The Gullibility of Evolutionists

Originally posted by RANT

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.

Hi Rant,

No, you won't be banned for not being a christian. And I don't think anyone here believes you would be. There are people of many faiths and non-faiths here. I'd just like to say that dissenting opinions are fine. I think it's the vitriole by which they are delivered that irks some folks. Ya know decorum, diplomacy, social graces, and so forth. The anger ball starts rolling and it grows out of control.

Anyway, I'm a christian and you ain't made me mad yet. Try it, and see what happens.

The idea that anyone knows anything theoretical, for absolutely, positively certain, is restricted to "faith" by definition. That seems to be the underlying issue.

[edit on 3-3-2008 by undo]

Originally posted by undo
Anyway, I'm a christian and you ain't made me mad yet. Try it, and see what happens.

I actually am too, I just want to be proud of Christians, not embarrassed. It takes all kinds.

Well, l want really good things for our planet and souls is what I'm thinking, but it's not about being right. I hate the factions fighting (I'll reserve my Denomination), but they do like it and apparently live for it.

Anyway, thanks for that and half ass getting me.

"The Cat is in the Box"

It dawned on me one day that Schrödinger's cat
/pfvbp
was a perfect example of the application of faith in science. You must agree that the cat exists without seeing it because the moment you look, the cat is gone. This was essentially a way to describe wave particle duality, I believe.

I just thought i'd mention that. for anyone that's interested



[edit on 3-3-2008 by undo]

Originally posted by RANT

Well, l want really good things for our planet and souls is what I'm thinking, but it's not about being right. I hate the factions fighting (I'll reserve my Denomination), but they do like it and apparently live for it.

Well then, hi bro.
What you are seeing is the natural outcome of a stoic institution nearing its 400 year mark, who is so firmly entrenched in the "halls of truth" that nothing may enter unless it agrees with the previous material OR gratefully gives homage to previous material. This same thing happened to the Holy Roman Empire before the enlightenment and resulted in the enlightenment, which proceeded to throw out most of ancient history, labelling it fictional. Since then, many of the things they claimed were fiction, have now been found to be fact. This causes a real dilemma for those who simply want to be able to trust the "facts" which are touted as facts, and frequently are nothing more than theory (which, as i mentioned earlier, is faith by definition).

Wow. Sorry I missed this comment, IR1984. Especially since it was swallowed up by a bunch of tit-for-tat fighting (where I was also a guilty party). I'm not an expert but will address everything to the best of my ability (which isn't that spectacular) including your questions about the title of my thread.

Originally posted by ImaginaryReality1984
Well asyley i believe in evolution but i have reviewed both sides. I've heard all the arguments like the grand canyon was cut in a week by a massive lake breaking to the bacteria phigellum (spelling?) being unable to have ben created by evolution.

I have not heard that one before from any creationists. The grand canyon reference I usually read in works done by creationists believe it was possibly created due to Noah's flood. Although I don't claim to have any expert knowledge on the topic, that is at least what some are saying.

I have heard all the arguements and counter arguements and come to the decision that evolution is correct. To me this is the opposite of being gullible as i honestly looked at both sides giving them a fair hearing.

Then I commend you. I would not consider you as being one of the gullible ones. But I must admit, the arguments sound impressive to me. And since I'm not a semantics freak, I'll assume your phrase 'all the arguments' was hyperbole. New arguments come in almost daily and it is exhausting to keep up with all of them.

I think it is quite wrong for atheists to post any thread calling christians or creationists gullible. Likewise i think calling evolutionists gullible is quite wrong. If you want an intelligent, calm, meaningful debate then to start this thread off with the title you did isn't going to work.

I will agree the thread title could have been phrased a little more gently. Even if it was only to phrase it as a question. Truthfully, I didn't put that much thought into it. 'Offensive' titles of Christian threads don't faze me so sometimes I erroneously assume everyone has the same thick skin I do.

Furethermore if you think it's so bad that atheists have done threads with similar titles then why not rise above it? Why not show you're coming from a strictly intellectual point instead of a provocative one?

