits about

not everyone just copies and pastes from AIG or an equivalent of compiled nonsense or quotes verbatum Hovind's comedy video series

some of us actually learn this stuff, yes yes i know reading it dus makes brainz hurt so why bother learning anything when copy paste function exit right?


sorry are you going for a reverse argument from authority before you pull out the quote mines and plagerism?


I will quote an article here below
hmmmm spell checker must have missed the word mine off the end of quote

and thank for the information about Richard and the way its set up to make it look like he is acually talking about evolution ..which he clearly isnt as he is talking about a book on physics and cosmology and superstition written by Carl Sagan



"We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism.

It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door. “….Billions and Billions of Demons, The New York Review, p. 31, January 9, 1997."


wait so your 'how dogmatic we must be, super materialists and reject god becasue we all hate god and etc etc' quote is really?


Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural.

We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.

The eminent Kant scholar Lewis Beck used to say that anyone who could believe in God could believe in anything. To appeal to an omnipotent deity is to allow that at any moment the regularities of nature may be ruptured, that miracles may happen.


so what he is actually saying is we need to reject notions of the super natural or science is no longer science and its useless as a tool for understanding how the universe works if magic and supernatural causes are allowed to be used instead of finding real answers .........

the only way to truley undertand the materialistic is to work within the confines of the materialistic. and by materialistic he mean anything that i material e.g. natural.e.g anything within the universe that is not supernatural ....


Lewontin “led off a session titled ‘The Mind of a Toolmaker’


not only lying for jesus with quote mine but pladgerism as well?

www.apologeticspress.org... ooops your entire argument word for word appears to have been written by someone else ....im sure theres rues againt that in the t&c



by announcing that scientists know next to nothing about how humans got so smart. ‘We are missing the fossil record of human cognition,’ Lewontin said at the meeting. ‘So we make up stories’”


is that all he says? no ..not even close

what he is talking about there is how the fossil record can only show things like the brain capacity of homonid fossils, it cannot show us the complexity of thier thought processes, at what point different elements of our modern thought processes develop so we fill in the blanks as best we can but we have no eveidnece to base those on

he isnt denying evolution, or human evolution he is just stating the fact there isnt any evidence to prove one way or the other so we should be careful what we fill the blanks in with in the case of the evolution of higher brain funtion in homonids



Within session: Mind of a Toolmaker
Title: Why We Know Nothing About the Evolution of Cognition

Authors: Richard C. Lewontin, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA
Abstract: Our lack of knowledge about the evolution of cognition is the result of: 1) our lack of any close living relatives among species; 2) the uncertainty of any reconstruction of our ancestral lines; 3) the complete lack of any fossil record of manifestations of cognition except from organisms that were already indubitably human; and 4) the confusion between homology and analogy of characters so that, for example, the vocalizations of primates are taken as homologous to human speech, where as the evidence from neuroanatomy is that they are merely analogs.
evolution-schoepfung.blogspot.com...



James Randerson, science correspondent for the United Kingdom’s Guardian, wrote an article titled “We Know Nothing About Brain Evolution” in which he, too, reported on Lewontin’s speech.


and lets look at what he quotes Lewinton as saying?


He is also not convinced that we can use current selective forces to infer what natural selection was doing to our ancestors. He used the example of the butterfly wing. The smallest wings provide no lift at all and so could not have been selected originally for flight. One idea is that they started off as structures to regulate body temperature and were later adapted by natural selection for lift. Maybe something like that happened for human brain size.
www.guardian.co.uk...

so he offers an alternate possability for how it evolved not by mean of natural selection but as a by product of it ... ahhh so not denying evolution, not aying it cant account for this, just saying it one of those thing we cant test or prove beyond howing how brain capacity increase o we should be careful what we say about it ...


