The Gullibility of Evolutionists

Guys,

We've already had at least three mods that I can recall who have stepped in and told everyone to not nitpick each other's character. I don't want to see anyone get warnings in a thread I posted.

Just saying...

EDIT: Make that four!

[edit on 3/10/2008 by AshleyD]

Please refrain from discussing each other and stick to the topic of the thread.

This thread is now classified as an ATS big thread. Please read the warning note at the top of every page.

Again, stick to the subject at hand, "The Gullibility of Evolutionists"

Thank you.

edited to add:
reply to post by AshleyD


Now you have four and probably the last warning.

[edit on 10-3-2008 by GAOTU789]

Originally posted by riley
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]

You accused me of posting creationist propaganda - it wasn't serious i amnot even a YEC wooooooooooooosh

get over it

Originally posted by Bigwhammy
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.

You also sent me an email saying you would pray for me before. There is no reason to assume you aren't serious here as well and not just antagonising.

So I took the one down that I did address to you. This one was not addressed to you.

So There

I did not imagine the part where you said "this one is for riley."

[edit on 10-3-2008 by riley]

Originally posted by Bigwhammy
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]

Maybe you can find one about how gays have mental disorders and are going to hell.

That would be a riot!

*Edited to remove off topic stupidity

[edit on 10-3-2008 by Sublime620]

ENOUGH.

Quit the personal shots now!!!

Anymore and staff action will be taken or the thread will be closed.

reply to post by GAOTU789


Sorry GAOTU789.

Heated topic.

On the gullibility of evolutionists

How could something like this happen by chance? How did a reptile with one vagina, that reproduces by expelling hard-shelled eggs, become a marsupial? Are we being too skeptical? Or are the evolutionists too gullible?

Mammal-like Reptiles
The Theriodontia, “mammal-like reptiles,” get their nickname from the fact that they have bones in their jaws that superficially resemble the bones in mammal ears. Evolutionists believe that during the evolutionary process these bones migrated from the jaw to the ear and attached themselves to the eardrum to improve their sense of hearing. Of course, these bones could not possibly have known that they would be more useful in the ear than in the jaw, so they must have been moved by random chance. As they were moving from the jaw to the ear, they imparted some unspecified survival benefit which continued the process on its way via natural selection. At least, that’s what the brightest evolutionary minds tell us.

It is these bones in the jaw that have convinced evolutionists that Theriodontia link reptiles and mammals.

source

[edit on 3/10/2008 by Bigwhammy]

Anyways, just to get this thread back on track.

The last contribution I made was a great leap for both sides I believe.

I agreed with sparky that evolutionists can be gullibe. Sparky admitted that it's on both sides, and it turns out we were arguing for the same cause.

That both sides need to keep what they are doing and be more open minded.

reply to post by Bigwhammy


Question, do you believe we don't evolve at all, or that we haven't or can't evolve that much?

reply to post by Bigwhammy

[I did see your post before you edited it btw.. ]

ontopic.

The term evolutionist was coined by creationists groups in order to have a name for the enemy/opposition so they could demonise and attack. It was part of the plan outlined in the wedge document.. a way to polarise the 'issue' by making is 'us' 'and them'.. basically trying to elevate ID to a science by trying to put it in direct opposition to it. It failed and no amount of spin will ever make ID/creationism a science.. nor will it make ToE less of a science or more of a religion.

[edit on 10-3-2008 by riley]

Originally posted by AshleyD
Now how could you possibly be afraid of this little guy?

Koalas are unpleasant little buggers. They're cute, but have a foul attitude, long teeth, and the bite of a beaver. You can't even eat them - they taste like vick's vapo-rub.

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.

No. They don't. They need to prove that their own conclusions are more correct with the given evidence. Science is a footrace, not a wrestling match.

Just like evolutionists might seek to prove creationism false.

I hate to break it to you, but that's purely for entertainment's sake. We enjoy watching creationists sputter. Personally, I also enjoy concocting a creation story to fit my own beliefs, just to watch their "non religious theory" squirm under the pressure... Evolution does not need to prove creationism wrong. Why? Because all the evidence supports evolution far more than it does creationism. And so long as Creationists spend all their time and energy trying to undermine evolution rather than bolster their own speculation, that's the way it will be.

First step - prove that there is a creator - or at least an entity CAPABLE of creation. From that point, Creationism is smooth sailing.

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.

