The Gullibility of Evolutionists

I am very disapointed to find out we are always going to be as we are. I was hoping there would be much more instore for us. I thought the last hundered years we started to do so good as far as lets call it getting better at tricky stuff like making planes fly and spliting atoms we even figured out that tricky thing only god (my chosen imaginery friend) has the power to do CREATE LIFE. If we dont pray really hard maybe someday god will accidentaly crash a meteorite into earth or give us the black plague again. I know he loves us all so remember to love him and pray because you dont want him to send you to that hell place if you dont pray to him.

reply to post by goblue



You see. Thats the crux. The belief in lets say a "prime mover" is not dependent on said being acting like a overgrown child.
Sure that is how the Christian god is sometimes portrayed as but the concept is not dependent on a being acting as such.

reply to post by WraothAscendant


Wraoth, I think you are begining to zero in on a concept that is often lost, in these discussions.

Ideas presented in a forum, such as this, can lead to mis-understandings, until cooler heads prevail.

I could not compare DNA sequencing for myself, because I lost my modem over the last two days, so, I'll just throw these out there.

David Dewitt
The >98.5% similarity has been misleading because it depends on what is being compared. There are a number of significant differences that are difficult to quantify. A review by Gagneux and Varki4 described a list of genetic differences between humans and the great apes. The differences include ‘cytogenetic differences, differences in the type and number of repetitive genomic DNA and transposable elements, abundance and distribution of endogenous retroviruses, the presence and extent of allelic polymorphisms, specific gene inactivation events, gene sequence differences, gene duplications, single nucleotide polymorphisms, gene expression differences, and messenger RNA splicing variations.’4

ReMine, The Biotic Message, page 449, calls into question the significance of DNA similarity:
There are two species of flies (Drosophila) that look alike but have only 25 percent of their DNA sequences in common. Yet the DNA of humans and chimpanzees share 97.5 percent. This means the DNA of two virtually identical flies is 30 times more different than that betweens humans and chimpanzees.

These are just a few about the DNA.
Just because things look similar doesn't mean they're cousins!

Dr. Mark Blais
Will evolutionists continue to adapt their beliefs further into fantasies of time and chance producing new species, while denying the amazing design of living creatures you and I observe today, and for what purpose?

Scientists, both creationists and evolutionists, are intrigued by the genetic information found in each species’ DNA; however, creationists have found the truth of the origins of species, genetic diversity, and design in all living things in the book of Genesis.


Shall the one who contends with the Almighty correct Him? He who rebukes God, let him answer it (Job 40:2).

[edit on 6-3-2008 by Clearskies]

The only gullibillity I see with evolutionists, is that they continually get drawn into nonsensicle arguments with god-botherers. I know religion is dying, and it's desperately hard to garner new converts to the cause, but, if you want to teach creationism in schools, in hope of staving off your redundancy, then fine. But we want to come and teach science in your churches in return. Is that O.K? Fair deal, right?
Now, if you had of had something in your headline about the gullibility of Scientologists.....actually, there probably would be no argument from anyone...forget that.
Anyway...where did god come from?


[edit on 6-3-2008 by cruzion]

For those who found anti-salvation in Tiktaalik;
It's just a fish, much like Archaeopteryx is just a bird.

answersinGenesis
Whatever else we might say about Tiktaalik, it is a fish. In a review article on Tiktaalik (appearing in the same issue of the scientific journal Nature that reported the discovery of Tiktaalik), fish evolution experts, Ahlberg and Clack concede that “in some respects Tiktaalik and Panderichthys are straightforward fishes: they have small pelvic fins, retain fin rays in their paired appendages and have well-developed gill arches, suggesting that both animals remained mostly aquatic.” 5

In other respects, however, Ahlberg and Clack argue that Tiktaalik is more tetrapod-like than Panderichthys because “the bony gill cover has disappeared, and the skull has a longer snout.” The authors weakly suggest that the significance of all this is that “a longer snout suggests a shift from sucking towards snapping up prey, whereas the loss of gill cover bones probably correlates with reduced water flow through the gill chamber. The ribs also seem larger in Tiktaalik, which may mean it was better able to support its body out of water.”

Without the author’s evolutionary bias, of course, there is no reason to assume that Tiktaalik was anything other than exclusively aquatic. And how do we know that Tiktaalik lost its gill cover as opposed to never having one? The longer snout and lack of bony gill covers (found in many other exclusively-aquatic living fish) are interpreted as indicating a reduced flow of water through the gills, which, in turn, is declared to be suggestive of partial air-breathing—but this is quite a stretch. Finally, what does any of this have to do with fish evolving into land dwelling tetrapods?
Are the pectoral fins of Tiktaalik really legs?

Before we get into Tiktaalik’s “legs,” it might be instructive to consider an old trick question. If we call our arms “legs,” then how many legs would we have? The answer, of course, is two legs—just because we call our arms “legs” doesn’t make them legs. The same might be said of the bony fins of Crossopterygian fish—we may call them “legs” but that doesn’t necessarily make them legs.

Shubin et al. make much of the claim that Tiktaalik’s bony fins show a reduction in dermal bone and an increase in endochondral bone.6 This is important to them because the limb bones of tetrapods are entirely endochondral. They further claim that the cleithrum (a dermal bone to which the pectoral fin is attached in fish) is detached from the skull, resembling the position of the scapula (shoulder blade) of a tetrapod. They also claim that the endochondral bones of the fin are more similar to those of a tetrapod in terms of structure and range of motion. However, none of this, if true, proves that Tiktaalik’s fins supported its weight out of water, or that it was capable of a true walking motion. (It certainly doesn’t prove that these fish evolved into tetrapods.)

