The Gullibility of Evolutionists

Yeah, don't care what the motive of the person who made it was, it's just a fantastic vid. Epic lulz!

However, I don't think this Expelled thing is gonna do you guys any good. More roflworthy antics from PZ Myers with the Expelled dudes tonight.

[edit on 28-3-2008 by melatonin]

reply to post by melatonin


Damn the Dickie Dee is a better rapper than me.

That was a much needed laugh. Thanks mel!

(was that the neuropsychology womans head from the other video today?)

Originally posted by Bigwhammy
(was that the neuropsychology womans head from the other video today?)

It's Genie Scott. Also PZ Myers, Sam Harris, Dan Dennett, Hitchens.

Anyway, glad you both enjoyed it.

Very well researched material from the looks of it so I'll take your word for it. What really gets me about christianity is that if the nature of man is evil and everyone has sinned and fallen short of the glory of god then why are 40,000 people labled as perfect in revelations?

However if there was a flood then as the muck settle would dino bones have settle deeper because they wieghed more? and the carbon testing of the soil be directly linked to emmence electromagnetic pulses coming from the core as it settled?

Then again God asked abraham to sacrifics his child according to christians
So does that mean god likes for us to hallucinate so bad that we want to kill are kids?

How bout jesus talking to the devil. Really if I tell my shrink that I'm hearing voices the she will say that she was right about me having skits. Well maybe jesus did too.

Everything that christian and evelutionist believe contridicts iself. You were right in not starting some debate for they are both cults.

Evolution is the scientific support system for atheism.

[edit on 3/26/2008 by Bigwhammy] Maybe for some Atheists, but not me. If I were to give a name to the pillars of my belief system, I would name them Psychology,sociology, science, and experience. I don't NEED evolution to support my beliefs. All I need is to take a good look at people around me and in the world to reinforce my assessment.
[edit on 29-3-2008 by Gigatronix]

[edit on 29-3-2008 by Gigatronix]

Originally posted by Gigatronix

Maybe for some Atheists, but not me. If I were to give a name to the pillars of my belief system, I would name them Psychology,sociology, science, and experience. I don't NEED evolution to support my beliefs. All I need is to take a good look at people around me and in the world to reinforce my assessment.

Well you would be an exception to the rule. Most seem to use evolution as the justification for denying God. The popular statement is that science has done away with God.

Really science points straight at God.

reply to post by Bigwhammy


Then why do you hate it so much?

reply to post by Sublime620


That's all in your imagination. When did I ever say I hated science? I don't. I am an engineer myself. I made straight As in all my chemistry and physics classes. I just don't believe that science has buried God.

[edit on 3/30/2008 by Bigwhammy]

Science is great! I don't know any Christians except the totally irrational ones that don't accept science. What you tend to do is use science to prove God doesn't exist.

Science is more and more proving a creative design in the universe. I know you guys hate it, but it's true.

Originally posted by idle_rocker
Science is great! I don't know any Christians except the totally irrational ones that don't accept science.

Do you mean the irrational christians that post all over ATS attacking evolution and telling people not to accept it?

[edit on 30-3-2008 by riley]

Originally posted by riley
Do you mean the irrational christians that post all over ATS attacking evolution and telling people not to accept it?

Hey Riley. Have you ever taken an IQ test when it states something like 'All zips are zoodles but not all zoodles are zips' and then proceeds to ask a question based on this?

So, evolution is considered a science but not all science is considered evolution. At least you now realize it is not politics and is, in fact, a science.

Even breaking down evolution we can accept some aspects of it.

But I do feel insulted by your use of the terms 'irrational' and 'attack' and your [false] accusation of telling people not to accept it, per se. We're debating the facts, not telling anyone how to think. :shk:

[edit on 3/30/2008 by AshleyD]

reply to post by Bigwhammy


I agree with that, science has not, and cannot, bury God. But honestly, anyone who believes the story of Creation literally is ignoring the truth.

Science may not have nailed down evolution yet, but they've certainly gone far enough to prove how long the Earth has been around, how long mammals have been here, when the dinosaurs were here, and when species (and other variations of us) started coming around.

And that doesn't even mean that the story of Creation is wrong, it just means it's not literal.

Originally posted by AshleyD

Originally posted by riley
Do you mean the irrational christians that post all over ATS attacking evolution and telling people not to accept it?

Hey Riley. Have you ever taken an IQ test when it states something like 'All zips are zoodles but not all zoodles are zips' and then proceeds to ask a question based on this?

So, evolution is considered a science but not all science is considered evolution. At least you now realize it is not politics and is, in fact, a science.

