Member of the Month

theabortionator
April, 2025

Online

Welcome to the Newschoolers forums! You may read the forums as a guest, however you must be a registered member to post. Register to become a member today!

If you don't believe in the Theory of Evolution, you're an idiot.

profile picture
Jibbidy
Posts: 787 - Karma: 19
It seems not just anybody can wrap their mind around this simple concept.  Have a better explanation as to how we came to be, that will then contradict all scientific evidence brought to the table, ever?
16 years ago
0 0
profile picture
OhMyBosh
Posts: 5056 - Karma: 171
Make your case then, and outline your points on the current theory of evolution that you are not sure about and i will be glad to discuss it with you.
All you've really done all thread is throw in random remarks here and there.
16 years ago
0 0
profile picture
q12
Posts: 152 - Karma: 9
maybe you missed this because it was the last post on a page so

you claim bullshit on anyone who doesnt agree with you.

math is more fact based than any sentence in this entire thread.

explain why that math is wrong.  seriously. You have never taken a statistics class i bet.

what is the probability of flipping heads 10 times in a row?  (dont use google)
16 years ago
0 0
profile picture
AMD_5
Posts: 745 - Karma: 15
You can't bullshit Math
16 years ago
0 0
profile picture
Tinga
Posts: 11349 - Karma: 2,333
i try my best to keep my "ignorant" comments to myself to avoid being yelled at by people who don't know me or want to understand my point of view.
16 years ago
0 0
profile picture
RudyGarmisch
Posts: 25444 - Karma: 13,856
I really dont know how else to explain this to you, but our knowledge is part of what makes our species human. Intelligence is a characteristic of a human being. What does your airlift hypothesis have anything to do with proof of evolution anyways? Should we drop a polar bear into the middle of the Sahara and thus conclude that its perishing would somehow prove evolution doesnt exist?

And humanity has taken a long time to become 'human'. Hundreds of thousands of years in fact from our first bipedal ancestor. 'Right out of the stone age' is about 35,000 years. Its really cool that you are learning about the Sumerians in whatever high school class you are in, but please, just because you know a bit about this civilization doesnt portend it to be the first foray of our species into societal living, communication or logic. That is to say, Mesopotamia is really only famous because its the first solid civilization we know of. Cave paintings, stone tools and burial sites of much more ancient humans suggest that these traits developed over longer stretches of time.

I only deleted one thread, but I'm sure the other mods will delete any more. We've already gone over this, you had a huge thread on it a while back in which your (I say your with hesitation, since you're pretty much just regurgitating a uncredited loon) arguments were completely and 'pathetically' steamrolled.
16 years ago
0 0
profile picture
OhMyBosh
Posts: 5056 - Karma: 171
Math is fact based i agree.
Head 10 times in a row = 1/2 ^9. I took a grade 12 stats course thank you very much.


MATH IS NOT RELEVANT TO EVOLUTION. It has nothing to do with it. Natural selection is not random.


Please watch this video. Its 8 minutes long. Please just watch it and then get back to me.






Please also explain why, if this persons math is correct and he has disproved evolution, why has he not published his work, won the nobel prize in various fields, become filthy rich and world famous?

16 years ago
0 0
profile picture
Jibbidy
Posts: 787 - Karma: 19
Stop wasting bytes ans stay on topic please.  There are far too many variables in relation to the climate/environment ti make consistent numbers!  You are very misled.
16 years ago
0 0
profile picture
[BRI]noceros
Posts: 2319 - Karma: 40
look everyone, many of us on here have seen where religious and political and philosophical debates have lead, and i think many of us can agree it needs to stop. it just gets everyone annoyed and argues and then random people will post pictures of irrelevant things, and the thread will end up being ten pages long, and then inevitably be deleted. so please, stop now
16 years ago
0 0
profile picture
[BRI]noceros
Posts: 2319 - Karma: 40
for the record, i do believe in evolution, HOWEVER, i do agree that it is impossible to prove any theory 100%. we can't be sure there is no god and we can't be sure there is. it's impossible.
16 years ago
0 0
profile picture
q12
Posts: 152 - Karma: 9
I would disagree and say that i didnt get one decent rebuttal, I understand your a mod (round of applause) and i understand you disagree with me,  but my old thread was deleted too i would have bumped it

rather pathetic that anyone you disagree with you delete their threads.

