The Gullibility of Evolutionists

page: 3
20
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 2 2008 @ 07:44 PM
link   
Ash, how disrespectful would it be if somebody started a thread "The Gullibility of Christians?" Seems as you've made it your life's work to refute anything than your own religion while simultaneously using it as your platform to discredit others beliefs. In our last exchange, the first thing you said to me was how unfair Christians were being treated on the board and how "everybody" comes down on Christianity without people like myself sticking up for it. Well, what do you expect when you're constantly trashing everybody else's belief structure.

Seeing as how we're in our technological and scientific infancy as a species, it doesn't surprise me that we don't know everything about life's origin, or even specifically the origin of man. We're still digging up remains of dinosaurs that we didn't even know existed or were even a link in a particular species. For instance, ducks..



“Gansus is a missing link in bird evolution.”


or


“Most of the ancestors of birds from the age of dinosaurs are members of groups that died out and left no modern descendants. But Gansus led to modern birds, so it’s a link between primitive birds and those we see today,”


As humans, we are constantly making headway, scientifically speaking, even when it comes to seemingly insignificant birds. Can you expect us to sort the existence of man and all other animals in 110-160 years? Darwin died in 1882, and even though the idea was a loose concept among a minority of scientists and researchers, it wasn't really driven home until Darwin started publishing his works. As we're in the infancy of sciences, we're just getting started with the theory of life. As you've had almost 1700 years to establish your beliefs in your church and religion, maybe you should give us a minute to find out just exactly how we "came to be."

I could never understand why religious people, so worried about persecution for their own beliefs are so hasty to disprove/discredit beliefs that differ or immediately conflict with their own. Progress is progress, and if you believe that arguing the factual integrity of human evolution with a few hoaxes and common, totally understandable misconceptions is kind of ridiculous. Not to mention totally counterproductive. As the book you procure your knowledge about the origin of life from is 1700 years old and finalized and we should all respect that, maybe it is time for you to respect the progressive sciences.




posted on Mar, 2 2008 @ 07:46 PM
link   
reply to post by marg6043
 


Hm. I had some difficulty in reading your comment so please correct me if I misunderstood something you meant.

1) I don't necessarily discount theistic evolution.
2) I am not necessarily a YEC.
3) My religious beliefs or lack thereof are not dependent on evidence supporting or refuting the theory of evolution.
4) I'm actually wholly unconcerned with the process God used in creation. Whether it was 'poofing' things into existence or a process of a big bang and evolution, I will still believe He guided the process.
5) My concerns lay in the belittling of those who really are not concerned either way but still remain skeptical of aspects the theory.
6) If one day, while standing before God and He tells me, "Hey, Ash, you goof! I created your entire universe via evolution and the big bang." My reply will simply be, "My mistake!"



posted on Mar, 2 2008 @ 07:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by DeadFlagBlues
Ash, how disrespectful would it be if somebody started a thread "The Gullibility of Christians?"


Probably about as disrespectful as thread titles like 'Yahweh is an evil God' and 'Christianity is the Antichrist religion.' Or maybe 'Religious Extremists Taking Over ATS' where the thread was focused on Christian ATS members. Or maybe "The Greatest Lie Ever Told: The Bible.' Seems we all need to have some thick skin if we're going to hang around here.


Seems as you've made it your life's work to refute anything than your own religion while simultaneously using it as your platform to discredit others beliefs.


My 'life's work' is actually the business I own but 'discredit' does not seem like the proper term, especially when it has been stated already on this thread my intention is not to 'debunk evolution' or my other thread stated it was not concerning 'the theology of Islam.'

In reality, I hold back many of my more potent and controversial opinions (Yes, they do get worse).



posted on Mar, 2 2008 @ 07:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by psychedeliack
awesome subject matter. and as a matter of fact I think there is a movie coming out about this issue, www.youtube.com...


Now this will be a great example of the dishonesty of cdesignproponentists. This movie is called 'expelled' and aims to show how science has 'expelled' people who question evolution.

Yet they can show no-one who was actually expelled for being an IDer.

Number of scientific articles testing the ID 'hypothesis' = 0
Number of articles in the ID journal PCID since 2005 = 0
Number of popular books written by IDers = many
Number of school textbooks written by IDers = 2 or more
Number of media releases from Disco Institute = too many to mention
Number of films made by IDers = 1

Where's the science?


