Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

10 Ways Darwin got it wrong - The Conspiracy of Evolution

page: 3
28
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 14 2009 @ 12:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by quackers
If a person makes contrary scientific claim (to an "accepted" hypothesis), without any scientific basis, or even having a background in sciences, and without any scientific proof, then their claim is false. That is not ad-hominem, it is pointing out the obvious. The ad-hominem comes when someone finds objection to this obvious flaw and attacks another for exposing the flaw.
LOL... Dude.. Don't make me laugh. Something not having evidence does not mean it's false. It simply means there's no indication to confirm that it's true. What you're saying is exactly like me saying that you have no ears, because I currently have no evidence that you do.. So logically, it can be true or false when there's no evidence.

Something having evidence, without logic backing it up, THAT is false.. That's why evolution lacks. Evolution is apparently valid when life's already present, and yet, one still assumes that the first life must be a single cell that evolved into everything else today. And that assumption, that it was a first single cell, comes from the assumption that abiogenesis, the cell born from the primordial soup, is true. But, there's no evidence that that is right, and therefore, the assumption of that single cell, might not be true, and therefore, the way evolution is presented today might be false as well. One can also suggest that every lifeform was already in an "advanced" state, because there's no evidence of a single cell being the first life.

Sure, we might evolve now as humans, but there's no evidence that a developed species (as in, not bacterial or anything of the like) evolves naturally into another developed species. This, without species A being able to reproduce with B, and while B ARE being able to reproduce with its own species..

[edit on 14-11-2009 by vasaga]




posted on Nov, 14 2009 @ 12:36 PM
link   
Am I the only person here who finds it weird that someone is trying to "debunk" a scientific theory as it stood at the beginning of the century ? I mean, we have comme pretty far from there... It's like someone trying to debunk Newtons theories. Sure, it's easy to do. But those theories paved the way for people like Einstein (who can also be proved wrong).

What people like the OP fail to grasp is the real nature of the scientific method. Scientific theories will constantly be updated, disproved, and debated. A scientist can NEVER be "right". Because in the real world, where there are no unicorns and little angels throwing flowers, there ARE no things so "absolute" as "right", apart maybe the universe as a whole. The world is far more complex than "right". The universe is an infinity of equations and interactions, which mankind will never fully grasp, because things are just too big.

Unlike many theists, the true scientist knows that his theory is not absolute. That it will be disproved, or modified. He knows that he is "wrong" in the theist sense. Darwin admitted that many things, he could not explain. I have yet to hear the same from the pope.

To the Op. Consider this. You are talking of a man who's mind was probably greater than yours and mine combined. He spent his life in research, and experimentation, and came to a LOGICAL conclusion about the origins of life, and took a revolutionary stance on the matter, risking ridicule, threats, and his career. He admitted there were flaws in his theory, some of which have found answers, some of which have not. Yet. What have you done, Op ? You were born into a culture. Someone handed you the book that your culture uses to explain the unexplained, which was allegedly written by a bunch of grubby zealots 3000 years ago (after stealing most of the stories from previous cultures myths), translated and interpreted countless times, and stands on no rational basis what so ever. And you believed it.

How about, instead of making a wild stab at Darwin's theory (backed only by some religious nut-jobs "research"), why don't you spend your life like Darwin. Apply logic, and spend your life trying to prove your Gods reality to the rest of the world.

Ah yes, you can't. Because faith is not rational, nor is god rational. Which is at least one reason why no rational person could ever debate with you in a rational manner, over any subject, and especially over Darwin. Your number one point, the existence of god, is pure speculation, but you hang on to that like 1+1=2. God doesn't even get the theory status. Not enough proof, or enough room for debate. No action/reaction. You can't test it. No nothing, except in the pages of a very old book.

[edit on 14-11-2009 by Ismail]



posted on Nov, 14 2009 @ 12:37 PM
link   
Unfortunatly somone is going to be a victim of probability and get alot of crazy false signals. Like what is the probability that somone prays for something and it actualy happens. There are plenty of people out there praying every day for everything from a new transformer toy to a pay raise so isnt it logical that a few people would experiance coincedential things? To these people what they have experianced is reality. These people will never have the motivation to move out of their shell. They have been lead by causality to a point of no return....



posted on Nov, 14 2009 @ 12:37 PM
link   
reply to post by TheWalkingFox
 

Thank you for noticing lil ol me and for the bashing!
I could return the favor but I wont for obvious reasons....

Clearly you are more interested in the personal attacks.
That is all fine and good but....
um, what were you saying again?

I am freakin' kidding you?
Only you would apparently know.
Thank you for your post.


[edit on 14-11-2009 by dodadoom]



posted on Nov, 14 2009 @ 12:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Ismail
 

Hey there!
Um, you must have jumped in and skipped many of my posts.
I suggest if you are interested in what I have to say,
to go back and read them.
God is real to me from his affect positively on my life.
I would hold that in itself more credible than any 'religious nutjob website',
as you so eloquently put it.
Is that really that hard to understand?