EVEN evolutionary science is a fractured one,
fratured that it happens? that is accounts for everything?

nope its agreed it happens, what happens, it the how that real detail and nut and bolt of it that are under review and we are making contant progre undertanding


Incomplete and missing much of what is needed to "prove" IT
you only prove things in maths

it got more then enough evidence to how it happen it happens to every known living species of what ever phyla or kingdom, just becasue there isnt physical eveidene for one part of the evolution of one species as the ancestors arnt around anymore no where ever comes close to invalidating the piles of evidence

lying for jesus is still lying,



[edit on 24/2/09 by noobfun]



posted on Feb, 24 2009 @ 05:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by benrl
Stephen Jay Gould, famous Harvard evolutionist said; “The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches … in any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the gradual transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and fully formed.”


do you know what you did there? you mined two quotes and pretended they were one, they are on seperate pages they are that far apart

page 181-182 of his 1980 book panda's thumb



The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils. Yet Darwin was so wedded to gradualism that he wagered his entire theory on a denial of this literal record:

The geological record is extremely imperfect and this fact will to a large extent explain why we do not find interminable varieties, connecting together all the extinct and existing forms of life by the finest graduated steps. He who rejects these views on the nature of the geological record, will rightly reject my whole theory.


so here he is making an argument for punctuated equilibrium and stating what he always has, transitional forms between individual species are rare and special thing to find, but transitionals between the groups of animal are not lacking

and then your second quote


Paleontologists have paid an enormous price for Darwin's argument. We fancy ourselves as the only true students of life's history, yet to preserve our favored account of evolution by natural selection we view our data as so bad that we almost never see the very process we profess to study. ...The history of most fossil species includes tow [sic] features particularly inconsistent with gradualism: 1. Stasis. Most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear; morphological change I [sic] usually limited and directionless. 2. Sudden appearance. In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and 'fully formed.

Evolution proceeds in two major modes. In the first, phyletic transformation, an entire population changes from one state to another. .... The second mode, speciation, replenishes the earth. New species branch off from a persisting parental stock.

Darwin, to be sure, acknowledged and discussed the process of speciation. But he cast his discussion of evolutionary change almost totally in the mold of phyletic transformation. In this context, the phenomenon of stasis and sudden appearance could hardly be attributed to anything but imperfection of the record; for if new species arise by transformation of entire ancestral populations, and if we almost never see the transformation (because species are essentially static through their range), then our record must be hopelessly incomplete.

Eldredge and I believe that speciation is responsible for almost all evolutionary change. Moreover, the way in which it occurs virtually guarantees that sudden appearance and stasis shall dominate the fossil record."


hmmm so theres an actual reason for them to appear as if they appear out of no where ...and they dont jut magically appear its jut how it appears according to the geological record .......

shall we see what Gould really think in his own words in context?


We proposed the theory of punctuated equilibrium largely to provide a different explanation for pervasive trends in the fossil record. Trends, we argued, cannot be attributed to gradual transformation within lineages, but must arise from the different success of certain kinds of species. A trend, we argued, is more like climbing a flight of stairs (punctuated and stasis) than rolling up an inclined plane.

Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists—whether through design or stupidity, I do not know—as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between larger groups. Yet a pamphlet entitled "Harvard Scientists Agree Evolution Is a Hoax" states: "The facts of punctuated equilibrium which Gould and Eldredge…are forcing Darwinists to swallow fit the picture that Bryan insisted on, and which God has revealed to us in the Bible."
www.stephenjaygould.org...

so is it by design or just stupidity? and just to check what he Really thinks about transitional forms


transitions are often found in the fossil record. Preserved transitions are not common—and should not be, according to our understanding of evolution (see next section) but they are not entirely wanting, as creationists often claim. The lower jaw of reptiles contains several bones, that of mammals only one. The non-mammalian jawbones are reduced, step by step, in mammalian ancestors until they become tiny nubbins located at the back of the jaw. The "hammer" and "anvil" bones of the mammalian ear are descendants of these nubbins. How could such a transition be accomplished? the creationists ask. Surely a bone is either entirely in the jaw or in the ear. Yet paleontologists have discovered two transitional lineages of therapsids (the so-called mammal-like reptiles) with a double jaw joint—one composed of the old quadrate and articular bones (soon to become the hammer and anvil), the other of the squamosal and dentary bones (as in modern mammals).
(same source as above)

so first we have quote mining then pladgerim and now we have taking two quotes and pretending they are one

what next in the thrilling quadrilogy of your lying for jesus series?




