The Gullibility of Evolutionists

page: 2
20
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 2 2008 @ 05:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by AshleyD
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.


And if we didn't openly assess evidence before 'proving guilty', scientists would be viewed as closed-minded.

I don't think you really understand how science works, ash. For example, we have a current discussion about the 'hobbit' fossils. A few scientists think it is a real distinct group of homonids, some don't. The debate will rage on for a time, and eventually some sort of compelling evidence that weighs the insight one way or t'other will happen. It might take 40 years, like the Piltdown event, but we do want to be correct. So these things may take time. For the Piltdown 'fossil', it was when dating was available which once and for all put the issue to bed (except for creationists).

This is the same sort of process for the Hobbit fossils happened for Nebraska man. But it was never widely accepted at all. A few thought it was a good homonid, others nothing of the sort.

Archeoraptor was never really accepted. It was never published in the scientific literature.

Haeckel did fudge his pictures, and he should have had a clip round the ear for it. But you make out that this means there aren't similarities between embryos. There are, and this was known as far back as the 1850s.

So where is the 'gullibility'? Piltdown did hang around, Nebraska and Archeoraptor were never really accepted, Haeckel fudged drawings that showed similarities that scientists knew existed anyway.

Scientists don't have an oracle to refer to when they want to understand a particular phenomenon. They have to work hard to understand nature.

And at least scientists will admit errors. we still have the Ica stones, paluxy tracks, Baugh's fossilised 'finger', and other rubbish given credibility by creationists to this very day. Now that is gullibility.


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.'


A few cases of fraud, and a big sporkful of theology



[edit on 2-3-2008 by melatonin]




posted on Mar, 2 2008 @ 05:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by melatonin
A few cases of fraud...


Mel, the examples mentioned before were emphatically stated as being just that: Examples. They were also very obvious and famous errors/hoaxes that were later retracted. Such things happen much more often than the few examples mentioned above. Not only are 'discoveries' often contested and later proven erroneous but so are some basic premises and assumptions made by evolutionists.

Again, I am certainly not the one who should be the spokesman for creationism or for refuting evolutionary evidence. However, no one can deny much is still speculative and even you can agree there have been blatant hoaxes, cases of mistaken identity, retractions, and new discoveries that refute previous discoveries.

I don't want to focus on debunking evolution. Instead, I am more interested in pointing out there is still so much open to interpretation. Asking questions or being skeptical based on the track record is not ignorance. And yes, we are often accused of being ignorant.


...and a big sporkful of theology


Let me again be very clear. If evolution turns out to be 100% correct or completely debunked it would not change my belief in God. It is not a matter of having to defend my God that I am willing to deny factual evidence. The point of contention is the term 'factual.'

I already know you know how I feel about the situation: I am very open minded, often admit to not knowing all the facts, and have claimed evolution and creationism are not necessarily mutually exclusive. My problem is the accusation that having questions or being opened minded enough to say, "Hey! This evidence conflicts with this evidence," or "This simply is not adding up with what you are telling me," or "I have a hard time accepting what you are trying to push on me now when the last thing you told me turned out to be false," merits the label 'ignorant,' 'close minded,' or 'holding onto God at all costs.'

My problem is not theological. It is logical. There is simply too many flaws, retractions, and circular reasoning within the realm of evolutionary science.



posted on Mar, 2 2008 @ 06:01 PM
link   
reply to post by AshleyD
 



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.


And what is the alternative? Pointing at the bible, saying "this happened" and dismissing any and all evidence otherwise, in order to always be "right"?



posted on Mar, 2 2008 @ 06:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheWalkingFox
reply to post by AshleyD
 



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.


And what is the alternative? Pointing at the bible, saying "this happened" and dismissing any and all evidence otherwise, in order to always be "right"?



Precisely.

Many of the religious types seem to think being able to admit "we made a mistake" or "based on the evidence we have now, this is what most likely occurred however that view may change pending further evidence" is a sign of weakness. On the contrary, that is the very strength which allows our knowledge of the world we live in to increase and be expanded upon. Admitting you were wrong is a strength, not a weakness. Being "right" is about ego and "god" help (pun intended) anyone who threatens the ego of the religious.



posted on Mar, 2 2008 @ 06:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by AshleyD
I don't want to focus on debunking evolution. Instead, I am more interested in pointing out there is still so much open to interpretation. Asking questions or being skeptical based on the track record is not ignorance. And yes, we are often accused of being ignorant.


