The Gullibility of Evolutionists

reply to post by AshleyD


I see now. I read the top part in a U2U he sent, and then I noticed the bottom later and did not connect the two.

Originally posted by WraothAscendant
reply to post by Sublime620

 

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.

It was inspired initially by the same group, who are/were under the same influences. German Higher Criticism was the brain child of the Holy Roman Empire and it lead to the complete dismantling of all ancient history as a valuable resource of factual data. They have the whole world neatly wrapped up and stuffed in their back pocket - one half that believes in a god of some kind, and another that believes the complete opposite. Like the game of Democrat vs. Republican, while both being on the same page, order out of chaos and similar events. Orchestration at a level most don't even consider possible.





[edit on 14-3-2008 by undo]

reply to post by Sublime620

I see what you are saying, and for some means it could be considered a "religion" per se. However, in the context it is being used on this thread I don't think it relates.

One thing I think they are way off on is that atheists all go around trying to disprove religion. Which is completely false. Most atheists don't do anything, ever. They just decide they aren't interested in religion, and that's that.

You know? I am trying to seperate the 2 because it's clouding the issue about evolution and atheists.

They are making it a battle of religions, instead of science.

Religion needs to be left out of science, even when it comes to creationism.

Hope you don't mind if I answer you here. Seeing as to the OPer doesn't mind if this conversation continues. I think.

But when science IS your religion. It muddies the waters does it not?
Alot of atheists (usually the more annoying of them) say that since science cannot prove or disprove anything spiritual than the spiritual does not exist.
And as you probly well know humans can deify just about anything if they so chose.

These people put their faith in ONLY one thing. Science.
In science they trust. And ONLY science.
They deify a imperfect tool of mankind's search to understand.
They say spout dogma that regardless how much you try to speak to them intelligently about it they immediately dismiss your intelligence as suspect.
Things like "Religion is D A N G E R O U S." direct quote btw. Said here on this forum. I which my response has been. "Stop blaming the concept and blame the people that did the crimes."
But I think it's psychologically advantageous for them to take and hold that obviously WARPED view.

And of course before I get accused of it again.
It's not every single atheist. I am not speaking for an entire group. But there are particularly annoying groups with that group that do that.

An and I kid you not I actually heard one Atheist say in a rant
"If there is a god it's the god of SCIENCE!!!!!!"
What does that say to you?
To me it rips off the mask that a lot of the smarter ones try to maintain so as to achieve their goals stealthily.

It's all about "the changing of the guard" especially like I said when you note Christianities own sorted and bloody history.

reply to post by WraothAscendant

These people put their faith in ONLY one thing. Science.
In science they trust. And ONLY science.

It beats putting every ounce of your trust into a book penned by Arabs a thousand years ago, or Romans two thousand years ago, or Jews three thousand years ago...

What's wrong with trusting science? If there is a God, science is the fingerprint He left behind.

We should appreciate that.

[edit on 14-3-2008 by Sublime620]

reply to post by TheWalkingFox


That is all you can come up with Fox?
And neither of you could refute my statement it should be noticed.
Considering the fact that what "science" says is determined by people.
Regardless how many people try to dance around that little fact with words like "peer review" and claiming that science is inherently UNTAINTABLE by humanity is silly at best. It is every bit the political machine that the US Federal Government is and just as able to get things wrong.

Science is just a word. A concept executed by the easily fallable creatures called Homo Sapient. And we can screw up just about any damn thing.

Watch the movie "Dark Matter" it illustrates just such a situation.
But not everything ends ok like with movies.

AND to clarify no I am NOT saying that invalidates science. I rather like science but it has all the flaws that any other thing people make in collective purposes.
A human does not cease being human when you give him or her a doctorate and a lab.
And a grain of salt is needed. Not unswerving loyalty that TOO MANY PEOPLE give it.

It's all about "the changing of the guard" especially like I said when you note Christianities own sorted and bloody history.

Sorry had to add this.
And when you note how much present events are mirroring those ancient times.




Oh and you people might want to actually read my statement completely before your little jackal act.
I just saw what you did back there Sublime. VERY not kewl.
You owe me an apology.
Especially when its taken into account you answered the u2u in a completely opposite manner.

[edit on 14-3-2008 by WraothAscendant]

God created the Heavens and the Earth. He made Man in his own image.

Think of the work that has been put in to disprove Creation. Darwin?

Just think about this for one minute! just what if( and you are if you believe in Evolution) you are wrong and God is real, and Jesus really walked this Earth and sacrificed his own life to die for our sins? Just what if???