That uncredited loon as you say has a PhD, and math is math no matter if youre an Nazi or a devout muslim.  Resurrect the thread and show me your mathematical argument against it please
16 years ago
0 0
profile picture
OhMyBosh
Posts: 5056 - Karma: 171
Please watch the video i posted and answer my question please.

Math is math, however, that has nothing to do with evolution.
16 years ago
0 0
profile picture
RudyGarmisch
Posts: 25444 - Karma: 13,856
Dude, I'm above fair when it comes to this shit. For the last fucking time (and I'm getting tired of saying it) your thread was deleted because there is already a thread on the topic, it was just you copypastaing some article, and YOU'VE ALREADY MADE THE SAME EXACT THREAD. Find it yourself, I'm not going to waste my time digging up bullshit. Let me make this perfectly clear to you once again - my reasons for deleting your thread are not because I personally disagree with your view.

And a math PhD commenting on the statistical probability of evolution is like having a philosopher describe what goes on in the center of a black hole. As one who has had college level stat courses, there are many, many unknown factors that come into play with biological systems, and a mathematical model for such a complex and dynamic system is near impossible.
16 years ago
0 0
profile picture
Jibbidy
Posts: 787 - Karma: 19
I'm going to settle some tempers around here on the entire religion biases.  I quote the great Albert Einstein, as he said, "Believe in whichever religion you want until  you find a better one."  Often to find a "better one", you have to accept epirical date (scientific proof) as truth.  But fuck preaching, I'd rather prove.
16 years ago
0 0
profile picture
OhMyBosh
Posts: 5056 - Karma: 171
Well why dont you explain your point of view.

It sounds like youre just afraid of having your viewpoint proven wrong.
16 years ago
0 0
profile picture
q12
Posts: 152 - Karma: 9
Math has every right to be in this discussion.

Any evolutionist pushing bio chemist or any scientist will agree that mutations are rare.  Plus they will agree that mutations have a very small, 1.0% at best but more like .1%, of being beneficial.

Having said that, you forget that your claim is that life started in the ocean with amino acids (still havent figured out how the first living cell came about but I will give you a pass and we will start there)

so that single cell organism needs to grow into 2 cells,  now mutations in nature are not guaranteed, they are not even 50% (as granted in the scenario i presented earlier) they are at best 1%.

so out of 100 single cell organism only 1 survives and live as two cells. And as observed in nature "bad" mutations overwhelmingly lead to death.   Do you understand so far?

These mutations and growths do not occur rapidly.  In the scenario presented above you were granted mutations every 1/2 second.  This is extraordinarily faster than observed in  than in real life.

can you imagine the number of changes that must have taken place between whales and cows underwent coming from the same ancestor?  how long do you suppose that took?

Whether you want to talk about physical cells, or "parts", many animals and plants are in the multi millions if not billions.

So time and probability become a factor, yes even over 5 billion years.  Or if you start from dinosaurs you are constrained to only a few hundred million years,  The time factor is extremely important.

I am simply bringing up the time constraint and probability of that many successful mutations as something to consider.  But how can you consider it when you fail to recognize why it is included in the first place
16 years ago
0 0
profile picture
Tinga
Posts: 11349 - Karma: 2,333
haha nope sorry. i just don't feel like you would be on the level of debating i am looking for for this topic.
16 years ago
0 0
profile picture
OhMyBosh
Posts: 5056 - Karma: 171
Well surely you could just explain your point. i would like to engage in a more serious debate, seeing as the only other person arguing against me in this thread is q12, and he obviously has some severe mental problems that make him ignore every piece of evidence against him.


Q12: WATCH THE VIDEO I ASKED YOU TO AND ANSWER MY QUESTION.

Also, just to throw this out there, mutations are not rare, they occur all the time every single time something reproduces. beneficial mutations are not common, but mutations as a whole are not rare.
16 years ago
0 0
profile picture
RudyGarmisch
Posts: 25444 - Karma: 13,856
You're assuming that the conditions under which life arose are similar to that of todays, and that the organisms then were similar to present day organisms. We have no idea how ancient archeobacteria worked, only guesses.
16 years ago
0 0
profile picture
q12
Posts: 152 - Karma: 9
As I said, I would have bumped my old thread but it was deleted.  So I cant find it because it was deleted.  Make sense? 

Yes it was a long article, it needed to be.  If I paraphrased information would have been lost on readers that was necessary and they would have asked questions to information left out.

