The Gullibility of Evolutionists

Originally posted by altrock
To be honest, you have been a big hypocrite and your original opening statements have caused a wide variety of paradoxes throughout your replies, this in essence is causing your argument to come across as invalid as you can not even abide by the original do' s and don't s that you laid down when you created the thread.

Sorry you feel that way. But I'm more sorry that people cannot see exactly how hypocritical evolutionists come across with their [pseudo] intellectual elitism and one sided gullibility. It's sad the evolutionists can dish it out but cannot take it and cannot see the forest for the trees.

How are they gullible? By believing the things that confirm their dogmatic beliefs but automatically dismissing anything that could make them see things another way or dismiss anything that has to do with creationism or ID because it's 'religious stuff.' It's sad how they are stuck in a bottle neck and toss out blatant evidence that challenges their doctrine.

Many atheists have entered this thread and have accused me of having an anti atheistic agenda. Too bad they can't see atheists are not the only demographic that believes in evolution. Attacking the science is not the same as attacking the people. I will say this again: evolutionists treat an attack on evolution like you just told them you said their kids were ugly or made a 'Your Mama' joke.

When making this thread, I almost switched the focus entirely from the gullibility/biased aspect to an elitist aspect. Instead of quoting flaws in the science like I did, I was going to take some really offensive and snobby quotes by other ATS members in various threads in this forum but decided against it. Not that fact isn't fact but I felt it would be unfair to use the words of other members against them to show just how they are coming across.

Something to think about. They keep claiming that is the beauty of the science and the fact it is open to criticism. I want to ask, "On what planet?" Sure, other evolutionists question other evolutionists but that's about it. No change is allowed. Darwin wrote the holy Gospel and the dogma will not be changed. You want to be relegated to pariah status in the field of science? Point out some flaws in the theory of evolution.

Originally posted by sufusci

 

Please see it from my point of view: I KNOW the evidence is insurmountable. Its staggering how much evidence there is for evolution - truly staggering. But the problem is it would take most normal people 3+ years of study to even START grasping this. No scientist can attempt to give you the information you require to understand in less time, as it requires a great understanding of a lot of things, math, statistics, chemistry, molecular biology, genetics.

It really is that simple! I mean if I started talking about information theory of transcription starts sites, how many people would really understand what I was talking about or bother to look it up? I am pretty smart IQ wise and it took me over 2 years to really understand information theory.

It's like a mathematician working on a field's prize problem trying to explain it to me. He can make as many simplifications as he wants, but me as a layman will never truly understand.

I truly don't know how to solve this conundrum. It must be very frustrating for those who believe in creationism and see evolution as an attack on their beliefs. It must be very frustrating also to have a theory "taught" to you, in overview terms, and you being told it is fact, without being able to verify this for yourself.

Any ideas?

//sufu sci

sufu sci I have an idea.

I would like to respond to this comment because I think this person speaks with a great degree of wisdom. If you will notice my previous posts I am not in agreement with young earth creationism but I believe God did indeed do it. He could have used evolution as his means.

When I became a Christian I had a lot of unanswered questions about the validity of the Bible. The seeming contradictions in scripture etc. Only by putting some of that aside and doing honest study was I able to resolve my issues. Much in the same way that sufusci is expressing,

Only after a few years of attending Bible studies and going to church did it all start to click in my mind. I think highly critically of the scriptures and examine them in their original languages to get down to what is really going on. The deeper I go the more that is revealed.

So perhaps you should consider. If eternity is even a remote possibility
of what is at stake don't you owe it some serious study before you make up your mind. Serious study.

[edit on 3/5/2008 by Bigwhammy]

Originally posted by Howie47
This would only be deceptive. To those who do not want to believe in the Creator. -Howie

Like the christian, Ken Miller?

Originally posted by ag2000
Hey Ash, are you psychic or something...check this out:

paradigm shift is on the way for Evolution...

Looks to be an interesting read.

