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.

 

10 Ways Darwin got it wrong - The Conspiracy of Evolution

page: 14
28
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 15 2009 @ 01:14 PM
link   
reply to post by NatureBoy
 


No, actually it wasn't an ad hom. You are limiting possibilities in your arguments to only the ones you can handly refute and calling the whole thing refuted. Which is rash and perhaps a bit naive but not stupid. Thus my comment and not any comment on your intelligence. Kindly don't confuse your rancor as something of mine.

[edit on 15-11-2009 by Watcher-In-The-Shadows]




posted on Nov, 15 2009 @ 01:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Pauligirl

I suggest you read all of what Pigliucci has to say.

I suggest you read the context of my post. Obviously for something to be a scientific fact, their has to be a concensus among top scientist's. The only thing I was trying to convey is THAT their isn't.

I never had any doubt however that ANYTHING having a creationary implication to it, well lets just say, as far as science is concerned, THAT would be out of the question, even if it happens to be true.



posted on Nov, 15 2009 @ 01:22 PM
link   
reply to post by ch1ldofthe70s
 


everything comes down to faith, do you have faith in gravity? you can't prove that you won't suddenly by flung from the planets surface at any second - yet i presume you #sometimes# leave the house?

faith in nutrition? i presume that not being able to prove that we need to consume food doesn't mean that you never eat?

faith in medicine? i presume that not being able to prove that your lung infection will be cured by antibiotics doesn't mean that you would refuse them?

of course germ THEORY, nutrition THEORY, gravity THEORY are all unprovable - hasn't it been proven that the only thing you can prove is that we exist? cogito ergo sum. Of course from this basic principle we can then go on to prove that's the only thing we can prove and thus also disprove it also, etc, etc, etc right upto modern philosophic debates....

You are using in case you forgot a computer, about a thousand uses of the world theory would be needed if we were to list all the steps in the chain between you and me - yet it works, all this theory.

thats because it's not just a guess, its a theory - something which all means of testing have been tried in numerous attempt to disprove - finally when everything seems to fit together its labeled as a theory.

This theory then gets tested and attacked by science until someone manges to find a flaw, then new science is done until we understand whats going on perfectly - we're a long long way away from that yet - but only by trying and using real science will we ever get their.

all the mystic spells in all of the old world never turned lead into gold, science however can now do this - all it needs a a giant particle accelerator and about ten million books on various things ending in the word theory.

faith is believing what someone tells you without any form of proof or testing - this is the EXACT opposite of what a scientist should do, if a scientist can think of a way to disprove the statement then everyone wants him to do it - even the person who told him.

science has no room for folk like paul and his many plagues for anyone who dares contradict him - science has humility and honest, it has a love for truth and this is what sets is aside from faith.



posted on Nov, 15 2009 @ 01:28 PM
link   
reply to post by NatureBoy
 


And you sir are anthromorphising.

science has humility and honest, it has a love for truth and this is what sets is aside from faith.

Science does not have human attributes. Science does not have ego or humility and neither is it a liar or honest. It's a framework, nothing more nothing less. It is what the INDIVIDUAL makes of it. What next? Calling it kind and loving? If you do, *please don't* I would have to point out weapons technology.



[edit on 15-11-2009 by Watcher-In-The-Shadows]



posted on Nov, 15 2009 @ 01:35 PM
link   
reply to post by NatureBoy
 

Thanks for your posts and replies! No prob!
If I was one of "those people" I prolly wouldn't even be on ATS right?
Here I go bear with me:


As for your answers you might be interested to learn that without modern medicine humans have about a one in five mortality rate at birth, although certain studies and practices have suggested this can be lower (squatting for example) in general though out history the figure is about right, this is due to the size of our brain

I agree. Also interesting we are considered a medically advanced,
religious country by and large, however we have one of the highest
infant morality rates!



surely ANY intelligent designer would have fixed this problem by articulating the hips as some other animals have or by some other means, indeed if god made us why do we even need brains? he doesn't have a physical brain, surely then we can assume that he could make some system more compact or ephemeral to contain our intellect?