[edit on 2-3-2008 by melatonin]



posted on Mar, 2 2008 @ 08:00 PM
link   
reply to post by AshleyD
 



5) My concerns lay in the belittling of those who really are not concerned either way but still remain skeptical of aspects the theory.


Bingo. The proverbial nail on the proverbial head.
It gets rather tiresom to have someone who adheres to one not-completely proven theory (and inherently not completely provable at the current time theory) almost with the zeal of a fanatic to tell me I am "stupid, ignorant, sheeple, etc" just because I disagree with them.
Especially when that self same group likes to bemoan how it is sooooooooooooo down trodden by the believers of another group.
I am not christian and don't agree with the doctrine of genesis.
But I respect their right to believe that without judgement from me.
And I think everyone needs to learn to friggin respect and tolerate each other.



posted on Mar, 2 2008 @ 08:00 PM
link   
reply to post by AshleyD
 


AshleyD, you respond prove to me that I was wrong to believe that your trust the bible to the letter, also that your are neither a follower of the Theistic evolution.

That you are looking for something but still eludes you when it comes to faith and science.

That you want to learn from others but are tired of been bashed for preaching.

And that I have miss judged, or you are learning to keep the preaching from the teaching.

I will say the thread is very interesting I do not necessary agree with your views, if you dig good enough you will find here in ATS many threads that deal with this subject.

Again good luck in your endeviour.


[edit on 2-3-2008 by marg6043]



posted on Mar, 2 2008 @ 08:06 PM
link   
reply to post by AshleyD
 


Time after time it looks as though you organize the gunfight and show up fully armed and say "oh, I'm here to watch." Your faith shouldn't be something you defend through constant disagreement, pseudo neutrality, and passive aggressive slander. Let those dorks trash religion all they want, but bowing down to a level you know is lesser than your own isn't the most sensible route.



posted on Mar, 2 2008 @ 08:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by psychedeliack
awesome subject matter. and as a matter of fact I think there is a movie coming out about this issue, www.youtube.com...


Now that does look rather interesting.

Thanks for contributing. I haven't heard of that movie or seen the clip but it does seem you are branded with as a superstitious fanatic in the field of science for asking questions.



posted on Mar, 2 2008 @ 08:32 PM
link   
Here are some quotes by that I find revelant to the conversation.
By Dr. Karl Popper none the less. Look him up and possibly learn something unless you have a bias blocking your view.

I shall start it out with a REALLY good one.


When I speak of reason or rationalism, all I mean is the conviction that we can learn through criticism of our mistakes and errors, especially through criticism by others, and eventually also through self-criticism. A rationalist is simply someone for whom it is more important to learn than to be proved right; someone who is willing to learn from others - not by simply taking over another's opinions, but by gladly allowing others to criticize his ideas and by gladly criticizing the ideas of others. The emphasis here is on the idea of criticism or, to be more precise, critical discussion. The genuine rationalist does not think that he or anyone else is in possession of the truth; nor does he think that mere criticism as such helps us achieve new ideas. But he does think that, in the sphere of ideas, only critical discussion can help us sort the wheat from the chaff. He is well aware that acceptance or rejection of an idea is never a purely rational matter; but he thinks that only critical discussion can give us the maturity to see an idea from more and more sides and to make a correct judgement of it.
-- Karl Popper

A great many on BOTH sides of the theist/atheist debate run amok of this truth.



Whenever a theory appears to you as the only possible one, take this as a sign that you have neither understood the theory nor the problem which it was intended to solve.
-- Karl Popper

Like evolution or creation? Mmmmm?



It is often asserted that discussion is only possible between people who have a common language and accept common basic assumptions. I think that this is a mistake. All that is needed is a readiness to learn from one's partner in the discussion, which includes a genuine wish to understand what he intends to say. If this readiness is there, the discussion will be the more fruitful the more the partner's backgrounds differ.
-- Karl Popper




There is an almost universal tendency, perhaps an inborn tendency, to suspect the good faith of a man who holds opinions that differ from our own opinions
-- Karl Popper




Why do I think that we, the intellectuals, are able to help? Simply because we, the intellectuals, have done the most terrible harm for thousands of years. Mass murder in the name of an idea, a doctrine, a theory, a religion
-- Karl Popper




You cannot have a rational discussion with a man who prefers shooting you to being convinced by you.
-- Karl Popper

Note: There are many ways to "shoot" at someone other than using a gun.



