It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

"Evolutionists"

page: 1
6
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 15 2008 @ 10:03 AM
link   
i've noticed that this thread is thrown around quite often, as if those that believe in evolutionary theory have some sort of belief system independent of all others

i'd just like to say that this isn't the case. you get christians, jews, muslims, atheists, buddhists, hindus, taoists, shintoists, pagans, etc etc etc that all believe in evolution.

it's not some secret atheist cabal of people trying to force atheism down your throats.



JAK

posted on Mar, 15 2008 @ 10:52 AM
link   
Where does this perception that "those that believe in evolutionary theory have some sort of belief system independent of all others" come from, where do you see it being circulated and why might that be?

Could you, for reference, provide examples of the 'christians, jews, muslims, atheists, buddhists, hindus, taoists, shintoists, pagans, etc etc etc that all believe in evolution'?

Are you suggesting there is a conspiracy here, possibly to propagate this notion in order to isolate creationists in reaction to a possible 'organized conspiracy to influence science education through the introduction of creationism and other non-scientific origin concepts'?

Or is this just a few thoughts you have on the subject? (Remember BTS Faith, Spirituality & Theology )

Jak



posted on Mar, 15 2008 @ 11:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
i'd just like to say that this isn't the case. you get christians, jews, muslims, atheists, buddhists, hindus, taoists, shintoists, pagans, etc etc etc that all believe in evolution.


Compact Oxford English Dictionary - Evolutionist: (noun) a person who believes in the theories of evolution and natural selection.

All those folks you listed would be accurately described as "evolutionists."




it's not some secret atheist cabal of people trying to force atheism down your throats.


Cool. At least, those guys are anything but secret about it [using evolution to advance atheism.] Ya know, those, 'evolution allows an atheist to be intellectually fulfilled' atheists. "Most probably" anyway. I'm sure you know the type.



Conspiracy? Nope. Wrong forum? Most probably. I'd suggest the Rant forum. [/psuedoMod]



[edit on 15-3-2008 by Rren]



posted on Mar, 15 2008 @ 11:35 AM
link   
It would really advance your cause to find an atheist who didnt believe in evolution.

"Impossible" you might say, but im sure there is at least one atheist out there who may believe in the steady state theory rather than evolution.

Just for the record, i think evolution is a good base theory but there is more at work here! Check out the recent advances in epigenetics which may confirm LaMarckian theories in the short term time scale.

Evolution must not be a firmly held dogmatic view of life's origins. If evolutionists become blind to any possibilities then they are no better than the medieval churches who refused to believe that the earth rotated around the sun.



posted on Mar, 15 2008 @ 12:29 PM
link   
reply to post by Rren
 


i never said it wasn't a word, but i was objecting to how it is being tossed around as if it meant some sort of people with a unified belief system...

and the word itself is kind of stupid... i mean...do we have a special term for those that acknowledge the theory of gravitation?

reply to post by JAK
 


it's just how i've seen it tossed around...
as if believing in religion and evolution are two mutually exclusive things

i could produce examples, if you'd wish.


Originally posted by 44soulslayer
It would really advance your cause to find an atheist who didnt believe in evolution.


my case is advanced enough by finding those of religious persuasions that believe in evolution



posted on Mar, 15 2008 @ 01:40 PM
link   
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 


I'm actually glad you made this thread, MIMS. Someone else brought up the fact they weren't fond of the word. May I ask why? You have already admitted it is a real word and is defined as one who believes in evolution.

I don't see the problem with the word in itself. Maybe with the word evolutionism which is pretty ridiculous but not evolutionist.

And you are correct: the label is not exclusive to atheists as there are theistic evolutionists as well. But I must say, many do associate the term evolutionist with atheist automatically. On my thread on the subject, many atheists kept brining their atheistic beliefs into the thread, implying it was exclusive, despite the many members who kept pointing out the fact there are many theistic evolutionists as well.

So, on that point I will agree. However, many atheists for some reason imply they have a monopoly on the science. This becomes evident seeing some of their comments when they say things like they disdain religion but love science, as if the two cannot go hand in hand.

Glad you are more enlightened, though.



posted on Mar, 15 2008 @ 01:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul

i never said it wasn't a word, but i was objecting to how it is being tossed around as if it meant some sort of people with a unified belief system...


The word describes people whom have a unified belief in the Theory of Evolution.




and the word itself is kind of stupid... i mean...do we have a special term for those that acknowledge the theory of gravitation?