[edit on 24/2/09 by noobfun]



posted on Feb, 24 2009 @ 05:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by benrl
This what Michael Denton, PhD, an evolutionist said about The Disappointing Promise of Molecular Biology for the Theory of Evolution


hahhaah your quoting Denton?

he wrote a book about how evolution ucks and doesnt account for anything ... releases it

THEN IMEDDIATLEY starts writting another book that is pro evolution and refutes every argument he made in his first book

let quote his new book shall we?


It is important to emphasize at the outset that the argument presented here is entirely consistent with the basic naturalistic assumption of modern science - that the cosmos is a seamless unity which can be comprehended ultimately in its entirety by human reason and in which all phenomena, including life and evolution and the origin of man, are ultimately explicable in terms of natural processes. This is an assumption which is entirely opposed to that of the so-called "special creationist school". According to special creationism, living organisms are not natural forms, whose origin and design were built into the laws of nature from the beginning, but rather contingent forms analogous in essence to human artifacts, the result of a series of supernatural acts, involving the suspension of natural law. Contrary to the creationist position, the whole argument presented here is critically dependent on the presumption of the unbroken continuity of the organic world - that is, on the reality of organic evolution and on the presumption that all living organisms on earth are natural forms in the profoundest sense of the word, no less natural than salt crystals, atoms, waterfalls, or galaxies."


so not uch a massive gap no weaknes of undertsanding etc etc ....

as he refuted hi own argument then it not a good one to pull out he proved it a pile of twaddle himelf



posted on Feb, 24 2009 @ 06:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by benrl
A quote from Darwin himself, “the number of intermediate varieties which have formerly existed on Earth must be truly enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and strata full of such intermediate links?……….this perhaps is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory”.


wow theres always a Darwin quote in there somewhere ...thankfull for small mercies and that, it isnt the usual eye quote mine

off we go to chapter 10


so must the number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed, be truly enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against my theory.The explanation lies, as I believe, in the extreme imperfection of the geological record.

In the first place, it should always be borne in mind what sort of intermediate forms must, on the theory, have formerly existed. I have found it difficult, when looking at any two species, to avoid picturing to myself forms DIRECTLY intermediate between them. But this is a wholly false view; we should always look for forms intermediate between each species and a common but unknown progenitor; and the progenitor will generally have differed in some respects from all its modified descendants. To give a simple illustration: the fantail and pouter pigeons are both descended from the rock-pigeon; if we possessed all the intermediate varieties which have ever existed, we should have an extremely close series between both and the rock-pigeon; but we should have no varieties directly intermediate between the fantail and pouter; none, for instance, combining a tail somewhat expanded with a crop somewhat enlarged, the characteristic features of these two breeds.
www.literature.org...

hey look Origin's available online now you have no excuse for not reading it and not having any clue about evolution that your trying to argue against

sorry whats that Mr Darwin its not really a problem, you were doing your usual trick of asking a question and then supplying the answer for it as you do many time throughout your book.... ahh and someone cut out all the bit where you answer your own question becasue they have honesty issues .... ahhhh that will explain it, thank Charley ...



lacking in many ways,
theres a lack of personal intergrity and honesty ... but thats nothing to do with evolution


How many men of science faced persecution for trying to change what was held as fact?
plenty but thats usually the job of religeon


We must be careful not to become so sure of what we "know" that we shut down all chance that we really dont have a clue,
you most certainly havn't shut down that option but have embraced it whole heartedly but then started touting what you do not know and as what you think everyone does not know, and some how your i dont know has become the truth of what we all supposedly know


as I believe it was Einstein that said it best "it is not what we do not know that gets us in trouble, IT is that which we know for certain"


after your last batch of quote mining and not being very honest im even tempted to look this one up and check its context

Quote mining, theres nothing so christain as making somthing mean the exact opposite of its intension to try and make jesus proud ...


i havnt used it for a while so please excuse what im about to do but really after the debarcle of yourlast 4 posts you thuroughly earned it



you made every single one of those face palm with you absurdity and dishonesty ... i hope your proud of your self becasue jesus isnt

what that you say jesus? bearing false witness ? .... surley not, he is doing it for you after all .... ahh its still lying even if they think you want them to ... which you dont .... ill let him know jesus you can count on me

[edit on 24/2/09 by noobfun]



posted on Feb, 24 2009 @ 08:17 AM
link   
ok, I don't consider myself an "evolutionist" persay, I acknowledge that there are SOME holes in the theory as it currently stands, but I don't see how an educated mind can think that the idea that an omnipotent, omniscient father figure in the sky blinking everything into existence can possibly be a more plausible explanation.

