The Gullibility of Evolutionists

reply to post by AotearoaSon


I just wanted you to have THAT PRAYER

Say that prayer later when the flying spaghetti monster isn't watching.

Originally posted by AotearoaSon
...
Your buffoonery shows your lack of trust in that which you try to promote.

Which part of my post did you not understand??

reply to post by cruzion


Very nicely put, cruzion. You hit the point, it is about the ability to communicate with spoken and written language, which seems on this planet, unique to the human species. Other species have other various forms of 'communication' depending on their evolutionary niche over time.

We have taught chimps to recognize and even communicate back to us, using symbols. Birds have a very complex form of communication, amongst each species, there is even a famous Gray parrot that understood more spoken words than most Chimps! (Sadly, the parrot has died after a long and pampered life...)

If you have a dog or cat, I betcha your pet understands some words too. BUT, your dog or cat or parrot does not have the capacity to reason and understand what 'language' means!

Perhaps we aren't supposed to know anything that is above our 'station' of existence, as we perceive it. And, arguing about it does no one any good, since it is ultimately a personal decision. The 'it' is, of course, one's acceptance of a religion or a spiritual path, or what ever you wish to take...

When I mention perceptions, I like to use the example of my cat...I could try, but would always fail, to teach him algebra. In the same vein, I could try and unless I encounter a savant, fail to teach a 4-year old baby algebra.

Humans' brains have evolved to the level to be ABLE to contemplate our own exisitence. Not sure if any other species on Earth is aware of the inevitable death that awaits, nor if they could comprehend or bother to contemplate. Most creatures have built-in survival instincts...and I include Homo Sapiens Sapiens in that category.

edit...spelling and text...

[edit on 8-3-2008 by weedwhacker]

Originally posted by Jbird

Originally posted by AotearoaSon
...
Your buffoonery shows your lack of trust in that which you try to promote.

Which part of my post did you not understand??

I did not see your post when I wrote that.
I have read your post now and assure you you will see a difference in my posts, and if you could watch other people's posts as well, such as someone wanting me to have a prayer, when I have made it clear that I do not.

I will put my kid gloves back on.

To AshleyD:

You talk about “genesis this, genesis that” but you’re not making any sense. Almost EVERYONE can write a book. Bible is just another “holy” book that’s full of philosophical B.S. If you want to make a point you need hardcore evidence that will confirm the text in the book.

In science, a theory is a rigorously tested statement of general principles that explains observable and recorded aspects of the world. A scientific theory therefore describes a higher level of understanding that ties "facts" together. A scientific theory stands until proven wrong -- it is never proven correct. The Darwinian theory of evolution has withstood the test of time and thousands of scientific experiments; nothing has disproved it since Darwin first proposed it more than 150 years ago.

Indeed, many scientific advances, in a range of scientific disciplines including physics, geology, chemistry, and molecular biology, have supported, refined, and expanded evolutionary theory far beyond anything Darwin could have imagined. You can criticize evolution as much as you want but the truth about the human may be found only through factual knowledge. That factual knowledge lies in a process called evolution. The human is what evolution made him.

Source

[edit on 3/8/2008 by kemo_d7]

[edit on 3/8/2008 by kemo_d7]

Mod Edit: No Quote/Plagiarism – Please Review This Link.
Mod Note: New External Source Tags – Please Review This Link.


[edit on 11-3-2008 by Gemwolf]

Interesting read, and wholly related to our debate. It also contains criticism of evolution.
www.masmn.org...

Just as a side note, I find there to be some very interesting stuff in the bible, on an esoteric level. I like my mysticism, and there is some great stuff in there. It's a matter of interpretation. It's not all nonsense, that much I'm sure of. I love the cryptic stuff too. Just the gematria itself is a lifetimes worth of study.

[edit on 8-3-2008 by cruzion]

reply to post by cruzion

Not really because I don't believe in "god" and I accept evolution as a fact. Proponents of "creation science" hold that special creationism -- the conviction that God created the universe, including humans and other living things, at one time in the relatively recent past -- can be supported using the methods and theory of science. Scientists from many fields have examined these ideas, however, and have found them to be scientifically insupportable.

For example, evidence for a very young Earth is incompatible with many different methods of establishing the age of fossils and geological formations. Furthermore, because the basic proposals of creation science are not subject to test and falsification, these ideas do not meet the criteria for science.

Source


[edit on 11-3-2008 by Gemwolf]

reply to post by cruzion

The whole Bible is pure Philosophy. Early humans used spiritual guidance. Every tribe had its own version. Primitive tribal philosophers premised supernatural beings who demanded certain behaviors and promised swift and severe punishment for infractions. Later philosophers premised their ilk as superior beings who had the ability to create truth from within their own minds. Such philosophers, though many were intellectually gifted, forsook reality, believing the human mind can transcend observation. They created philosophy through their own conjecture and imagination, building great intellectual castles on highly questionable foundations. Most modern philosophers synthesize their philosophy from the tenets of their elitist ideology.

