The Gullibility of Evolutionists

I really don't have anything to contribute, but, I applaud the OP for his post and I agree with it.

Originally posted by Bigwhammy
reply to post by riley

 

evolution is a religion

Does that count as baiting? Just wondering. Since you guys now admitted evilloution is not science. Is it political or religious baiting? Perhaps it's religious baiting... considering the context.

WHO said evolution is NOT science??? Not to my knowledge. Good try pal - but again, as usual, your religious dogma ate your homework!!

J.

Originally posted by AshleyD

Originally posted by riley
Perhaps the political baiting rules only applies to certain groups or people? ATS standards here have certainly been lowered by bascially condoning the blatently biggoted OP. The precedent has now been set..

I'm still waiting on you to prove to me how evolution is purely a political topic. Last I checked, it was a scientific topic that is sometimes brought up in politics but mainly education. Again, saying "Doze cwazee democwats sure doo wuv dat evowution dewusion' would be political baiting. Not simply bringing up the subject of evolution. Please, Riley. Come on now.

I already answered that here. I even underlined it for you to make it easier:

www.abovetopsecret.com...
Originally posted by riley
As you can see the forum is ABOUT the conspiracy against evolutionary science. Your posting biggoted statments about 'evolutionists' just makes you part of the conspiracy.

1g.) Political Baiting: You will not engage in politically-charged rhetoric, politically-inspired name-calling, and related right-versus-left political bickering while posting outside the Politics forums at politics.abovetopsecret.com....

Originally posted by AshleyD
Evolution is politics? I'm learning so much.

Religious activists tried to get creationism into schools by calling it "ID".. trying to get around people's rights to freedom of religion by trying to call it science. Of course it's political. Maybe you should reread the guidelines and lay off insulting entire groups of people.

Making us rehash previous discussions is only going to frustrate people and win you more points. Please reread this so you don't get forgetful again..

[edit on 4-3-2008 by riley]

Originally posted by Bigwhammy
You attack it as a political/religious issue not a scientific one.

It is. It's no different than creationism.

ID creationism isn't science.

All those papers I listed were hard science. You were acting like no other journals had published ID. You were wrong.

I didn't say nothing ID-related had been published. I said that no articles testing the ID hypothesis have been published.

Only one of the articles can be considered as anything like a test of any sort of hypothesis. The others are just review papers. The Meyer article is philosophy and review that required editorial misconduct to get into print (and was then retracted), the the chaos article is philosophy (it even has a wiki quote, heh - even undergrads get grief for that in academia). The Javison article is in a fringe kook journal, and is just a review. And so, we are left with the Behe & Snokes article. The only article which tests a hypothesis and produces data.

Do you wanna discuss the science it contains? I'm willing. Tell me how it is related to intelligent design. Show me how it tests a prediction generated from an ID hypothesis.

So you are not defending a scientific perspective but a political/religious one.

Nope, I'm defending science from a theologically motivated socio-political attack.

reply to post by riley


hi Rik,

how ya doing?
i think what you're seeing is people who have been here arguing with other people for quite awhile and have noticed a few problems with the status quo of certain types of knowledge.

for example, as has already been indicated in the thread, evolution is very iffy.
some of the foundations for its biggest successes have been later found to be hoaxes, incorrect or decidedly one-sided and never retracted. considering the discussions i've had with you regarding mars and other places in our solar system, it should be obvious that we aren't exactly sure what happened back then but evolution may not be the answer to that question, ya know? there's certainly enough evidence against it to at least suggest the question.

they never taught me in high school that the Scopes Monkey Trial was predicated on a hoax. this thread is the first I heard of it. I had to go research it then and my jaw dropped open when i saw it. Why are they still teaching this as if the evidence was based on a reality?

Does no one besides me find this completely ironic?

Originally posted by Bigwhammy
reply to post by riley

 

evolution is a religion

Does that count as baiting? Just wondering. Since you guys now admitted evilloution is not science. Is it political or religious baiting? Perhaps it's religious baiting... considering the context.

Where did we say it's not a science?
Just because radical christian groups have decided to launch an attack on the scientific community for political gain doesn't make the scientific group somehow religious. If it were gravity and the earth being round would have their own alter and clergy.

You're trying twist words we haven't even said now. To cleverly take someone out of context generally requires quoting them with something they've actually said. Just making stuff up doesn't count and is easily disproven.. you better try again.

