The Gullibility of Evolutionists

Originally posted by AshleyD

Originally posted by TheWalkingFox
Oh, no. By all means. Give us some examples of these "transitional" fossils, and how they actually disprove macroevolution.

Er... I think you need to have it the other way around, Foxy. These are fossils evolutionists claim confirm macro. Not me claiming they 'disprove' macro.

LOL I was Just about to send you a u2u to catch that.

- Con

Here are some confessions of faith by evolutionists:

“As to the fact of evolution there is universal assent.”—Limitations of Science, 1933.

“Evolution as a historical fact was proved beyond reasonable doubt not later than in the closing decades of the nineteenth century.”—The Biological Basis of Human Freedom, 1956.

“The evolution of life is no longer a theory. It is a fact.”—Julian Huxley, 1959.

“All reputable biologists have agreed that the evolution of life on the earth is an established fact.”—Biology for You, 1963.

“Anyone who is exposed to the evidence supporting evolution must recognize it as an historical fact.”—The New Orleans Times-Picayune, 1964.

“Today, the theory of evolution is an accepted fact for everyone but a fundamentalist minority.”—James D. Watson, 1965.

“Evolution has, by now, the status of fact.”—Science on Trial, 1983.

“What we do have is incontrovertible proof of the fact of evolution.”—Ashley Montagu, 1984.

IN Stephen Goulds article / essay on evolution in the January 1987 issue of the science magazine Discover. He proclaimed evolution to be a fact more than 12 times. also stating,

: “I don’t want to sound like a shrill dogmatist shouting ‘rally round the flag boys,’ but biologists have reached a consensus . . . about the fact of evolution.” But really, does that not sound like “a shrill dogmatist shouting ‘rally round the flag boys’”?

Yet, Molecular biologist Michael Denton, author of the 1985 book "Evolution: A Theory in Crisis ", referred to this glib talk about evolution’s being a fact and dismissed it with these words:

“Now of course such claims are simply nonsense.” It’s much more than nonsense. It’s fraud. It deceives and misrepresents. It perverts the truth to induce another to part with something of value. Newspapers, radio, TV, nature series, science programs, schoolbooks from second grade on—all drum this evolution-is-a-fact litany into the public mind.

Evolutionists today more often than not, use this approach: ‘Believe as we do,’ they say. ‘All competent scientists believe evolution. All intelligent people believe it. Only the uneducated and the ignorant don’t believe it.’

This could be called the Tyranny of authority.


By such intimidation and mental bullying, masses of people, including scientists and educators, are herded into the evolutionists’ camp. Unfortunately many know nothing of the weaknesses and inadequacies of evolutionary theory or its unsound speculations and hypothesized impossibilities—such as the origin of life from inanimate chemicals.

This in my opinion is the very essence of Gullibility.

In effect they are swept along by the oft repeated mantras recited by evolution’s propagandizers. The theory becomes dogma, its preachers become arrogant, and dissenters reap disdainful abuse. The tactics generally work.



[edit on 10-3-2008 by Sparky63]

Originally posted by Sparky63
Here are some confessions of faith by evolutionists:

That's not faith, they are statements supported by evidence.

The fact of evolution is well-supported by evidence. The theory of evolution is also well-supported.

Faith is belief without evidence. So, none of the claims are faith-based.

Scientists are people too, They are not immune to the tendancy to accept statements and findings that are not proven, but seem to fit into their ideology.

Natural selection has long been the "Holy Grail" for evolutionists to explain the process or driving force of evolution. It has been dogmatically accepted by the vast majority as THE mechanism for changes from one species to another. How many scientists, professors, teachers, lay supporters of evolution down through the years, have dogmatically and unreservedly claimed it as fact.. . without knowing of its inherant weaknesses.

Yet, many leaders in the field of evolution are now rejecting natural selection as the dominating force and looking for other explanations that fit the enormous research and experimentation by biologists & geneticists.

So it begs the question, How could so many supporters of evolution have been deluded into accepting Natural Selection as the central "doctrine" if you will. of evolution?

Could it be gullibility? the tendancy to accept as true what has not been proven? How could they be so easily duped?

The answer: because they are human.

reply to post by Sparky63


When a scientist says "evolution is a fact" or "I believe in evolution", it doesn't matter squat. They might be saying it because they're familiar with the overwhelming evidence that supports it, or because they hate Jesus, or any reason you can think of. The thing with science is it doesn't matter who's making claims or professing their love, all that matters is any claim about evidence can be backed up with either a decent experiment to be reproduced by everyone and anyone, or by a mass of peer-reviewed research into the phenomenon at hand.

Religious faith is quite the antithesis. It is faith when it has no evidence to support it, and the only thing making you believe it is that you want to believe it. People can want to believe evolution is true, but then they have evidence supporting that.

Originally posted by melatonin

Originally posted by Sparky63
Here are some confessions of faith by evolutionists:

That's not faith, they are statements supported by evidence.

