The Gullibility of Evolutionists, page 72

reply to post by AshleyD

---

Ash, glad to know you set that 'creationist' straight about a whale giving birth to a cow....are you sure you heard him correctly? Are you convinced he didn't misinterpret the term 'calf' as it refers to a newborn cow, and a 'calf' as it refers to a newborn whale?

See, this is the crux of many a misunderstanding...the confusion of language (PLEASE don't cite the story of Babel, LOL!)

Anyway, you've made your point clear many, many times, and I am not here to disagree...only to resist comments directed at me, or at anyone who dares to announce their belief that the story of Christ is a cool parable, and filled with hope and promise --- but is, in essence, just a story. Perhaps, and more than that, likely based on an actual person. but a story handed-down and embellished, as people tend to do, over generations, before being commited to writing...and even then, subject to revisions and re-translations and interpretations....

What astounds me the most, though, is the unwavering 'faith' that somehow this mythical dead man will come back, in some form, at some time...is the term 'advent'? OR, there is talk of 'ascension'...or....what's the belief?....when you float up into the sky? Oh, yeah...'rapture'......

Instead of hoping and praying and waiting for this magical event, why not instead, expect it won't happen. Because, it has been predicted over and over and over again, as have many so-called 'prophecies'...and these things are actually made up by others, by people who have come before, in an effort to manipulate and control. But if it does happen, instead of being smug and self-righteous, you can be genuinely surprised and pleased!!!

These are my opinions of course, and it isn't an 'atheist' mindset, it is simply an 'antireligion' mindset, if you will.

Christians are fond of saying that 'Christ' is in their heart, and it gets all warm and fuzzy, and it's a good feeling...but you see, I can have morals and values without a fear of a mythical figure judging me later on when I die. See, people can be good of heart, even without 'Christ'. It's an imperative for some Christians to 'proselitize' I suppose....because they have been TOLD to do it!

AND, that's fine, except when you keep pounding it in, when someone doesn't want it, it doesn't make it taste any better.

Back to Origins and Creationism Conspiracies.....we humans live such a fraction of a microsecond in the 'BIG CLOCK' of the Universe, we just cannot conceive of the immensity of the timescales that surround us unless we A) turn to religion or B) use science to examine, and deduce, from evidence we gather, how the past may have played out.

The A) choice is too easy, IMO. Just look around, discuss it, come to an agreement and voila! You've solved all the mysteries of existence....oh, and don't forget the pesky details of inconsistencies from the written records of your elders, just bury the ones you don't agree with, and tell the youngin's what you think is 'truth'....

B) is the more difficult path, since it involves study and takes time, and provides no easy, simplistic answers. Science is long-term, and requires scholarly study and dedication. And a lot of patience....

OK....you're going to say there's an overlap of both A and B, because these philosophies have been discussed ad infinitum, I'm guessing.

One major difference....while it is true that sometimes science will have cheaters, they are eventually found out, because it is science.

If I make a religious statement, and there is nothing else but my word to back it up...and I find three other people to believe, and they each find three others, and so on....pretty soon we have a belief movement, with no real original basis, except one person's 'belief', yet 'word-of-mouth' makes it so....because the 'mob' now 'believes' it. Once this takes root, and a little lonely voice pipes up to 'question'...it is labeled 'heresy'....science inevitably takes a backseat to this process, over-simplified as I've made it, but made to make a point.


[edit text]

Best, WW


[edit on 30-3-2008 by weedwhacker]

JUST A QUICK THREAD NOTE

From now, all creationism/Christianity question will be answered by me on the thread The Gullibility of Creationists. As grateful as I am for the points everyone is racking up for me by bringing up creationism (), it would be best if we watched our P's and Q's as to not get accused of being off topic. So if a question gets asked, I'll reply on the other author's thread and place a link here or in U2U. Thanks.

Hi Ash,,

Well, I just ordered this book called the Icons of Evolution and Ill just let you read the introduction to this book then add my own commentary. I must say that how anyone can say this thread is titled wrong only backs up a common and most damaging effect in Science today. That is by questioning Darwin's theory in anyway garners so much rebuke, it is not only RIGHT to question it, it is our OBLIGATION to do so.

That ridiculing those who question this failed theory so riddled with hoax after hoax after hoax that if I didn't know better, the only system of belief so well guarded by similar tactics of ridicule and rebuke has been none other then Religion. Mmmmmm

It seems to me The Darwinian / Atheist MO
(Modus operandi).

• Step 1: Assume evolution.
• Step 2: Observe a fact.
• Step 3: Make up a story to show how the fact might fit in with the assumption of evolution.

