The Gullibility of Evolutionists

reply to post by melatonin


Mel. Not that I agree with the logical twist I am about to use but here it goes. When asking about the massive lack of transitional (insanely disproportionate to the amount of other fossils found) we are told 'fossilization is rare.'

We point out the fact billions of fossils have been found only to be told basically transitional species did exist but they just weren't fossilized. Now you tell me about the fossil layers and dating (which is an amazing case in circular logic in itself) and the lack of other species in older layers.

So I'll just say fossilization is such a rare process that other species weren't fossilized when the bacteria, fish, and insects were but they did exist during the time, dag nab it.

Originally posted by AshleyD
Mel. Not that I agree with the logical twist I am about to use but here it goes. When asking about the massive lack of transitional (insanely disproportionate to the amount of other fossils found) we are told 'fossilization is rare.'

We point out the fact billions of fossils have been found only to be told basically transitional species did exist but they just weren't fossilized. Now you tell me about the fossil layers and dating (which is an amazing case in circular logic in itself) and the lack of other species in older layers.

So I'll just say fossilization is such a rare process that other species weren't fossilized when the bacteria, fish, and insects were but they did exist during the time, dag nab it.

Eh? Did someone tell you to say that, ash? That's pretty incoherent.

We do have many transitional fossils (and here I'm talking about those bridging major transitions). We could have more, but hey-ho, as you note fossilisation is pretty rare, and we are looking for particular species in a haystack of a big earth, lots of laid down strata and only certain layers exposed. When we know where to look, we find them fairly well (e.g., Tiktaalik).

So, basically, what you are saying is that in layers 3.4 billion years old, we should find human fossils, it's just because fossilisation is rare that we haven't found any. Indeed, that's the reason we have found not a single sign of any vertebrates during that period. In fact, the same applies for inverts, they are there, we just haven't found them. When we find arthropoda appearing, all the other genera did exist, again, just those species failed to fossilise. Even things like pollen, which gets everywhere in later strata (i.e., post-devonian), and actually increases in abundance as the plants diverge and multiply.

Amazingly, although appearance of fossils in the strata, along with the homology, fits very well with the molecular genetic evidence, this is a complete coincidence.

Thus the evidence of gradual divergence in life on earth is wrong because all the fossils are hiding where we can't find them, or they just never fossilised. But they were poofed into existence in one go. That's quite some faith you have there, ash.

Originally posted by melatonin
Eh? Did someone tell you to say that, ash? That's pretty incoherent.

Yes, in this very thread.

Oh, Edit: I thought you said did someone else say that. God, I'm burned out but I feel like a rude thread hostess if I don't reply. lol

We do have many transitional fossils (and here I'm talking about those bridging major transitions). We could have more, but hey-ho, as you note fossilisation is pretty rare, and we are looking for particular species in a haystack of a big earth, lots of laid down strata and only certain layers exposed. When we know where to look, we find them fairly well (e.g., Tiktaalik).

I do not believe fossilization is 'rare,' all things considered. That is what evolutionists keep trying to tell me. I have a hard time calling things that number in the billions rare.

It's kind of hard to pin you guys in a debate when the evidence perspective changes to the desired need is what I'm saying.

In fact, the same applies for inverts, they are there, we just haven't found them. When we find arthropoda appearing, all the other genera did exist, again, just those species failed to fossilise.

Amazing.

That's quite some faith you have there, ash.

Likewise.

Anyways, this thread is starting to make me feel like a . Au revoir.

[edit on 3/19/2008 by AshleyD]

Originally posted by AshleyD
I do not believe fossilization is 'rare,' all things considered. That is what evolutionists keep trying to tell me. I have a hard time calling things that number in the billions rare.

But it depends what you are looking for. I know a few places near to me where I can look on the ground and find tonnes of fossils, but only a few not so interesting species really. When I was in the yucatan, I found lots of fossil coral and other shells in areas of exposed limestone.

You can go to some places and find ammonites by the bucket-load. Not so easy to find major terrestrial vertebrates, and I'm sure you can agree it would be harder to find one particular target group of species - e.g., those that transition between say reptiles and mammals. However, we do have some. And it's a good series of fossils that show exactly what we would expect. Much easier when we know where and when in the strata to look.

