The Gullibility of Evolutionists

it is clear to me that there is no evidence that some god created the earth the way described... ups.. sorry in fact it wasn't described by creationists (otherwise they "could" create their own earth).

Estimates of the total species richness of the Earth range from 3 – 10 million, with some estimates as high as 50 million...
see?...

where are the fossils???

i dig up the earth today and find aprox. 10 different remains.

where are the fossils???

theoretically where the conditions are right there should be 1000s of remains.
so....
where are the fossils???

Originally posted by encoder
it is clear to me that there is no evidence that some god created the earth the way described... ups.. sorry in fact it wasn't described by creationists (otherwise they "could" create their own earth).

Estimates of the total species richness of the Earth range from 3 – 10 million, with some estimates as high as 50 million...
see?...

where are the fossils???

i dig up the earth today and find aprox. 10 different remains.

where are the fossils???

theoretically where the conditions are right there should be 1000s of remains.
so....
where are the fossils???

You have already answered your own question. WHERE the conditions are right. How often do you think the perfect combination of conditions would occur? Obviously, going on the evidence, it's pretty rare indeed!

www.essortment.com...

reply to post by encoder


If you look at the aftermath of floods, the force of the water and debris cause everything to be massed together at some point in the recession of water.
Creating banks of mud, bodies and plants, etc...
So, they will not be entirely uniform.

reply to post by Clearskies


Clearskies, if there was evidence of the flood, would this not contradict the bible which requires faith, not evidence?

//sufu sci

reply to post by sufusci


show me a site,... lets say about 1 square meter dating a period of only 2 million years. you should have about 800 macroscopic remains of different species.

Originally posted by encoder
reply to post by sufusci

 

show me a site,... lets say about 1 square meter dating a period of only 2 million years. you should have about 800 macroscopic remains of different species.

Can you quote some research papers showing this calculation? I would love to read them. I have access to all journals so anything goes.

Originally posted by sufusci
Can you quote some research papers showing this calculation? I would love to read them. I have access to all journals so anything goes.

Sufusci can haz syence?



It might be in the Journal of Informative Zany Zoology, or perhaps the Proceedings Of Oriental Paleontology

reply to post by melatonin


I just read your mind, no need. We are both thinking the same thing!

Originally posted by sufusci
No one is "believing" in evolution.

You got that right, it isn't believable when your err "Non Belief" Belief, is predicated on statement like you make here

We look at the model, learn the vastness of predictions + experiments and accept the model is correct.
The alternative to evolution is this model:
God + finger snap for all offspring of all species, bacteria included = directed genetic change.

Well why didn’t ya SAY SO! umm what are YOU talking about?

What Vastness?

what experiments has evolution proven as observable FACT which support the tenets of evolutions suppositions relating to natuaral selection and negative mutation being the vehicle for our current arrival in our current form.

Then Ill ask,, why do you not "believe" what you accept as fact going back to your first quote "No one is "believing" in evolution."

Everyone has a biased blinde spot. Including myself. Some people's are smaller than others. I try my best to efface my preconceived notions of the world when trying to deliberate a question. - dbates

I think that was debates point,, here lets re-submit your answer to him

Fail. The statement of that first sentence is a preconceived notion. So is the third.

Let me ask you, what is Evolutions Primary directive? Then tell me WHY it is so. Then if you know the answer to those two questions,, are their any influences in the testability of empirical data that has or could have such a sweeping domino effect on the entire theory as to destroy it?

Are you saying there are NO pre-conceived notions in our thought processes? Are you Mr. Spock?

Give me one example that proves an alternative model. One. Even AN alternative model that isn't just "magic".

Oh I can't for the same reason YOU can't for YOUR model. Do you have any idea what that is? Ill assume you over looked the difference you conveniently leave out on your model but added to the second model.


I will assume that yOU didn't get it so I will answer in the interest of time.

