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.


Darwin is an idiot.

page: 16
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in


posted on Mar, 7 2011 @ 04:48 PM
reply to post by Semicollegiate

Humans have voluntary breath control, this enables speech. Animals have reflexive breath control.

That is incorrect. Any terrestrial animal that can swim has voluntary breath control i.e. dogs and monkeys. Aquatic mammals like whales have reflexive breath control but even that can be argued to be semi-voluntary.

posted on Mar, 7 2011 @ 04:50 PM
reply to post by HunkaHunka

Not at all... just saw that picture a few days ago and found it sort of humorous so I figure I'd share!

posted on Mar, 7 2011 @ 04:54 PM
:bnghd: :bnghd: :bnghd:

edit on 7-3-2011 by CandiceZ because: because Darwin IS an idiot!!

posted on Mar, 7 2011 @ 04:57 PM
reply to post by CandiceZ

Yep, that's about the sum total of all you can say against Darwin. Beat your head against a very sturdy wall that's been set up to show that he was a pretty damn brilliant man.

posted on Mar, 7 2011 @ 05:09 PM
reply to post by samaka

Originally posted by samaka

Evolution doesn't have any flaws in it. Please, direct me to a single flaw. And creationism isn't a theory.

Evolution doesn't have any flaws in it you say? That kind of made me chuckled a bit.

...not in its basic premises. Sure, on the fine details any theory is going to have its flaws.

Evolution is a theory, theories have flaws written all over. I can sit here a pinpoint them 1 by 1.

I'm going to put this symbol:
whenever I see a tired or useless argument.

Evolution doesn't explain the origin of life.

Evolution explains biodiversity. Does stellar fusion have to explain the origin of planetoids? Didn't think so. Theories are narrow fields of study.

The field of study relating to the origin of life is referred to as abiogenesis.

Scientist have been unable to prove that life can spring from nonliving molecules this is a fact...

Incorrect, there have been all sorts of experiments that give credence to the idea that have been repeated ad nauseum.

Where are all the transitional fossils?

Don't you have basic access to Wiki?

Sure you can me show a pretty picture of a fish evolving to reptile to mammal and say each species of fossils is in transitional but that is highly false.

I'm sorry, but evolution doesn't happen in such sweeping manners. And yes, each species is a transition. It is called genetic mutation. You and I each have somewhere in the area of 180 mutations. 180 bits of genetic code that are different from our parents in some way.

For an animal to evolve a fin to a limb is a HUGE step and logically isn't possible.

Except that it isn't and Tiktaalik is a great example of it.

So tell me where are transitional fossils from the animal evolving because it would take more then 4 - 5 species in the evolution chain to get to the next phase.

Just because DNA mutates doesn't mean it's evolution. There isn't any evidence of humans DNA mutating even though humans live in different climates around the world.

...yes, there is. There's even a thread in this very subforum about it. And again, we have 180ish mutations each. There is no such thing as reproduction without mutation.

Oh, and skin color. That's sort of evidence of mutation. Then there's sickle cells. Sickle cell anemia is a great example of mutation that spreads.

There's more evidence that support creation then evolution.

Prove it.

I recommend every evolutionist to read up on cambrian explosion.

No clue what an 'evolutionist' is. Is it something like a "F=ma-ist"? And I've read up on the Cambrian explosion, great support for evolution there.

It is evident to me that evolution is a religion more so than scientific fact.

Nope, you're wrong. It's verified scientific fact that is backed up by 150 years of scientific research.

Evolutionist have FAITH on mere coincidences in events that's impossible to even occur.

Straw man.

They have faith on scientific data that's base of a theory that's not even a fact.

How is it faith when that scientific data can be independently verified.

Evolution is both a theory and a fact. You clearly don't know what a 'theory' is.

Evolutionist like to believe that 2 very big rocks width the perfect dimensions going at the perfect speed at the perfect angle colliding at the perfect time in perfect location in space that formed the perfect earth that's at the perfect distance, rotating the earth perfectly while orbiting perfectly around the sun..... I literally can on, but you get my point...

Really big straw man.

Please, put down the Kent Hovind videos and crack open a college level biology book.

posted on Mar, 7 2011 @ 05:12 PM
reply to post by ShakeNBake

Evolution doesn't occur to a single organism. Evolution is a phenomenon that occurs on the population level, it is a fact of population genetics.

It's not Pokemon.

posted on Mar, 7 2011 @ 05:19 PM
reply to post by bootsnspurs33

Originally posted by bootsnspurs33
reply to post by Anttyk47
I'm not sure where you got your information, but you really should check your fact's first, other wise you look like an uninformed or uneducated fool. Darwin was NOT a scientist, he was simply a philosopher, (read "The origin of the species" i mean really read it, including the COMPLETE title.)