The rarity is predominately due to the particular conditions required for good fossilisation. Things that just drop dead on an open terrestrial plain ain't gonna be good candidates. However, to think that the conditions couldn't be met 3.4 billion years ago, but did appear for each species gradually just in a way that coincides with other converging evidence for common descent (e.g., molecular and homology) is a tad far-fetched. we have better series for sea creatures as they fossilise better, but not so much for soft-bodied creatures (e.g., pre-cambrian stuff).

It's kind of hard to pin you guys in a debate when the evidence perspective changes to the desired need is what I'm saying.

What do you want me to say? That what you said makes perfect sense? It doesn't really. Sorry.

I'll debate whatever you like, ash. I'm fairly open to admitting where we are ignorant of stuff. I even gave you an easy out for poofing earlier - whammy took it. I don't agree, but at least it doesn't require widescale denial of well-supported scientific claims.

As you state, it doesn't matter what evidence people can show, there is one fixed belief that can't be overcome in your case. I don't see why common descent is such a big issue for you. There is lots of evidence of it, enough even for the likes of Michael Behe.

Anyways, this thread is starting to make me feel like a

. Au revoir.

Sorry you feel that way. Take care, ash.

Originally posted by melatonin
What do you want me to say? That what you said makes perfect sense? It doesn't really. Sorry.

You weren't supposed to, Mel. That is kind of what I was getting at and why I said, "Not that I agree with the logical twist I am about to use but here it goes." All I did was repeat arguments I've seen evolutionists make on various threads on ATS and spin it around to show how silly it is.

I'll debate whatever you like, ash. I'm fairly open to admitting where we are ignorant of stuff.

I know you are, Hon. I've seen you admit such things. You've also never accused me of being a 'creationist crackpot' or 'liar for Jesus' so we're cool.

I even gave you an easy out for poofing earlier - whammy took it.

Why, that's mighty gracious of you Mel but I'm kind of a dead horse beater.

Take care, ash.

You too, Hon.

Originally posted by melatonin
poof!

poof!

etc...

Originally posted by Bigwhammy
I guess scientists are going to be stuck with that initial 'poof...'

A poof by any other name is still a poof

Someone just sent this to me in a U2U (And I got their permission to post this). Hope it gives everyone as good of a laugh as it gave me. It was hysterical:

I can just see Jesus running around singing that rap tune...

Poof there it is- Bop bop- Poof there it is -bip bop- Poof there it is - Poof there it is...

and all the little critters appearing....

and everybody sing Go Jesus Go jesus Go jesus Go Jesus

I might be losing the plot at this point but I laughed myself into tears at that. Hope it at least gives you guys a smile.

But back on topic: I think that's pretty fair to agree on an initial 'poof' at the very least. I don't agree but it's nice to see that some can admit it as a possibility.

reply to post by AshleyD


Here's you Ash, except you're prettier and not a smart mouth so much!










[edit on 19-3-2008 by Clearskies]

reply to post by Clearskies

More evidence this thread should have been moved to bts. There has been NO discussion.. just creationists calling 'evolutionists' gullible and evolutionists defending themselves and posting scientific evidence to show they're not [which gets ignored anyway].

Where's the conspiracy?


Now the thread has turned into posting comics of 'poofs' and talking about jesus rapping.

[edit on 19-3-2008 by riley]

reply to post by riley


I've posted a lot of heavier stuff.
It's good to be a little funny sometimes.

reply to post by riley


Riley, it was just a bit of comic relief after 60+ pages of very heated discussion. It was also on topic due to the 'poof' vs. 'evolve' discussion taking place on the preceding pages when discussing the fossil layers. Nobody is out to get you. I promise. I noticed you stuck up for another thread that was suggested to be moved to BTS but are now saying this one should be when it has indeed turned into a very in depth discussion.

Whether or not this thread gets moved (don't care), closed (pretty please), or sits on it's big fat butt 'as is' is up to the mods and anything they choose to do is fine with me. Nothing worth getting excited about either way.

Originally posted by AshleyD
reply to post by riley

 

Riley, it was just a bit of comic relief after 60+ pages of very heated discussion.

Heated discussion usually arise when someone baits people into them.

It was also on topic due to the 'poof' vs. 'evolve' discussion taking place on the preceding pages when discussing the fossil layers. Nobody is out to get you. I promise.

I never said they were. nice deflection.. :shk:

I noticed you stuck up for another thread that was suggested to be moved to BTS but are now saying this one should be when it has indeed turned into a very in depth discussion.