But the universe is real, life is real, and the human is real. The philosophy of the human should be real also. What makes a philosophy real? There is a simple test. If the logic that supplies a philosophical expectation or behavioral conclusion is based on verifiable fact, it is likely to be real. The shorter the chain of logic from the provable premise, the more apt the conclusions are true. If the logic has no real basis (is based on dogma), its conclusions, though possibly true, are likely to be at least misleading and are probably false. All existing philosophies are based on dogma.

Source


[edit on 3/8/2008 by kemo_d7]
Mod Edit: No Quote/Plagiarism – Please Review This Link.


[edit on 11-3-2008 by Gemwolf]

reply to post by kemo_d7


Star for kemo!! Our new member to ATS is spot on, IMHO!

Second line of post...(sorry, wanted to greet a member, leave a star and a comment, so had to write lest get a slap on the wrist...)

Aloha!

If no one has an arguement for me when I say evolution was a series of observations of nautre responding to it's environment to survive, you would understand the aggrivation when it is confused with the theories of the begining, they are completely unconnected. Religion has absolutely nothing to do with this theory, if you can't get past that point you are prevented from objectively anylizing any theory.

Ashley Macro-Evolution is still evolution to you believe you are gulliable for believing in it.

Originally posted by kemo_d7
reply to post by cruzion

 

Not really because I don't believe in "god" and I accept evolution as a fact. Proponents of "creation science" hold that special creationism -- the conviction that God created the universe, including humans and other living things, at one time in the relatively recent past -- can be supported using the methods and theory of science. Scientists from many fields have examined these ideas, however, and have found them to be scientifically insupportable.

Furthermore, because the basic proposals of creation science are not subject to test and falsification, these ideas do not meet the criteria for science.

Thanks kemo, nice posts.

If I am to be called gullible for being rational and holding these views (no god, evolution is real), then let me be called gullible.
If I am to be called gullible for focusing on fact supported by hard evidence (and such a wealth of hard evidence there is!) rather than relying on an unprovable faith-based premise, then let me be called gullible.
If I am to be called gullible because I am the product of over a billion years of evolution, then let me be called gullible.
If I am to be called gullible because I stand strong in the denial of ignorance by supporting these theories and facts, then let me be called gullible.
Just, please, don't call me any less of a person because of these truths (small t, requiring fact supported by hard evidence) and please don't offer me prayer or spiritual consolation because I most certainly do not need these.

[edit on 8-3-2008 by AotearoaSon]

reply to post by AotearoaSon


Star for you, AotearoSon....

Wow, hard to spell, that!

Cheers


Mod Note: One Line Post – Please Review This Link.


[edit on 8-3-2008 by elevatedone]

Originally posted by kemo_d7
You talk about “genesis this, genesis that” but you’re not making any sense. Almost EVERYONE can write a book. Bible is just another “holy” book that’s full of philosophical B.S. If you want to make a point you need hardcore evidence that will confirm the text in the book.

It doesn't have to be religious. Again, pretend you and I are two atheists looking at a document that was recently unearthed and the concept of 'God' never existed in the history of man. The point is, some of the wording certainly seems to be a little odd and mention evolution. The other point is, that is why my objections are not theological. I don't care how God created us. This point is not getting through to you.

In science, a theory is a rigorously tested statement of general principles that explains observable and recorded aspects of the world. A scientific theory therefore describes a higher level of understanding that ties "facts" together. A scientific theory stands until proven wrong -- it is never proven correct.

Oh my goodness. The scientific theory has been explained to me a million times on this thread. Hint: I know how the scientific method works, know that adaptations has been proven, and have stated my many thanks to Darwin and his works that has actually helped Biblical scholars. But if you're trying to tell me a creature has been observed into evolving into another creature (which you aren't and you can't) then this has not happened. And yes, I am aware of the eons it is supposed to take for a new creature to evolve. That leaves us with haggling over transitional fossils that are simply too open to interpretation.

Originally posted by azblack
Ashley Macro-Evolution is still evolution to you believe you are gulliable for believing in it.

Ingrish preeze.

I didn't understand that sentence at all.

Eh?
You seem to have me confused with someone else. Nowhere have I ever stated that the bible contained any science. Neither have I stated that I believe any of it. I merely said that as a document, it has interesting aspects. I was also one of the people batting for evolution - both micro and macro, and I was arguing for evolutionary process as explanation for life, right back to chemical reactions of aminos and their environment. There are some evolutionists just in this thread that won't take it that far.
You seem to be very sure of your reality. Moreso than Aristotle and Descartes, Baudrillard, Satre, Popper. What is it you know that these esteemed thinkers couldn't work out?
I'm interested in science and philosophy and mysticism, and their realtionships, not just the physical aspect of existance.

Originally posted by cruzion
Eh?
You seem to have me confused with someone else.

