Evolution is stupid

page: 3
5
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 2 2012 @ 03:45 PM
link   
reply to post by boncho
 




Why do people actually encourage their kids to look up to people like this....

Probably for the same reason people make heroes out of celebrities and athletes. As a society, we have our scruples, and our priorities, thoroughly screwed up




posted on Oct, 2 2012 @ 03:52 PM
link   
reply to post by redtic
 




the theory of evolution is one of the most tested theories in our history


Actually no. Most tests would take millions of years to complete. I'm only aware of one, possibly two, tests observing evolution. One using bacteria and the other was a study of birds. I'm sure there are a few more, but that's not many. And in both cases the results are debatable if we're actually dealing with new species.

Picking up a fossil and saying well, it's a fossil, is not the same thing as a test of evolution. A test has to observe one species evolving into another species during the lifetime of the test.



posted on Oct, 2 2012 @ 03:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by redtic
Kent Hovind? Really? The simple truth of the matter is that his agenda is religion/bible/god couched is some pseudo-science, the evolutionists agenda *is* science - plain and simple. They have no other dog in the fight other than the fact that the theory is what the science supports.



they are human beings, and as such as subject to the same wants, desires and emotions as religious people- scientists are not robots.....



posted on Oct, 2 2012 @ 04:05 PM
link   
reply to post by tinfoilman
 


At any rate I seemed to have succeeded, my intention being only to suffice an apex of intelligent debate. I'm happy certainly not being a know it all here and finding interest in each comment.

Boncho
Good points


So it's easy to see most of you don't think evolution is stupid. How about the charges of confabulation or outright lies. I'm sure you all have your own examples. 1906 ring a bell ?
edit on 2-10-2012 by randyvs because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 2 2012 @ 04:06 PM
link   
reply to post by redtic
 



Look up "peer reviewed" and "scientific method" and then you tell me who should be trusted more. Sure egos get in the way and I'm not saying every scientist is a golden boy, but science is the closest thing we have to truth - the theory of evolution is one of the most tested theories in our history and the vast majority of the scientific community fully supports it. So, tell me again - who here should be more trusted?

I understand scientific method. I did a thread on it. I also know that more than one scientist has used and abused the peer review process, as well as falsify data. And that data still made it through the peer review process. Historically, more than one "outsider" has suffered outrageous ridicule from the scientific community for their theories. Theories we now accept as scientific fact.

There's a mountain of big money, and vested corporate and goverment interest in the status quo being what it is. Challenging that status quo is an uphill fight all the way, no matter how solid your evidence is. Add to that, that our sciences are constantly changing, and learning new things. What was preposturous yesterday, is fact today, and may very well be different tomorrow.



...the theory of evolution is one of the most tested theories in our history and the vast majority of the scientific community fully supports it.

Which is exactly why it should be questioned by the general public just as much as the idea of "God". Not thrown out, just questioned, like any other scientific theory.



posted on Oct, 2 2012 @ 04:19 PM
link   
reply to post by Klassified
 





Which is exactly why it should be questioned by the general public just as much as the idea of "God". Not thrown out, just questioned, like any other scientific theory.


I think that is the most pertinent thing I've read thus far.



posted on Oct, 2 2012 @ 04:26 PM
link   
reply to post by tinfoilman
 




A test has to observe one species evolving into another species during the lifetime of the test.


New species have been created by domesticated animal husbandry,

Domestic sheep were created by hybridisation, and no longer produce viable offspring with Ovis orientalis, one species from which they are descended. This is one event of macro evolution occuring, and other speciation events have been observed both in nature and labs.

The best-documented creations of new species in the laboratory were done with fruit flies. If you honestly want to read the evidence for this stuff, beacue you think science is a religion opposed to creation or whatever

Then go ahead and read it yourself: Experimental Evidence

Here is also a list if observed speciation events



posted on Oct, 2 2012 @ 04:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by tinfoilman
reply to post by redtic
 




the theory of evolution is one of the most tested theories in our history


Actually no. Most tests would take millions of years to complete. I'm only aware of one, possibly two, tests observing evolution. One using bacteria and the other was a study of birds. I'm sure there are a few more, but that's not many. And in both cases the results are debatable if we're actually dealing with new species.

