Darwin was a fucking idiot. -- LiveWire Teen Forums

I respect him, though, because he tried to provide evidence for what he believed in, and he had a good point, a good enough point for ME to be learning about his theory in school. The thing that pisses me off is that he basically admitted numerous times that he couldn't prove evolution was real, yet it had to have happened.

"Innumerable transitional forms must have existed, but why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth?"

Contrary to what evolutionists believe, life appeared on the earth suddenly, and fully developed. Where the fuck did GIRAFFES evolve from? Explain that one, bitches. Explain why I'm being taught all of this bullshit about Homo Habilis and whatnot, and evolution. I'm pretty sure that I read somewhere about Homo Habilis, I think, being almost identical in skeletal structure to the common ape. School systems are just too fucking lazy to teach us what's really going down. They aren't teaching us new information. They're teaching us what everyone's almost always been taught, just so they don't create total chaos for future generations.

Here's the truth:
EVERYTHING in life can be logically contradicted, and easily manipulated into a huge lie, or complete bullshit.

The 'New Math' in the 60s. "The name is commonly given to a set of teaching practices introduced in the U.S. shortly after the Sputnik crisis in order to boost scientific education and mathematical skill in the population so that the supposed intellectual threat of the Soviet engineers, reputedly highly skilled mathematicians, could be met." - from Wikipedia.
Okay, so just because we're potentially fucked and what we're doing isn't good enough, that means we can make up some crazy shit to blow the MINDS off of some stupid bastards? Alright. Thank GOD that plan failed. Horribly. Who knows what the hell I would be learning now.

What I'm really sick of is God. God this, God that. Who is God?
There's a video now called "Ten Questions Intelligent Christians Must Answer." It's pretty stupid. They're trying to prove God isn't real, basically, without looking at science and even being logical. They're trying to tell me that God isn't real because the world is shit.

1.) Why doesn't God heal amputees? - In the video it stated, "Amputees get no miracles from God." Alright, then explain the dude who got his finger chopped off, made some collagen powder from a pig's bladder, and grew his finger back, nail, veins, fingerprints and all, within a 4 weeks. Finger in 4 weeks, leg in a year, tops.
God healed the amputees, via some guy in Ohio. Even if it wasn't God's doing, they can still get their fucking leg.

2.) Why are there so many starving people in the world? - Straight up, because not everyone can have it good. Is that douche trying to convince me that there's any way possible for everyone on the face of the planet to get everything they need? Maybe these "desperate, innocent children" were bitches and crackwhores in their past lives. Even if there is no such thing as reincarnation, it brings me back to my first point. Not everyone can have everything they need and live a perfect life.

3.) Why does God demand the death of so many innocent people in the Bible? - Anyone who works on the sabbath, disobedient teenagers, homosexuals, and girls who aren't virgins when they marry MUST BE KILLED. I believe that this is all just a test. To me, most of the Bible is a test. Sixth Commandment = do not murder. Yet we're supposed to kill someone who's gay, simply for sinning? That's supposed to be God's judgment, not ours. If the gays are going to go to hell anyway, then why take yourself with them for going against a COMMANDMENT, rather than a "law"? It's all a test of logic. Kill, yet don't kill? Judge, yet don't judge? It's all a test based off of nonsense.

4.) Why does the Bible contain so much anti-scientific nonsense? - This guy makes these statements about how "Adam was not created from dust", "The earth was not created in 6 days 6000 years ago", "Jonas did not live inside of the stomach of a fish for three days", and "There was never a flood covering Mount Everest." I'm aware that I hardly know anything about the Bible, I hardly know where anything is, who wrote what and why, but I understand the general message. In my opinion, the Bible is there for the message of good-doings, not historical reference. There's proof that the earth was created, thriving with life, long before Christianity states. I'm sure Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Peter, and Paul were all very lovely people, along with whoever the fuck else wrote the Bible. They probably over-exaggerated, maybe even completely lied to get the message across. Adam/dust & earth creation's message = God has crazy powers. Jonas/fish's message = Through faith, you can get through anything. About the flood.. almost all of the civilizations in the eastern hemisphere had a period of time recorded where they were nearly completely wiped out due to water covering the entire world. This happened in the general time region of Noah's flood. Some things in the Bible are true, but somethings are obviously not, but they have a message that pertains to the rest of the Bible and the belief system it enforces.