And a mathematician presented a scenario and used math.  You can apply math to the probability of skittles of being inside black holes. Thats the neat thing about statistics you can apply it all over the place.  By your logic a statistician has no business telling you who is going to win Kentucky derby.  Only jockeys and horse trainers would know right? Who do you think comes up with odds in Vegas.

 It was a perfectly good premise. Clearly there are unknowns in a biological system,

but
do you agree that mutations dont occur ever 1/2 second with a success rate of 50%.?????

It was a sound argument

You seem to be juvenile
16 years ago
0 0
profile picture
OhMyBosh
Posts: 5056 - Karma: 171
q12, you also completely ignore the role that natural selection plays in the form of environmental changes etc etc. when you make these mathematical predictions. By doing so, all your math is completely irrelevant because it cannot account for natural selection, which plays a huge role in how evolution works.


Please watch the video that i embedded in an earlier post for your convenience.
16 years ago
0 0
profile picture
q12
Posts: 152 - Karma: 9
but the theory of evolution starts from the beginning of single cell organisms on earth. no matter how ancient they are. 

where does your theory of evolution start
16 years ago
0 0
profile picture
OhMyBosh
Posts: 5056 - Karma: 171
I wonder how long q12 can go without responding to my questions.
16 years ago
0 0
profile picture
q12
Posts: 152 - Karma: 9
that video really wasnt anything special at all.

and the mutations i am talking about are not a baby growing into an adult.

I am talking about the millions and millions of mutations that must have taken place for a marine animal with fins to change into an animal with the bone structure to walk on land with 4 legs. 

Those types of mutations are not normal.  If they are point out a mutation going on in the animal kingdom today.  I am not talking about humans getting taller or stronger.  I mean, species into species mutation. 
16 years ago
0 0
profile picture
Mr.Panda
Posts: 17711 - Karma: 564

have you ever read On the Origin of Species?

  • Every species is fertile enough that if all offspring survived to reproduce the population would grow (fact).
  • Despite periodic fluctuations, populations remain roughly the same size (fact).
  • Resources such as food are limited and are relatively stable over time (fact).
  • A struggle for survival ensues (inference).
  • Individuals in a population vary significantly from one another (fact).
  • Much of this variation is inheritable (fact).
  • Individuals less suited to the environment are less likely to survive and less likely to reproduce; individuals more suited to the environment are more likely to survive and more likely to reproduce and leave their inheritable traits to future generations, which produces the process of natural selection (inference).
  • This slowly effected process results in populations changing to adapt to their environments, and ultimately, these variations accumulate over time to form new species (inference).

    • thats ESSENTIALLY what the book is about in a really small bullet list.

    16 years ago
    0 0
    profile picture
    OhMyBosh
    Posts: 5056 - Karma: 171
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O4GdZOlPrX8&feature=PlayList&p=F9729F67CD4034C9&index=0

    3 videos about transitional fossils.

    Once again, a simple google search will provide you with all the information that you chose to ignore.
    There are copious examples of transitional fossils between fish and land animals.

    I cant point out a mutation that is going on today. The mutations you talk about take hundreds of millions of years.
    16 years ago
    0 0
    profile picture
    OhMyBosh
    Posts: 5056 - Karma: 171
    PLEASE EXPLAIN, IF YOU HAVE FOUND MATHEMATICAL, CONCLUSIVE PROOF THAT EVOLUTION IS IMPOSSIBLE, WHY NOBODY HAS PUBLISHED THIS WORK IN A SCIENTIFIC JOURNAL?

    /cruise control.
    16 years ago
    0 0
    profile picture
    S-S-K
    Posts: 218 - Karma: 187

    "The evolutionist ignores the problem surrounding the human female egg and the male sperm in the evolutionary theory. The female egg contains the X-chromosome and the male sperm contains either an X-chromosome for the reproduction of a male or a Y-chromosome for the reproduction of a female. The female eggs all develop within the ovaries while she is a baby (fetus) within her mother's womb. Evolutionists claim environmental factors cause small changes in the offspring in the evolutionary chain. However, the environmental experience of the female cannot change the chromosomes within her eggs and cannot have any effect upon her offspring. Her body cannot go into the eggs contained within her ovaries at her birth to make an intelligent change. Females cannot be a part of the evolutionary theory for these reasons."

