Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Evolution Theory is Error

2456712

Comments

  • Closed Accounts Posts: 909 ✭✭✭Gareth37


    Dawkins who people seem to warship on here seems quite puzzled in his views:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zaKryi3605g&feature=related

    He couldn't answer a simple question on which the basis of the theory is built upon


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,375 ✭✭✭kmick


    I think Einstein had the right idea when he said
    "My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble mind."


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,188 ✭✭✭pH


    Gareth37 wrote: »
    Dawkins who people seem to warship on here seems quite puzzled in his views:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zaKryi3605g&feature=related

    He couldn't answer a simple question on which the basis of the theory is built upon

    That's not real, it's some guy dressed up in a Dawkins mask that creationists filmed to make the real Dawkins look bad. Everyone knows that the real Dawkins is older, less well dressed and far more curmudgeonly than that. Bad fake imho.


  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 25,558 Mod ✭✭✭✭Dades


    robindch wrote: »
    35 minutes. 48 messages.
    Tell me about it!
    You step out for an all-you-can-eat Chinese buffet and look what happens...

    Sure we'll leave this open as long as people are enjoying themselves.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 30,746 ✭✭✭✭Galvasean


    Gareth37 wrote: »
    Dawkins who people seem to warship on here seems quite puzzled in his views:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zaKryi3605g&feature=related

    He couldn't answer a simple question on which the basis of the theory is built upon

    If you had taken the time to look at one of the several videos (in realted videos for your convenience) which shows how that video was a hoax made by Creationists. Here's one:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WoXzF9zDy_k&feature=related
    Ah - i'll be converted as soon as you show me PROOF of God and the Creation THEORY.

    Replace the word theory with hypothesis.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 30,746 ✭✭✭✭Galvasean


    Dades wrote: »
    Tell me about it!
    You step out for an all-you-can-eat Chinese buffet and look what happens...

    Sure we'll leave this open as long as people are enjoying themselves.

    We'll build our own Creationism thread, even bigger than the one in Christianity. That's what it's REALLY all about isn't it?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 46,947 ✭✭✭✭Mitch Connor


    Gareth37 wrote: »
    Dawkins who people seem to warship on here seems quite puzzled in his views:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zaKryi3605g&feature=related

    He couldn't answer a simple question on which the basis of the theory is built upon

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B_MN_O9ICzY&feature=related


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 6,408 ✭✭✭studiorat


    Yay! Gareth for christanity mod.!!


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 46,947 ✭✭✭✭Mitch Connor


    Galvasean wrote: »
    We'll build our own Creationism thread, even bigger than the one in Christianity. That's what it's REALLY all about isn't it?

    can we have hookers? And blackjack?


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 30,746 ✭✭✭✭Galvasean


    can we have hookers? And blackjack?

    Are they mentioned in the Bible?
    There's your answer. :)


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 909 ✭✭✭Gareth37




  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 46,947 ✭✭✭✭Mitch Connor


    Galvasean wrote: »
    Are they mentioned in the Bible?
    There's your answer. :)
    don't know about blackjuck but i would reckon the whores of babylon would be the hookers.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 30,746 ✭✭✭✭Galvasean


    Gareth37 wrote: »

    Pretty cool how you post a video that proves the point I just made. :)


  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,111 Mod ✭✭✭✭Tar.Aldarion


    Gareth37 wrote: »

    Now I am a scientist by profession but science should not be abused in this way.

    Food science, computer science?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 909 ✭✭✭Gareth37


    Galvasean wrote: »
    Pretty cool how you post a video that proves the point I just made. :)

    So can you answer the question?


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 46,947 ✭✭✭✭Mitch Connor




  • Closed Accounts Posts: 909 ✭✭✭Gareth37


    Here is another decent site which shows even more flaws in the theory:
    http://www.epm.org/artman2/publish/creation_evolution/Ten_Major_Flaws_of_Evolution_-_Revised.shtml

    and more
    http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html

    In fact there are so many doubts its like saying that the world is flat


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,770 ✭✭✭Bottle_of_Smoke


    What's your profession Gareth37?


  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,428 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    Food science, computer science?
    Nah, christian science.


  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 25,558 Mod ✭✭✭✭Dades


    Galvasean wrote: »
    We'll build our own Creationism thread, even bigger than the one in Christianity.
    Well we have all the ingredients...