That thread was CLEARLY on topic as it was discussing the use of the word 'evolutionists' as a tool of propoganda by creationist groups conspiring against ToE; I made that pretty clear in that thread. A moderator had in fact mentioned moving it to bts [despite it being very much conspiracy orientated] and someone else said that wouldn't be fair and I agreed with them. What you have NOT made clear is how 'the gullibility of evolution' is a conspiracy rather than just a prejudiced opinion of people who accept ToE. I'm not fond of the idea of you 'noticing' what I say [out of context] as though I only want pro-evolution theads moved and others not either.. that is not the case. I just think the intellectual standard of this forum has suffered greatly because people keep treating it as a creationist chatroom where the only thing achieved is points, ignorance reigns supreme and people start acting as though it's okay to consider the bible is reputable scientific journal and ToE a religion as if they are interchangable. huh? what happened to the 'denying ignorance' part..?

I noticed you started actually engaging madd in intelligent discourse.. and I give you credit for that but suddenly you derailed your own discussion because you decided there was a need for 'comic relief'? Why? Someone had already been posting creationist spam/comics before and the mods had to crack down on it:

If you think it's too antagonistic get back on topic..

..oh hang on. thats right.. the subject itself is antagonistic so heated discussion is inevitable - hense this need to waste half the thread on 'comic relief' trying to bring it balance [which of course puts it back off topic].

I really can see the merits behind some of the guidelines and the existence of BTS.

..and yes I'm aware that you've expressed regret for not having a different thread title and have mentioned it being moved deleted before.

You have tried to take some responsiblity for that.. thing is it was the moderators who chose not to change the title despite being aware that it would piss people off so thats not really your fault either [someone posted just recently about the title]. The result is continued flamewars.. 'comic relief' and damage control where mods have to post every five minutes telling people to get back ontopic.. even though the topic is what causes the flame wars in the first place.

Round and round we go..

..never mind. I hope I have explained my frustration adequately. It is not about you personally [atm ] but more about the direction ATS and the forum itself is going in. This place used to be alot of 'grown up' imo.

[edit on 20-3-2008 by riley]

reply to post by riley


Here you go, Riley.

I'll take whatever the outcome may be with full acceptance.

May I, as just a regular member, with no particular axe to grind, invite a few of us to go back to page 1 and read the OP's premise?

I hate to see a thread de-volve (!?!?...pun intended) into endless anonymous internet bickering.

Yes, the use of the word 'gullibility' tends to inflame...but, consider --- was that not the point? To STIMULATE conversation? Not a to-and-fro of ideology, but honest-to-goodness debate???

Let's see, about a month and a half, and now 60+ pages, some pages lost in rhetoric, and thus forgettable...let's re-focus?

Thanks.

[edit to add]

I just read Riley's post, and nothing I said was directed at that member, nor any other member who has posted. I guess I'm just trying to be Switzerland here, to help people think about taking a collective breath, and re-thinking without emotion getting in the way...

[edit on 20-3-2008 by weedwhacker]

Originally posted by AshleyD
reply to post by riley

 

Here you go, Riley.

I'll take whatever the outcome may be with full acceptance.

Nice. I really tried to be sincere and concise with you.. even giving you credit for some things yet you hit me with that.. :shk:

Did you ever personally ask admin to change the title? just wondering.


[edit on 20-3-2008 by riley]

reply to post by riley


riley, I've added you to my friends list, guess you knew that. I like what you write, I enjoy your clarity.

Sometimes...it is anonymous, and it is frustrating...in this realm we can only write, we have no body language, no inflection in the voice, non of the signals we humans are used to as we evolved communication skills, so I share your frustration...

We will convince only with measured, logical points. Emotions get lost on the internet...hate to say it, but it's true.

[just adding...]

Gosh, I've been on ATS since Sept 2007....and NOT ONCE has anyone mentioned whether they noticed the profundity of my 'signature' quote. I'm actually quite proud of Dr. Sagan for coining it....



[edit on 20-3-2008 by weedwhacker]

reply to post by riley


Riley, I was being 100% sincere as well. I have seen the mods step in when things like that are said and state if you have a complaint to use that form. I was actually trying to be nice to save you from getting in trouble.

If I was trying to be sarcastic, I would have said something like, "Oh, and Riley. Don't be biased now. Be a good dear and let them know about THIS thread as well."

But I didn't. Anyways, I was trying to be helpful and see this is an argument I'm not going to win so take care. I will be bowing out of this thread from now on.

*curtsies*

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by riley

 

riley, I've added you to my friends list, guess you knew that.