Your first Model DOESN'T HAVE A "God + finger snap” in fact your model apparently indicates that part was already done if so by who? Or you need to explain where life started from absolutely NOTHING. If you can't do that then the rest is all accepted by faith NOT in a designer but in an inventor an Atheist Named Darwin. It's that or you got some magic explaining to do yourself.


I guess his having as much a passion to prove he doesn't believe in God had nothing to do with creating a mechanism that’s as a fake science to disprove the religion he always questioned as a kid has no bearing at all on it? I guess that same Science that got its launch to join the Science Community as an add-on to biology a Science along with Zoology had no ulterior intention or any un-religious motives?


I guess that when you consider the expert witness testimony of evolutions credibility as a Science to overthrow Religions Genesis account, was predicated on Piltdown man and that later Piltdown was a found to be a complete "Mistake" and should have never been admitted as evidence, would have the scopes trial over turned as a miss trial.

Everything afterward is also false because the Science was built on a lie, intentional or not. It has no foundation and that’s JUST one of the many where Evolution has gone to extremes to prove itself as tested passed but Uh OHHHH it really failed and more and more bull# gets passed off as scientific fact without any foundation. We all know how we feel About O.J. but this was worse a bad case of evidence tampering. I am in the process of making a stronger case using 1500 updated "mistakes" that albeit were noted mistakes some being established as facts for 30-40 years but are still being taught. Worse then that is many had been used in other peer reviews to substantiate later discovries. To put it simple, Evolution is NOT elegant, it is rife with polluted fabricated and manufactured data or lies that served to alibi other lies and other lies after. Now most of these were not intentional but were the progression of research built on fallacious erroneous constructs to further an already desperate motive to further an already injured reputation of serving its Atheist ideology.

You go ahead if you feel you want to defend that house of cards but I am pretty certain I can prove Motive in regard to its connection to Atheism religious agenda just by using this forums posts some case law and specious acts of ignoring updated discoveries requirements to follow research to those updates that effect many using it to substantiate new postulates and suppositions. If I found 1500 going back as far as 1952 using ASU library's backup of microfish Ill get this to you hopefully this afternoon.

When they are grounded on false premises and unintended lies,,

The are lies nevertheless.




- Con

Originally posted by sufusci

how me a site,... lets say about 1 square meter dating a period of only 2 million years. you should have about 800 macroscopic remains of different species. -encoder

Can you quote some research papers showing this calculation? I would love to read them. I have access to all journals so anything goes.

You are dubious of his calculations? I am sure he would be conciliatory for a more modest aggregate, using your own access to all the journals,,

Just how many does your research papers indicate?

- Con







[edit on 4-3-2008 by Conspiriology]

reply to post by Conspiriology

Worse then that is many had been used in other peer reviews to substantiate later discovries

Now this is the trend I also noticed. The excuse given for these types of situations is: Well, you don't expect us to believe a fictional God and fictional Genesis do you?

Hold up! The reason it was said the Genesis account was a fiction was based itself on a fiction! I LOVE IT!

They beat 6000 years of history with a pig's tooth!? ? LOL!!!!

Sorry

Oh the irony .......

[edit on 4-3-2008 by undo]

Ok, I only responded to this earlier with a quick paragraph but it has been brought to my attention that this possibly merits a more thorough reply.

Originally posted by Osiris1953
I retracted some of the statements that I had made concerning you and your posts yesterday.... but you have managed to get me riled up once again.

Osiris, I went back and reread two comments of mine you linked to that seemed to get you 'riled again' in an effort to find anything that was offensive or condescending. Try as I might, nothing stood out. Someone claimed ATS was a stage for creationist 'propaganda.' So they were shown examples of how this forum is actually biased against creationism. To conclude, I told them it didn't faze me as a creationist and that I don't own the site or have any right to complain but am enjoying my free membership.

What is so offensive about that? Then I asked the other poster how in the world evolution would be considered politics. It might be used in politics but talking about evolution is hardly political baiting. So, I'm not sure what upset you because I never made a single personal insult towards the other poster and only addressed their arguments.