I sure wish he'd fix mine, they're killing me!

I dont think some need brains.
They dont act like they have any sometimes, good point!
We have two arms and two legs so we can play drums!

I personally wish I had at least three hands!


The simple fact is we aren't designed very well, well not if you think a perfect being made us - the entire gut system could be a fission reactor and a single drop of sea water could power us for a thousand years!

We are still evolving.
Unless we were made only 2000 years ago that is!



I presume god wants us to suffer? part of his plan? because god needs a plan?

We take care of that ourselves, and we're gettin' pretty good at it!
It's only a lil 'ol plan to save our butts from our own stupidity!
Looks like its none too soon!

Give him a break with that!



what is it that god the totally all powerful needs to plan for? can't he just create the finished result with less effort than a ruffled eyebrow?

See above...man is crazy and unpredictable!
Um, maybe he just needs some exercise?


If gods plan requires than millions upon millions of babies need to die trying to squeeze their way out of the womb then how can all these crazy christian PRO-LIFE types complain that god has ordered some doctors to abort fetus which he is angry with? surely it's all ordained as part of his plan? or it's all nonsence which he doesn't care about because he isn't a hands on god and had nothing to do with our evolutionary development - in which case, is he really god? or just an immortal voyer?

Millions dying from childbirth?
Where? Do we need to send some money?

I think you watch too much daytime tv! Kidding!


I agree, people are whacked. Generally speaking of course.
Good questions!
He has to let people be dumb at some point I would think.
It prolly helps their development into the next stage.
Unless we die and thats it.

If we dont believe something, then it cannot exist.

[edit on 15-11-2009 by dodadoom]



posted on Nov, 15 2009 @ 01:36 PM
link   
reply to post by NatureBoy
 


Let me clarify that I am not here to represent either side. It is true that the scientific community has more evidence that supports their theories in human evolution then the religious communities have to support theirs. But the jury is still out regardless of what the scientists theorize may or may not have happened in those blank spots (although my inlaws could be the missing link they seek
).

IF I am a believer in theology then what am I really a slave to? Not killing my fellow man? Not wanting my neighbors things or his wife? Not lying? Wow, I really do need to unshackle myself from those burdens and shoot my neighbor, take his stuff and wife and lie about it at the trial.


There is good and bad in everything. There are scientists who try all their life to help humanity, and those that are out to get rich off a creation no matter the cost. There are religious followers that live in peace and let others do the same and those that don't.

[edit on 15-11-2009 by ch1ldofthe70s]

[edit on 15-11-2009 by ch1ldofthe70s]

[edit on 15-11-2009 by ch1ldofthe70s]



posted on Nov, 15 2009 @ 01:43 PM
link   
reply to post by loner007
 



Not to mention its the only scientific and most plausible than what intelligent deisgners would have us to believe.


Excuse me, exactly what is not scientific about intervention theory?

I give you... Lloyd Pye.

I believe in evolution. MICRO-evolution. That makes sense. But, how in the hell is the probability of life arising as Darwin put forth, better than the chance that life was 'placed' here by a higher intelligence (read: advanced civilization).

Wait, I'll save you the time... it's not.


Great OP.

[edit on 11/15/2009 by SquirrelNutz]



posted on Nov, 15 2009 @ 01:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by loner007
What a pile of crap u posted. Darwin wasnt wrong about evolution . Not to mention its the only scientific and most plausible than what intelligent deisgners would have us to believe. He may not have all the details correct when he 1st published his ideas over 100yrs ago. He may have made assumptions that may have been incorrect but the overall hypothesis is sound.
Yes there are still puzzles in the theory and some ideas like the evolution tree dosent seem to pan out as planned from his original idea.
This isnt to say EVOLUTION is not happening because it is.
And i prefer Darwinism to the intelligent design given by bible bashers as at least they have science to back it up wheres bible basheres just bash their bibles about and fail to use that grey matter that is inside their heads.