No, not that I'm aware of. But "evolutionist" is an accepted term. Certainly the word is accepted by many scholars and scientists. No?





it's just how I've seen it tossed around...
as if believing in religion and evolution are two mutually exclusive things


Well, simply point them to the definition I supplied you with. I'm hardly seeing the point here. Certainly not seeing the conspiratorial angle. Help me out; your opening post was lacking in any sort of argumentation or documentation wrt the point you're trying to make.






my case is advanced enough by finding those of religious persuasions that believe in evolution


So, if I were to provide examples of atheist evolutionists using the ToE to support atheism could I then argue: There's an atheist cabal of people trying to force atheism down our throats? Perhaps next time you decide to start a thread you should take some more time to develop your argument and provide some examples and sources for others to review. Perhaps even - as the rules of this forum state - you could make the conspiracy explicit. The fact that you can be a theist/deist/Buddhist - but not a Creationist - and also accept evolutionary theory is a truism. That's why you'll find "evolutionist" and "creationist" in any dictionary you care to look at.

At the very least couldn't this comment have been added to a thread where you saw this behaviour [of mis-using terminology] taking place? Why do you believe the three sentences (without sources or argument) you provided deserved its own thread in this forum?

I'd be happy to contribute more than just my pseudo-modship if I knew what you were trying to accomplish here besides the obvious, 'hey, you don't have to be an atheist to be an evolutionist, but you can't also be a Creationist.'

Regards.


(edit)I just realized that Jak, who already posted here, is a supermod and saw it fit to leave the thread in O&C. I'm no expert on the rules wrt to forum etiquette so I'll stop de-railing your thread with talk of improper start new thread button usage, MIMS.

Sorry, go get 'em, have fun. Don't mind me.


[edit on 15-3-2008 by Rren]



posted on Mar, 15 2008 @ 07:08 PM
link   
reply to post by JAK
 


It worries me that you may be suggesting that this thread shouldn't be here based purely on the notion it's not conspiracy-centric. If that was the case, then over half of the threads in this forum should be closed and/or removed.



posted on Mar, 16 2008 @ 03:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by Thousand
reply to post by JAK
 


It worries me that you may be suggesting that this thread shouldn't be here based purely on the notion it's not conspiracy-centric. If that was the case, then over half of the threads in this forum should be closed and/or removed.

I agree.. threatening to move this thread and not others to bts seems biased.. especially given many threads start with the term 'evolutionist'. Discussing the term seems very logical to me.

The term 'evolutionist' is often used to denograte people who accept evolution and was popularised by creationist groups. It is NOT a religion but people keep trying to say evolution and atheism are part of the same belief system; trying to force us under one 'banner' so they have a common enemy.. this despite the fact that there are many christians that have no problem with accepting ToE. Creationists do not speak for all christians.

There is no evolution/atheist belief system. Evolution is a scientific theory and atheism is merely disbelief in god/s. The term 'evolutionist' used to refer to people who studied evolution theory [scientists]. Now it's just a buzz word used in pro-creationist propoganda.


[edit on 16-3-2008 by riley]



posted on Mar, 16 2008 @ 06:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rren
The word describes people whom have a unified belief in the Theory of Evolution.


1 belief isn't a belief system. and even within evolutionary theory there are different schools of thought. for example, the selfish gene theory of dawkins isn't universally accepted and there are many competing theories to describe the same phenomenon.

it simply describes the acknowledgment of a single branch of biology...






No, not that I'm aware of. But "evolutionist" is an accepted term. Certainly the word is accepted by many scholars and scientists. No?


yes, but it kind of alludes to (as ash brought up) the idea of "evolutionism"
which is a wholeheartedly ridiculous notion





Well, simply point them to the definition I supplied you with.


sadly, with some people it's not quite that simple...



I'm hardly seeing the point here. Certainly not seeing the conspiratorial angle.


the conspiratorial angle is that people such as hovind and ham through the term "evolutionist" around as if it were a term to describe some sort of people that have a religion like system of belief in an effort to pull the wool over the eyes of those that actually pay attention to them



Help me out; your opening post was lacking in any sort of argumezntation or documentation wrt the point you're trying to make.


well, documentation i can supply if you want, the lack of argument was just because i started this thread when i didn't have much time but didn't want to forget the idea.





So, if I were to provide examples of atheist evolutionists using the ToE to support atheism could I then argue: There's an atheist cabal of people trying to force atheism down our throats?


