Evolution backed up by Hoaxes and Desperate Lies

reply to post by Rychwebo

No way can you be serious about that.

Wella wuz, still am, seeing your post didn't change that.

Originally posted by Grimpachi

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by 1nf1del

 

We've had...what? 50 years? 50 years to attempt to recreate the conditions by which life first formed. Because only in the last 50 or so years have we really had anything close to a clear understanding of what those conditions were. The first key to successfully completing that sort of process is having the maturity to recognize that the process being recreated first happened over a course of thousands and thousands of years. Do you really expect us to recreate it in less than 100? Haha. Clearly, you are the expert we have all been waiting for.

I really wonder what will happen the day when scientists actual succeed at creating life in the laboratory from amino acids. I wonder what will the creationists say then. There will probably be a great many that simply deny it some would do so if it was done right in front of them.

Makes me wonder if some of the anti science people are fighting so hard trying to keep those experiments from happening because they fear success.

You can only get proteins from organic material, only living organisms create proteins, you need those proteins to create life, so maybe you can see the conundrum here?

reply to post by Murgatroid


The fact that he only had a degree in theology does not mean the man had no interest in science. Throughout the mans whole academic career he showed interest in biology and its various branches. Many of the greatest minds were drop outs and some of greatest discoveries came from private study.

I see no reason why one would use the fact that he had no degree as a way of trying to discredit his observations. The observations he made which were correct were observed by many of his colleagues like Alfred Russel Wallace and August Weismann.

Not to mention that over a hundred years later the vast majority of scientists (who have a plethora of degrees unlike Darwin) have confirmed his observations and have greatly expanded on them.

reply to post by Murgatroid

While you're laughing remember this...

YOU are the one who's believing what TPTB are telling you.

THAT is what I call laughable.

When, where and what did I say I believed anything? Making stuff up seems to be the last ditch effort of those who cannot quite think for themselves, right after they immediately stray in to ad hom territory of course. What a sure sign of one perhaps too scared to face facts.

So, explain to me how a sermon makes a good source for evidence?

Originally posted by Murgatroid
reply to post by Blarneystoner

 

Are you just making stuff up as you go?

Nah bro, that would be the way the evolutionists roll with all the "Hoaxes and Desperate Lies" remember?

Stooping to that level is totally unnecessary when you have the truth on your side.

Very nice job destroying your own credibility BTW...

When analyzing the writings of Darwin, it is insightful to keep in mind that he has not been trained as a scientist, but as a clergyman. Darwin, as theology-student-turned-naturalist, writes to make disciples of his scientific “gospel”. Source

Darwin was a theology student. He was not a scientist. He was, however, able to talk his way into opportunities through which he hoped to present himself to others as a naturalist. Darwin allowed his new-formed faith in man, materialism, and process to justify irrationality, shoddy scholarship, and wild speculation.

Once in the field, his lack of training and his inability to draw reasonable conclusions from his observations became apparent. This is why many followers of his theory of evolution must ignore the actual research of Darwin during the voyage of the Beagle and elsewhere, since so much of his work in places like the Galapagos Islands has been discredited.

What I Teach My Children About Charles Darwin

It would surprise many to know that Charles Darwin, the founder of modern evolutionary theory, was not a scientist but a theologian. Darwin only had a divinity degree and no formal training in the sciences. Yet, the staunch evolutionists who make fun of theologians using science to defend creation would never criticize the great Darwin on the grounds that he was a mere theologian.

Darwin Only Had a Theology Degree

You don't seem to get it.. bro.... but I didn't expect you would.

The veracity of the evolution of species really has nothing to do with Darwin's education. In fact, the scientific method does not predicate validity upon the education of the theorist. The scientific method is a system by which reality speaks for itself, predictions are made and tests are conducted. If the results of the testing confirm the predictions, the theory is validated.

I'm not going bother addressing the reliability and validity of your sources... but religious themed sites probably aren't the best to use when discussing science topics.

Although Darwin never obtained a degree in the science disciplines, the claim that he never had formal training in the sciences is false.

Honestly, trying to discredit Darwin as an uneducated person whose theories should be dismissed outright is a good indication that you have nothing to say of any consequence that refutes the mountains of data that support evolution of species.... but I do get a good laugh out of your responses... so at least you've accomplished something....