Yes, it is an interesting read. Too bad it looks like it is going to come back and bite a lot of evolutionists on the butt. When replying to that thread, I said many evolutionists are already jumping on this group of 16 scientists. Why? Because they are challenging Darwinian evolution. So what? Einstein did the same thing with Newtonian physics and now physics is stronger than ever.

The 16 scientists are being treated like fringe idiots in their own field and have been denied grants by the looks of what others are saying. But if my hunch is right, these scientists are actually working to make evolution more solid than it really is and are working to fill in some of the gaping holes that currently exist within the theory.

It also appears their explanation will still be secular. Many dogmatic evolutionists might end up with egg on their face for making fun of these scientists if they do end up solving a lot of problems for the theory but will undoubtedly deify them if what they come up with actually solves the issues.

That is gullibility and hypocrisy. Blast them when you think they are bringing about a 'paradigm shift' and question their credentials but praise them if you are happy with the outcome and their research that validates and enhances the evolutionary theory.

One this is for sure, whatever this group is working on is going to be interesting. If anything, it will show the stubbornness of evolutionists that are jumping to conclusions and criticizing these scientists when they might just be the Einstein of evolution. We'll see. It's an interesting psychology experiment, though. They're nuts if they bring change but if the change is beneficial then they will be immortalized in the Mount Olympus of Evolution.

Originally posted by AshleyD
When replying to that thread, I said many evolutionists are already jumping on this group of 16 scientists.

Umm... I was in that thread, I didn't see any of that. Are you making things up?

reply to post by Beachcoma


No, because I didn't read all the comments on the thread. I'm talking about the other 'mainstream' scientists that are criticizing them- not ATS members. I didn't notice any ATS members doing such a thing. It just seems their colleagues in the field are isolating them.

Most of the comments I saw in that thread were creationists getting a little too excited. I told them the same thing- to not get excited or else they could end up with egg on their face, too. Many are jumping to conclusions thinking the objections the scientists are making to the centralization of natural selection will end up being replaced with God or something. It's just not going to happen.

In my opinion, both sides need to hold tight before rejoicing or criticizing. Nothing against ATS members at all but what seems to be going on with scientists in the field.

Originally posted by melatonin

Originally posted by Howie47
This would only be deceptive. To those who do not want to believe in the Creator. -Howie

Like the christian, Ken Miller?

"Not everyone that says, Lord, Lord, shall inter into the kingdom of God."

Originally posted by Beachcoma
Umm... I was in that thread, I didn't see any of that. Are you making things up?

And this might help clarify. If ATS members were saying things I didn't notice. But I was talking about the peers of the scientists:

Yes, this crowd seems to be getting the cold shoulder from their peers.

Not sure why so many evolutionists are trying to label this group of 16 scientists as 'fringe scholars' and odd balls, though. They could actually be 'beneficial' to their side.

I didn't say 'you guys' or 'your.' It was directed at the scientists in their field that appear to currently be snubbing them.

Originally posted by AshleyD
No, because I didn't read all the comments on the thread. I'm talking about the other 'mainstream' scientists that are criticizing them- not ATS members. I didn't notice any ATS members doing such a thing. It just seems their colleagues in the field are isolating them.

I didn't get that from the source article either, so where did you get it, may I ask?

Edit: Okay nevermind. I see it. My eyes are tired. But it wasn't one of the 16 scientists from that group.

[edit on 5/3/2008 by Beachcoma]

Originally posted by undo


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..

Yeah I believe I was the one that posted the idea that should have been a mis trial after I read the expert witness they used on the Darwinian side of the argument was using manufactured evidence.

Since then I had spent the last three days at ASU with a proffessor friend of mine. I found lots of case law and the law proffessor there says we might have come accross something that would throw the dover trial into being overturned. I was preparing a rather elaborate post of this data. Now in-light of what we found they tell me not to say anything.

The post that was critisizing my mentioning O.J. however missed the point or clue why I mentioned that trial. I was researching the component mental aspects of paradigm shifts in connection to specific bias and psychology, jury's etc.