1) While not proven at the time, Darwin was right. Life, as in, single celled organisms have been shown in scientific experiments to form from the proper exposure of basic amino acids in proper quantities over peroids of time.

2) I think to fail to grasp the actual definition of evolution. Noone is saying that at some point in time a onkey gave birth to a human(BTW humans evolved from the same common ancestors as APES, not monkeys.) Evolution proposes that over huge expanses in time, those members of a species that have traits beneficial to survival, will be the ones that survive. I'm not even going to dignify the mention of mythical man-horse hybrids with a response, lol.

3) If you tink about it, this IS technological Evolution. the three series was great, but some people wanted more luxury, more power, so the 5 series developed, using the best features of the three series, with added bonus features which allow it to SURVIVE in the higher end luxury market. etc. etc.


4) One small thing eing removed WILL cause an immediate crash, BUT things that are better suited to live in the conditions created by this crash will thrive, creating a new, equally balanced ecosystem. You're thinking short term, this planet has been around for billions of years, think larger scale.

5) Not all plants, flowers, etc. require bees for pollination. I would imagine that before bees evolved into current form, the plantlife makeup of the planet may have been very different. ie: more fruit-bearing smaller plantlife who's seeds were dispersed throughout the area in the digestive systems, less flower like plantlife, but some who's seeds are dispersed through the air, like dandelions. As bees evolved into current form, plants that had very low population or chance for survival began to thrive.

6) trees, plantlife, all living things came from different combinations of different amino acids and basic elements in different conditions. The minerals, earth, plans, etc. are all basic minerals made up from billions upon billions of years of nuclear reactions in the centres of stars(suns).

ie: our sun has such incredible pressure at it's core that it has strong nuclear reactions which consume hydrogen and create helium. Also, the huge amount of mass at the center of a collapsing star, followed by the massive amount of energy released upon a star going supernova(exploding at the en dof it's life cyce) will create heavier elements, which then through gravitationa nd countless other forces combine, coalesce and cool to form other celestial bodies.

7) The point of life, according to this theory, is to survive. That is what all living things do. they try to survive, they adapt to be better suited to survive. they EVOLVE, to survive.

8) the combination of energy, elements, and time to create life is unknown, however recent studies HAVE found creation of life through combination of inorganic substances.

9) Apes are still around because they are well suited to live in the environments which they inhabit. They evolved from common ancestors with humans, but didn't have the same environmental burdens put on them as the group of anscestors that we evolved from did, and thus were not forced to adapt the same way that we were.

10) We have found written records and hyroglyphs depicting and explaining a time period longer ago than the timeline for the bible allows. Also, carbon dating is NOT an exact science, but it IS relatively close. 200 million years, i NOT close to 6000.



posted on Feb, 24 2009 @ 08:20 AM
link   
11) Many things in science can be thought of as fact. While a lot of scientific thought is based on observation, much of what we know today is factual. ie: we know water is made up of 2 parts hydrogen, one part oxygen.

12) That is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard there is no way at all that that describes a Dinosaur. Oh and also, basic anaotmy lesson... if it has a Navel, it's a mammal.



posted on Feb, 24 2009 @ 09:12 AM
link   
reply to post by noobfun
 


Whoa! i've never seen you pull out the facepalm montage! usually its just Picard!

This one might help ya out on this instance though


Its one I like to pull out on rare occasions :p




posted on Feb, 24 2009 @ 11:34 AM
link   
reply to post by nj2day
 


ive resisted the urge to face palm anyone since late nov/early dec ive saved them all up to allow for the montage to be ued here today for this very pecial of cases

a case where 4 posts were needlessley wasted just to shove up 4 quote mines and a comment by a bi-polar proffesor who refuted his own argument right after he made it, when 1 posts saying 'i think evolution sucks and i know nothing about it' would have sufficed

only a post string that heinous could warrant such an Epic facepalm of epicness



posted on Feb, 24 2009 @ 02:21 PM
link   
reply to post by noobfun
 


Great site for facepalms...

www.facepalm.org...

