It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable 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: 23
<< 20  21  22    24  25  26 >>

log in


posted on Nov, 20 2009 @ 02:58 AM
I personally think the idea of evolution reflects the idea of God more than most religions do.

Infinite possibilities over infinite time in an infinite universe VS A restricted timeline, set species that never change with us being the ONLY Gods children.

I say God = Evolution

posted on Nov, 20 2009 @ 05:01 AM

Originally posted by thedeadtruth
I personally think the idea of evolution reflects the idea of God more than most religions do.

Infinite possibilities over infinite time in an infinite universe VS A restricted timeline, set species that never change with us being the ONLY Gods children.

I say God = Evolution

Careful, that is just about the most sensible post in this thread.

The OP doesn't like sense and you will be either ignored or berated depending on mood.

posted on Nov, 20 2009 @ 08:05 AM
reply to post by thedeadtruth

I think the thing everybody is missing in this argument is some people do not the intellectual capacity to comprehend evolution. I am not being rude.

No, you're just apparently short-sighted and have already reached a conclusion before fully exploring the subject. I would argue that's akin to the same mental processes which prevent many people from understanding evolution. Actually, it's apparently the case that even most people who accept evolution don't actually know what it is and how it works. They have a "common knowledge" understanding, which is typically wrong - and it's a wedge that creationists exploit often to plead their case.

In fact, you apparently even hold an extremely poor understanding of evolution if this statement is truly indicative of your understanding:

Infinite possibilities over infinite time in an infinite universe VS A restricted timeline

But Evolution is not limitlessly creative.

It's not a problem with intellectual capacity. The problem is that preset conclusions prevent the acceptance of contradictory evidence and analysis. Creationists aren't stupid, but they are driven to say and justify the most stupid crap imaginable in order try to preserve their preset conclusion. Evidence doesn't matter to them, because they cannot accept where they assume it leads to. That's why they never try to seriously prove their case, but rather attack misconceptions and sow doubt from them - even though doing so would not advance their actual proposition in the slightest. Falsifying evolution would not imply intelligent design, but would merely return our understanding to a more uncertain state requiring further study. But to them, their answer - their conclusion - is already set... so they don't the study of evolution as an idea to be merited on it's ability to model reality, but as a barrier standing against "the truth".

Part of the problem is that evolution.... well, all of reality really, is just so [SNIP] counter-intuitive. We evolved to perceive the world in a manner which would be beneficial to our survival, not how it really operates. Does a bird need to understand the cause and implications of the magnetic field of the Earth in order to effectively migrate north & south? Does it even need to know what the magnetic field is? To give an example in humans, consider the extreme disparity between learning to speak and learning to read & write. Why can we so easily infer a correlation between a spoken word and a concept, but not symbols and concepts?

A few videos to explain what I mean in greater detail:

And perhaps this is one of the problems with the school system. There is a mindset of filling heads with knowledge that curriculums are based around... but it's only half the purpose. The other half which is often missing is the debugging of common sense misconceptions that we're wired for in a brain that didn't evolve to fully understand the universe... but which is only evolved enough to understand what's most directly useful for survival until reproductive age. In many animals, most notably mammals - especially great apes, this has involved the ability to general mental models and connective associations with understandings of the environment around us. Humans have the greatest capacity for this, but as understanding has lead from discovery to discovery - our ability to conceptualize reality has far been exceeded.

We can understand the principles by making mental shortcuts bent to our capacity. Imagine an apple in your mind. Now imagine two. Conceptualize them, their color, their shape. See them in your mind. Now imagine ten of them. 50 of them. 200 of them. 1,000 of them. A million of them. It's not possible to visualize and conceptualize a million of anything... but we can understand the concept of a million, and use that concept in practical terms. We cannot conceptualize the distance between Earth and Saturn... but we can send probes there with near pinpoint accuracy.

One misconception between common sense and reality - is complexity and emergence. It's counter-intuitive to think in terms of self-arrangement from the bottom up, and this concept is vital to understanding evolution. We infer order as coming from the top-down... but reality is almost exclusively arranged from the bottom up. Even in human societies, where interactions of multiple top-down organizations can create effects and trends that emerge from the bottom-up without any intended design or control. That particular facet of reality is, I think, rather misunderstood or unexplored by many people here on ATS... though it can radically shape your view of the world.

