The Gullibility of Evolutionists

What I have always said in these situations, is who is to say that God did not create evolution?

This thread gets a star from me, as long as we can look at someone the other side of the table, and listen to their viewpoint instead of assuming what their viewpoint is, purely because they're the other side of the table, will always get a thumbs up from me. Good work.

Originally posted by WraothAscendant

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

You are correct on that wraoth, the very word "Atheist" indirectly acknowledges a God. Otherwise we would have lables for people that are Non Racist or A-Racists Non Astrology or A-astrologists. People who didn't believe in Scientology or A-scientologists etc; Then I guess they would all be telling us L. Ron Hubbard never existed or they would make it their mission to confuse and obfuscate the truth saying the book Dianetics contradicts itself or that Scientology was an Idea stolen from the pagans etc.

That would be pretty damn silly I know and if you seen it enough, they would be called "anti" scientologists because of their anti belief but ONLY those who have belief have something to take a stand on.

You either believe and stand for something or

you don't believe and stand for nothing at all.

Obviously, Atheism stands for something.

so obviously they believe in something

they just don't believe in what we do


Easy to grasp I think

- Con

Originally posted by unnamedninja
What I have always said in these situations, is who is to say that God did not create evolution?

This thread gets a star from me, as long as we can look at someone the other side of the table, and listen to their viewpoint instead of assuming what their viewpoint is, purely because they're the other side of the table, will always get a thumbs up from me. Good work.

The questions pretty academic don't you think? Evolution is to Advance Atheism which doesn't "believe" in God so naturally your answer to who is to say God didn't create evolution is answered. With a few exceptions,,

Evolutionists themselves would say that.

Thats who

- Con

hah, Ashely you have to admit, the title of this thread, and the text within your first post is all 100% bait material.

You call evolutionists ignorant, hypocritical, blind, gullible, and then state that you don't want to start a debate, and that you don't want to prove/disprove religion.

So what's the intention? To have a big pat-me-on-the-back and agree-with-me love fest thread?

I find the title and content of this post to be humorously ironic, as in I agree with everything you said, as long as you replace "Evolutionists" with "Religious Fundamentalists," and "scientists" with "fanatics."

Edit: Never mind.

Please delete if necessary. I'm simply too worn out.

[edit on 3/18/2008 by AshleyD]

Originally posted by scientist


You call evolutionists ignorant, hypocritical, blind, gullible, and then state that you don't want to start a debate, and that you don't want to prove/disprove religion.

Unless you think evolution is about religion.

So what's the intention? To have a big pat-me-on-the-back and agree-with-me love fest thread?

Is that what you think happened in all this?

I agree with everything you said, as long as you replace "Evolutionists" with "Religious Fundamentalists," and "scientists" with "fanatics."

Well had you been through this from the start, you could have had agreed they all act the same.


-Con



[edit on 18-3-2008 by Conspiriology]

reply to post by Conspiriology


Evolution is only a religious issue with people whose religion says it's not true. The rest of the world happily accepts the theory, helped in no small part by its masses of supporting evidence.

Evolution is only questioned by those who learn about the world from bronze-age books written by fishermen.

reply to post by dave420


I will assure you that when the world is embroiled in tribulation it will be common sense to disbelieve evolution. God is in control.

Originally posted by dave420
reply to post by Conspiriology

 

Evolution is only a religious issue with people whose religion says it's not true. The rest of the world happily accepts the theory, helped in no small part by its masses of supporting evidence.

Evolution is only questioned by those who learn about the world from bronze-age books written by fishermen.

You guys need to get your story straight and btw your evidence is nothing but a history of LIES. Do your research and try not lieing to yourself just because it fits in with the Atheists memeplex lifestyle

Evolution is Manufactured BUNK Ipso Facto. They lied at the scopes trials using junk evidence passed off as fact called piltdown man (so much for empiracle evidence) Then you used the scopes trial as case law to win Dover so BOTH cases should be over turned.

Bronze age? that bronze aged book talks all about this bogus science and the double talk of Atheists talkin out both sides of their mouths using subtle lies that would even fool the elect they speak using the forked toungue of a snake spewing hatred of Christians.

So try muttering your cookie cutter condescending remarks to someone less wise.. Besides I have seen that same post so much it makes wonder if Atheists can even think for themselves anymore.