Diff pic every time you load the site


great stuff...



posted on Feb, 25 2009 @ 05:46 AM
link   
double post



[edit on 25-2-2009 by miriam0566]



posted on Feb, 25 2009 @ 05:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by Daniem
HI there, i just couldnt stop reading your points after i began, it was just soo funny and ignorant that i was kinda flabagasted. I thought it was sad that someone acctually still thinks like this in 2009.


i picked you post because your seems to be the overwhelming majority when it comes to atheistic attitudes towards creationists.

its this "wow you are so unbelievably ignorant" claim that seems to make its rounds every thread.

if a person is ignorant, then educate them. if you cant, maybe because you cant answer their questions, then be quiet.

the OP raises some simple but interesting questions. if the reality of evolution is so simple for you (atheists in general), then it shouldnt be hard to provide satisfactory answers. the problem is that most of the answers are not satisfactory. in fact, for the claim that it is scientific fact, alot of the answers are pure conjecture or supposition.

for example. the op raised the question that if we evolved from monkeys, then why are monkeys still here.

the natural reply is first to insult his lack of knowledge pertaining to evolution, and correct him that its apes, not monkeys that we evolved from. then the reply would entil an explanation that apes were not around during the time of out ancestors, but that they too evolved from our ancestors.

but this doesnt answer the question does it?

even a person who has minimal scientific background would be able to see that something is not adding up.

our "ancestors" are not portrayed as being much different from what apes are today (despite obvious propaganda like the lucy statue in london's MONH). so it does bare asking, why would 2 of basically the same species, who coexist in the same area suddenly take 2 different paths? one would evolve radically different in a relative short period of time, and the other would stay stagnant and not evolve much at all.

its a perfectly valid question. you can brush it off as ignorant, but if you cant answer the question...


It just shows that if you dont know ANYTHING about a subject or subject, a human can REALY become creative and wildly imaginative when he tries to understand.


this simply reinforces the OP's argument about peer pressure. insulting someone is a great way of intellectually bullying someone.


"Theory has now become irrefutebul fact"

The scientific definition of the word "theory" is different from the other sense of the word. "theory" can mean a conjecture, an opinion, or a speculation that does not have to be based on facts or make testable predictions. In science, the meaning of theory is more rigorous: a theory must be based on observed facts and make testable predictions.


that still does not translate "theory=moreorlessfact"

you observe a man who runs past you. he is wearing a suit. he has a case. based on these observations, you can theorize that he is late for a meeting. (scientific theory based on observed facts).

does this theory mean that you are right and that now you can state with surety that that is the reason he was running? what if he had to go to the bathroom?

theory ≠ fact.

theory is simply a hypothetical explanation for WHY those facts are observed they way they are.

darwin saw similarities between certain species, so he theorized why.


Fact is often used by scientists to refer to experimental data or objective verifiable observations. "Fact" is also used in a wider sense to mean any hypothesis for which there is overwhelming evidence.

=Evolution is a fact in the sense of it being overwhelmingly validated by the evidence.


and yet it is still called evolution theory. why?

because scientist cannot even agree on the mode of evolution. it used to be gradualism in saying that the animals very slowly and gradually evolved over a very long period of time. the fossil record doesnt support this (sorry but it doesnt). so they came up with mutations, saying that animals changed in gradual spurts due to beneficial mutations. this explained how one species suddenly jumped to another similar form. some see even problems with that saying that the fossil record has gaps that are too large for mutations to explain. so they came up with super mutations. basically saying that a bird laid an egg, and suddenly, bam! new species.

if it was simple fact, why so much disagreement?

if i dropped my pen on the floor, there wouldnt be disagreement within those who observed it. its a fact, not a theory.


Scientists can also use fact to mean something that has been tested or observed so many times that there is no longer a compelling reason to keep testing or looking for examples. The occurrence of evolution in this sense is fact.


on what basis? has man ever observed specification?

you "fact" is based on interpreting data, namely the fossil record. which i shown earlier has produced several different theories.


