darwinism debunked

Posted in the Agnosticism Forum

Comments

Showing posts 1 - 20 of23
< prev page
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
JOHN

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1
Oct 19, 2009
 
Unlocking the Mystery of Life” is the story of contemporary scientists who are advancing a powerful, but controversial, idea—the theory of “intelligent design.” It is a theory based upon compelling biochemical evidence. Through state-of-the-art computer animation, Unlocking the Mystery of Life transports you into the interior of the living cell to explore systems and machines that bear the unmistakable hallmarks of design. Discover the intricacy of a microscopic bacterial rotary motor, which spins at 100,000 rpm. This remarkable documentary examines the scientific case for intelligent design -- an idea with the power to revolutionize our understanding of life…and to unlock the mystery of its origin.
WATCH "UNLOCKING THE MYSTERYS OF LIFE" AT GOOGLE VIDEO LINK BELOW
http://video.google.com/videoplay... #
Brenda

Los Angeles, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2
Oct 23, 2009
 
I highly recommend this video for those of you whom are sitting on the fence.. And for those of you whom insist that there is no god (so you can continue to live with out any consequence's) so you think, i would like to say may god have mercy on your souls, but thats not going to be the case im afraid....

Since: Dec 06

Saint Petersburg, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3
Oct 29, 2009
 

Judged:

1

1

Whether there is or isn't a god out there, "Intelligent Design" is nothing more than a farce. There is ZERO scientific evidence for ID. Every single supposed evidence for ID has been thoroughly debunked by real science. Evolution is a fact. If you choose to believe some supernatural force put it in motion or set up the universe to allow it to happen, that's your choice. Wrap your beliefs around reality however you wish. When you start to deny reality and fact, then your belief is sheer folly.

Since: Aug 09

Fitzgerald, GA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#4
Oct 29, 2009
 

Judged:

1

1

Evolution is a theory it has not been proven, for almost a 100 years. Have you ever work at a musium, when they put these bones together, that they find burier in the ground. You can put them together any way you mind choses to.

Since: Dec 06

Saint Petersburg, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5
Oct 29, 2009
 
joseph in Coffee wrote:
Evolution is a theory it has not been proven, for almost a 100 years. Have you ever work at a musium, when they put these bones together, that they find burier in the ground. You can put them together any way you mind choses to.
You clearly don't understand how science works. Evolution is explained by a theory, that evolution occurs is a fact. Science does not "prove" anything. Proofs are for mathematics. Since Darwin (over 150 years), the science of evolution has advanced incredibly. Every shred of evidence from a wide, diverse array of sciences (ecology, microbiology, genetics, paleontology, geology, and on and on) all converge upon one answer, and all work together only under one scenario, evolution. Darwin's ideas were revolutionary (along with Wallace's, his contemporary who had similar ideas), but they occurred during a time of much lower scientific knowledge. Since then the advent of new technologies and new fields of science have corrected some of his minor misconceptions, but have done nothing to undermine his basic premises. In fact, evolutionary theory grows stronger every day. It is widely considered to be one of, if not the, most strongly evidenced theories in the history of science by those who actually know science...the scientists. Being one myself (ecologist) and knowing hundreds of others who have the same view, I'd have to agree. Meanwhile, if evolution were such a hoax, such an unstable house of cards as the ID propagandists try to proclaim, it should be easy to destroy evolutionary theory. All it would take is one fossil of the millions (or billions) found to destroy it all. Find that fossil of a rabbit with a T-rex. Find that fossilized human skull in the same strata as a trilobite. Or at a baser level, find that DNA marker that undermines evolution instead of supports it. Amazingly, despite all the protests of the IDers and all of the silly claims and pretend science ("irreducible complexity") that they spout, no such anti-evolution evidence has ever arisen.

Since: Aug 09

Fitzgerald, GA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#6
Oct 29, 2009
 
It is good to talk to someone who believes as you do, in what you do. I myself just can't coome to think that this one unbleivable world amongabillion, or trillions, is just a random act of luck. When I look at another persons eye, or just a single cell in another person, or the way that the planets orbit around in space for billions of years. The planet is still here with life on it. God bless you though. And I mean that.

