Is the Theory of Evolution on the ropes?

[Nik]

Bullshit. If you cannot master something as simple as your own native language then you won't be able to understand more advanced concepts that require a strong linguistic foundation.

When you make stupid, simple mistakes like that, it makes you look stupid to the rest of us and discredits your point of view. In short, you're doing yourself a disservice by being a dumbass.

 

[Paul98]

Bullshit. If you cannot master something as simple as your own native language then you won't be able to understand more advanced concepts that require a strong linguistic foundation.

When you make stupid, simple mistakes like that, it makes you look stupid to the rest of us and discredits your point of view. In short, you're doing yourself a disservice by being a dumbass.

LMAO! this is great

You obviously could read what I wrote, what are these things I can''t understand? I can see a clear lack of understanding in physics, evolution, math, science. So you never make any mistakes do you? I am guessing not because making a mistake on some simple stupid grammar point obviousluy makes you look stupid and you would never do that.

This is the lack of basic reasoning that I am talking about, instead of looking at the argument something get's nick picked apart which has absolutely nothing to do with the topic at hand.

In general if someone makes a simple mistake you should point it out if it has any barring on the argument at hand. But if it doesn't and is only an obvious oversight and on something as simple as grammar it shouldn't even need to be pointed out. I am spending my time trying to figure out how to explain what I want to explain rather than looking to see if my typing is 100% correct.

You can continue to attack me all you want, but my point stands. Some people are simply not able to comprehend the concepts in evolution and physics. They also lack the logical thinking skills, and knowledge that goes along with making the proper conclusions with the argument that is presented to them.

I know there are things I don't understand, though who knows if I continue to look at the problems maybe I will at some point. What I don't do is try to argue against reality and those that are able to understand it. Instead I try to get the information from them and hopefully am able to understand the logical reasoning behind what is being said.

We have people who ask over and over again something like if we evolved from another species why is that other species still around. Or how does evolution explain the first life, or even if evolution was a fact it wouldn't be the theory of evolution anymore. These has been answered over and over and over again and any basic knowledge they would understand the answer. So ether they simply don't care what the real answer is. Or don't understand even with continued explanations.

 

[Tweak155]

This is what always happens. Instead of arguing a point, they nit pick anything that they can find to try and discredit. I find it sad as that has nothing to do with the comprehension of the argument. I never said I was a great writer, hell I know I am not but really I do know the difference. But really? taking out a single word in an online forum, spelling and grammar really don't matter if you are able to understand the point easily.

But this is all beside the point as it has nothing to do with what I was talking about. It's that some people lack the mental capability or logical training to understand certain things. This should be clear from the continued asking questions that were already answered many times over. Or the the clear lack of understanding of even basic science.

Who is "they"? I haven't argued anything in this thread with regards to the topic. Your rebuttal to making a mistake while highlighting other's ignorance is your claim to not being a great writer. Why can't other people have flaws? While this message board is communicated by writing, using your own logic (of speaking with ignorance), you shouldn't be typing responses on this board, just as those who don't know everything about evolution or creationism should attempt to respond.

Problem could have been avoided by focusing on the argument just as you suggested, rather than people's "problems".

 

[Nik]

We wouldn't pick it apart if you'd hadn't made the mistake in the first place.

Nobody's arguing against your point, either. You're right. Some people are just too stupid to understand things that others of us take for granted as incredibly simple concepts.

Like you with the English language (sorry I couldn't resist)

 

[Paul98]

Who is "they"? I haven't argued anything in this thread with regards to the topic. Your rebuttal to making a mistake while highlighting other's ignorance is your claim to not being a great writer. Why can't other people have flaws? While this message board is communicated by writing, using your own logic (of speaking with ignorance), you shouldn't be typing responses on this board, just as those who don't know everything about evolution or creationism should attempt to respond.

Problem could have been avoided by focusing on the argument just as you suggested, rather than people's "problems".

I don't go into threads trying to correct peoples grammar or saying that stupid should be spelled stoopide. Which is similar to what the vast majority of people against evolution are trying to argue. Now that's not a great comparison since the spelling isn't a logical or scientific process. But it's an argument against reality. If pointed out that it's not correct and explained why it doesn't change there mind. Then the question is asked again and again, and never gets anywhere.

The first post of this thread should shine a light on this exact type of thinking. no experience or understanding on the subject, and even with repeated explanations is unable to understand what is reality.

A lot of this isn't peoples fault, ignorance is not stupidity. The lack of even basic understandings hold people back. Then their ego and thinking that they do know stops them from learning.

 

[Paul98]

We wouldn't pick it apart if you'd hadn't made the mistake in the first place.

Nobody's arguing against your point, either. You're right. Some people are just too stupid to understand things that others of us take for granted as incredibly simple concepts.

Like you with the English language (sorry I couldn't resist)

LOL good one

 

[Gibson486]

LOL @ the evolution of this thread.

 

[McWatt]

Eyeballs aside, if intelligent design has been debunked as you claim, then why has no Evolutionary Biologist been able to explain how bacterial flagellum evolved?

The flagellum requires no less than 50 genes to function properly. Removing, or tampering with any of those genes causes complete system failure.

