The Gullibility of Evolutionists

Originally posted by TheWalkingFox

Originally posted by Bigwhammy
But Fox couldn't the same paradox be applid to the initial cause of the Big bang theory?

wouldn't the cause have a cause have a cause have a cause have a cause have a cause have a cause have a cause have a cause have a cause have a cause ?

[edit on 3/6/2008 by Bigwhammy]

Sure could.

But for the sixth time (I guess five isn't enough?) the origins of the universe are not covered by evolution. Period. I don't know if I can make it any simpler than that.

Okay, so I'm getting your point (not a scientist or theologian here). But if evolution doesn't explain or even try to explain the origin of life in the universe, what was the purpose of putting forth the theory? And further, why do they fight the creationist theory if that is not what it's all about? It sounds like evolutionists think creationists are their enemies? Why would that be if they don't feel their theory is threatened?

Originally posted by idle_rocker
Why would that be if they don't feel their theory is threatened?

I'll let fox answer the rest, but evolutionary theory isn't threatened by YECers or IDers. Scientifically, they are impotent.

It's not really about them doing science. It's about theology, politics, society, and education.

And the science classroom is a major target.

Anti-Evolution Legislation Introduced in Florida

By Mike Dunford on March 2, 2008 11:16 PM

On Friday, Florida State Senator Ronda Storms introduced an anti-evolution bill to the legislature. She did so quietly, and without fanfare. No press release was issued, and so far the legislation has not received any attention in the press. It also doesn’t seem to have attracted any attention from the Discovery Institute or any of the other major anti-evolution websites, either. That’s actually a bit of a surprise, since the bill in question is remarkably similar to a “Model Academic Freedom Statute” that the Discovery Institute posted on a website that they (and a media company) set up to promote a movie.

linky

ABE:

Florida: The Standards Decision
By Wesley R. Elsberry on February 19, 2008 10:00 AM

Today, the Florida Board of Education met. One of the items on the agenda: the proposed new science standards. These were politically controversial because they included “evolution” and benchmarks concerning concepts in evolutionary biology.

linky 2

[edit on 6-3-2008 by melatonin]

reply to post by melatonin


Oh, that is just sad. This state Senator should be deluged with letters and phone calls. Perhaps an impeachment proceeding as well?


Add...the dumbing down of America, indeed. What a shame...


[edit on 6-3-2008 by weedwhacker]

Originally posted by weedwhacker
Oh, that is just sad. This state Senator should be deluged with letters and phone calls. Perhaps an impeachment proceeding as well?

Heh, the problem is that many in Florida (and elsewhere in the US) actually support anti-science approaches. Even Georgie Bush and the Huckster. In certain states, evolution is generally left out of science classes.

I taught sixth grade in Texas for three years 2001-2004. During that time, I was absolutely warned to not begin to say the word “evolution” or we would have every preacher in the district, as well as the media, breathing down our necks, and then there would truly be no teaching or learning. Sadly, I needed the position, so I played the “hide the issue and hide the learning” game.

...

God forbid that we should teach knowledge over “beliefs.” No wonder our politicians keep repeating the mantra “I believe …this and I believe …that” The “belief” word demands free reign to twist reality without being questioned. It is a true tragedy when believing trumps thinking, especially in our schools.

linky

Luckily there are many people who care about the integrity of science education in the USofA.

ABE: But even they are targets for the creobots...

Expelled: Texas Education Agency Fires Staffer for Announcing Talk by Barbara Forrest
By Wesley R. Elsberry on November 29, 2007 9:20 AM

This Austin American Statesman article, State science curriculum director resigns, has the scoop.

Chris Comer is out of a job. She was a nine-year veteran in the position of director of science curriculum for the Texas Education Agency (Texas-speak for the state’s “department of education”). The TEA administration essentially forced her resignation.

So, why would TEA do that? Comer forwarded an email from the National Center for Science Education announcing a talk by Dr. Barbara Forrest to several people with the following addition: “FYI”.

linky 2

[edit on 6-3-2008 by melatonin]

Well, I think both theories should be taught...but that's just me. As far as tossing the "I believe this" and "I believe that" around, my beliefs come from study I have done and am still doing. I'm sure my whole life will be study, and that's one of the reasons I'm on this site...to hear others' opinions.