Since: Dec 06

Saint Petersburg, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#7
Oct 30, 2009
 
joseph in Coffee wrote:
It is good to talk to someone who believes as you do, in what you do. I myself just can't coome to think that this one unbleivable world amongabillion, or trillions, is just a random act of luck. When I look at another persons eye, or just a single cell in another person, or the way that the planets orbit around in space for billions of years. The planet is still here with life on it. God bless you though. And I mean that.
I hope you do realize that reality/science, and religion are not necessarily incompatible. One of the leading modern proponents of evolutionary theory today, who is also one of the most accomplished and respected geneticists ever, Francis Collins, is also an evangelical Christian. Evolution is not anti-religion or anti-god. It's neutral on those subjects, just as gravity is neutral on those subjects. I'm agnostic, but the majority of scientists, including most of my colleagues and friends who are scientists, are not. Most are Christian of some type or another. Others are Muslim. Others Hindu, and so on. But they don't deny reality and the facts that are right in front of them because they want to believe something else.

If one chooses to believe in some god, that is fine as long as it can be fit around reality. Saying evolution is not real, simply because you WANT to believe in a certain version of how your chosen god did something, is no different than if someone insisted that gravity was the result of invisible holy fairies pulling things down, because that's what their religion insists.

As far as the universe, you actually gave an argument supportive of the science. We are one planet among trillions or more. Do you have a concept of how many that really is? Is it really that shocking to think that out of that many, one or a few may have formed in a location and configuration that life could begin? In fact, I'd be very surprised if we were the only planet with some form of life in the universe, given the near countless number of possibilities in the universe.

Since: Aug 09

Fitzgerald, GA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#8
Oct 30, 2009
 
Well are you a betting man? Because the odds of what you just stated are beyound trillions. How does nothing just blow up into everything out here?
And really just tell me again how these comets came upon this burning rock and made all this water?

Since: Dec 06

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#9
Oct 31, 2009
 
joseph in Coffee wrote:
Well are you a betting man? Because the odds of what you just stated are beyound trillions. How does nothing just blow up into everything out here?
And really just tell me again how these comets came upon this burning rock and made all this water?
The odds of life forming are probably pretty high given the near countless numbers of planets with an incredible range of conditions. As for the "blowing up into everything", you should probably read up a bit (or a lot) more about the Big Bang theory. It really isn't an explosion at all, that's just a cute little name that stuck. There are a lot of resources written for the non-scientist to understand it. As for comets coming onto a burning rock and making water, I'm not even sure what you are trying to say. Again, if you truly are interested in learning, and not just opposing the science because you've chosen to believe something else, there are a lot of references out there for you to read. Just because you accept reality and science doesn't mean you have to give up your god, just some of the details that you've chosen, or have been told, to believe.

Since: Aug 09

Fitzgerald, GA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#10
Oct 31, 2009
 
Would like to learn more. About the water thing, the you know 75% of the earths surface is water, just wounder how if the world was a ball of moltan rock. knowledge is good. ha ha lol,.
Chuck

UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11
Jan 18, 2010
 
Social Darwinism was debunked by John Taylor Gatto, the effects that darwins theorys had on education and the class system.

was darwin even scientific? to me all his theory proves is that animals dominate eachother and compete in the environment.

