The Gullibility of Evolutionists

Once again. I do not fault Scientists for revising their theories in the light of new evidence.
However the fossil evidence is often open to interpretation.

One paleontologist will conclude that a tooth or partial skull is an extinct ape , where another will make the mental leap and claim to have found an ancestor of man.

Suporters of evolution tend to accept unsubstantiated claims at fact. and parrot the claims without a shred of credulity.
Some would call this gullibility.

It just seems as if you have an axe to grind.

Why call science gullible? Is intelligent design not science? Are they not trying to achieve the same goal as evolutionists?

In the end, they're both just trying to prove where we came from. It's really less about who's right, who's wrong, and who's gullible than it is about finding the truth.

Both sides are going to ignore contradictory evidence. It's the nature of the game. The key is that they don't ignore it so much that they are completely blinded and unwilling to accept new ideas.

I think both sides need to keep doing what they are doing. Criticizing one does nothing but slow down progress.

Originally posted by Conspiriology

Originally posted by Sublime620
I said that you cannot prove a negative.

Sure you can,, I can prove their isn't a foot at the end of my arm.

- Con

Maybe nowadays, but our hands used to be feet when our quadriped ancestors were around

[edit on 10-3-2008 by AotearoaSon]

Originally posted by Sublime620
It just seems as if you have an axe to grind.

Why call science gullible? Is intelligent design not science? Are they not trying to achieve the same goal as evolutionists?

In the end, they're both just trying to prove where we came from. It's really less about who's right, who's wrong, and who's gullible than it is about finding the truth.

Both sides are going to ignore contradictory evidence. It's the nature of the game. The key is that they don't ignore it so much that they are completely blinded and unwilling to accept new ideas.

I think both sides need to keep doing what they are doing. Criticizing one does nothing but slow down progress.

No axe to grind here. This thread was not about scientists in general but specifically evolutionists. That would include both scientists & non-scientists. I would not classify Science as a whole as gullible. AS I stated previously. Its human nature.

Religious leaders and their followers are just as gullible in my opinion , more so even than evolutionists.

Young Earthers ignore clear evidence that the earth is millions of years old, and that the universe is billions of years old.

[edit on 10-3-2008 by Sparky63]

[edit on 10-3-2008 by Sparky63]

reply to post by Sparky63


So, after all that, we come to find that we are on the same page. It was a long journey, but a goodie.

Originally posted by AshleyD
I think it was just supposed to be a demon he was possessed by. lol In the tract, they showed the 'typical' image of Baphomet.

Personally, I would think that if a demon wanted to look like australian fauna, a koala bear would be perfect. Oh sure, cute and cuddly until you touch it and it tears your limb off...

Originally posted by AshleyD
Not quite. The creationists offer their own explanation of the fossil layers and evidence as well as refuting some of the methods and interpretations of the evolutionists. They, too, are met with a 'Nuh uh!' response. Then the debate rages on while both sides refute the other and continue the 'Uh huh! Nuh uh!' shell game.

I have never seen a creationist offer an independent explanation of anything. What I have seen is them trying to "prove evolution wrong." This has led to my opinion that ID simply cannot exist without evolution - the entire premise of the movement is to discredit evolution - it provides nothing to support itself. Out of thirty-odd pages here, have you or any of the other "God did it, case closed" posters offered supporting evidence for intelligent design?

Er... Darwin. Interestingly enough, creationists also made some predictions regarding the fossil record which turned out to be correct.

Ah yes, Darwin. Good pioneer, but he hardly got a hole in one. Y'see, Ashley, despite the ridiculous rhetoric on this thread, science is not a religion. There are no flawless, divine figures within the realms of science. Darwin is a respected contributor, but nobody points to him and goes "this is flawless." Einstein is questioned. Owen and Marsh are questioned. Darwin is questioned. Hawking is getting questions.

Darwin flubbed. Fossils are uncommon, even if we could dig each and every one of them up. Who knows what might be found under, say, Jerusalem. Good luck ever finding out! That being the case, each new species we find in the stones and dirt is cause for a little celebration, and those rare ones we find that fill an evolutionary hole are well worth the excitement.

It does seem it goes back to the 'Teflon double speak' Conspiriology mentioned or the shell game phony psychics use that give predictions that are going to occur either way. Darwin stated many transitional fossils should be found but if they are not (and were not at his time) then it is because of various odd and end excuses.

Actually it falls back on dim religionists who honestly believe Darwin is science-Jesus.

[edit on 3/10/2008 by Bigwhammy]

Ugh. I'm so burnt out on this topic but away we go...

Originally posted by TheWalkingFox
Oh sure, cute and cuddly until you touch it and it tears your limb off...

Now how could you possibly be afraid of this little guy?



Or. Er... Never mind. Don't get those little guys wet or feed them after midnight.

I have never seen a creationist offer an independent explanation of anything. What I have seen is them trying to "prove evolution wrong."

Well, on one hand, they do need to 'prove' 'evolution' false (as in starting out as single celled organisms and going up from there) for a couple of reasons. Just like evolutionists might seek to prove creationism false. The thing is, we both have the exact same evidence in the fossil record but are coming to separate conclusions. Yes, creationists do use the lack of solid and numerous transitional fossils as a refutation but they also use the fossil layers as evidence of the Genesis flood account. Same evidence, different conclusions.

Ah yes, Darwin. Good pioneer, but he hardly got a hole in one. Y'see, Ashley, despite the ridiculous rhetoric on this thread, science is not a religion. There are no flawless, divine figures within the realms of science. Darwin is a respected contributor, but nobody points to him and goes "this is flawless." Einstein is questioned. Owen and Marsh are questioned. Darwin is questioned. Hawking is getting questions.