Picking up a fossil and saying well, it's a fossil, is not the same thing as a test of evolution. A test has to observe one species evolving into another species during the lifetime of the test.


Sorry, couldn't come up with the right word there - of course I know it's been tested very little through observation. I think the better word may be scrutinized. The point is that many, many intelligent people have studied the theory rigorously and came to the conclusion that it's valid than have done the same for intelligent design.
edit on 2-10-2012 by redtic because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 2 2012 @ 04:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Klassified
reply to post by redtic
 



Look up "peer reviewed" and "scientific method" and then you tell me who should be trusted more. Sure egos get in the way and I'm not saying every scientist is a golden boy, but science is the closest thing we have to truth - the theory of evolution is one of the most tested theories in our history and the vast majority of the scientific community fully supports it. So, tell me again - who here should be more trusted?

I understand scientific method. I did a thread on it. I also know that more than one scientist has used and abused the peer review process, as well as falsify data. And that data still made it through the peer review process. Historically, more than one "outsider" has suffered outrageous ridicule from the scientific community for their theories. Theories we now accept as scientific fact.

There's a mountain of big money, and vested corporate and goverment interest in the status quo being what it is. Challenging that status quo is an uphill fight all the way, no matter how solid your evidence is. Add to that, that our sciences are constantly changing, and learning new things. What was preposturous yesterday, is fact today, and may very well be different tomorrow.


And that's your basis for saying that something like intelligent design should be on equal footing with evolution? The fact is that scientists are still studying and honing the theory of evolution and probably won't stop anytime soon.





...the theory of evolution is one of the most tested theories in our history and the vast majority of the scientific community fully supports it.

Which is exactly why it should be questioned by the general public just as much as the idea of "God". Not thrown out, just questioned, like any other scientific theory.



Of course it should be questioned - no one said it shouldn't. I encourage people to "think different" - we wouldn't be very far if people hadn't done so in the past. You just still can't put something like a theory of God, which has no scientific basis, up against the theory of evolution.



posted on Oct, 2 2012 @ 04:46 PM
link   
reply to post by redtic
 


Because evolution of a species as complex as ours is beyond our capabilities to observe (being the amount of time needed and all the contributing factors) the most compelling evidence that is likely to come about is genetic markers like tellomere fusion:

www.evolutionpages.com...


All great apes apart from man have 24 pairs of chromosomes. There is therefore a hypothesis that the common ancestor of all great apes had 24 pairs of chromosomes and that the fusion of two of the ancestor's chromosomes created chromosome 2 in humans. The evidence for this hypothesis is very strong


I think the biggest thing to remember though, is how other theories have been proven correct with evidence coming hundreds of years later, and in certain cases, even ones that were off the mark, were still close enough not to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

I don't know why evolution has to be attacked though, (as it is simply humans trying to understand their origins in a scientific manner) and admitting we know little is the first step that is made in the beginnings of science.

Claiming we know -by some method of faith- makes little sense. And trying to discount something when it isn't even exclusive to its own idea makes even less sense.

In other words, you can have evolution and god, they aren't mutually exclusive. Now if you want to be really fanatical and claim the world is 6-8000 years old, your going to run into some problems...

But evolution doesn't disprove those beliefs, about a 100 different areas of other science does...



posted on Oct, 2 2012 @ 04:49 PM
link   
reply to post by Daniem
 


Evidence is not the same thing as a scientific test. A speciation event is not the same as a scientific test. For example when you show up at a crime scene there can be plenty of evidence a murder occurred. But that doesn't mean you would say, the murder is the most tested murder in our history, just because you walked in an found a lot of evidence. The test and the evidence are two different things.

Also I never bother arguing about speciation because there is no scientific definition for the word species yet. Species Problem

What an animal can and can't mate with isn't really a good indicator of what a species is and isn't. For example polar bears and brown bears can mate. However, many biologists consider them a different species.

Also, some genetic mutations can lead to ring species. For example where species A and B can mate with each other so A and B must be the same species right? Also, species B and C can mate with each other so B and C must be the same species right? So, A, B, and C are the same species right? Except in some situations A cannot mate with species C. So A and C aren't the same species? How can A and C both be the same species as B, but be different species?