Is it even proven that all animals can select eachother or are some of them just taking the first mate that comes along?
Chuck

UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#12
Jan 18, 2010
 
Dennis2 wrote:
<quoted text>Every shred of evidence from a wide, diverse array of sciences (ecology, microbiology, genetics, paleontology, geology, and on and on) all converge upon one answer, and all work together only under one scenario, evolution.
yes but are they all converged upon that one answer BECAUSE they all work together only under one scenario?

and is it really in the theory that changes occur in a random way because of radiation from the sun?
Chuck

UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#13
Jan 18, 2010
 
Dennis2 wrote:
<quoted text>
I hope you do realize that reality/science, and religion are not necessarily incompatible. One of the leading modern proponents of evolutionary theory today, who is also one of the most accomplished and respected geneticists ever, Francis Collins, is also an evangelical Christian. Evolution is not anti-religion or anti-god.
i totally agree with that statment, but ive read John Taylor Gatto's comments about Social Darwinism and the effect it had on education. And how Darwin said the Irish were an evolutionary dead end, and how Darwin was one of the richest men in the world, and how he popularised his idea to the power elite more than scientists.

maybe these are the ideas that you spoke of that got fixed by modern theory? please let me know

Since: Dec 06

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#15
Jan 18, 2010
 
Chuck wrote:
Social Darwinism was debunked by John Taylor Gatto, the effects that darwins theorys had on education and the class system.
was darwin even scientific? to me all his theory proves is that animals dominate eachother and compete in the environment.
Is it even proven that all animals can select eachother or are some of them just taking the first mate that comes along?
Social Darwinism has little to do with evolution other than using the name "Darwin" in it.

If your description of what Darwin's theory is what you really know of it, then you are woefully ignorant.

Since: Dec 06

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#16
Jan 18, 2010
 
Chuck wrote:
<quoted text>
yes but are they all converged upon that one answer BECAUSE they all work together only under one scenario?
and is it really in the theory that changes occur in a random way because of radiation from the sun?
Yes. All it would take to undermine evolution is one aspect of one science that would preclude evolution from working. There hasn't been one. Not one aspect of biology runs counter to evolution, while all of biology makes sense in light of evolution. Not one aspect of chemistry, of physics, of geology, of any science, undermines evolution. No other theory even exists, because every one that's ever been proposed HAS been precluded by scientific knowledge.

Changes don't occur in a random way because of the sun. Mutations can occur from radiation, but primarily changes in the genome occur during cell replication, where tiny errors are made, thus making tiny changes to the code. That is somewhat random. Evolution is not random whatsoever. Evolution is driven by selective forces on those changes, determining what changes are successful and will be passed on.

Since: Dec 06

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#17
Jan 18, 2010
 
Chuck wrote:
<quoted text>
i totally agree with that statment, but ive read John Taylor Gatto's comments about Social Darwinism and the effect it had on education. And how Darwin said the Irish were an evolutionary dead end, and how Darwin was one of the richest men in the world, and how he popularised his idea to the power elite more than scientists.
maybe these are the ideas that you spoke of that got fixed by modern theory? please let me know
First off, I'm not sure why you put so much weight on John Taylor Gatto when it comes to science. He's not a scientist. Second, Social Darwinism has almost nothing to do with evolution. It is a philosophy loosely based on Darwinian ideas, that's all. Darwin was far from one of the richest men in the world. He came from a well-off family, but so what?
Chuck

Cardiff, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#18
Jan 18, 2010
 
Dennis2

I am asking 4 different questions..

1: Is it really in the theory that changes occur in a random way because of radiation from the sun? and how is that proven?(how is mutation proven not what follows the mutuation/the natural selection process)

2: how exactly does evolution disprove intelligent design ?(i dont get the whole thing, and i dont see how the two theorys contradict or could disprove eachother)

3: Does Evolution theory prove anything more, other than the fact that animals dominate eachother and compete in the environment/pass their genes along)?

4: Iis their really proof that animals can select eachother? or are some of them just taking the first mate to come along ?(aside from pack animals with alpha males who dominate, is there other proof that animals select eachother?)