When we enter a new situation in life and are confronted by a new person, we bring with us the prejudices of the past and our previous experiences of people. These prejudices we project upon the new person. Indeed, getting to know a person is largely a matter of withdrawing projections; of dispelling the smoke screen of what we imagine he is like and replacing it with the reality of what he is actually like.
-- Karl Popper




We have become makers of our fate when we have ceased to pose as its prophets.
-- Karl Popper




There is no history, only histories.
-- Karl Popper




There is no history of mankind, there is only an indefinite number of histories of all kinds of aspects of human life.
-- Karl Popper




Science may be described as the art of systematic over-simplification.
-- Karl Popper




Now I think one of the reasons why religion developed in the way that it did over the centuries was precisely to curb this murderous bent that we have as human beings.
-- Karl Popper




It is impossible to speak in such a way that you cannot be misunderstood.
-- Karl Popper




Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them
-- Karl Popper




No matter how many instances of white swans we may have observed, this does not justify the conclusion that all swans are white.
-- Karl Popper


[edit on 2-3-2008 by WraothAscendant]



posted on Mar, 2 2008 @ 08:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by AshleyD
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.'


Ignorant? Yes, most often ignorance is a huge portion of skepticism towards scientific fields, including evolution. "I don't know the answer and can't be arsed to look it up, so it must be fake!" is about all the material I've seen from evolution skeptics. Others, such as yourself, lean totally on things that have long-since been resolved. Piltdown Man, are you kidding me?

Yes, that's ignorance. The cure for ignorance is education.

Now as for lying for god, well, I've seen plenty of this as well. Such as presenting a lime-encrusted boot from a limestone cave as "Evidence" that fossils can happen in a few short years, or, my favorite, chiseling human footprints alongside dinosaur tracks. Hoaxes go both ways, you know. Unfortunately, evolution does not hinge on the hoaxes, but creationism often does.

And yes, those are pretty much the options we have - evolution or creationism. Whether you want to say biblical creationism, or that aliens engineered us, it's the same concept.


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


Semantics - you know what I meant. You seem to expect flawlessness and perfection. In other words, you expect religious scripture from science, rather than science. Or at least, you're approaching science as you would scripture. "If it's not flawless, it's worthless"



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


Only when you're wrong and plan to sniffle when I tell you you're wrong.



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?


What conflicts in particular? You're going to have to specify there, because you're talking a broad range.



posted on Mar, 2 2008 @ 08:40 PM
link   
reply to post by TheWalkingFox
 


Erm walking.
She was not justifying creationism.
She was pointing out the mistakes evolution has made too.
Which both sides have and you seem to agree on.
Fighting a another demon with her as a proxy mayhap?



posted on Mar, 2 2008 @ 08:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by WraothAscendant
reply to post by TheWalkingFox
 


Erm walking.
She was not justifying creationism.
She was pointing out the mistakes evolution has made too.
Which both sides have and you seem to agree on.
Fighting a another demon with her as a proxy mayhap?



Erm Wraoth
I never said she did
She hasn't presented any mistakes that "Evolution" has made
Just some hoaxes and a paleontological mistake
I don't agree on any "point" she's made, really, who's posts are you reading?
Writing limericks in your spare time, mayhap?



posted on Mar, 2 2008 @ 08:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by AshleyD
Thanks for contributing. I haven't heard of that movie or seen the clip but it does seem you are branded with as a superstitious fanatic in the field of science for asking questions.


Well, whilst you're balancing on that fence, do make sure you take in the 'wedge' document. This is the just asking questions we are talking about...


The wedge strategy is a political and social action plan authored by the Discovery Institute, the hub of the intelligent design movement. The strategy was put forth in a Discovery Institute manifesto known as the Wedge Document,[1] which describes a broad social, political, and academic agenda whose ultimate goal is to "defeat [scientific] materialism" represented by evolution, "reverse the stifling materialist world view and replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions"[2] and to "affirm the reality of God."[3] Its goal is to "renew" American culture by shaping public policy to reflect conservative Christian, namely evangelical Protestant, values.[4]

en.wikipedia.org...