It is a science. It becomes political when religion tries to corrupt it for their own agenda. kind of like what happend when gravity was thought up..

Even breaking down evolution we can accept some aspects of it.

Thats comforting..

But I do feel insulted by your use of the terms

Really? Would it you feel insulted if I called you gullible instead? Do you not see the hypocricy of this?

'irrational'

I asked which irrational christians Idle Rocker was talking about.

Originally posted by idle_rocker
Science is great! I don't know any Christians except the totally irrational ones that don't accept science.

Were you insulted by her as well? Wasn't my term. very strange that you completely ignored this. apparently you have a different set of rules for yourselves..

and 'attack' and your [false] accusation of telling people not to accept it, per say. We're debating the facts, not telling anyone how to think. Thanks!

If people 'come out' as accepting evolution here they're guarenteed to be ridulculed, insulted [called gullible, immoral etc] and attacked for it.

[edit on 30-3-2008 by riley]

Originally posted by riley
It is a science. It becomes political when religion tries to corrupt it for their own agenda.

What do you mean by 'corrupt?' That sounds like the incorrect term.

Really? Would it you feel insulted if I called you gullible instead?

Do you not see the hypocricy of this?

Sure I see the hypocrisy. Do you not see it? You complain about the term 'gullibility' and say it is insulting but then turn around and insult Christians by referring to them as 'irrational' and 'attacking.' That's pretty hypocritical.

I asked which irrational christians Idler Rocker was talking about. It was not me that said they irrational not to accept science. very strange that you completely ignored this..

Because IR used the term irrational directed towards people who reject science completely. This would include parents who neglect to give their children medication, as an example. Now you go back and read your comment and tell me what the difference is. :shk:

Coersion perhaps? If people 'come out' as accepting evolution they're guarenteed to be attacked and insulted for it.

The same goes with creationism. You ever try claiming to be a creationist around here? Ouch!

reply to post by riley


riley, another thread I have just given up on, said my last on....as I was leaving, the last post informed me 'it only takes 2 people to start a conspiracy' !!!

I guess that sums up the opposition pretty well, at least when it comes to CiR threads, and there is a tremendous amount of bashing and ganging-up by the 'religious'...heck, even THIS thread is a ganging-up, just look at the title!

So, in essence, a small minority of anti-religion people (doesn't mean 'atheist'...that is a narrow view, and too easy to jump to) decide to advocate science over fantasy, and the bashing ensues. YET, these same 'religious' people start their own thread, and fantasy is advocated over science, and the bashing ensues.

Yup! Makes perfect sense to me!

Originally posted by AshleyD

Originally posted by riley
It is a science. It becomes political when religion tries to corrupt it for their own agenda.

What do you mean by 'corrupt?' That sounds like the incorrect term.

Corrupt as in actually try lie about the data. Like dr Dino and the IDists who tried to get religion taught in schools by underminding [corrupting] and missrepresenting ToE.

Really? Would it you feel insulted if I called you gullible instead?

Do you not see the hypocricy of this?

Sure I see the hypocrisy.

If you did when you had a go at me for it you would not have disregarded the fact that it was IR who actually said it..

Do you not see it? You complain about the term 'gullibility' and say it is insulting but then turn around and insult Christians by referring to them as 'irrational' and 'attacking.' That's pretty hypocritical.

I did not originally call them irrational. Idle Rocker said they were totally irrational.. and attacking is what you lot have been doing. Systematically and sometimes you even congratulated eachother for it.
If you have a problem with her terminology.. take it up with her. If you have a problem with me pointing out your OP title.. thats kind of too bad. You are the one that lowered the bar.

Pretty obvious that you saw an opportunity to ATTACK me yet again. IR could have responded to me instead but you leapt on to it for asking which irrational christians she was talking about and tried to make it look like I was the one victimising christians. Thats called selective morality.

might be an idea if you stopped answering my posts completely. I certainly don't want history repeating.

[edit on 30-3-2008 by riley]

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by riley

 

riley, another thread I have just given up on, said my last on....as I was leaving, the last post informed me 'it only takes 2 people to start a conspiracy' !!!

Thats true actually.. still doesn't prove all atheists are in on that 'other' conspiracy.

..or that evolutionists are gullible [not that thats a conspiracy anyway..].

[edit on 30-3-2008 by riley]

Originally posted by weedwhacker
I guess that sums up the opposition pretty well, at least when it comes to CiR threads, and there is a tremendous amount of bashing and ganging-up by the 'religious'...

What do you think of the threads where Christians have been called delusional, liars, idiots, evil, fanatical, etc., and the comments that have been directed towards some Christian members here that have gotten sexual in nature and bring up our body parts? Yes, this has truly happened. I've seen it all. Thank goodness for NGC's new thread.

