The Gullibility of Evolutionists

Originally posted by Sublime620

Sorry that you went to all the trouble. I did not ask you to do so,
Nevertheless, I appreciate all the effort.
None of it is new to me nor does it in anyway address whether or not Evolutionists have the capacity for gullibility.

reply to post by Sparky63


Everyone is gullible in some respect. We could never double check everyone's work that we have faith in, so it's impossible to not be gullible.

Anyways, what do you find wrong in those sources?

*Edited to add:

Also, don't you find it to be a bit odd to accuse science of being gullible when Creationism is based off of faith?

[edit on 10-3-2008 by Sublime620]

Well, I wouldn't have even bothered doing this except for the fact he spammed my profile and left another message asking me to go back and reread his posts on page 44. I figured it deserved further scrutiny after catching him doing the same thing in other threads. Sorry to be a tattle tale. I've been debating a C&P bot. What a waste of time.

PLAGARISM

Originally posted by kemo_d7
Earth is approximately 4.55 billion years old. Radiometric dating, a method that measures the level of radioactive decay in rocks to determine how old they are has consistently aged moon rocks and meteorites at 4.4 to 4.6 billion years old. Ages of these types of rocks provide the most accurate estimates of the age of Earth and the rest of the solar system because they have not been subjected to the same forces that recycle Earth's crust. As new land forms along cracks between the planet's continental plates, old rocks are destroyed. Thus, the oldest rocks on Earth may not exist anymore. The oldest dated minerals, at 4.0 to 4.2 billion years old, are tiny zircon crystals found in sedimentary rocks in western Australia.

Earth is approximately 4.55 billion years old. Radiometric dating, a method that measures the level of radioactive decay in rocks to determine how old they are has consistently aged moon rocks and meteorites at 4.4 to 4.6 billion years old. Ages of these types of rocks provide the most accurate estimates of the age of Earth and the rest of the solar system because they have not been subjected to the same forces that recycle Earth's crust. As new land forms along cracks between the planet's continental plates, old rocks are destroyed. Thus, the oldest rocks on Earth may not exist anymore. The oldest dated minerals, at 4.0 to 4.2 billion years old, are tiny zircon crystals found in sedimentary rocks in western Australia.

www.pbs.org...

Originally posted by kemo_d7
It is apparent that there are other issues at stake, issues of great importance that must be considered. For all of the time in man's history, his behavior has depended to a large extent on his culture and his culture has been based largely on religious concepts. Human behavior was determined by these religious concepts. People were judged using religious concepts as a basis. If those religious concepts were not true, then the entire culture could collapse. People feared the consequences when something was discovered, or thought to be discovered, that appeared to be contrary to religious thinking and dogma.

It is apparent that there are other issues at stake, issues of great importance that must be considered. For all of the time in man's history, his behavior has depended to a large extent on his culture and his culture has been based largely on religious concepts. Human behavior was determined by these religious concepts. People were judged using religious concepts as a basis. If those religious concepts were not true, then the entire culture could collapse. People feared the consequences when something was discovered, or thought to be discovered, that appeared to be contrary to religious thinking and dogma.

www.onelife.com...

Originally posted by kemo_d7
We Are Atheists Because...

1. There is no proof of the existence of god.
2. There is no need of, or use for, a god.
3. A good god would be useless if it were not powerful.
4. A powerful god would not deserve worship if he were not good.
5. There is no all-powerful good god; otherwise there would be no imperfection.
6. If this is the best world god can make, the stories of Heaven must be lies.
7. History shows that godism is accompanied by ignorance and superstition.
8. There has never been such intolerance and persecution as godists have practiced.
9. Godism had to be fought when humankind made its successive steps toward science, liberty, and reform.
10. Godism was invented in the earliest days of mankind's ignorance. It is incredible that primitive humans guessed wrongly about everything else, but discovered the truth about the origin of life. Everything about which science has discovered the origin was claimed previously to have been the work of a god. Godism recedes when a new fact is discovered. No new discovery ever supports a theistic explanation of anything.
11. All revelation proves, on investigation, to be human, and generally fraudulent.
12. Godism is consistent with crime, cruelty, envy, hatred, malice, and uncharitableness.

We Are Atheists Because...

* There is no proof of the existence of god.
* There is no need of, or use for, a god.
* A good god would be useless if it were not powerful.
* A powerful god would not deserve worship if he were not good.
* There is no all-powerful good god; otherwise there would be no imperfection.
* If this is the best world god can make, the stories of Heaven must be lies.
* History shows that godism is accompanied by ignorance and superstition.
* There has never been such intolerance and persecution as godists have practiced.
* Godism had to be fought when humankind made its successive steps toward science, liberty, and reform.
* Godism was invented in the earliest days of mankind's ignorance. It is incredible that primitive humans guessed wrongly about everything else, but discovered the truth about the origin of life. Everything about which science has discovered the origin was claimed previously to have been the work of a god. Godism recedes when a new fact is discovered. No new discovery ever supports a theistic explanation of anything.
* All revelation proves, on investigation, to be human, and generally fraudulent.
* Godism is consistent with crime, cruelty, envy, hatred, malice, and uncharitableness.

www.atheists.org...