They got people runnin all over the world for over a hundred years desperate to find any animals changing into something using that self refuting garbage they call Natural Selection.

Now all of a sudden I see the whole world is Scientists and they are all atheists activley NOT believing in GOD who are so busy disbelieving it they have gone from being the Science community to Atheist Fundie

It is poetic justice when a group so full of hate finally gets smart enough to see THEY ARE EXACTLY WHAT THEY HATE MOST IN CHRISTIANS. Judgemental, holier then thous, know it alls prosyletizing like funamentalist evangelists the guise of pseudo science.

Knowing Atheist,, when ever they finally take a look in the mirror,,

They'll blame the mirror.

- Con

reply to post by Conspiriology


Clearly you're incapable of reading any research into evolution without throwing it out (unless it's one of the very, very few isolated cases of either hoaxing or mistakes). The amount of evidence supporting evolution far, far, FAR outweighs any evidence that contradicts it. The bible, however, has no supporting evidence apart from itself, and that's about as useless as evidence goes.

The fact you say "deny ignorance", then continue to spout these ridiculous, pathetic assertions completely removed from reality and devoid of any supporting evidence is, well, what I'd expect from someone with such a chip on their shoulder.

You have nothing. Creationism has nothing. Evolution has everything. Deal with it, grow a pair, learn to learn, and maybe you'll get through this life without those blinkers you seem to love so much.

Good luck!

reply to post by Conspiriology


Your latest post shows a stunning lack of knowledge. "...running around trying to find animals changing..." is just nonsense. Until you can begin to try to comprehend the immensity of timescales involved in what we now see as the incredible diversity of life on this planet you will, unfortunately, always be stuck in your dogmatic rut. A shame, really.

Incredible assertions require equally incredible supporting evidence. Creationism is an incredible assertion, with ZERO supporting evidence. Evolution is an active, vibrant, working theory with volumes of supporting evidence...and as a theory, while the base assumptions remain the same, details fill in as more and more is discovered.

Finally, I see a common tense in your thoughts, as revealed in your posts...you apparently equate evolution with godlessness...that is a very bad assumption on your part. Instead of tossing around terms like 'Atheist' and trying to tie that to Evolution, go study some real science. You may find it will add depth to your faith....

Originally posted by Conspiriology
LIES.

Con is the expert on this, I think. We should all listen intently. Or maybe just check up on almost everything he says. He's the best example of the gullibility of creationists we have. Not you yourself, con. As I don't think you actually believe half you state

Or maybe I'm overestimating. Basically, I look at the cookies he attracts, and on this ocassion can clearly see a gullibility index of two.

They lied at the scopes trials using junk evidence passed off as fact called piltdown man (so much for empiracle evidence) Then you used the scopes trial as case law to win Dover so BOTH cases should be over turned.

The Scopes trail was the prosecution of some teacher who attempted to bring evolution into the classroom. He did this in a bible-belt state which had a law (Butler act) which prohibited such actions.

Scopes was found guilty, and fined. The conviction was eventually overturned on a technicality at Supreme court. The Butler act remained in place in Tenessee until 1967 (rofl).

Dover was a funny trial which showed that ID is creationism in a tuxedo, and most certainly not science.

The case that you probably think should be overturned was the 1987 one, Edwards vs. someone. This essentially prohibited teaching creationism in the science classroom in the US. As previously, when evolution was mentioned, creation had to mentioned alongside in this particular state (rofl).

Don't know why you don't just fight for RE classes in schools. Of course, I can see that this would lead to zealous fundiegelicals indoctrinating, rather than providing a lesson in comparative theology. Can't be trusted I guess.

[edit on 19-3-2008 by melatonin]

Originally posted by dave420
Evolution is only questioned by those who learn about the world from bronze-age books written by fishermen.

Le sigh.

That is not true. In the 60+ pages of this thread there have been non Christians (therefore, not Genesis creationists) who have also brought up skepticism concerning [macro] evolution. Examples were given of even secular scientists who have a problem with it.

Psst. The NT also took place during the ANE's iron age. Not the bronze age. That's OT. The Genesis account (bronze age) wasn't written by fishermen. Only some NT books during the Iron age.

OT: Bronze age. Not Fishermen.
NT: Iron age. Some Fishermen.