Sometimes my mouth runs faster than my brain, I will admit. Actually, I am a firm believer in turning the other cheek and not sinking the level of others. This entire thread was originally a comment on another thread but I deleted it and moved it to a new thread. The title was an afterthought not included in the form of the original comment that I recall.

Well ok back to it. There are some massive gaps in evolution and any true scientist will tell you that, i can't understand why some would argue otherwise. The people that do argue that evolution is complete are in my opinion just as guilty as religious fanatics. Compared to ID though the evolution arguement has far more evidence, verifable facts and that's why i don't believe evolutionists as a whole are gullible.

See, that is the thing. First of all, thank you for your honesty. It is true. There are gaps in it. My problem truly isn't so much that accusation that 'evolutionists don't have it all figured out' because creation scientists don't have it all figured out either. Being that so much of the methods of testing and study are so new, it is no surprise both fields are in their infancy. My gripe is seeing creationists constantly being accused of ignorance, delusion, and lying because we do not accept the unproven aspects of the theory. I've admitted many times my Christian beliefs will not be swayed either way and that my issue with the gaps and contradictions are based on scientific questions, not theology.

The other reason they aren't gullible is that when a scientist prepares a peer reviewed paper that is widely accepted then you have to choose after reading it whether to believe or not. If there is evidence presented which lots of other scientists agree on then to go against that i think is being obstinant simply becuase it doesn't agre with your preformed ideas. That's what the scientific method is, evidence is presented and if it is correct then it is accepted.

I understand that. There is also a voting system they use after a debate in some cases. My issue in the case of retractions is please don't accuse us of being ignorant or put forth everything as fact when it really isn't and is still open to interpretation and criticism. As someone else stated, evolution has many followers. Those people will definitely believe what they are told and only 'give up the ghost' once something is completely debunked. As for the actual evolutionary scientists, I don't know how they act because I don't know any on a personal level. But evolutionists in general certainly seem condescending to anyone who does not agree or dares to question.

So it comes down to believing in evidence presented or simply turning your nose up in the air simple becuase you know ID is correct and nothing can go against it. Lots of evolution has been tested over and over and we keep finding the same answer which indicates it is correct. So to deny something that has ben consistently tested is a very difficult thing, unless you have faith in an intelligent designer.

But there are still many arguments brought up like the dating of strata or the measurement of time of genetic changes and tracings. Myself and others have already brought this up so I will spare you from listening to repetitive objections but there are some pretty well formulated concerns.

That comes down to nothing more than religion though, it has nothing to do with evidence. I request again ashley that you post some convincing links to creation ideas. I would be really intereted to take a look at them.

For some, absolutely. Many atheists will absolutely refuse to listen to any of the flaws in evolution while many theists or adherents to a six day creation refuse to listen to any evidence contrary to a 6,000 year old earth theory. It actually took a creation scientist who was an OEC to change my opinion that was once that of a YEC. I no longer believe the 6,000 year old earth theory but don't mock those who do. They might end up being right for all I know. Unfortunately, there's just as much disagreement within creationist circles as there are in other scientific fields, including evolution.

To answer your question, there was a book that I can't remember the name of but it was some fascinating stuff. He sets up his 'creation hypothesis' in the form of a scientific model and does a pretty good job. Many YEC's scoffed at him because, to my memory, he was not a YEC. I'll have to find it for you. There was another book I read about five years ago that was done in two parts: one that brought up conflicts in some of the accepted parts of evolution and the other part which provided evidence of creationism.

I don't ever agree with anyone on a wholesale level but they were both interesting reads. As I admitted at the beginning of this thread, it's been a while since I read into much of anything and will try to look up those titles for you. And although many scoff due to it being a creationist source, and I'm sure you've heard of it, is answersingenesis.org. The owner takes an extremely fair stance on many things and even criticizes creationists that use lame evidence or long since debunked evidence to validate their beliefs. That's at least a website. And HERE is another one although I don't always agree with everything on the site.