I've more often seen creationists either outright deny the fossil and geological record, or point out anomalous finds as "proof" of their theory - Basically they believe that if a fossil erodes out of its normal layer and re-deposits in a more recent one, it's proof of creation!

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.

"Infinite" is awfully big. And we have found transitionals - the records of humans, whales, and horses are very well-documented, as are extinct groups such as multitubericates and creodonts.

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.

Well, unfortunately, organisms with no hard parts don't fossilize that well. But this might help. I'm not that familiar with discussions ofthe cambrian gap.

www.clas.ufl.edu...

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.

My issue remains - the only ones seeing him as a cult leader are those in the anti-science sect. A Huge point of division between evolutionary hteory and ID'ers is that ID'ers expect flawless, permanant perfection. That is, they expect a totally religious, dogmatic even, solution, to be set in stone and never changed.

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.

Math lesson: Hundreds of millions is hundreds of millions. "thousands of millions" would be billions.

Compared to the number of organisms that have lived and died in the history of life on this planet? Fossils are uncommon. Compared to the diversity of organisms that has existed in that time, unique fossils are damnably rare.

Also, let's be honest - most of our fossils are of bone structures. Presuming that both were extinct, and you had never seen live ones, do you think you would be able to find much difference between a fossil housecat, and an ocelot or pampas cat? We could very easily be staring fifty different species in the face, in various stages of transition, and never really realize it, because the majority of differences aren't skeletal, only the most extreme.

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.

Exactly what I mean. They beleive that he is to the scientific community, what Jesus is to them. And so they treat Darwin exactly like they treat, say, Mohammed, Joseph Smith, Sri Baba, or any other "false prophet"

[edit on 10-3-2008 by TheWalkingFox]

reply to post by Sublime620



I don't have a strong opinion on evolution really.
I believe the universe is very old.
I don't think Genesis is about how the universe was created. It was the preparation of the garden for man.
There is no real evidence for macro from what I've seen - but it is possible that God used that process. He doesn't tell us how he did it.
It's not as cut and dry as some scientists like Dawkins pretend it is... that upcoming conference is proof of that.

reply to post by Bigwhammy


Science is never cut and dry.

Plus, I have always felt that even if they are right, it in no way disproves God, or intelligent design.

Originally posted by riley
The term evolutionist was coined by creationists groups in order to have a name for the enemy/opposition so they could demonise and attack. It was part of the plan outlined in the wedge document.

Hm. I didn't realize that. Guess you learn something new everyday. But did it really originate with the wedge document or was it around before that? Just curious.

Originally posted by Sublime620
Science is never cut and dry.

I hear what you're saying ant totally agree. What gets to me the most is seeing creationists being labeled idiots or delusional because they do see the flaws in the theory. Just my two cents.

Originally posted by AshleyD

Originally posted by riley
The term evolutionist was coined by creationists groups in order to have a name for the enemy/opposition so they could demonise and attack. It was part of the plan outlined in the wedge document.

Hm. I didn't realize that. Guess you learn something new everyday. But did it really originate with the wedge document or was it around before that? Just curious.

I might post it later [have to go offline atm] but I hardly see any point. links to the wedge document were posted a few times earlier and were completely ignored.

reply to post by AshleyD


It's not because they see flaws. That's a mischaracterization, an attempt to cast a light on the scientific-minded as being bigoted, dogmatic, etc.

It's because creationists are real jackasses about what flaws they perceive. Many, many, many of these flaws are not actual flaws, but simply things the creationist doesn't understand, or something easily understandable that the creationists can't be arsed to look up - and then they come onto the internet and heckle evolution accepters, calling them, ohhh... gullible, perhaps? With Piltdown Man at their back, no less.

Sometimes the simplest explanations are the correct ones.

"When you have eliminated the impossible then whatever remains - however improbable, must be true." - Sherlock Holmes

The thought that there could be an intelligent designer that had a blueprint for creation sometimes seems too elementary to many. Why couldn't aspects of evolution be true and the creation account be true?

Scientists have had to re-think their stance on evolution. Many are turning their backs on it as the understanding has grown regarding genetics. If we have a similar genetic relationship to monkeys so we also have with; a banana and a porpoise. No one yet is attempting to find our ancestry connection to a banana. The "Light" grows brighter on many fronts and science is no exception. If a certain genetic code works for one species, why would it not work for another?

Is an intelligent creator capable of taking what he wants from one species and leaving what he doesn't want to create another? Does God have high abstract reasoning? Would this be beyond him?