That's about as civil as I can be at this point....

reply to post by KnowledgeSeeker81


If they are identical why do we call them different. Its no doubt they were larger due to oxygen levels correct? We changed their names but are they any different. If not the adapted not evolved into being something totally different. I would assume we have fossils showing the progression of the resptiles getting smaller as well, correct?

Or you could read up on actual evolution. There's plenty of proof right here in the proverbial pudding.

www.sciencedaily.com...

This is an article about how lizards introduced to a new island underwent rapid physiological and behavioral changes in just a few decades. In other words, it's pretty much solid proof of punctual equilibrium - a facet of evolution that states organisms undergo rapid changes between long stretches of relatively little change. In this case, the lizards, originally territorial, aggressive and carnivorous, became docile vegetarians in a matter of decades due to evolutionary pressure. The lack of suitable prey to sustain them forced them to survive on vegetation. Due to how plentiful it is, they lost any need to protect territory or act aggressively.

The same can be seen in a species of ant, Myrmica rubra, who very recently hit the shores of the eastern US. Indigenous to Europe, these ants have typical ant mating flights there, but here in the US they have adapted by mating on the ground or within the nest and budding sections of the colony off for a safer way to propagate their species here.

How about elephants? In response to being poached for a couple of centuries, they are gradually losing their tusks. Reservations are reporting rates of tuskless birth as high as 33%.

Feel free to Google this and many other observed cases of evolution. Or take a simple biology class and learn how bacteria can evolve drastically in a week due to how fast they propagate. Evolution is real. The better question is, is it by design? God, in his infinite wisdom, possibly created evolution as a mechanism by which animals can adapt and survive in a changing environment. That's a lot harder to refute, and would make far more sense given what we know. Would God not be smart enough to foresee changes in the environment, whether man-made or earthly-made, and know that some animals would be wiped out? Thus, his original creations were indeed plants, fungus, and microorganisms he gave the ability to evolve with the knowledge they would eventually end up as humanity, and with the knowledge that this simple idea is enough to sustain life on Earth without his interference?

Fossil records likely don't exist for many transition species simply because of the speed at which they changed. That said, there are definitely transition fossils providing much evidence for evolution, and you can see a list of them right on Wikipedia.

Inform yourselves and come to your own conclusions. Don't base beliefs on a single book, but base it on multiple sources. It's the only feasible way to form an informed belief structure.

reply to post by Grimpachi


... you don't know how right you are... ;-j

Originally posted by randyvs
reply to post by Rychwebo

 

No way can you be serious about that.

Wella wuz, still am, seeing your post didn't change that.

So you just believe what you want despite evidence? What is it you believe that is contrary to the evidence founded by science? Whatever it may be, what is your supporting evidence and what makes it true? I don't mind opposing views, but when they exist and stand up against another view, their should be some consideration on both sides. So what is it I should take into consideration that would lead me to believe your form of reasoning? Why are there still crocs and gators?

reply to post by UnifiedSerenity


You mention a whole bunch of hoaxes committed by people to gain recognition, but you neglect to mention that for every hoax, there are at least a thousand legitimate fossils. Showing that folks got greedy and tried to trick people for money and fame does not debunk the ACTUAL evidence behind evolution. None of those hoaxes are considered actual evidence behind evolution so your thread title is essentially a lie. Evolution is backed by mountains of evidence. Not a single scientist considers piltdown man a piece of evidence, but when they have 20 separate valid species of hominid that transition from one to the other it kind of all falls into place. No need for piltdown man. That farce was uncovered by scientists and hasn't been considered evidence for a long time.

It's always amusing watching hardcore Christians become angry and vengeful and hardcore atheists ooze condescension... but alas, repetitive.

If any hard proof existed for either hard drawn side then the argument would be over... or would it? Hardly.

Belief begets belief and I'm happy as a clam knowing no thing... but are clams happy?

Ask the sound of one hand clapping... while the other one is shucking.

Me so corny, me shuck you long time.

reply to post by Baddogma


That makes a nice little break from the monotony. It's interesting to observe, actually - build a tower of knowledge, and a landslide of ignorance will come to topple it. Never fails.

You know...I'd like to make note of that for the record. If evolution were clearly such a desperate hoax, then why does everyone believe it? Are the masses so willing to be duped? Then why can this not be applied to theism? If so many can theoretically be fooled so easily, then why is not religion examined as critically?

I think the scales are becoming dangerously lopsided in this exchange. If anything ought to be combed so thoroughly, it ought to be the one movement which trades souls for salvation.

reply to post by AfterInfinity

You're welcome.

