The Gullibility of Evolutionists

Originally posted by AshleyD
My problem lies more within the unmentioned people in your analogy who are skeptical of her research being labeled 'ignorant religionists.' Then once the findings are shown to be a hoax, the excuse boils down to Oops.

Oh, no. Like Osborn with Nebraska man, she was a christian and believed in faith and science existing in a NOMA situation. She didn't label anyone an 'ignorant religionist'.

What else should happen rather than 'oops'?

Should she go to jail? Give a public apology on CNN?

Originally posted by melatonin
She didn't label anyone an 'ignorant religionist'.

She didn't necessarily have to in order to make my argument still stand. Her zealous followers who drank the evolutionary Kool-Aid could have been the ones who scoffed at those who were skeptical of her paper. After all, what she wrote was in a 'scientific study,' the Hadith, Talmud, and Apocrypha for evolutionists.

So, now I have said it. But we're not going there are we? This is a 'provocative' thread about the gullible scientists.

Errrr WRONG!
Evolutionists. In the sense of people that are not scienctists using evolution as a crudgel to say there is no "gawd". Not all evolutionists are scientists. Which is obviously not true.

Shall we define evolution beyond your rather tainted view? As both of your sides are just that.

In biology, evolution is the changes seen in the inherited traits of a population from one generation to the next. These changes cause populations of organisms to alter over time. Inherited traits come from the genes that are passed on to offspring during reproduction. Mutations in genes can produce new or altered traits, resulting in the appearance of heritable differences between organisms. Such new traits also come from the transfer of genes between populations, as in migration, or between species, in horizontal gene transfer. Evolution occurs when these heritable differences become more common or rare in a population, either non-randomly through natural selection or randomly through genetic drift.

NOT how they came to be in the first place.
I think your group and group her largely go beyond that place.

The whole basis of this whole silly thing is you believe in no god and pure chance. She believes in a creator and guided order.

You like to claim though evolution proves your claim.
THAT is wrong.
Doesn't say how animals got here it says how the ones that are here got to their current forms.

Ye gods this damn thing has become a twisted mess.

Originally posted by AshleyD
She didn't necessarily have to in order to make my argument still stand. Her zealous followers who drank the evolutionary Kool-Aid could have been the ones who scoffed at those who were skeptical of her paper. After all, what she wrote was in a 'scientific study,' the Hadith, Talmud, and Apocrypha for evolutionists.

As I mentioned, only a few actually accepted it. Many were very sceptical of the finding. Science isn't like the borg. We don't have an oracle who tells us what we must think.

You appear to misunderstand what scientfic papers are. They aren't like the bible providing absolute truth for other scientists not to question. It is the first step in the process of scientific credibility.

Ash, you just seem somewhat hurt that people have called you or others ignorant of evolution. This thread is very passive-aggressive. I don't see why you think being ignorant is really a bad thing. I'm ignorant of many things in science and elsewhere. Some of these things I'm sort of wilfully ignorant, because I either don't have time, or just can't understand to the level I might.

For example, I know of string 'theory'. I understand a bit of the very basics, but most of it is well over my head. I used to be good with physics and deriving equations etc, but not anymore. I accept I am ignorant of much of string 'theory'. So, what I won't do is pretend that I can discuss string 'theory' at a comparable level to those who do understand it. I wouldn't dream of telling them they are wrong, unless I knew what I was talking about.

Ignorance is nothing to be ashamed of. If this state of ignorance bothers me, I try to learn to remove that ignorance and fill it with understanding.

If you feel ignorant of certain things and it bothers you, try to fill the hole with understanding. It doesn't mean you need to accept it, just understand it.

I have doubts about string 'theory', I even put theory in scare quotes, because I understand enough about the nature of science to view it as not a scientific theory, but a hypothesis. And I feel I can argue this point with any physicist.

[edit on 3-3-2008 by melatonin]

"Because micro has been proven without a doubt. Macro is still up in the air, some of the evidence (if not the majority) is dubious, and there are some pretty good arguments that have been brought forth to question the possibility due to the degeneration of genetic information, as one example."

Were other options brought forward by scientists? I wouldn't think so, seing as how they're gullible and all...

Originally posted by WraothAscendant
Errrr WRONG!
Evolutionists. In the sense of people that are not scienctists using evolution as a crudgel to say there is no "gawd". Not all evolutionists are scientists. Which is obviously not true.

Will you give up the strawmen?

I would be the first to say that evolution doesn't speak to the existence of your favoured sky-daddy. It does speak to certain forms, however.