[edit on 3/10/2008 by AshleyD]

And he bolded it for us for easier locating.

Great job finding this.

Originally posted by Sublime620
And he bolded it for us for easier locating.

Great job finding this.

Do I dare call everyone who gave his comments stars... gullible?

*runs and hides*

Just teasing, everyone. Nobody had anyway of knowing. I didn't even realize it until something he left on another thread looked strangely familiar from what I read on another site.

Ok, moving along...

Originally posted by Sublime620
reply to post by Sparky63

 

Everyone is gullible in some respect. We could never double check everyone's work that we have faith in, so it's impossible to not be gullible.

Anyways, what do you find wrong in those sources?

*Edited to add:

Also, don't you find it to be a bit odd to accuse science of being gullible when Creationism is based off of faith?

[edit on 10-3-2008 by Sublime620]

Thanks for being willing to admit what so many here deny. Scientists, Evolutionists included, just like religious leaders have and do demonstrated Gullibility at times.

I never questioned your sources nor do I find anything "wrong " with them.

The similarity in genetic structure as well as body morphology is not in question. What is in question is the reason why.

Even today many Scientists are questioning whether Natural Selection is the mechanism for evolution.
For Instance:
Stanley Salthe, a natural philosopher at Binghamton University with a Ph.D. in zoology states,

"Oh sure natural selection's been demonstrated. . . the interesting point, however, is that it has rarely if ever been demonstrated to have anything to do with evolution in the sense of long-term changes in populations. . . . Summing up we can see that the import of the Darwinian theory of evolution is just unexplainable caprice from top to bottom. What evolves is just what happened to happen."

www.scoop.co.nz...

While he is a firm believer in evolution, he does not believe there is a satisfactory explanation for how it happens.

reply to post by AshleyD


Yes, I'm glad I don't read posts written in all bold or else I may have given him positive comments.

Anytime I see a post with no punctuation, paragraphs, or anything that indicates education, I try not to read too much of it.

This guy is why.

[edit on 10-3-2008 by Sublime620]

Originally posted by Sublime620
Yes, I'm glad I don't read posts written in all bold or else I may have given him positive comments.

Yes, the bold was a hindrance. He made a thread doing the same thing:

www.abovetopsecret.com...'

Anyways, now I feel like a tattle tale. Moving off the topic for good now. We all do stupid things...

Originally posted by Sublime620
reply to post by Sparky63

 

Also, don't you find it to be a bit odd to accuse science of being gullible when Creationism is based off of faith?

[edit on 10-3-2008 by Sublime620]

What a creationist believes has no bearing on whether evolutionists are gullible.
That is the problem with this thread. Instead of focusing on the OPs stated subject, it seems that the general response is, "But look at what they do!"

How does that bear on the evolutionists Gullibility?

reply to post by Sparky63


Just putting it in perspective. Everyone is gullible. The information necessary to digest is enormous. So sometimes science gets it wrong. But the wrong info is passed out and people spread the news. Then when science adjusts for inconsistancies, some people are left in the dust and don't realize it. Eventually, most catch up, and the problem happens again.

What is so bad about getting it wrong every once in a while? As long as we keep moving forward towards the truth, what is it hurting?

For science to continue learning, they have to provide the information to the public for scrutiny. That way, people can point out issues in the findings, and science can adjust.

It's a cycle. In fact, I wouldn't call it being gullible, I'd call it not being 100% right.

reply to post by Sparky63


It goes to credibilty. Some creationists believe the planet is only 6000 year old.. obviously they are not capable of making logical arguments against evolution theory if they cannot even apply logic to their own beliefs.

..besides which the 'gullibilty of evolutionists' isn't an argument.. it's a statement so really it is up to creationists to prove it's true. so far you've failed.

[edit on 10-3-2008 by riley]

reply to post by AshleyD


You shouldn't feel like a tattle tale. It's not like you narc'd him out to the cops. I know what you mean though, I was wondering if I should flag his post, but didn't want to be the one who did it.

In the end, pointing out to the community is for the better. What he was doing is bad for everyone.

A few years ago many evolutionists were using the expression,"Punctuated equilibrium," as an explanation for Large scale changes, that is, one species changing into another in a few big jumps.
Harvard professor Stephen Jay Gould, was a huge supporter of this idea.

Why was there the need for this theory to develop? Simply because the fossil record is so incomplete. The acceptance of this theory would eliminate the need for intermediate fossils. How convenient.

However it has since fallen out of fashion. There is simply no proof or examples of this occurring.

Once again, although this was just an unfounded theory, it was accepted by many supporters of evolution as fact.



[edit on 10-3-2008 by Sparky63]

Originally posted by riley
reply to post by Sparky63

 

It goes to credibilty. Some creationists believe the planet is only 6000 year old.. obviously they are not capable of making logical arguments against evolution theory if they cannot even apply logic to their own beliefs.

..besides which the 'gullibilty of evolutionists' isn't an argument.. it's a statement so really it is up to creationists to prove it's true. so far you've failed.

[edit on 10-3-2008 by riley]

It is a statement that has been proved true by examples. Evolutionists in their desperate desire for support of their theory have been quick to accept as proof, evidence that later has been overturned.