Interesting that religion, or more exactly people (or maybe even people's model, God), create those cool, ever relevant metaphors, like the Tower of Babel... and then disregard them and all other neat teaching moments in favor of easy scorn and brimstone.

Humans... huh... can't live with 'em, can't flood 'em out due to contractual obligations.

Originally posted by randyvs
reply to post by Grimpachi

 

The advent of the steam engine started a revolution in thought for the world and I believe we are on the precipice of another.

Oh yes, I'm sure the generations in front of us will thank us eternally for a radioactive pacific.
Cancer causing genetically modified foods and the extinction of the honey bee. At least those that survive
the nuclear winter. Thanks science, for all the crap we're not mature enough to use properly
and with out full knowledge of consequence. That we managed to survive without either way
for thousands of years

So science caused all those problems? I thought it was conciseness, a bomb without a someone to dentonate it is inherently neutral.

Why is it you can be so angry at science, yet at the same time eat its bountiful food supply, thrive off its torrents of readily available water, use the wonders of high speed communication. To quote you, "Thanks science...". You have a very hypercritical view on the world, is it the need to be right despite your contradicting view points? I'm sure you not angrily using the pleasures science have provided you. It sounds as though you are truly mad at mans evil ways. We can agree on that, but to blame science, being a tool, and lump it together with its users 'maturity' is a faulty way to look at things.

Unfortunately you can't undo the past, so you must live with its creations, your were already born, now you must accept that. Nuclear waste exists, you have to accept that. Now onto what science could be used for, since mankind has brought so much turmoil already, what will you do to fix it? Wrongly point out its cause, or realize its cause? Belive what you will, but what do your beliefs do for the rest of everyone that could be suffering? Your points are all moot and regressive, respected, but still regressive.

Originally posted by UnifiedSerenity

Originally posted by KnowledgeSeeker81
Since the OP ignored my comment, I'll ask again

What about alligators and crocodiles being living proof of evolution? Are those fossils fakes? If so please show me the evidence of it. I can show you PROOF of them being much larger hundreds of millions of years ago, and now being the same thing but much smaller. They changed, they evolved. They are basically the same as 100 million years ago, but they are different today.

No big change, a minor change...their size. In another 100 million years who knows what other minor changes may happen....but a CHANGE aka evolution happened.

There are a couple of problems with what you are using as an example of evolution. They are still alligators. They might be smaller alligators, but they are alligators. Now, if you showed me an alligator with wings then I would say, wow, that's interesting. Show me the incremental changes and I will believe it.

Problem 1. Slow change over time should yield intermediary examples, none exist.

Problem 2 Changing from big to small in the same species is not the issue in evolution. That could be adaptation. It is believed our atmosphere is much different today than it was then. Could things change in size due to those changes? I believe they could. I cannot find the website now, but there was an asian man who was doing experiments with simulating the ancient atmosphere and he got incredibly big tomato plants that yielded far more tomatoes (big tomatoes) that lived much longer than normal tomato plants of today.

So, the alligator issue falls into adaptation and I have never said we don't adapt. We just don't go from goo to fish, to lizard, to monkey to human.

edit on 14-8-2013 by UnifiedSerenity because: (no reason given)

"Of all the reptiles alive today, crocodiles and alligators may be the least changed from their prehistoric ancestors of the late Cretaceous period, over 65 million years ago--although the even earlier crocodiles of the Triassic and Jurassic periods sported some distinctly un-crocodile-like features, such as bipedal postures and vegetarian diets."
dinosaurs.about.com...

While being about the most similar to their ancient ancestors, they are different. They changed. Alligators today aren't just smaller versions of their ancestors, they have indeed evolved with distinct differences.

You are asking for that WOW discovery to prove evolution, I don't think it exists, as I said before I think evolution works in miniscule changes over long periods of time. I also think it works differently for all species, and doesn't have a specific guideline to follow. If there was a specific outline for evolution to follow that would actually lead more to prove of intelligent design and creation, but it doesn't. It's random and works different for all forms of life.

Originally posted by Murgatroid

Originally posted by GR1ill3d
That's the great thing about science, it is true no matter if you believe in it or not.

Science is NOT a "Science"...

It has become a Religion.

The fact that you actually BELIEVE it, exposes a massive credibility issue here.

Science and education are nothing but MASSIVE forms of mind control...