5.) Why is God such a huge proponent of slavery in the Bible? Because he fucking felt like it. God can do whatever the hell he wants. It also goes back to questions 2&3 to a sense. God didn't stop slavery, we did. It's as simple as that. Separation of state and church's fault for that one, not God's.

6.) Why do bad things happen to good people? This douche just said "You've created an exotic excuse on God's behalf." Well.. it's basically question two's answer, AGAIN, but also because we're human. He created humans with the ability to fuck up and have fuck ups, right? People bring on bad shit themselves. We deserve to get smacked in the face with reality if things are going good for us, simply because "God is above us." He can do what he wants to humans, he made us. Also, karma comes into play. Maybe you fucked up without realizing it, in this life or a past life. Either way, bad shit happens and no one can stop it. THAT'S why.

7.) Why didn't any of Jesus' miracles in the Bible leave behind any evidence? - "It's very strange, isn't it?" is what the maker of the video said. It is strange, but there is no contrary evidence.

8.) How to we explain the fact that Jesus has never appeared to you? - How does this guy know that me and Jesus aren't homies, chilling at the park and smoking one? Either way about it, he points out that Jesus doesn't come when you pray for him. Is he supposed to? Does it say anywhere in the Bible that he's supposed to physically be there when you need him? Why would you need Jesus? Why do you need anyone physically? You don't. You're supposed to have faith he really died for your sins, and you don't have to have physical proof to believe in something.

9.) Why would Jesus want you to eat his body and drink his blood? - It may be "horrible, satanic, and grotesque", but maybe Jesus was crazy. Or, maybe it's holiness cured you of whatever illness, handicap, or sin you may have, which is the reason I understand he did/said this.

10.) Why do Christians get divorced at the same rate as non-Christians? - Answer to question 6, basically. Things fuck up and the world is shit. People fall out of love as easy as they fall in love, and they don't want to be tied down anymore. God can't change the way you feel, he's supposed to change the way you live.

The end of the video answers all of these questions with the statement "God is imaginary, therefore he can't ____."
It states that "the Bible was written by ridiculous, ruthless men, rather than a loving being." God can write? I thought he gave the prophets messages to pass to the common people? They had every write to interpret it as they wish. I understand any Bible story you throw at me, or at least the general message. God wouldn't have told them to pass it on if they weren't fully capable of explaining it in a way for common people to understand. The Bible is 100% fully understandable, based on the view that it is just a message. I admit, again, that I am quite ignorant when it comes to the Bible, but I was pretty sure that GOD DID NOT WRITE THE BIBLE, which is what this dude said. For fuck's sake, I may have contradicted myself in my different explanations, but at least I explained his ridiculous questions with logical answers, besides the point that "God is imaginary."

So what if he is? The Bible is completely understandable to anyone who is capable of interpreting it correctly.

More later.
I'm tired of thinking.

Let's get started debunking this thread.

1. Did Darwin Lack Evidence?

You stated that "The thing that pisses me off is that he basically admitted numerous times that he couldn't prove evolution was real, yet it had to have happened". However, Darwin had quite a lot of evidence for evolution, such as artificial selection and the principle of faunal succession. However, whatever the state of the evidence 150 years ago where, it has zero relevance for the state of the evidence today, which is vast and strong and points conclusively at evolution, but more on that later.

2. Distorting Darwin

Creationists love to take quotes by Darwin out-of-context. You quoted a rhetorical question of his. The quote in context is as follows.