    Enthusiastic adherents to science - CHECK
    Creationism adherent who ignores rebuttals and replies with new questions - CHECK


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,021 ✭✭✭Hivemind187


    Food science, computer science?

    Pseudo science I'm guessing.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,021 ✭✭✭Hivemind187


    Dades wrote: »
    Well we have all the ingredients...

    Enthusiastic adherents to science - CHECK
    Creationism adherent who ignores rebuttals and replies with new questions - CHECK

    Best Xmas pressie evar :D


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 30,746 ✭✭✭✭Galvasean


    Gareth37 wrote: »
    So can you answer the question?

    You didn't ask one! :p


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 909 ✭✭✭Gareth37



    So tell me this. If we came for Monkeys this must mean that one day Monkeys will also become human?

    So that means that every animal on this planet will eventually become human?

    That is what you are saying here right, that man came from Monkeys? So Monkeys will also become man? Why did some Monkeys become man quicker than others and why are Monkeys showing no sign of evoluting further?

    I think you have been watching too much planet of the apes :D


  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,428 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    Gareth37 wrote: »
    why are Monkeys showing no sign of evoluting further?
    Been studying this "evoluting" thing for long, have we?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,789 ✭✭✭✭keane2097


    Gareth37 wrote: »
    So tell me this. If we came for Monkeys this must mean that one day Monkeys will also become human?

    So that means that every animal on this planet will eventually become human?

    That is what you are saying here right, that man came from Monkeys? So Monkeys will also become man? Why did some Monkeys become man quicker than others and why are Monkeys showing no sign of evoluting further?

    I think you have been watching too much planet of the apes :D

    You should read the article posted earlier about bacteria evolving and try to understand the theory before you call it lies.

    You haven't a clue what you're on about and I'm almost 100% sure you're a troll.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,150 ✭✭✭✭Malari


    Gareth37 wrote: »
    So tell me this. If we came for Monkeys this must mean that one day Monkeys will also become human?

    So that means that every animal on this planet will eventually become human?

    That is what you are saying here right, that man came from Monkeys? So Monkeys will also become man? Why did some Monkeys become man quicker than others and why are Monkeys showing no sign of evoluting further?

    I think you have been watching too much planet of the apes :D

    Come on Gareth, these leaps are bigger than any of the faith variety I've ever seen.

    Can you answer the question that has been asked about a dozen times already - what kind of scientist are you?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 46,947 ✭✭✭✭Mitch Connor


    Gareth37 wrote: »
    Here is another decent site which shows even more flaws in the theory:
    http://www.epm.org/artman2/publish/creation_evolution/Ten_Major_Flaws_of_Evolution_-_Revised.shtml

    and more
    http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html

    In fact there are so many doubts its like saying that the world is flat

    Tripe.

    In the first link.

    'Facts' 1 and 2 are just an argument of incredulity. Just because you can't explain it, doesn't make it supernatural.

    Fact 3 - E-coli Cit+

    Fact 4 - deliberately misuses the law of entropy. the world is NOT A CLOSED SYSTEM. and the law is for a CLOSED system, not an open or closed system as your precious site states.

    gave up reading after that blatant lie.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 909 ✭✭✭Gareth37


    All Dawkins and co are doing is making money of people foolish enough to beleive their dribble. Selling books, going to talks, seminars etc. Making money

    People say here than God cannot be proved but yet they accept some money making theory that doesn't actually make full scientific sense even. That to me is strange :confused:


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 46,947 ✭✭✭✭Mitch Connor


    Gareth37 wrote: »
    So tell me this. If we came for Monkeys this must mean that one day Monkeys will also become human?

    So that means that every animal on this planet will eventually become human?

    That is what you are saying here right, that man came from Monkeys? So Monkeys will also become man? Why did some Monkeys become man quicker than others and why are Monkeys showing no sign of evoluting further?

    I think you have been watching too much planet of the apes :D

    Do you watch the stuff you yourself posted?