The only problem people seem to have with the theory of evolution is the begining part. The big bang theory is just that. One should forget this theory before seriously considering the evolutionary theory.

Evolution happens alot in the span of one life time. You can witness experiments with dog breeding, the domestiation os wild animals, most dog or cat species would not exist today if weren't for seletive breeding and the recongnition of genetics. Viruses and single cell organisms are subject to faster changes as we fight them for their survival and ours.

Everything on earth grows and changes with it's evironment with predictable results. The facts of evolution are undeniable the problems in the theory are somewhat circumstantial and could be mathmatical. I've heard alot of refrence that math is solid and exact, I strongly disagree the representation of zero is the key to why use it. There are mathmatical anomilies it's not a perfect science but an evolving knowledge of mankind.

Computers are the life we invented, your computer is the closest logical representation of your brain that exists on our planet. There is no doubt their need to evolve constantly. To some degree we have lost our need to advance the areas of our brain which these type of inventions were made to replace. Computers were to be a logical calculator to help us think and take away the need to think so much this is our folly. We have, to some degree, lost our capability produce true original thought. These are the direct reasons for the lack of advancement everyone wants to use as evidence against evolution when, in fact it is a result of the lack of need for it.

I knew I didn't want to grow up to be a fish. I thought about it, and I would much rather have lungs. And, it's just so dark in the ocean. I like sunshine, so I'm pretty sure I'm human.

[edit on 3/6/08 by idle_rocker]

reply to post by azblack


Certain species that have been domesticated for THOUSANDS of years can regress to a wild state in ONE generation!
That is NOT macroevolution.

Originally posted by Clearskies
For those who found anti-salvation in Tiktaalik;
It's just a fish, much like Archaeopteryx is just a bird.

Aye, that's the AIG post that led to a blog post called Dr David Menton is a liar.

And archaeopteryx was not just a bird. It has distinct reptilian features. Unless you know of any modern birds with teeth but no bill, amongst other things.

reply to post by Clearskies


Correct. In fact though, you've brushed up against one of the actual flaws of evolution.

Sorry to disappoint, though - the flaw doesn't do anything to prove ID. In fact, it quite probably undermines both.

So what is the problem? The problem is, our notion of what constitutes a "species" is undergoing vast overhauls with advances in genetics. The system of taxonomy put forth by Linnaeus was pretty good, especially for the time, but is showing itself to be wrong in many places. Animals that look identical are turning out to be far different, while vastly different-looking critters might as well be twins according to their genetic patterns.

However, I'm pretty sure evolution will catch up - all fields of biology are struggling a bit to keep up with genetics.

reply to post by TheWalkingFox


Fox, are you a scientist? I'm not meaning anything ill by it at all...don't get me wrong, I respect science. I'm just wondering because you always come back so quickly with your information.

reply to post by idle_rocker


No, but I DID stay at a holiday inn once...

I simply have an interest in the field.

Well, at least you didn't play one on TV

Oh right, back to the topic at hand. I have nothing further to add. Thank you!

A hummingbird has teeth. (a little known fact!) Although it has a bill.
There are even Geese with teeth( don't tell anyone, it's a little known fact!



As to the Dr. Menton is a liar, I know there have been MANY LIES when it comes to fossils.
The feathered dinosaur, the haekels diagram, What's to say this tiktaalik isn't doctored?
Besides,
It looks like a mudskipper!

I don't see any fingers.

Dr. Menton
The bony rays of fish fins are dermal bones that are not related in any way to digits in their structure, function or mode of development. Clearly, fin rays are relatively fragile and unsuitable for actual walking and weight bearing.

reply to post by Clearskies


A little confused, Clearskies (Mrs.)

You are advocation creationism, yet point out birds with teeth???

Since, it is becoming more and more evident that birds have an evolutionary link to dinosaurs.

Add...pretty sure dinosaurs had teeth.....


[edit on 6-3-2008 by weedwhacker]

reply to post by weedwhacker


He or she could but one of those that believe in guided evolution or that whatever created life and then let it go on it's way.
Dunno em but there are those that think that.

reply to post by WraothAscendant


So if some are saying A) Evolution is real, but was initiated, or B) Evolution happens, it's random or C) Evolution is planted evidence by a 'god'....

You see, the discussion gets bogged down.

reply to post by weedwhacker
I have asserted time and again the initiation of the evolutionary pattern only confuses the theory itself. The theory contains no intiation speculation, this is the bis bang theory creationism and so forth. Any logic is flawed when considering them both together. Evolutionary theory stands independantly so the how did it start question is really not figured out yet it builds it's theory from end to beginning, facts and specific results going backwards through time to the beggining where facts and evidence become vague. No-one here is seriously seperating the two issues!

reply to post by azblack


azblack, you're right, on one level.

Big Bang? Don't know what started that. Life on Earth? Don't know what 'initiated' it...comet strike? Random combination of amino acids? Don't know, wasn't there.

BUT, the aftermath, at least on Earth, is certifiable and verifiable, and scinetifically peer-reviewed.

You can oly ue your imagination to think about how other planests evolved...