The Gullibility of Evolutionists

page: 1
20
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
+2 more 
posted on Mar, 2 2008 @ 03:10 PM
link   
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.

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

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). 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.

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.

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.

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.




posted on Mar, 2 2008 @ 03:10 PM
link   
SOME EXAMPLES OF FAMOUS RETRACTIONS

Piltdown Man was found in a gravel pit in England in 1912. Considered to be a very important find in the evolutionary chain of human beings, it was later revealed to be a hoax and complete forgery. The most shocking aspect of this is that it took over 40 years before the hoax was revealed.

Nebraska Man involved the reconstruction of an entire skeleton based on the discovery of a single tooth. This tooth was later proven to be from a species of pig. Some will defend this as being an honest mistake. However, even if we allow this to slide as not being a deliberate hoax, the circumstances surrounding the claims remain the same: so many conclusions had to be assumed. Assumptions and conclusions that were later proven to be false.

Archaeoraptor was put forth as a missing link between dinosaurs and birds. It was later proven to be a fake/hoax and National Geographic Magazine had to provide a retraction.

Haekel’s Embryonic Charts have been proven to be fraudulent. He attempted to show the similarities in fetal development between humans and other species but his illustrated table was later proven to be a hoax.

I have openly stated on numerous occasions that macroevolution would not necessarily cancel out my Christian beliefs in my thread concerning Evidence of Theistic Evolution in the Bible. I have also openly admitted to not necessarily being a YEC or OEC. There is simply too much speculation between a very old universe, old universe, moderately old universe, and moderately young universe. When one side puts forth evidence to support their view, another side comes along and points out errors in their view.

The strata and fossilization process is another heated topic no one can agree upon. As well as abiogenesis and macroevolution. Things simply are not completely adding up for any one side.

Many do not accept the claims of evolution on a wholesale level due to being close minded. They do not accept the claims due to repeated exposures of fraud, stretched evidence, retracted evidence, lack of proof, and simply 'logic, reason, and critical thinking.'

[edit on 3/2/2008 by AshleyD]


+13 more 
posted on Mar, 2 2008 @ 03:16 PM
link   

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 basically those who don't agree need not apply?



posted on Mar, 2 2008 @ 03:20 PM
link   
reply to post by Beachcoma
 


Emphasis on the word inasmuch.

It is an effort to keep it on topic. If one wants to drag out evidence supporting evolution or creationism, by all means do so. However, such a debate has been done to death in this forum.

On the other hand, this is to address the insults towards the skeptics of evidence in support of evolution. Even evolutionary scientists will openly admit they made mistakes and 'don't have it all figured out.' So then why should those skeptical of their claims be labeled ignorant? My opinion? They shouldn't.

It seems to be a way of bullying other people into accepting pseudo scientific aspects of evolution because, let's face it, no one wants to be accused of being ignorant.

[edit on 3/2/2008 by AshleyD]


+2 more 
posted on Mar, 2 2008 @ 03:25 PM
link   
AshD,

Your examples of evolutionary retractions and hoaxes are just that, hoaxes. The purpose of a hoaxer is not to attempt to gain credibility to a theory usually, but to gain esteem from contemporaries who are making massive discoveries in the same field. It's about ego.

And the Archaeoraptor thing is something you might want to read up on. Although the one you're referring to was a hoax, there have been many more feathered dinosaur fossils found that are not. Again, it's an ego thing on the part of the hoaxer.



posted on Mar, 2 2008 @ 03:27 PM
link   
Your argument is well constructed. Nice job.

May I ask, do you think that 'Man' can evolve?

IOW, in 10,000 years, will Man still look the same as he does now?



posted on Mar, 2 2008 @ 03:29 PM
link   
reply to post by AshleyD
 


Ah. Okay then. That makes sense.

I think the problem on both sides is narrow-mindedness or even close-mindedness. The creationist who will not accept anything other than their preconceived notions and the evolutionists who think that science is infallible.