I can tell you this much,, I like Science and technology a LOT but I already know where debates like this one go.

I have been looking at this from a completely differen't angle one of motive and not science. Then trying to connect the dots to those names in Science their backrounds child hood etc. all the way back to Darwins grandfather. (Seems they are all Doctors and Scientists etc.)

You are right though especially in view of what I am still working on. From a legal standpoint we have case law being decided on using other case law that legally should have been ruled a mis trial. That in and of itself would force a review on all trials regarding cases where that case law would have been used in cases to decide others putting those cases in jeopardy of being over turned or ruled a mis trial dover included.

It is interesting to note what are the motives for creating so many hoaxes that have lasted so long and why. Even the famed Brontosaurus has now been discovered to be a hoax. When you consider the way they put that one together, scientists like that, if they are still alive at the time they are found out, should be investigated more seriously as to WHY they did it.

As much as I am convinced of evolution being more pollution then science, it seems that personal acclaim is not the the desire that overwhelmed their better judgement but their are powers and principalities at work here and not just in the physical realm or natural world.

Those powers and principalities have a motive a very powerful one in fact to do just that however and that is KEEP what they are doing hidden in that very same natural and physical world.

What better way to do it then using Atheist's and evolutionists. Just matching the fetish to the foot so to speak lol.

Clearskies sent me a link to a video in nihilism (think thats what it was called about giants) Ill gratefully accept any correction lol I am running late here. Until I saw got into this subject, I would have scoffed at that video.

Now,, I admit it has shaken the foundation of my faith in Science AND Religion making BOTH

even stronger.

- Con







[edit on 5-3-2008 by Conspiriology]

Originally posted by Beachcoma
I didn't get that from the source article either, so where did you get it, may I ask?

Er... The article.

A wave of scientists now questions natural selection's relevance, though few will publicly admit it. And with such a fundamental struggle underway, the hurling of slurs such as "looney Marxist hangover", "philosopher" (a scientist who can't get grants anymore), "crackpot", is hardly surprising.

Among others.

Edit to add your edit.

Edit: Okay nevermind. I see it. My eyes are tired. But it wasn't one of the 16 scientists from that group.

No worries. But you had me thinking I was losing my mind there for a minute!

[edit on 3/5/2008 by AshleyD]

Originally posted by AshleyD
When replying to that thread, I said many evolutionists are already jumping on this group of 16 scientists.

If it's about other scientists, then shouldn't that be

"When replying to that thread, I said many evolutionists are already jumping on this group of 16 evolutionists"

Or perhaps..

"When replying to that thread, I said many scientists are already jumping on this group of 16 scientists"

Although, not all 16 are scientists. And I didn't see the article claim that they weren't getting funding (it did say getting funding per se is hard, but that applies to all), it did say something about not being able to publish in 'mainstream media' and Salthe. Suppose I could have missed it, as the article is dreadfully written - someone should tell the author that editing has a purpose.

ABE: Oh, and Pivar is a crackpot. He even tried to sue PZ Myers for criticising his book - the one he had sent to him to review. That is wacky.

[edit on 5-3-2008 by melatonin]

Originally posted by melatonin
If it's about other scientists, then shouldn't that be

"When replying to that thread, I said many evolutionists are already jumping on this group of 16 evolutionists"

Or perhaps..

"When replying to that thread, I said many scientists are already jumping on this group of 16 scientists"

it did say something about not being able to publish in 'mainstream media' and Salthe.

I saw that, too. Wonder why.

Suppose I could have missed it, as the article is dreadfully written - someone should tell the author that editing has a purpose.

Well, it was an interesting read but they had me lost on a few points. It did seem to be a bit scattered. Looks like others had a hard time making perfect sense of it, too.

The point is: Wait and see where they are going with it before labeling them as nuts or Messiahs.

[edit on 3/5/2008 by AshleyD]

Originally posted by AshleyD

Heh, you can think it's a pinickity thing, but it's not really. From what I can gather all, if not most, are 'evolutionists'

So to say evolutionists are criticising scientists is just a claim that suggests that evilutionists are being nasty. When in fact, it's just scientists being the normal social 'autistics' that many can be.

