The Gullibility of Evolutionists

reply to post by Bigwhammy


Look at my avatar. You have to have an amazing sense of humor to get Will Farrel jokes.

Anyway.

Aside from those lame remarks, let me further illustrate my point:

That site is actually a strawman. It doesn't even begin to touch the ideas presented with that theory. What it does, is use a layman's understanding of the theory to attempt at proving it wrong.

I am sure you know this. So instead of mocking theories, why not try and use that great brain of your to pull evidence as to which might be correct.

Look, you guys can focus on the negatives all you want, but people out there are actually trying to find the truth.

All you can seem to do is whine about it. Big help you are.

reply to post by Sublime620



Yes. I agree BUT (and there is a big caveat here).
All them ARE religions. There are different shades we all know that.
Atheism IS a religion as it answers the spiritual question.
Even if it is with a resounding (or varying shades there of) no.

Especially when you remember science can't really touch matters spiritual.
Regardless how much others like to pretend otherwise.
Atheism is a different religion with different shades.
Just as Christianity is a religion with different shades.

Just there are Christians that don't take their spiritual beliefs all that serious.
There are atheists that do the same.
The ones I argue and fight against are the ones that try to brow beat or otherwise others to their beliefs and spew rhetoric and obfuscation of what they are trying to do.

[edit on 13-3-2008 by WraothAscendant]

reply to post by Bigwhammy


Fun toy. Unfortunately, it includes things such as numbers and non-letter characters. This is sort of like claiming that mutation can cause a person to give birth to a lump of quartz.

Cute, but irrelevant.

reply to post by WraothAscendant


I disagree that atheism is a religion. As I pointed out before, all atheism does is group what people do not believe in, it does nothing to speak of what these people do believe in.

Religion has to do with beliefs. This groups the opposite, non-beliefs. Unless you are saying these people all have no ideals. Which is a completely different misrepresentation.

[edit on 13-3-2008 by Sublime620]

reply to post by TheWalkingFox


Actually, if you use the binary option it puts numbers and symbols in there.

Marshall's mutation generator is a bit like a child's version of Dawkins' old 'methinks it is a weasel' experiment. Problem is, Dawkins understands evolution, so his version had a selective mechanism. Marshall's is just a random mess.

ABE:

some proper evolutionary versions of word evolution programmes:

word mutagenation

Weasel & more

[edit on 13-3-2008 by melatonin]

reply to post by melatonin


What angers me is that I know the person who posted that site is smarter than that (yes, I'm talking about you Whammy).

Why would you post such an obvious incorrect analysis of his theory? It's really the most laymen's understanding of a scientific theory that I have ever seen.

And you posted it as if it should be taken seriously. Afterwards you say, "it's only a joke"; as if we are supposed to go, "ohhh he's only kidding. We should forget that he is posting non-scientific garbage and just move on".

This whole thread is supposed to be about being gullible. Well, Whammy, you just fell for a rebuttal site that is so far off, it really is a joke.

You were correct about that.

reply to post by Sublime620


They're answering the question with a no.
But they are still answering the question.
They can of course refuse to answer the question and in a perfect world that would be kewl, but it IS kewl with me.

But they are still answering the question with a no the minute they claim the label atheist.

Any attempts to get around that fact is simple semantic wrangling.

And what I see happening now with whole religion versus atheism is that atheism is acting and saying in ways VERY similar to what the Christians did with the Pagans when Christianity was spreading through out Europe.
And of course this isn't all Atheists and please don't accuse me of that ignorance as that is not what I am saying.

Paganism is dangerous.
Paganism will not bring peace there will only be peace if everyone accepts Christianity.
Anyone who practices Paganism is backwards ignorant or stupid savages.

It's all there in history. Anyone willing to look at history objectively will see it.



[edit on 13-3-2008 by WraothAscendant]

Originally posted by Bigwhammy
reply to post by melatonin

 

I am trying to learn something here...

So how does selection make sense of random mutations. It seems like there would have to be so many mutations it would take forever for one to be worthy of being "selected"

Have a star for your sensible question.

First off, mutations aren't precisely random. We haven't quite pinpointed the hows and whys of them, but we know there ARE hows and why's. Even genetic recombination isn't precisely random - genes that control arm length don't hook up with genes that determine fur color, after all. We're still working on the finer points of genetics, after all.