Shall we define evolution beyond your rather tainted view? As both of your sides are just that.

NOT how they came to be in the first place.
I think your group and group her largely go beyond that place.

The whole basis of this whole silly thing is you believe in no god and pure chance. She believes in a creator and guided order.

You like to claim though evolution proves your claim.
THAT is wrong.
Doesn't say how animals got here it says how the ones that are here got to their current forms.

What are you on about now?

Evolutionary theory is common descent by natural selection. Where you say 'NOT how they came to be in the first place', yeah, true, in the sense that abiogenesis is not a true part of evolutionary theory.

But evolutionary theory is common descent by natural selection. If Ash does not accept 'macroevolution', then she doesn't accept common descent. And therefore she would, I assume, have to believe that all kinds were formed de novo. That is creationism. In fact, it is essentially biblical creationism. And the fact she talks about 'degeneration' in the context of genomes only consolidates this.

And who said anything about evolution 'proves' my claim? And evolution isn't chance, just undirected by the divine biochemist.

Weren't you meant to be ignoring me or something? I don't understand why you keep trying to misrepresent me. Maybe take some time to read my posts or something.

Manana.

[edit on 3-3-2008 by melatonin]

Ugh.

Ive spent a bit reading through, essentially a random sampling. I would like to toss a few notes into it. Please keep in mind I am not an atheist nor am I religious.

To start with. I want to point out a few definitions which people have been rather flippant with.

A: Theory
A theory is not an idea. Stop treating it as such. A theory is something which has been proven in each experiment. Or more accurately since the "Experiment" phase is really about disproving a hypothesis (the idea phase), they have not been able to disprove it in any condition be it logically or via any degree of observation.

B: Theories 'evolve' (hyuk hyuk)
As more information enters into the pool, it is applied and filtered out. Much like software code thats starts simple and has more features added in. There is no immutability in anything. A theory that fails is scrapped.

C: Creationism and Intelligent Design is not a theory,, it is a hypothesis at most but best seen as a philosophy.
In order to become a theory, it must pass the scientific method and be verifiable via scientific methodology. You cannot experiment with "God" to generate a true or false result. Hence it should not be taught as science.

For those unfamiliar. The Scientific Method is as follows:

1. Question (What is it you are trying to explain? Define the boundaries etc..)
2. Gather information and resources (observe and note as much relevant items as possible.)
3. Form hypothesis (This is the idea "A happens because of event X.")
4. Perform experiment and collect data (Is the behavior consistent?)
5. Analyze data (Explain the reason it happens)
6. If the experiment proves the hypothesis wrong: Interpret data and create a new hypothesis.
7. Publish results (They need to be looked over by peers).
8. Retest (Peers do similar experiments and make suggestions as needed).

This method defines what science is. Whims do not.

Items can be falsified. Science however is self-governing by the whole Peer review aspect. Since creationism is NOT science. It cannot be argued in scientific ways, please stop trying to rationalize things which don't need it. Even jesus said to pray at home, and in private for god would "reward openly what is done privately" in regards to prayer.

And please, keep it out of schools, it warps what kids think science is and with global warming... this can be a deadly occurrence and more over: An atheist will never convince a true-believer and vice versa.

Sorry Ash, but though the things you stated show though passionate about it-you either don't know the fundamentals or at least, the terms you chose were overly flippant. Also using a thread with the title including 'gullable' is just asking for a verbal knife fight.

Ash

IF you truly wanted a calm and sensible debate then why give this thread such a provocative title? It seems to me you simply wanted to create reaction for your own amusement. Oh well as it's already 6 pages lnog i'll throw my small amount of weight in.

You have consistently had a go at evoltion becuase it has had mistakes and errors along the way. The problem with creationists is that they treat science like the bible "either it's all right or none of it is". Scientific theories are collections of facts put together with a framework. When one fact is wrong we chuck it out but we still have the framework and that spot is left for the new more correct shiny fact.

I would really love for you to post some good evidence of creationism which i will happily read. I have read tons of creationist ideas and none have swayed me simply because the arguements are usually very flawed. There turns out to be actual quantifiable evidence against them.

The reason most scientists simply are frowned upon by their collegaues when they question evolution is becuase there is so much evidence for evolution that they can't grasp how anyone would just throw it all out. It's nothing personal it is merely they can't respect anyone who denies so much evidence, garnered over such a long time. Evidence that has been checked and checked over and over again, slowly sculted, parts removed and disgarded as wasteful. What is left is a now half finished sculpture, it's going to take a great deal of time to finish and will end up being the single most amzing theory that humans devise (in my opinion).

he other problem you have is the idea of proof. As professor Ken Miller said. "Evolutionary theory will never be suddenly renamed to evolutionary fact. The same goes for things like atomic theory, it will never be renamed to atomic fact because science doesn't work that way. Theory in a scientific meaning is very different to the lay meaning of the same word.