This time I must commend you on being such a cunning manipulator. You're mindlessly aggressive... intellectually bash anyone who disagrees with you. I do believe that you are highly intelligent individual, but you are close minded and the only creativity that you possess is the innate ability to manipulate others. You're using people as pawns seemingly for your own amusement and I won't stand for it.

It seems you are assigning much more power to me than I actually have and think I'm some of puppet master if you honestly believe I'm 'using people as pawns seemingly for my own amusement.' That is seriously blowing things out of proportion.

As I said last night your thread is conflict for the sake of conflict and I'm almost wholly surprised that no mods have said anything about your behavior at this point.

Here we go again with someone telling me what is going on inside my own head. It was not created for the sake of conflict. It was to bring up a pretty big point that many want to say but are too scared to say. Yes, I like to bring up controversial topics and will not be bullied into hanging out on the BTS forum making threads asking everyone what their favorite color is. This entire thread was inspired by some comments made by Conspiriology on another thread. It was also partly inspired by a creation vs. evolution thread I had just been reading where the creationists were getting accused of things like 'lying for Jesus,' being 'ignorant,' and having their beliefs being equated with the tired [not to mention poor] analogy of the flying spaghetti monster. But oh, no no no. Let's just get our panties in a ruffle when evolutionists get questioned.

I'm sure that you will respond to this with an ever so sublimely snide remark. FYI your subtly sardonic attitude is not lost on many of us.

Let's get something clear. When a Christian is nice, they are accused of playing the victim. When they are being a little tongue-in-cheek they are accused of being passive aggressive. If they even think about dishing out just a fraction of what they receive every time they log on they are accused of being hypocrites. The only thing I can say in return is to get over it. Christians are people, too, and are not interested in living up to your double standards. We only 'report' to one authority and are still learning.

Your ego is almost as large as the amount of time that you have to waste posting on ATS when you could be out in the community actually doing something that could be construed as CHRISTIAN.

This kind of crap really butters my biscuits. Hey, it is my opinion atheists shouldn't be on the internet at all if they truly believe this life is all they have. Why spend it wasting away on the internet? Heck, tell those Masons to log off and attend a lodge meeting instead. Hey UFOer's! Get your butts out of that chair and go attend a Star Trek convention. Get what I'm saying Osiris? You have no clue what I do in every day life. Someone made the same accusation on another thread but they hushed up real quick when I explained to them what all I do. So, until you know, you better be careful before you bring this very ignorant argument up again.

I for one have yet to see you act even remotely like a Christian should.

Then you are looking at everything with a biased slant. Go back and reread starting with the first page in this thread. I was immensely nice. Bringing up a controversial subject does not make someone 'unChristian.' Now, you quit acting so self righteous and judgmental.

You're behavior is as deplorable and self-righteous as the pharisees that Jesus abhorred. In fact if Jesus were here right now, he would find that many of us, in deeds and actions are much more holy in nature than you and your incessantly superior attitude. You spend way to much time on what the Bible says instead of contemplating what it means. Love, kindness, modesty, and many facets of the religion that cannot be used to describe you. It's time for you, yourself to figure out what your religion is all about before you come in here bashing others belief systems. Stop thumping your Bible, open it up, and READ IT.

You have often pointed out other people's argumentative fallacies yet the title of your thread is in fact an argumentative fallacy. It implies that all who believe in evolution are gullible and less intelligent than those who believe in creationism.

Bingo! That is exactly what creationists hear all the time: that we are gullible and less intelligent. Now maybe some will realize just how irritating it is now that you are put in our shoes.

If at some point you have taken either a debate class or a class on critical and creative thinking you would realize that such as statement is classified as a broad and fallacious generalization.... and should not be used to prove or disprove anything.

Thanks. I'm going to quote you the next time I see a creationist being accused of being ignorant or gullible for believing in 'sky fairies.'