Is it logical to believe in an organized divinely orchestrated "big bang?" Very possible and even likely. Why not look for the similarities rather than all the differences?

Evolutionists have a difficult time explaining the human eye and a birds wing. They are both just too complex and difficult to explain using their former theories. Many are adjusting their beliefs if one reads some of the latest articles coming from the scientists.

If a person is open to more possibilities then it is possible to escape another box that society and perhaps academia tries to trap us in.

Matrix Prophet

reply to post by AshleyD


I see how that could be annoying. Often times, the majority opinion isn't correct, and the little guy screaming for attention is the right. And before anyone gets offended, I say the little guy in reference to opinion in most scientiests.

Eventually, if a theory is wrong, scientists will run into just about every dead end, and when they have no where else to go, they'll start looking elsewhere.

[edit on 10-3-2008 by Sublime620]

Originally posted by TheWalkingFox
You can't even eat them - they taste like vick's vapo-rub.

Lies! They taste like chicken. Or so I've heard...

No. They don't. They need to prove that their own conclusions are more correct with the given evidence. Science is a footrace, not a wrestling match.

That's why I put the word 'prove' in quotes. Some of the arguments do need to be rebutted, IMO. When you are engaging in a 'debate,' so to speak (which is what it sometimes comes down to in this fiasco), it is necessary to refute your opponent while also stating your own case. And yes, contrary to popular belief, creationists do make a case based on evidence. Some automatically dismiss it as pseudoscience which irks me but so be it. It seems 'biased' in that we can't get away with the 'science and scientific study is not static' argument like evolutionists do.

Evolution does not need to prove creationism wrong. Why? Because all the evidence supports evolution far more than it does creationism. And so long as Creationists spend all their time and energy trying to undermine evolution rather than bolster their own speculation, that's the way it will be.

I disagree but wouldn't be saying something I haven't already on this thread, so...

I've more often seen creationists either outright deny the fossil and geological record, or point out anomalous finds as "proof" of their theory - Basically they believe that if a fossil erodes out of its normal layer and re-deposits in a more recent one, it's proof of creation!

See, and we have also seen and read of evolutionists who toss out something when it isn't 'where it should be' or 'doesn't fit.' Undo offered a few examples of this occurring earlier in this thread.

"Infinite" is awfully big.

Which is why it was in quotes. But seriously, it does stand to reason there would be transitionals just as often as we would see 'developed' creatures.

www.clas.ufl.edu...

Thanks. I'll look into that. Hopefully it will be some new and more solid arguments.

My issue remains - the only ones seeing him as a cult leader are those in the anti-science sect.

Hm. I guess it boils down to perspective then.

Math lesson: Hundreds of millions is hundreds of millions. "thousands of millions" would be billions.

I hate you. Seriously, though, I phrased it like that because that excerpt focused on fossils in certain 'displays, museums, and drawers' while some other sites counted them in the billions. Either way, it's a butt load.

Compared to the number of organisms that have lived and died in the history of life on this planet? Fossils are uncommon.

How do we know this, though? It sounds like speculation. 'Well, we can't find them and there is no record of them but they were there, Gosh darn it!'

Compared to the diversity of organisms that has existed in that time, unique fossils are damnably rare

I'm glad you brought this up as it has been something I had been wanting to ask. There have been well known cases of creatures discovered that are believed to be something else entirely until it was later concluded to be a deformed or malnutritioned version of something completely known and 'normal.' Could that be what is occurring in these cases? Just curious.

Also, let's be honest - most of our fossils are of bone structures. Presuming that both were extinct, and you had never seen live ones, do you think you would be able to find much difference between a fossil housecat, and an ocelot or pampas cat? We could very easily be staring fifty different species in the face, in various stages of transition, and never really realize it, because the majority of differences aren't skeletal, only the most extreme.

You know, that is something I was wondering about only it comes from a creationist argument. First of all, there have been plenty of plants, invertebrates, and other 'fragile' things found. If they could have made it, why not the millions of transitionals? But we can ignore those for now and focus on the above.

While reading about some alleged transitional fossils that have been discovered, after looking at the photos myself I have to admit there are some very poor examples that leave a lot open to speculation. Sometimes they're just a mish mash of bones. So how do we even know this is a 'tranistional?' When all we see is 'appendages' how do we not know they are actually fins while evolutionists claim they are budding feet?

[edit on 3/11/2008 by AshleyD]