For instance... what many here consider to be a shadowy cabal of elites pushing for one world government, I see as an emergent and natural trend of increasing technology and trade which is not controlled or propelled by anyone - nor can it be stopped or halted without significant damage to society, the economy, and our standard of living. The elite at the top who appear to be controlling it, in actuality, are just interacting with that trend via the resources at their disposal to ensure their continued prosperity. A prosperity which relies on our continued prosperity. Emergence is non-linear, non "zero-sum" that we tend to assume.

Mod Note: Profanity/Circumvention Of Censors – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 11/20/2009 by TheRedneck]

posted on Nov, 20 2009 @ 08:12 AM
reply to post by Lasheic

well that was quite a verbose post Lashiec . . .

i'd suggest you take what you think you know and apply it introspectively.

[edit on 11/20/2009 by JPhish]

posted on Nov, 20 2009 @ 09:14 AM
reply to post by IrnBruFiend

I agree with that logic entirely. Sometimes to uncover the absolute truth you need to break down beliefs, extend, and explore infinite possibility. Even consider the possibility that everything you know could be wrong

I agree with that also, especially when all you know is a theory.

The fool has said there is no God, then comes death, then the judgement.

[edit on 20-11-2009 by randyvs]

posted on Nov, 20 2009 @ 11:12 AM
dodadoom you are absolutely right and 100% correct. EVERY soul in the world believes in creation by divine design. They are just in denial and most of it is rooted in arrogance and selfishness. It is amazing how people can read about all the things going on in the world right through this site yet still not humble themselves and admit to what they know in their heart of hearts is real. The ironic part is, the unbeliever will pay the ultimate price for their rejection of the obvious. Everyone on earth will know the truth sooner rather than later.

Some things are true whether we believe it or not.

posted on Nov, 20 2009 @ 11:36 AM
You definitely got that from a biased source. these arguments and more have already been answered. not by me, of course, but by others much smarter.
Wow, now I understand why I never come back here...

posted on Nov, 20 2009 @ 03:57 PM
reply to post by rnaa

Didn't read the whole thread did you? Just saying because you would not be making that silly statement if you had....

[edit on 20-11-2009 by Watcher-In-The-Shadows]

posted on Nov, 20 2009 @ 06:34 PM

Originally posted by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
reply to post by rnaa

Didn't read the whole thread did you? Just saying because you would not be making that silly statement if you had....

[edit on 20-11-2009 by Watcher-In-The-Shadows]

Sure I have.

Just trying to introduce some positive vibe. And that comment was about the most positive comment from anyone in this thread.

So I just thought I'd acknowledge it.

[edit on 20/11/2009 by rnaa]

posted on Nov, 20 2009 @ 06:45 PM
reply to post by Kerry_Knight

Keratinized protein in some form is found in just about every living creature ... My point, which you completely missed, involves form and function - mechanisms of biology that show preference for successfull selection, thus procreation and population of animals that succeed because the sum of thier parts have survived the test of time.

This is what evolution is. The proof is in everything that lives today. To not understand this prevents the scientific understanding of what we really are and why the universe really does the same thing on a much grander scale.

posted on Nov, 20 2009 @ 11:27 PM
Thanks to those who have contributed here! My kudos!

For those that want to know my personal feelings,
I already posted them earlier.
For those that would rather insult the OP instead of talking about the topic,
or the article, you show your true self.

In case you all still wonder why I picked this name,
I give the human species maybe another 50 to 100 years or so, tops.
Unless an asteroid or something takes us out sooner of course.
There always nuclear or biological war if we get too bored.

Thousands and thousands of years of evolution and yet we still can't
grasp this concept of neccesary civility on a planetary scale.
Evolving? Not too much.
Maybe we really are just monkeys with a couple chromosomes missing...
would explain quite a bit.

All the good we can do but we would rather make bombs instead.
Evolution will probably eventually do away with us to save itself.
We are a threat to other species. Maybe just a host, for viruses.
Call it the natural order. The adaptable survive.

I know I'm supposed to be a man of faith.
Oh, I have it, just not in man.
Most do not know peace. Nor do they seemingly care too.
For whatever reason. Different religions, color, etc.

We truly need a miracle, if not outright saved from human nature.
In my most humble and twisted opinion of course!