What has this thread proved for you.... you were obviously out to prove something.

Actually, no. But a very interesting psychological experiment ended up taking place and it took someone messaging me to point it out. We can sling hash at creationists all day long. If you want to have Christians come running, make a thread entitled "Jesus was a Homosexual." They will come in and argue you with the same level of conviction as the evolutionists have done in this thread. Hey, they also have 'doctrine' to defend. I've criticized others in the past for referring to evolution as a religion but it is certainly seeming truer and truer. They also have dogma that is immune to question.

That everyone that disagrees with you is ignorant, or that you are so insecure about your own beliefs that you felt in necessary to tear down someone else's in order for you to feel like God is more than just your imaginary friend.

Another bingo. Let's spin it around. 'Everyone who disagrees or questions any aspect of evolution is ignorant. Evolutionists are so insecure that they may be wrong that they feel it is necessary to tear down creationists in order to feel like God is nothing more than an imaginary friend.' See how that works? This is one of the very few threads that leaves a stink bomb for evolutionists while there are dozens of threads poking fun at creationism and creationists.

If even in the least your intention was to sway any of us to your side, it would help to have a modicum of kindness, and maybe just a tad bit more of Jesus' teachings in your heart.

If you are seriously offended by anything in this thread then I urge you to not even bother to look up some of the blatant personal attacks creationists suffer. It would probably make you cry if you are truly that sensitive.

reply to post by undo


Undo, I couldn't have said it better myself. That is the whole point. Evolutionists do make mistakes and there are hoaxes. Creationists also have made mistakes and have had hoaxes. Both sciences are still in their infancies and neither have it all figured out yet. So cut the creationists some slack- they're still working on it, too. Evolutionists don't have the market cornered and are not the only ones that get to use the defense, 'we're still learning' or 'sometimes we make mistakes.'

Evolutionists also seem to be spoon fed information that is only supportive of their belief and never bother picking up a book that shows the science from a creationist angle. So before you accuse creationism of having no scientific basis or evolution being the epitome of scientific verification, know your opponent.

Time and time again anyone who believes in creationism has their intelligence trivialized or their God compared to the flying spaghetti monster. It's madness.

reply to post by AshleyD

Originally posted by AshleyD
It was not created for the sake of conflict.

Well let's take a look at what else you said in the same post.

Originally posted by AshleyD
It was also partly inspired by a creation vs. evolution thread I had just been reading where the creationists were getting accused of things like 'lying for Jesus,' being 'ignorant,' and having their beliefs being equated with the tired [not to mention poor] analogy of the flying spaghetti monster.

Originally posted by AshleyD
Bingo! That is exactly what creationists hear all the time: that we are gullible and less intelligent. Now maybe some will realize just how irritating it is now that you are put in our shoes.

Originally posted by AshleyD
This is one of the very few threads that leaves a stink bomb for evolutionists while there are dozens of threads poking fun at creationism and creationists.

Now I want to agree that you are being manipulative. I am not saying you are, because I am not you. However it does look that way.

You say evolutionists are gullible, fair enough your opinion. But to say that you created this thread "not" for the sake of conflict doesn't seem entirely true because of the title. When I made my Jesus thread I didn't say "Jesus is fake" I asked "Could Jesus be fake?"

Lastly, I am a master manipulator. And I can see evidence of manipulation in your last post, as well as a ton scattered throughout the thread. I will not say that you did it intentionally, but it is there.


[edit] by throughout the thread I mean more than one person, not just you AshleyD, and not just the Creationists either.

[edit on 3/4/2008 by adigregorio]

I heard this exchange on a recent BBC Radio 4 play. The play concerned the Russian anarchist Prince Kropotkin who once fled to Edinborough to hide from the Tsarist secret police.

Kropotkin was having a conversation with his Edinborough landlady and had recommended that she read Darwin.