The fact of evolution is well-supported by evidence. The theory of evolution is also well-supported.

Faith is belief without evidence. So, none of the claims are faith-based.

That my friend is a matter of semantics, If one trusts a theory without absolute proof , it can be defined as faith. If their theory cannot be duplicated or tested conclusively, and they still claim it as fact, it is because they believe it to be true and have "faith" that one day enough evidence will be found to verify it.

Originally posted by dave420
reply to post by Sparky63

 

When a scientist says "evolution is a fact" or "I believe in evolution", it doesn't matter squat. They might be saying it because they're familiar with the overwhelming evidence that supports it, or because they hate Jesus, or any reason you can think of.

True, we are in agreement here.

all that matters is any claim about evidence can be backed up with either a decent experiment to be reproduced by everyone and anyone, or by a mass of peer-reviewed research into the phenomenon at hand.

Can you name one experiment that can be reproduced by everyone that proves evolution to be a fact? If there were...I think this thread would not exist. Most evolutionists will be the first to admit that experimentaion and duplication do not apply to the theory of evolution, given the enormous time they believe is necessary for these changes to result in a new species.

Hint: Dark moths & light colored moths are not exapmples of speciation, neither are the finches in the Galapagos.

Look, I love science, I read everything I can get my hands on. Science has accomplished wonderful things and answered many questions.

However, when a tooth or part of a jawbone of an extinct ape is found and suddenly promoted to the head of the class as an ancestor of man, I must look at it with skepticism.



[edit on 10-3-2008 by Sparky63]

reply to post by Sparky63


Sparky, you make the mistake of thinking that science believes evolution is correct bceause of one finding. You look at each finding as individual. You say, well monkeys, chimps, and humans aren't as closely related as we thought.

However, that's just one school of though. Science is eclectic, meaning scientists pull from many different sources. They don't just look at fossils, they look at the whole picture.

It's not what the fossils, DNA, body composition, and other similarities say, it's what all of them put together hint at:

That we are all coming from the same source. Christians hastily defend against it because it seems to not fit their source. This is a mistake, because it in no way proves that God still did not create man, earth, and the heavens.

It just proves that he didn't say, "Okay, here is the universe, here is the earth, here are oceans, here is land, here are some fish, here are people, and maybe some birds here, etc."

It's certainly plausible that a God would be able to do this, and really a more logical way to go about doing it. One similar make up for us all, with individual difference to provides strengths in the areas we need, developed over time to survive.

[edit on 10-3-2008 by Sublime620]

[edit on 10-3-2008 by Sublime620]

Originally posted by Sublime620
reply to post by Sparky63

 

Sparky, you make the mistake of thinking that science believes evolution is correct bceause of one finding. You look at each finding as individual. You say, well monkeys, chimps, and humans aren't as closely related as we thought.

You are mistaken in presuming that I look at the matter with such narrow blinders. I don't believe I stated such in any of my posts.

Surely you would agree that it is not possible to consider more than a few examples at a time? I don't think anyone would want me rambling on about every possble piece of evidence....

I am trying to steer clear of arguing the validity of evolution verses creation and trying to focus instead on the gullibility issue.

The examples I have offered were not meant to disprove evolution, but instead to show the blind acceptance many evolutionists give to unproved & unsubstanciated "Facts".

reply to post by Sparky63


Every field of science relative to Evolution has provided evidence that supports their claims. I'm not seeing any better explainations coming from anywhere...

Where's your beef?

Originally posted by Sublime620
reply to post by Sparky63

 

Every field of science relative to Evolution has provided evidence that supports their claims. I'm not seeing any better explainations coming from anywhere...

Where's your beef?

It is in fact the discoveries of molecular biology that has convinced me that evolution & its primary mechanism, natural selection, is seriously flawed. But that is the subject of another thread.

[edit on 10-3-2008 by Sparky63]

reply to post by Sparky63


I believe this is a great board for sharing of ideas and knowledge, so this is a perfect place for you to post your beliefs on that field of science.

So, that being said, let's see the evidence! After all, without evidence we're just wasting time.

Originally posted by Sublime620
reply to post by Sparky63

 

I believe this is a great board for sharing of ideas and knowledge, so this is a perfect place for you to post your beliefs on that field of science.

So, that being said, let's see the evidence! After all, without evidence we're just wasting time.

You are correct, the board is a great place to do so, but not this post, sinse it's subject has already been defined by the OP.

I do not wish to derail it from the Gulibility issue.

[edit on 10-3-2008 by Sparky63]

reply to post by Sparky63


Don't you have to first prove them wrong to them call them gullible? Sorry, I'm not going to just take your word for it, because I am not that gullible.

Originally posted by Sublime620
reply to post by Sparky63

 

Don't you have to first prove them wrong to them call them gullible? Sorry, I'm not going to just take your word for it, because I am not that gullible.

No, I leave that up to them. Evolutionsts who continue to rely on a broken theory and prop it up by stating as fact what has not been proven, are evidence enough.

