The Gullibility of Evolutionists

reply to post by Bigwhammy
Hmm, maybe it's because I don't understand biology and inner workings of evolution, but that seemed like a really difficult question to just pop the answer out to. It would seem what he eventually ended up saying didn't have much to do with the question. However seeing how the tape stopped rolling, who's to say that his response wasn't to a different question, and that he didn't answer the first question satisfactorily, we just didn't see it in this particular clip. In any case, I wouldn't say he was pwned, all I could say for certain was that he needed a little time to figure out his answer, the tape stopped rolling... and who knows what happened after that.

reply to post by Gigatronix


He wasn't "pwned" in the slightest. He realised he was being interviewed by a creationist, not a scientist, and that's why the pause happened. He didn't know whether to answer their question, have a go at them for being dishonest, or just throw them out. Here's Dawkins' own take on what happened.

Originally posted by WraothAscendant
Sort of like saying there is no higher power/prime mover/god........

One of these things is not like the others,
One of these things just doesn't belong,
Can you tell which thing is not like the others
By the time I finish my song?

Did you guess which thing was not like the others?
Did you guess which thing just doesn't belong?
If you guessed this one is not like the others,

*points to prime mover*

Then you're absolutely...right!

a prime mover is not necessarily a supernatural entity or any other sort of nonscientific supernatural phenomenon. it can be an entirely natural thing.

now, i've actually never said there is no god
i've said i don't believe in a god, that the concept is not scientific, and that it is not something to believe in unless there is evidence to believe in it

Unless of course you have that concrete, tangible proof I have been asking for since the beginning.

the problem for you is that the burden of proof is not on me
the burden of proof is on the one making a claim that it exists

by your logic you have to disprove the existence of the flying spaghetti monster, the invisible pink unicorn, cthulu, garage dragons, and russel's teapot

you cannot disprove the existence of them, yet you still don't believe in them because no proof has been offered to you to show you that they exist.

that's how i am with deities. you have to prove their existence. until such a time, i shall not believe in them.

reply to post by WraothAscendant


You cannot prove a negative. If there is no God, it cannot be proven that one does not exist.

Asking to prove God doesn't exist is an unreasonable and quite silly demand. You don't ask someone to prove their innocence, that's impossible. Instead, one can only refute the ideas and accusations of the other side.

If there is no God, there is no proof. Only you can prove anything like that. The only thing an atheist can do issue rebuttals to religion's ideas.

reply to post by Bigwhammy


You fail at discussions.

But honestly, "owned"?

His response was pretty good, actually. It seemed to me, he just felt a bit awkward because he knew what the question was hinting at. Seems like the film was edited, I wonder what happened between. Perhaps he had her clarify the question, or maybe he needed to gather his thoughts.

Doesn't matter, I know Whammy's reponse already:

"It was a joke, OMG."

Good contribution.

I'm really starting to think this whole discussion is over Whammy's head.

[edit on 25-3-2008 by Sublime620]

Yet it clearly works in such accurate precision doesn't it. The distance from the sun, the way protons circle around the way the moon is just the right size and if we tweaked in the slightest, we'd be dead. Ashley isn't merely making an assumption madd, she sees evidence of God everywhere while you see it too, you just give creation another excuse as to how it got here. The more I research evolution, the more impossible it looks. I know it has had a very questionable past and to this day,, I have read the terminology, and it is like constantly changing. Not like you believe though,, it seems to change mechanisms that have to be present, whenever they have either debunked it by another science coming up with a discovery that makes assertions evolutioninst have made un true. Yet the many times this has happened, that mechanism was known as scientific fact. Unless man interferes with a genetically made gene jumping bean,, to allow for a species to change into another,, you will not ever see that happen.

Now I know the itty bitty changes and the mantra "given enough time given enough time".

BIG or little, we should be seeing evolution, and I should be able to say that without all that scientific mumbo jumbo that amounts to nothing but making excuses for it.

Evolution has been grabbing the coattails of variation, speciation, micro adaptations, etc,. Now we have to call it "micro "evolution" to build Darwin's relic theory so they will feel like it has at least some parts of it they can prove.

It is yet another excuse and when Darwin realized this the adjustments in time enter in. Now we are looking for changes but Science again got sick of being held back by a theory Atheists NEED to survive it seems like. The changes were too big. Now they say it will happen if they are in small increments. However, the best they can say again, is, given enough time, given enough time the changes will occur, but mathematically it gets less likely to happen over time not more likely.

Save for a super natural force, time can no more PROVE evolution, then it can Produce evolution. In the meantime,, Christians get ridiculed for stem cell research while evolutionists are still kicking a DEAD HORSE.

I guess,, given enough kicks over time given enough kicks over time,,

Junk Science

- Con


[edit on 25-3-2008 by Conspiriology]

Originally posted by Sublime620


You cannot prove a negative. If there is no God, it cannot be proven that one does not exist.