You stated you wanted a debate free of the old argument creation vs evolution but the sad fact is if you call one side gullible then you have to ask the next question which is "Why are they gullible", this leads to discussion of the evidence presented on both sides and so we're now in a debate over evolution or creation. Sorry that's just how it will go, it's the logical progression.

Again, if it turned into that (which it did), then fine. I'm not going to tell anyone what to discuss as long as it is somewhat on topic. And for some reason, everyone kept missing my word 'inasmuch.' Sure, it will inevitably happen but I personally didn't want to get stuck on the 'We're right and you're wrong' tired debate that always happens in this forum.

And I hope you don't mind if I pass on proof reading this. lol So if there are any typos (which there will be), my apologies.

reply to post by undo


Well, I am assuming that everyone here has heard of the famous Schrodinger's Cat analogy (sorry I can't type the umlat). I read it about 20 or more years ago...

It does indeed describe the duality of the wave/particle...it is a consequence of Quantum Physics...not the duality, but the discovery of the duality, previously un-theorised. Not exactly sure, though, how this quirk of nature relates to 'faith'. I'm no expert in Quantum Theory, but now we have String Theory to contend with, the concept of ten or eleven dimensions...and heck! Even Gravity is still a 'theory'!!!

Back to the idea of gullibility of evolutionists. Not intending to demean anyone's faith or credo or beliefs, but what exactly is the point of a Universe as vast as the one we reside, if it's only for us? We live in the suburbs of an average spiral galaxy consisting of hundreds of millions of stars, amongst a group of other far-flung galaxies, and the entire observable Universe shows us that there are hundreds of millions of other galaxies, each with their hundreds of millions of stars....and, it's all for US?!? This, to me, is extreme hubris.

If you wish to cling to a creation scenario, I invite you to find a book titled 'Just Six Numbers', by Martn Rees. (ISBN 0-465-03672-4) It is not advocating a 'creator', but is a scholarly look at how certain measurable aspects of our universe must fall within certain narrow values in order for matter to exist, and for us to exist, for that matter (pun!). You may infer a 'creator' to have set the whole thing in motion, but I challenge anyone with a sense of credulity to claim it is all for us....

And it seems like I got bumped out of the topic of discussion again while writing a novel to someone else. Where to begin?

reply to post by RANT


Sounds fair. Unless your 'evolving into a Christian' entails me 'devolving into an atheist.' In that case, no deal.

reply to post by RANT


Whoa. BW said nothing about you getting banned. He was referring to your comment where you said you were leaving the thread. Come on now, Rant. Quit twisting everyone's words.

reply to post by adigregorio


If a mod wants to change the thread title to spare everyone's feelings I would have no problem with it. I don't have the ability to do so or else I would just to stop the whining ( ) but cannot. Either way is fine with me but I don't want to make anyone needlessly.

reply to post by undo


Hey! He hasn't made me mad yet, either! Laugh until I have tears in my eyes but not 'mad.'

reply to post by RANT


Wow. That is surprising. First of all, it is not my place to judge anyone so please don't be offended but I am very surprised to hear you are a Christian after some of the things and attacks you made in this thread. Then some of your jabs at Christians. Then some of your ignorance of the Bible. But... er... Beams and splinters... Beams and splinters.

EVERYONE ELSE: Thanks for your contributions and opinions.

Historically, it has been said that the priests who had all the "secret knowledge" would withhold important data from the lesser enlightened amongst them. This was for several reasons, beginning with the concept that some people couldn't be trusted with certain types of power or information. One had to be sure the individual would not only be trustworthy but compliant enough to accept direction should they inadvertently leave the path of wisdom and become a risk.

Intimately tied into that is the idea that these same priests, after years of being the sole purveyors of truth, developed a god complex, where they could do no wrong or know no wrong and that furthermore, some important pieces of data withheld from the general pubilc, was for the good of those who most deserved to survive.

This same idea carries over to science and has the EXACT same potential for abuse. In fact, I'd wager this is even more true with science as the concept of survival of the fittest goes hand in hand with the most powerful among them, and in absence of any reason to think otherwise (creationists are dummies that don't deserve to survive a situationX scenario, etc), the common folk become nothing but a big science experiment, to be used and abused at leisure.