The conversation went something like this:

LANDLADY:- I have heard of those ideas. The Reverend Tulloch gave them short shrift in his sermon. He said it was blasphemy to say that men are descended from monkeys when the Holy Bible clearly states that God made man in his own image.

KROPOTKIN:- Ah yes. If God is a monkey that would explain the Old Testament.

((dont blame me. I didn,t write it))

Originally posted by AshleyD
Both sciences are still in their infancies and neither have it all figured out yet. So cut the creationists some slack- they're still working on it, too.

Both sciences...

Cutting some slack...

Okay...

Fourth time now... I will not type everything all over again. Copy + paste due to fatigue.

Originally posted by Beachcoma
I see my previous questions remain unanswered.

Originally posted by Beachcoma
Okay, so if ID is a science, what are the predictions that it makes? Where are the lab reports?

Again, serious question. They don't teach any of this where I'm from.

Lab reports. That's what I want. That and scientific predictions that ID has to offer. Not pseudo-scientific articles cobbled together from a smattering of other scientific articles which have been cherry-picked (or selectively quoted) to support the thesis. Not opinion-based refutations of existing scientific knowledge. If it must be a refutation, then let it be a refutation based on an experiment that can be replicated by others. In other words, proper science.

And no deflection talking about something unrelated.

Slack I have cut. Three times prior. Now throw me a bone, damnit!

Edit to add: In case people are clueless as to what a lab report is, here is a good primer: Handbook: Laboratory Reports

Example of a lab report (nothing to do with biology, but just to give you all an idea): www-pm.larc.nasa.gov...

[edit on 4/3/2008 by Beachcoma]

reply to post by Beachcoma


I almost asked it again for you Beachcoma, and I wll join in the effort to get it answered. It looks to me as a classic case of avoidance (another manipulation tactic btw).

reply to post by adigregorio


Adi, nothing you quoted verifies the accusation this thread was 'intended for conflict.' Did it turn out that way? Oh ya. It's humorous to me how many times the term propaganda, manipulation, slander, etc., has been passed around in this thread. Seriously. It's amazing. I guess everyone 'hates' others for doing exactly what they do themselves. No, the thread's purpose was, again, inspired by the comments from other threads. If it created conflict as a side effect, then so be it.

Not sure why everyone is getting so upset. I actually think it is an incredible testament to the members of this board how we can 'hash it out' and debate on ATS then all just enjoy each other as people on the BTS discussion threads. You can get heated and disagree but still like your opponents. There is not a single member here on ATS that I dislike on a personal level. Well, maybe one but they shall remain nameless. And it is more along the lines of 'rubbing me the wrong way.'

reply to post by Beachcoma


To be honest, I just don't know that much about ID. Not ignoring your question since I did read it on the previous pages. I'm simply pleading ignorance. It seems ID is non deity specific and instead using evidence that shows design- whether it be through evolution or immediate creation. I could be wrong but that is why I was silent. I simply don't know enough about ID to defend it.

Originally posted by AshleyD
To be honest, I just don't know that much about ID.

Well, you ought to. Creationism isn't a science, it's a philosophy. On the other hand ID, according to it's proponents, is a science. Hence my request for a lab report. All true sciences should have a hypothesis that is testable and repeatable. Experimental observations are then written into a lab report, along with details on how the experiment was conducted. The primary reason I want a lab report and not a journalistic reinterpretation of it is because even in the hard sciences, the science writer usually is crap at interpreting the report.

Originally posted by Clearskies
reply to post by sufusci

 

Can you provide some in-depth information on the current genome studies of human/chimp similarities? I couldn't find anything, except, "but, as chimps and humans share 98%-99% similarities,...blah, blah...."
Nothing specific.
I would really appreciate it.

[edit on 4-3-2008 by Clearskies]

This isn't that in depth. But it does shed some light on the subject.
www.evolutionnews.org...

From Science Mag. Original article," The Myth of 1%" you must register to read it. www.sciencemag.org...://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/316/5833/1836