Yes you can,, I can prove their isn't a foot at the end of my elbow.

Asking to prove God doesn't exist is an unreasonable and quite silly demand.

It is as unreasonable as proving I don't have a foot at the end of my elbow.

Silly? Opinions vary.

You don't ask someone to prove their innocence, that's impossible. Instead, one can only refute the ideas and accusations of the other side.

.

Interesting you would use the precepts of jurisprudence as were taken from the Judeo Christian Religion. it is incumbent on the accuser in a court of law to prove a mans guilt until he is guilty as charged, due process dictates his default status of innocence grants him the right to keep that status till someone can prove he is guilty whereby the man relinquishes his rights AFTER he is proven guilty.

Where anyone got the idea to put the onus on the person who already believes there is a God Ill never know. God isn't a problem for anyone to think in,, it seems it IS a problem for others that we believe it. So they start coming out with fake science and Christian hate books, start ridiculing us taking some 18- 20 salem witches, embellishing it as if we had our own holocaust telling everyone they can perpetuate this lie, that it was hundreds of thousands..

Then I am supposed to believe the scientific method is going to be all logic, all fact? Not from what I have seen from the Atheist community.

To ask a believer to prove God exists while you already implied he is a "negative" is the very reason you have to excuse yourself from the situation of not having to prove he doesn't to doing just that. You have prejudiced yourself as impartial, so we end up saying you don't believe there is a God so you don't believe there is evidence, if you don't believe in the evidence then whammy can no more prove it or disprove it.

The Scientific Method is only as fair as the disbelief we have and everyone that is anyone knows this much about Atheist's,, that what ever they believe,, all we ever hear is what they don't. So Now mind for the possibilites is no mind for discoverying things we had not known of much less believed existed, till we expand the range of our shared experience without prejudice,,


Logic will always be in the eye,

of the logician

- Con

.





[edit on 25-3-2008 by Conspiriology]

reply to post by Conspiriology


...Wow. That is some flawed logic my friend.

Feet exist. Elbows exist. If feet didn't exist, you could not prove you did not have a foot on your elbow. It would be up to someone to prove that you did, and all you could do is refute the evidence they present.

Can you prove that you don't have a smoogle on the end of your elbow?

Originally posted by Sublime620
reply to post by Conspiriology

 

...Wow. That is some flawed logic my friend.

Feet exist. Elbows exist. If feet didn't exist, you could not prove you did not have a foot on your elbow. It would be up to someone to prove that you did, and all you could do is refute the evidence they present.

Can you prove that you don't have a smoogle on the end of your elbow?

Flawed logic?? I won't embarrass you by telling you where that old example of logic comes from.

other then that,,

WRONG

- Con

Originally posted by Sublime620
Can you prove that you don't have a smoogle on the end of your elbow?

A Smoogle? Like the ones from The Smurfs?



(Correct me if I'm wrong, Con) I am almost certain Con doesn't have any Smoogles on the end of his elbow.



But seriously, I think the moral of the story is unless you know or can prove there is no God, it's best not to sling hash at theists.

[edit on 3/25/2008 by AshleyD]

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul



Texta prime mover is not necessarily a supernatural entity or any other sort of nonscientific supernatural phenomenon. it can be an entirely natural thing.

Unless of course you have that concrete, tangible proof I have been asking for since the beginning.

the problem for you is that the burden of proof is not on me
the burden of proof is on the one making a claim that it exists

Same holds true for the theory of evolution. fancy words and stylings are not evidence.

by your logic you have to disprove the existence of the flying spaghetti monster, the invisible pink unicorn, cthulu, garage dragons, and russel's teapot

I have seen the flying spaghetti monster, it exists as any law or rule exists

that's how i am with deities. you have to prove their existence. until such a time, i shall not believe in them.

As I said,, I guess we are in the same boat then,,

See any new speicies not genetically created by man but by evolution?

I imagine Evolutionists will probably DO just that too.

More scientific Faux



[edit on 25-3-2008 by Conspiriology]

reply to post by Conspiriology


Please do, because I'm sure you got it wrong. Feet are proven to be in existance, unless you know something I don't.

So it is possible to prove where a foot is and where a foot is not. It's completely different.

reply to ShiftTriopost by ShiftTrio


I agree, an interesting twist is versions of human evolution in the Urantia Book as well as a less familiar book of Zachariah Sitchen's.... The Lost Book of Enki, 2004, Bear and Co. Rochester, Vermont or www,InnerTraditions.com. It kind of makes Sitchens other books more readable. Just my humble opinion.

reply to post by Sublime620


Do the semantic hustle.... Duh duh da duh duh duh da duh duh duh.


Erm brainfart. I will get back to you on that one but I disagree.
Sure won't u2u though. Seeing past performances of misinterpretation and etc.
Do I get that apology btw?

Originally posted by Sublime620
reply to post by Conspiriology

 

Please do, because I'm sure you got it wrong. Feet are proven to be in existance, unless you know something I don't.

