The Gullibility of Evolutionists

Originally posted by idle_rocker
If you think this post was baiting, consider yourself baited.

Having been "Baited" = Gullibility.

Oh snap! Zing. Sorry, I don't say that phrase very often but even if someone got me that good with that kind of logic I'd have to bow in awe of their sharp skillz. No offense to the person it was directed to.

Originally posted by Bigwhammy
I couldn't help it.... the flying spaghetti monster made me do it

I'm stealing that and putting it my repertoire.

Oh thank goodness, some logic came back to the page

I was terribly lost by all the reposts of the reposts of the reposts.

Originally posted by sufusci
reply to post by Conspiriology

 

You completely misunderstand evolution. There is no "prime directive". Evolution is not a "thing", but a model formed by observing genetic change. Evolution is stateless.

Let me make it simple

what does it set out to prove.

May seem academic but their is a reason I am asking

- Con

Speaking of evolution................
Here is an interesting thread about what is going on now.

paradigm shift is on the way for Evolution

Page 25, BigWhammy 'quoted' something that I DID NOT SAY, nor post!!

Sorry, but big kids don't cry...and big kids don't fight about silly stuff!!

Originally posted by idle_rocker

Originally posted by idle_rocker
confusing?

Originally posted by idle_rocker

Originally posted by idle_rocker
Oh thank goodness, some logic came back to the page

I was terribly lost by all the reposts of the reposts of the reposts.

what?

reply to post by weedwhacker


what was it?


I quoted the Bible look again




[edit on 3/5/2008 by Bigwhammy]

reply to post by weedwhacker


You know weedwacker.
You shouldn't call people on things your guilty of as well.
Or call people names for crimes you commit as well.
At least that one rule the Christians made is good.



[edit on 5-3-2008 by WraothAscendant]

reply to post by WraothAscendant


i wasn't quoting weedwacker it was a bible quote I put the verse number and everything lol

here it is:

Originally posted by Bigwhammy
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.

[edit on 3/5/2008 by Bigwhammy]

Originally posted by WraothAscendant
reply to post by weedwhacker

 

You know weedwacker.
You shouldn't call people on things your guilty of as well.
Or call people names for crimes you commit as well.
At least that one rule the Christians made is good.



[edit on 5-3-2008 by WraothAscendant]

Please, explain....WraothAscendant!!

WHAT am I guilty of? Where did I call people names???

AND, why are Christians better than EVERYONE else?????

reply to post by weedwhacker


Why here is an example right here weedwacker...........
In the very post you ask me for evidence.
Thank you.

AND, why are Christians better than EVERYONE else?????

What I said in essence was they had least one good rule.
Not that they are better than everyone else.
Thank you for playing.

Originally posted by weedwhacker

Originally posted by WraothAscendant
reply to post by weedwhacker

 

You know weedwacker.
You shouldn't call people on things your guilty of as well.
Or call people names for crimes you commit as well.
At least that one rule the Christians made is good.



[edit on 5-3-2008 by WraothAscendant]

Please, explain....WraothAscendant!!

WHAT am I guilty of? Where did I call people names???

AND, why are Christians better than EVERYONE else?????

Originally posted by Bigwhammy
reply to post by riley

 

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

No I didn't put words in your mouth:

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)

Sin is immorality. You are accusing me and others of believing in evolution because we want ['love'] to be immoral.

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?

wtf? clearly your "belief" has not made you a moral person. If you want to sell religion I suggest you use a different sales pitch.

Edit. do not send me anymore emails. I am not interested in being 'saved' by you.

[edit on 5-3-2008 by riley]

Here is a quote I highly agree with (based on my observations) from another poster.

Because atheism is the fervent 'religion' of peer reviewed scientists, they got themselves bottled up in a failed paradigm due to their fanaticism. You can't even touch the idea of the slightest deviation from Darwinism without getting flamed. This my friends is how science really works, by the agreement of the scientists, not necessarily by the evidence. Don't let facts get in the way of a good theory.

post by SevenThunders

I have a sneakin' suspicion that had the original theories that spawned the Enlightenment been the brainchild of the public at large, we would not see this type of elitism in science.