    "The scientific fact that DNA replication includes a built-in error checking method and a DNA repair process proves the evolutionary theory is wrong. The fact is that any attempt by the DNA to change is stopped and reversed. "


    http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread163678/pg1

    16 years ago
    0 0
    profile picture
    Mr.Panda
    Posts: 17711 - Karma: 564
    um...  females have two X chromosomes and the male has one X and one Ychromosome.....  whoever wrote that is a fucking idiot...
    16 years ago
    0 0
    profile picture
    q12
    Posts: 152 - Karma: 9
    you're not reading my posts, i cant possibly talk on behalf of the author of that piece as to his intentions with it,  It could very well be in a journal.  I DO NOT consider this absolute proof as to why evolution is not true.  I think it presents an interesting side that few people consider.

    But any opposing thought to evolution is met by idiots like you who just name call and what not.

    the mutation thing is a great example for me to apply it.
    (first just want to point out that transitional fossils always show fully functional limbs (in this case) between ancestors.  never an animal that is going through the mutation of a fin to a foot.  i understand they find a step in between with a middle animal, but once again his set up is fully functional. 

    would you agree, that at some point at some stage over the millions of years this took place there were animals out there with not fully functioning extremities?

    I will now apply the article you keep slamming.

    Lets pretend that it only took 200 changes for an animal to go from fins to something with feet (in reality it took millions).  Evolutionists would say it takes 300 million years or so.  I will give him 10 billion years for it to take place.  Now this animal is going under these changes at a rate of 1 ever 1/2 second (very generous for you).  The success rate of these changes are 50% (again very generous for you)

     to get all 200 of these changes right in a row even given 10 billion years to do it, the odds are

    1 in a billion trillion. 
    16 years ago
    0 0
    profile picture
    OhMyBosh
    Posts: 5056 - Karma: 171
    Another example of someone being completely ignorant on how evolution works, and thus thinks it is false.

    The mutations that occur are random. If they benefit the baby when it is born, they make it survive and be more successful than the babies without said mutation. This means that when the baby grows up and mates, that mutation will be passed on to its children.

    Get a fucking basic understand of evolution before you post in this thread PLEASE.
    16 years ago
    0 0
    profile picture
    1337
    Posts: 31078 - Karma: 29,667
    To support your argument, gravity is also a "theory" so if any of you MO FO's be floating around in space and can prove (via pics) that this theory is wrong, i would STFU
    16 years ago
    0 0
    profile picture
    Funnel
    Posts: 7819 - Karma: 1,590
    Dude, are you fucking kidding?  Are you still in middle school, you think this sounds like a sound explanation, so you copied and pasted it?  hahahahahahaha, NONE of that made sense.  Like said, female has two X chromosomes, Male has an X and Y.
    16 years ago
    0 0
    profile picture
    OhMyBosh
    Posts: 5056 - Karma: 171
    Once again you fail to understand that random mutations are not the only thing that make evolution work. It is caused by natural selection due to the environment etc.

    To find a fossil that does not have fully functioning limbs is hard due to the small timescale that this animal was alive for. Also, every part would always have a function to an extent. They are functioning, just not as well as they could.
    For example, a bird still has legs, but they are as functional as the legs of a human. (crap example but you get what i mean.)


    The math you use is correct in a sense, however, it does not make any sense when applied to evolution because it is just not relevant to it.



    Please explain to me how there are no scientists who have come up with ANY EVIDENCE against evolution and published that evidence in a scientific journal? I am very curious, because surely if evolution is so full of holes, an expert biologist will be able to find these holes and write an article about them...
    16 years ago
    0 0
    profile picture
    Mr.Panda
    Posts: 17711 - Karma: 564
    is an "AH SNAP!!!!" needed sir?
    16 years ago
    0 0
    profile picture
    Lanceasaurus
    Posts: 925 - Karma: 109
    Umm k.... I guess that makes me not an idiot lol but I think people should believe in what ever tickles their fancy.
    16 years ago
    0 0
    profile picture
    RudyGarmisch
    Posts: 25444 - Karma: 13,856
    This is some of the most rediculous shit ever, I really cannot believe you endure.

    I didnt delete your huge ass incoherent thread, so stop trying to blame me. Noody is trying to silence dissent, so stop blaming us.

    There is a problem with a statastician inferring biological probability. A huge glaring inconsistancy is the avoidence of macroevolution, wherein a single gene can activate old unexpressed DNA to suddenly give a organism an extra foot, leg, body segment, lung, etc. They dont always work, but these genetic 'monsters' can suddenly exploit a niche to tremendous advantage and rapidly progress evolution.