Wow, you got 33+ stars for that post. Interesting that so many people think this way.

That's 33+ people that don't read much.

You can believe the Bible or not, sure, that's your choice. But, first of all, the facet of evolution that is incorrect is macro-evolution. Darwin himself testifies to the fact that there should be evidence if he is right, and there is no evidence to support macro-evolution.

It is ironic that you support the idea of macro-evolution based on no evidence and yet you disagree with INTELLIGENT design (double irony here!) because a bunch of Bible bashers say so? Wow... you're pretty susceptible. I hope that an ounce of truth doesn't escape any "Bible-bashers" for your sake because you'll miss it!

I'm sure there are a couple of "bible-bashers" that believe in intelligent design, so-to-speak, but the majority of people who believe that God created the universe are "bible-thumpers".

Thanks.



posted on Nov, 15 2009 @ 01:45 PM
link   
reply to post by ch1ldofthe70s
 



(although my inlaws could be the missing link they seek ).

IF I am a believer in theology then what am I really a slave to? Not killing my fellow man? Not wanting my neighbors things or his wife? Not lying? Wow, I really do need to unshackle myself from those burdens and shoot my neighbor, take his stuff and wife and lie about it at the trial.

LOL! Are you kidding me?

I love it!

RADOTFLMAO!

Good one!
Thanks!



There is good and bad in everything. There are scientists who try all their life to help humanity, and those that are out to get rich off a creation no matter the cost. There are religious followers that live in peace and let others do the same and those that don't.

Well said and amen! er, better scratch that!



[edit on 15-11-2009 by dodadoom]



posted on Nov, 15 2009 @ 01:52 PM
link   
reply to post by TarzanBeta
 

I agree.
Darwin himself admitted as much.

He admitted to a fellow scientist, Asa Gray, about his book, "I am quite conscious that my speculations run quite beyond the bounds of true science" (N.C. Gillespie, Charles Darwin and the Problem of Creation, 1979, p. 2).

Darwin once wrote to a friend that he prided himself as an expert in the "master art of wriggling" (Life and Letters of Charles Darwin, Vol. 2, p. 239).

He confessed to some fellow scientists about his theory, "It is a mere rag of a hypothesis with as many flaws and holes as sound parts . . . but I can carry in it my fruit to market . . . a poor rag is better than nothing to carry one's fruit to market in." To another colleague he wrote, "I . . . have devoted my life to a fantasy" (Adrian Desmond and J. Moore, Darwin: The Life of a Tormented Evolutionist, 1991, pp. 475-477).

Commentary:
Like palin, and so many authors,
he prolly wrote it for the money.
It happens....


Stars up and down peeps! Great stuff!
Thank you very much for the well thought out
(and yet also funny) posts!


[edit on 15-11-2009 by dodadoom]



posted on Nov, 15 2009 @ 01:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ismail


So they should. It means you can't use reason. What point is there to reasearch something if you can't use reason ? A scientist who believes is starting out with a bias. Science and the scientific method don't work that way.


What means I can't use reason? Who says so? YOU? Galileo had no reason? did religion stifle Newtons capacity to think logically with reason?

Science is a product of religion my friend but more than that is the example you have portrayed of yourself that YOU are the one having no reason. What you are doing is a lot like racism only the common distinction for the discrimination you have against them is anyone having religious faith doesn't have reason.

How very unreasonable of you. This kind of thinking is the very reason the scientific method is only as good as the scientist are objective and YOU can't seem to see past your prejudices.



posted on Nov, 15 2009 @ 02:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kerry_Knight
What you are doing is a lot like racism only the common distinction for the discrimination you have against them is anyone having religious faith doesn't have reason.

How very unreasonable of you. This kind of thinking is the very reason the scientific method is only as good as the scientist are objective and YOU can't seem to see past your prejudices.