So it is possible to prove where a foot is and where a foot is not. It's completely different.

It's much harder when thou foot is in thy mouth...so to speak. OR, OR, when your finger is in your mouth.

I know you lie sarcasm so I had to throw that in there...just to please YOU!



[edit on 3/25/08 by idle_rocker]

reply to post by WraothAscendant


I have no idea what that post meant.

Sorry.

Originally posted by Idle_Rocker
It's much harder when thou foot is in thy mouth...so to speak.

OR, OR, when your finger is in your mouth.

I know you lie sarcasm so I had to throw that in there...just to please YOU!

[edit on 3/25/08 by idle_rocker]

Ohh, good point. I can not only prove if a foot is on an elbow, I can also prove if it is in one's mouth!

[edit on 26-3-2008 by Sublime620]

Sorry, Ash....68 pages (and counting) of baiting. Because, that's EXACTLY what the premise of this thread entailed.

Seems to have served its purpose, so far.....

May I just say, before someone reports this post and tries to get me a warning from a Mod...I am not 'taunting' the OP of this thread. We have talked U2U and I have no beefs, and neither does she. I simply think it's my right to suggest we step back, take a breath, and look at the TITLE....

IMO, it was provacative enough to invite a lively discussion...OK, mission accomplished! However, where did anyone prove the original premise? Did I miss it?

I'm inviting those who have posted, back-and-forth, here to correct me if I'm wrong. I will then seriously eat crow......

[adding]....Hmmm....I just read a post by AshleyD on another thread, where she discusses THIS thread...and her perception of 'gloves coming off'.... I guess, when start off with a provacative premise, you must be ready to fend off the consequences??

[edit on 26-3-2008 by weedwhacker]

Originally posted by weedwhacker
Sorry, Ash....68 pages (and counting) of baiting. Because, that's EXACTLY what the premise of this thread entailed.

Er... NO.

It was not baiting regardless of how many times oversensitive evolutionists keep claiming it is.

May I just say, before someone reports this post and tries to get me a warning from a Mod...I am not 'taunting' the OP of this thread.

We have talked U2U and I have no beefs, and neither does she.

Not at all! I don't think you should get a warning due to the fact you are actually bringing this thread back on topic! And, yes, in WW's defense, he and I have U2Ued like he has claimed so we're cool. I don't see his comment as a taunt or insult so no offense on my end.

I simply think it's my right to suggest we step back, take a breath, and look at the TITLE....

What I am about to say is with all due respect, WW. You are not the first to bring this up. You're only the straw that has broken this camel's back.

At this point, all I can say to anyone with qualms about the thread's title is, 'Get over it.' It has been explained dozens of times on this thread, I even apologized a few times, mentioned this thread started out as a comment on another thread and the title here was just an afterthought, admitted it could have been phrased a little better, etc.

The thing is, I've apologized and explained enough. Everyone is coming across as a major cry baby to me at this point and that is where I lose my sympathy and, as another member puts it, my conciliatory attitude. My suggestion at this point would be to grow a 'brass pair' because that is precisely was is needed on ATS. I have never, ever seen so much uproar over a thread title in my almost four months here on ATS. And, trust me, there have been some pretty tasteless and baiting thread titles here.

I could spend the next hour posting thread titles that are inflammatory towards Christian, certain political views, various religious faiths, believers/skeptics in various conspiracy issues, etc. Not saying it excuses me. Just saying... 'Tough.'

IMO, it was provacative enough to invite a lively discussion...OK, mission accomplished! However, where did anyone prove the original premise? Did I miss it?

Should I have to 'prove it' or provide evidence that the reader is left to decide? I can't and won't tell anyone what to think. That's up to the reader.

However, the second comment in the two-part O.P. was the starting evidence and we went on from there. How could such blatant hoaxes and misinformation be accepted as long as it was? That has 'gullible' written all over it to me.

[adding]....Hmmm....I just read a post by AshleyD on another thread, where she discusses THIS thread...and her perception of 'gloves coming off'.... I guess, when start off with a provacative premise, you must be ready to fend off the consequences??

Of course. That is why I was somewhat amused when a commenter on a previous page accused me of making this thread in order to receive pats on the back. I'm not that stupid! Of course this thread would bring down some rather heated discussion. However, it was more heated than I ever expected when my personal life (that I totally keep of this board for a reason), faith in God, intelligence, and Christian walk was brought into question.

Originally posted by weedwhacker
[adding]....Hmmm....I just read a post by AshleyD on another thread, where she discusses THIS thread...and her perception of 'gloves coming off'.... I guess, when start off with a provacative premise, you must be ready to fend off the consequences??

And just so no one has to go on a hunt, THIS is the comment to which WW is referring.

It's pointless trying to discuss God with believers, as they obviously don't need any external influences to believe in it, so trying to use the same external influences to change that is bound to fail.

They have to figure it out for themselves, or they won't figure it out at all.