In just weeks of studying this theory, what I have learned is exactly what always thought about this bogus, bent and broken theory, why it never made sense and never will. Why intelligent people continue to con themselves into believing such mythical stories that continue to be added on to discoveries already proven as false belies reason.

What is so Ironic is that it is so called Atheist community claiming they are the voice of reason that are the biggest supporters of what can be called nothing less then a history lies to cover lies to cover more lies.

The only thing that has kept this kind of behavior from getting the kind of punishment it truly deserves is the fear that prosecuting Science the same way we do insurance fraud or securities fraud will impede scientific discovery causing a fear to take risks.

I believe that idea is absurd and there have been a few cases that have been prosecuted, it is the idea that if we DO NOT start calling people like Dawkins on their continuous lies then we have students majoring in minors and getting degrees in what? JUNK Science is what. The ramifications of such an Idea are astounding when you think about it. Not only is the Darwinian MO and its politics trying to create its own like minded peer review its own judges on an all liberal Supreme Court if you will,, the REASON, they are doing it, is for the same reason Darwin had in the first place. To deny any possible reason we are the product of a planer a designer, inventor, and master creator.

A recent speech given by Dawkins about DNA has him still using the Neanderthal myth and suggesting that DNA will someday prove our ancestors were some monkey in Australia. Even after proof, bipedal man was walking upright as far back as million years ago. Dawkins needs his head examined or extracted from the orifice between his gluteal muscles.

Rather than have the confidence that evolution can stand on its own, and like all other theories be proven quite easily to anyone with even average intelligence, what we see is obfuscation dis-information variable semantics, word playing games and harsh ridicule from its supporters, hoping you will be too intimidated, to eventually find out what anyone with an iota of honesty finds out. That it is has been foiled, failed and flunked every single test every single time.

That if any of this were true, you would see things like this.

That isn't the emergence of a new species even if it was real it would be more likely the result of someone's parents doing the wild thing during their lunch break at three mile Island during a core melt down but NOT, no not ever from Natural Selection. That MUCH we know, that much we can prove.


WE see, however that it continues to be described has having passed more testing than any other theory and is a proven fact.

The above description couldn't be further from the truth and this book gives us the understanding why "some" of us, come to such erroneous conclusions.

So I can only agree with the title of this thread when I ask myself.

Are we THAT gullible?

Apparently, yes.

"Science is the search for the truth," wrote chemist Linus Pauling, winner of two Nobel prizes. Bruce Alberts, current President of the U. S. National Academy of Sciences, agrees. "Science and lies cannot coexist," said Alberts in May, 2000, quoting Israeli statesman Shimon Peres. "You don't have a scientific lie, and you cannot lie scientifically. Science is basically the search of truth." For most people, the opposite of science is myth. A myth is a story that may fulfill a subjective need, or reveal something profound about the human psyche, but as commonly used it is not an account of objective reality. "Most scientists wince," writes former Science editor Roger Lewin, "when the word 'myth' is attached to what they see as a pursuit of the truth."

Of course, science has mythical elements, because all human enterprises do. But scientists are right to wince when their pronouncements are called myths, because their goal as scientists is to minimize subjective story-telling and maximize objective truth. Truth-seeking is not only noble, but also enormously useful. By providing us with the closest thing we have to a true understanding of the natural world, science enables us to live safer, healthier and more productive lives. If science weren't the search for truth, our bridges wouldn't support the weight we put on them, our lives wouldn't be as long as they are, and modern technological civilization wouldn't exist. Story-telling is a valuable enterprise, too. Without stories, we would have no culture. But we do not call on story-tellers to build bridges or perform surgery. For such tasks, we prefer people who have disciplined themselves to understand the realities of steel or flesh.

The Discipline of Science

How do scientists discipline themselves to understand the natural world? Philosophers of science have answered this question in a variety of ways, but one thing is clear: Any theory that purports to be scientific must somehow, at some point, be compared with observations or experiments. According to a 1998 booklet on science teaching issued by the National Academy of Sciences, "it is the nature of science to test and retest explanations against the natural world." Theories that survive repeated testing may be tentatively regarded as true statements about the world. But if there is persistent conflict between theory and evidence, the former must yield to the latter. As seventeenth-century philosopher of science Francis Bacon put it, we must obey Nature in order to command her. When science fails to obey nature, bridges collapse and patients die on the operating table. Testing theories against the evidence never ends.