This and many other concepts discussed in this thread are human problems. They aren't specific to any given strata of the population. So we witness the round robin of pot, kettle black, ad nauseum. One claims the high ground because it has the force of gnosticism behind it and some real good wins to its credit. The other claims the high ground because it has a copy of the track record of the other, which is ignored (naturally) for the purposes of maintaining the status quo.

Did that make sense? Not sure, sometimes I have trouble saying what i mean.

reply to post by undo



No you said it quite well.
But a great many would not be able to admit such even to themselves as it would admit that their so called "great truths" are little more than lies to hide a hidden agenda.

Now. THAT made no sense.

Originally posted by WraothAscendant

No you said it quite well.

Okay, good.
Personally, if I had a situation X scenario staring me in the face, I wouldn't determine a person's value based purely on their survival skills, as currently defined, because an angry survivalist under the current definition, could go Anakin Skywalker on ya in a hurry. Whereas a person who considers you to be valuable just because you're a human being, would be more likely to fit into a survival scenario, where everyone can work in tandem for some kind of viable solution.
For some reason people are being lead to believe that only the strong survive because they are aggressive, heartless and strong under the current definition of survival of the fittest. I think that's inaccurate and doesn't do justice to humanity. Instead it exalts the animal instinct to the detriment of the human being, who is an innovator and capable of so much more than pure instinct.

Originally posted by weedwhacker

If you wish to cling to a creation scenario, I invite you to find a book titled 'Just Six Numbers', by Martn Rees. (ISBN 0-465-03672-4) It is not advocating a 'creator', but is a scholarly look at how certain measurable aspects of our universe must fall within certain narrow values in order for matter to exist, and for us to exist, for that matter (pun!). You may infer a 'creator' to have set the whole thing in motion, but I challenge anyone with a sense of credulity to claim it is all for us....

Many don't believe it is all for us. For example, scripture says things like "Who is man that you should be concerned with him?" (man realizing his place in the vastness of the created universe) and other places where it describes God's response to Job: Who are you ? Were you there when the stars were created, when the foundations of the deep were laid? (not waiting for Job's response) I didn't think so! (paraphrasing, obviously)

Generally-speaking, it's only people that insert these ideas into the texts. And the same idea applies. Who are you? Were you there? I wasn't either.
So we both bring our ideas to the table and compare, not discount, but compare. If there's a viable midway, it should be considered, but it isn't. And there are viable midway points. Several in fact.

reply to post by undo


Good points, Undo. Some others quote the passage in John where Jesus says something along the lines of having other sheep in other places. Some take this to mean life on other planets. Not really sure myself but thought I'd throw it out there.

reply to post by undo



Two great posts.

Exactly!
I am a spiritualist and believe that it isn't all for us.
Yet time and time again I am pidgen holed with those that do.
That was just using me as an example.

So we both bring our ideas to the table and compare, not discount, but compare. If there's a viable midway, it should be considered, but it isn't. And there are viable midway points. Several in fact.

I think the chief problem is the human need for "us" and "them" it's easier to keep a group together with a visible enemy. Polarization, politics two things that make my gums ache. Both which serve no good purpose except to keep us chasing our own damn tails.

And yes I see several as well. But that is enough to get me called any number of unflattering terms.

P.s.: Yes as you can probly tell I am quite sore at all the pidgen holing and insults. Its how I get over it. I rant.

[edit on 4-3-2008 by WraothAscendant]

I like to think that I keep a open mind on theroies and ideas.My question is does anyone here think that there will be a middle ground where both evolutionists and creationists will be able to meet and agree?I say this because I usually get flack from my thoughts on this subject.My belief is that God created the universe ,galaxies,solar systems etc and then he gave the spark of life to a bunch of planets(ours being one).This spark of life being the beginings of life microbes etc.Then over time he chose a species to evolve and the rest is history.To me I can see Gods work in evolution,so why not a middle ground where everyone can agree.