Usually because of the things creationists say. So, we can take your comment about Whales and vestigial features and show how you don't understand what vestigial means in evolutionary theory.

Moreover, I would question just what you mean by 'degeneration' of genetic information. You just appear to lap up the creationist stuff without any real understanding of evolution, and why the evidence doesn't support their claims.

Then you appear to make some sort of POMOish assessment that both could be valid. The 6000 year vs. billion year thing is great - could be either, who cares!

Well, I do. Science does. It's not about your god. It's about understanding nature.


Let me again be very clear. If evolution turns out to be 100% correct or completely debunked it would not change my belief in God.


I know, ash. But the splinters from straddling the 6000yr vs. 4.6 billion year fence must be painful. The 6000 years comes from some reading of a book. The 4.6 billion years by using physics. If you think there is any sort of equivalence there, then with the utmost respect, you're crazy, ash. I still like you though, heh.

Maybe the 4.6 billion is wrong. It could be 4 billion or 5 billion. But it almost certainly won't be 6000 years.


My problem is not theological. It is logical. There is simply too many flaws, retractions, and circular reasoning within the realm of evolutionary science.


Retractions? Too many? You have four. Two were never really accepted. One was, until clearly shown to be wrong. One wasn't that important.

Flaws? Well, I'm sure we've got stuff wrong right now, but we are continually aiming to correct our insight. Science is performed by humans, that can make our findings flawed. At least we are trying to understand these things. This doesn't throw out the whole of evolutionary theory. It's been around for 150 years and is the most tested and questioned theory in science. And still it stands.

Circular reasoning? If you say so.



posted on Mar, 2 2008 @ 06:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheWalkingFox
And what is the alternative? Pointing at the bible, saying "this happened" and dismissing any and all evidence otherwise, in order to always be "right"?


Not necessarily. If we would like, we can completely take theology out of the equation. We can assume everyone on this thread, including myself, is an atheist and the concept of 'God' has never existed in the minds of man. For argument's sake, we can also completely dismiss the alternatives for now. Upon doing so, we can concentrate fully on the original topic: The theory of evolution is not flawless and it is perfectly acceptable to have questions, raise doubts, or review conflicting evidence without being accused of lacking 'logic, reason, and critical thinking.'

I am still considering adding more examples into the mix of other contested facts concerning the theory but for the moment I will hesitate. It's not so much about debunking evolution than it is in pointing out the very obvious fact that evidence supporting evolution is not entirely flawless. There are many different theories in evolutionary circles to explain the origins of life, genetic time lines are constantly being adjusted, many dispute the claims of the age of universe, question the length of time required for fossilization to occur, the length of time of the formation of the strata, etc.

Again, I'm not here to 'debunk evolution' or 'prove creationism.' Neither field is my area of expertise but I have noticed, through even sided study, that there are enough conflicts that raise enough justification for healthy skepticism.



posted on Mar, 2 2008 @ 06:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by the titor experience
Precisely.


No, not 'precisely.' We can completely take the Genesis account out of consideration for now. Debunking evolution would not necessarily prove the Genesis account. Surely we can all agree on this.

But this brings up an interesting point. Is this why evolutionists defend their views so adamantly because they believe it would automatically mean the Genesis account must be incorrect? Do they have to defend their science so strongly because of what they believe to be the only alternative (the existence of a divine creator)? Interesting insight everyone here is providing, even if unwittingly.

[edit on 3/2/2008 by AshleyD]



posted on Mar, 2 2008 @ 06:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by AshleyD

Originally posted by the titor experience
Precisely.


No, not 'precisely.' We can completely take the Genesis account out of consideration for now. Debunking evolution would not necessarily prove the Genesis account. Surely we can all agree on this.

But this brings up an interesting point. Is this why evolution believers gobble down everything handed to them because they believe it would automatically mean the Genesis account must be incorrect? Do they have to defend their science so strongly because of what they beileve is the only alternative? Interesting insight everyone here is providing, even if unwittingly.

[edit on 3/2/2008 by AshleyD]


I do not think i have ever heard anyone who believes in evolution suggest that if evolution were proven incorrect, this would mean Genesis were correct.