Also, I noticed your use of the word 'questioned.' Isn't skepticism one of the opposites of gullibility? Again, no one is questioning micro. We're questioning long term macro and have already brought up our arguments in this thread.

Originally posted by weedwhacker
Incredible assertions require equally incredible supporting evidence. Creationism is an incredible assertion, with ZERO supporting evidence.

I'm still confused as to why creationism is constantly compared to evolution in this thread. Of course we know the heated debate that goes on between the two. However, as has already been pointed out, one being wrong does not mean the other is automatically right. So why is it when macro gets questioned, the finger is pointed at creationism? Of course I am a creationist but even I can see disproving evolution does not automatically mean creationism is correct.

Skyfloating and myself have already pointed this out before.

But it all ties back into page two of this thread and is an interesting psychological experiment. It seems both sides are awfully dogmatic in their defense because they think if one is true the other cannot be.

Originally posted by AshleyD
Examples were given of even secular scientists who have a problem with it.

It tends to be about the mechanisms, not the existence of evolution, macro or micro. The macroevolution thing is just a shell-game you like to play.

You have no evidence of any barrier to little changes becoming big changes over long periods of time. You either think that species/classes/genera were created ex nihilo; so as we go along time, a magic-man poofing into existence all those species you determine as being 'kinds' (whatever the FSM they are) and possessing some magic barrier (the poofter obviously places it when enough evolution has happened), or they evolved by common descent as the wealth of evidence suggests.

So, 3.4 billion before present. Poof! Bacteria.

poof!

poof!

etc...

570 million bp. Poof! Arthropods.

poof!

poof!

etc...

500 million bp. Poof! Fish.

poof!

poof!

etc...

475 million bp. Poof! Land plants.

poof!

poof!

etc...

400 million bp. Poof! Insects (and soon after the poofters favourite - Beetles?).

poof!

poof!

etc...

365 million bp. Poof! Fishapods.

poof! etc...

300 million bp. Poof! Reptiles.

poof! etc

200 million bp. Poof! Mammals.

poof! etc

150 million bp. Poof! Birds.

poof! etc

100 million bp. Poof! Flowers.

poof!

200,000yrs bp. Poof! Modern humans. Hurrah!!!! Poofter's children.

But lets not forget. Each of the major genera within the classes/paraphyletic groups would have had to have been poofed as well (thus, poof! dog; poof! cat; poof! rabbit.; poof! chimp - as noted by the intraclass poofs - as we must make the barrier small enough to separate other apes from the poofter's ape). A whole lot of poofting going on.

All because macro is apparently 'questioned', nothing to do with religion like, heh.

[edit on 19-3-2008 by melatonin]

reply to post by melatonin


I would be much more inclined to believe that an intelligent designer "poofed", as you put it, into existance new species, rather than rely on random mutation driven by the grossly inadequate mechanism of "natural selection".

As far as I know, there have been no lab experiments proving that random mutations result in new species.

The fruit fly mutations have resulted in multiple configurations of wings, antenna, even legs,,,,,but after all the experiments...they are still fruit flies.


And lets not leave out the unanswered question regarding th "Origin of Life". No known mechanism has been shown that can overcome the enormous odds that random amino acids can form into the complex proteins needed for life.

Evolutionists view:

Soup of amino acids;..."Poof" ....long strands of proteins.
Long strands of protein:..."Poof" ...RNA, DNA, Peptides, Cell MEmbrane...
Sigle cell....."Poof".....ability to reproduce.....
.......ect. I think more "Poofs" are req'd in the Evolutionists play book.



[edit on 19-3-2008 by Sparky63]

Originally posted by Sparky63
I would be much more inclined to believe that an intelligent designer "poofed", as you put it, into existance new species, rather that rely on random mutation driven by the grossly inadequate mechanism of "natural selection".

As far as I know, ther have been no lab expreiments prooving that random mutations result in new species.

We have seen new species evolve. Unless there was the hand of the magical biochemist fiddling with genes, then it was natural.

Original Article
Culex pipiens in London Underground tunnels: differentiation between surface and subterranean populations

Katharine Byrne and Richard A Nichols

Queen Mary and Westfield College, University of London, Mile End Road, London E1 4NS, U.K.