How many examples would it take to demonstrate the Gullible tendancy that many supporters of evolution have demonstrated? I fear no amount would be sufficient for the true believers.

This may be of interest to some though:

In his book Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, Michael Denton, a researcher in biology, wrote: “The raising of the status of Darwinian theory to a self-evident axiom has had the consequence that the very real problems and objections with which Darwin so painfully laboured in the Origin have become entirely invisible. Crucial problems such as the absence of connecting links or the difficulty of envisaging intermediate forms are virtually never discussed and the creation of even the most complex of adaptations is put down to natural selection without a ripple of doubt.”

He continues: “The overriding supremacy of the myth has created a widespread illusion that the theory of evolution was all but proved one hundred years ago . . . Nothing could be further from the truth.”—Page 77.

“If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.”—Origin of Species, Charles Darwin, page 154.

“As the number of unexplained, irreducibly complex biological systems increases, our confidence that Darwin’s criterion of failure has been met skyrockets toward the maximum that science allows.” (Darwin’s Black Box—The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution, Michael J. Behe, pages 39-40) In other words, recent findings in the field of molecular biology raise serious doubts about Darwin’s theory.

“The result of [the] cumulative efforts to investigate the cell—to investigate life at the molecular level—is a loud, clear, piercing cry of ‘design!’ The result is so unambiguous and so significant that it must be ranked as one of the greatest achievements in the history of science. The discovery rivals those of Newton and Einstein, Lavoisier and Schrödinger, Pasteur, and Darwin. The observation of the intelligent design of life is as momentous as the observation that the earth goes around the sun.”—Darwin’s Black Box, pages 232-3.

[edit on 10-3-2008 by Sparky63] added some vital punctuation.

[edit on 10-3-2008 by Sparky63]

Originally posted by Sparky63
That my friend is a matter of semantics, If one trusts a theory without absolute proof , it can be defined as faith. If their theory cannot be duplicated or tested conclusively, and they still claim it as fact, it is because they believe it to be true and have "faith" that one day enough evidence will be found to verify it.

Yes, you are playing semantics. It's called equivocation.

You are equivocating the 'trust' and 'belief without evidence' meanings of the word faith.

We already have enough evidence to accept evolution as a fact. At the same level we accept that the earth is a roundish thing orbiting a star in one small part of the universe. The facts of evolution are the observations. That life has changed over time, from just bacteria 3 billion year ago, to fishies and other sea-floaty things 400 million, to land-walkie things 300 million years ago, and flying birdies sometime after that (ca. dates, heh). They are facts.

And scientific fact doesn't mean absolute truth. We mean well beyond reasonable doubts. Evolution is a scientific fact. And it's as theory as well. You have equivocated this too.

ABE: and just to clarify how you are equivocating the facts and theory:

Darwinism defined (S.J. Gould, 1987)

That is the original Gould article that clearly differentiates between the fact and theory.

Darwin wrote those words more than a century ago. Evolutionary biologists have honored his fundamental distinction between fact and theory ever since. Facts are the world's data; theories are explanations proposed to interpret and coordinate facts. The fact of evolution is as well established as anything in science (as secure as the revolution of the earth about the sun), though absolute certainty has no place in our lexicon. Theories, or statements about the causes of documented evolutionary change, are now in a period of intense debate -- a good mark of science in its healthiest state. Facts don't disappear while scientists debate theories.

And so you have essentially quote-mined a series of scientists, equivocating as you go, misrepresenting their meaning.

No surprises.

[edit on 10-3-2008 by melatonin]

reply to post by Sparky63


You should cite your sources. I think I found them, but still... it's only right.

Your second source

As the next poster points out:

#1: You're quoting one text.
#2: That book which you are quoting has a single purpose: promote intelligent design.
#3: A credible source is one in which objective research is conducted to prove or disprove a hypothesis. Behe merely presents unanswered hypotheses because they have yet to be reproduced in a sterile environment. In the words of a biochem graduate student "That's like reasoning that the laws of physics must be discarded because no one has ever reproduced the big bang singularity in a beaker."
#4: Find more sources to back up your argument and I'll be happy to debate this issue.

There was in the answer you quoted. No data to back it up. It's basically... useless.

Google Results for your third source

This is clearly from another book promoting intelligent design. Unbiased research is a main staple in all fields of science.

I did like your first source, however. He seemed to be a credible guy. I'd be interested to read more about what he has to say, and I might look into it.

However, and more to the point, problems in theory do not suggest that it is wrong. We don't even understand gravity completely.

The 2nd source was from the March 8 1988 Awake magazine article that quoted part of Darwin’s Black Box—The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution, Michael J. Behe, pages 39-40) The additional comments after the cited reference was from the author of the article.

Evindently the poster of the blog you cited has the same reference material.
Thank you for pointing this out.

The third source is referenced in the external text I supplied" Darwin’s Black Box, pages 232-3.

Yes it is intended to give an opposing view to evolution. But is that not why we are here?