How the fuck could random, grandual, successive changes and modifications create that?

1 - Just because a specific case hasn't been explained yet doesn't in any way call into question the theory of evolution.

2 - There are hundreds or thousands of papers explaining the evolution of flagella. Here's one: Wong, Tim; Amidi, Arezou; Dodds, Alexandra; Siddiqi, Sara; Wang, Jing; Yep, Tracy; Tamang, Dorjee G.; Saier, Milton H. (2007). "Evolution of the Bacterial Flagellum: Cumulative evidence indicates that flagella developed as modular systems, with many components deriving from other systems". Microbe 2 (7): 335–40.

Rather than posting here, go read some papers and you'll find that your ID youtube video (or whatever your source of nonsense was) is sadly outdated. As another poster pointed out, this "debate" gets repetitive. Anti-science crusaders ask why something hasn't yet been explained (even though it's not at all contradictory to the concept of evolution, despite their assertions). Scientists produce vast bodies of evidence showing an explanation. Then the anti-scientists move on to something else. The good news is that their bag of tricks is slowly shrinking as the huge number of biologists expand our knowledge.

 

[sdifox]

Evolution is clearly fake. It cannot explain Carfax83

 

[randomrogue]

The theory of Evolution is flat out wrong. Anyone with half a brain knows this.

HIS NOODLY APPENDAGE HAS GUIDED EVERYTHING AND IS THE REASON FOR OUR EXISTENCE AND THE EXISTENCE OF ALL LIFE BEFORE US!

 

[Ns1]

The theory of Evolution is flat out wrong. Anyone with half a brain knows this.

HIS NOODLY APPENDAGE HAS GUIDED EVERYTHING AND IS THE REASON FOR OUR EXISTENCE AND THE EXISTENCE OF ALL LIFE BEFORE US!

ramen.

 

[Red Dawn]

Which will mean absolutely nothing in Hell.

Religion was created for simpletons such as yourself.

 

[Jeff7]

Originally Posted by Red Squirrel
Which will mean absolutely nothing in Hell.

Religion was created for simpletons such as yourself.

God: A being who's allegedly entirely benevolent.
God: An allegedly entirely benevolent being who created a realm whose sole purpose is eternal punishment and torture of his own creations, which have failed due to design flaws of which God was aware from the time of the first release version.

Now see, if I have kids and then create a torture room in which they will spend the rest of their lives if they ever misbehave, I'd be locked away, and possibly executed. Or if I punished my grandkids and great grandkids for something my own kids did at age 3, I don't think I'd garner much respect.
So much for following God's shining examples of benevolence and justice.

be·nev·o·lent
adj.
1. Characterized by or suggestive of doing good.
2. Of, concerned with, or organized for the benefit of charity.

Apparently my dictionary of choice needs to be recalibrated.
Or maybe there's just an awful lot of emphasis on the "suggestive of" part.

 

[Tweak155]

I don't go into threads trying to correct peoples grammar or saying that stupid should be spelled stoopide. Which is similar to what the vast majority of people against evolution are trying to argue. Now that's not a great comparison since the spelling isn't a logical or scientific process. But it's an argument against reality. If pointed out that it's not correct and explained why it doesn't change there mind. Then the question is asked again and again, and never gets anywhere.

The first post of this thread should shine a light on this exact type of thinking. no experience or understanding on the subject, and even with repeated explanations is unable to understand what is reality.

A lot of this isn't peoples fault, ignorance is not stupidity. The lack of even basic understandings hold people back. Then their ego and thinking that they do know stops them from learning.

I'm not sure you understood my point especially with your first paragraph.

Ultimately I agreed with your point to begin with, but it holds no weight on the argument as they probably have the same opinion of you (they assume you don't understand THEIR side of it, even if it is wrong, or that you have some degree of ignorance). So it is better to focus on the argument rather than the person. If they aren't worth arguing then do something else with your time, rather than belittle them with words while looking somewhat like an arse, if even in a minor fashion.

 

[Paul98]

I'm not sure you understood my point especially with your first paragraph.

Ultimately I agreed with your point to begin with, but it holds no weight on the argument as they probably have the same opinion of you (they assume you don't understand THEIR side of it, even if it is wrong, or that you have some degree of ignorance). So it is better to focus on the argument rather than the person. If they aren't worth arguing then do something else with your time, rather than belittle them with words while looking somewhat like an arse, if even in a minor fashion.

The point I am trying to get across to people is that depending on the person they may not be able to understand evolution no matter what is said. But I agree belittling people is not the way to get your point across. When finding someone who is incorrect on certain things I find it's best to ask simple questions that lead up to why they are incorrect. This allows you to find where they are going wrong, and hopefully able to show them that and correct them.

It's after these misconceptions have been corrected. Where even after multiple explanations, and a continual asking of the same question that you figure out that who ever you are talking to is unable to comprehend this concept. The problem comes when they try to use their lack of understanding to try to convince people that it can't be, since they don't comprehend how it could be.