Second, natural selection isn't a sorting system. It's an organism's response to its environment. It's also not a question of "worth." There's this perception that natural selection and evolution are racing towards "perfect" organisms. They're definitely not. And lastly, there's really no such thing as "good" or "bad" mutations, because their effect on an organism depends entirely on the environment that thing finds itself in. Take the human brain - This thing is huge in relation to our body. While that's good - larger brains are a major point to our success as a species - it has the very real drawbacks of making childbirth very difficult, and the young being dependant on their parents for several years.

For another example of "imperfect selection" look at the spotted hyena. Out on hte plains of Africa (As well as the other areas this species used to roam) there are a plethora of large predators ready to chow down on hyena pups - including other hyenas. The mothers that were best-able to defend and provide for their litters were the ones that had the most surviving descendants - who carried on the traits that made those mothers successful. Prety basic stuff, right? Well, the surprise is, the trait in question was ramped-up testosterone production in female hyenas. In pretty much any mammal species, giving the females a lot of testosterone has some pretty gnarly drawbacks. In the case of the female hyenas, it resulted in them having external genitalia that are nearly identical to males - the birth canal passes through their clitoris. In addition to this, the exposure to testosterone in the womb means that hyena cubs are born with their dangerous parts - teeth. And a huge aggressive streak. They kill each other in the den, in competition for the mother's relatively limited milk.

These are pretty big drawbacks for the species. High aggression makes getting a mate difficult, anatomy makes mating and birth difficult and dangerous, and the increased aggression leads to more dead cubs. The hyenas work it out, but there are definitely other paths that evolution could have taken to provide cub defense - such as that exhibited by wolves, where hte family unit protects pups, rather than just the dam.

I think without a doubt that mutations aren't random, as in they are a result of chemisty etc.

But in evolution, they are random in the sense that they are uncorrelated to the fitness needs of the organism.

It appears that particular mutations are more likely than others (i.e.hotspots), and that even evolvability might have evolved, leading to changes in mutation rate under stress etc. But, essentially, the changes in fitness mutations produce are predominately not related to the needs of the organism.

This is where the randomness really comes into play.

ABE:

evolution.berkeley.edu...

[edit on 13-3-2008 by melatonin]

Thread Announcement

This is a very active thread classified as an:

ATS Big-Thread with 1228 replies, and subject to more strict moderation.
Please stay focused. Stay on-topic. Minimal or off-topic posts and T&C violations are subject deletion and/or a warning.

The above is posted at the top of every page in this thread. Because of this classification any further off topic posts will be removed and the author warned along with a substantial point deduction for each offense. No further warnings will be posted.

Please take some time to read the Opening Post of this thread and make sure any further comments are in direct relation to the thoughts expressed.

Thanks for your cooperation, I know we can have a very productive and on point conversation here. Please know this is not directed ant any single person rather it's notice for everyone involving themselves in this conversation from this point forward.

Thanks yall....

reply to post by WraothAscendant


Wait, did you just say there will only be peace if everyone accepts Christianity? I didn't notice that in the U2U.

Look, if you want to get into a debate on religion, I'll be glad to do that on a different thread. Open one up, and we'll talk religion, ethics, and the likes. There is nothing I enjoy more.

This thread is about people who think scientists are "gullible" for believing in evolution.

It's really already been discussed, and the thread should be closed. It's a rediculous statement, sorry AshleyD. Every side has it gullible moments, but that's the nature of the game. People want to prove their theories correctly.

Take Steven Hawking for instance. Would anyone dare call him "gullible" on this board?

Well he had a theory about black holes. Without getting into it, his theory was wrong (probably). For years it was accepted as right, that is, until someone came along and provided evidence it was wrong, and a new theory.

Steven did not accept it. He worked for years to try to solve the problem, and eventually conceded the new theory was correct.

This is how science works. Nothing is gullible, it's just believing the theory you present is right until a new theory comes along and disproves it.

Unless you guys are all saying that creationism has been completely proven and evolution completely disproven, then there is no discussion about either side being gullible.

/endthread

Originally posted by Sublime620
This thread is about people who think scientists are "gullible" for believing in evolution.

Just a quick clarification. It isn't limited only to the scientists but evolutionists in general. As in, anyone who thinks evolution truly is the answer for the origins of the species.

It would even seem, to me, the actual scientists would be the least gullible since they are the ones working with the evidence first hand while the 'general masses' are the ones who read some science journals or learn about it in freshman biology only to suddenly become know-it-alls who believe everything that conforms to the view while criticizing others that take a step back to question it further.

And due to the track record of some questionable activities by the evolutionary scientists and many questions left unanswered in the theory, it seems perfectly reasonable to question it without being branded an ignoramus.