Er... redirect? In my opinion, it seems that if it truly did take millions of years for transitions to occur and there are indeed hundreds of millions (if not billions) of fossils in the record that have been discovered (more on this below) then it would seem there should be an 'infinite' number of transitionals- not just the select open-to-interpretation examples that are offered by evolutionists.

And to tell you the truth, although I have read and been told many of the explanations, I have yet to hear of a convincing explanation of the 'Cambrian gap.' I've even seen other ATS members try to explain it on here but it seems like they are reaching, IMO.

Darwin flubbed.

And that's fine. I have no qualms with Darwin. If you read his Origins of the Species, which I'm sure you have, he was actually very open and honest with things in his theory he could not account for and readily admitted to some flaws and or some 'goofs' that could make it more difficult for his theory to hold water. The lack of transitionals was one of them so I commend him for his honesty and lack of ego. I don't think he had an axe to grind and if you read his bios, he seemed like a very good man. He was just a scientists- not a cult leader as what it seems some treat him like.

Fossils are uncommon...

You see, this is what I have an issue with. I did some searches and wanted to limit the external quote to a site that seemed to be in favor of evolution and 'hostile' to creationism. The site below seems to fit the bill but still admits to the amount of fossils discovered:

They [creationists] cannot deny that hundreds of millions of fossils reside in display cases and drawers around the world. Perhaps some would argue that these specimens - huge skeletons of dinosaurs, blocks from ancient shell beds containing hundreds of specimens, delicately preserved fern fronds...

www.actionbioscience.org...

The website actually uses the enormous numbers of fossils against creationists. I'm sure fossilization does not happen every day but at the same time, if there have been hundreds of millions [read: billions] discovered, then logic would mandate we would have plain as day transitionals everywhere. Yes, the incredible lack stumps me.

Actually it falls back on dim religionists who honestly believe Darwin is science-Jesus.

Actually, most 'dim religionists' think Darwin leapt to too many conclusions. It seems more like [some of] the 'dim evolutionists' see him as a cult leader.

Anyways, those are my thoughts on the subject. No worries either way and I'm getting burned out. Not here to change anyone's mind and I definitely could have spent more time thinking of a better thread title but hopefully something in the 50+ pages of this thread got some cogs turning.

[edit on 3/10/2008 by AshleyD]

Originally posted by Bigwhammy



This ones for Riley!

Those clips only segregate you further from society. Why be proud of them?

[edit on 10-3-2008 by Sublime620]

reply to post by Sublime620


wooooooooooooosh right over your head

it is a joke.

Fox made a comment about chick tracts.

Chick had good intentions but was a little nutty....

Originally posted by Bigwhammy
reply to post by Sublime620

 

wooooooooooooosh right over your head

it is a joke.

No. it was something you posted to antagonise me specifically:

Originally posted by Bigwhammy




This ones for Riley!

Please stop.. this is about the sixth comic you've posted thats meant to be a 'joke' when in reality it's just trolling.. sometimes you don't even say anything along with the image. ATS is meant to be about serious discussion and denying ignorance.. not promoting it and it's certainly not for chit chat.

[edit on 10-3-2008 by riley]

reply to post by Bigwhammy


Joke or not, it's written for a reason. It's written because that's really how you people look at non believers.

I don't see religious people as crazies who hate gays, think everyone else is going to hell, and wish all other religions would go away. That's not everyone, that's just you and a few other extremists.

That's why you think that picture is funny. You and a very select few.

[edit on 10-3-2008 by Sublime620]

Just going to come to Whammy's defense for a moment. We have actually been passing Chick tracts back and forth all afternoon via U2U's after WF brought them up a few pages ago. In BW's defense, he is not like that and we have actually been laughing our butts off at some of the stuff and have been making fun of that method of evangelism- not endorsing it. We also found a funny Myspace page knock off.

Just trying to help calm some feelings. Apologies from BW by proxy. He really didn't mean it that way even if some might not believe it. Most Christians are pretty embarrassed by Chick's methods.

[edit on 3/10/2008 by AshleyD]

reply to post by AshleyD


That's all I was saying. People should be embarrassed to laugh at that.

I thought he was endorsing it. That's all.

reply to post by AshleyD

that excuse is crap. you haven't been joking with me about it [chick?] at all and that post is directed at me by name so clearly his motive wasn't just joking with friends..

[edit on 10-3-2008 by riley]

Originally posted by riley
that excuse is crap. you haven't been joking with me about it [chick?] at all and that post is directed at me by name so clearly his motive wasn't just joking with friends..

Like I said:

"Just trying to help calm some feelings. Apologies from BW by proxy. He really didn't mean it that way even if some might not believe it..."

And no, I don't joke around with you personally for very good reasons.

reply to post by riley



Sorry it has been a joke. The fact that you don't get it is well sad.
You're too thin skinned. So I took the one down that I did address to you. This one was not addressed to you.

So There

reply to post by Bigwhammy


What is there to get?

It's a snot-nosed comic, written and laughed at by pompous individuals who feel above everyone else because they know "the truth" and everyone else is missing out.

Does that about sum it up? Yea, I didn't miss it.

reply to post by AshleyD & Riley


Fox made a comment about chick tracts I posted one as A JOKE

Riley then accused me of posting creationist propaganda. i AM NOT REALLY A CREATIONIST.

So yeah it was a joke that went over your head.... sorry.

[edit on 3/10/2008 by Bigwhammy]

reply to post by AshleyD


..he said "this one is for riley" ..no-one has mentioned 'chick' to me AT ALL joking or not. I had made it clear earlier that the cartoons [by themselves] are not productive. He obviously posted it to piss me off and as good as said so.


[edit on 10-3-2008 by riley]