reply to post by othello


It would be nice if there was.
Unfortunately there will never be as long as their is a polarization on the whole damn thing.
It's become more about disproving the other camp than actually seeking the truth.
Maybe both sides will snap out of it.
Even Einstein believed in some sort of force. At least that is what I get. He wasn't religious as he said but I do think he was a spiritualist. His comments seem to fall in that line.
*ducks and waits for the war to start again*

[edit on 4-3-2008 by WraothAscendant]

To expand on those previous statements.
My humble opinion is the two polarised camps are missing the bigger picture.
Firstly. We have the atheists. Undoubtly the aggressors in my honest opinion. They due to some bad personal experiences feel that religion is evil and dangerous and must be stopped at all costs.
And they feel that anything that goes beyond what we can detect with our physical senses is pure fallacy because religion is bad. Throwing the proverbial baby with the bath water if you ask me. And they feel that science since it deals and measures physical things MUST be inherently atheistic so thusly they defend it as their only weapon against evil bad religion. Of course they call me a liar when I say that but actions always speak louder than words.

Secondly we have theists, predominately christians since that is where most this stuff is generated. Feel attacked with since they are being called on alot of atrocities commited by our forfathers. So they fall back on the one source of proof they have. The Christian Bible. And damn it I gotta go I will finish this thought later........ Or others that understand what I am trying to say can elaborate.

Sorry.

Originally posted by othello
I like to think that I keep a open mind on theroies and ideas.My question is does anyone here think that there will be a middle ground where both evolutionists and creationists will be able to meet and agree?

In my opinion, not anytime soon. Some evolutionists do use their science as a tool to discredit any concept of God. Some creationists will listen to nothing evolutionists puts forth if they even think it may contradict the Bible in some way. This is where the myth comes from that creationists don't believe in things like mutations, micrevolution, or loss of genetic information (all Biblical). We're sometimes accused of not believing anything although it actually comes down to not believing everything. So it isn't all about science even if it is sometimes used as a red herring. The evolution vs. creationism debate certainly seems to be more along the lines of atheism vs. theism at times.

I say this because I usually get flack from my thoughts on this subject.My belief is that God created the universe ,galaxies,solar systems etc and then he gave the spark of life to a bunch of planets(ours being one).This spark of life being the beginings of life microbes etc.Then over time he chose a species to evolve and the rest is history.To me I can see Gods work in evolution,so why not a middle ground where everyone can agree.

There are what is known as 'theistic evolutionists' who believe exactly what you are describing. Even some adherents to intelligent design. They believe God encoded His own creation to be self perpetuating while He guides and is the author of the entire process. But many [typically atheistic] evolutionists then accuse them of violating what is known as Occam's Razor, a logical fallacy or at least claim there is no room for God anywhere in science.

[edit on 3/4/2008 by AshleyD]

Originally posted by WraothAscendant
To expand on those previous statements.
My humble opinion is the two polarised camps are missing the bigger picture.
Firstly. We have the atheists. Undoubtly the aggressors in my honest opinion. They due to some bad personal experiences feel that religion is evil and dangerous and must be stopped at all costs.

For someone who is claiming to be open minded that is a very close minded statement. Not al atheists have ahd bad experiences that turned them off religion. I myself am agnostic, i was raised christian and had a lot of fun at sunday school (yes honestly). I was excluded from sunday school for asking "difficult questions", i didn't get turned off of religion becuase of this i was already doubting what i was being told when i was five.

Please don't tar all atheists and agnostics with the same brush, in return i won't tar all christians with the same one either.

As for atheists being the agressors, well i respecfully disagree, i have met some christians who have literally screamed at me because i believed in evolution. I talked ot them in a very respectful manner enjoying the debate but they just went nuts at me. The classic quote is "How dare you deny my god". Nah you're not the aggressors nope never. On the other hand maybe like all people on the side of an argument you are seeing yourselves as doing no wrong.

Originally posted by WraothAscendant
And they feel that anything that goes beyond what we can detect with our physical senses is pure fallacy because religion is bad. Throwing the proverbial baby with the bath water if you ask me. And they feel that science since it deals and measures physical things MUST be inherently atheistic so thusly they defend it as their only weapon against evil bad religion. Of course they call me a liar when I say that but actions always speak louder than words.