What are you going to say when you die and go before God and He asks you, "Why did you believe in me? Why did you not believe in my son, Jesus and excepthim as your Lord and Saviour?"

God is real! He is here, and there, and everywhere. Please just ask him to talk to you if you don't believe. If you are sincere, He will.

Godspeed,

EYEOFEAGLE

Mod Edit: All Caps – Please Review This Link.



[edit on 17-3-2008 by GAOTU789]

reply to post by EYEOFEAGLE


Eye. I will say this because I will say it gentler than others on that have posted on this thread will.
But let me first say, you believe in it and that is perfectly fine.
I commend you. Some what.

Your question can be flipped.
If you follow that logic then why not believe in Vishnu? Or Allah? Or even Zeus, Thor, Osiris, Ahura Mazda, Queztequatl? And the many others either lost to the sands of time or not included because I am just too lazy to type them all.
Suffice it to say. Believing in something just because your afraid you could be wrong is not a very good reason.
I think even your god (regardless of what churches try to teach you) would understand those that wouldn't use the ambiguity of life as a motivation to believe in him.

[edit on 15-3-2008 by WraothAscendant]

reply to post by TheWalkingFox


Does really matter in the end?
Yes science is more "current" but it, like religion is tainted by its creator.
You guessed it. US. Humankind. We drag our BS into EVERYTHING.
Scientific method works GREAT for physical things that we can see, touch, taste, or feel.
But spiritual questions. Science is not too well equipped to deal with.
Should spiritual things exist.
It's about like trying to measure how much stone is in a mountain with out turning it into sand with the quarts on a measuring cup. Not sure that is a good analogy but it's late.

Alot of Atheists blatantly ignore those limitations and stubbornly and repeatedly chant (almost in a fashion of a child with their fingers in their ears while chanting "la la la not listening") that there is no physical proof of a "prime mover/higher power/god" so thusly there cannot be one. And are quite smug and insulting about doing it too.
And then proceed to use science (best when used as a tool like a plow shear) as a weapon against others. Not so good. Especially when you note that "science" (and there are alot of "religious" scientists that see no problem believing in a "prime mover/higher power/god") has very precious little to really say about matters spiritual if they do exist, I think they do but that is neither here nor there.
And they like to claim THEY and ONLY they have any right to science.

Do you not see the problems with that?




And again I am not talking about all of atheism but there are growing camps of the jokers I mention above.

I would like to take a moment here to question the title of this thread. "The Gullibility of Evolutionists". Why would you use this title. This same title can be turned around and faced the other direction you see.

I find it hard to believe a little book describing the creation of everything through a deity as compared to scientific findings regarding the theory of evolution and natural selection.

Also regarding the so called faux scientific findings, it can be accepted that errors have been made and will be made. If you can't accept that then you can't learn from your mistakes. As the abilities of our scientists get broader each day, they will find failures in past experiments where knowledge was lacking. At this point they can go back and try to reprove with the current understanding. Scientific understanding is a living process unlike religion. One can change to adopt new knowledge and the other stays on the same course.

reply to post by WraothAscendant


What are the flaws of the scientific method? I'd be very interesting to hear, as it's certainly increased the knowledge of the human race far, far more than any other method of looking at the universe.

I'd say religion is inherently dangerous, as it offers a way for someone else's message to rule your life, unquestionably. It stops you from thinking for yourself, as it has core concepts that can't be found to be untrue, less the entire religious belief system is unravelled.

Originally posted by dave420
reply to post by WraothAscendant

 

as it's certainly increased the knowledge of the human race far, far more than any other method of looking at the universe.

Well that's both true and false.

For example, ancient history is just brimming with important info about our past but has been categorically disposed of because 300 years ago some guys decided that none of it made any sense, couldn't be proven and had no evidence for ever having existed. This was before archaeology.

Archaeology has proven time and time again, that the ancient texts ARE historical. They are not "fairy tales", although they may contain the "educated" opinions or conjectures of the ruling bodies of the time, it certainly isn't any worse than the "educated opinions" of those higher criticism folks who decided the ancient greek histories and other greek texts were purely fictional because, they said, the ancient greeks couldn't write (which turned out to be untrue).

And that's just a drop in a wide sea of texts they claimed were not legit, only to find out decades and even centuries later, that they were legitimate, historically.

They literally threw out the baby with the bath water, and the neighbor's baby too.

Originally posted by Doctor Pepor
I would like to take a moment here to question the title of this thread. "The Gullibility of Evolutionists".