Since: Dec 06

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#19
Jan 18, 2010
 
Chuck wrote:
Dennis2
I am asking 4 different questions..
1: Is it really in the theory that changes occur in a random way because of radiation from the sun? and how is that proven?(how is mutation proven not what follows the mutuation/the natural selection process)
2: how exactly does evolution disprove intelligent design ?(i dont get the whole thing, and i dont see how the two theorys contradict or could disprove eachother)
3: Does Evolution theory prove anything more, other than the fact that animals dominate eachother and compete in the environment/pass their genes along)?
4: Iis their really proof that animals can select eachother? or are some of them just taking the first mate to come along ?(aside from pack animals with alpha males who dominate, is there other proof that animals select eachother?)
1) No, genetic mutations resulting from solar radiation can happen, but it is not the primary source of genetic mutation that drives evolution. In fact, much of the genetic mutation that occurs by solar radiation occurs on the individual, and can result in cancer, etc. The mutation that is the basis of evolution is typically from replication errors and transcription errors during reproduction (in asexual species) and in the formation of sex cells in sexual species. These slight changes are often neutral, sometimes detrimental, and sometimes can provide a slight benefit. Those that are beneficial survive to produce more offspring or are able to better utilize a previously unoccupied ecological niche. Unlike the damage from solar radiation that acts on an individual, evolution acts on populations.

2) Evolution disproves intelligent design because the very definition of intelligent design includes the idea that evolution can't happen. ID pretends that life is too complex, and evolution cannot account for the diversity of life or the complexity of life, and it must be designed by a higher intelligence. This is simply incorrect. Meanwhile, ID uses pseudo-scientific ideas such as "irreducible complexity" which they love to tout, but have never once demonstrated to exist. ID pretends to be a science, yet have done no actual science. The movement (led by a lawyer!) only tries to knock down evolution (with no success), but has done no original science to back their supposed scientific claims. Even a Christian conservative judge in the Dover trial, after hearing the evidence, proclaimed that ID is nothing more than creationism (a religious concept) in disguise.

3) Here's the best source for a good explanation of what evolution is and what it states:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-def...

4) Yes, there is sexual selection where animals make a specific choice in mates. That is well documented. That is one form of selective pressure, but natural selection, which dictates the survival differential for populations with different genes, is the primary driving selective pressure in evolution.
Chuck

Cardiff, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#20
Jan 18, 2010
 
Dennis2 wrote:
<quoted text>
1) No, genetic mutations resulting from solar radiation can happen, but it is not the primary source of genetic mutation that drives evolution. In fact, much of the genetic mutation that occurs by solar radiation occurs on the individual, and can result in cancer, etc. The mutation that is the basis of evolution is typically from replication errors and transcription errors during reproduction (in asexual species) and in the formation of sex cells in sexual species. These slight changes are often neutral, sometimes detrimental, and sometimes can provide a slight benefit. Those that are beneficial survive to produce more offspring or are able to better utilize a previously unoccupied ecological niche. Unlike the damage from solar radiation that acts on an individual, evolution acts on populations.
2) Evolution disproves intelligent design because the very definition of intelligent design includes the idea that evolution can't happen. ID pretends that life is too complex, and evolution cannot account for the diversity of life or the complexity of life, and it must be designed by a higher intelligence. This is simply incorrect. Meanwhile, ID uses pseudo-scientific ideas such as "irreducible complexity" which they love to tout, but have never once demonstrated to exist. ID pretends to be a science, yet have done no actual science. The movement (led by a lawyer!) only tries to knock down evolution (with no success), but has done no original science to back their supposed scientific claims. Even a Christian conservative judge in the Dover trial, after hearing the evidence, proclaimed that ID is nothing more than creationism (a religious concept) in disguise.
3) Here's the best source for a good explanation of what evolution is and what it states:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-def...
4) Yes, there is sexual selection where animals make a specific choice in mates. That is well documented. That is one form of selective pressure, but natural selection, which dictates the survival differential for populations with different genes, is the primary driving selective pressure in evolution.
Thanks for the reply Denis2, youve given me some stuff to study and made me think of more question to ask...

what about the idea of intelligent designed evolution

like the computter programs created that have been designed to evolve their own walking ability
Chuck

Cardiff, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#21
Jan 18, 2010
 
intelligently designed to evolve

i dont come from creationism. i just like to ask my questions especially about ideas that are very popular and already established

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 1 - 20 of23
< prev page
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

•••
•••
•••
•••