Just becuase it has some holes (and oh evolution does) doesn't mean it is all wrong, it means parts are missing. It's like a car with the tires gone, it'll work but not very well. We're currently looking for the missing links to it all so we can slot them in and make it more complete.

Thing is though i doubt we will ever find all teh precursors to every species as some of them won't have any fossils left. You can however discover entire lines of species, with their ancestors in the evolutionary tree. Once i saw that i knew evolution had something right and don't understand how you can't see it.

You could say the same about god, how do i not see god? Well the difference is i have touchable proof for evolution, things i can see with my own gauky looking eyes. For god i have no proof, that of course doesn't mean god doesn't exist, merely that he's impossible for me to believe in without proof.

That's why i stay agnostic, at least at the moment. I love my fence and sit on it all day for most things Evolution though i jump down for and firmly stand on Darwins lawn.

reply to post by ImaginaryReality1984


ImaginaryReality1984....my! That's a long name!

Can we call you IR1984?

Anyway, good post. Not that e are going to 'gang up' on the OP, that just isn't done in our community. IN fact, the OP is very receptive to debate, so let's keep the debates coming!

Cheers!

[second edit to add..]

great to see your post, IR1984...great thoughts, hope people will read and comment...

just to add...sometimes we can be tongue-in-cheek, a sense of humor is mandatory!!!

[edit on 3-3-2008 by weedwhacker]

[edit on 3-3-2008 by weedwhacker]

Doesn't say how animals got here it says how the ones that are here got to their current forms.

Ye gods this damn thing has become a twisted mess.

No, macro-evolution deals with splits and development into new species. As I said, it's pretty much micro-evolution in longer time frames.
You have a family of birds, 2 adult, 6 children. Genetic variable throws out 2 just like the adults, 2 with longer beaks, and 2 with stronger beaks. There's a drought. The ones with long beaks survive as they can get seed out of the cracks. The strong beaks survive as they can eat stronger shelled seed, and the other 2 die. So we now have 2 paths created for evolution by natural selection and genetic variation. Those with longer beaks have been taught through peers how to forage cracks for seed and water, and they replicate that behaviour. Not only that, those with even longer beaks have even more chance of breeding and producing offspring.
Now lets say, because of the drought, the bushes that fare the best are the hardy hard seeded ones, which now only grow in higher altitudes, and the old skool bush which survives near shorelines. The 2 bird groups will split. One will stay on the coast, one will move up the mountain. Now lets say that similar conditions exist for the next 20,000 years. Because of genetic mutation, other traits will come to dominate within the group. The long beaks may work out how to catch fish, and when the bad drought comes, they survive. And the strong beaks have changed color to avoid mountain tabbies! The yellow ones move to an area with higher trees, the green ones stay put. fast forward that stuff 30 million years, you can easilly see where other species come from.
Same with fish. They learned to survive drought by hiding in mud. They learned to move around in mud. Their fins got stronger, they moved better. The better they moved, the more prey they caught. Their skin toughens to protect them from the sun. The fins turn into little legs. skin to scales. gills to lungs. the lizards move from mud to hide under rocks. they get bigger. legs get longer. they run faster. those further up mountains devlop fur to keep them warm, eventually turn into rats and cats and monkeys.... Those on the plains turn into friggin triceratops or t-rex. There's other that run and flap their arms so they can jump long distances...they turn into pterodactyls. some pterodactyls move north for food and grow feathers....This process takes aeons. But it's nothing but natural selection and genetic mutation over time. Also consider that freaks pop up from time to time. A bunch of spiders living near a natural uranium deposit develop extra sets of legs. they survive well and dominate the 4 legged ones.... Very few old species still exist. We dig them up from time to time, and they fill in blanks in the theory. there are all kinds of environmental variables that affect species. continental shift, volcanoes, meteors, flooding...evolution explains perfectly adequetly where animals come from.

Originally posted by melatonin
You appear to misunderstand what scientfic papers are. They aren't like the bible providing absolute truth for other scientists not to question. It is the first step in the process of scientific credibility.

Just to add to what mel said here, most scientists are aware of this fact. In fact they acknowledge it.