"...the Illuminati eventually controlled the science departments in all colleges and institutions of higher learning. The plan was to stifle scientific knowledge and then twist what was left to fit the science they wanted the people to believe. They accomplished this by adopting new rules in regards to scientific research.

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

Education is a form of mind control, but to throw in science with that is wrong. Science has been in the making for centuries, Socrates, being one of its great founders went around questioning people on how they knew what they knew. He found out that people were self delusional about what they knew by asking only questions that would amass contradictions from the questioned. Today, we have a more refined way of learning facts about our surroundings because man is known to be delusional about what he knows. Science is a way to expose those lies and seek evidence, bringing us closer to the truth. Religion has its flaws, because it changes so vastly based on mans interpretation of it over time and regions. The beauty of science is that we can have an idea about something and test it, only to repeat it later at another time or another region and come to the same conclusion we had earlier. It's always indisputable, unless there is are new tests done that proves the last one to be faulty in someway, then we have just come to an advancement / refinement / correction / descovory in science.

Without science, what method do you suppose we use to find fault in its own credibility?

For everyone, naysayers of evolution included, here is a wonderful map of the tree of life, it is very detailed. If you'd like to know the common link between species this is the site to look at.

www.timetree.org...

That is just a outlined tree, but the root of the domain has a very indepth search engine for locating life and its ancestors, linking Homo sapiens all the way back to bacteria. You can type any two species of life and it will show you it's common ancestor.

www.timetree.org...

They show a full lineage and much more.

reply to post by Blarneystoner




So, you think showing 3 species or 3 similar animals proves evolution? Darwin's dilemma still stands. Show me the slow incremental changes over time. Those holes moved huge distances and that is not slow incremental change. Thanks for the images though.

EDIT: And where the hell did his teeth go? Poor thing just woke up one day with nary a tooth in his head.

reply to post by inalienabletruth


My apologies, I didn't mean they are the exact same creature as their ancient ancestors, I more so meant they are basically the same creature but smaller. Also size isn't the only difference between modern and ancient alligators/crocodiles. If they were identical but smaller then yes of course that could be credited to more oxygen present in the past, but they have distinct differences other than size, size is just the most obvious difference.

Originally posted by Blarneystoner

Originally posted by UnifiedSerenity
You do realize Darwin had his degree in theology don't you? He was not a trained scientist. He observed adaptation and then went on to push common ancestry with his tree of life. If you put so much stock in science degrees then you should discount Darwin and evolution off the bat.

Are you just making stuff up as you go?

Darwin's tertiary education:
University of Edinburgh Medical School (medicine)
University of Cambridge (ordinary Bachelor of Arts)
professional institution: Geological Society of London

Damn dude... I really am amazed at your persistance in the face of so much fail.

edit on 14-8-2013 by Blarneystoner because: (no reason given)

According to sources he did not get a medical degree. He did study medicine at Edinburgh, but found it boring and vowed to never return to it. He did get a bachelor of arts and his "clergy" degree but he did not want to be a clergyman.

As a child, Darwin was apparently something of a slow and lazy learner, finding the subjects of the day—Greek, ancient history, and the classics—uninteresting. However, he ended up with a deep love of natural science, in part due to summer vacations spent hiking in northern Wales, and also thanks to the chemistry lab his own brother had built in the garden of the family home, where he likely learned some of the skills and techniques which are crucial in scientific experimentation.

In October 1825 Darwin entered medical school, where he attended geology lectures. Ironically, he found them boring and vowed to ignore the subject entirely. During his years of medical study he learned the art of taxidermy, joined the Plinian Society (a group which espoused scientific rather than spiritual or supernatural principles), and became friends with Robert Grant, a zoology professor, with whom he discussed marine biology and the evolutionist Lamarck.

After just a couple of years, Darwin left medical school, and his father, not wanting him to remain idle, sent him to Cambridge University to study for the clergy. Here, too, he did not take his studies seriously, but did take up a new hobby: beetle collecting, which, again, was valuable in the development of new scientific skills. During his years at Cambridge, Darwin befriended the Reverend John Henslow, a professor who encouraged Darwin’s interest in the natural world and had significant influence on his decision to become a naturalist.

SOURCE

Please provide the dates Darwin began and completed his science education and earned said degrees. It appears he got bored easily. Bright Hub Education does not appear to be a crack pot christian site, so I hope you won't say they have an ax to grind against Darwin.

I studied biology and zoology in Uni, but I moved on to another major. I guess I am as qualified to proffer my origin of species as Darwin was.