...um...no
i just said that religion and evolution aren't mutually exclusive, so providing a few people that are both religious and supporters of evolutionary theory is more than enough to prove my point...
or i could just point to the catholic church, which has several hundred million people that are both religious and supporters of darwin's theory...

the point of an atheist cabal trying to force evolution down your throats would involve quite a bit more than that..



Perhaps next time you decide to start a thread you should take some more time to develop your argument and provide some examples and sources for others to review.


i didn't want to forget the thread idea so i wrote it haphazardly...



Perhaps even - as the rules of this forum state - you could make the conspiracy explicit.


i'd have to say that 90% of the threads in this area don't...



The fact that you can be a theist/deist/Buddhist - but not a Creationist - and also accept evolutionary theory is a truism. That's why you'll find "evolutionist" and "creationist" in any dictionary you care to look at.


but creationist does refer to a purely religious belief, as it is in no way supportable through any sort of modern science
even behe himself said that you'd have to accept astrology as science to accept ID



At the very least couldn't this comment have been added to a thread where you saw this behaviour [of mis-using terminology] taking place?


..i have.
i made the thread because such comments go unheeded.



Why do you believe the three sentences (without sources or argument) you provided deserved its own thread in this forum?


seriously, what's with you?
why the unnecessary confrontational attitude?



I'd be happy to contribute more than just my pseudo-modship if I knew what you were trying to accomplish here besides the obvious, 'hey, you don't have to be an atheist to be an evolutionist, but you can't also be a Creationist.'


...creationism is an inherently religious belief.
there is something conspiratorial in the fact that the propagators of creationism keep using this term to fleece their flock


edit to provide example:

This thread


I have a question for all the Evolution believers, and I call you that cause it is a belief and clearly not a science

....and it just gets worse from there

[edit on 3/16/08 by madnessinmysoul]



posted on Mar, 16 2008 @ 07:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul

1 belief isn't a belief system. and even within evolutionary theory there are different schools of thought. for example, the selfish gene theory of dawkins isn't universally accepted and there are many competing theories to describe the same phenomenon.

it simply describes the acknowledgment of a single branch of biology...



Agreed. All those folks would be accurately categorized as evolutionists. The word - and its definition - work for everyone from atheists like Dawkins to theists like Conway-Morris. You're arguing (I thought) that it's only used by creationists to imply evolutionist = atheist. It doesn't, and without any examples of what you meant I had nowhere else to go with it. (your example below still doesn't give much to go on, imo, as some folks (most atheists) do ascribe to evolutionism and that may be who the poster was referring to. Either way it's still pretty week imo, but it's a start. Uncontrovercial as it may be.)








yes, but it kind of alludes to (as ash brought up) the idea of "evolutionism"
which is a wholeheartedly ridiculous notion


I don't like that term either but, it's also in the dictionary and can be applied to some evolutionists. No?





the conspiratorial angle is that people such as hovind and ham through the term "evolutionist" around as if it were a term to describe some sort of people that have a religion like system of belief in an effort to pull the wool over the eyes of those that actually pay attention to them.


Why not supply us with a link of those two (can't stand 'em either, fwiw) so we could see what you - and them - meant? Would have been more effective I think. I'm still not sure how they're using the term that runs counter to the accepted definition. Surely even those guys are aware of theistic evolutionists.






well, documentation i can supply if you want, the lack of argument was just because i started this thread when i didn't have much time but didn't want to forget the idea.


Fair enough (there's a draft post thing now, btw, I've never used but it may come in handy the next time you're strapped for time.) Anyway, I'm willing to read your sources and argument whenever you find the time to rework your Op.





...um...no
i just said that religion and evolution aren't mutually exclusive, so providing a few people that are both religious and supporters of evolutionary theory is more than enough to prove my point...
or i could just point to the catholic church, which has several hundred million people that are both religious and supporters of darwin's theory...

the point of an atheist cabal trying to force evolution down your throats would involve quite a bit more than that..


Well I wasn't making the 'atheist cabal' (that was your terminology) argument just drawing the correlation between it and what I assumed you were doing here with your 'creationist cabal' argument/observation. They seem very similar and equally (un)supportable. I imagine when/if you do make your argument I could use the same method to make the other. For what that would be worth, which isn't much, imho. That was all I was trying to say, but without your explicit claims it would have been pointless.







but creationist does refer to a purely religious belief, as it is in no way supportable through any sort of modern science
even behe himself said that you'd have to accept astrology as science to accept ID


I don't want to go off topic, but that's not what he said in Dover. It's your thread, so if you'd like to support it/veer off topic for a minute, I'll do the same based on the transcripts - to the best of my ability.








seriously, what's with you?
why the unnecessary confrontational attitude?