Most scientific papers are probably wrong - opinion - 30 August 2005 - New Scientist

In the paper, Ioannidis does not show that any particular findings are false. Instead, he shows statistically how the many obstacles to getting research findings right combine to make most published research wrong.

[...]

But Solomon Snyder, senior editor at the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, and a neuroscientist at Johns Hopkins Medical School in Baltimore, US, says most working scientists understand the limitations of published research.

"When I read the literature, I'm not reading it to find proof like a textbook. I'm reading to get ideas. So even if something is wrong with the paper, if they have the kernel of a novel idea, that's something to think about," he says.

Hopefully this will give you a better understanding on what a scientific paper is. It's not a textbook or a bible. And like ImaginaryReality1984 said, you can't take it as "either it's all right or none of it is". That's not how science works.

One more thing. Science is about understanding the "hows", not the "whys". The latter is up to philosophy or religion, which tends to muddy understanding of the "how". That being said, I don't see why it has to be all or nothing. I don't see why you can't be a theist to square with the "why" and also agree with the scientific method to understand the "how".

It's late and now I'm in 'browsing mode.' Will reply more tomorrow but just a quick note: Not sure why everyone is trying to 'school me' on the definition of a 'theory.' Yes, you will see some who try to refute the theory of evolution by claiming emphasis on the word theory. However, I have not done so. Just a pointer.

reply to post by melatonin


reply to post by Beachcoma


Guys, a clarification: I'm not saying it is. I'm saying some evolutionists certainly treat them as such. The more educated realize the difference but many don't and take studies and papers as 'Gospel' when in reality, they're simply the 'Apocrypha.'

[edit on 3/3/2008 by AshleyD]

Originally posted by AshleyD
It's late and now I'm in 'browsing mode.' Will reply more tomorrow but just a quick note: Not sure why everyone is trying to 'school me' on the definition of a 'theory.' Yes, you will see some who try to refute the theory of evolution by claiming emphasis on the word theory. However, I have not done so. Just a pointer.

I agree, you did not use the term theory as such in a bad way. You did refer to Evolution as a psudo-science-due to gaps etc.. It has followed the scientific theory 100% of the way and is constantly being added to.

This is what makes it a theory, and this is what makes it science.

Please note: I don't see how evolution and creationism conflict. Nothing in the bible details how it was done outside of vague terms. And nothing in evolution cares about whether there was a creator.

I did enjoy the over all flow of your posts-it was thought provoking, but since the context of 'theory' is a pet peeve of mine, thats what I latched onto and got stuck on :/ .

reply to post by melatonin



Hmm lets see shall we? Line all the nice little ducks in a row.

Yeah, whatever. Mr Wraoth the purveyor of bias-free insights, heh. I have a bias, it is the bias that exists from a scientific viewpoint.

Yet your also atheist and who also repeatedly talked about downing the "God Hypothesis" as you have called it.
Which is what children?
Bias dragged into science.
Seeing how all spiritual beliefs are all Sky Faeries and invisible friends. Which you do not say outright but allude to it enough to be painfully clear.
And I might add is a false bias the answers onto the existance of a "prime force" or whatever is FAR from being answered. Your allowed your opinion your not allowed to use your opinion to bash others.
Yea. There is no bias there.
Really?
And I am Santa Claus.

You'd think you were the only person to have read Popper.

Evidence? Or was that a misinterptation like you acuse me of?

Your new hero, Popper, said so.

Example of the end of an assumption you made that was incorrect and you persisted in even when told otherwise. Then went on to say "Oh. It wasn't meant to be taken seriously."

Oh and you skirted it with a BS passive agressive statement

Because it wasn't really meant to be taken that seriously. I don't think you have a shrine in your bedroom to him or anything.

Which is NOT what I was talking about at all.
Your assumption that he was new to me was.

Weren't you meant to be ignoring me or something? I don't understand why you keep trying to misrepresent me. Maybe take some time to read my posts or something.

Damn you're good at slathering yourself in verbal butter. Or do you really so MASSIVELY misinterept to such a degree everything everyone says?
All the while acusing others of the crime?
But I am impressed at your ability in side stepping and obstruction.

Science isn't like the borg. We don't have an oracle who tells us what we must think.

Erm what does the borg have to do with an oracle?????
I don't remember the borg having an oracle on Star Trek.......
Oh wait more attacks on religious people. Passive aggressively.
And how dare they do such to you. Bad them.
If they do that they aren't attacking you anyway, right?
Their attacking science.
You having a attitude and air of self-rightousness is just not possible.