[edit on 21-11-2009 by dodadoom]

posted on Nov, 21 2009 @ 08:45 AM

Originally posted by dodadoom
10 ways Darwin got it wrong.
#1 The warm pond theory

The scientific evidence indicates that life did not and could not somehow arise spontaneously from some warm little pond, as Darwin thought. What we find from the evidence around us and from the fossil record is that, as the law of biogenesis states, life can only arise from life.

#2 The supposed simplicity of the cell.

......So it turns out that cells are far more complex and sophisticated than Darwin could have conceived of. How did mere chance produce this, when even human planning and engineering cannot? In fact, no laboratory has come close to replicating even a single human hair!

#3 His ideas about information inside the cell.

Because he believed in the simplicity of the information of the cell, he came up with a theory called "pangenesis," where huge variations simply popped out of cells at random—something that was later proven to be entirely false.
Everything we know about DNA indicates that it programs a species to remain within the limits of its own general type. Genetic changes that do occur are typically small and inconsequential, while large mutations, rather than producing improved and novel designs, are overwhelmingly harmful to the organism's survival.

the first quote you make about pools of life !
well lightning when striking pools of chemcials which are rich in nutrients and minerals , along with high voltages and gamma radiation , lightning creates complex amino acids , which are the building blocks of DNA !

the second quote seems to be so silly its unbelievable , of course darwin couldnt have imagined the complexity of the human cell or animal cell, because DNA hadnt been discovered and microscopes still in their infancy!
Of course your human brain would cause you to come up with often absurd explanations !

humans not understanding their environment or wondering how earthquakes ,volcanoes,tidal waves , hurricanes , plagues or otherwise without explanation gave them fanciful ideas that they were created by gods !

and your third quote isnt very well thought through, genetic variations while on the whole are small , in the long run ensure the survival of a species , take a look at the moths in industrial britain , they evolved and developed a darker hair surface as industrial britain had covered all the trees in pollution , the moths adapted through evolution and changed to match the trees , the darker moths werent eaten by preditors the moths that didnt adapt died. its quite simple really!

posted on Nov, 21 2009 @ 02:38 PM
I'm not sure what this thread is about. I think you are baiting people. Darwin had more than 10 things wrong but that is how we learn. Do you expect a 200 year old theory to be perfect?

I have almost completed my masters in BEE and I assure you most people that can think outside the box know that everything we learn is almost immediately outdated.

Dare to learn. Almost everything you know today will seem like "junk science" in 100 years. I promise you this, we as a people know almost nothing. The more you learn the more you understand how dumb we are.

[edit on 21-11-2009 by Kargun]

posted on Nov, 21 2009 @ 02:52 PM
reply to post by Kargun

Sometimes instead of tweaking, modulating a dead theory sometimes you need a paradigm shift in thought that seems to put these pieces together.

posted on Nov, 23 2009 @ 07:29 PM

Originally posted by NatureBoy

cambrian explosion can't be explained.

This has got me thinking, i had a quick flick though thE WAY THE LIGHT THE TRUTH THE DIVINE WORD OF GAWWWWDDDDD - my bible's sorta suggest that god created all the animals at once... you know the bit where he creates all the animals and people in a week? Yeah genesis does say that, it neglects to mention anything about a cambrian or precambrian era, in fact most christian sects teach or taught that the world is around 6000 years old!

I'm interested, i've taken the time to explain many areas of science and history as seen from a twenty first century perspective, just read some of my previous posts for detailed descriptions of how we came to be here - would you be so kind as to grace us with the version of creation you believe?

How god explains the cambrian explosion, how god explains the fossil record, how god explains the DNA family tree, etc, etc

Well, as I am guessing you'll probably ridicule me for my thoughts on this subject but I'll play your game. I'm not an ignorant christian who believes the earth and life on it has only been here for 6,000 years. In fact, careful study of the scripture shows that the earth and the cosmos were here for a very long time before humans and mammals. The opening words of the bible states "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth." Now "the beginning" represents the beginning of time.... or the "big bang" which created "the heavens (3 heavens according to scripture.... God's dwelling place, the cosmos or space, and the earth's atmosphere). And God said , "let there be light" and there was light.... the creation of the sun and stars. These beginning verses do not represent the "first day" of creation, but the "initial" creation. The 6 day creation plus rest day came as life on earth was being reborn after a lifeless earth (once abundant in life) lay desolate. So, as I believe mankind has only been here for 6,000 years, I do believe earth, space, and time have been around longer than a human brain can comprehend. Does that answer your question? Call me crazy if you want but it's no crazier than believing all life came from a little water puddle. Or that humans came from monkeys.

