The Gullibility of Evolutionists

reply to post by RANT

Actually, that was Kelis ya know. At any rate, as you may have guessed, quite a bit of the content in the Bible isn't black and white, yes or no. Much is left up to interpretation and discussion. How does this fit into the discussion about evolutionists anyway? I thought we were discussing Evolutionists and not Jesus.

Originally posted by AshleyD
The gap theory is one, the definition of 'day' is another, and a dozen or so other things.

A day, yes but from who's point of view? God's of course. There was no one else around to mark time at that point. Isn't time relative to the viewer? Focus this with the scripture that states that "God dwells in inapproachable light" (i.e. light speed) and think about the implications of what that means in relation to how much time passed from our point of view vs. God's.

Just something to think about.

EDIT: Whoops, is it rude to post twice in a row? You guys are slacking.

[edit on 3-3-2008 by dbates]

Originally posted by AshleyD

Originally posted by idle_rocker
Well, you might check wikipedia. It's written by anybody, so I'm sure there's a few athiestic definitions in there. One might fit and make you a true creationist again. You just never know.

That's what I was thinking, too. Not all creationists are YEC's or believe in a six literal day creation. I tend to believe a six literal day interpretation but if I get to Heaven and God explains it to us that it was metaphorical then that's cool, too. There's certainly enough room to raise questions once one looks into the original Hebrew. The gap theory is one, the definition of 'day' is another, and a dozen or so other things.

Dictionary.com seems to place emphasis on the uber literal interpretation. Apparently Rant missed the wink smilie in my comment he's whining about.

Well, I used to be a literalizer??? too until I started studying creation science, which IS a science for all you who don't believe it is. It's just not thrown around so much because evolution has such a huge following, and it tends to be connected to ultra-evangelicals. But I'm neither, so I get to believe what I want to...nah nah nah nah nah nah

But I see we also can agree to disagree too and still be friends

Originally posted by idle_rocker

Originally posted by riley

Originally posted by Bigwhammy
reply to post by riley

 

wooooooooooooosh right over your head

they're special needs children because their parents are atheists!

However you meant it.. it was an insult at the expense of children with learning disorders/disabilities. Not cool.

Wait a minute, i think that was taken wayyy out of context. Why is it that some of us are held to higher standards than others'? Is it that some don't have standards to follow? I'm sorry, but that's what it sounds like.

The only "special needs" children I have EVER heared of are those with special needs like disabilities. There is no way I could take it out of context as there is no other context it could have been read in. He was definently making fun of the disabled.. it's not my fault if he realised that was a bad move after the fact and started backpeddling.

Double standards? I haven't seen anyone else on this thread with bad taste enough to make fun of the disabled so that claim is baseless.

[edit on 3-3-2008 by riley]

Copying this over from the other post about theistic evolution. Here was my response there. I think it's germaine here.


Originally posted by Ameneter

Genesis itself describes evolution in the same sequence that modern science has come to conclude:
First: Plants in the form of ALGAE (To convert CO2 into OXYGEN which humans would later need to breathe). These developed into seed-bearing plants.
Second: The primordial soup ("Let the waters be alive with a swarm of living creatures...")
Third: Primitive birds of the air.
Fourth: "God created great sea-monsters (Dinosaurs)..."
Fifth: "cattle, creeping things and wild animals..."
Sixth and lastly: MAN!
THIS IS A DESCRIPTION OF HOW THINGS EVOLVED! But as any honest scientist would admit, THE DEVIL IS IN THE DETAILS!

Quote by Idle_Rocker

Exactly how I see it. This is a description of the evolutionary period in the bible. And, if you can see something other than a creation in six 24 hour periods, you have my believe system. Actually, since science is pretty much "on to" the age of the universe and the earth itself, we can surmise that the timeline described in Genesis is a timeline to more or less describe the order of creation rather than the number of days it took. God doesn't use time and doesn't need it. The 24 hour time periods were probably the only way the ancients could understand and/or convey their understanding of it to others.

DNA and whatever DNA is made of are the building blocks of life. Blocks require someone or something to put them together. A house doesn't build itself.

While the above evolutionary process obviously exists, it does not explain how the original building blocks came into being. Personally, I believe (and I'm not just pulling this out of my hat here, I've looked really hard at it) there was a big bang which was caused by a creator who then processed each tiny morsel of matter and energy to cause the process of the creation period. And controls it still.

This, to me, is theistic evolution.

Originally posted by dbates
A day, yes but from who's point of view? God's of course. There was no one else around to mark time at that point. Isn't time relative to the viewer? Focus this with the scripture that states that "God dwells in inapproachable light" (i.e. light speed) and think about the implications of what that means in relation to how much time passed from our point of view vs. God's.

Just something to think about.

I remember you saying something about this in another thread and it blew me away then, too. You also gave a long analogy in the other thread (I think something about a skull being discovered in Asia). Fascinating stuff.

But that's just another question to throw into the works. Some believe creation was six 24 hour periods (and offer good arguments), some believe each 'day' was 1,000 years (CR: Peter), and some believe they were geological epochs. Your view adds another interesting twist that would seem to compliment the last two theories. Thanks for contributing.

EDIT: Whoops, is it rude to post twice in a row? You guys are slacking.

Dude. It was totally rude. I'm complaining to Skeptic Overlord.

FOSSIL EVIDENCE


Multiplied millions of fossils have been unearthed since THE ORIGIN OF THE SPECIES. Hundreds of thousands of species have been identified. Yet in all this, not one transitional form has ever been identified. There isn't one fossil

The scientific conclusion? None ever existed.

evolution is stupid.com


Ok so I asked about this and the answer I was given is that all fossils are transitional. So all life is constantly evolving, its just so slow we can't tell.