[edit on 4-3-2008 by riley]

reply to post by jimbo999


You think I have the power to close threads, Jimbo? Please. Again, your gripe with me is the fact I offended your delicate sensibilities by criticizing a science although its defenders certainly seem to be acting like I just made fun of their god. I've seen Jesus be referred to as my "God on a stick" and I didn't get as defensive as I see many evolutionists getting in this thread. But I agree with you: it definitely opened a can of worms. It also brought a lot into light for me with just how passionate people are over a science.

reply to post by thehumbleone


Thanks for youe thoughts.

reply to post by riley


Riley, that is not proof evolution is political. It is science that sometimes is involved in political controversy. Let's use abortion as an example. Yes, like evolution, it comes up in politics from time to time but is more of a social/moral/medical issue. Get it? Evolution is a scientific theory. Are you not curious why no one else is agreeing with you? Because they know it is a science.

reply to post by melatonin


This is my post from my thread The Sorcery Conspiracy

My take on science...

Well we live in what is known as post modern times. Postmodernists are typically atheistic or agnostic while some prefer to follow eastern religion thoughts and practices. Many are naturalist including humanitarians, environmentalists, and philosophers. Most scientists are naturalists.

To me science is mans way of describing how God does things. Isaac Newton's belief in the glory of a rational God who established a law-abiding cosmos was probably the last of it's kind. Charles Darwin started out with the premise in mind,"If there is no God who created all of this, how could it have happened?" The result was the Origin of Species (published 1859). God has been systematically taken out of science ever since.

Einstein believed in God, but not necessarily the Christian God.

want to know how God created this world. I am not interested in this or that
phenomenon, in the spectrum of this or that element. I want to know his thoughts. The rest are details. (The Expanded Quotable Einstein, Princeton University Press, 2000 p.202)

But Isaiah 55:8 replies back

For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways," declares the LORD. (NIV)

Einstein would say

We know nothing about [God, the world] at all. All our knowledge is but the
knowledge of schoolchildren. Possibly we shall know a little more than we do now. but the real nature of things, that we shall never know, never. (The Expanded Quotable Einstein, Princeton University Press, Page 208)

So Einstein acknowledged God, But he didn't worship him. He worshipped science.

I think today it has grown much worse. Science has grown so arrogant that most scientists do not even acknowledge any God.

In his pride the wicked does not seek him; in all his thoughts there is no room for God.(Ps 10:4)

Evolution has all the trappings of a religion. It takes incredible faith to believe all of creation is an accident. More faith than I can muster. Now we have devalued the sanctity of life to the point we slaughter 46 million unborn babies per year world wide. Because Science tells us it's OK.

So has science gone astray... Hell yes it has.






[edit on 3/4/2008 by Bigwhammy]

Originally posted by Bigwhammy
My take on science...

Well we live in what is known as post modern times. Postmodernists are typically atheistic or agnostic while some prefer to follow eastern religion thoughts and practices. Many are naturalist including humanitarians, environmentalists, and philosophers. Most scientists are naturalists.

Aye, I read it. But I'm nice enough to generally leave religious threads to religious people, you all need to go 'Rah! Rah! Rah!' somewhere. Although I do poke my nose in if I either find a thread/post interesting or relevant to me.

Firstly, a clarification. The argument I'm picking up here is post-modernists = atheists/agnostics/some theistic types (?). Many post-modernists are naturalists. Many naturalists are scientists.

Ergo, most scientists are post-modernists.

Yay? Nay?

ABE: and I assume you don't want to talk about the science in Behe & Snokes? I can get the article to you if you want to read it.

[edit on 4-3-2008 by melatonin]

Originally posted by undo
reply to post by riley

 

hi Rik,

how ya doing?

hi man.. I'm doing fine.. but rikriley is another member.

i think what you're seeing is people who have been here arguing with other people for quite awhile and have noticed a few problems with the status quo of certain types of knowledge.

Straight up.. I do not consider assertions based on religious doctrine to be knowledge.

for example, as has already been indicated in the thread, evolution is very iffy.

I have not seen anything that indictates evolution is iffy.. quite the contrary.. and the 'hoaxes' etc. that have turned up have indeed been taken into consideration by scientists and theories ammended accordingly.

some of the foundations for its biggest successes have been later found to be hoaxes, incorrect or decidedly one-sided and never retracted. considering the discussions i've had with you regarding mars and other places in our solar system, it should be obvious that we aren't exactly sure what happened back then but evolution may not be the answer to that question, ya know? there's certainly enough evidence against it to at least suggest the question.