Are you just making wild speculations now for the sake of it? The insight you are speaking of which people you allege are providing seems to be more like your projections.



posted on Mar, 2 2008 @ 06:34 PM
link   
I also wanted to address this as I find this view fascinating.


Originally posted by the titor experience
Being "right" is about ego and "god" help (pun intended) anyone who threatens the ego of the religious.


Nothing to do with 'ego.' At least not to me. But do not tell me I am ignorant when you do often have to admit to being 'wrong.' It would be an 'argument by outrage' to claim evolution is false because it is wrong from time to time. That is not the case. It is a case of being skeptical of 'facts' when those 'facts' are later changed and then being called 'ignorant' when we're not so quick to believe the new 'facts' and instead patiently wait for those 'facts' to be replaced by new 'facts.'

Not to mention being labeled 'ignorant' when we realize even evolutionists often disagree on what is currently being described as 'fact.'



posted on Mar, 2 2008 @ 06:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by AshleyD
Not necessarily. If we would like, we can completely take theology out of the equation. We can assume everyone on this thread, including myself, is an atheist and the concept of 'God' has never existed in the minds of man.
For argument's sake, we can also completely dismiss the alternatives for now. Upon doing so, we can concentrate fully on the original topic: The theory of evolution is not flawless and it is perfectly acceptable to have questions, raise doubts, or review conflicting evidence without being accused of lacking 'logic, reason, and critical thinking.'


Who ever claimed it was flawless? However, you have yet to provide any flaws to the theory itself, and have instead given examples of hoaxes that lean on the theory to back themselves up.

Think of it like this: Archaoraptor is to evolution what self-inflicted stigmata is to Christianity. It uses the framework, but it's reality or falseness has zero direct impact on the idea.

So... by the way. Your last thread was "People insult you if you talk bad about Islam!" and now it's "People insult you if you talk bad about evolution" - what next in the "People insult you if you talk bad about ________" series?


I am still considering adding more examples into the mix of other contested facts concerning the theory but for the moment I will hesitate. It's not so much about debunking evolution than it is in pointing out the very obvious fact that evidence supporting evolution is not entirely flawless.


Again, who said it was flawless?

And really, if you're going to go on about all the flaws, it behooves you to give examples of those flaws.


There are many different theories in evolutionary circles to explain the origins of life, genetic time lines are constantly being adjusted, many dispute the claims of the age of universe, question the length of time required for fossilization to occur, the length of time of the formation of the strata, etc.


I'm curious which evolutionary circles are talking about the origins of life (biochemistry) the age of the universe (astronomy), the length of time for fossilization to occur (paleobiology), or the length and formation of strata (geology).

Maybe having a few college credits in marine biology is enough credentials to claim to be an expert on evolutionary biology on answersingenesis.com, but most actual scientists tend to stick within their field, and rely on people in other fields to provide information from those fields.

But alright. People are human, I'm sure there are some evolutionary biologists who are speculating and debating, if only for fun. There's still a world of difference between arguing that a fossil is X years old or Y years old, and arguing that it HAS to be X years old or it totally unravels every portion of evolutionary theory in existence - which is the position you're presenting.


Again, I'm not here to 'debunk evolution' or 'prove creationism.' Neither field is my area of expertise but I have noticed, through even sided study, that there are enough conflicts that raise enough justification for healthy skepticism.


Not really. Unless you also believe that Zechariah Sitchen is enough "conflict" to cause healthy skepticism in what we know about Sumerian history, or that Zietgeist is sufficient evidence that everyone should doubt Christianity.

[edit on 2-3-2008 by TheWalkingFox]



posted on Mar, 2 2008 @ 07:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheWalkingFox
Who ever claimed it was flawless?


Through implication by those who deem anyone with questions or skepticism as 'ignorant' or 'lying for God.' Or by simply pointing out the conflicts, you must be a 'close minded religionist.'


However, you have yet to provide any flaws to the theory itself, and have instead given examples of hoaxes that lean on the theory to back themselves up.


Those were not necessarily all hoaxes as has already been pointed out. And again, there are conflicts already explained above and yes, 'flaws.'


So... by the way. Your last thread was "People insult you if you talk bad about Islam!" and now it's "People insult you if you talk bad about evolution" - what next in the "People insult you if you talk bad about ________" series?


I'm strongly considering creating the the thread, "Is there a taboo of disagreeing with WF?"



