The Gullibility of Evolutionists

reply to post by melatonin


Yes apparently "prescient?" was correct you do have a strong opinion on post modernism. Where I am coming from is modernism is basically when man took control of his environment, science explodes, industrial revolution etc.
Having done all of that man no longer needs God he is the master of his on destiny = post modern
That's what I meant by spiritually I think science it postmodern
Some people don' t even have a postmodern they just say it's all modernism.

Now I said philosophically , artistically not because science is too concrete...
That is exactly what you are talking about. All the everything is relative... sort of esoteric mish mash that looks neat but means nothing.n Science wants exact 1+1=2 Post modernism wants to smoke a joint and talk about why it might be 3.




[edit on 3/4/2008 by Bigwhammy]

reply to post by weedwhacker


Hey, not harping on you at all, Weed Whacker! Come on in- the water's fine. You are more than welcome to make objections. I don't mind if others debate evolution, creation, and ID... just don't ask me too unless you're in the mood for a headache! I simply am not knowledgeable enough in all the fields to debate it on the same level as Mel.

reply to post by weedwhacker


Allow me to clarify. Yes, I do believe in 'evolution' as in genetic mutations, microevolution, and all that stuff. For simplicity's sake, when I say 'evolution' in that sense, I mean the whole ball of wax that we all evolved from simple organisms solely via natural selection out of something like primordial soup and it was all a big, apathetic accident.

Originally posted by Bigwhammy
Having done all of that man no longer needs God he is the master of his on destiny = post modern

...

Some people don' t even have a postmodern they just say it's all modernism.

Science is generally seen as modernistic. It's been around for quite a while now.

Muuuussstt sleep...

manana

Originally posted by undo

'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.

It's a glitch. I get his friends and enemies. I certainly seem to be getting more baggage that I should be.

Anyway, when I was in school they did NOT tell me that the Scopes Monkey Trial evidence was hoaxed.

How long ago was it when you went to school..? I doubt that would be the case nowadays.

They taught that it was a clear, pure victory and never a mention that Piltdown was a pig's tooth.

A pigs tooth? I thought the forgery as created by a variety of bones?
Here it is from a pro-evolution site [imagine that..]:

www.talkorigins.org...
From the chronology and the later reconstruction of events it is fairly clear that there never were any significant fossils at the Piltdown quarry. It was salted from time to time with fossils to be found. Once the hoax was exposed, Sir Kenneth Oakley went on to apply more advanced tests to find where the bones had come from and how old they were.

His main findings were:

Piltdown I skull: Medieval, human, ~620 years old.
Piltdown II skull: Same source as Piltdown I skull.
Piltdown I jawbone: Orangutan jaw, ~500 years old, probably from Sarawak.
Elephant molar: Genuine fossil, probably from Tunisia.
Hippopotamus tooth: Genuine fossil, probably from Malta or Sicily.
Canine tooth: Pleistocene chimpanzee fossil.

Don't know where you go 'pigs tooth' from.. clearly they went to alot more effort creating the fraud than that. Regardless the very fact that a scientist bothered testing what it actually was shows that they were after the truth and were NOT covering it up.

So no, they do not amend their mistakes, unless it's not going to cause someone importan to lose face.

Even though all the evolution websites and scholary articles admit to it being a fraud. If they were trying to avoid having it be known it was found to be a fraud it wouldn't be so readily available on the net by 'evolutionists'.

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..

huh? What do you mean "some folks"? Has ANYONE here [apart from creationists] spoken of evolution as if it's considered a god? No. We have never said ToE is immune from making mistakes. It is a SCIENCE. Science changes, develops and EVOLVES. Some ideas and theories become unviable and get proven wrong through new evidence etc. Evolution is not one of them. As for scientists not ammending mistakes. You seem to think that it was a lie everyone in the scientific community believed yet that doesn't seem to be the case either:

www.talkorigins.org...
The hoax was swallowed uncritically

This is a half truth; almost no one publicly raised the possibility of a deliberate hoax. There were rumors circulating, however. William Gregory, a paleontologist at the American Museum of Natural History wrote in Natural History in May of 1914:

"It has been suspected by some that geologically [the bones] are not that old at all; that they may even represent a deliberate hoax, a negro or Australian skull and a broken ape jaw, artificially fossilized and planted in the grave bed, to fool scientists."