If you like you can repost all the evidence you have posted to rikriley to me as well and I will respond accordingly. Perhaps in another thread though as this one is more about calling people who accept ToE gullable rather than anything else.. unless you agree with it?
As for the solar system and the universe.. there's nothing to suggest that those [est] 17 billion years of development couldn't give rise to both abiogenisis or/and evolution.

[edit on 4-3-2008 by riley]

reply to post by melatonin


No- I'm not a real scientist I just play one on TV. I am more interested in Gods knowledge than mans right now. I do have scientific training, a B.S. in csc from a large state run university. So I know the drill. I became a Christian later in life due to the supernatural intervention of God.

or was it Rileys flying spaghetti monster?

Na it was God.

Originally posted by Bigwhammy
I am more interested in Gods knowledge than mans right now.

Fine by me.

But what of this post-modernism stuff. Do you really think that most scientists are post-modernists?

reply to post by melatonin


Post modernism is difficult to define and I have a feeling I am walking into something you've been thinking about for awhile.

In the spiritual sense yes science is..

In the philosophical, artistic, way probably not - it is too concrete.

.

Folks, my brain hurts.

The last several posts on page 24 were just worth a quick skim to see that the discussion is de-volving into an argument, and not a good argument at all.

As I mentioned earlier, seems to have gotten lost in the midst of various battles, WHY argue about it? Now, THAT would be a good idea for a thread....what harm is done, by these 'beliefs?

reply to post by weedwhacker


Hey! Speak for yourself!

I'm actually enjoying listening to Mel's and BW's conversation. I don't agree with the complete theory of evolution, obviously, but BW and I were just talking in U2U about how much we respect Mel for being so knowledgeable on the subject. If I'm not interjecting, it's because I'm a total doofus when it comes to stuff like this (as I told you in U2U) but am enjoying listening to the both of them and am reading every word BW and Mel say.

I might not agree but do enjoy listening to the other side's ideas. They are actually discussing some pretty interesting stuff.

[edit on 3/4/2008 by AshleyD]

reply to post by AshleyD


Ash,

Yeah! But, Yeah! But, Yeah! But....

You are the OP, you call the shots...I was just meekly raising my hand to mention that the term 'gullibility' isn't being discussed anymore. That's all.

Originally posted by Bigwhammy
Post modernism is difficult to define and I have a feeling I am walking into something you've been thinking about for awhile.

In the spiritual sense yes science is..

In the philosophical, artistic, way probably not - it is too concrete.

Prescient?

In both ways it's not. POMOism is a bloody scourge in academia.

Trust me (or don't, heh), but POMOism is despised by almost all scientists I know. There are a some fans in psychology and sociology, but few in the harder sciences.

Read up on the Sokal Affair.

I do see some very POMOish traits in some Xians, playing relativism with the idea of knowledge. Your truth, my truth. Science depends on the idea of there being an stable objective truth (although it's often hard to pin down) and human rationality. POMOism attempts to rip such ideas apart into what could be almost considered solipsism.

Just read up a bit about POMO views of science, and the views of many scientists on POMO.

en.wikipedia.org...

Next we'll move to Darwinism removing god from science if you want...

reply to post by AshleyD


Ash, I almost missed something you wrote there. You 'don't agree with evolution'...

Wow! That is an interesting comment, and could be taken many ways, unless you explain. AND, please don't ask me to link to all of your 'signatures'...just say it, here in the forum.

YOU can believe that EVERYTHING sprang into existence, already cooked, baked, and done, at some point in the past. OR, you can use your noggin and realize that a great deal of time has passed, in the Universe we reside, before WE appeared on the scene...

Either you believe in magic, or you can accept science...not that science has all of the answers...but to believe in magic is, well...those are in a minority.

'hoaxes' etc. that have turned up have indeed been taken into consideration by scientists and theories ammended accordingly.

Hey are you related to Rik? Same house? Cause you show up as one of the people I befriended and I befriended RikRiley. Isn't that interesting? Hmm odd.

Anyway, when I was in school they did NOT tell me that the Scopes Monkey Trial evidence was hoaxed. They taught that it was a clear, pure victory and never a mention that Piltdown was a pig's tooth. So no, they do not amend their mistakes, unless it's not going to cause someone importan to lose face. Ya know, the way some folks talk about this subject, you'd think they had decided the people who do evolutionary study are immune to mistake and are almost god-like in their stance. Don't you find that rather ironic? I know I do..