However it should be noted that true science is meant to be open to criticism and scepticism. The beauty of this is that anything that can't square away with the evidence will quickly be rejected, as evidenced by your second post.



posted on Mar, 2 2008 @ 03:34 PM
link   
reply to post by Rasobasi420
 


First of all: Please, just call me Ash.


You bring up an interesting point but not all of the above mentioned examples or other unnamed examples were 'hoaxes.' Evidence is often retracted after being proven false. Not all retracted evidence in support of evolution was deceptive or fraudulent. Many times the evidence is strongly believed by its supporters until undeniably being proven false.

Other times such gross conclusions and assumptions are made that it appears to have been deceptive but we can give them the benefit of a doubt if we so wish instead of automatically crying, 'Fraud!'

No one, including evolutionists, can deny they get everything right and that retractions do not have to occasionally be made.

So why accuse those who now look at new evidence with a sideways glance as being ignorant? It makes no sense to be condescending. I, as a creationist, don't even swallow all evidence of creationism or flood geology without question. Nor would I ever accuse someone who questions it along with me as being ignorant, blinded to fact, or unreasonable for having questions or being skeptical.

Due to both sides having a poor track in terms of providing false evidence, it is unfair to label a skeptic as being ignorant.



posted on Mar, 2 2008 @ 03:38 PM
link   
I think you will find that perhaps hard core atheists may say everything in the bible is false or what have you, but your belief in a flood does not negate Evolution, nor add credence to creationism.

I would bet there are a tremendous amount of historical fact in the bible. I think it has been proven enough. But to prove a flood happened, does not prove a boat with 2 of every kind of animal was built and God wiped the earth clean.

It seems more likley there was flood, an historical record of a flood. I would have to say it would be hard to tell if this wasn't a local event or a world wide one, but people needed an explanation. Its obvious just by the DNA record we are not descended from Noahs children. Not to mention we get into that whole, incest meets Cain and Able thing ok , if it wasn't with each other then who.

I would say thats a bigger hole in a theory then any evolution has. Not to mention this same story was told by none Jews for thousands years prior.

I can appreciate faith, but there is some blindness in it in certain cases.

I personally believe, evolution and religion complement each other better a great elaborate program of proteins and molecules which create live when ever possible. I think this make God look a lot smarter then the I dream of Genie approach. I think we were given brains to use them, to question and to try and make sense of these questions. And when we come up with an answer that make more sense, that you can see working (sure there are some flaws , mistakes , but most of it works and can be proven. So using our brains, a gift we are supposed to use we try and figure it out better then people could thousands of years ago.

At least this is MHO. So for the record, I believe there is alot of historical truth in the bible. But again IMHO it is the event and how they were interpreted that takes away from the truth. Just because Bill said something 2000 yrs ago and wrote it down, doesn't mean its bad to question and see if Bills story is true.



posted on Mar, 2 2008 @ 03:40 PM
link   
Ash,

While both sides may have provided false evidence occasionally in the past, only one has provided any real, solid evidence.



posted on Mar, 2 2008 @ 03:49 PM
link   

While both sides may have provided false evidence occasionally in the past, only one has provided any real, solid evidence.


Not necessarily. Both sides have presented some pretty convincing evidence to support their view of our origins. Both sides have also presented some rather dubious evidence. My 'mistake' was to take take an even side and read up on evidence in support of evolution and creationism. Upon doing so, my brain just about blew a fuse. One side will present evidence while another side will debunk or refute such evidence. There are so many opposing theories even in such circles.

For instance, creationists can either hold a young earth or old earth view. There are even theistic evolutionists. Evolutionists also disagree on things like missing links or abiogenesis. Then of course, general creationists and general evolutionists butt heads on just about everything.

You might not have spent as much time studying the view of creationists or their arguments against evolutionary evidence but some of it is pretty impressive.



posted on Mar, 2 2008 @ 03:50 PM
link   
In order to convince me there was a worldwide flood, I would first have to know where all the extra water came from, then where did all the extra water go while leaving some here. Or I would need to know how all the land on Earth momentarily flattened.



posted on Mar, 2 2008 @ 03:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by ShiftTrio
I think you will find that perhaps hard core atheists may say everything in the bible is false or what have you, but your belief in a flood does not negate Evolution, nor add credence to creationism.