Scientific understanding is a living process unlike religion. One can change to adopt new knowledge and the other stays on the same course.

First of, the title fits and it fits well. Ashley is NOT talking about Science and had she wanted to say it that way she would have. She is talking about a particular area of science that has been proven to be a perversion of biology. This is the Religion of Atheism passed off as Science in its attempt to make any possibility that someone or something may have had a hand in our being here. Call it a God Call it a creator call it Aliens the possibility is a definite to any REAL scientist.

Ill just take a stab at it and ask you,, are you an atheist?

The reason I ask is that it isn't JUST a coincidence 99% of all those arguing for this idiotic asinine junk science.

It isn't a coincidence every atheist website you see these days is full of hate speech using words I can't even post the examples they are so full of venomous animus evil they should be looked at by the FBI if they aren't already.



It isn't JUST a coincidence you see Atheists using descriptions like the one above while they continuously speak as if they are all scientists when the FACT is THEY ARE NOT SCIENTISTS moreover what most Atheists know about science with all due respect, you could barely cover a postage stamp yet they all have come in here speaking as if they are.

Where does this idea come from?

Well if you look at 98% of all the Atheist websites, you will see that they NOT only think they are the cats meow but that they are the "science community" THEY AREN'T!

Why would you use this title? This same title can be turned around and faced the other direction you see.

I find it hard to believe a little book describing the creation of everything through a deity as compared to scientific findings regarding the theory of evolution and natural selection.

Who the hell is talking about the Bible?
What we are talking about is a perversion of Science. You know,, I think I am starting to see what wraoth is talking about and ya know what,, if we did come from an alien for example,, I WOULD WANT SCIENCE TO FIND OUT! I would also consider that as a more plausible excuse for our existence then life apparently came from some mud puddle by MAGIC.

Atheists don't believe in supernatural phenomena yet they want us to believe in MAGIC.

Whenever they have found evidence that would even suggest a designer they invariably call it an "Illusion" EVERY TIME or they reject it as "Bad evidence because it doesn't fit the "Naturalism" in their scientific method.

This would explain why something invisible, such as you can not see it touch it, smell it, or taste it is not considered yet Gravity is just like that.

They will come up with the wordiest semantics in fifty paragraphs of meaningless circumlocution that amounts to ZIP and when you analyze the verses using any science writer, they end up saying nothing.

I would submit that had Atheists kept their motives to make something they don't want to believe exists OUT OF SCIENCE, we just may have been much further along then we are now.

I would love to have as much respect for Science as you do but I am afraid it doesn't warrant that kind of blind faith. Not when books over thousands of years old give a historical record of how we got here that makes more sense and IT ISN'T EVEN A SCIENCE BOOK!

The AUDACITY of these scientists who copy the designs of Nature from the invention of the airplane using wings to fly like birds to the advent of copying code from DNA in making artificial life forms.

All have patents and copyright, laws for protecting intellectual property yet while we marvel at the intelligence of technology and invention, the very areas of nature they have copied (stolen) it from are given no credit at all for being designed, the invention of the higher intelligence it was stolen from.

In fact they are insulted, as imperfect as if we could do better. Funny thing is, we never do better. All we seem to do is screw the earth up with all we make from plastic to pollution. While we may criticize the design of zebras hind legs with our own version of how they could have been made more efficient, we neglect to see that doing so takes a meal away from a lion. It is the little things, that just don't mean a lot,, they mean everything in the delicate, intricate way these life forms were perfectly made and not the result of mere happenstance without design without purpose. Even the spotted hyena Fox was talking about has a more plausible reason for the pronounced female genitalia then that foolish excuse she gave to support this antiquated idiotic bogus theory.

Yeah,, I'm pretty ticked off at the way Atheists have weaseled their way into bastardizing science to the degree they have blocked all possibilities for discovery in exchange for manufacturing phony evidence that supports a theory that hasn't been proven and never will be moreover it is high time someone told our public schools to GET RID OF IT!

If you want to claim intellectual property of something you copy from nature, then give credit where credit is due and admit for god sake that the thing you copied it from ALSO had a mind and designed it before WE did. to admit finally once and for all, that what it does was NOT by natural selection or "lucky" mutation.

The only thing I see that mutations ever do is things like cancer and tumors most of which are brought about by the crap Scientist make and put in our food and environment.

Also regarding the so called faux scientific findings, it can be accepted that errors have been made and will be made. If you can't accept that then you can't learn from your mistakes. As the abilities of our scientists get broader each day, they will find failures in past experiments where knowledge was lacking. At this point they can go back and try to reprove with the current understanding.

