Darwin's Theory is False

Qorl said:
Giambattista

My take on Darwin's quotations is; he didn't understand who he is.

Darwin quotations and more, cool site:

http://www.dailycelebrations.com/021200.htm

This one is really interesting;
---I am turned into a sort of machine for observing facts and grinding out conclusions," he said.---

-God programmed him if you ask me. Watch a movie Paycheck or The 6th Day with Arnold to fully understand the power of God's. Of course here is a free will. Watch!

-Logical will be that Neanderthal or a cave man will still exist if Darwin was right. Did you see any cave man running around lately :eek:
Do you know why elephants have red eyes? :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

No, Sir Qorl, I do not know why elephants have red eyes!

And unfortunately, I have not seen any cave men running around lately. Not for at least a week or two!
 
That might have worked if strawberries were brown:

elephant_eye.jpg
 
I wonder why soo much hate religious have against Mr. Charles Darwin. His theory evolved and it is impossible to deny evolution. Your little faith is no match with the mountains of evidence that evolution have.
 
Christians hate Darwin so much because he made man into just an animal. Scientist had already taken away the central role of earth in the universe and Darwin took away their most precious belief. That man was special.
 
I originally asked you why you made that comment in a different thread.

Page 9 of Masculinity and Men (highly recommend it):

Satyr says something silly like this:

Satyr said:
It’s sad when a disease tries to redefine health and make its self viable.

It’s like a retard claiming that intelligence is a conspiracy because it questions itself and stupidity is the norm because it just accepts.
Click to expand...

I say something like this:

Giambattista said:
What is this disease? What do you mean by viable?
Click to expand...

Buddha comments that Satyr is a retard. Then you respond with:

spuriousmonkey said:
Two 'blind' (figuraltively) people engage in a conversation with each other to assure themselves that the sky is indeed purple.

maybe that explains satyr's points slightly.
Click to expand...

I assumed, most likely correctly, that you weren't referring to Satyr. Since there were basically two other people conversing in there regularly, and I was one of them, it's not hard to see that you were probably referring to myself and Buddha1.
I had asked you in that thread to comment on how I was blind, or how I claimed the sky was purple. You evidently didn't care too much to respond then.

I finally got a response out of you, but you said:
spuriousmonkey said:
I think I must be blind because I don't see where I call you blind.
Click to expand...

Well, I just refreshed your memory, I suppose.

Oh, well. I don't really care about it anymore anyway. I won't ask you about it again. Besides, it was probably just monkey chatter! :D
 
Do you think I keep track of what I say to every member of this forum in every thread. Or did you imagine you made some kind of impression on me that I would remember your ramblings in an unrelated thread?
 
spuriousmonkey said:
Do you think I keep track of what I say to every member of this forum in every thread. Or did you imagine you made some kind of impression on me that I would remember your ramblings in an unrelated thread?
Click to expand...

Far from it. You popped in out of nowhere, made a peculiar statement about people being blind, and never bothered to justify the insult. As far as making an impression, I frankly don't know if you read any of those "ramblings" or not.

You apparently didn't have the time to actually say WHY anyone was blind or reply when someone asked you to explain (which really doesn't make a whole lot of sense to ME), so why should it be so wrong for me to return the favor in "an unrelated thread"? :rolleyes:
 
i knew it, which is weird, because i read the economist and they had an article about it a while ago. whats QI?
Click to expand...
Its a relatively new comical quiz programme broadcast in the UK, full of interesting little facts like the one you mention designed to purposefully catch people out(hence its comic value). I have to admit im impressed, before i saw the programme i had no idea Darwin never mentioned it.
 
Do you really mean you didn't understand the comment?
Two people who know nothing of science agree on the wrongness of a scientific concept and reassure each other that what they say has merit and the whole world is wrong. You cannot connect that to being compared to two blind people assuring each other that the sky is purple?
:bugeye:
 
spuriousmonkey said:
Do you really mean you didn't understand the comment?
Two people who know nothing of science agree on the wrongness of a scientific concept and reassure each other that what they say has merit and the whole world is wrong. You cannot connect that to being compared to two blind people assuring each other that the sky is purple?
:bugeye:
Click to expand...


What makes you so sure I don't know a THING about science. That's a pretty hefty accusation.

What scientific concept is this that you're referring to that I claimed was so wrong??? Do YOU even know what you're saying?

I'm sure if you had actually replied to me when that accusation was first made, things would have been more clear.

You are mistaken in your assumption that I believe and agree with everything that certain other person is saying, and I stated as much in response to your blind statement when it was first posted.

I have seen some of what he is talking about exhibited by both myself and other people I have interacted with. I agree with quite a few of his ideas and his observations, but I have no way of knowing that everything is as he says it is, or if this is a worldwide phenomenon, and I have never said that I believed he was totally accurate in the first place. I don't hesitate to disagree with him, which is fairly often.

You seem to be jumping to conclusions that are off the mark.
 
But, since this is supposed to be about Darwin, maybe it's best not to talk anymore here.

NOBODY SHOULD BE TALKING HERE! I demand silence for my orbula. Ssshhh!
:mad:
 
Giambattista said:
What makes you so sure I don't know a THING about science. That's a pretty hefty accusation.

What scientific concept is this that you're referring to that I claimed was so wrong??? Do YOU even know what you're saying?

I'm sure if you had actually replied to me when that accusation was first made, things would have been more clear.

You are mistaken in your assumption that I believe and agree with everything that certain other person is saying, and I stated as much in response to your blind statement when it was first posted.

I have seen some of what he is talking about exhibited by both myself and other people I have interacted with. I agree with quite a few of his ideas and his observations, but I have no way of knowing that everything is as he says it is, or if this is a worldwide phenomenon, and I have never said that I believed he was totally accurate in the first place. I don't hesitate to disagree with him, which is fairly often.

You seem to be jumping to conclusions that are off the mark.
Click to expand...
I think that statement was intended to be an example. Not that you were one of the two who knew nothing.
 
Sarkus says: Strawman fallacy.

You say "natural selection" is a tautology like "survival of the fittest" and then go on to explain why "survival of the fittest" is a tautology.
But you have NOT explained why "natural selection" is a tautology.


Woody says:

I am not denying that evolution can happen, I'm merely stating that the cause is unknown. Natural selection has been proposed as a cause by you and others.

Before there can be any discussion about "natural selection" you must define what natural selection is?

That's all I ever asked for was a definition that is not self-defining.

Self-defining definitions are false when they are used in logical analysis. For example, if you say a "cow by definition is a cow." You make a true statement but it is only true within itself: it provides no new information for a logical analysis. It is therefore a useless, flawed, redundant, and misleading statement in a logical explantion of something else.

So how about definining natural selection in a way that provides new information? For example tell me who or what is doing the selecting and how it is being done. Animal breeders, for example, can breed various forms of dogs by artificially selecting certain "desirable traits." Darwin proposed natural selection based on the results from the artificial selection performed by animal breeders. He did not discover the cause of natural selection.

Artificial selection is defined by who or what is doing it (animal breeders) and how it is being done (an intelligent choice of breeding stock based on specific traits that a breeder is looking for.)

"Natural selection" needs to be defined likewise. What is a "desirable trait", is "fit," "adaptable," etc? How is the selection being done?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top