I'm sorry, but he actually conducted scientific field work. Since when do philosopher participate in field biology?

also he was a racist,

Wrong. Wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong. So wrong that I've actually rebutted this point in recent memory. He was an abolitionist at the height of British imperial power...not exactly a racist attitude.

& a sexist.

A bit. Not that it's excusable, but the guy was relatively in favor of equality of the sexes compared to most of his contemporaries. He most certainly held a great degree of respect for his wife.

Some other uninformed or uneducated fool

Personal attacks! Yay!

posted that "we dont see transitional species because we are all transitional species". Really? Really? That's what you came to the table with?

Well, it's scientific fact...compared to a personal attack followed by aggressive dismissal.
Or is that all you come to the table with?

We all have genetic mutations, that all classifies us as a transition.

Making a statement that is that, well, that SILLY should have him or her hiding in shame.

Um...nope. Scientific facts ain't silly.

Does one individual JUST wake up one morning and he's different, what magic wand was used to make him different, does this "magic moment" just happen to individuals or whole species?

Nope, that difference occurs quite early on in the reproductive cycle. It's something you're born with. You, me, everyone else on this board? We all have mutations. That makes us different. We're all transitions.

Is your magic wand "billons & billons of years"?

No magic wand needed. Billions and billions of years merely allow for far more change. We can observe changes in some species within our lifetimes because those species have incredibly short reproductive cycles.

Evolution is NOT science, it is a philosophy, it HAS no scientific evedince to support it,

What? I'm sorry, but this quick search shows that there's all sorts of scientific evidence within the medical communtiy alone to support evolution.

those clinging desperately to it do so simply to avoid acknowledgement of a Creator, again, it is a philosophy that has to be accepted on faith, LIKE most religions.

Wrong. And stating your wrong position repeatedly won't make it right.

Evolution has nothing to do with the existence of any deity. Most people who accept evolution? Religious individuals, simply because they outnumber non-religious individuals.

posted on Mar, 7 2011 @ 05:20 PM
Since this topic has been arguing about Darwin's ideas I would also like to point out the genius of Darwin's methodology. Even if you may not agree with Darwin's conclusions if you have actually looked at his work, you will see that the methods he used to reach those conclusions are absolutely flawless. That alone should prove the brilliance of this great man.

posted on Mar, 7 2011 @ 05:22 PM
reply to post by ACTS 2:38

Says the person who doesn't understand what the hell a 'species' is or what evolution is.

What is the barrier between small changes and great changes? I keep asking this, nobody answers it. What is the barrier between micro and macro?

posted on Mar, 7 2011 @ 05:25 PM
reply to post by Ashyr

Look, more people who argue against evolution without knowing what the hell it is!

Originally posted by Ashyr
reply to post by CandiceZ

cant agree more,

Please, for the love of the future of humanity, just read some basic biology.

these people seem to not see the blatant contradictions. the stupid statement "OVER A LONG PERIOD OF TIME ALL OF A SUDDEN!", that's not what people say. This is called a 'straw man' argument.

2 monkeys give birth to a human,

Also not what people say. Unless this is a troll. Not sure if serious.

any proof of evolution. would still be continuing. so what monkeys only popped out humand for a certain period of time. and over a long period of time these SMALL changes happend. oh no its adaption. no wait. its so small the mutation over millions of years... COMON!> get out of here.

You do realize that none of this demonstrates an understanding of what the science actually says, right? Can you please show me where any credible evolutionary biologist has said any such thing?

hahah. its like this. u put a pen to paper with a stop watch and a keen eye and you say.

HAS IT CHANGED YET? no.... HAS IT CHANGED YET? HAS IT CHANGED YET?........NO, that's another straw man. Pens and papers are unlike life. They don't reproduce, there's no mutation in genetic code.

OOOOOOOOOO look it changed... "ALL OF A SUDDEN" so its not over millions of years. it wasnt and now it is. thats all a sudden. so u add lots of these up and u have "EVOLUTION" hahahah what a crock.

Evolution happens gradually and sometimes a lot less gradually.

the only think i think thats close to what people are saying is.
adaptation. survival of the fittest as in . adapt or die.
harsher climates. new surroundings. new ways of life. adapt or die.! pretty much.
a animal will grow to the size of its environment.

...that's evolution. The big animals die off, the smaller ones survive and reproduce, passing on the genes which allow for smaller sizes.

posted on Mar, 7 2011 @ 05:39 PM

Originally posted by Xcalibur254
Since this topic has been arguing about Darwin's ideas I would also like to point out the genius of Darwin's methodology. Even if you may not agree with Darwin's conclusions if you have actually looked at his work, you will see that the methods he used to reach those conclusions are absolutely flawless. That alone should prove the brilliance of this great man.