So called faux? Read from the pages below, they change every 10-18 seconds



Sounds to me like they need to stop calling this crap scientific fact then but it would be better if they just kicked this counterfeit science in the trash where it belongs. IT ISN'T SCIENCE; IT IS A FRICTION BRAKE TO SCIENTIFIC DISCOVERY AND HAS STOLEN THE INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY from its TRUE CREATOR, its true designer, its true original inventor.

I can't say unequivocally who that is but I know for a fact it sure wasn't MAN.

Atheist are now using their phony credentials as Scientists to study postulates put forth by idiots like Dawkins and Harris that anyone not believing their garbage science has a memeplex brain virus and wouldn't ya know it,, ONE OF THE SYMPTONS is anyone who believes in a God concept. They have been doing extensive research in this area and I think it's time they get called what they are and what they are really trying to accomplish here.

It's called artificial UN belief.

as phony as Atheists

un-belief in God

- Con






[edit on 17-3-2008 by Conspiriology]

Originally posted by Conspiriology
First of, the title fits and it fits well. Ashley is NOT talking about Science and had she wanted to say it that way she would have. She is talking about a particular area of science that has been proven to be a perversion of biology.

Thanks, Con. I can always count on you to respond to things I'm too tired to explain yet again. No offense to Doctor Pepor as I can see he is a late comer to the thread and I don't expect anyone to read all 60+ pages of this thread.

However, as you said, it has nothing to do with ignoring science. Even creationists accept 'evolution' in terms of micro as has already been explained and how it even helps answer problems that stumped Biblical scholars in the past, as has also already been explained.

As they say, the best lie is mixed in with a little bit of fact. It seems evolutionists take the fact that is micro, adaptations, and mutations, and stretch it to go back further as a cause of macro. That is where my problem lies. Not with science in itself. My business wouldn't exist if it were not for science and I would not be talking to any of you right now if I had a gripe with science.

Thanks for coming to my defense.

Take care, everyone.

[edit on 3/18/2008 by AshleyD]

This is the Religion of Atheism passed off as Science in its attempt to make any possibility that someone or something may have had a hand in our being here. Call it a God Call it a creator call it Aliens the possibility is a definite to any REAL scientist.

No I am not an atheist. What kind of stereotyping are you on? I would like to know what exactly is this religion of atheism you refer to? I was pretty sure that atheism was the lack of belief in a deity.

Now look at the definition of scientist en.wiktionary.org...
With your logic, quite a few scientific discoveries and works are wrong. DNA isn't structured because James Watson was an atheist. Linux doesn't work because Linus Torvalds was an atheist. Just to name a couple.

I notice you using quite a few of percentages with these so called atheist websites and I'm well aware that you are supposed to be 98% more likely to believed if you quote statistics, regarding that, I don't believe you when you talk about them.

Next point

Whenever they have found evidence that would even suggest a designer they invariably call it an "Illusion" EVERY TIME or they reject it as "Bad evidence because it doesn't fit the "Naturalism" in their scientific method.

This would explain why something invisible, such as you can not see it touch it, smell it, or taste it is not considered yet Gravity is just like that.

You have used a poor example as gravity is not ignored and used as common place in physics. If you can not grasp the fact that gravity is the result of having much mass, we have a ways to go. Have you ever heard of supergravity? Yes, I will admit, it is still a theory but if you dabbled in M-theory or the 11-dimensions you would know that gravity may only be the result of another dimension more or less leaking into the ones we reside in. This would also explain why gravity is both weak and strong depending on relativity.

Next point

I would love to have as much respect for Science as you do but I am afraid it doesn't warrant that kind of blind faith. Not when books over thousands of years old give a historical record of how we got here that makes more sense and IT ISN'T EVEN A SCIENCE BOOK!

Blind faith is a bit of a hypocritical statement there I should say, because believing in a book generated thousands of years ago without any question to its reliability of possible inaccuracy is not blind faith. In several places I can't tell if you think science is good or not but the whole deal about "IT ISN'T EVEN A SCIENCE BOOK!" strikes me as a bit funny as you promote science and fail to use what most scientists would call scientific method to prove it. You are going "sideways" for lack of a better. That scientific method was created to make sure that blind faith in something was not used to prove something.


Last thoughts

To AshleyD yes I am a late comer to this thread but it had sparked my attention with the whole gullibility an evolutionists. No, I cannot agree with creationism. No I cannot agree wholly with Evolution. That is why I came here to try and defend. I have been part of another discussion of another sorts elsewhere that had to do with religion, creationism and what not. This has caused my uproar over such topics lately.

Originally posted by Doctor Pepor



No I am not an atheist. What kind of stereotyping are you on?

The kind that wouldn't assume that's what kind
The kind that would ASK FIRST TO AVOID BEING PRESUMPTUOUS THAT'S WHAT KIND. So it isn't I being the presumptuous one,, IT IS YOU.

I would like to know what exactly is this religion of atheism you refer to? I was pretty sure that atheism was the lack of belief in a deity.

The Kind Atheists went to Fla court to argue it being a Religion and won.
The kind the US Supreme Court ruled a religion does not have to have a deity to be recognized as a religion

DNA isn't structured because James Watson was an atheist.

No, DNA is what created the structure of James Watson

But Atheists like Richard Dawkins would have us believe that Christians have a Brain memeplex virus in their DNA that would give is a genetic pre-disposition to believe in things like deity or a God. I guess that only works against us but can't be used the other way around huh?

I notice you using quite a few of percentages with these so called atheist websites and I'm well aware that you are supposed to be 98% more likely to believed if you quote statistics, regarding that, I don't believe you when you talk about them.

*Clickety ClicK*

Hey guy,, I am not seeking YOUR approval in the first place.
I’ve already posted all this stuff

You have used a poor example as gravity is not ignored and used as common place in physics.

I'm not talking about Physics and yes it is a perfect example as it doesn't exactly fit the scientific method evolutionist’s use in Naturalism. In fact even Physics Scientists admit they don't know much about it. What causes it, what it is made out of etc.

So saying I don't have a good grasp of it is the same as you admitting YOU DON'T. I don't expect you to be that self effacing however

In several places I can't tell if you think science is good or not but the whole deal about "IT ISN'T EVEN A SCIENCE BOOK!" strikes me as a bit funny as you promote science and fail to use what most scientists would call scientific method to prove it. You are going "sideways" for lack of a better. That scientific method was created to make sure that blind faith in something was not used to prove something.

Blind faith is a bit of a hypocritical statement there I should say, because believing in a book generated thousands of years ago without any question to its reliability of possible inaccuracy is not blind faith.

No, using your statement verbatim as you explain it WOULD BE Blind Faith.

That scientific method was created to make sure that blind faith in something was not used to prove something.

Well that has been proven all through this thread that it not only doesn't work that way but as Quantum Science has shown, it is a handicap.


- Con






[edit on 18-3-2008 by Conspiriology]

reply to post by Sublime620


Ummmmmm I am confused and sorry I am chiming in late with this.
How can one have a non-belief?
Sounds sort of like a non-thought to me.
Analogy. Not a statement that a non-belief is a non-thought.

You can believe something does exist.
You can believe something doesn't exist.
It's still a belief.
Especially when you note that a lot of people are quite militant in their not believing and believe that a perfect world would exist if everyone shared their belief of not believing.

It's still a belief. Someone gave thought to the question and then decided they didn't believe in whatever.

If they didn't why would they even bother with the label atheist?
Much less being quite militant about it as a few of them are.

I have seen a great many try to hide the fact that believe simply means that you think something is true. Which really shows that everything is a belief.
Atheists believe in the non-existance of a prime mover/higher power/god.

Umm its late but do you understand what I am saying? Or do I need to make another crack at it later?

reply to post by dave420


Reread the post please.
I stated them within that post.

reply to post by WraothAscendant


No, you didn't. You didn't even get close, you just wrote some words that sound vaguely like that, but they didn't mean anything.

This discussion is absolutely retarded. You've got one camp of people who like to weigh up evidence and make a decision based on that, and another group of people who read a book and have decided that's the only truth, and are unwilling to look at evidence rationally.

What a waste of God's gift.

reply to post by dave420


Rrrrrrriiiiiiiiigggggggggggggggghhhhhhhhhhhhhttttttttttttttttttttttt................

What such wonderful and blatant ignorance you have within the first sentence alone. It had no meaning because you didn't like what it said. *rolls his eyes* Must be great to be able to edit reality soooo favorably.
Arrogance and stupidity all in the same package.
How efficient of you.
You don't need a god you have yourself to fill those shoes.
Too bad ego has less substance than hot air as far as such things go.

Good day.
Say whatever you want to protect your ego as I will be ignoring you from here on in.

[edit on 18-3-2008 by WraothAscendant]