Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Darwin is an idiot.

page: 6
40
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 6 2011 @ 10:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by ChemBreather
Yea, Darwin's and Huxley's etc was a bunch of crazy eugenisist inbreeding maniacs..
Think of all this crap is taught in schools...


you have successfully shown that you can be an asset to the republican party with your quick wit and exhaustive research. it would be beneficial for you to apply for some type of communication position at your local GOP hq's




posted on Mar, 6 2011 @ 10:54 AM
link   
reply to post by CandiceZ
 


good job , now take one more big gulp of the cool-aide or is that jesus juice for you



posted on Mar, 6 2011 @ 10:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by MidnightTide
A creationist thread?

Never thought I would be able to use this picture





Well, since there are people here who are religious, will pose this question. If we started with Adam and Eve - and they had kids - who did they have children with? Are we all the product of incest?




No, I am not religious but I believe in God. Religions are a big pain but God, I believe, is real enough.


God creates and this is the big bang

Then God installs what we call evolution as His mechanism of choice to insure that the universe grows and develops in the intended manner. This includes everything from the simplest elements up to the most complex.

When it comes to man God prepares the physical vehicles by first seeing to it that primates tend towards the desired direction. When these are possessed of large enough brains they are ready for human souls. This is remembered by religions as the "Adam and Eve" story.

Adam and Eve were indeed the first human beings because they were the first to have actual human souls. This is why Cain could "go into the land of Nod and find a wife". There was no incest as some report. There was already a world full of quasi-humans waiting. Read Genesis carefully and see that the world was already stocked with animal men/women when Adam and Eve came along. Then combine the new seed with a little more evolution and there you have it.

And so it continues. The great difficulty and the reason we have such disagreement is to do with human nature. We are predisposed to conflict and competitiveness so religions feel that they must be defending their beliefs against something insidious all the time. Because of this they cannot agree lest they fall to Satan. Also if any part of the Bible is shown to be wrong then the whole of their belief is threatened. This is silly and immature but true.

Religions must free themselves of fear before these kinds of arguments will go away.



posted on Mar, 6 2011 @ 11:01 AM
link   
reply to post by ag893
 


"Some people are just too sad for words"

Ironic. Someone entertaining the mythical existence of "Heaven and Hell," yet will dismiss anything from a great scientific mind, presented with evidence and facts. You have taken the words right out of my mouth. I enjoyed reading your post. It's so full of facts and constructive information. In fact, it makes me feel extra warm and tingly inside, knowing that there are people as blissful in their ignorance as you are.

Now here's where the fun part comes in. Please provide your scholarly sources pertaining to the existence of Heaven and Hell. When you fail at that as well, let me know. I will then proceed to school you in why Darwin had (and still does) infinitely more credibility than you ever will.

If the bubble of ignorance you seem to reside in, ever pops, and you decide to join us here in the "real" world, maybe you will be able to think rationally and possibly even devise a theory that disproves Darwin. Until then, don't come preaching your biased religious crap and using it to slander a man who's ideas changed people's way of thinking, and who's thoughts are still entertained some 130 years after his death.

Thank goodness for Darwin, otherwise we'd all be thinking like you right now.





p.s., You may want to look into taking even a basic Anthropology course. I'm sure you'd learn a lot.
edit on 6-3-2011 by plexus92 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 6 2011 @ 11:02 AM
link   
reply to post by CandiceZ
 


Anyone who uses the word IS to describe a trait of someone who is dead seems like an idiot to me... Perhaps you meant to say that Darwin ( and of course that other guy who came up with the same conclusion around the same time independently of Darwin) WAS an idiot.

It's really important to ensure no idiocy in your own statements when you are hailing the idiocy of another.

Otherwise you lose all sorts of credibility when it comes to being able to determine what an idiot actually is. I mean if you can't see it in yourself, whats to make us think you can accurately detect it in others?



posted on Mar, 6 2011 @ 11:10 AM
link   



Correct, it is only a theory. Only a theory. This theory is taught as factual in school. That annoys me.