More bashing, labeling and stereotyping eh?
What a surprise.
Oh, and yes, thanks for your post!


[edit on 14-11-2009 by dodadoom]



posted on Nov, 14 2009 @ 12:49 PM
link   
reply to post by Wertdagf
 

Hey Wert!
I am purty sure you don't value my opinion like I do yours,
but I am glad you posted your POV here. Thank you!

Still, a coincidence is completely different than a miracle....



[edit on 14-11-2009 by dodadoom]



posted on Nov, 14 2009 @ 12:55 PM
link   
reply to post by vasaga
 



Sure, we might evolve now as humans, but there's no evidence that a developed species (as in, not bacterial or anything of the like) evolves naturally into another developed species. This, without species A being able to reproduce with B, and while B ARE being able to reproduce with its own species..

Very true.
There is no way around this quandry.
Thank you!


If a dog and a cat could get it on, for instance,
it probably wont end up being a duck they give birth to....


[edit on 14-11-2009 by dodadoom]



posted on Nov, 14 2009 @ 01:02 PM
link   
dear dodadoom,



I've been watching discovery7 yesterday and there was a program where they created cells and using a 'printer', they printed cells into organs like livers and such. they maybe cannot create hairs, but they do create organs.

other features on the show were, growing amputated limbs back and such, I don't recall all anymore.

just mentioning they are very very..... VERY far in these things, I almost was astonished about what they are able to create nowaday.



posted on Nov, 14 2009 @ 01:02 PM
link   
reply to post by dodadoom
 


Only to the victim i was speaking about it is a miracle. That lack of an ability to decide fantasy from reality isnt their fault. It was givin to them by their experiances of coincidence.

Just like having your limbs chopped off or being horribly disfigured in a car accident. Wrong place, wrong time... anyone could be religious.



posted on Nov, 14 2009 @ 01:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by etherical waterwave
dear dodadoom,



I've been watching discovery7 yesterday and there was a program where they created cells and using a 'printer', they printed cells into organs like livers and such. they maybe cannot create hairs, but they do create organs.

other features on the show were, growing amputated limbs back and such, I don't recall all anymore.

just mentioning they are very very..... VERY far in these things, I almost was astonished about what they are able to create nowaday.
Yes, they are, but the cells are designed by us to do that =) It's simple genetic engineering. The problem is, creating DNA AND maintaining it in the first place, not just altering it, and after that, allow that DNA in itself to change and create something else.. Seems pretty much impossible..



posted on Nov, 14 2009 @ 01:20 PM
link   
reply to post by Wertdagf
 



Only to the victim i was speaking about it is a miracle. That lack of an ability to decide fantasy from reality isnt their fault. It was givin to them by their experiances of coincidence.

Only to the victim? Why victim?
Reality is reality.
Unless you have a psychological problem that is.

Once again, a coincidence is different than a miracle.
I take it you don't understand this too well.
No big deal. Its not a bad thing.


Just like having your limbs chopped off or being horribly disfigured in a car accident. Wrong place, wrong time... anyone could be religious.

I can take it from this post you do not understand the difference between
religious and spiritual either. Once again, no prob.
Its hard to see sometimes.
Just look at all the religious whacko's that thing killing is Gods will.
How could you label all spiritual people that way also?

Also, what if someone told you not to go in that car because there would
be a wreck.
Don't you think if it happened the exact way they said it would,
wouldn't you listen to them the next time when they warned you?
Or would you need scientific proof first?
Thanks W!

Star for your post, your reply and for your time!



[edit on 14-11-2009 by dodadoom]



posted on Nov, 14 2009 @ 01:24 PM
link   
reply to post by etherical waterwave
 

Thank you for that!
Indeed!
When we can create a soul with a conscious,
then we will be on to something!



posted on Nov, 14 2009 @ 01:25 PM
link   
reply to post by dodadoom
 


I will gladly answer the ignorant, even if they are so purposely. At least one or two of you who want to deny ignorance will learn something. Funny how creationists try and pick apart a theory published in 1859, as opposed to the 150 years of refinement and revision.

Im going to adress the issue of "conspiracy of evolution"
*Warning*, in his arguments against evolution you WILL see alot of "I disagree with it, therefore it is wrong. No, I don't have any evidence."




The scientific evidence indicates that life did not and could not somehow arise spontaneously from some warm little pond, as Darwin thought


Origin-of-life remains a vigorous area of research. Evolutionary theory can work with just about any model of the origin of life on Earth. Therefore, how life originated is not strictly a question about evolution.




cells are far more complex and sophisticated than Darwin could have conceived of. How did mere chance produce this


Chance didnt make a cell, not like it poofed into existance ready. The idea that a functioning cell arose directly from nonliving material is just wrong. It evolved into one. The types of cells that exist today are the result of BILLIONS of years of incrementally increasing complexity.