You'll come into these same type of problems when you start to look into the speciation of sheep and their karyotypes. It starts off seeming like a good idea only for you to find out it isn't actually. That it's wiser to consider them the same species. Because if you follow the results to their logical conclusion you end up with weird conclusions. Things like where some down syndrome people are no longer considered human but others are. It actually confuses things even more. So they're still looking for a better definition.

It's all just because the word species isn't defined and using what animals can and can't mate with each other is actually a very bad way of determining when speciation occurs. For example, how do you determine when a speciation event occurs in an asexual species?

So it's not that speciation events have or haven't occurred. It's just pointless to argue about them until the scientists actually pin down a definition. Until then, what we agree or disagree is a speciation boundary doesn't really mean anything. Our opinion may very well change once we do get a better definition.

Not that the debate isn't important. It's just that we don't have enough information to start having it yet. That'll have to wait until later.
edit on 2-10-2012 by tinfoilman because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 2 2012 @ 06:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by redtic

Originally posted by tinfoilman
reply to post by redtic
 




the theory of evolution is one of the most tested theories in our history


Actually no. Most tests would take millions of years to complete. I'm only aware of one, possibly two, tests observing evolution. One using bacteria and the other was a study of birds. I'm sure there are a few more, but that's not many. And in both cases the results are debatable if we're actually dealing with new species.

Picking up a fossil and saying well, it's a fossil, is not the same thing as a test of evolution. A test has to observe one species evolving into another species during the lifetime of the test.


Sorry, couldn't come up with the right word there - of course I know it's been tested very little through observation. I think the better word may be scrutinized. The point is that many, many intelligent people have studied the theory rigorously and came to the conclusion that it's valid than have done the same for intelligent design.
edit on 2-10-2012 by redtic because: (no reason given)


Well it's not that I don't believe in evolution. It's just due to the nature of evolution there wasn't much testing needed before we started to formulate the theory. The evidence was just kind of laying around already by the time we showed up.

And there have been plenty of tests where evolution has been observed. I just don't think it's the most tested theory ever. I think something like gravity probably holds the crown on that one lol.



posted on Oct, 2 2012 @ 07:28 PM
link   
reply to post by redtic
 

First, we need to realize that evolution does not by any means negate "intelligent design". The two really have nothing to do with each other. Evolution isn't about how life came to be. It is about how life evolved.

The real argument here is, was man created just as he is right now? Or did man evolve over a very long period of time to be what he is today? Although I am an atheist, I believe these two questions should definitely be examined equally. We don't have the definitive answer to either of these questions yet.



posted on Oct, 2 2012 @ 08:29 PM
link   
That really takes some yarbles to put up a thread about a video with more negative votes than ANY video I have EVER seen.

2,622 likes, 19,020 dislikes...

The thing that really amazes me is that the guy in the video (Kent Hovind) is RIGHT.

That tells me ONE thing: the propaganda that we call "Science", "Education", and MSM has been massively successful.

I would love to hear Randy's take on this guy and WHY he is so hated when he speaks nothing but truth.

Science and education are nothing but MASSIVE forms of mind control and those votes confirm this...

This is anything BUT stupid... This is a HUGE cover-up.

Knowing that so many actually BELIEVE the deception and fraud behind this thing makes me mad and I look at it just like I do 911 and the JFK murder.


“the biggest cover-up in the history of mankind is the history of mankind itself”


It would take days to begin to explain how much false evidence has been put forward as proof for Evolution. There was the Piltdown man fraud, there was the Orce man fraud, there was The Archaeoraptor Liaoningensis: or the Fake Dinosaur-bird ancestor, which turned out to be a fraud, and a big embarrassment for National Geographic Magazine.

There was the Nebraska man fraud, there was the Java man fraud, there was the Neanderthal man fraud. This could go on and on, and the reason for this, is because as soon as they think they found the missing link, the Evolutionist bring out their big brass marching band. Yet as soon as they find out that the evidence in question is a fraud, everything is hushed up, and you never hear any more about it. Which leaves everyone thinking they have the theory nailed down.

About every few years they come out with the new missing link, only to find out the link is either another species or a fraud. And this happens over, and over, and over, and almost no one ever questions this, and joe public just believes what ever the news media tells them.