Now you can show that you do understand the other side. Plus an understanding of your argument you can try to convince others. Just as gravity and evolution there are holes in these theories. Many things we don't know, plenty of things to discuss. But when we have basic facts that we observe every day and someone tries to say they are wrong. This is a problem.

Sorry I feel like I keep getting off topic and going off on tangents.

Really if scientists wanted to stop people calling evolution "only a theory" due to not understanding what a scientific theory is. They should create the law of evolution. Sure it wouldn't really mean anything to the science. More that the people calling it only a theory couldn't do that any more. Even though the theory of evolution would be much more robust. Or I guess we could just teach science better in schools then people would know what a scientific theory is.

 

[darkswordsman17]

If you've seen his previous posts, you'd know he's just your standard, run-of-the-mill religious type. When their beliefs are put to the test, rather than be rational about it, it comes down to such things as, "that's not what The Bible says" or "that's wrong!"

Sigh... :\

Not really. Malak is the only true Christian in existence (his own personal claim, I'm not even making this up, he literally believes he is the only true Christian).

 

[Dr. Zaus]

As the ego cogito, subjectivity is the consciousness that represents something, relates this representation back to itself, and so gathers with itself.

 

[Malak]

Not really. Malak is the only true Christian in existence (his own personal claim, I'm not even making this up, he literally believes he is the only true Christian).

I have neither implied nor directly claimed that, nor have I ever believed such a thing.

 

[jman19]

LOL @ the evolution of this thread.

Evolution? That's just a theory

 

[Dr. Zaus]

That theory's are "Just theories" is just a theory... man.

 

[PowerEngineer]

I'm sure God is laughing at every single one of us and our pitty attempt at trying to understand this awesome universe. It's like watching a fly trying to get out of a glass maze that has no exit.

Wow! What a flattering portrait of your "God"! D:

IMHO the best argument for the existence of a supernatural being is that our universe seems to be comprehendable to human beings, which might just be the biggest gift to us from the universe's creator. And maybe extending our comprehension through exploration and scientific inquiry is the truest form of worship.

If you have to believe, why not choose a benevolent "God"? ()

 

[Dr. Zaus]

My God hung out with whores, drank wine and said the meaning of life was to not be a fuck-tard.


lots of fail in that regard going on in this thread.

 

[PowerEngineer]

For what it's worth, which is little I know, I am one of these people and am quite sure that God guided evolution.

I just don't think that this point of view should be used as an explanation for what or how, though.

What and how is the domain of empiricism; The ultimate "why" has so very very little to do with explaining what and how and the smaller questions of "why how" and "why what" that I don't see as how it's a conflict at all.

If I understand you correctly, I agree. The "why" questions aren't answerable by science; they fall into the realm of philosophy/religion. Likewise, the "what" and "how" questions are best answered by science. The (unnecessary) conflicts occur only when people try to use science or religion to answer the wrong questions.

But that's only a theory... :sneaky:

 

[bas1c]

These things are NOT taken as acts of faith. There are various hypotheses for the very beginning of the universe. Some of the hypotheses are actually testable (one involves patterns in the cosmic background microwave radiation.) NO scientist is ever satisfied with an answer of "it just was."

I hope you're not considering yourself among the people "that do think." Because if you put forth even a miniscule amount of thought, you'd realize, "hey, 30 seconds of googling will help avoid me making myself look like an idiot."

And, "need to be smarter?" What's that mean? Most people who grow throughout their lives are lifelong learners. They constantly strive to learn new things. Scientists constantly strive to learn new things - to discover things about our universe and better understand how everything got to be the way it is, and how everything works. It's pretty pathetic of you to state this as a bad thing. If someone invents a time machine, perhaps they could take you back to the Dark Ages - maybe you'd fit in better there.

You are still not hearing me and maybe it's just my lack of clearly stating what I'm trying to say. I never refuted big bang and the chain of events that brought us to this point. What I am asking is prior to the big bang there had to be a mass to have exploded in the first place. I am asking how was that mass there in the first place? All the theories and testable hypothesis assume that this mass was just there the entire time, dormant. Again, I believe in a lot of what you have already stated...I'm just questioning how anything was in existence in the first place.

I also was not talking about people trying to educate themselves as being a bad thing. As this thread and other threads in ATOT have proven in the past, people will start arguing with attack each other for the sake of proving others wrong and themselves right. They are so blinded by this attempt to try to display their intellectual superiority they ignore what other people say and it devolves into anger and personal attacks. You have proven this to me, quite obviously. I don't doubt you are an intelligent person and I know you have the education to back it.

 

[PowerEngineer]

I have neither implied nor directly claimed that, nor have I ever believed such a thing.

Oh, I think you're trying to walk a line that's too narrow even for you.

You certainly have "implied" that your personal beliefs are superior (i.e. more in keeping with God) than those of organized Christian denominations. You have frequently excused yourself from explaining or defending a mainstream Christian belief with the claim that your personal version of Christianity is different and superior, while at the same time choosing not to answer questions about your personal Christian beliefs.

Certainly, that is your right.

But your propensity for dropping judgements into threads without being willing to defend them does come off as a bit "holier than thou". I personally think some of these threads would be more interesting if you chose to really engage in the give and take.