    We didn't come from monkeys. Monkeys are an evolution of a common ancestor.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,188 ✭✭✭pH


    Gareth37 wrote: »
    Here is another decent site which shows even more flaws in the theory:
    http://www.epm.org/artman2/publish/creation_evolution/Ten_Major_Flaws_of_Evolution_-_Revised.shtml

    and more
    http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html

    In fact there are so many doubts its like saying that the world is flat

    Arrrrgh the fiend ... he's using "talk origins" faqs to bolster *his* side of the argument, meaning we can only use aig and creationist websites to defend evolution. Very clever! I'm sure even J C didn't come up with this brilliant move.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,809 ✭✭✭CerebralCortex


    Gareth37 wrote: »
    So tell me this. If we came for Monkeys this must mean that one day Monkeys will also become human?

    So that means that every animal on this planet will eventually become human?

    That is what you are saying here right, that man came from Monkeys? So Monkeys will also become man? Why did some Monkeys become man quicker than others and why are Monkeys showing no sign of evoluting further?

    I think you have been watching too much planet of the apes :D

    You could ask questions in the other direction, like why if creationism is true are there so many different breeds of dogs which came from wolves, hyenas, jackals, foxes, etc. Did a creator decide it would like us to have pit bulls? Or is it actually just a human perversion/hijacking of natural selection?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 46,947 ✭✭✭✭Mitch Connor


    Gareth37 wrote: »
    All Dawkins and co are doing is making money of people foolish enough to beleive their dribble. Selling books, going to talks, seminars etc. Making money

    People say here than God cannot be proved but yet they accept some money making theory that doesn't actually make full scientific sense even. That to me is strange :confused:

    evolutionary theory is used everyday, and proven to be accurate ever day in medical and computer science.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 46,947 ✭✭✭✭Mitch Connor


    pH wrote: »
    Arrrrgh the fiend ... he's using "talk origins" faqs to bolster *his* side of the argument, meaning we can only use aig and creationist websites to defend evolution. Very clever! I'm sure even J C didn't come up with this brilliant move.

    i don't think he read the second link himself


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,227 ✭✭✭TheIrishGrover


    Gareth37 wrote: »
    All Dawkins and co are doing is making money of people foolish enough to beleive their dribble. Selling books, going to talks, seminars etc. Making money


    Well, I suppose you got us there: No church has ever made money from followers...................
    Substitute the words "The Church" (ANY church) for "Dawkins" and reread


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 384 ✭✭qt9ukbg60ivjrn


    Gareth37 wrote: »
    why are Monkeys showing no sign of evoluting further?

    I think you have been watching too much planet of the apes :D

    evolution happens over a huge periods of time, that was idiotic to ask that question, you're not even playing by any rules, darwins theory was based on examination of fossils and others things to, he didn't just look at a bird for 10 days and note the changes

    you are not a scientist


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23 saml1


    Gareth37 wrote: »
    So can you answer the question?

    It is important to try and understand something before you knock it or discredit it and Gareth37 I doubt you have even tried to actually grasp the theory of evolution. I'd even bet you haven't put much effort into understanding your religions stance on the matter. You seem poorly informed either way from your comments and line of questioning, and are biased towards creationism and the existance of a god, so your opinions and conjecture shouldn't be given much merit.

    All too often the most ill-informed remarks begin with something like "I'm not a scientist, but..."


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 909 ✭✭✭Gareth37


    keane2097 wrote: »
    You should read the article posted earlier about bacteria evolving and try to understand the theory before you call it lies.

    You haven't a clue what you're on about and I'm almost 100% sure you're a troll.

    Only God knows, thats why science fails. ;)

    Even if one were to accept evolution, do you not think that there was something before evolution and what before that? So before all these things how was the first thing ever in the Universe created but then I hear myself say, what about before that. This is beyond human, it is supernatural. Denying the supernatural is denying that a concept behond the human mind exists and we all realise that there is something that science cannot explain. So I cannot accept evolution even and other theories for God is the creator in one way or another.

    At the very very start of what we are living in there must have been something supernatural for the concept of the human mind cannot explain how nothing was turned into something and Im 100% sure that God is the supernatural. :)


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 18,966 ✭✭✭✭syklops


    Gareth37 wrote: »
    All Dawkins and co are doing is making money of people foolish enough to beleive their dribble. Selling books, going to talks, seminars etc. Making money

    LOL

    And how much did the catholic church make last year?
    Gareth37 wrote: »
    People say here than God cannot be proved but yet they accept some money making theory that doesn't actually make full scientific sense even. That to me is strange :confused:

    If you can show me one hint of proof of the existence of god, I will swear allegiance to him right now. Just one small speck of proof that he exists. But you cant.