The National Academy's booklet correctly states that "all scientific knowledge is, in principle, subject to change as new evidence becomes available." It doesn't matter how long a theory has been held, or how many scientists currently believe it. If contradictory evidence turns up, the theory must be reevaluated or even abandoned. Otherwise it is not science, but myth. To insure that theories are tested objectively and do not become subjective myths, the testing must be public rather than private. "This process of public scrutiny," according to the National Academy's booklet, "is an essential part of science. It works to eliminate individual bias and subjectivity, because others must also be able to determine whether a proposed explanation is consistent with the available evidence." Within the scientific community, this process is called "peer review." Some scientific claims are so narrowly technical that they can be properly evaluated only by specialists. In such cases, the "peers" are a handful of experts. In a surprising number of instances, however, the average person is probably as competent to make a judgment as the most highly trained scientist. If a theory of gravity predicts that heavy objects will fall upwards, it doesn't take an astrophysicist to see that the theory is wrong. And if a picture of an embryo doesn't look like the real thing, it doesn't take an embryologist to see that the picture is false.

So an average person with access to the evidence should be able to understand and evaluate many scientific claims. The National Academy's booklet acknowledged this by opening with Thomas Jefferson's call for "the diffusion of knowledge among the people. No other sure foundation can be devised for the preservation of freedom and happiness." The booklet continued: "Jefferson saw clearly what has become increasingly evident since then: the fortunes of a nation rest on the ability of its citizens to understand and use information about the world around them." U. S. District Judge James Graham affirmed this Jeffersonian wisdom in an Ohio newspaper column in May, 2000. Graham wrote: "Science is not an inscrutable priesthood. Any person of reasonable intelligence should, with some diligence, be able to understand and critically evaluate a scientific theory."

Both the National Academy's booklet and Judge Graham's newspaper column were written in the context of the present controversy over evolution. But the former was written to defend Darwin's theory, while the latter was written to defend some of its critics. In other words, defenders as well as critics of Darwinian evolution are appealing to the intelligence and wisdom of the American people to resolve the controversy. This book was written in the conviction that scientific theories in general, and Darwinian evolution in particular, can be evaluated by any intelligent person with access to the evidence. But before looking at the evidence for evolution, we must know what evolution is.

What is Evolution?

Biological evolution is the theory that all living things are modified descendants of a common ancestor that lived in the distant past. It claims that you and I are descendants of ape-like ancestors, and that they in turn came from still more primitive animals. This is the primary meaning of "evolution" among biologists. "Biological evolution," according to the National Academy' booklet, "explains that living things share common ancestors. Over time, evolutionary change gives rise to new species. Darwin called this process 'descent with modification,' and it remains a good definition of biological evolution today." For Charles Darwin, descent with modification was the origin of all living things after the first organisms. He wrote in The Origin of Species: "I view all beings not as special creations, but as the lineal descendants of some few beings" that lived in the distant past. The reason living things are now so different from each other, Darwin believed, is that they have been modified by natural selection, or survival of the fittest: "I am convinced that Natural Selection has been the most important, but not the exclusive, means of modification."

When proponents of Darwin's theory are responding to critics, they sometimes claim that "evolution" means simply change over time. But this is clearly an evasion. No rational person denies the reality of change, and we did not need Charles Darwin to convince us of it. If "evolution" meant only this, it would be utterly uncontroversial. Nobody believes that biological evolution is simply change over time. Only slightly less evasive is the statement that descent with modification occurs. Of course it does, because all organisms within a single species are related through descent with modification. We see this in our own families, and plant and animal breeders see it in their work. But this still misses the point. No one doubts that descent with modification occurs in the course of ordinary biological reproduction. The question is whether descent with modification accounts for the origin of new species--in fact, of every species. Like change over time, descent with modification within a species is utterly uncontroversial. But Darwinian evolution claims much more. In particular, it claims that descent with modification explains the origin and diversification of all living things. The only way anyone can determine whether this claim is true is by comparing it with observations or experiments. Like all other scientific theories, Darwinian evolution must be continually compared with the evidence. If it does not fit the evidence, it must be reevaluated or abandoned--otherwise it is not science, but myth.

