The Gullibility of Evolutionists

reply to post by AshleyD


here's the difference between evolution and creationism...the scientific study of evolution is under constant peer review, and thus, it IS subject to change as more knowledge is gathered and a consensus is reached. and that lasts, until further peer review reveals new or more in-depth knowledge of what is being studied.

creationism is absolute, and there is no study by peers that might point out a difference in previous knowledge still accepted today. what was written in one book (the bible or talmud or quran) thousands of years ago, is the last and only accepted "truth". and anyone that points out a difference, is never accepted, nor is their particular "study". nothing that remotely conflicts with the original writing is ever taking seriously and is quickly dismissed.

reply to post by jimmyx


I run the risk of being 'slapped' because this might be a one line post, but jimmyx has made a salient point!!

Any comments?

reply to post by weedwhacker


thanks weedwhacker...having an open mind is difficult, keeping one, over the course of a lifetime, is nearly impossible.

reply to post by weedwhacker


Are you really that obtuse? I doubt it. I am leaning toward obvious dodge attempt by way of pretending obtuse.
You addressed AshleyD.
Who happens to be a she. (Unless she is lying in which case she is not a she but this is after all the net so who knows? I choose to believe her when she states she is a she)

She = her really simple.

After which you addressed everyone else with your silliness about a vacation and veiled and slightly silly attempt to jab at her beliefs passive aggressively.

And where the heck did the god and good stuff come from???????


reply to post by jimmyx

creationism is absolute, and there is no study by peers that might point out a difference in previous knowledge still accepted today. what was written in one book (the bible or talmud or quran) thousands of years ago, is the last and only accepted "truth". and anyone that points out a difference, is never accepted, nor is their particular "study". nothing that remotely conflicts with the original writing is ever taking seriously and is quickly dismissed.

Yet Ashley who happens to be a creationist. But I try not to hold that against her.
Shows variance in views. As she doesn't agree with a literalist. Hmmmm.
Especially considering her views have conflicted with the literal intereptation of the original writings.

So. Care to make another pidgeon holing attempt?

[edit on 3-3-2008 by WraothAscendant]

Sorry, have not read past the first 3 pages, but I just had to mention one thing:

SAUSAGE DOGS! Wtf are they!? Seriously, those are man made things, just like bovine, domesticated cats and just about every fruit and vegetable you eat.

What's the point? Change occurs through generations of living organisms. This is irrefutable as seen in the organisms above. Bananas are another example of an organism (fruit of organism) which has changed from being a rather seedy fruit to one which is now far more convenient to eat. Grains such as rice, maize, sage, have also changed dramatically to be more convenient to the human species. How did they change? Because their environment favoured and facilitated that change, their environment just happened to consist of human beings for the most part.

Change happens, it is real, evolution is happening right now, mankind has got something like 4cm taller on average over the last 100 years.

Now before someone tells me that these are minor changes within pre-established species, which therefore does not explain the diversity and complexity of life on earth, you have misunderstood evolution and the origins of life completely. I will not go into detail about this because there is more than enough information freely available all over the net to exaplain this to you. But alot of the time creationists will proclaim THE EYE! Explain that! Explain the complexity of my hand! How does a gill turn into a lung? How does a fin turn into a leg?

Well it doesn't. Before there was such thing as a fin, there was something else, a previous ancestor who possessed something entirely different whos offspring were placed in different environment from which different, very slightly different, changes took place which eventually became fins and legs.

Evolution and gene selection began to take place at a microbial level. A tiny organism, perhaps consisting of a couple hundred cells is swimming about in the ocean (well more like floating), it experiences (or rather its descendants) experience random gene mutation and differentiation which produces, for example, a cell which is in some way sensitive to light. This organism cannot "see", yet this cell is useful for some purpose which may or may not even be linked to sensitivity of light. Because this cell (and hence gene) is useful, this organism is favoured in the game of life and can pass down this genetic material to further offspring who will also possess this useful photo-sensitive cell. Many years elapse and these photo-sensitive organisms become increasingly complex... I think you can see where this is going.

This is a very basic understanding, obviously, but there is more than enough info out there to convince most reasonable people of the logic behind the evolution of life.