Well said. Regardless of what you believe in we should be able to debate and agree to disagree with respect towards each other. To do otherwise is to hit the reverse button on the evolution of civilized behavior. Being open minded is not an easy road to hoe, but its the only way to learn without alienating people or information that could enrich our lives in unexpected ways (that goes for both sides). I am willing and able to ponder the possibilities of both sides, and I hear tell that what one man can do, another can do too...or was it 'what one man can do, a woman could have done better?'

[edit on 15-11-2009 by ch1ldofthe70s]



posted on Nov, 15 2009 @ 02:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by ELECTRICkoolaidZOMBIEtest

expelled is a pile of crap and lies.


Like most atheist's believing in evolution, anything that refutes it is summarily called a pile of crap. While i have seen a FEW critical reviews of this movie, the negative ones are always written by atheist's who are anti anything having to do with intelligence (pun intended) and design.

They usually go on about how wrong the movie is in its description of evolution but miss the entire central point the movie makes and that is SCIENCE is so dogmatic, uses so much prejudice and has so much hatred and bias for anything that even questions evolution, they will do everything legal and illegal to ruin the careers of anyone who challenges it. That was not only proven beyond what would normally be used to investigate science in a court of law my friend, but the united states senate ALSO, found them GUILTY of it.



yes darwin got a few things wrong. no one really doubts this. but then again...origin of species is celebrating its 150th anniversary this year. so its a bit outdated. scientists have updated the theory of evolution since then. NONE of your arguments are compelling in the least.


wrong, science couldn't ignore how absurd it was using more modern technology so they "invented more than a few ideas some plausible, others already falling to the wayside as impossible but same alibi same fraud to save the atheist's from their inherant fear of a God out there.



for example "humans beings evolving from apes"
humans ARE apes.


Is that so? How do you know? Oh that's right because evolution says so.



no one has observed speciation?
are you kidding me?
have they (or you) done any research?


When was the last time YOU saw transpeciation?


[edit on 15-11-2009 by Kerry_Knight]



posted on Nov, 15 2009 @ 02:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by ch1ldofthe70s

Originally posted by Kerry_Knight
What you are doing is a lot like racism only the common distinction for the discrimination you have against them is anyone having religious faith doesn't have reason.

How very unreasonable of you. This kind of thinking is the very reason the scientific method is only as good as the scientist are objective and YOU can't seem to see past your prejudices.


Well said. Regardless of what you believe in we should be able to debate and agree to disagree with respect towards each other. To do otherwise is to hit the reverse button on the evolution of civilized behavior. Being open minded is not an easy road to hoe, but its the only way to learn without alienating people or information that could enrich our lives in unexpected ways (that goes for both sides). I am willing and able to ponder the possibilities of both sides, and I hear tell that what one man can do, another can do too...or was it 'what one man can do, a woman could have done better?'
[edit on 15-11-2009 by ch1ldofthe70s]


This is the real intent of the thread.
Read this entire post again....
If we are not civilized what are we?
Apes, again? Great, there goes the drums.....


Please be cordial to your neighbors.
Personally held beliefs such as these are "entrenched".
Respect has to be considered first.
I know I am guilty of showing disrespect and hope you all realize I am human too, mine is just an opinion also. I ask for your patience.
I am on the journey too. I have a hard time with patience.
This thread is not about me, but I will let you
in on my feelings here in case anyone thinks I'm trolling or
some whacked out junk.
Ya, my agenda is, send me your money, you are mine now!
You will obey me and drink this!


Anyway, it is too bad sometimes feelings get hurt.
I appologize if I have been rude or "smug".
Civility is mandatory for us to survive I feel.(see name)
However we came to be. Thanks.