Now this comes down to faith and nothing more. Atheists have decided there is no good so they are left with only the physical and energetic, science is their secular religion or at least they wish it to be. What is wrong with this however? I mean you want your beliefs respected so why not respect theirs? Afterall it would show you are a more open, accepting person, better then they are. Why bother to attack them?

I don't think religion is evil and bad, for some people it can be an embracing, wonderful experience that gets them through their lives. If something helps you and is legal then i say go for it and all power to you. I would request though that you do the same for atheists, why not let them continue their lives in peace without being told they are going to hell and having people aggressively trying to convert them. Oh and yes christians often do try and convert, how is that fair and friendly?

Originally posted by WraothAscendant

Secondly we have theists, predominately christians since that is where most this stuff is generated. Feel attacked with since they are being called on alot of atrocities commited by our forfathers. So they fall back on the one source of proof they have. The Christian Bible. And damn it I gotta go I will finish this thought later........ Or others that understand what I am trying to say can elaborate.

Well if they want to take the bible as literally true then good for them,i hope it brings them peace and understanding. Actually if christians just stuck to the teachings of Jesus then i honestly believe they would be a very peaceful people and not end up fire bombing abortion clinics, threatening abortion doctors, homosexuals and supporters of these things.

As for evolution and ID meeting in the middle, well why should they? Honestly why try and force your beliefs onto them? Maybe we should just let the whole situation evolve (ha) and see what happens, letting each other live in peace.

We may end up with three clear camps, those who believe in ID and completely disregard evolution, the evolution camp who completely disregard ID and the third camp that believes that evolution happens but god started the whole process and occasionally throws something into it.

I dont' really care which you believe but i would prefer you argue both sides and don't paint atheists as the aggressors, there are plenty of aggressive christians out there. Neither side is blameless.

Originally posted by weedwhacker
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?

It's not.

It's just another thread brought to you by the ATS tag-team. Again, it is of the form, agree with me prove my point; disagree, prove my point.

reply to post by ImaginaryReality1984

For someone who is claiming to be open minded that is a very close minded statement. Not al atheists have ahd bad experiences that turned them off religion. I myself am agnostic, i was raised christian and had a lot of fun at sunday school (yes honestly). I was excluded from sunday school for asking "difficult questions", i didn't get turned off of religion becuase of this i was already doubting what i was being told when i was five.
Please don't tar all atheists and agnostics with the same brush, in return i won't tar all christians with the same one either.
Please don't tar all atheists and agnostics with the same brush, in return i won't tar all christians with the same one either.

Funny. You seem to be confused.
I never said anything about agnostics. Stop putting words in my mouth.
Attack what I said not what you want me to have said.
I myself was one before I decided what I believed which is not a subject for here.

On the other hand maybe like all people on the side of an argument you are seeing yourselves as doing no wrong.

Assumptions tsk tsk. Who said I was Christian? I am not. You assume I am because I criticise. I was going to criticise the theists but well I had to run midpost. Then I come back to find your assumptions and pidgen holing so I had to comment.
After being pidgen holed by people like yourself time and time again I tend to have looked at the purely BS attacks I see atheism pulling.
Spagetti monsters?
Sky Faeries?
Ring any bells?

The rest I won't touch. The attempted semantic game that has been played with the word faith is not a quagmire I wish to step in.

But I honestly think your an atheist masquarading as an agnostic based on you took my comments about them to be about you.
All well.

I can ask an theist to show some tolerance of my views and usually expect a fair response. Except from the purely psycho religious types and NO NOT ALL RELIGIOUS PEOPLE ARE THE PSYCHO TYPES. Put that in big letters before I have to point that out.

Ask an atheist and I get sky faeries, magic cupcakes, implied and outright insults to my intelligence and screams I am something I am not.
Without fail.

Who am I naturally going to choose to stick up for?


*does a shooing motion*

[edit on 4-3-2008 by WraothAscendant]