Evolution has never been observed first hand by mankind. So your statement that evolution is happening now is false, if it were happening, it wouldn’t be called the THEORY of evolution. Bananas and other things that humans consume have NOT changed due to evolution . . . It is environmental adaptation. Just like Darwin’s finches. Those birds did not evolve, they adapted. Evolution according to its advocates, requires the presence of random BENEFICIAL mutations. There is a drastic difference between variations within a species gene pool and mutations.

The height disparity between people now and in the past has nothing to do with evolution. It’s mostly a matter of nutrition. Even evolutionists agree on this one.

Since you have shown you really don’t know much about evolution based on ur crass statements. I suggest brushing up on your biology.

After you’ve done so . . . please explain how the bombardier beetle EVOLVED to shoot fire out its ass.


[edit on 3-3-2008 by JPhish]



Edited out quote of post directly above

Please read ABOUT ATS: Warnings for excessive quoting, and how to quote

www.abovetopsecret.com...


[edit on 3/3/08 by masqua]

So one day I'm studying carbon dating and arrive upon a little known fact that made my mouth drop open:

Apparently, if a geological strata has already been dated at a dig site, anything that comes out of that dig that doesn't agree or appear visually to be an item naturally found in that strata (no soda cans in 20,000 BC), it isn't dated at all but thrown away as contaminated. When artifacts from the dig are selected for dating (which doesn't happen unless it's controversial - wrong bones in wrong timeframe), the dating has to match the accepted date for that strata or it is also thrown away as contaminated. The reason given for this is, they don't have the time or the manpower to date the entire site and all the many artifacts out of it.

I re-read that several times to be sure I wasn't misunderstanding it.

Then I read how there was a stone culture and an iron culture existing in the same time frame. And similar examples elsewhere, such as a stone, iron and copper culture, all existing in the same time period. This kinda stuff never makes to the school textbooks we read on these subjects, yet is available in to read once you're in the college level material or beyond.

Everyone just needs to be brutally honest with themselves:

We are a stubborn species and we tend to erect halls of truth that we treat like holy relics that may not be slandered or else. To keep from repeating this same mistake, ad nauseum, the halls of truth are gonna have to loosen up the reins or just like with the enlightenment, the entire truth thing will be torn down and rewritten with huge holes in it everywhere.

LEARN FROM THE PAST!




[edit on 3-3-2008 by undo]

Originally posted by WraothAscendant
Hmm lets see shall we? Line all the nice little ducks in a row.

Yet your also atheist and who also repeatedly talked about downing the "God Hypothesis" as you have called it.
Which is what children?
Bias dragged into science.

And not once have I used evolution to suggest that 'god' does not exist.

The best we can do is apply science to specific claims. Thus, if someone makes a claim that their pet god created life 6000 years ago, creating all life de novo, in an order like that given in genesis. Then that is a claim that can be assessed with science.

Indeed, it has been falsified. In the very same way that Popper said that science should proceed.

And I am Santa Claus.

Excellent. I'd like a new pair of socks for yule.

Evidence? Or was that a misinterptation like you acuse me of?

What, that you aren't the only person to have read popper?

Wroath, you've been posting Popper like he is some sort of oracle on all things important in science, invoking biases of other people etc etc. I did enjoy astyanax's responses in your other thread.

Yes, well done. We all have biases. I suppose the fact that you put one quote of popper above how he thought science should proceed is not evidence of bias.

Of course, you think one Popper pronouncement gives validity to your own little pet ideas. But Popper made it very clear that unfalsifiable and untestable theories are not science.

Example of the end of an assumption you made that was incorrect and you persisted in even when told otherwise. Then went on to say "Oh. It wasn't meant to be taken seriously."

Wow! Cool!

Because it wasn't really meant to be taken that seriously. I don't think you have a shrine in your bedroom to him or anything.

Which is NOT what I was talking about at all.
Your assumption that he was new to me was.

You weren't meant to take it seriously. It wasn't meant to a grand pronouncement of unbiased truth. Only santa claus provides that.

Heh, maybe it was an assumption. You remind me of a first semester philosophy student.