No bashing. No gang up. And if some believe this has occurred, it is mild in comparison.

heck, even THIS thread is a ganging-up, just look at the title!

The title does not verify a gang up as I am only one person. Regardless, the title stands without apology now. I was sorry for it at first but not anymore. It is what it is.

______________________________________________________________________________________

Originally posted by riley
Corrupt as in actually try lie about the data. Like dr Dino and the IDists who tried to get religion taught in schools by underminding [corrupting] and missrepresenting ToE.

I'm not sure to tell you the truth. As I have already mentioned on this thread, a creationist once told me evolutionists believe it works through the process of things like a whale giving birth to a cow, thus creating a new species, and not through natural selection. I was quick to correct him. It's pretty sad how they have to fudge their case or to be so ignorant of the opposition to say such a thing. It's underhanded and I do not respect them anymore than evolutionists who also distort the evidence.

If you did when you had a go at me for it you would not have disregarded the fact that it was IR who actually said it..

She used the word in reference to those who reject all science. You used to the term to refer to us ATS members who are creationists. Do you not see the difference? Especially when a couple of people just said they do not reject science only a few comments above?

I did not call them irrational. Idle Rocker said they were totally irrational..

Do you not think people who reject all science are irrational? That makes sense. However, you targeted ATS members who reject evolution. The implication was obviously also directed to me. I am not irrational and have brought up some pretty good arguments on this thread. Thanks.

and attacking is what you lot have been doing. Systematically and sometimes you even congratulated eachother for it.

If you have a problem with her terminology.. take it up with her. If you have a problem with me pointing out your OP title.. thats kind of too bad. You are the one that lowered the bar.

That's pretty much the way I feel about those still grouching about the title at this point. Too bad!

Pretty obvious that you saw an opportunity to ATTACK me yet again. IR could have responded to me instead as but you leapt on to it and for asking which irrational christians she was talking about and tried to make it look like I was the one victimising chrsitians. Thats called selective morality.

Not attacking, Riley, even though you undoubtedly will always see it that way. I agree with her when she said people who reject all science are irrational (don't take needed medication, still believe the earth is flat, don't use technology because it's 'Satanic,' etc.). I do not agree with your accusation of calling us ATS members irrational when we have brought up many valid scientific objections to the TOE. Huge difference.

might be an idea if you stopped answering my posts completely. I certainly don't want history repeating.

Well, at least you aren't baiting me then updating your comments anymore after I respond to make you look innocent and me the bad guy. Kudos to you

reply to post by AshleyD


I edited in the 'please don't talk to me' because I'm sick of the way you operate. You are not a passive person and I'm not going to bare the brunt of your hostility again or risk being on the recieving end of more cowardly gang ups.

..and I edited in that request in so I would not have to write a personal and offtopic reply yet again and possibly attract mods. Yay history repeating!
If you see me talking to someone else.. let them answer and I AGAIN request that you [and BW] not talk to me directly. please.

Edit. I only skimmed your last reply initially and thought you just had a go at me for editing my "don't speak to me" request in [yet you still did]:

Well, at least you aren't baiting me then updating your comments anymore after I respond to make you look innocent and me the bad guy. Kudos to you

This is untrue.

[edit on 30-3-2008 by riley]

Originally posted by riley
I edited in the please don't talk to me because I'm sick of the way you operate. You are not a passive person and I'm not going to bare the brunt of your hositlity again or risk being on the recieving end of more cowardly gang ups.

The best way to get people to quit replying is to quit talking to them. As I have already said on here, since I am the O.P. I feel compelled to reply to everything directed at me, within reason, as a matter of being a responsible thread hostess.

And please lay off the personal attacks against me and other ATS members. It really is getting old. :shk:

It must be your mission to get me in trouble on here but I assure you, I will not fall for your bait again. The last incident of me finally coming out of my skin at you was a fluke. So, bait away. I will respond but will not be sinking to your level as I know it would be your greatest pleasure to report me the first change you get.

If you see me talking to someone else.. let them answer and I AGAIN request that you [and BW] not talk to me directly. please.

Earlier someone else was complaining because I would not interfere with someone else's conversation. Now again I am in a situation I cannot win when the rules changes and I am being told to not interfere.

Edit. I only skimmed your last reply initially and thought you just had a go at me for editing my "don't speak to me" request in [yet you still did].

Of course I did. Why reply to someone then tell them not to reply? I will reply, Riley. Always- especially when I am the OP. Even when you try to tell me you are going to get the last word and not to bother otherwise.

This is untrue.

I am not the only one who has seen you do this. Sorry, Riley.