Evidence for Evolution

When asked to list the evidence for Darwinian evolution, most people--including most biologists--give the same set of examples, because all of them learned biology from the same few textbooks. The most common examples are:


a laboratory flask containing a simulation of the earth's primitive atmosphere, in which electric sparks produce the chemical building-blocks of living cells;


the evolutionary tree of life, reconstructed from a large and growing body of fossil and molecular evidence;


similar bone structures in a bat's wing, a porpoise's flipper, a horse's leg, and a human hand that indicate their evolutionary origin in a common ancestor;


pictures of similarities in early embryos showing that amphibians, reptiles, birds and human beings are all descended from a fish-like animal;


Archaeopteryx, a fossil bird with teeth in its jaws and claws on its wings, the missing link between ancient reptiles and modern birds;


peppered moths on tree trunks, showing how camouflage and predatory birds produced the most famous example of evolution by natural selection;


Darwin's finches on the Galapagos Islands, thirteen separate species that diverged from one when natural selection produced differences in their beaks, and that inspired Darwin to formulate his theory of evolution;


fruit flies with an extra pair of wings, showing that genetic mutations can provide the raw materials for evolution;


a branching-tree pattern of horse fossils that refutes the old-fashioned idea that evolution was directed; and


drawings of ape-like creatures evolving into humans, showing that we are just animals and that our existence is merely a by-product of purposeless natural causes.
These examples are so frequently used as evidence for Darwin's theory that most of them have been called "icons" of evolution. Yet all of them, in one way or another, misrepresent the truth.

Science or Myth?

Some of these icons of evolution present assumptions or hypotheses as though they were observed facts; in Stephen Jay Gould's words, they are "incarnations of concepts masquerading as neutral descriptions of nature." Others conceal raging controversies among biologists that have far-reaching implications for evolutionary theory. Worst of all, some are directly contrary to well-established scientific evidence. Most biologists are unaware of these problems. Indeed, most biologists work in fields far removed from evolutionary biology. Most of what they know about evolution, they learned from biology textbooks and the same magazine articles and television documentaries that are seen by the general public. But the textbooks and popular presentations rely primarily on the icons of evolution, so as far as many biologists are concerned the icons are the evidence for evolution.

Some biologists are aware of difficulties with a particular icon because it distorts the evidence in their own field. When they read the scientific literature in their specialty, they can see that the icon is misleading or downright false. But they may feel that this is just an isolated problem, especially when they are assured that Darwin's theory is supported by overwhelming evidence from other fields. If they believe in the fundamental correctness of Darwinian evolution, they may set aside their misgivings about the particular icon they know something about. On the other hand, if they voice their misgivings they may find it difficult to gain a hearing among their colleagues, because (as we shall see) criticizing Darwinian evolution is extremely unpopular among English-speaking biologists. This may be why the problems with the icons of evolution are not more widely known. And this is why many biologists will be just as surprised as the general public to learn how serious and widespread those problems are.

The following chapters compare the icons of evolution with published scientific evidence, and reveal that much of what we teach about evolution is wrong. This fact raises troubling questions about the status of Darwinian evolution. If the icons of evolution are supposed to be our best evidence for Darwin's theory, and all of them are false or misleading, what does that tell us about the theory? Is it science, or myth?

[edit on 31-3-2008 by Conspiriology]

reply to post by Sublime620

---

I don't think the Genesis account was ever intended to be literal scientific account. Take note that prior to the 1960 most scientists believed the universe was eternal. So not until they noticed the expansion of the universe and theorized the Big Bang did they begin to agree with the Bible in that there was a point in time for creation. Genesis was written for a mind of an ancient Hebrew not a modern 20th century person. We really do not "get it". To "get it" we need someone who can think like an ancient Hebrew. Enter Hebrew Scholar Dr. John Sailhammer.

He was educated at Dallas Theological Seminary and UCLA. Dr. Sailhammer has studied the ancient genesis account in the original language. He says the creation account is not about the creation of the universe at all but the preparation of the garden for man.

For instance "In the Beginning" the first words in your bible comes from one Hebrew word that always means a period of time not a point in time. So "in the beginning" could be 7 days or 10 billion years we do not know. When you see the word "earth" - in our English bibles we think the planet earth right... well it meant dirt --not the planet earth necessarily

Are you starting to see it's not the Bible but our incorrect understanding that gets in our way?

The context of the whole pentatuch (1st 5 books) the story is ::: Man is good god gives him the land , then man is bad god kicks him out -- over &over & over continuing to this day in Israel! So in that context does it not make sense that what is being described is really only the preparation of the place for man?

It is not the mechanics of how God made the universe at all. That was all done "In the beginning" and he doesn't tell us how he did that.




[edit on 3/31/2008 by Bigwhammy]

reply to post by Bigwhammy

---

I've always understood that. Some people do not. Some people think it was all created in 7 days, and some people think that all Christians think the universe was created in 7 days.

Hell, it could have been 7 days, just not 7 days in our time. Who knows what 7 days would be considered by a God?

I understand that, and that is why I don't challenge the Bible as a whole, just the people who quote it as literal.

I think we are probably in agreement more than it seems.

reply to post by Sublime620

---

Wow that's twice now

I feel the Big One coming on...