Damn you're good at slathering yourself in verbal butter. Or do you really so MASSIVELY misinterept to such a degree everything everyone says?
All the while acusing others of the crime?
But I am impressed at your ability in side stepping and obstruction.

What misinterpretation? I made some tongue-in-cheek comments of your love for Karl Popper, and then that allows you to start waffling on misrepresenting me?

OK, if it floats ya boat, go for it. Oh, you already have...

Erm what does the borg have to do with an oracle?????
I don't remember the borg having an oracle on Star Trek.......
Oh wait more attacks on religious people. Passive aggressively.
And how dare they do such to you. Bad them.
If they do that they aren't attacking you anyway, right?
Their attacking science.
You having a attitude and air of self-rightousness is just not possible.

Yeah, blah blah. Pot meet kettle.

Yet adhered to like a bible by more than a few.

We should whip them daily until they see the errors of their ways.

And what is your profession exactly and care to show proof?
You seem to keep saying your a scientist.

I'd care to not show someone like you anything of the sort. I love my anon status, and I wouldn't break it to satisfy yours or anyone's curiosity. Take my word, or don't. I couldn't care less either way.

[edit on 3-3-2008 by melatonin]

Originally posted by AshleyD
Evolution might not but some evolutionists certainly seem to. I've seen many poke fun at those who adhere to theistic evolution as violating Occam's razor. It does seem like many who use this tactic are intent of pushing God out of the equation any way they can.



To me, this is fallacious logic. We could possibly consider the fact theistic evolution is the middle ground and could explain many of the holes in the theory of evolution that scientists cannot explain. But that reminds some of cartoons like this:

That's what science does, ash. It doesn't falsify god, but it doesn't invoke such a thing either. Otherwise, we end up with the situation in the second cartoon.

Occam's razor speaks to how the most simplistic explanation that removes additional assumptions that add nothing to a scientific explanation is to be preferred.

Thus, you can say that 'god created the universe' (assumption), 'god just exists' (an assumption). Here we have two assumptions. In the second case we have 'the universe just exists' (an assumption). Only one assumption.

Then we might have: evolution by natural selection explains the diversity of life on earth (supported by evidence). And the second might be: evolution by natural selection explains life on earth (supported by evidence), but god played with these species to help create a group of animals in his image (assumption).

Therefore according to the ideas of Friar Ockham, a philosopher and logician, the one with fewer 'entities' is to be preferred. It is the principle of parsimony. Even wraoth will accept this, Popper was a big fan of parsimony, because it makes falsifiability easier.

You might happen to prefer to invoke the god-fiddling explanation for whatever non-scientific reason, but it adds absolutely nothing to the ability of the first to explain the phenomena under examination.

I heard gravity is just a theory; that's why I don't believe it. I think it's god pushing down on our heads! That's my theory. Don't persecute my beliefs with your measurements and logic and research! I can believe what I want, and I damn well will if I please. Praise be to the Flying Spaghetti Monster! May his noodley appendage push down on our heads forever more. Ramen!

We Have someone who has actually looked beyond the superfluous rhetoric and seen the 'veiled' facts!

Originally posted by undo
So one day I'm studying carbon dating and arrive upon a little known fact that made my mouth drop open:

Apparently, if a geological strata has already been dated at a dig site, anything that comes out of that dig that doesn't agree or appear visually to be an item naturally found in that strata (no soda cans in 20,000 BC), it isn't dated at all but thrown away as contaminated. When artifacts from the dig are selected for dating (which doesn't happen unless it's controversial - wrong bones in wrong timeframe), the dating has to match the accepted date for that strata or it is also thrown away as contaminated. The reason given for this is, they don't have the time or the manpower to date the entire site and all the many artifacts out of it.

I re-read that several times to be sure I wasn't misunderstanding it.