    I dont get the part about how transitional fossils show fully functional body parts either. Coelacanths? Feathered dinosaurs? But I think I get what you're getting at: No animal would evolve a complex structure because the transitional forms of the structure are useless. And you're simply wrong. Take the example (and famous one) of the bacterial flagellar motor. Its a complicated molecular device that uses energy to spin a shaft, which is attached to a strand that propels the organism. Without one part, the system wont work. So how did it evolve? Molecularly, its amazingly similar to a poisin injecting stinger that some bacteria sport for defense (which in turn evolved from protective spikes...). Its not hard to imagine that just one or two copying errors could make the injector spin instead of pump amino acids.

    So in summary, I agree that animals never existed that had completely useless extremities. Structures can nearly spontaneously become expressed through macro changes in the genes that control proper development, and considering the mass amount of 'junk' leftover DNA from previous forms of the organism, its not hard to imagine that one little switch on could start a process that could give a creature 16 more legs. Whether or not it will let them be more sucessful and carry on that new form, who knows.

    Playing biology by the numbers like this is bullshit. Mutations have a lot to do with chance, but so many other factors come into play that trying to guess at an accurate timescale for all of this is just....

    Really though, what have you gotten in the way of biology classes, because theres a lot I would love to reference without having to explain everything.
    16 years ago
    0 0
    profile picture
    joshua
    Posts: 5046 - Karma: 1,280
    there are two magazines that come out with stuff all the time Creation, and like Creation journal i think.
    16 years ago
    0 0
    profile picture
    RudyGarmisch
    Posts: 25444 - Karma: 13,856
    Those sound unbiased and scientific to me.
    16 years ago
    0 0
    profile picture
    joshua
    Posts: 5046 - Karma: 1,280
    me too
    16 years ago
    0 0
    profile picture
    joshua
    Posts: 5046 - Karma: 1,280
    yeah exactly. they will do things like find one skull and make up and entire species to fit into the theory
    16 years ago
    0 0
    profile picture
    THUGwife
    Posts: 1909 - Karma: 303
    ahahahahaha
    16 years ago
    0 0
    profile picture
    crazyfuck
    Posts: 5968 - Karma: -7
    joke's on you- he's right.
    16 years ago
    0 0
    profile picture
    THUGwife
    Posts: 1909 - Karma: 303
    sooo tempting. but i am not getting involved
    16 years ago
    0 0
    profile picture
    q12
    Posts: 152 - Karma: 9
    ok
    16 years ago
    0 0
    profile picture
    q12
    Posts: 152 - Karma: 9
    hmmmm interesting
    16 years ago
    0 0
    profile picture
    .travis.
    Posts: 1737 - Karma: 46
    I don't see why I'm a "closed minded idiot" for not believing in evolution when everyone else is completely disreguarding any other theory. I've had this shit forced down my throat all my life and never called anyone an idiot for beliveing differently than me so you all can at least make an attempt at seeing where creationists are coming from.
    16 years ago
    0 0
    profile picture
    Jibbidy
    Posts: 787 - Karma: 19

    The only time something is NOT a theory is when it can be observed with your own eyes, within a lifetime. 

    Otherwise the label "theory" comes into play but I'm sick and tired of people pulling the "it's-only-a-theory" card on evolution.  Evolution is what it is!  Open your eyes!  If not evolution, then give it another name!  You have to look back on history, and the way things have changed, and come to be at this point, and give it some name. 

    16 years ago
    0 0
    profile picture
    OhMyBosh
    Posts: 5056 - Karma: 171
    There is no other theory.

    A theory is a hypothesis that has been tested countless times, and if all the tests agree with the hypothesis, it becomes a theory.
    Creationism is not a theory because there is NO EVIDENCE for it. There is no evidence against evolution, there is no evidence for any other theory. Therefore, why the fuck would you not believe evolution?

    Why dont you go ahead and question atomic theory and cell theory while youre at it? And fuck this gravity thing everyones talking about too... Theyre probably all BS.
    16 years ago
    0 0
    profile picture
    I_Am_Mod
    Posts: 13214 - Karma: 3,753
    Who here believes in Lamarckism ?
    I honestly believe we'll be hearing of this again in the future....


    16 years ago
    0 0
    profile picture
    ElbridgeGerry
    Posts: 5902 - Karma: -27
    Yeah, Einstein and Newton were fucking retards...
    16 years ago
    0 0
    All times are Eastern (-4); Currently it's 10:06PM