Darwin is an idiot.

page: 7
40
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 6 2011 @ 12:22 PM
link   
LOL at all the Darwin worship going on in this thread,, however,, the point is that evolution itself is not the reason for evolving...has nothing to do with Christianity,, its funny how many people get trapped into this one or the other mindset.

The idea that life evolves just because it has too is kinda funny, did it just appear because it had too ??

Maybe, but what we see as "evolution" certainly is not from random "Life"...nothing random going on anywhere, sorry, and the evidence that Darwin was way off is getting larger by the day, in fact his ideas on the subject are just as retarded as the Christian "theories".




posted on Mar, 6 2011 @ 12:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by JohnnyTHSeed
reply to post by CandiceZ
 


You're right. If Darwin is so smart, then why is he DEAD.


LOL. classic Homer.

but seriously, Darwin is playing Darwinism in some other planet as we speak.



posted on Mar, 6 2011 @ 12:28 PM
link   
reply to post by InDeMioN
 



Originally posted by InDeMioN
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


You've clearly never read any of Darwin's works. He says that the mechanisms which control evolution are natural selection and sexual selection. Environment for survival and reproductive viability to pass on the traits.



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).


...and that's not random, that's the non-random selection of random mutations. The mutation itself (learn about mutations here) gives an advantage, but the situation selects for whether or not this advantage has any effects.



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)


Extremely simplified? It's an outright lie! Darwin never came up with the idea of having a fully formed eye arise in a single generation. Yet another red flag is up because this is yet another creationist stock argument.



Another thing ...only because I mentioned that Darwins theory is obviously total [profanity] I am no creationist ...


Except that it isn't...well, that word I censored for you.



am just stating that both of these theories have big flaws


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



and I have no clue as what to believe of evolution -


Try reading up on it.



posted on Mar, 6 2011 @ 12:43 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Mar, 6 2011 @ 12:51 PM
link   
i agree that darwin wasnt the smartest cookie in the jar, how many times will people debate this on ats?? theres alotta threads already that shed light on what kind of a person he was, and the supposed death bed confession he made..

many think he was racist as well..

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Mar, 6 2011 @ 12:55 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Mar, 6 2011 @ 12:56 PM
link   
You guys gave candice exactly what he wanted. Attention.



posted on Mar, 6 2011 @ 01:00 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Mar, 6 2011 @ 01:04 PM
link   
I think evolution is obvious and all around us. Much like how our brains learn things, our DNA also learns things and changes, or evolves to better advance and adapt ourselves to our surroundings.



posted on Mar, 6 2011 @ 01:09 PM
link   
Darwin never said we evolved from apes(i've heard that it was his father that came up with the theory anyway) but instead said that we had a common ancestor with them.We aren't pokemon where we evolve when we get to a certain stage.


The theory of evolution has been twisted around so much that those that believe in it are no better then the religious folk who believe in a theory that has changed over time to go along with new findings and yet couldn't prove it from day one.

Evolution or God!?!?! no one sees either so both are as bad as each other in my opinion and the only reason many people go along with the theory of evolution imo is because they don't like religion.........so evolution is the only theory they can get their heads around.



posted on Mar, 6 2011 @ 01:11 PM
link   
reply to post by Xen0m0rpH
 


Bingo! ...nail on the head.

Although, I wouldn't say new "species" necessarily.

Environmental niche is specific and surrounds you or any other semiotic creature. All sensing beings interpret the data that their senses pick up; and the constituent cells of our being interpret the data that they take in through their receptors. Adjustments are made when possible. When not, sayonara...either you move into a new niche or you go back into the "molecule pool".



posted on Mar, 6 2011 @ 01:13 PM
link   
reply to post by Anttyk47
 


He may of spent his life for science yet he was wrong........nice theory while it lasted though i guess.



posted on Mar, 6 2011 @ 01:14 PM
link   
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 

Charles Darwin quotes on God & religious beliefs



Another source of conviction in the existence of God, connected with the reason and not with the feelings, impresses me as having much more weight. This follows from the extreme difficulty or rather impossibility of conceiving this immense and wonderful universe, including man with his capacity of looking far backwards and far into futurity, as the result of blind chance or necessity. When thus reflecting I feel compelled to look to a First Cause having an intelligent mind in some degree analogous to that of man; and I deserve to be called a Theist.



posted on Mar, 6 2011 @ 01:16 PM
link   
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 


Ok ...I didin´t think you would agree so here is another question:

Darwins theory states that a species is not infuenced by its environment in evolution (because this would include some "intention" behind evolution) but rather the mutation gives the species an advantage in its environemnt and be superior to other species because of this.

So ..penguins can only stand on ice because they developed a system in which their arteiries and veins are entangled and thus cooling/warmig blood coming from the heart/leading away from the heart so their feet/legs won´t freeze.

According to Darwin they must have developed this system per coincidence in a environment where they could survive without it and then have traveled to the south pole afterwards because they were - by coincidence - able to survive there?

Wouldn´t it be much more logical if they had evolved there with this ability as response to their environment I ask you?



Extremely simplified? It's an outright lie! Darwin never came up with the idea of having a fully formed eye arise in a single generation. Yet another red flag is up because this is yet another creationist stock argument.