[edit on 15-11-2009 by dodadoom]



posted on Nov, 15 2009 @ 03:18 PM
link   
reply to post by ch1ldofthe70s
 


giving the best bit of meat to the priest cast (now replaced with a tithe)

not thinking for yourself, that is to say allowing some crazy religious leader who had been wrong before but still claims to be in touch with the perfect god (the pope stating that limbo does not exist after hundreds of years of saying it does) to tell you what is right and wrong

obeying without question the rules of an out dated and violent system

plus many, many more....



posted on Nov, 15 2009 @ 03:22 PM
link   
reply to post by NatureBoy
 


And some people are in love with generalizations and thusly also avoiding thinking. Usually while accusing others of not thinking. *looks at you*



posted on Nov, 15 2009 @ 03:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by GorehoundLarry

Originally posted by thomas_
reply to post by dodadoom
 


You could very well just sum all that up to just "Darwing got 30% correct or less". His theory on human evolution has more holes than a swiss cheese.



So does Christianity.



Many rather believe the planet is a couple thousand years old. Why? Because I don't think they understand the concept of science....or anything about it.

Sorry to offend some followers of that religious institution, but yeah...


Science can't even understand it self, how about the the universe. Science suffers from a human limitation called "life time". Any scientist wants to make it all fit while they are still alive, and that yields in mistakes that either others take from granted and start from there or spend their entire lives trying to correct.

So saying science has a answer for a deep subjects such as this is plain ignorance.

Regarding the Bible, I would say it's not something for you to read literally or as science book or paper. You have to keep in mind that what you're reading is a text older than 2000 years that went trough all sorts of revisions, adaptations and embellishments over the ages.

Also the Genesis is not even Christian per se, it's only part of the Christian tradtion and is shared by many other religions and cultures. So your direct and generalized attack on Christians is a bit ignorant.

The Genesis (which is only part of the Bible case you don't know) has some pretty amazing similarities with the Sumerian texts of creation which indicates that those Sumerian texts were the ones from where the Genesis was based on.

Anyways...



posted on Nov, 15 2009 @ 03:54 PM
link   
We believe the scriptures on faith. No one is absolutely certain about anything they have faith in. I certainly have to have faith in what my accountant tells me is true. That's trust (a synonym). But Christians generally don't claim "we are absolutely certain that the bible is truth according to what we can extrapolate from the facts, but interestingly enough, the book was wise enough to know many things about life we will never know enough to prove because they are beyond what any finite mortal being could begin to fathom much less understand. We believe in concepts like "infinity" but when I see someone ask: why would God create such a massive universe? He assumes we should know and if we don't, then religion is bullcrap! Yet it is often the excuse of evolutionists to explain how evolution doesn’t explain everything but we shouldn't throw out the whole theory because of that! Well Christians don't throw the whole Bible out either but are held to contempt in this double standard. The Bible is the Christians "standard" of truth and what ever science believes for the time being, is the atheist's but what they deliberately deny is that science is just as much an interest to us and we are just as capable of it as they are.

Not everything the Bible says the Bible endorses nor can we subject God to the same rules of the universe as we are compelled to. To ask questions so many often do that Christians don't have an answer that satisfies your own concept of what God "should be like if you were one" like, why would a loving God allow so much evil in the world. This person assumes evil has no purpose, or why would God be behind the evolution of man when it doesn't require one, yet not a one of you knows exactly when that first living cell came "alive" much less what "IT" is that makes it "come alive" we acknowledge that the scriptures claim that they are absolute truth and we accept that on faith. We trust that statement.

This approach is not intended to be scientific and based on any methodological reasoning process. It could be as simple as someone told us the gospel message and we trusted (had faith in) them. It often takes much more reasoning for many people. Over time, our faith strengthens as our knowledge and experience grows regarding this faith. Some of us have a more emotional strength in their faith, and some of us like me require a more logical reasoned approach. Mature Christians generally speak in more dogmatic terms with the scriptures, because their faith has grown to such an extent that distrust has been removed.

Their is not much about the Bible that doesn't make so much sense when you really look for the answers you find them, and when spiritually guided, you not only find them easily, the answers you find are much easier to believe. No scientist worth his salt has EVER failed without having the faith in his hypothesis to go back to the drawing board and try again.