In the study of biological species, the facts include fossils and measurements of these fossils. The location of a fossil is an example of a fact (using the scientific meaning of the word fact). In species that rapidly reproduce, for example fruit flies, the process of evolutionary change has been observed in the laboratory. The observation of fruit fly populations changing character is also an example of a fact. So evolution is a fact just as the observations of gravity are a fact.


its funny you should mention fruit flies. in 60+ years of experimentation, and zapping them, they always remained fruit flies (no speciation). in every instance where the mutated flies where reintroduced into a control population, the mutants were unsuccessful in mating and passing their genes on. eventually they would die and the mutation would be lost. how does this prove evolution? if anything it forces scientist back to the drawingboard.


Humans evolved from ape-like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered. Theory is no longer appropriate except when referring to the various models that attempt to explain HOW life evolves... it is important to understand that the current questions about how life evolves in no way implies any disagreement over the fact of evolution.


again, what evidence is provided beyond supposition?

skull sizes, number of teeth, type of teeth, body shape, body size. these do not show progression. they show chaotic development. how do this prove without a doubt that humans came from them.

stupid little factoid. neanderthals had molars for front teeth. now we look at molars on a dinosaur, and we say it ate vegetables. why do neanderthals break that rule. why is it claimed that they hunted?

its a silly little thing, but it does raise certain questions.



posted on Feb, 25 2009 @ 08:44 AM
link   

if a person is ignorant, then educate them. if you cant, maybe because you cant answer their questions, then be quiet.


Or because we try to but you wont listen.


If a creationist makes the claim evolution is wrong and says the kind of crap the op does, no matter what an atheist says after 10,000 years of debate, the creationst's still going to believe their right even though they know they've been proven wrong but just wont accept it. Look at every single evolution V creation thread, you will always have creationists corrected again and again as if they actually enjoy being owned.

Anyway, i personally find it a waste of time now convincing creationists they're wrong because you can just look at an evolution documantary and learn - you dont need us to explain what's already there on the tv - on the net.

Is that so hard? If you dont understand the simple terms explained in docs, maybe you need to go back to school - SERIOUSLY!!!
A child gets evolution so easily, why cant you? it's the simplist thing. If i wasn't even taught it in school i still would have figured it out for myself its such an easy concept to understand - how can you not? So damn baffling.

Think about it like this - just over hundred or so years ago we were much smaller. In just a few hundred years we've got people at 6-7 feet tall. A rare sight back then. So just imagine the change in us physically in just a few hundrd years to 3 billion - imagine the changes that would occur. The German sheppard came from Germany around a hundred years ago - before then it didn't exist - an entirely new breed of dog thats evolution.

What atheists dont understand, what i dont understand is how you cant see that - its so simple. We change, we evolve over time - is that so hard to grasp? Do you really think it would make more sense that over 5 billion years a dog would still be a dog?


the problem is that most of the answers are not satisfactory.


And they never will be to you until evolution is 100% correct? never going to happen ever! We will never find every single fossil of every single species of every single creature that ever lived. IMPOSSIBLE! But because of that, that doesn't mean evolution us bunk just because we cant find every single one. What we can do is tell by the fossils that we have found that its true - its a reality. (Transitional fossils, they are there)




for example. the op raised the question that if we evolved from monkeys, then why are monkeys still here.


AND YOU WONDER WHY WE CALL YOU CREATIONIST INGNORANT!!!!!!!!!!!

Let me explain to the best of my knowledge. Just because one species evolves into another doesn't mean that entire species is gone forever. A good example. -

You have a flock of birds, say 200 strong. 100 travel to one island and for some reason, natural occurrence or what ever they cant travel back. The other 100 stay on the mainland and cant travel to the island. Now after say 100,000 years the 2 groups of the same bird change a little. Over another 100,000,000 million years those birds living on the island are going to be completely different to the main land birds. But orginally were of the same species.

At some point the birds on the island become so smart they buld a culture, a civilization. Some centuries later they say they couldnt have evolved from birds because there are still birds around now......u get it?



obvious propaganda like the lucy statue


lolololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololol
lolololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololol
olololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololol
lolololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololol

it's begining to hurt to laugh


you observe a man who runs past you. he is wearing a suit. he has a case. based on these observations, you can theorize that he is late for a meeting. (scientific theory based on observed facts).


LLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL

Thats not science !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You still dont get it...............

[edit on 25-2-2009 by andre18]




top topics



 
0
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join