It's kind of a mix between the 'gullibility factor' and the 'hoity toity attitude' from evolutionists towards creationists.

It's really already been discussed, and the thread should be closed.

I truly, truly would have no problem with that. I think this thread has run a pretty good course. There will surely be other evolution vs. creation threads in the future. It simply seems someone is going to be receiving a warning inevitably in the near future if it remains open and I will feel lower than dirt if someone gets a warning on a thread I started. I'd feel responsible in some way and wished I never even started it. If a mod wants to close it that is perfectly fine by me.

reply to post by AshleyD


I still have to comment, Ashely, that, given that you take replies to your threads as evidence one way or another towards the argument, you'll have to note that if anyone's showing gullibility here, it's certainly not the evolution side of the debate. It would definitely be the side that is trying to say the Piltdown Man is still accepted as part of the human family tree, and those insisting that in science, a theory is nothing more than a hunch or opinion.

reply to post by AshleyD


Wouldn't you agree that it works both ways though?

For instance:

The other side of the story

“Science is a weak little kid on the block, that is hearing impaired, and 94% blind. The bible is like the hubble telescope, and a master computer, and a time machine rolled into one. It goes to the past, and the distant future in a cosmic rolls royce. But those who are not concerned with the bible, and just science must accept their huge limitations.”

dad

“[If everything needs a cause, why not turn that logic around and ask what caused God?]

This logic would only aplly to the ones that need such logic, since we do not need such logic to understand god, we don’t need to worry about that, but since you need that kinda logic to not believe in god, you are the target audience for such a debate, not us.”

The list goes on. But those are the dumb people AshleyD.

Fortunately for us, we can have the intelligent conversations, and they can stay stuck in their little dumb worlds. The intelligent religious people, atheists, and agnostics are the ones advancing society.

Who cares about the rest.

Originally posted by WraothAscendant
Paganism is dangerous.
Paganism will not bring peace there will only be peace if everyone accepts Christianity.
Anyone who practices Paganism is backwards ignorant or stupid savages.

It's all there in history. Anyone willing to look at history objectively will see it.



[edit on 13-3-2008 by WraothAscendant]

Wow. I can't believe I missed that. So I'm a backwards, ignorant, stupid savage? Good to know. I think we're done here, mister Christian sir.

reply to post by TheWalkingFox


I didn't see it either at first!

Maybe our brains were trying to block it out to keep this a reasonable discussion.

Originally posted by TheWalkingFox
I still have to comment, Ashely, that, given that you take replies to your threads as evidence one way or another towards the argument...

I think you're going to need to expound on that a bit for me please. I don't recall using anyone's comments on this thread as evidence of gullibility but certainly of the superior attitude. Furthermore, there have been other examples of things offered in this thread to back up the two main claims that had nothing to do with anyone's comments on this thread but came from external sources.

The last thread has also already been explained but I'll sum it up really quickly so there is no hard feelings or confusion. It had even more examples of evidence backing up the original claim than this thread did. Dozen of comments from myself and various members sourced external content as evidence.

So, I wouldn't say it's a case of starting a thread and claiming anyone who disagrees with the OP is the evidence. Rather it does seem to serve as supplemental support when they do end up acting like what is brought up in the OP. Instead of disagreeing and explaining why, they immediately put on airs of superior intelligence towards others who do not see it that way and start tossing around words loosely like 'propaganda, intolerance, ignorance, and slander' in an effort to silence the opposition or to 'shame the critics into silence' if we want to get dramatic.

Originally posted by Sublime620
Wouldn't you agree that it works both ways though?

Of course. Which is why I also participated in the spin off thread The Gullibility of Creationists.

[edit on 3/14/2008 by AshleyD]

Originally posted by AshleyD
Of course. Which is why I'm also participated in the spin off thread The Gullibility of Creationists.

Well then we are in complete argeement on this subject, My Dear.

Originally posted by TheWalkingFox
Wow. I can't believe I missed that. So I'm a backwards, ignorant, stupid savage? Good to know. I think we're done here, mister Christian sir.

Originally posted by Sublime620
Maybe our brains were trying to block it out to keep this a reasonable discussion.

Whoa, Guys. Back up. I know Wraith better than that and will come to his defense since he is offline. That is not what he meant. First of all, Wraith is not a Christian... he is a pagan.

He is giving a quick history lesson and using an analogy to say how Christianity once treated paganism is how some atheists seem to be treating Christianity/Creationists today.

That's all he meant. It goes back to the debate Sublime and he were having concerning atheism being a religion or not.

[edit on 3/14/2008 by AshleyD]