And really, if you're going to go on about all the flaws, it behooves you to give examples of those flaws.


Are you denying the conflicts of dating fossils and strata? Or the transfer of genetic information? The reliability of carbon dating? Evolutionary species time lines? The cause of vestigial organs? Dubious transitional fossil evidence?



posted on Mar, 2 2008 @ 07:23 PM
link   
Blatant troll thread.

"This thread isn't intended to engage in yet another pointless argument, but I'd like to start off by calling evolutionists gullible and hypocritical, probably stupid, and you're all going to hell."

Move along, nothing to see here...

[edit on 2-3-2008 by cruzion]



posted on Mar, 2 2008 @ 07:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by AshleyD

But this brings up an interesting point. Is this why evolutionists defend their views so adamantly because they believe it would automatically mean the Genesis account must be incorrect? Do they have to defend their science so strongly because of what they believe to be the only alternative (the existence of a divine creator)? Interesting insight everyone here is providing, even if unwittingly.

[edit on 3/2/2008 by AshleyD]


I think you`re missing the context here.

When Creationists frame the debate - for example, in this thread - the argument tends toward Biblical Creationisim vs. Evolutionary Theory.

When the debate over young earth vs. old earth theory is held between.... er.. hang on, I can`t think of anyone else who really hangs on to a young earth theory. Actually, I can`t think of any other major religious group that so overwhelmingly opposes evolution. I`ve never heard of this debate happening with Shintoists or Buddhists, or Hindus. It seems to be constrained to the Judeo-Christian-Muslim tradition, and within that most heavily among Christians.

Christian Creationists make up the largest, and certainly the most vocal, opponents in these discussions - that`s why the debate tends to come around to God and Genesis and so forth.



posted on Mar, 2 2008 @ 07:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by cruzion
Blatant troll thread.
Move along, nothing to see here...


Great! So we can add the accusation of 'troll' to those who raise questions concerning evolution as well. Let's not worry about their argument. They're simply trolls because they make a thread not completely favorable to the theory of evolution.




posted on Mar, 2 2008 @ 07:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by vox2442
It seems to be constrained to the Judeo-Christian-Muslim tradition, and within that most heavily among Christians.


Just a quick correction (and I may be wrong) but I've heard some Muslims say evolution does not contradict their creation account.

Then again, many Jews and Christians also say it does not necessarily contradict evolution. In particular, theistic evolutionists. Their problem with it is not, again, theological but scientific. What do you have to say to Christians who also believe in evolution? Are they fighting it at all costs? No, but they do have doubts regarding some of the supporting evidence put forth.

Again, if we wish we can completely remove religious beliefs concerning creation from the equation.



posted on Mar, 2 2008 @ 07:32 PM
link   
reply to post by Beachcoma
 


Yep - sure looks that way. ATS is rapidly becoming a Sunday School Teach-In for bible-bashers across the country. Maybe we should re-name ATS the 'Asinine Theology School'?

Has a nice ring to it, don't you think?


J.



posted on Mar, 2 2008 @ 07:34 PM
link   
AshleyD

When a person have strong believes in the bible as the only and only base for religious believes and nothing else, the mind is close to any other views from any other sources, they are all in the mind of the believer as lies and deceiving ways to distract the truth that is already embedded in the same religious believes.

Depending how strong your are in your faith, nothing here that people will post to prove you wrong will change your strong religious believes and is not going to change your mind.

So this threads seems to me to test the waters on wish you base your believes the absolute truth of the bible.

God luck.



posted on Mar, 2 2008 @ 07:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by jimbo999
Yep - sure looks that way.


You must have missed THIS explanation of the question. Not to mention the two pages where we did indeed (and not surprisingly) end up debating evolution and creationism without me screaming about keeping things on topic.



posted on Mar, 2 2008 @ 07:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by cruzion
Blatant troll thread.
Move along, nothing to see here...


BANG!! (the sound of a hammer hitting a nail squarely on the head).

Yes, the same tired old argument rolled out onto the creaky stage yet again. Is there going to be another posting of the notoriously funny 'Bananas Were Created By God' video I wonder? Worth a viewing if only for it's comedic value...

J.



posted on Mar, 2 2008 @ 07:43 PM
link   
awesome subject matter. and as a matter of fact I think there is a movie coming out about this issue, www.youtube.com...





top topics
 
20
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join