Elizabeth I coming to join ya honey


We can agree Sublime

reply to post by Bigwhammy

---

It's good when things come full circle like that.

reply to post by weedwhacker

---

What astounds me the most, though, is the unwavering 'faith' that somehow this mythical dead man will come back, in some form, at some time...is the term 'advent'? OR, there is talk of 'ascension'...or....what's the belief?....when you float up into the sky? Oh, yeah...'rapture'......

At one time (for most of my life) I was Christian and everything that I was taught was taught as FACT! It is part of the religious mindset, if one questions then that may lead to confusion. We are taught as religious people to accept the dogma that we are taught. Even Jesus said that "man would teach commands of men as doctrines."

Jesus coming "live in the flesh" is one of those. Unfortunately, most Christians do not know the difference between a literal event and a metaphor. It is what unfortunately takes away some of their credibility. The Trinity is another example. A Lie being taught as fact of which is just another metaphor.

I call myself a spiritual scientist. I believe that it is essential to question everything and that includes the spiritual as well as science. I am in essence a spiritual prosecuting attorney. Understanding and defending what is documented spiritual law. No fantasy or hearsay!

More and more scientists that I know, or read of, are accepting the idea of a higher power. It just explains the unanswered questions that are left as missing links without it. If we leave religion out of it - it becomes a more palitable thought. It is easier to accept. Unfortunately the religious do not know that they are ruining rather than helping mankind learn.

reply to post by undo

---

I do not look at the religious as being simple. I don't know if that is what you are alluding to, but I have known many brilliant ones. But, I have seen the brightest be mislead. It depends often as to whom they look up to, and why. The simple man at times - glories in their humble situation and it creates anything but humility! Some of the most arrogant, judgmental, and narrow, are the so called: "simple ones."

The same can be said of the science community. I have watched people blindly accept philosophy or someone's opinion without doing any of the research themselves, always quoting someone else. It is part of the human condition that the masses will go along with the masses in each of their differing pens. And each will insist that the other is wrong.

Often the truth can be in someone's face and they cannot see it as they are blinded by preconceived notions, how a person was raised or educated. Often academia, the church, or the military, will formulate a persons thoughts and beliefs for life! It's all in their conditioning!

reply to post by Sublime620

---

Hell, it could have been 7 days, just not 7 days in our time. Who knows what 7 days would be considered by a God?

2 Peter 3:8 = A thousand years is one day to Jah.

A creative day is thought to be 7,000 years each.

I can't help it! I was a Bible thumper for too many decades to count!

reply to post by MatrixProphet

---

Even then, can you be sure that is literal? Would a God even have a concept of time?

Perhaps that's just a comparison written to show that God is forever, compared to man?

Originally posted by Sublime620
reply to post by MatrixProphet

---

Even then, can you be sure that is literal? Would a God even have a concept of time?

Perhaps that's just a comparison written to show that God is forever, compared to man?

You may be right on target there Sublime! I tend to think of it more in 7 specific time periods, and we don't know how long, because God is outside time. The periods don't even have to be the exact same periods of time. I think of it more of a way for man to understand the order of creation.

[edit on 3/31/08 by idle_rocker]

reply to post by Sublime620

---

Even then, can you be sure that is literal? Would a God even have a concept of time?

Perhaps that's just a comparison written to show that God is forever, compared to man?

Good question. God would know that we are curious and would need to know something, so if this works for him, it works for me. He created us with curiosity and the ability to reason. Why not? Actually, I think this equation fits part of the Game that I believe is going on and we would need a frame of reference.

Ex-Vatican Translator, Mauro Biglino\'s Alternative Creation/Translation Theory
  Posted 10 days ago with 40 member flags

EVOLUTION - Did YOU Know?
  Posted 18 days ago with 24 member flags

"I was raised an atheist"- Professor František Vyskočil
  Posted 8 days ago with 6 member flags

Evolutionary theory: Gaps and not yet understood phenonemon
  Posted 19 days ago with 3 member flags

Radical Theory Explains the Origin, Evolution, and Nature of Life, Challenges Conventional Wisdom
  Posted 16 days ago with 3 member flags

Please be more specific about which type of creationist you\'re speaking of...
  Posted 16 days ago with 2 member flags

Proof that the pharoes did not build the pyramids, so who did FIND OUT HERE
  Posted 15 days ago with 2 member flags

The meaning or point of existence or life
  Posted 11 days ago with 2 member flags

Newest topics, updated in real-time:

Newest topics getting flags, in real-time:

Newest topics getting replies, in real-time: