Was Darwin Wrong?

This_person

Well-Known Member

Our planet Earth is teeming with life. To some, it's a miracle - but can science explain how it came into existence? Critics have attacked the theory of evolution for 150 years. They claim it is full of holes, and the gaps reveal the hand of an Intelligent Designer. Who's right? Naked Science investigates the most explosive science of them all and asks, was Darwin wrong?
 

This_person

Well-Known Member
Just because Darwin may have been wrong, that has nothing to do with Intelligent Design being right.

This is Science, an scientific theory at work. You have to accept that a theory could be disprovable in order to be valid. In other words you have to be objective.

Unlike Intelligent Design, which by its nature, doesnt allow for there to be any other answer.
Once again, please provide me the repeatable, peer reviewed test that demonstrates all of life that currently exists or ever did exist on this planet came from a single source of life (who's origin is completely conjecture to begin with).

Once that test comes in, this will be science. Until then, it's as much religion as Genesis. Pure conjecture, speculation, with it's main source of information coming from "well, we're here aren't we".
 

Beta84

They're out to get us
obviously evolution didn't happen. Those walking monkeys that we've found artifacts of are just extinct now. they didn't evolve into humans. humans were always here.

although that would probably just give darwin an argument with natural selection, even if it disproved his evolution stuff. geez this guy was good
 

OoberBoober

Awwwwooooooooo
obviously evolution didn't happen. Those walking monkeys that we've found artifacts of are just extinct now. they didn't evolve into humans. humans were always here.

although that would probably just give darwin an argument with natural selection, even if it disproved his evolution stuff. geez this guy was good

Carbon dating is a cruel cruel mistress.
 

This_person

Well-Known Member
About what?

He observed and reported that species developed traits that helped them survive in their particular enviroment and called it the process of "natural selection".

Pretty sure he was correct.
What you've just described is not Darwin's theory.

If the animal spontaneously develops the trait due to environmental conditions, that's a lot closer to Lamarck, not Darwin.

Darwin said that there are natural mutations, deformities in creatures, and those deformed offspring - that are all alike, mind you - would flourish if the deformity was advantageous, and reproduce almost exclusively together; while the same animal without the deformities would either flourish elsewhere or would die out because they didn't get the deformity. Thus, nature would select what survived and what didn't.
 

This_person

Well-Known Member
the vestigial eyes, are clear evidence that these cave salamanders must have had ancestors who were different from them—had eyes, in this case. That is evolution.
I agree, that's the proof of evolution: "It looks like it must have happened".

Quite an indepth bit of scientific chain you've got going on there. :lol:
Why on earth would God create a salamander with vestiges of eyes? If he wanted to create blind salamanders, why not just create blind salamanders? Why give them dummy eyes that don’t work and that look as though they were inherited from sighted ancestors?
So, we have to know the reason for it to have happened? THAT's the part of ID you can't handle - you're not privvy to the explaination?
If you can explain something without God, then in all likelihood God is not involved.
Then, please, explain the source of the universe. I'll wait.
 

This_person

Well-Known Member
If you can explain something without God, then in all likelihood God is not involved.

This the fallacy of ID being a valid Theory, there isnt any room for it to be incorrect. As your own thread states Science is willing to believe Darwin was wrong, can you say the same?
Yes, I can.

Can you explain the source of the universe without there being something beyond the universe?
 

Beta84

They're out to get us
Carbon dating is a cruel cruel mistress.

They fake it because they are anti-religious heathens.

I like it how people ignore the facts when they argue whether or not Darwin is wrong and instead focus on everything that's missing.


I agree, that's the proof of evolution: "It looks like it must have happened".

Quite an indepth bit of scientific chain you've got going on there. :lol:So, we have to know the reason for it to have happened? THAT's the part of ID you can't handle - you're not privvy to the explaination?Then, please, explain the source of the universe. I'll wait.

It's alot easier to just say God did it than to understand science, such as the Big Bang Theory or evolution. That's such a cop out for the simple minded who can't grasp any concepts that require thought.

Honestly I think that religion and science can possibly go hand in hand...God could have done the evolution process as he decided to change things, ever striving to perfect His creation. Who knows? That whole 6 days of creation could have been millions of years as one thing slowly led to another. Who knows, time could fly for God and it might only be a single day for Him.
 
Last edited:

OoberBoober

Awwwwooooooooo
I agree, that's the proof of evolution: "It looks like it must have happened".

Quite an indepth bit of scientific chain you've got going on there. :lol:So, we have to know the reason for it to have happened? THAT's the part of ID you can't handle - you're not privvy to the explaination?Then, please, explain the source of the universe. I'll wait.

sci⋅ence  [sahy-uhns] Show IPA
–noun
1. a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws: the mathematical sciences.
2. systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.
3. any of the branches of natural or physical science.
4. systematized knowledge in general.
5. knowledge, as of facts or principles; knowledge gained by systematic study.
6. a particular branch of knowledge.
7. skill, esp. reflecting a precise application of facts or principles; proficiency.

You're right science based on observation is stupid.
 

ItalianScallion

Harley Rider
If you can explain something without God, then in all likelihood God is not involved.
This the fallacy of ID being a valid Theory, there isnt any room for it to be incorrect.
Your lack of faith does NOT change the truth. There is nothing that God isn't invovled in. Even changes within a species is controlled by God. You just refuse to see it.
I've already stated that i believe the Universe always was.
You're allowed to be wrong...
Not sure why I am bothering because there is no argument that can sway you if the currently available facts cannot.
By the same token: not sure why I am bothering because there is no argument that can sway you if the current Biblical facts cannot...:buddies:
 

This_person

Well-Known Member
It's alot easier to just say God did it than to understand science, such as the Big Bang Theory or evolution. That's such a cop out for the simple minded who can't grasp any concepts that require thought.
While I didn't intend this thread to be an evolution vs. ID thread (just linking to a show that was going to be on....), ID does require thought, and does incorporate at least as sound scientific thought process as evolution.

Again, can you explain the source of the stuff that makes up the universe without there being a source beyond the universe?
Honestly I think that religion and science can possibly go hand in hand...God could have done the evolution process as he decided to change things, ever striving to perfect His creation. Who knows? That whole 6 days of creation could have been millions of years as one thing slowly led to another. Who knows, time could fly for God and it might only be a single day for Him.
Huh, sounds a lot like creationism - one potential aspect of ID.
 

This_person

Well-Known Member
How about something small? Technological advancement is an example of evolution.
If by that you mean knowledge grows from the previous set of knowledge, I would agree.

If you think that technological advancement is due to genetic defects causing humans to be smarter, and those with the specific defect that happens accidentally reproducing with one another to the exclusion of those who do not utilize the technological advancements, such that those who understand and utilize them prosper and those that do not die off, you're talking natural selection a la Darwin.

Is that what you mean?
Does ID explain to you where God came from? Who created God? What is he made of?
Nope. Doesn't attempt to.
When questioned in this context it almost seems as absurd as The Big Bang.
So, you believe Einstien was wrong when he declared the universe was NOT a timeless thing, and that all of the research into an expanding universe is bunk? Or, are we expanding endlessly, because we've always been here (not humans, the universe)?
 

OoberBoober

Awwwwooooooooo
While I didn't intend this thread to be an evolution vs. ID thread (just linking to a show that was going to be on....), ID does require thought, and does incorporate at least as sound scientific thought process as evolution.
False. There is no sound scientific thought process behind ID.
 

Beta84

They're out to get us
While I didn't intend this thread to be an evolution vs. ID thread (just linking to a show that was going to be on....), ID does require thought, and does incorporate at least as sound scientific thought process as evolution.

Again, can you explain the source of the stuff that makes up the universe without there being a source beyond the universe?Huh, sounds a lot like creationism - one potential aspect of ID.

ID may require thought for some who choose to think and question, but it is also the easy way out for many. It's basically the replacement for Creationism so they can try to put religion into mainstream science. There's no way to test the theories so it's not science. Just an explanation.

But again, just because we can't explain something doesn't mean there isn't an explanation that may eventually be discovered, or that may never be discovered. Making the assertion that if there is no explanation it must be God's work is a cop-out. In the 20th and 21st centuries (let alone before that), so much information has been discovered that had previously been unknown. Who's to say we aren't going to continue learning more and achieve more answers?
 
Last edited:
Top