But I don't think you can always make a sentence without the word "belief" in it. I mean, you can't say 'science has proven this, that or the other" in a lot of cases. Or, you can't say, "it is this way absolutely", if you're talking theory.

You can teach ID creationism and YEC in religious classes and churches.

We allow ID to be discussed in such a setting, but you (if you are in the US) don't have RE classes like we do in the UK.

Oh well. It certainly doesn't belong in a science classroom, and it will be resisted by anyone who has good science teaching in mind.

[edit on 6-3-2008 by melatonin]

reply to post by idle_rocker


idle, please remember the actual definition of the word theory. You can certainly Wiki it.

Basics; one first forms an hypothesis, based on certain observations. Then, you test your hypothesis through experimentation, or continued findings and observations that support it. IF you find or observe something that contradicts your hypothesis, then you adapt (hint) or completely abandon the idea if it doesn't 'pan-out'. A theory is only a theory when there is a SUBSTANTIAL amount of strong science and evidence to back it up.

So, a dismissive approach to the word 'theory' is disingenuous.

Back to my well-worn example...gravity is certainly not an illusion, it is an observable and measurable phenomenon. BUT, it is still not fully understood, not by a long-shot. Hence, various 'theories' are present to explain gravity. We know how to measure, how to engineer structures, how to plot orbital translations for space craft, but we still do not know if gravity is merely a 'warp' in space/time, as Einstein theorized, or if there are 'gravitons', particles, or if gravity comes in waves...

So, gravity is still a 'theory'. The term theory does not diminish the existance of gravity.

Let's contrast...creationism is a 'Faith'. There is no scientific peer-review on the subject, no evidence to support it. It is an 'hypothesis' with no testable data to back it up. Let me be clear, I am speaking of creationism ONLY in the somewhat narrow claims of some adherents to the strict interpretation of Genesis, and the '6000 year old Earth' ideas.

Could it be, that the entire Universe could have been 'created' about 13.7 billion years ago (by our reckoning) by a 'Supreme Being'? THAT is something I can swallow as a basis for an hypothesis, of a 'creator'.

But, a wise old man with a long white beard, who just 'made' Earth? Nah! I like the idea of something much more vast....

Originally posted by idle_rocker
Well, I think both theories should be taught...

Err 3 theories. If I.D. gets taught, I want Pastafarianism covered too. You can't have I.D. in a classroom and leave out the flying spaghetti monster, no sir.

Originally posted by cruzion
Err 3 theories. If I.D. gets taught, I want Pastafarianism covered too. You can't have I.D. in a classroom and leave out the flying spaghetti monster, no sir.

And that's just for biology...

reply to post by cruzion


cruzion, laughing

ID is a barely disguised attempt to bring 'creationism' in under the radar, so to speak.

Very clever marketing ploy, IMO. Nevertheless, it is still a faith-based concept, no matter how 'they' try to sell it.

It is a shame that people cannot look around, and see the immensity and complexity of the Universe for what it is. Human nature demands a simple explanation, I suppose....

Hey Mel, can you pull this one up for me? Sounds interesting:

Directed Panspermia (Directed Panspermia theory of terrestrial bioevolution, suggesting microorganism transmission to earth by intelligent technologically advanced civilization via spacecraft)

Abstract tells me nothing conclusive proven, but still sounds like it might be interesting.

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by idle_rocker

 

Let's contrast...creationism is a 'Faith'. There is no scientific peer-review on the subject, no evidence to support it. It is an 'hypothesis' with no testable data to back it up. Let me be clear, I am speaking of creationism ONLY in the somewhat narrow claims of some adherents to the strict interpretation of Genesis, and the '6000 year old Earth' ideas.

Could it be, that the entire Universe could have been 'created' about 13.7 billion years ago (by our reckoning) by a 'Supreme Being'? THAT is something I can swallow as a basis for an hypothesis, of a 'creator'.

But, a wise old man with a long white beard, who just 'made' Earth? Nah! I like the idea of something much more vast....

Well, I no longer believe in the literal 24 hour day creation of the universe as I was taught as a child, so I am not a young creationist. But I do believe there is enough recent scientific evidence for the age of the universe and the age of the earth to as you say "swallow" that concept, hypothesis, or theory (whichever is correct). And I think there's enough evidence as to the fine-tuning of that creation to support life. And without that fine-tuning we couldn't exist.