Eh? You're talking to Kemo, right?

reply to post by AshleyD

It seems to me that you don't understand how evolution works. Individual organisms don't evolve. Populations evolve. Because individuals in a population vary, some in the population are better able to survive and reproduce given a particular set of environmental conditions. These individuals generally survive and produce more offspring, thus passing their advantageous traits on to the next generation. Over time, the population changes.

The effects of evolution can be felt in almost every aspect of our daily lives, though, from medical and agricultural dilemmas to the process of choosing a good mate. In medicine, there's the question of how long the antibiotics we take now will remain effective, given the relatively fast rate at which bacteria can evolve resistance to drugs. In agriculture, the need to protect this year's crops is pitted against the concern that doing so will set the stage for insects to evolve pesticide resistance. For all of us, there is the issue of decreasing biodiversity, as most scientists believe that life on Earth is currently undergoing a mass extinction in which 50 percent or more of species will die out. These are just a few examples of ways in which evolutionary processes affect our daily lives.

Source

Mod Edit: No Quote/Plagiarism – Please Review This Link.


[edit on 11-3-2008 by Gemwolf]

Yep.
Sorry, I deleted the 'quote' section.
Anyway, yes I believe in God.
I'm a type of pantheist, I guess. I believe that God is everything.
For me, science is there for us to understand God.
I believe sciences ultimate goal is to transcend the physical limitations of life. Return us back to the 'kingdom of god'. Science has to have a purpose. There has to be a reason for collecting the data that we do. It isn't just knowledge for knowledges sake, at some point it has to transform the human condition. I'm an ardent believer in the synergy of science and mysticism. The more we learn, the more the veil is lifted of what is god. As I said, I believe God is everything. His coming into being is the unfolding process of the universe. Every time we observe it and discover a new facet, it is a more intricate understanding of what god/us/the universe/reality is. The more we study it, the more beautiful it gets, and the more our conciousness expands.
I probably stand alone in this view, but, that's ok.
Personally I wish I could get christians to shift into the notion of god being everything, and for scientists to have an enrichening of purpose.
Is knowledge not the route back to god?

reply to post by kemo_d7


First of all, please lay off the bold font.

Second, I am fully aware of how 'evolution works' and how 'evolution is supposed to work concerning theoretical macroevolution.' Yes, for the umpteenth time, adaptations, mutations, and microevolution is at work.

Everything you just described showed adaptations. Again, many thanks for verifying the Genesis account.

Originally posted by kemo_d7

For example, evidence for a very young Earth is incompatible with many different methods of establishing the age of fossils and geological formations. Furthermore, because the basic proposals of creation science are not subject to test and falsification, these ideas do not meet the criteria for science.

Dating geological strata is a dubious affair; at best. Data
that doesn't fit is thrown out. Basing most of the information by The strata being older the farther down you go,(developed in the 1800s). High Tech.

1. Many strata are not dated from fossils. Relative dates of strata (whether layers are older or younger than others) are determined mainly by which strata are above others. Some strata are dated absolutely via radiometric dating. These methods are sufficient to determine a great deal of stratigraphy.


What Talk.Origins neglects to say is that all of these dating methods are subordinate to dating by fossils. That is, whenever stratigraphic superposition, radiometric dating or any other dating method disagrees with the fossils, the date based on fossils always wins.

* If stratigraphic superposition says a T-rex fossil is older than a trilobite fossil it is called an overthrust.

Radiocarbon dating ONLY works on material less than 5,000 years old!
NOTE
**** If radiometric dating places a fossil as too young or too old

the radiometric date is dismissed

as resulting from contamination.
o Reference: New Age Data of Buried Peat Deposits From the Site "Fili Park".

Geological Time tutorial

The earth is 4.6 Billion years old. The rocks on the earth can be dated using relative dating, which involves dating a rock with respect to another rock; or absolute dating, which is giving a numerical date to a rock. Relative dating is done using fossils, the law of superposition or cross-cutting relationships. Absolute dating is done using radiometric methods which uses radioactive elements, such as Uranium or Potassium to date a rock. All rocks can be arranged in the geological timescale which stretches from the Precambrian to the most recent Cenozoic.

This is by no means an isolated event. It happens all the time in geochronology.
Biologic evolutionary history, especially for Phanerozoic time, has given us not only the principal means of time-correlation but the basis of the unique progressive traditional stratigraphic scale.

Some fossils are seen to occur only in certain strata. Such fossils can be used as index fossils. When these fossils exist, they can be used to determine the age of the strata, because the fossils show that the strata correspond to strata that have already been dated by other means.

Creationwiki



The Great Flood also comes into play when we think of Geological data.!
Species knocked around, ocean life submerged in sediment and silt!

guardian UK

Around 250m years ago at the end of the Permian era the Earth experienced its most dramatic loss of life, when an estimated 95% of marine species and 70% of land animals were wiped out. Scientists are uncertain what caused the extinction, but many suspect rapid environmental upheaval caused by vast volcanic eruptions were at least in part to blame.

[edit on 8-3-2008 by Clearskies]