You appear to misunderstand what scientfic papers are. They aren't like the bible providing absolute truth for other scientists not to question. It is the first step in the process of scientific credibility.

Yet adhered to like a bible by more than a few.


And what is your profession exactly and care to show proof?
You seem to keep saying your a scientist.

[edit on 3-3-2008 by WraothAscendant]

Originally posted by lordtyp0
I agree, you did not use the term theory as such in a bad way. You did refer to Evolution as a psudo-science-due to gaps etc.. It has followed the scientific theory 100% of the way and is constantly being added to.

The thing is, some of it has been verified and some of it is still speculation (as I'm sure you know). Yes, I do believe aspects of it, like macroevolution, are pseudoscience. Some, like microevolution or genetic mutations, is verifiable fact. I also believe some solid evidence and even some facts contradict other forms of evidence supporting the theory of evolution which also strengthens my opinion it is pseudoscience.

Please note: I don't see how evolution and creationism conflict.

Some, like theistic evolutionists, will wholeheartedly agree with you. Some, like very young earth creationists, will disagree. I'm neither, by the way.

Nothing in the bible details how it was done outside of vague terms.

I agree and even made my very first thread relating to this subject.

And nothing in evolution cares about whether there was a creator.

Evolution might not but some evolutionists certainly seem to. I've seen many poke fun at those who adhere to theistic evolution as violating Occam's razor. It does seem like many who use this tactic are intent of pushing God out of the equation any way they can.



To me, this is fallacious logic. We could possibly consider the fact theistic evolution is the middle ground and could explain many of the holes in the theory of evolution that scientists cannot explain. But that reminds some of cartoons like this:

I did enjoy the over all flow of your posts-it was thought provoking, but since the context of 'theory' is a pet peeve of mine, thats what I latched onto and got stuck on :/ .

No worries. Just keep in mind I didn't rely on the semantics of 'theory.'

reply to post by AshleyD


ASH,

That is a very funny cartoon, seen it!

Again, it relates to what I have aleady said....WHY us?

WHAT makes us so special, when you imagine, or maybe not imagine, even comprehend that we....and I tend to repeat myself...exist on an out of the way planet, in an out of the way galaxy, amongst BILLIONS of OTHER galaxies....????

THIS is where your perception, and my perception, tend to diverge.

May I hijack this thread and ask anyone about great tours in Copenhagen or Stockholm? Because, I'm going to the Baltic this Summer, and if our lives are about to end, I want to enjoy what life I have left!!! Actually, got hotel in CPH already, gonna cruise from there to Warnemunde, and Tallin, Estonia, and St. Petersburgh, ending in Stockholm, where I have two nights booked (Sheraton)....asny suggestions???

So basically, to sum up, only, and all, evolutionists are gullibe and hypocritical because they do not support what you beleive. I don't really care if that's what you meant, that's how you put it.

Another thread about the people behind conspiracies rather than the conspiracies themselves.

[edit on 3/3/2008 by C0bzz]

reply to post by weedwhacker


Assumptions weedwacker.

WHAT makes us so special, when you imagine, or maybe not imagine, even comprehend that we....and I tend to repeat myself...exist on an out of the way planet, in an out of the way galaxy, amongst BILLIONS of OTHER galaxies....????

Unless you have spoken to her more on other threads and she has stated such. This is an assumption.
Case in point I have known quite a few Christians that also believe in extra-terrestrial life. Sure some think we are "specialer" then they are but not all.

Now this passive agressive bs and assumption rolled into one.

and if our lives are about to end, I want to enjoy what life I have left!!!

Again, unless you have spoken to her more on other threads and she has stated such. This is an assumption.
I have also known a quite a few Christians that believe that Revelations is something every person goes through spiritually rather than the world is going to end shortly.
You know the nonliteralists that are generally called "apologists". By hardheaded hardliners on both side of the silly polarization.

Sad thing is I see ALOT of assumptions tossed about by people that claim assumption is the realm of the other guys. And rather than admitting they have made an assumption they go about trying to bury it in a mound of bs all the while clinging to their assumptions. Some are better at it than others. This thread has at least one master of that particular game. Not naming any names.

[edit on 3-3-2008 by WraothAscendant]

reply to post by WraothAscendant


to Wraoth,

You assume I have 'spoken' to 'her'...I have no idea what you're talking about.

But, if you have god Las Vegas info, I am all ears....

omg, I wrote 'god' when I meant to write 'good'....


[edit on 3-3-2008 by weedwhacker]