Agreed. And if you engage in textual exegesis, you will actually see how the account in Genesis, primarily man's fall and the flood, both allude to genetic changes. The difference is, these changes are degenerative. It is interesting to note, this has been backed up by modern scientific discoveries.



posted on Mar, 2 2008 @ 04:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by finnegan
In order to convince me there was a worldwide flood, I would first have to know where all the extra water came from, then where did all the extra water go while leaving some here. Or I would need to know how all the land on Earth momentarily flattened.


I have a hard time getting into the flood debate but will do my best to answer your questions. Simply put, it isn't my area of expertise. This is what I have read even if I do not fully agree with all of the following. This is simply a recounting of opinions from others. I'm learning, too.

We are told in the account of Genesis that it was not a simple rain for 40 days and 40 nights but that the 'great springs of the deep broke forth.'

The world also went through a major upheaval. As for the world being topically flat, some believe so (although I plead ignorance). They believe the earth was somewhat flat prior the flood and that the movement of the tectonic plates created higher mountain peaks.

Then there has been talk of massive subterranean water deposits being recently discovered. Many flood geologists also believe the oceans were not nearly as large in antediluvian times as they are in postdiluvian times.

There is also the raqueya theory but I again must plead ignorance due to it being such a heated debate. It has been years since I read up on the subject of the flood and somewhat dug my own grave by reading three different perspectives: Books that supported a world wide flood, books that endorsed a localized flood, and books that completely refuted the flood account.

Hopefully someone more knowledgeable of the subject can eventually chime in.


+1 more 
posted on Mar, 2 2008 @ 04:01 PM
link   
Sorry Ash, but when I can walk into a museum and point to a dinosaur skeleton and say, "Science has proven this skeleton to be 65 million years old." and you pull out a book written by men a few thousand years ago and say, "The Bible says we've only been here 6,000 years," I have to ask which one of us is being gullible.

Science can prove the world is billions of years old, simply by going thru the strata of the continents. Religion says it's 6,000 years and to take that on faith.

I realize common sense is what tells us the Earth is flat, but I'm going with my common sense on this one anyway and siding with evolution.



posted on Mar, 2 2008 @ 04:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by mrwupy
Sorry Ash, but when I can walk into a museum and point to a dinosaur skeleton and say, "Science has proven this skeleton to be 65 million years old." and you pull out a book written by men a few thousand years ago and say, "The Bible says we've only been here 6,000 years," I have to ask which one of us is being gullible.


I have explained this many times. The 6,000 year old earth calculation was created by an 18th century priest. Even many of the early church fathers believed in an older earth. The priese jumped to many conclusions. Not saying one way or the other but I will say, again, I am not necessarily a YEC. However, I will add there is much contention between the dating of fossils and some accuse evolutionists of using circular logic.


Science can prove the world is billions of years old, simply by going thru the strata of the continents. Religion says it's 6,000 years and to take that on faith.


They can provide evidence of the universe/world being billions of years old yet others have come along providing evidence to the contrary. I don't claim to personally know how old the earth and universe are but both the 6,000 and multibillion year dates do not add up in my opinion.


I realize common sense is what tells us the Earth is flat, but I'm going with my common sense on this one anyway and siding with evolution.


And that is fine. Again, I didn't make the thread to debate evolution vs. creationism for the umpteenth time on ATS but to show not everything has been 'proven' and that it is acceptable to have questions without hearing the accusation of being ignorant.

[edit on 3/2/2008 by AshleyD]



posted on Mar, 2 2008 @ 04:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by finnegan
In order to convince me there was a worldwide flood, I would first have to know where all the extra water came from, then where did all the extra water go while leaving some here.