Clearly there was always at least some doubt to it's authenticity.. besides which the science at the time wasn't as accurate as it is today.

[edit on 4-3-2008 by riley]

reply to post by AshleyD


I am like you in that I totally believe in evolution within a species through natural selection. But I do not believe in fish becoming turkeys. Or chimps becoming evolutionists. Now it could be that Gods mechanism for creation is evolution. But I don't believe it. The evidence is entirely unconvincing. And the evolutionist have an agenda based on there need to not be accountable to God. (Sorry but it boils down to the love of Sin)

However it isn't a huge deal for my faith in the Bible. I have it from a very good source that Genesis is not about the creation of the universe but the preparation of the garden for man. Ash you ought to read this book Genesis Unbound it is out of print and hard to get. I bought it of of amazon used for $50 or something. I would mail it, if you mail it back. It changed my view entirely and made this whole debate not such a big deal for me any more.

I like ID, science or not, because I am not a young earth creationist. But I believe God did it. How he did - God only knows

Riley,

You said:

Regradless the very fact that a scientist bothered testing what it actually was shows that they were after the truth and weren't covering it up.

True, then again, there were still some christians and practicing jews in the upper eschelons of science at the time. May have been one of them that uncovered the hoax (as they would be the only ones that would be concerned enough about it to find out). Nowadays, though, if they want to be there, they can't mention their beliefs or let their beliefs on the subject, color their research, which usually ends up with them either caving in to the pressure or changing jobs. This is how you effectively remove voices of dissent. No need to throw them in prison, a'la the Holy Roman Empire, just make it so they are so outnumbered in that field, their opinions won't matter and if brought up, will be boo'ed outta the stadium anyway. Just a really well placed minority of experts, with sufficient influence and problem solved. Tata to 6000 years of history. Hello new history which has holes in the size of the grand canyon.

high school for me was in the 70's. Was it discovered to be a hoax after the 70's? If so, I respectfully withdraw the mention and apologize. If not, what the freak?

Originally posted by Bigwhammy And the evolutionist have an agenda based on there need to not be accountable to God. (Sorry but it boils down to the love of Sin)

Truly I am unsurprised by this.
What did Jesus say about judging people lest ye be judged? That is technically a sin.. so whats you excuse?
Please do not call us immoral just because we do not subscribe to your beliefs.
I accept evolution because of LOGIC. When I believed in god I still accepted evolution to be fact. It has been made very clear over the millenia that belief in god does not affect people's morality.

reply to post by undo



Hi undo

They taught it to me in the 1980s so the bar just got higher.
Just thought I'd let you know...

reply to post by riley


No that's completely my opinion. Does it sound narrow minded to you?
Good.

Originally posted by Bigwhammy
reply to post by AshleyD

 

I am like you in that I totally believe in evolution within a species through natural selection. But I do not believe in fish becoming turkeys. Or chimps becoming evolutionists. Now it could be that Gods mechanism for creation is evolution. But I don't believe it. The evidence is entirely unconvincing. And the evolutionist have an agenda based on there need to not be accountable to God. (Sorry but it boils down to the love of Sin)

However it isn't a huge deal for my faith in the Bible. I have it from a very good source that Genesis is not about the creation of the universe but the preparation of the garden for man. Ash you ought to read this book Genesis Unbound it is out of print and hard to get. I bought it of of amazon used for $50 or something. I would mail it, if you mail it back. It changed my view entirely and made this whole debate not such a big deal for me any more.

I like ID, science or not, because I am not a young earth creationist. But I believe God did it. How he did - God only knows

What nonsense, and shame on you for fomenting nonsense.

WHY is DNA so similar, even between different species?

You cite Genesis, yet you do not understand that Genesis was a compilation of various writings, that began first as various stories told down through various generations....all before writing, or reading, was invented. Please keep a critical eye, and mind, on what you are told.

reply to post by weedwhacker



Ohh that's amn easy one---
DNA is similar for the reason that it all came from the same designer -- GOD

If you had read the post. i said Genesis does not describe the creation of the universe. I have studied it in its original language.

In the Beginning in hebrew is a period of time could be 10000000 years

not a point in time like people assume

Originally posted by Bigwhammy
I am like you in that I totally believe in evolution within a species through natural selection. But I do not believe in fish becoming turkeys.

I agree. Hopefully one day the myth will die that creationists do not deny certain aspects of evolution and that we completely ignore the plain as day evidence of genetic mutations and such. Those things are even in the Bible and I don't know anyone personally who disagrees with such things.