I didn't actually. Usually it shows up green.. looks like I have another glitch in my account. thanks for the head up.

I like what you write, I enjoy your clarity.

Thankyou.

Sometimes...it is anonymous, and it is frustrating...in this realm we can only write, we have no body language, no inflection in the voice, non of the signals we humans are used to as we evolved communication skills, so I share your frustration...

Aside form emoticons.. I think people have adapted quite nicely to being able to express varying emotions. We all know caps-lock is yelling.. but sometimes people ease up on punctuation in order to make things more relaxed'.. and the context of something definently shows it's intent. Also.. posting styles become very familiar so when someone says something you know what context it's in.

We will convince only with measured, logical points. Emotions get lost on the internet...hate to say it, but it's true.

I agree.

[edit on 20-3-2008 by riley]

Originally posted by AshleyD
reply to post by riley

 

Riley, I was being 100% sincere as well. I have seen the mods step in when things like that are said and state if you have a complaint to use that form. I was actually trying to be nice to save you from getting in trouble.

You were doing it for my own good now? You've just confirmed you were being sarcastic.
Why would I get in trouble? Your last few posts have been comic relief and offtopic..

If I was trying to be sarcastic, I would have said something like, "Oh, and Riley. Don't be biased now. Be a good dear and let them know about THIS thread as well."

You're kidding aren't ya?
The "creationists are gullible" thread was [obviously] done in reaction to this one.
If it had've been deleted then it would have looked like you were getting special treatment and would have caused an uproar. I believe thats the point the OP of the other thread was making. Whats good for the goose. etc.

Pat yourself on the shoulder for starting a trend where name calling in thread titles is allowed and common practice.

[edit on 20-3-2008 by riley]

Originally posted by riley
You've just confirmed you were being sarcastic.

Someone saying they weren't being sarcastic really means they were being sarcastic. Got it.

Why would I get in trouble? Your last few posts have been comic relief and offtopic..

I only made one comment that was in jest but at the end of that same comment I still tied it all back into what we were talking about before: The spark of life that started off evolution, abiogenesis, in the 'poof' vs. 'evolution' discussion. You're trying to get me in trouble- I get it already, Riley. Sorry to tell you, the comment started off as something funny then was tied into the actual serious discussion in an effort to not have an off topic comment.

Sorry comments mixed in with humor offend you. Tough.

The "creationists are gullible" thread was [obviously] done in reaction to this one.

Of course it was and I realize that. So was another one in the faith forum. The difference is, no one is acting like a cry baby over those threads.

If it had've been deleted then it would have looked like you were getting special treatment and would have caused an uproar.

I don't want it deleted, Riley. That author has every right to make a spin off thread or ten spin off threads if he/she wants. It's none of my business and I have no right to tell him what posts to create. Contrary to you. The funny thing is, this entire thread was somewhat of a spin off for all the heat creationists receive around here. Then... oh sweet baby Jesus... here comes everyone who can dish it out but can't take it.

Pat yourself on the shoulder for starting a trend where name calling in thread titles is allowed and common practice.

Do I get an award? Maybe a cool title under my user name? Oh wait. Never mind. There are dozens of insulting titles geared towards Christianity (that don't even faze me because my belief can withstand it). I guess I'm not a trend setter after all. Just a copycat.

Originally posted by AshleyD

Originally posted by riley
You've just confirmed you were being sarcastic.

Someone saying they weren't being sarcastic really means they were being sarcastic. Got it.

It seems innate with you. you're still doing it. You even went as far as posting a link to the 'gullibilty of creationists' thread. not exactly the actions of a passive person.

Why would I get in trouble? Your last few posts have been comic relief and offtopic..

I only made one comment that was in jest but at the end of that same comment I still tied it all back into what we were talking about before: The spark of life that started off evolution, abiogenesis, in the 'poof' vs. 'evolution' discussion.

AGAIN. Evolution and abiogenesis are not the same thing.. how many times do creationists need to be told this?

You're trying to get me in trouble- I get it already, Riley. Sorry to tell you, the comment started off as something funny then was tied into the actual serious discussion in an effort to not have an off topic comment.

Climb down from your cross.. I was NOT trying to get you into trouble. I expressed my annoyance at people posting cartoon bubbles and using the forum for creationist chit chat.

The thead gets that heated that you need comic relief? Deal with it. You brang it on yourself.

I would prefer not to come back to this thread.. I have said my piece about the way the forum is being run.

[edit on 20-3-2008 by riley]