    Not to mention you have not uttered one shred of scientific sense yourself. Not even which part of science you study.

    Domestic Scientist perhaps?


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,227 ✭✭✭TheIrishGrover


    Gareth37 wrote: »
    Only God knows, thats why science fails. ;)
    :eek: Facepalm


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 384 ✭✭qt9ukbg60ivjrn


    janitorial work is not a science


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,967 ✭✭✭✭Zulu


    Gareth37 wrote: »
    All Dawkins and co are doing is making money of people foolish enough to beleive their dribble. Selling books, going to talks, seminars etc. Making money

    People say here than God cannot be proved but yet they accept some money making theory that doesn't actually make full scientific sense even. That to me is strange :confused:
    Seems to me that religions organised or not have been the best way to make money for the past 3000 years.

    Just saying is all.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 30,746 ✭✭✭✭Galvasean


    Gareth37 wrote: »
    All Dawkins and co are doing is making money of people foolish enough to beleive their dribble. Selling books, going to talks, seminars etc. Making money

    People say here than God cannot be proved but yet they accept some money making theory that doesn't actually make full scientific sense even. That to me is strange :confused:

    All Christianity and co are doing is making money of people foolish enough to beleive their dribble. Selling books, going to talks, seminars etc. Making money

    People say here than evolution cannot be proved but yet they accept some money making theory that doesn't actually make full scientific sense even. That to me is strange :confused:


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,792 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    Gareth37 wrote: »
    So tell me this. If we came for Monkeys this must mean that one day Monkeys will also become human?

    So that means that every animal on this planet will eventually become human?

    That is what you are saying here right, that man came from Monkeys? So Monkeys will also become man? Why did some Monkeys become man quicker than others and why are Monkeys showing no sign of evoluting further?

    I think you have been watching too much planet of the apes :D
    Here is another decent site which shows even more flaws in the theory:
    http://www.epm.org/artman2/publish/c..._Revised.shtml

    and more
    http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html

    Eh, you do realise that the second link is actually pointing out common creationist misconceptions about evolution (ie the things that creationists believe about evolution that are wrong, not the things that scientists believe about evolution, but are wrong) and that 4 of the 5 misconceptions pointed out in the 2nd link, actually appear in the list in the first link.
    In your own blind linking of any webpage that even looks like it supports your view, you have completely contradicted yourself....Well Done!:D

    EDIT: everyone got here before me :)


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,379 ✭✭✭toiletduck


    Gareth37 wrote: »
    People say here than God cannot be proved but yet they accept some money making theory that doesn't actually make full scientific sense even. That to me is strange :confused:

    You know the theory of evolution is used daily across the worlds in numerous fields right? Is it all by chance that it continues to 'work'?

    What are your thoughts on geology, cosmology and the hundreds of other areas that would have also to be incorrect for whatever story you're buying into to be right?

    And as for not answering any questions put forth, classy move.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 405 ✭✭Ronanc1


    Hey tar alderion there's nothing wrong with food science:rolleyes: that's what i study :( not by choice i wanted to do medicinal chemistry but Ive come to live with it ****ing food science oops rant over haha :P:P

    Yeah this Gareth guy is clearly a dope

    firstly your piece about being a man of science, what tripe. Your grammar and composition of your responses clearly demonstrates you don't even have the appropriate English skills for such a profession, no men or woman of science would be constrained by age old mystic superstitions

    as well your bit about proteins and amino acids is a complete mix up, it has nothing to do with evolution it is a completely different field Called abiogenesis


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,835 ✭✭✭Schuhart


    Wicknight wrote: »
    Through chemistry dear boy!

    Life is at the end of the day is simply a long series of chemical reactions. Chemical reactions take place due to energy causing atoms to change configuration.

    Considering there have been millions of fossils found perhaps you should define what you mean by "genuine"
    That's fine so far as it goes, but would I be right in saying that Gareth37 is trapping people into answering the wrong question. Evolutionary theory doesn't seek to explain the origin of life. Its silent on the topic. It just seeks to explain the origin of species. In other words, what Darwin was seeking to explain was the diversity in life, taking the existence of life as a given. He was trying to explain why everyone isn't an amoeba, not how amoebas (amoebae?) got there in the first place.

    This seems to be a common enough distortion, that I think needs to be consistently refuted. If someone is asking how life began in the first place, it has damn all to do with evolution.