Very true.

The HMS Beagle voyage was between 1831 and 1832, and On the Origin of the Species wasn't published until 1859. He spent 20 years crafting his ideas. Utter brilliance.

posted on Mar, 7 2011 @ 05:44 PM

Originally posted by CandiceZ
Darwin is an idiot. A monkey and a cucumber are cousins? Right, and what about the evolution of the horse? Species don't evolve from other species, there has NEVER been a transitional fossil of ANY species from one to another, even from CRO-MAGNON MAN to HOMOSAPIEN. And don't believe this "facts are the worlds data" crap unless you can prove it yourself, otherwise your going on someone else's PERCEPTION of the world's data. --- "Listen to everything, believe nothing, unless you can prove it''

Il probably get grief for this or ignored even, but its my opinion. The guy didnt know what he was talking about.

Is this another attempt to impose religious dogma on non-believers?


posted on Mar, 7 2011 @ 05:56 PM

Originally posted by Anttyk47
Add a billion years, and we all have the same "Mother" Therefore we have cucumber cousins.

So much for being against cannibalism

I think maybe it seems too complex for some to even try and understand what Darwin was talking about. I think many just hear whats in between the lines and go from "single cell blob to human" and freak out.
You don't have to subscribe to it. But at least try and read and understand what he was saying. In the end if it makes sense, you still don't have to agree with it. But at least see where he got his ideas from.

If anything, you have to at least agree that we are made up of cells. Those cells started somewhere as a single unit by themselves. It started somewhere with ONE.

posted on Mar, 7 2011 @ 06:04 PM
Can I just clear this up please -

I am NOT religious at all. I think religion is the mother of all conspiracies and a form of control. Although I dont have a problem with people who are religious (before you all beat me with a stick.) unless they try to force their views. I do feel quite sorry for the deeply religious though.
I am not a Creationist. Like I have said before, I agree mostly with the concept of Intelligent Design.
I do not agree with Darwin's theory. That is it.

posted on Mar, 7 2011 @ 06:23 PM
reply to post by iterationzero
I am AMAZED at the sheer volume of words you've used, to demonstrate your lack of knowledge, Darwin's 1st year @ Edinborough he jumped around so much they almost made him take it again (anatomy,geology,& "beetle collecting" year 2, he called his doldrom (wasn't satisfied w/ his studies). year 3, theology & NATURAL history. He did NOT have a degree in natural philosophy, he was called a philosopher because he studied theology. It is also VERY clear IF you would read his book instead of just saying you have that he considered the different human races as being either more or less evolved than others w/ blacks being almost sub human to him. As for there being evidence for & of evolution, only if you are DELIBERATELY trying to decieve other's or have been decieved by others by switching from micro-evolution to macro-evolution as it suits you. Now, i'm sure you'll come back w/ yet another meaningless tirade full of verbage and empty of intelligence or you will resort to name calling, your mindless blather bores me, & either way you'll still be wrong.

posted on Mar, 7 2011 @ 06:28 PM
reply to post by GenerationXisMarching

"even they came from one single celled organism"

Question: Where did this one single celled organism come from?

posted on Mar, 7 2011 @ 07:09 PM
Would like to add my two cents on the matter of evolution if I may. Religious people (as I am one) believe that material things such as humans may have evolved. However, we also believe that the human spirit has always been a human spirit. Spirit is always the same and does not evolve. Darwin may have been aware of material things that evolve however, he was ignorant as to spiritual side of things.

posted on Mar, 7 2011 @ 07:13 PM
reply to post by GunzCoty

I have heard several theories on the origins of cell life, but I am not familiar enough with any of them to go in to detail.

I think the most mainstream scientific theory states that life pre-dates cells, and cells were developed after life began. However, years ago I did skim through an article that explored evidence that abiotic, or non living, cells may predate life. This article is not as detailed as the one I would like to find, but it may be of interest

I could believe that inorganic cells became inhabited by life, which then developed its own cell membrane. I hope someone with real knowledge on the matter can set me straight.

posted on Mar, 7 2011 @ 07:22 PM
reply to post by Theophorus

Darwin wasn't ignorant of it, he wasn't interested in it. That is best left to philosophers.

posted on Mar, 7 2011 @ 07:31 PM
reply to post by Dendro

Darwin wasn't ignorant of it, he wasn't interested in it. That is best left to philosophers.

Darwin attended Christ's College Cambridge to become a minister. He was obsessed with it.

new topics

top topics

<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in