Or chimps becoming evolutionists.

Now it could be that Gods mechanism for creation is evolution. But I don't believe it. The evidence is entirely unconvincing. And the evolutionist have an agenda based on there need to not be accountable to God. (Sorry but it boils down to the love of Sin)

I wholeheartedly agree on everything you just said. Also, I think many Christians feel evolution (the whole ball of wax) could be God's method. He did tell us to be fruitful and multiply and some of the wording in Genesis sounds like it is talking about evolution. Our objections to it are not merely theological. Contrary to their opinion, many creationists are not biased but actually can look at the whole theory from an outside view.

It's not fair for us to put God in a box and tell Him He is only capable of creating us a certain way. But that's still not even the case. I don't believe it because the evidence is too shaky and requires a leap of faith I'm not willing to take. It amazing me some will accept the holes in the theory on faith then reject historical documents proving Jesus existed. Go figure.

Ash you ought to read this book Genesis Unbound it is out of print and hard to get. I bought it of of amazon used for $50 or something. I would mail it, if you mail it back. It changed my view entirely and made this whole debate not such a big deal for me any more.

I'll take you up on that.

I like ID, science or not, because I am not a young earth creationist. But I believe God did it. How he did - God only knows

I misread and thought you said you were a YEC. I was about to slap you silly. But it was the same with me- it actually took a Christian creation scientist to go from a YEC to a [moderately] OEC. But if the YEC's are right, then that's fine with me. I'm like you- I don't care how He did it or how long it took. I just know He did.

reply to post by riley



Riley I never said you were immoral don't put words in my mouth.

Riley if you do not believe in God why does the word sin bother you?

The only unforgivable sin is unbelief. Are you a sinner?

Originally posted by Bigwhammy
reply to post by weedwhacker

 

Ohh that's amn easy one---
DNA is similar for the reason that it all came from the same designer -- GOD

If you had read the post. i said Genesis does not describe the creation of the universe. I have studied it in its original language.

In the Beginning in hebrew is a period of time could be 10000000 years

not a point in time like people assume

Well, BigWhammy, then you have to acknowledge that DNA was part of God's original plan. BUT, DNA could no exist until the original 'creaton' of the Universe had cooled to the point that matter could exist.

The references to the 'Big Bang' are undeniable. Scientists have measured and observed these things for at least the last two decades.

So, 'God' decides to create the Universe, and sit back and wait (maybe He had His nails done) until conditions are JUST RIGHT to create MAN, here on EARTH....

Sorry, doesn't pass the BS test.

reply to post by weedwhacker



Why can't you conceive of the fact that God lives outside of time?

But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day.

2 Peter 3:8

After all Einstein taught us time is relative.


DNA has a map for your whole person every cell. That map is data. That map is information. Information comes from an intelligent source. Data from a programmer if you will....

wonder who that is?

Riley says its the flying spaghetti monster

But I say God.

Originally posted by riley
.

Well, I for one, am not judging you specifically, but the human condition of stubborness. Admit it, they had a knee jerk reaction. It's NORMAL behavior. We all suffer from it , from time to time. Next step is realizing -- oh my GOD, I just threw the baby out with the bathwater! Come on! There's no way they could be right on all their theories!!!!!!! They are theories! Their track record is not perfect (who's is?!)! This is what I'm trying to say and I think the OP is too.

OY! I need a vacation from this place.

[edit on 4-3-2008 by undo]

Originally posted by Howie47
reply to post by idle_rocker

 

Since many of the ID scientist aren't Christian. Some are agnostic. and others, other religions. Your quote is rendered ridiculous and nothing more
then scare tactics, form the materialist establishment.

Which quote are you talking about and how have any of my posts been scare tactics? That's not my quote you're quoting. Are you skeered yet? Now I am.

[edit on 3/4/08 by idle_rocker]

Originally posted by jimbo999

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.

If you think this post was baiting, consider yourself baited.

Having been "Baited" = Gullibility.

reply to post by idle_rocker



:LOL: Hey Rocker

We were getting a little crazy earlier....

I couldn't help it.... the flying spaghetti monster made me do it

reply to post by Bigwhammy


I'm more than totally confused now. Folks are quoting me for quotes I didn't make and now I'm responding to quotes by ghosts. Yeah buddy, I'm skeered.