Aye, just asking questions. That's all the IDers were doing. When they took the 'Pandas' creationist school textbook straight after the 1987 Edwards creationism case, and simply replaced the words 'creation' and creationism' with 'design' and 'intelligent design' for the new creationist trojan horse, they were just asking questions. Of course, they keep saying it'snot about creationism, blah blah.

Oh, Ash...

So that you won't need 'protecting' from atheists, Nick Matzke is a christian, so you might be willing to read what he has to say about the evolution of creationism into intelligent design in 1987...

pandasthumb.org...

Looks almost like macroevolution, but it's not. Just micro. Creationism doesn't change its stripes so easily. The whole charade just stinks.

You see, we're not that gullible. It was just creationism in a cheap tuxedo.


[edit on 2-3-2008 by melatonin]



posted on Mar, 2 2008 @ 09:00 PM
link   
I'm better than the next man because I don't need evidence to go with my instinct, to go with the conclusion I have drawn based on life up to this point and the knowledge I have gathered. Oh yeah, my experiences factor heavily too. The most famous acknowledged people in history took chances, made decisions without 100% proof, and this is why they are famous. Like it or not..

And why do all my prayers end up coming true? its really quite strange, I don't pray often, I should, but I only do it every few days. Or when something worth praying about comes up, like someone's well being or safety for example. And no matter how much the odds are stacked against it, the prayers work out. It's happening more and more often, kinda like noticing 11:11 on the clock. You start to see it, then you dont try to see it but you end up noticing it at least once sometimes twice everyday it seems! and you dont know why! its just like that.

God made man because God knew man would become God-like, and do his job for him. We are the fingertips of God.. without us, he cannot feel the creation, that is .. all that which exists.

On a scientific level, you can't have something from nothing, there's nothing that can just pop into existence without a pre-cursor action or event. The big bang didn't "just happen", if it happened at all. If theres one thing I've learned thus far in life, it's that everything happens for a reason, and nothing happens without a cause. Nothing spontaineously creates itself out of thin air. All the matter which exists in the Universe had to be created, I'm sorry, theres no other fancy physics explanation for it. When you go back to the first millisecond of time, there had to have been a creation of matter, out of thin air. Call it a big bang, call it a 7 day creation, same thing. Even if there was a singularity of matter before the big bang, and thats all that existed, no time, no space, despite the contradiction there b/c you need space for a singularity of matter to exist in, despite all of this.. that singularity had to come from somewhere. Nothing just exists infinitely with no start or finish, with no beginning point somewhere in times past, not even God! This is the purpose of the creation, God had to give of itself to make this, and this is why people say God is in everyone, or that everything is God.

[edit on 3/2/2008 by runetang]



posted on Mar, 2 2008 @ 09:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by WraothAscendant
Here are some quotes by that I find revelant to the conversation.
By Dr. Karl Popper none the less. Look him up and possibly learn something unless you have a bias blocking your view.


Cool. Karl Popper, the philospher of science who structured science into what it is today.

The same structures that place ideas like intelligent design creationism outside of science by the notion of falsifiability and testability.

Evolution has rabbits in the cambrian, ID creationism has....



posted on Mar, 2 2008 @ 09:02 PM
link   
Ash.
Nice try at illustrating your point.
I think you did wonderfully.

But all they want to do is drag it back into the same old, tired argument as to who is right.


But as is obvious they won't see past their own proverbial noses.
It's all about them and how they are right and your just a stupid, ignorant, evil Christian.

Alas poor tolerance I wish people would be willing to know thee.





[edit on 2-3-2008 by WraothAscendant]



posted on Mar, 2 2008 @ 09:06 PM
link   
reply to post by melatonin
 


And you run afoul of this he had to say.


Whenever a theory appears to you as the only possible one, take this as a sign that you have neither understood the theory nor the problem which it was intended to solve.
-- Karl Popper


I am not trying to prove or disprove either side. As I do not care what anyone else thinks. I think the truth is more in the middle myself but that is not what this thread is about.