I'm partial to this hypothesis: Did an Asteroid Impact Cause an Ancient Tsunami? - New York Times

More on the same subject: Did a Comet Cause the Great Flood? | Archaeology | DISCOVER Magazine

They haven't quite agreed whether it was a comet or a meteor.

[edit on 2/3/2008 by Beachcoma]



posted on Mar, 2 2008 @ 04:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Badge01
Your argument is well constructed. Nice job.
May I ask, do you think that 'Man' can evolve?
IOW, in 10,000 years, will Man still look the same as he does now?


Being a firm believer in microevolution, yes. We would have some alterations in our traits as we adapt to our constantly changing environment. However, I believe the coding to adapt was 'programmed' in us by a creator. Evolving into a completely superior species? No. I have not been provided with any substantial evidence to convince me of such a possibility.



posted on Mar, 2 2008 @ 04:37 PM
link   
reply to post by AshleyD
 


I would tend to agree.

The popular theory of the effect of mass extinctions on evolution is that it destroyed the dominant creatures and created a large number of additional niches.

So, in humans, perhaps it would take a very strong operator to cause signficant change, such as a near catastrophic event, disease or radiation.

Note that many of the terms in use in evolution theory (yes, it is just a theory), such as 'genetic drift', mutation, non-random mating and natural selection are at work in microevolution.

What's interesting is your use of the concept ''programmed in us by a creator." Indeed 'a creator' may have done just that, but he used a mechanism which is built into our cells, and that involves DNA encoding for proteins.

Thus there's really no incompatibility between 'creationism' and 'evolution'. Why not study them both, as you have evidently done.

How would you explain the 'de-evolution' of cetaceans? It appears the they evolved into land animals then returned to the sea, losing some of those adaptations. Is it not remarkable that oxygen breathing mammals tend to dominate sea life?


What makes 'evolution' theory difficult to accept is that most mutations are lethal. In addition, it's hard to understand changes that take place over millions of years as a 'smooth' event. Part of that is, I think, due to the fact that there were a number of stressors acting at the same time, some of which we may not understand at present.

Good thread.



[edit on 2-3-2008 by Badge01]



posted on Mar, 2 2008 @ 05:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Badge01
Thus there's really no incompatibility between 'creationism' and 'evolution'. Why not study them both, as you have evidently done.


Exactly. Furthermore, if you read the creation account in Genesis closely, the text alternates between God calling things into existence with the wording 'Let there be' compared to the wording of something already in existence 'bringing forth.' So, contrary to popular belief, my rejection of many aspects of evolution are not completely theological but due to lack of evidence that withstands criticism.


How would you explain the 'de-evolution' of cetaceans? It appears the they evolved into land animals then returned to the sea, losing some of those adaptations. Is it not remarkable that oxygen breathing mammals tend to dominate sea life?


Again, if you look into the Genesis accounts, we are told nature is in a state of degeneration. So, no problem there. But what about the theory that cetaceans have evolved then devolved? Not taking into consideration of what I stated above concerning the possibility of theistic evolution then 'devolution' due to the fall, let's use blue whales and their 'vestigial' structures as an example.

I could be wrong (and please correct me if I am) but many have claimed whales have 'vestigial pelvises.' However, other scientists have rebutted this claim stating it has nothing to do with losing traits but that without such a structure the whales could not reproduce. In other words, it has nothing to do with them 'devolving' back into sea creatures.

HERE is an article I just found that touches on the subject.


What makes 'evolution' theory difficult to accept is that most mutations are lethal. In addition, it's hard to understand changes that take place over millions of years as a 'smooth' event. Part of that is, I think, due to the fact that there were a number of stressors acting at the same time, some of which we may not understand at present.


That and not to mention the fact some believe the 'genetic code and information' could not last long enough (tens to hundreds of millions of years) to make the change. Due to the degeneration of genetic information (proven), they believe the 'information' could not survive long enough to be passed along to create a completely new species. Again, I am so not an expert on evolution but there is certainly enough questions to be asked without the accusation of being ignorant for not swallowing everything we are told.






top topics



 
20
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join