Then I read how there was a stone culture and an iron culture existing in the same time frame. And similar examples elsewhere, such as a stone, iron and copper culture, all existing in the same time period. This kinda stuff never makes to the school textbooks we read on these subjects, yet is available in to read once you're in the college level material or beyond.
Everyone just needs to be brutally honest with themselves:

We are a stubborn species and we tend to erect halls of truth that we treat like holy relics that may not be slandered or else. To keep from repeating this same mistake, ad nauseum, the halls of truth are gonna have to loosen up the reins or just like with the enlightenment, the entire truth thing will be torn down and rewritten with huge holes in it everywhere.
LEARN FROM THE PAST!
[edit on 3-3-2008 by undo]

You're SO right! When evidence contradicts 'science', it's placed in the back of a storage building or something.....

'Science' is what they call their faith.

[edit on 3-3-2008 by Clearskies]

reply to post by jimmyx


Peer review, MY FOOT. As long as they BOTH accept the premise of evolution, they can argue about the 'process', but, if someone comes behind and says,
"Lucy is JUST an extinct species of APE."
Lucy isn't the missing link
And since she is a 'goddess' for some 'scientists', it is Not refuted by peers,

A new species of autralopithecine, Australopithecus garhi, was discovered in 1999 in Ethiopia. Even though this ape was said to be more long-legged than Lucy, it is still just an ape.

but, lesser, more obvious fallacies, such as this one are O.K. to discard.
CNN.com





[edit on 3-3-2008 by Clearskies]

I can not believe that the people of this web site can not see what is going on here.

Come on, this is a conspiracy web site, guys and gals.

It’s obvious that evil Atheist Scientists are conspireing to suppress evidence of God to continue deceiving man kind into a one way ticket to 7734.

I’d like to start a vote. How many people agree with me here?

Of course, the only people I want to hear from are people whom agree with me.

Seriously, who the hell needs scientific method when EVERYONE has access to the bible?

Get a grip people!

Once again, though I disagree with much of the thoughts in this topic, I have to give proper acknowledgement to Ash for providing one of the best threads I have read on ATS in a long time.

Your arguments are VERY well thought out and you express your ideas with great detail and specifics. I am proud to know that there are others out there like yourself, regardless of what created us.

Keep up the good work and remember to stay open minded. That is the secret of understanding the Universe.

Originally posted by jimmyx
here's the difference between evolution and creationism...the scientific study of evolution is under constant peer review, and thus, it IS subject to change as more knowledge is gathered and a consensus is reached. and that lasts, until further peer review reveals new or more in-depth knowledge of what is being studied.

creationism is absolute, and there is no study by peers that might point out a difference in previous knowledge still accepted today....

Totally untrue, Hon. I don't even keep up with creationist research that much anymore but they do a lot of peer reviews. Many Christians have also debunked or refuted the evidence put forth by other creationists. This is also why we have Old Earth Creationists- because they have reviewed evidence honestly and now believe in an older earth/universe.

However, creation scientists are automatically scoffed at by the outside world. If you read one of their studies, experiments, or review some of their finds, they are automatically dismissed just for believing in creationism or ID. Creationists are also never allowed to use the same excuses evolutionists use: 'We are still learning, researching, and collecting our evidence. Give us more time. Archeology and Paleontology is still new.'

That is why I say evolutionists are gullible and biased. They believe what evolutionists say but immediately dismiss creation scientists. They want one set of rules to apply to them about 'still putting the pieces together' but not for creationists.

reply to post by undo


Thanks for your effort, Undo. That is one of many examples of the flawed research and circular reasoning. I was simply uninterested in 'going all out' to point out the flaws because they are there for anyone who is willing to look. Yes, if it doesn't 'mesh' with something that is already known, it is tossed out. That, and circular reasoning is often used. A fossil is sometimes dated just by the layer it is found in. And anyone who relies on carbon dating as facts needs to go back to Biology 101.

Originally posted by AshleyD
This thread isn't intended to engage in yet another creation vs. evolution debate inasmuch as it is to discuss the gullibility and hypocrisy of those who adhere to the theory of evolution and accept supporting evidence with virtually wholesale approval.

So, you made a thread whose sole reason for existence is to ignore the evidence, not discuss the issue, and attack those that think different than you, Congratulations.

I am not interested in proving or disproving evolution, creationism, or the flood account.

That much is obvious.