It's not really isolating, it's just a geek-fight.

I saw that, too. Wonder why.

Dunno, but why would anyone care? I assumed the author actually meant mainstream science journals. Why would a scientist be bothered about mainstream media?

Well, it was an interesting read but they had me lost on a few points. It did seem to be a bit scattered. Looks like others had a hard time making perfect sense of it, too.

The point is: Wait and see where they are going with it before labeling them as nuts or Messiahs.

Most of the stuff mentioned (bar Pivar, and maybe Salthe) has been around for a while. It's not anything new. They are just trying to integrate all the different processes that underpin evolution.

Some think natural selection is foremost, others not so much. Others think random mechanisms like drift (e.g., Larry Moran) are very important, some think not so much. Other think that group selection doesn't get the attention it deserves, some think that's about right. Some think etc etc.

What they all appear to agree with, though, is that evolution happens.

[edit on 5-3-2008 by melatonin]

Originally posted by AshleyD
Wait and see where they are going with it before labeling them as nuts

Oh? I was labeling them as nuts simply based on their unkempt appearance and slightly crazed look alone. Was I too quick?

Originally posted by melatonin
It's not really isolating, it's just a geek-fight.

I used to think I was a bit of a geek until I caught a glimpse of the greatness on that page. Luckily we value them for their astute words of wisdom and not their appearance.

[edit on 5-3-2008 by dbates]

Originally posted by melatonin

Some think natural selection is foremost, others not so much. Others think random mechanisms like drift (e.g., Larry Moran) are very important, some think not so much. Other think that group selection doesn't get the attention it deserves, some think otherwise. Some think etc etc.

What they all appear to agree with, though, is that evolution happens.

[edit on 5-3-2008 by melatonin]

I think we all can agree Evolution "happens" what makes it happen is another thing and HOW it happens is up for debate also.

You've been in my thoughts quite a bit the last few days my friend

Hope all is well with you and yours.

- The Conmeister

Originally posted by melatonin
Heh, you can think it's a pinickity thing, but it's not really. From what I can gather all, if not most, are 'evolutionists'

Mel, you might have the time to review each comment you make for five hours to ensure it doesn't step on anyone's toes or to make sure the semantics police don't show up and jump on your back but I'm not that concerned. Will it get the point across and does it jive with the T&C's? Cool. *submit*

Let's not see where I tell everyone collectively to take it easy. Let's just get picky with something that might be deemed critical of evolutionists when it was not remotely.

So, yes.

Psssst. Mel. There should be a period after the word 'evolutionists.'

Dunno, but why would anyone care? I assumed the author actually meant mainstream science journals. Why would a scientist be bothered about mainstream media?

That's what I was thinking, too. Can't see why anyone would be offended by not making it into the media but can see how they could feel snubbed for not making it into the journals. We'll see how it goes.

[edit on 3/5/2008 by AshleyD]

Originally posted by dbates
I used to think I was a bit of a geek until I caught a glimpse of the greatness on that page. Luckily we value them for their astute words of wisdom and not their appearance.

I'm not too sure, but did you think I was criticising their appearance?

Heh, not really. It was just meant to suggest that scientists like to have a good squabble now and again. I've seen some real heated stuff myself, on paper and in person. I even consider myself a science geek. So it was not a denigrating comment at all.

Ken Miller gives a good example of geek-fights:



Paleontologists almost in fist-fights over little details.

reply to post by melatonin


Hey mel,

I see that the explanation for the where are all the" in between" animals is that everything is a a transitional animal.

so then everything is constantly evolving..

Correct?

Originally posted by melatonin
Ken Miller gives a good example of geek-fights:

Ken Miller is actually entertaining. At least to me. The entire 2 hours of his speech is in this video. You don't have to agree with everything to enjoy the presentation. He even tells jokes. (sort of)