You may have scientists who say something in favor of your theories yet there are just as many who are scientifically against your theories. So which is more accurate? Just as there are scientists on both sides of the "Global Warming" issue. Who's right and who's wrong?

posted on Nov, 24 2009 @ 09:05 PM
reply to post by rnaa

You most certaintly did not. I suggested pretty much the same thing and the OP something akin to agreed with me a few pages back.

[edit on 24-11-2009 by Watcher-In-The-Shadows]

posted on Nov, 24 2009 @ 11:53 PM
reply to post by Watcher-In-The-Shadows

I rescanned your posts and this is the closest I could get:

Or "God's" way of "creating" was evolution in such a way one would not be able to tell if it was happening at random or was being "guided" so to speak.

Is this what you mean?

I don't think that is the same as what thedeadtruth said. You seem to be saying maybe God 'uses' evolution, while thedeadtruth is saying that God 'is' evolution.

Two different things, and while thedeadtruth's definition of God may be a bit too limiting and personal for some of the ID'ers or Bible-Thumpers in the thread, it is much more sensible than some bearded guy in the clouds creating the whole shebang 6000 years ago and faking all that evidence to make it look older then telling Moses two different stories of how it all came down just to throw more confusion into the mix.

But it is cool. You have been more than sensible through out. I didn't mean to deny you weren't, only that thedeadtruth said something sensible too.

posted on Nov, 26 2009 @ 12:39 AM

Originally posted by pteridine
If an infinitely intelligent creator created the universe with the big bang [let there be light] wouldn't that creator be skilled enough so as not to need to further intervene?.......

Now, explain again what is wrong with evolution.

Interesting idea, But your first premise has ruled out Darwinism a priori. The problem with your scenario is Darwinism depends on random mutation. In a infinitely intelligent creator's universe randomness doesn't exist

It also just doesn't work with materialist science that intelligence is the result of random process. If naturalism is true , then your cognitive faculties are the result of blind random processes, chemical reactions and the laws of physics. Thus there is absolutely no reason that they should be trusted to find truth. Naturalism and Darwinism are contradictory beliefs.

posted on Nov, 26 2009 @ 02:54 AM
reply to post by Bigwhammy

In a infinitely intelligent creator's universe randomness doesn't exist

So are you saying that god is unable to create randomness? Why are you putting limits on his powers? Randomness and probability is the base of quantum mechanics. So this is obviously not true, our universe IS probability based.

It also just doesn't work with materialist science that intelligence is the result of random process. If naturalism is true , then your cognitive faculties are the result of blind random processes, chemical reactions and the laws of physics. Thus there is absolutely no reason that they should be trusted to find truth. Naturalism and Darwinism are contradictory beliefs.

Blind random process cannot create intelligence. But PARTIALLY random process can. Actually, it works better.

Explain the last sentence..

posted on Nov, 26 2009 @ 10:31 AM
reply to post by Maslo

So are you saying that god is unable to create randomness?

Yes I am. I'm saying its a logical contradiction. Its like asking God to create a married bachelor or a round triangle. It's nonsensical.

God by definition is omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent - that precludes randomness, he is aware of every quark and neutrino and he is not bound by the limitation of finite human quantum theory.

Heisenberg's uncertainty principle and the non locality of certain particles just reveals how clueless we are about the basic matter that makes up the universe. There is no uncertainty for God.

I have a feeling that the strong nuclear force that holds two like + charges together in a nucleus (when there is really no good reason for us to expect it) is nothing but the will of God.

"And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together." (Col 1:17)

That means that if God wills it, every nucleus of every atom in the universe will repel its like charges - now that would show a small hint of Gods glory!

Explain the last sentence..

Naturalism and Darwinism are also logically incompatible: Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism That accounts nicely for all the cognitive dissonance displayed by those who assert both.

top topics

<< 20  21  22    24  25  26 >>

log in