Then why are crocodiles the same ??

They are an ancient lineage, and are believed to have changed little since the time of the dinosaurs. They are believed to be 200 million years old whereas dinosaurs became extinct 65 million years ago: crocodiles survived great extinction events.

scholarschoicewikipedia

Originally posted by dbates
How does this fit into the discussion about evolutionists anyway? I thought we were discussing Evolutionists and not Jesus.

Of course, you're quite right. I'm just jaded. I live on this planet. "Evolutionists" are the 85% of normal people that vote and run things. I'm sorry the over-represention of bona fide "creationist nuts" on the Internet get to me once in a while.

Ya'll have fun.

Vote Ron Paul! (So kidding, go out sometime people. Really.)


[edit on 3-3-2008 by RANT]

reply to post by RANT
Wow, people are so touchy. I think it's funny those who insult, ridicule and seem to be mad at the arguement that differs from their own. I believe anger and retaliation are all instictive traits for animalistic type creatures which have no logic. Exerting that anger and stabbing arguements proves a denial of acceptance of difference of theory. Those who get mad and throw darts, are proving their blind acceptance and displaying how it works.These type threads always bring it out most frequently.Enough about me.

Yes, people sometimes feel backed into a corner and come out swinging. Can't say it hasn't happened to me. But some of us do control it better than others.

reply to post by RANT


Don't let the door hit you on the ... on the way out.

Jesus is Lord




[edit on 3/3/2008 by Bigwhammy]

reply to post by RANT

"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics." ~Mark Twain, autobiography, 1904

Here you go to answer your BS statistics.

Originally posted by azblack
reply to post by RANT

 

I believe anger and retaliation are all instictive traits for animalistic type creatures which have no logic. Exerting that anger and stabbing arguements proves a denial of acceptance of difference of theory. T

I agree and hope with all my dumb, stupid heart and huge brain to evolve to a Christian one day.

Thank you for your post.

reply to post by RANT


Ah the child's motto.
Can't win intellectually beat them with your ignorance and insults.

[edit on 3-3-2008 by WraothAscendant]

Originally posted by Bigwhammy
reply to post by RANT

 

Don't let the door hit you on the ... on the way out.

Jesus is Lord

Adorable. You think I'm going to be banned for not being a Christian. Have fun with that fantasy.

By the way, Jesus is a dude that shouldn't even be here by law and should pay taxes if He is.

reply to post by RANT


I thought you said you were leaving... thats why I cordially said "bye"




well Jesus loves you any way

Originally posted by WraothAscendant
reply to post by RANT

 

Ah the child's motto.

I'm truly sorry you don't know Jesus.

Jesus loves the little children,
All the children of the world.
Red and yellow, black and white,
All are precious in His sight.
Jesus loves the little children of the world.

So, let's discuss the original topic, title of which did seem, to me, a little like baiting...what aspect, EXACTLY, of the argument shows any sort of gullibility?

When a well educated, well reasoned individual can see the science, and make a decision based on that science, WHY is that being gullible?

'Gullible' is thinking that magicians (illusionists) are actually performing impossible feats, such as levitation, just by the power of their minds. That's being gullible, and denying ignorance.

There was a great thread a while back, Creationism, Where is the Evidence? Guessing it petered out from lack of interest, since the arguments get increasingly circular...

I guess it's important to once again challenge Ash, since she is the acclaimed expert here on all things spiritual and Christian (notice I capitalized that word, out of respect).

Here's what I am having diffuculty understanding: WHY, oh why does this argument continue? Every individual is free to believe in a virgin birth, or magic underwear, or the Rapture, or the inerrancy of the Bible in all things, or in a flat Earth...anything at all, it is their right. One can even believe in the flying spaghetti monster as a god (an ATS member has that somewhere, made me laugh). SO, why argue? What hill of beans does it matter, anyway?

Religion, or the absence of it, is a personal choice...it's not inborn, nor is it genetic. It's like going to a buffet...there are so many to choose from!

Ash, I believe the proble today with violence stems from these same reactions to difference of opinion as stated in last reply. Having said this I tend to sway toward the evolutionist theory for today's form of man,However I believe 100% in creationism too. I really wanted to point out that the two sides of this arguement would rather set themselves on fire than accept each others similarities. I believe as Einstein did when he said he was searching for the footprints of God. I think science clarifies the Bible in some instances and actually proves it. Part of this, granted a very small part, leads me to say evolution proves how everything could have been created in 6 days, given the base for evolution was created and that gave him time to rest and watch it grow. Genesis defines very clearly(in my opinion) that man was different and animalistic before Eve ate from the tree of knowledge. It's also my intrpretation in Revelation taht when the endtimes ( or wahtever you call it) are near His methods will become more clear.
Your're probably already familiar with this arguement so I'll leave it at that, but I just wanted to point out some things about the problems in discussing this topic with a completely open mind.I truely believe both sides are gulliable, but I think a more accurate term is stubborn,bullheaded or completely non-pragmatic!

And again the thread is off topic!

This is about us being gullible!

If you want to talk about Jesus visit my thread...

www.abovetopsecret.com...'

It is just gathering dust at the moment.

PS Ashley, I think you would find changing the title of the thread helpful in keeping the comments on topic. Perhaps "Are evolutionists gullible? I think so."

Just think how you would feel if I had a thread called "The gullibility of Creationists." People do not like their beliefs challenged. Whether it you (not you specifically) think it is "right". Look at the cartoons from Denmark.

--Topic-- I still stand in the middle for this one, for all I know god(s) created the single cell organism that lead to the evolution of everything. I was not there, and neither were any of us (at least I think that is true). And I will say this both sides have good evidence supporting them.