Individual organelles of the cell came together at different times, adding functions along the way. Life did not begin with cells. Cells are an evolutionary advance. (The beginning is thought to have been self-replicating molecules)




His ideas about information inside the cell.


Darwin did not think the cell was as simple as people claim he did. Many scientists had been investigating them while Darwin was still alive; Schneider published the first images of chromsomes in 1873 and Flemming published quite detailed pictures of cells in 1882, both while Darwin was still alive, so he would have known about these things.

In fact Darwin himself published in 1882, the last year of his life, an article on microscopy of plants, describing chloroplasts and how they move in the cell.




His failure to see the limits of variation of species


Lies - species getting differentiated has been observed both in the fossil record and in the lab. As an example, sheep are a separate species (can no longer be interbred) with a mouflon, which they were descended from.




His discounting of the Cambrian Explosion.


He openly said he didnt have an explanation. Whats the problem? Does anyone realy expect him to to have an answer for something which wasn't really understood until after his death?




His theory of homology


You're saying he's obviously wrong because he think similarities between species is evidence for evolution, while you say they are similar because god was lazy. I dont think i need to say more on this one :\




His theory of human beings evolving from apes.


Saying "I disagree with that" is not an argument, unless you can show why you think it was wrong. Also, both apes and humans evolved from an ape-like ancestor, humans didn't evolve from modern apes.




His theory of the tree of life. (no one has ever observed speciation)


What utter BULL.. more dishonsesty. Speciation has been observed! Sheep cant even mate with Mouflon




His rejection of biblical creation by God


"I disagree with Darwin, therefore he was wrong. No, I don't need any evidence to support my views."

Why would it matter even if he was wrong? how would that disprove 150 years of scientific discovery that back up evolution?

That creationism and evolution be given equal weight in education was “rather like starting genetics lectures by discussing the theory that babies are brought by storks”.

This article is pure trolling.





posted on Nov, 14 2009 @ 01:28 PM
link   
reply to post by dodadoom
 


Bach the poster? I didn't bash the poster i bashed the arguments made. The baseless arguments that are either lies or ignorant. You can call that bashing but they actually are ignorant if they say that a theory is not a fact or that something isn't proven because it "is just a theory". They don't understand the argument or the theory and yet seek to bash it and that is not right.



posted on Nov, 14 2009 @ 01:32 PM
link   
reply to post by Daniem
 

Trolling?
Thanks for your post!
I take it you don't know the difference between spirituality and religion either.
The rest of your post is just that, an opinion.
And we all have one. Like a you know what.....

Thanks again for yours! (opinion that is)
Star also for the well thought out post and for your time!




[edit on 14-11-2009 by dodadoom]



posted on Nov, 14 2009 @ 01:35 PM
link   
reply to post by ImaginaryReality1984
 

Very true, bashing bad, fire good! Star!

Excuse me if I took your post as bashing.
They become so common. My bad.
If you believe I bashed you, I appologize.
Fair enough?

Bash the info all you want.
You are certainly entitled to your opinion.
We are supposed to be conversing, not bashing anyway!
Good call IR!




[edit on 14-11-2009 by dodadoom]



posted on Nov, 14 2009 @ 01:38 PM
link   
reply to post by dodadoom
 


I wasn't bashing you. I was pointing out that you don't know what you're talking about, and suggested you go change that, if only to improve the quality of your arguments



posted on Nov, 14 2009 @ 01:46 PM
link   
reply to post by TheWalkingFox
 

Thanks!
But I can only post what he has done for me personally.
The article is what it is.
Once again you are entitled to your opinion about me and the article.

I will take your advice/opinion under consideration.
Star for that!
But really how would you know? No offense.
How would I know, I just posted an article.
My arguements are based on my belief, nothing more.
Why is that not understood? Or appreciated?

Why would your opinion be any more credible than anyones?
Including mine? We are all human.
Are you God?
Am I? Not that I know of.

Everything in life cannot be explained in a test tube.
Or with a mathmatical theory or even by a persons need for it to.


[edit on 14-11-2009 by dodadoom]



posted on Nov, 14 2009 @ 02:48 PM
link   
Here's a site that list way more that 10 things that creationists have gotten wrong... An Index to Creationist Claims. Feel free to look it over.



posted on Nov, 14 2009 @ 03:11 PM
link   
reply to post by NotTooHappy
 

Star for you!
Thanks for the linky wink!
I'll head on over and chek 'er out!

Thanks again and heres one for you, Pretty cool alt news articles too!
Tons of stuff for ats'er types!

Peace.
And, try to cheer up Nottoohappy!!

Oh, I just seen where you're from...no wonder,
I know what you mean.

After reading some of the articles on the link you posted,
they are clearly unhappy commentators!
What a pretty future huh?

Good luck and thanks again!


[edit on 14-11-2009 by dodadoom]






top topics



 
28
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join