But, as by this theory innumerable transitional forms must have existed, why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth? It will be more convenient to discuss this question in the chapter on the Imperfection of the Geological Record; and I will here only state that I believe the answer mainly lies in the record being incomparably less perfect than is generally supposed. The crust of the earth is a vast museum; but the natural collections have been imperfectly made, and only at long intervals of time. (p. 134)

Besides leaving out the context, this is misleading in a subtler way when used for the wild claim that there are no transitional forms. Darwin is not talking about the existence or nonexistence of transitional fossils, but of an "innumerable" series of finely-graded transitional linking together all extinct and existing forms. As he says later on page 342:

These causes [the imperfection of the fossil record, the limited exploration of the record, poor fossilization of certain body types, etc.], taken conjointly, will to a large extent explain why -- though we do find many links -- we do not find interminable varieties, connecting together all extinct and existing forms by the finest graduated steps. It should also be constantly borne in mind that any linking variety between two forms, which might be found, would be ranked, unless the whole chain could be perfectly restored, as a new and distinct species; for it is not pretended that we have any sure criterion by which species and varieties can be discriminated.

You see, not all dead animals become fossils. Far from it. Naturally, any lack of transitional fossils back in 1850 has no relevance to the state of transitional fossils today.

3. Where Are The Transitional Fossils?

Darwin's lack of fossils is today an embarrassment of riches.

Transitional fossils from earlier primates to humans

Australopithecus afarensis, Australopithecus africanus, Australopithecus ramidus, Australopithecus garhi, Australopithecus anamensis, Australopithecus robustus, Australopithecus boisei, Australopithecus aethiopicus, Homo habilis, Homo erectus, Homo georgicus, Homo florensis, Homo rudolfensis, Homo heidelbergensis, Homo ergaster, Homo neandertalensis och Homo sapiens etc.

Transitional fossils from primitive jawless fish to sharks, rays and amphibians

Cladoselache, Tristychius, Ctenacanthus, Paleospinax, Spathobatis, Protospinax, Acanthodians, Canobius, Aeduella, Parasemionotus, Oreochima, Leptolepis, Cheirolepis, Osteolepis, Eusthenopteron, Sterropterygion, Eusthenopteron, Panderichthys, Elpistostege, Eusthenopteron, Obruchevichthys, Hynerpeton, Acanthostega, Ichthyostega, Pholidogaster, Pteroplax, Dendrerpeton acadianum, Archegosaurus decheni, Eryops megacephalus, Trematops, Amphibamus lyelli, Doleserpeton annectens, Triadobatrachus, Vieraella och Karaurus etc.

Transitional fossils from amphibians to the first reptiles

Proterogyrinus, Limnoscelis, Tseajaia, Solenodonsaurus, Hylonomus, Paleothyris, Captorhinus, Scutosaurus, Deltavjatia vjatkensis, Proganochelys, Hylonomus, Paleothyris, Petrolacosaurus, Araeoscelis, Apsisaurus, Claudiosaurus, Planocephalosaurus, Protorosaurus, Prolacerta, Proterosuchus, Hyperodapedon, Trilophosaurus, Captorhinus, Protocaptorhinus, Eocaptorhinus och Romeria etc.

Transitional fossils between the synapsids to primitive mammals

Paleothyris, Protoclepsydrops haplous, Clepsydrops, Archaeothyris, Varanops, Haptodus, Dimetrodon, Sphenacodon, Biarmosuchia, Procynosuchus, Dvinia, Thrinaxodon, Cynognathus, Diademodon, Probelesodon, Probainognathus, Exaeretodon, Oligokyphus, Kayentatherium, Pachygenelus, Diarthrognathus, Adelobasileus cromptoni, Sinoconodon, Kuehneotherium, Eozostrodon, Morganucodon, Haldanodon, Peramus, Endotherium, Kielantherium, Aegialodon, Steropodon galmani, Vincelestes neuquenianus, Pariadens kirklandi, Kennalestes, Asioryctes, Cimolestes, Procerberus och Gypsonictops etc.

etc.

Do these not exist?

4. Abrupt Appearance?

Does the fossil record show abrupt appearances or gradual transitions? The fossils cited above show a gradual transition, not abrupt appearances. Let us look at the Cambrian radiation as an example.

The eminent paleontologist Donald Prothero writes the following.