It's about a group of militant "I am righters." that enjoys bombing on everyone else while accepting whole heartedly what is obviously just another theory.
Which seems to me at least you seem unable or unwilling to get.
Ash isn't trying to prove or disprove her beliefs.
Shes trying to point something out.
Though you happily and stubbornly go on with the "lets fight while I disprove your theory".
Shes a Christian Believer. That is self evident.
Thats not the point of her post and that is NOT what she was talking about.

You and a few others on the otherhand want to turn it into one.
I am guessing for psychological reasons you will not admit even to yourself.



[edit on 2-3-2008 by WraothAscendant]



posted on Mar, 2 2008 @ 09:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by DeadFlagBlues
Ash, how disrespectful would it be if somebody started a thread "The Gullibility of Christians?" Seems as you've made it your life's work to refute anything than your own religion while simultaneously using it as your platform to discredit others beliefs.


With all due respect, that thread has already been made umpteen times. You and I and everyone else knows that more anti-Christian threads are made on this forum than anti-Atheist threads, or threads made to debate Atheists on this point or that point. Every few days theres a new anti-Christian thread, its the hip thing to do, everyone wants to be a part of the Christian bashing ATS club. You're all a bunch of followers, whose own intellect is so self questionable that you cannot even believe your own thoughts, and requires this so called proof that we all know does not exist, and cannot exist, because it would contradict the free will which all humans have, the will to choose.

This argument is so repetitive, it goes nowhere. Why cant Atheists quietly disbelieve to themselves, and Christians quietly believe to themselves, and stop this? Does anything get accomplished? No. Not a damn thing, nada. Just the same arguments from both sides, nothing new. In fact, what am I doing wasting my time here? Oh yeah, I was sticking up for the underdog.

This is all I have to say, and it sums up this entire debate in one sentence:
You cannot prove God exists, and you cannot prove God doesn't exist.

Therefore, believers will go on until someone proves God doesn't exist, and disbelievers will go on until someone proves God exists, neither of which will happen, both of which are impossible.

Therefore neither side is on higher ground, neither side has more evidence, and NOBODY has any room to say that this is the way it is, or that is the way it is, because theres no proof of anything, existence of God or not.

all I ever hear is wheres the proof? wheres the proof?

I want to know the answer to that same question! where IS the proof God doesn't exist?

[edit on 3/2/2008 by runetang]



posted on Mar, 2 2008 @ 09:11 PM
link   
I'm not a Creationist, but I can think of a way to have a 'young Earth'.

If we, in the distant future, created a very advanced 'Sims' game, and put the background into place, then 'activated' or loaded the game, it may be indistinguishable from 'reality' to the inhabitants.

They might argue the same as Evolutionists, but, haha, they'd be wrong.

Now, I'm also not one to say 'oh, look how complex this is, there's no way this can be in place "by accident"'.

We may just not be used to how complex, yet elegant, biological systems can be.

In 20 years we may not be able to comprehend how a computer system, with integrated quantum circuitry has become, and yet beings who are little more than 'intelligent apes' invented them.

Indeed, if we reach the 'Singularity' and develop machines that can design themselves, then we -really- may not be able to see how they came up with those things. Yet, we, are their "creators".

I think an intelligent debater should be able to argue both sides of an issue with equal alacrity. One may have to invoke a bit of the 'fantastic' as a given, but after such qualifiers, there are few limits on possibilities. Why be threatened by them?



posted on Mar, 2 2008 @ 09:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by WraothAscendant
And you run afoul of this he had to say.


Whenever a theory appears to you as the only possible one, take this as a sign that you have neither understood the theory nor the problem which it was intended to solve.
-- Karl Popper


It's about a group of militant "I am righters." that enjoys bombing on everyone else while accepting whole heartedly what is obviously just another theory.


But no scientist will (or should) claim 100% absolute certainity. We leave that for maths and religion. Ironic that you quote from his book that views knowledge as a form of evolutionary process.

Heh, I give about 0.0000001% for ID creationism. I give 0.0001% for I am just a brain in a vat. I give 0.001% for aliens created all life over time, and they evolved on some planet elsewhere. And I give about 1% for another unknown natural theory.

There we go. Evolutionary theory is not just the only 'theory', just the most likely one. However, two of those above are not scientific theories (and the others would be no more than hypotheses) according to Popper.

I guess you found a bunch of Popper quotes. Just read his books, they're very good.

[edit on 2-3-2008 by melatonin]





new topics
top topics
 
20
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join