No Christian worth his salt will give that faith up when their is an entire universe of evidence out there to support the infinite qualities of a loving creator spoken about well before the concept of infinity could only be grasped in terms of a millennia or a really HUGE number. Yet it never ceases to amaze me that when some look for answers in the Bible, others look for things they can deliberately fail to understand and assume WE are as intent on miss understanding it as atheist's actually try to be.

The idea someone can mock a Christian for believing eve wasn't delusional for thinking she was listening to a talking snake in the garden of Eden was one post attempting to suggest reasons Christians shouldn't be allowed in science.

Yet listening to a snake is exactly what atheist's may be doing attending a speech given by Richard Dawkins and Christians are just as likely to see THAT as delusional causing YOU to doubt God, while a metro sexual man with a cute little British accent and a boatload of anti religious bigotry and Christaphobia has you thinking you are free from the oppression of religion. Let’s face it, not one of you claiming Christians answer to scientific enquiry is always "God did it" has EVER cited a Christian actually saying that ESPECIALLY one who is a scientist. Atheist's say we say that and if you Google that phrase, in every example given in the thousands of pages of people using that quote, it is an atheist, saying Christians say it and again, without citing a single Christian individual they actually heard say it.

That isn't to say they never do but it IS just many of the tactics used to justify an unreasonable bias against Christians from a segment of society claiming to have superior reasoning skills and objectivity. To think they are any different when interpreting the evidence in favor of their worldview is naive because they do it all the time and THAT is what really separates our differences. NOT science. Saying you would rather believe in logic and evidence in science rather than faith and religion is a false dichotomy. Christians ALSO prefer logic and evidence in science but when the subject is religion, we at least admit, it requires faith while atheist's don't like the religious connotations so much they deny their very own faith in science. It is atheists insist Christians can't distinguish between the two nor do they want to admit we have a capacity to know WHEN to make the difference. These two worldviews are what separates us both in science and not the science itself. It is also what separates your willingness to NOT understand the Bible and our "perceived" unwillingness to understand science. You read the bible the same way you think Christians read about evolution. To find faults in them and attack it.

We can speak about science and not bring the bible up and we both agree it doesn't belong there unless their were extraordinary circumstances but as we keep getting ridiculed for something totally unrelated and none of your business anyway, the discussions will always degrade into mockery and ridicule while that isn't scientific of you atheist's but it IS

Typical.



posted on Nov, 15 2009 @ 03:56 PM
link   
reply to post by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
 


general? tell me how limbo is a general thing? tell me how giving the best bit of meat to the clergy is general? (its in the bible)

It's easy for people to pretend that they don't know or aren't concerned about the terrible, terrible things that organized religion demands of the masses - i suppose your historical knowledge is perfect but yet you will tell me that the crusades, inquisition, book burning and all that we're nothing to do with the bible - they just got it wrong, religion is all about love and happyness...

this is of course the only time in history of judeochristian rule in this nation that i can actually stand up and say I'm against the teaching of the church - for hundreds of years i would have been burnt at the stake even for holding a Deist belief in god, yet you can somehow stand up and without embarrassment speak like religion has only ever done good things?

Well, the real point is - religion is NEVER supposed to be wrong - either religion has no right to dictate how i live my life or an all mighty and always correct god IS telling us what to do - can you point to a religion which is always right?



posted on Nov, 15 2009 @ 03:58 PM
link   
ok so everything in OPs post was legit

the facts he presented are sound regardless of the source..showing that it is from a creationist website is pointless because no believer in evolution would want those facts shown around..the problem with evolutionists and many scientists is they just cant seem to admit they are wrong which is sad..they bark about science and the truth behind it but the problem is they will flat out lie to not be proven wrong..if you cant explain it with science yet..just admit that..they cant explain life's origin or energy's or matter's..they try to come up with crazy theories to explain it just to have some kind of answer..just say you dont know yet..it would be much more credible than a big bang lol..



new topics

top topics



 
28
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join