And DO NOT F****G LABEL me as an creatonist ...the world beeing createt by god in seven days is even harder to believe than Darwins basic approaches...
edit on 6-3-2011 by InDeMioN because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 6 2011 @ 01:21 PM
link   
reply to post by eNumbra
 

You stated,
"""If you understood evolution, you'd understand that there are no Transitional fossils because the various species were always in transition. Every fossil is a transitional fossil. """


Your belief would never stand up in Court,

A fossil is a bone of some organism that lived and died that is a fact.

A fossil is not proof of transition as you first have to know who its parents were to compare and secondly you would have to know whether or not it had any offspring it self to compare to.

So no fossils are NOT proof of transition.

Variation and adaptation do not create a major change in a species to note differences in bone structure.

As science has proved already species can only vary a slight amount and after time they tend to go back to their middle area of variation.

Ancient corn found in tombs still is corn.

Cows still birth cows even after all the recorded history.

Fossils are dead bones and nothing more.



posted on Mar, 6 2011 @ 01:22 PM
link   
reply to post by Cobra.EXE
 


You know, those threads are all full of crap. Hell, I personally debunked the idea that Darwin is a racist in one of the threads you linked.



posted on Mar, 6 2011 @ 01:32 PM
link   
reply to post by InDeMioN
 



Originally posted by InDeMioN
Ok ...I didin´t think you would agree so here is another question:


Of course I wouldn't agree with someone who is wrong.



Darwins theory states that a species is not infuenced by its environment in evolution (because this would include some "intention" behind evolution) but rather the mutation gives the species an advantage in its environemnt and be superior to other species because of this.


...no, Darwin said that there wasn't a causal relationship between mutation and environment, but that there was a selective relationship. If group A has a mutation that allows them to be resistant to colder temperatures and group B doesn't have this mutation, group B will be less likely to die.



So ..penguins can only stand on ice because they developed a system in which their arteiries and veins are entangled and thus cooling/warmig blood coming from the heart/leading away from the heart so their feet/legs won´t freeze.


Yep, that's about it.



According to Darwin they must have developed this system per coincidence in a environment where they could survive without it and then have traveled to the south pole afterwards because they were - by coincidence - able to survive there?


...no. That's not necessarily the case. What's more likely is that they could have gradually migrated from less cold climates. You may not be aware, but penguins don't only live in cold climates. There are a few species of warm climate penguins, one even living near the equator.



Wouldn´t it be much more logical if they had evolved there with this ability as response to their environment I ask you?


Only if you could demonstrate some sort of mechanism by which environment produced genetic changes.





Extremely simplified? It's an outright lie! Darwin never came up with the idea of having a fully formed eye arise in a single generation. Yet another red flag is up because this is yet another creationist stock argument.


And DO NOT F****G LABEL me as an creatonist ...the world beeing createt by god in seven days is even harder to believe than Darwins basic approaches...


I'm not saying that you're a creationist, and you don't have to shout. Temper, temper.

I'm saying that you're lying about what Darwin said. You're not even addressing that.



posted on Mar, 6 2011 @ 01:38 PM
link   
reply to post by ACTS 2:38
 



Originally posted by ACTS 2:38
reply to post by eNumbra
 

You stated,
"""If you understood evolution, you'd understand that there are no Transitional fossils because the various species were always in transition. Every fossil is a transitional fossil. """


Your belief would never stand up in Court,


Thankfully, science is determined by much more logical processes than the law is.



A fossil is a bone of some organism that lived and died that is a fact.


Nope, a fossil isn't actually bone. A fossil is comprised of minerals that have replaced the bone.



A fossil is not proof of transition as you first have to know who its parents were to compare and secondly you would have to know whether or not it had any offspring it self to compare to.


Except that a series of fossils is proof of a species-wide transition. If we have fossils of population A throughout a few hundred thousand years we have enough information to derive the idea of transition.



So no fossils are NOT proof of transition.


Except that they are.



Variation and adaptation do not create a major change in a species to note differences in bone structure.


Yes, they do.



As science has proved already species can only vary a slight amount and after time they tend to go back to their middle area of variation.


Except that they haven't. Science has shown that wide arrays of variation can be found and I've already posted the speciation links in this thread, so I'm not going to bother with that again.



Ancient corn found in tombs still is corn.


Um...citation?



Cows still birth cows even after all the recorded history.


Oooo...bad example. Domesticated cattle belongs to the genus Bos, seemingly all coming from the same ancestor...domesticated by humans.



Fossils are dead bones and nothing more.


Fossils are minerals which have replaced bone and they are proof of quite a bit.



posted on Mar, 6 2011 @ 01:48 PM
link   
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 


We should just stop arguing ...obviously you would quotewars with me the next 10 pages if I tried to but I have no intention to do this because in the end there would still be your opinion (that I am completely wrong and most likely retarded xD) and my opinion that there are flaws in Darwins theory which you disregard.

edit on 6-3-2011 by InDeMioN because: Tippgicht




posted on Mar, 6 2011 @ 01:53 PM
link   


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.

Evolution is a theory, theories have flaws written all over. I can sit here a pinpoint them 1 by 1. Evolution doesn't explain the origin of life. Scientist have been unable to prove that life can spring from nonliving molecules this is a fact...

Where are all the transitional fossils? 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. For an animal to evolve a fin to a limb is a HUGE step and logically isn't possible. 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.

There's more evidence that support creation then evolution. I recommend every evolutionist to read up on cambrian explosion.

It is evident to me that evolution is a religion more so than scientific fact. Evolutionist have FAITH on mere coincidences in events that's impossible to even occur. They have faith on scientific data that's base of a theory that's not even a fact.

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





top topics
 
40
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join