There is a constant barrage of insults concerning those who dare question the evidence put forth by evolutionary scientists. Those who do are often referred to as delusional, liars, close minded, ignorant, lacking in logic and critical thinking, etc.

[sarcasm]And absolutely NO insults coming from the other side because thats not what "jesus would do".... right? I mean, Im sure that no-one in the creationism side is saying anything like ; delusional, liars, close minded, ignorant,lacking in logic or lacking in critical thinking.........[/sarcasm]

Creationists are often accused of blindly believing the Genesis account and accepting the universe as being the product of a divine creator although there is evidence to confirm our stance (even if it sometimes depends on the process of elimination).

Ummmmm, thats exactly what they do.....

I must ask why so many evolutionists regularly swallow evidence that supports their view in spite of repeated faulty finds, retractions, and loose connections and evidence.

I must ask why so many creationists regularly swallow evidence that supports their view in spite of repeated faulty finds, retractions, and loose connections in evidence.

Some archaeological finds deemed as fact will later be proven false and the usual defense is, 'We are still learning and are bound to make mistakes.' In my opinion, that is a poor excuse. If you are going to describe something as science and fact but accuse those who do not agree with your view as lacking 'logic, reason, and critical thinking' then the current existing evidence of evolution should be rock solid.

[sarcasm]But no one has ever ever ever made any mistakes at all when researching religious origins.[/sarcasm]

To compare, let's use my opinion of flood geology as an example of how to weigh evidence without being gullible enough to believe something just because it conforms to one's beliefs. I can admit that some finds in defense of the flood are fascinating, some are so obviously false, and some are too open to interpretation to be considered proof/evidence. It would be arrogant to accuse those who do not agree with such discoveries as lacking 'logic, reason, and critical thinking' because some of the evidence is admittedly shaky.

So, your saying it's stupid to believe in the flood, got it, thanks.

However, ardent evolutionists seem to lack the ability to weigh the evidence being offered to defend their belief and will only admit evidence as being false in the face of absolute facts that irrefutably debunk their evidence. It seems that evidence supporting evolution is innocent until proven guilty.

Actually, in the face of undeniable proof that they are wrong, most Creationists simply decide that the proof is wrong..... Go figure. Make sure you use a legal term that doesn't apply here to further your point.


[edit on 3-3-2008 by Lotiki]

Whats the point in argueing if we are all just going too learn the ultimate truth in a couple years.

Originally posted by Lotiki
So, you made a thread whose sole reason for existence is to ignore the evidence, not discuss the issue, and attack those that think different than you, Congratulations.

Again, and I have already explained this, if anyone wishes to debate evolution vs. creationism they are more than welcome to do so. I'm not a thread Nazi. But in order to keep things on topic, yes, it would be nice to not have this thread turn out the like 1,000 other creation vs. evolution threads in this forum.

I must ask why so many evolutionists regularly swallow evidence that supports their view in spite of repeated faulty finds, retractions, and loose connections and evidence.

I must ask why so many creationists regularly swallow evidence that supports their view in spite of repeated faulty finds, retractions, and loose connections in evidence.

Many do believe all the evidence that is passed onto them without criticism. I don't agree with either side doing this. Go back and read the O.P. and you will see my view on both sides fudging and stretching the evidence.

But no one has ever ever ever made any mistakes at all when researching religious origins.

Ok, you're not even listening to a thing I said. I even brought up a few examples throughout this thread about some things creation scientists have had to retract. I can be fair and look at both sides. Evolutionists, however, claim to have more leeway and can only point the finger.

So, your saying it's stupid to believe in the flood, got it, thanks.

And the ATS annual word twisting award goes to...

*drum roll*

...Lotiki.

I think evolution has incorrectly been made into a cornerstone debate of Christians. It's completely possible to believe in all forms of evolution, even human evolution, and still be a Christian, as I do. Allow me to explain. One can believe that the creation account in Genesis was never intended to be interpreted as anything more than metaphor, since we have it said in 2 Peter 3:8 that one thousand years are like a day for the Lord. Furthermore, with a literal reading of Genesis, the human race must be dreadfully inbred. Genesis must be taken more metaphorically than literally, in my opinion.