O.K. Let's get one thing straight about the word "theory." In the scientific community the word theory is what one or more hypotheses become once they have been verified and accepted to be true. A theory is an explanation of a set of related observations or events based on proven hypotheses and verified multiple times by detached groups of researchers.

Show me one single solitary peer reviewed journal on creationism/ID. It really annoys me when someone does not understand the true definition of the word theory.



posted on Mar, 6 2011 @ 11:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by eNumbra
reply to post by Xen0m0rpH
 


Yes and no, every fossil could be classified as a different species as much as a man with 8 toes could be classified as a new species.

Being in a constant state of transition leaves no definite black/white border, but obvious stages of development where by if looked at skeleton by skeleton over the billions, the changes would be obvious.


Exactly... And these changes are obvious... And indeed you could call those ethnic groups which live in isolation for so long a shade different from another... For example, the Irish race is quite different from the scandavian race, and even more different from the Italian race and further still the South African races.

Indeed each one of these is a different abstract class of the homo sapien species.

They don't have to be different species, because they all share the same basic elements at that level... Hence the entire categorization system based on similarities....

Everything is indeed in transition, and we do indeed catgeorize these differences in science at more granular levels, for example in humans, we speak of race or culture to capture these more subtle variations.

Think of the different species that have been classified, simply as crests on waves, these are only the peaks that that are being classified, much like we classify the tissue in your heart different from the tissue in your kidneys, though it's all tissue in the end.



posted on Mar, 6 2011 @ 11:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by ChemBreather
Yea, Darwin's and Huxley's etc was a bunch of crazy eugenisist inbreeding maniacs..
Think of all this crap is taught in schools...

I'm amazed at how you can ignore all the mounds of evidence that is thrown at you and continue to post in these threads with your uneducated opinion and speculation.



posted on Mar, 6 2011 @ 11:18 AM
link   
I didn´t read all the pages of this thread so I don´t know if this was mentioned before but all of you guys advocating darwins theory of evolution are aware of the fact that he states evolution is not controlled by anything and happens because of totally random mutations which would grant an species a advantage over his competitors and would let him be the fittest of the survivals (for example a duck wouldn´t have aquired the webbing of feet just because of swimming much and improving this way but because of an random mutation and thus beeing superior to the other ducks which would than have perished afterwards).

This somehow leads the avatar of madnessinmysoul ad absurdum because there is no gradual change in darwins theorie ...no constant evolving of the species ...darwin states that in one moment an unicellular organism has no senses at all and after an random mutation has a fully developed eye in the next generation for example (this is extremly simplified of course)

Another thing ...only because I mentioned that Darwins theory is obviously total bull# I am no creationist ... am just stating that both of these theories have big flaws and I have no clue as what to believe of evolution - it is funny how everyone gets into a straigth black/white thinking like "he argues about Darwins theory so he has to be a creationis (which are obviously easy to ridicule)"



edit on 6-3-2011 by InDeMioN because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 6 2011 @ 11:23 AM
link   

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.


1) Darwin was brilliant for his time.
2) Today's monkeys and today's cucumber share common DNA, that's a testable FACT.
3) What about horses?
4) We have hundreds (possibly thousands) of transitional fossils


In short, your opinion is based on a lack of knowledge.
LINK



posted on Mar, 6 2011 @ 11:30 AM
link   
reply to post by CandiceZ
 


if i could point out
1. we have a horribly incomplete fossil record as of 2001 after we had been excavating fossils for almost 200 years and actualy studing them it was said that we have only found between five and ten percent of all fossils on earth.
2.relativly speaking few animals actualy fossilize and several of those that do can actualky be destroyed before they are found
3. we had never found a chimpanzee fossil until the lat 90s but no one ever argued that those dont exist



posted on Mar, 6 2011 @ 11:33 AM
link   
reply to post by CandiceZ
 





I think Intelligent Design is the theory I would most agree with.