"It takes from 600 to 520 million years ago before the typical Cambrian fauna of large shelly organisms (especially trilobites) finally develops. Eighty million years is not explosive by any stretch of the imagination. Now only is the explosion a slow fuse, but it follows a series of logical stages from simple and small to larger and complex and mineralized. First, of course, we have microfossils of cyanobacteria and other eukaryotes going back to as far as 3.5 billion years ago and spanning the entire fossils record since that ancient time. Then, about 600 million years ago, we get the first good evidence of multicellular animals, the Ediacara fauna. They are larger and multicellular, but did not have hard shells. The earliest stages of the Cambrian, the Nemakit-Daldynian and Tommotian stages, are dominated not by the little shellies, which were just beginning to develop small mineralized skeletons. Only after several more steps do we see the full Cambrian fauna. In short, the fossil record shows a gradual buildup from single-celled prokaryotes and then eukaryotes to multicellular soft-bodies animals to animals with tiny shells, and finally, by the middle Cambrian, the full range of large shelled invertebrates. This gradual transformation by logical advances in body size and skeletonization bears no resemblance to an instantaneous Cambrian explosion" (Prothero, Donald R., "Evolution: What the Fossils Say and Why It Matters, 2007 p. 169).

The Cambrain radiation provides evidence for the gradual evolution we know as a fact.

5. Evolution of Giraffes

The giraffe is a terrestrial mammal, and terrestrial mammals evolution from synapsids as detailed above. There are many well-preserve transitional fossil species and groups detailing the evolution of giraffes, such as Paleoryx, Canthumeryx, Giraffokeryx, Samotherium, Bohilinia etc. The modern opaki is more typical of the group with its shorter neck and relatively short horns. In fact, Nikos Solounias has found a perfect intermediate giraffe form between a short next and a long next. Furthermore, studies of endogeneous retroviruses line up perfectly with the evolutionary prediction that girrafes share a common ancestor with other terrestrial mammals. We do not know everything there is to know about the evolution of giraffes, but we are as sure as we can be that they did evolution (due to the present ERVs).

6. Why Teach Evolution?

Because it is a valid explanation for the diversity of life, supported by a massive amount of different lines of evidence that all converge on the same specific conclusion: evolution. Plus, evolutionary biology has loads of commercial applications.

7. Is Homo habilis a Common Ape?

Let's see. Homo habilis is bipedal, like H. sapiens. No other primate besides Homo and Astralopeticus are bipedal. Chimps and others are certainly not bipedal.

Furthermore, H. habilis had a much, much larger brain size than the common apes, so Homo habilis was not a "common ape" in your usage of the term. Here is an image of Homo habilis.

Doesn't look to be to be a 'common ape'. Of course, don't forget the many other transitional fossils, the fact that humans have a fused chromosome, the matching of ERVs and so on.

8. Is Evolution a Lie?

If evolution is a lie, then why do the independently discovered trees from diverse areas such as genetics, biogeography, embryology, comparative anatomy, biochemistry, paleontology line up seamlessly with each other and with data from endogenous retroviruses? Why do whales have genes for making legs? Why do birds have genes to make teeth? Why do humans have genes for making tails? Why is it that we never find a half-bird half-mammal transitional fossil? Why do no none-mammal organism not have nipples under development? Why does the fossils reccord demonstrate so many transitional fossils? Why do whales and cows share endogenous retroviruses?

Here is a definitive videos for you.

Here are some more:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i1fGkFuHIu0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K11knFKqW4s
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eblrphIwoJQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O4GdZOlPrX8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XUcB_HiCKnM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0puoduvfBxA

Enjoy!