The guys who started the enlightenment were not a bunch of atheists, who said one day, i'm tired of the church being in control of the "Truth", when it's obvious they are not correct on several of their teachings.

nopers.

instead it was started by a bunch of catholic priests, who's job it was to prove the bible was correct (thinking research would prove this, but instead finding the research proved only that the papal decrees were wrong... and if the pope was wrong, then the bible was wrong (you know, they were wholy convinced the pope was god's mouthpiece on earth)), so they tossed it all out. now these guys were the ones in charge of forcing catholicism down everyone's throat, via scholarly edicts. they just changed robes and continued their originally scheduled programming!

i believe this is why the attitude of science is as it is today. it can't be reasoned with because part of the imparting of science is the same "all knowing" position that originally was taken by those catholic priests so long ago, who ended up defecting from the pope, and tossing out all of ancient history in one fell swoop.

oh boy, when all this finally comes to light, it's really gonna be an interesting and twisted up story

reply to post by undo


Ah but if the original idea was "enlightened" you forget the human ability to twist things for their own purposes.
As is evidenced in this thread and many other things and he doesn't say anything about the beginning.
Just things as they stand now.


[edit on 5-3-2008 by WraothAscendant]

reply to post by WraothAscendant


Can you explain what you mean? I'm not sure what you're saying. Feeling a bit blonde atm

reply to post by undo


Very, very interesting thoughts, Undo.

It's also fascinating how you tied it all into the papacy and used the shift from a religious dark age to that of a 'scientific dark age' in terms of elitists controlling the information and throwing the baby out with the bath water.

I'll have to think on this a little more. Pretty good stuff.

Oh and here's the part where it gets freaky!
Many were the professors and teachers at the universities in Germany (where the entire thing started) .
The first point of contention was that the Greeks could not write during the time their texts were said to be written. The reason they brought this up was to prove the bible was the more true of these documents. So, they tossed out all the greek histories and myths. This would later come back to haunt them because the Greek histories also verified the veracity of some parts of the bible. They went through the available ancient texts of the time and proved them, one by one, to be inaccurate (just like with piltdown, they started with an erroneous premise, in this case that the ancient Greeks couldn't write). Until finally, only one glaring and obvious thing was left -- the bible itself. These criticisms of ancient histories were assigned projects at university, assigned by their professors (those ex-priests), who guided the entire process and rewrote the history.

Problem was, they found out, the ancient Greeks could write. The entire premise of it, was founded on an incorrect assumption but it was too late to backtrack. Too many "scholars" had chimed in and written lenghty documents and criticisms on the subject and related subjects.

So today, we can thank German Higher Criticism that most of ancient history is still taught as nothing but myth.



[edit on 5-3-2008 by undo]

Originally posted by Beachcoma
reply to post by AshleyD

 

Ah. Okay then. That makes sense.

I think the problem on both sides is narrow-mindedness or even close-mindedness. The creationist who will not accept anything other than their preconceived notions and the evolutionists who think that science is infallible.

However it should be noted that true science is meant to be open to criticism and scepticism. The beauty of this is that anything that can't square away with the evidence will quickly be rejected, as evidenced by your second post.

"Evolutionsts who think science is infallible" is a statement made up by yourself it is not a fact.

This thread started hypocritically with the OP cherry picking some cases to make his point. But then again he's a creationist whose biggest problem is providing evidence of a creator. Since they can't do that, they state that everything is the evidence of a creator ! Which as anyone can see is a circular argument.

It is my belief that we are all living in a computer simulation and that everything you experience is programmed. Nobody can prove I'm wrong since any contrary evidence is programmed and is part of the simluation to generate argument therefore I must be right!