Intelligent design does the same thing as creationism...it fills a gap in knowledge with a "designer" who's intelligent, even though we have ZERO objective evidence supporting that claim.



posted on Mar, 6 2011 @ 11:34 AM
link   
Man I'm glad I have my grade 12 biology . Evolution is still a theory but it's the dest damn theory there is .



posted on Mar, 6 2011 @ 11:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by OpusMarkII
Man I'm glad I have my grade 12 biology . Evolution is still a theory but it's the dest damn theory there is .


A scientific theory is the highest classification you can reach in science, it means that every claim you make has to be backed up by objective evidence, and nothing can "debunk" your theory...only then will they classify it as theory. It doesn't mean the same as the word "theory" we use in our daily lives



posted on Mar, 6 2011 @ 11:54 AM
link   
reply to post by CandiceZ
 


[sarcasm]

I know right, and what's all this science crap that's going around these days. I mean these scientists want us to believe in things like DNA. What is DNA? I've never seen it, have you! Same goes for cells! There are no tiny little microscopic things crawling around inside me. Oh sure they have photos of what they claim are cells but they've never presented one bit of conclusive evidence that would convince me, and I have an opinion!

[/sarcasm]

I'm late coming into this thread but as has no doubt been pointed out to you

1) There are dozens of examples of transitional fossils

2) Darwin is not the end all be all authority on Evolution and the theory he proposed has only grown stronger with time.



crap unless you can prove it yourself, otherwise your going on someone else's PERCEPTION of the world's data.


What are you a solipsist? I mean seriously this is just stupid. Are YOU personally going to go out into space to confirm the Earth is a sphere? Are YOU personally going to dive to the bottom of the sea to find new species? Are YOU personally going to confirm that germs, not demons or humors, cause disease? Relying on yourself is subjective but relying on a consortium of scientists building on the work of hundreds of others all peer reviewing each other's work, that's as close to objective as we can get. Is it perfect? No. Does it work? Yes, consider the computer you're typing on, the vaccinations that helped wipe out diseases that would have otherwise killed you at a young age, and the fact that you are likely taller than your ancestors (that's called Evolution).

By the way the genetic evidence alone, without a single transitional fossil, would still prove evolution adequately. Not to mention the morphological and behavioral similarities that coincide with the genetic. Have you never looked at a Chimpanzee and wondered why they look so similar to us? They also behave similar to us, for instance Chimps have been known to fashion crude spears and go to war for land against rival groups of Chimps.

Science may not have every detail of Evolution correct but what are you proposing as an alternative? That all animals were created by a deity through divine magic? Where is your evidence? Or is there a third option?



posted on Mar, 6 2011 @ 11:58 AM
link   
reply to post by CandiceZ
 

Sorry, I have not read the whole thread to know whether someone has pointed out that the title is all wrong.
It should have been Darwin was an idiot, because he's long dead, you know. And no, I don't think he was an idiot, quite the contrary actually. He gave us a sound scientific theory on how life evolves over time.
edit on 6/3/2011 by WalterRatlos because: grammar and spelling and syntax



posted on Mar, 6 2011 @ 12:06 PM
link   
reply to post by HunkaHunka
 

I believe it would be better not to call nations and nationalities a race. There is only one race, biologically speaking, and that is the human race. Yes, we are not all the same and we exhibit certain traits and differences, but we are all one race, the human race. Just my 2 EuroCents.



posted on Mar, 6 2011 @ 12:10 PM
link   
Darwin is an idiot? So let me guess, you think the Earth is just under 10,000 years old and was made by an invisible old guy with a beard in six days too, right?

I love how people immediately think they have disproved Darwin when they pull out a hole in the theory of evolution. There's holes in almost every scientific theory, but that's the beauty of science, discovering new things that bridge the gaps.



posted on Mar, 6 2011 @ 12:17 PM
link   
post removed for serious violation of ATS Terms & Conditions



posted on Mar, 6 2011 @ 12:20 PM
link   

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.


i suggest you read "of bears and whales", Darwins work is excellent, and i think after a little research that you would be able to understand his theories based on observation. T the Galapagos islands were hugely indicative of the "evolution" hypotheses. i have personally always been evolving, ever since the creation of time itself.





new topics

top topics



 
40
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join