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA202.html

Nothing in the real world can be proved with absolute certainty. However, high degrees of certainty can be reached. In the case of evolution, we have huge amounts of data from diverse fields. Extensive evidence exists in all of the following different forms (Theobald 2004). Each new piece of evidence tests the rest.
* All life shows a fundamental unity in the mechanisms of replication, heritability, catalysis, and metabolism.
* Common descent predicts a nested hierarchy pattern, or groups within groups. We see just such an arrangement in a unique, consistent, well-defined hierarchy, the so-called tree of life.
* Different lines of evidence give the same arrangement of the tree of life. We get essentially the same results whether we look at morphological, biochemical, or genetic traits.
* Fossil animals fit in the same tree of life. We find several cases of transitional forms in the fossil record.
* The fossils appear in a chronological order, showing change consistent with common descent over hundreds of millions of years and inconsistent with sudden creation.
* Many organisms show rudimentary, vestigial characters, such as sightless eyes or wings useless for flight.
* Atavisms sometimes occur. An atavism is the reappearance of a character present in a distant ancestor but lost in the organism's immediate ancestors. We only see atavisms consistent with organisms' evolutionary histories.
* Ontogeny (embryology and developmental biology) gives information about the historical pathway of an organism's evolution. For example, as embryos whales and many snakes develop hind limbs that are reabsorbed before birth.
* The distribution of species is consistent with their evolutionary history. For example, marsupials are mostly limited to Australia, and the exceptions are explained by continental drift. Remote islands often have species groups that are highly diverse in habits and general appearance but closely related genetically. Squirrel diversity coincides with tectonic and sea level changes (Mercer and Roth 2003). Such consistency still holds when the distribution of fossil species is included.
* Evolution predicts that new structures are adapted from other structures that already exist, and thus similarity in structures should reflect evolutionary history rather than function. We see this frequently. For example, human hands, bat wings, horse legs, whale flippers, and mole forelimbs all have similar bone structure despite their different functions.
* The same principle applies on a molecular level. Humans share a large percentage of their genes, probably more than 70 percent, with a fruit fly or a nematode worm.
* When two organisms evolve the same function independently, different structures are often recruited. For example, wings of birds, bats, pterosaurs, and insects all have different structures. Gliding has been implemented in many additional ways. Again, this applies on a molecular level, too.
* The constraints of evolutionary history sometimes lead to suboptimal structures and functions. For example, the human throat and respiratory system make it impossible to breathe and swallow at the same time and make us susceptible to choking.
* Suboptimality appears also on the molecular level. For example, much DNA is nonfunctional.
* Some nonfunctional DNA, such as certain transposons, pseudogenes, and endogenous viruses, show a pattern of inheritance indicating common ancestry.
* Speciation has been observed.
* The day-to-day aspects of evolution -- heritable genetic change, morphological variation and change, functional change, and natural selection -- are seen to occur at rates consistent with common descent.

Furthermore, the different lines of evidence are consistent; they all point to the same big picture. For example, evidence from gene duplications in the yeast genome shows that its ability to ferment glucose evolved about eighty million years ago. Fossil evidence shows that fermentable fruits became prominent about the same time. Genetic evidence for major change around that time also is found in fruiting plants and fruit flies (Benner et al. 2002).
The evidence is extensive and consistent, and it points unambiguously to evolution, including common descent, change over time, and adaptation influenced by natural selection. It would be preposterous to refer to these as anything other than facts.

I also suggest that you read the online book called 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent.

9. Evolution and Religion

Evolution is not a threat to your particular religious beliefs, Many prominent scientists, theologians and priests accept evolution, such as Kenneth , Francis Collins, Michael Dowd and the Pope.

"It is often said that a Darwinian universe is one whose randomness cannot be reconciled with meaning. I disagree. A world truly without meaning would be one in which a deity pulled the string of every human puppet, indeed of every material particle. In such a world, physical and biological events would be carefully controlled, evil and suffering could be minimized, and the outcome of historical processes strictly regulated. All things would move toward the Creator's clear, distinct, established goals. Such control and predictability, however, comes at the price of independence. Always in control, such a Creator would deny his creatures any real opportunity to know and worship him - authentic love requires freedom, not manipulation. Such freedom is best supplied by the open contingency of evolution." - Ken Miller (Finding Darwin's God)

-------
"The larger the island of knowledge, the longer the
shoreline of wonder" (Ralph W. Sockman)

489 users online 173670 members 912 active today Advertise Here