    Unless I'm missing something. Unlike Gareth37, I've no pretensions about being a scientist.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,792 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    Gareth37 wrote: »
    Only GodEveryone else knows, thats why science this thread fails. ;)

    Fixed :)


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,021 ✭✭✭Hivemind187


    Gareth37 wrote: »
    So tell me this. If we came for Monkeys this must mean that one day Monkeys will also become human?

    HAHAHAHAHAHAAH ... I'm asuming you are positing yourself as evidence of this dire and willful misunderstanding of evolution.
    Gareth37 wrote: »
    So that means that every animal on this planet will eventually become human?


    I have my doubts about some animals ...

    Gareth37 wrote: »
    That is what you are saying here right, that man came from Monkeys? So Monkeys will also become man? Why did some Monkeys become man quicker than others and why are Monkeys showing no sign of evoluting further?

    Um, no. No one in their right mind is saying that at all.

    Evolution works because a survival imperative is placed on an a particular species. this imperative means that (for example) a particular gets more visits by pollen spreading bee's than others because it is more colourful. This spreads the "extra colour" genes to other plants and those who express this trait will eventually become more widley spread because they are better adapted to their environment (specifically to manipulating bees in this case). If Bee's were attracted to pink flowers more than blue flowers the pink flowers would become more wide spread and vice versa. (Yes this is an extremely simplified mechanism of evolution but it serves my point).

    Man and monkey are separate species. Man (homosapiens) is a member of the great ape family not that "monkey" family. Man did not evolve directly from apes either, we had a common ancestor i.e. traced back far enough a single species separated down two different paths resulting in ourselves on the one hand (due to multiple examples of the "extra colour" scenario above) and a different species on the other (there were likely many many more branches but eventually you get back to a single individual species).

    Why are monkeys not showing signs of evolution? Firstly that betrays a massive misunderstanding of evolution and its mechanism and secondly you ignore the factor of time. You are unlikely to see great changes in monkeys (or any complex multiple cell organism) during a single life time because the changes taking place are small and subtle. There is a possibility you will see such changes in the vent of massive disasters like plagues, famine etc which maybe surviviable depending on minor previously ignored traits (i.e. ability to thinking abstractly or resistance to particular infection).

    If you doubt the reality of this I invite you to look at faster examples of evolution which can be seen within your life time. Bacteria and viruses. MRSA is perhaps the best example of natural selection. Simple stapholococus bacteria living in Hosptials were repeatedly exposed to cleaning products during routine scrubbing of floors etc or by the. Most of their number would be wiped out by the chemicals - however a few would survive the treatment due to being resistant to one degree or another. These bacteria would then regrow and re-infect requiring cleaning with antibiotics or cleansers again. Over and over this process is repeated with different anti-biotics and chemicals until we arrive at a species which is immune to nearly every kind of chemical we can throw at it. Hence, Multi-drug Resistant Stapholococus A.
    Gareth37 wrote: »
    I think you have been watching too much planet of the apes :D

    Your's was a fine performance.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 68,317 ✭✭✭✭seamus


    Gareth37 wrote: »
    Millions of pre-man or ape-man? No
    It's worth noting that nature is unbelieveably efficient at reprocessing organic matter for its own uses. Since we started living in communities and burying our dead in the ground, we've given nature something of a helping hand. The odds of any one particular person's body surviving long enough to become fossilised are so remote that you've a better chance of winning the lotto multiple times.

    Skin decays very rapidly and is completely disintegrated by bacteria in far less than a century. Teeth and bones take that bit longer, but after 2,000 years you can be pretty sure there's not much more than a flake a molar left.

    Fossilisation takes some very specific circumstances to really turn out well - ideally being buried in a ridiculous cold place (such as arctic tundra) or falling into an airless liquid which harbours no organisms, such as tar or oil, are about your best bets.

    Such is our modern way of living and the massive increase in safety that we now have, of the 6 billion (?) people alive today, no more than ten or twenty will be suitable to be dug up as fossils in 50,000 years.

    Of course, the chances of the fossil actually being found are equally remote. It's a wonder that we find any fossils at all. The fact that we've found millions of fossils (and a few hundred primates) is solid evidence of the enormous varieties of living creatures that have flourished on this planet over its billions of years of existence.


  • Advertisement
Advertisement