Now, as has been said before, we don't know whether the creator used evolution to complete the creation. And I could accept that. But I don't think we should throw the whole creationist "concept" out with the baby and the bathwater. That just seems unnecessary to me and could be a complete mistake as science moves forward in discovery.

As you can see I deleted part of your quote to answer the part that was relevant to me.

Originally posted by Beachcoma
Abstract tells me nothing conclusive proven, but still sounds like it might be interesting.

Looks a bit old at first glance for online access, they tend to only go back so far for some journals. Others do though. I'll see what I can do (ABE: can actually get back to 1962 for that journal online, so if anything is cited in it back to then, ask away).

It might be accessible in print.

ABE: Here ya go, it's actually freely available online..

profiles.nlm.nih.gov...

[edit on 6-3-2008 by melatonin]

reply to post by idle_rocker


idle (love that new avatar!),

A book you may find interesting, it is titled 'Just Six Numbers', by Martin Rees. ISBN 0-465-03672-4

It's in softcover, so not too expensive.

reply to post by melatonin


Thanks! Couldn't find that on Google Scholar (proving yet again it's far from perfect).

Edit: Do you know of any new research along those lines?

[edit on 6/3/2008 by Beachcoma]

Originally posted by Beachcoma
Edit: Do you know of any new research along those lines?

I could possibly do a WoK search to find out who cited that particular article, but again, the online stuff tends to only goes so far back.

I'll do a search for 'panspermia' as well, though.

ABE: U2U me your e-mail.

[edit on 6-3-2008 by melatonin]

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by idle_rocker

 

idle (love that new avatar!),

A book you may find interesting, it is titled 'Just Six Numbers', by Martin Rees. ISBN 0-465-03672-4

It's in softcover, so not too expensive.

Thanks about the avatar. You have no idea how long it took me to find one.

I have heard of the book. Did you mention it last night? Anyway, I think the title speaks for itself and should be interesting. I'll look into it.

I_R

reply to post by idle_rocker


Yeah, I may have mentioned the book last night. Writing on several threads, sometimes forgetfulness kicks in...or, nobody notices. Thanks for noticing.

I took a shower, and got some soap in my eye, and wondered...

What heck of an Intelligent Designer would 'design' eyes such as we have??

I mention this, because eyes have been used as an argument for ID.

Let's examine this idea. Our eyes only see a certain range of the EM spectrum (bees, for example, can see up into the UV spectrum). Why can't we?

Because, we did not NEED that adaptation!

Why are our eyes so fragile? Why is the cornea sensitive, but not the sclera? Why do so many of us need contacts or glasses (all versions of corrective lenses).???

WHAT kind of a 'designer' would make so many imperfections in the 'design'???

Originally posted by Bigwhammy
BACK ON TOPIC this morning

Another painful blow to the already teetering theory of evolution. Seems that the another once thought transitional species just needed some Flintstones chewables and they would've grown to be like you or me. Yep just regular humans with a vitamin deficiency.


New Twist in Hobbit Man Debate

Well, a few things...
1) H. floresiensis was never stated to be transitional, simply a new;y discovered species of the human family.
2) The article does not mention definitive evidence, only claims by a team of Australian scientists. Which could be true.

"Alterady teetering" theory of evolution? A painful blow? Seriously? If the reclassification of H. floresiensis harms evolution, then does the discovery of new species - such as the recent discovering that there are in fact two species of clouded leopards, rather than one, or that there are in fact five species of giraffe - help the theory?

Idle,

Okay, so I'm getting your point (not a scientist or theologian here). But if evolution doesn't explain or even try to explain the origin of life in the universe, what was the purpose of putting forth the theory?

To explain the diversity of organisms, and the processes by which it occurs.

And further, why do they fight the creationist theory if that is not what it's all about? It sounds like evolutionists think creationists are their enemies? Why would that be if they don't feel their theory is threatened?

They don't. It's quite the other way around, as a flip through this thread will reveal. Those of us who accept evolution have been trying to explain it to folks calmly and rationally, and have gotten no shortage of personal attacks, insults, mockery, and passive-aggressive god talk from you lot.

However, creationists are quite annoying for another reason. They may not be able to pass their genesis re-write off as science where it counts, but they sure do seem to manage to talk politicians into forcing this nugget of religion into schooling pretty frequently.