Correspondence to: BYRNE KATHARINE, Conservation Genetics Group, Institute of Zoology, Regents Park, London NW1 4RY, U.K. E-mail: [email protected]


Abstract

Genetic variation was quantified between surface-dwelling populations of Culex pipiens and the so-called molestus form found in the London Underground (the Underground) railway system. The molestus form is a commercially important biting nuisance and in the southern part of its range is also a disease vector. The surface and subterranean populations were genetically distinct, with no evidence of gene flow between closely adjacent populations of the different forms, whereas there was little differentiation between the different populations of each form. The substantially reduced heterozygosity in the Underground populations and the allelic composition suggest that colonization of the Underground has occurred once or very few times. Breeding experiments show compatibility between the Underground populations but not with those breeding above ground. There is evidence of greater gene flow and a mixing of molestus and pipiens traits in the south of the species range. This paper considers the processes that may allow establishment of reproductive isolation in the north of the species range but not in the south.

www.nature.com...

Review
Nature Reviews Genetics 5, 114-122 (February 2004) | doi:10.1038/nrg1269


Genes and speciation
Chung-I Wu1 & Chau-Ti Ting2 About the authors

Abstract
It is only in the past five years that studies of speciation have truly entered the molecular era. Recent molecular analyses of a handful of genes that are involved in maintaining reproductive isolation between species (speciation genes) have provided some striking insights. In particular, it seems that despite being strongly influenced by positive selection, speciation genes are often non-essential, having functions that are only loosely coupled to reproductive isolation. Molecular studies might also resolve the long-running debate on the relative importance of allopatric and parapatric modes of speciation.

The fruit fly mutations have resulted in multiple configurations of wings, antenna, even legs,,,,,but after all the experiments...they are still fruit flies.

Fruit flies are used in speciation studies.

Nature 375, 674 - 675 (22 June 1995); doi:10.1038/375674a0

Speciation driven by natural selection in Drosophila

Mohamed A. Noor

Department of Ecology and Evolution, University of Chicago, 1101 East 57th Street, Chicago, Illinois 60637, USA


REINFORCEMENT is the process by which natural selection strengthens sexual isolation between incipient species, reducing the frequency of maladaptive hybridization and hence completing reproductive isolation. Although this model of speciation was once widely accepted1,2, its plausibility3,4 and experimental support5–7 have been recently attacked. Here we provide an example of speciation by reinforcement, in the North American fruitfly Drosophila pseudoobscura. The results suggest that females of D. pseudoobscura evolved increased sexual isolation from their sibling species, D. persimilis, by natural selection against maladaptive hybridization.

Soup of amino acids;..."Poof" ....long strands of proteins.
Long strands of protein:..."Poof" ...RNA, DNA, Peptides, Cell MEmbrane...
Sigle cell....."Poof".....ability to reproduce.....
.......ect. I think more "Poofs" are req'd in the Evolutionists play book.

And in this case, 'poof' would be equivalent to natural processes we know exist. Chemistry, rather than magic.

However, this is actually abiogenesis, and as Ashie likes to point out you could believe in a poofter creating that first organism, and still accept evolution - macro and micro. Considering it was macro I was focusing on, not so relevant. Lets say one poof is better than multiple poofs.

I think Behe, a major IDer, might fit this profile - he likes a single poof, probably involving a facteria blagellum.

I guess scientists are going to be stuck with that initial 'poof' unless they can create life out of chemicals in the lab in a reproducible way. Somehow i don't think that day will ever arrive....

A poof by any other name is still a poof

Originally posted by Bigwhammy
A poof by any other name is still a poof

Well, you can either open your arms to the single poof, or just say 'don't know', we have lots of ideas, some good findings, and it appears that poofs are not required.

You takes your choice, heh.

reply to post by melatonin


Until there's proof it still a poof

It's evidenece of the creator staring you right in the face but you guys are in denial...

I'll wait until you create life from chemicals then I'll listen to you.

Originally posted by Bigwhammy
It's evidenece of the creator staring you right in the face but you guys are in denial...

I'll wait until you create life from chemicals then I'll listen to you.

But ignorance is not evidence? (here I mean, our lack of understanding =/= poof).

That would be a 'poof of the gaps' argument. Not much different than those who thought that lightning was thor being a mardy poofter.

Ixnay on the oofpay

ABE: if, and when, we create life from chemicals, creationists will use it as evidence of intelligent design, trust me. Anything is evidence for that, even ignorance.

[edit on 19-3-2008 by melatonin]