What part of Evolution is a lie?


"...scientists who see an intelligent force at work in nature are being fired from their jobs. ...mention "intelligent design" today and your career is over. Why are "secularists" so afraid of intelligent design?

Because they're funded by the Illuminati, (Rockefellers, Rothschilds etc.) who are Satanists. Satanists fear that acceptance of this "intelligence" will interfere with the makeover they're giving humanity. They think they are God.

Science - The Illuminati Religion and Mind Control Tool for the Masses


"The model of human prehistory built-up by scholars over the past two centuries is sadly and completely wrong, and a deliberate tool of disinformation and mind control. ...they demonstrate a systematic destruction of proofs that show another reality than that the official story. Falsifications and even destruction of such proofs has been common for more than two hundred years." LINK


It has been said that if you repeat a lie often enough, people will believe it as fact. You even believe it yourself. It is amazing how gullible people can be. Take, as an example, the “fact” of evolution.

One of the most prestigious scientists in the world, Dr. Paul LeMoine, an editor of “L’Encyclopedie Francais,” wrote, “evolution is a fairy tale for adults.”

Evolutionist Francis Crick, one of the world’s most prestigious biologists and co-discoverer of DNA, examined the possibilities of a cell coming into existence by chance on this Earth and concluded that it was not possible.

Evolutionist Sir Fred Hoyle of Cambridge University, one of the most noted astronomers and mathematicians in the world, stated, “the notion that not only biopolymers but the operation programme of a living cell could be arrived at by chance in a primordial organic soup here on the Earth is evidently nonsense of a high order.”

He concluded that life would never have originated by chance in 20 billion years.

In October 1980, at a worldwide meeting of evolutionists in Chicago, Dr. Stephen Jay Gould of Harvard University and Dr. Nils Eldredge of the American Museum of Natural History said that it has long been a “trade secret” of paleontologists that transitional forms do not exist; that missing links do not exist.

Dr. T.N. Tahmisian, a physiologist for the Atomic Energy Commission, said, “scientists who go about teaching that evolution is a fact of life are great con men, and the story they are telling may be the greatest hoax ever.”

Now this “lie,” “fairy tale” and “hoax” is still being taught as “fact” in our public schools, and they call it “science?” 

Evolution is built on a lie



posted on Oct, 2 2012 @ 08:45 PM
link   
I find most people drift toward evolution without thinking clearly. Of course most will defend evolution to the death because the alternative is creation and if God actually exists then there is accountability.

I blew a teacher away when I was 8 before I was ever a Christian with some questions she couldn't answer. The next day we shifted to medieval times instead of evolution.

Why? because she couldn't teach something that made no sense. If an 8 year old can find evolution stupid then what the heck is wrong with our adults?

To defend your own belief in evolution you have to go through the process of everything coming from a single cell that formed in a big bang of nothing from nothing in nothing (because space didn't exist).

Now if this is what you truley believe don't you ever 'DARE' tell off a Christian for having 'faith' in a superior being if your faith exceeds theirs.



posted on Oct, 2 2012 @ 09:24 PM
link   
Is this thread supposed to be serious or satire?



posted on Oct, 2 2012 @ 09:32 PM
link   
I'm finding his humour actually condescending. He makes good points at picking on scientific Theories, but those theories are what is making us progress further in our own understanding of the universe and life itself. Unlike the blind faith creationist bind themselves to which is an intellectual dead end.

My two cents



posted on Oct, 2 2012 @ 10:51 PM
link   
I stopped watching when he said there was no reason for all of the higher elements (all elements after hydrogen) to have formed. Science books he says he's read.



posted on Oct, 2 2012 @ 10:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by RealSpoke
Is this thread supposed to be serious or satire?


That's exactly what I'm thinking.

I can't take Kent Hovind seriously enough to actually have a debate.



posted on Oct, 2 2012 @ 11:37 PM
link   
Yes OP, man was created by one of Adam's ribs. It all makes sense now! Let's not try to continue to evolve our ideas or ourselves, and let's base everything off a book that was written thousands of years ago! Hah! Praise the lord!




top topics
 
5
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join