Of course that sounds like a blanket statement. Which is rarely if ever true in all cases,
A more accurate statement would be, "Many Evolutionists", in their desperate desire for support of their theory have been quick to accept as proof, evidence that later has been overturned.

[edit on 10-3-2008 by Sparky63]

if anyone believes we evolved from slime then fish they are gullable.we were seeded here by aliens.ive heard from catholic priests that adam/eve was an analogy

reply to post by Sparky63


You forgot a major part:

Punctuated-Equilibrium Theory

Science updates itself. It's called a theory for a reason. It's not taken as fact, necessarily, but the best answer at the time. More research is done, and then it is updated.

What's the big deal?

It is a statement that has been proved true by examples. Evolutionists in their desperate desire for support of their theory have been quick to accept as proof, evidence that later has been overturned.

Why are we finding fossils of human like people from 29,000 years ago then? The Earth, and the Universe, are very old.

Science is sure about that. No theory there.

*Edited because I feel it is important to add:

And they are sure because it is backed up by many different fields. Physics and Geology are just two of them.

[edit on 10-3-2008 by Sublime620]

Originally posted by Sparky63

Originally posted by riley
reply to post by Sparky63

 

It goes to credibilty. Some creationists believe the planet is only 6000 year old.. obviously they are not capable of making logical arguments against evolution theory if they cannot even apply logic to their own beliefs.

..besides which the 'gullibilty of evolutionists' isn't an argument.. it's a statement so really it is up to creationists to prove it's true. so far you've failed.

[edit on 10-3-2008 by riley]

It is a statement that has been proved true by examples.

Your bitching about genetic differences between chimps and apes does not qualify as proof of gullibilty. It just proves that they dont know the exact number.

..and at least 90% is still alot of genetic similarity.

Evolutionists in their desperate desire for support of their theory have been quick to accept as proof, evidence that later has been overturned.

The thousands of pieces of evidence and other research have certainly not been overturned or disproved.

[edit on 10-3-2008 by riley]

reply to post by Sublime620


And yet , in the Discover, January 1987 issue. IN an essay by Gould, he repeated a dozen times his assertion that evolution is a fact.

A few examples: Darwin established “the fact of evolution.” “The fact of evolution is as well established as anything in science (as secure as the revolution of the earth around the sun).” By the time Darwin died, “nearly all thinking people came to accept the fact of evolution.” “Evolution is as well established as any scientific fact (I shall give the reasons in a moment).” “The fact of evolution rests upon copious data that fall, roughly, into three great classes.”

This was in response to New York University professor, Irving Kristol Article in the September 30, 1986, The New York Times, where Irving stated,

" “Though this theory is usually taught as an established scientific truth,” Kristol said, “it is nothing of the sort. It has too many lacunae [gaps]. Geological evidence does not provide us with the spectrum of intermediate species we would expect. Moreover, laboratory experiments reveal how close to impossible it is for one species to evolve into another, even allowing for selective breeding and some genetic mutation. . . . The gradual transformation of the population of one species into another is a biological hypothesis, not a biological fact.”

The point is that many evolutionists are not only passionate about their beliefs but are also prone to " pseudoscientific dogmatism" as stated by Kristol.
In other words, quick to call "Fact" what is in reality only theory.

Originally posted by riley

Your bitching about genetic differences between chimps and apes does not qualify as proof of gullibilty. It just proves that they dont know the exact number.

No bitching here my friend, just an attempt at pleasant conversation, hopefully with open minded individuals.

..and at least 90% is still alot of genetic similarity.

I do not disagree with that, The percentage is irrelevant to this discussion.
The point was the evolutionists acceptance of facts that were not proven to be true. Once again, why did they accept them? Simply because it fit their beliefs.

Originally posted by riley

The thousands of pieces of evidence and other research have certainly not been overturned or disproved.

[edit on 10-3-2008 by riley]

Here is another example: When fossils of apelike animals were first found in Olduvai Gorge in Tanzania scientists attempted to date them using the potassium-argon clock. The first measurements of argon in the volcanic tuff in which the fossils were found showed an age of 1.75 million years.
This was accepted as fact and heralded the world over, ....until a different qualified lab gave the age as a half a million years younger.

Most disappointing to evolutionists was the finding that the ages of other layers of tuff, above and below, were not consistent. Sometimes the upper layer had more argon than the one below it. But this is all wrong, geologically speaking—the upper layer had to be deposited after the lower and should have less argon.

The conclusion was that “inherited argon” was spoiling the measurements. Not all the argon previously formed had been boiled out of the molten rock. The clock had not been set to zero. If only one tenth of 1 percent of the argon previously produced by the potassium was left in the rock when it melted in the volcano, the clock would be started with a built-in age of nearly a million years. As one expert put it: “Some of the dates must be wrong, and if some are wrong maybe all of them are wrong.”

Notwithstanding expert opinions that these dates may be quite meaningless, the original age of 1.75 million years for the Olduvai fossils continues to be quoted in popular magazines committed to evolution. They give the lay reader no warning that such ages are really no more than guesses.