The unintended consequences of not writing well enough to convey my feelings/attitude, I guess. (



posted on Mar, 16 2008 @ 08:20 PM
link   
Evolution is a total hoax.

There is no evidence at all, and it serves very specifically the NWO agenda - by making us all into animals, they give themselves the right to do what they want to us, including mass extermination of entire populations, sterilization, abortion, etc. Their mission is to totally devalue the human being as a spiritual being of great import, and make us no different than an animal.

I would advise you to all check into this link:

Andre Leave Darwinian Evolution Believers Speechless

**A MUST READ**

Andre of Outlaw News completely and totally deconstructs the Darwinian RELIGION to the point where these people are left without any response. It is beautiful.



posted on Mar, 17 2008 @ 06:40 AM
link   




people like you don't even know what evolution is, making claims like "there is no evidence at all". what about pests becoming resistant to pesticides or bacteria becoming resistant to certain medicines?

you sir, do not know what evolution is, ignorant you are.



posted on Mar, 17 2008 @ 06:47 AM
link   
reply to post by cheeser
 


Yeah, and here is another case of evolution in action with pests and BT crops:
So much for genetic engineering -- evolution has got it beat

Note: I'm not an atheist. Science is knowledge and God gave us an advanced brain so that we may seek it.



posted on Mar, 17 2008 @ 11:15 AM
link   




So you think simple adaptations are the same thing as one species magically transforming into another?



posted on Mar, 17 2008 @ 12:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Wilsonfrisk
 


Seeing as one species does slowly adapt into another, yes.

It would help your arguments if you knew what evolution meant before spouting out nonsense like "there's no evidence". You must have evolution and creationism confused, as all the evidence lies on the "evolution" side, and absolutely zero on the "creationism" side.

One day, when you learn what evolution is, you'll look over your posts and laugh. It's funny that the site's tag line is "deny ignorance", yet you're denying every piece of empirical scientific evidence that has been amassed for evolution. That's about as ignorant as they come, but worse - it's willfull ignorance, which is deplorable.



posted on Mar, 17 2008 @ 05:01 PM
link   
reply to post by dave420
 


I thought we understood we were talking about Darwinian Natural Selection.

But you would rather play word games, hm?

You Darwinian followers seem to love that. Also, you love accusing people who don't follow your religion of belonging to a competing religion.

I don't believe in "creationism" anymore than I believe in "Darwinism". I tend to stay away from all dogmatic faith-based systems of thought.

[edit on 17-3-2008 by Wilsonfrisk]



posted on Mar, 17 2008 @ 07:31 PM
link   
reply to post by Wilsonfrisk
 


well, as evolution, like any other science, ISN'T faith based, you shouldn't have a problem with it

now, if you're going to proceed with derailing my thread with your ignorance, don't
find another thread that's on the actual topic of evolution, this is just about 1 term.


There is no evidence at all,


there is a mountain of evidence for evolution



and it serves very specifically the NWO agenda - by making us all into animals, they give themselves the right to do what they want to us, including mass extermination of entire populations, sterilization, abortion, etc.


...we're animals whether or not evolution is true

and evolution in no way leads to any of those things
in fact, all of those things are entirely the opposite of evolution...
they'd be artificial selection



Their mission is to totally devalue the human being as a spiritual being of great import, and make us no different than an animal.


and here is more evidence of the conspiracy...
evolution in no way deal with the spiritual. it doesn't exclude the existence of it in any way, it just shows how life arose.

 


rren, here's a quote or two or however many i end up posting from good ol' doc dino


Evolution was Theodore Roosevelt's problem. Theodore Roosevelt believed in evolution. Roosevelt said, "We have an inferior species on this continent." In America? Who were the inferior species in America, Theodore? Ah, he thought the Indians were inferior. Have you ever wandered [sic] why we broke all the treaties with the Indians? We made treaties with the Indians and then broke them. Why? Many of our leaders were strong evolutionists, and they thought that the Indians were savages, inferior species, and that it wasn't their right to have any land. They thought that the white man and the superior Europeans ought to have the land. In 1871, Congress scrapped all treaties with the Indians and moved them out to the worst property that they could find.



The evolutionists have just really hyperactive imagination, I think they need Ritalin or something. But they are able to imagine all sorts of things, you know, the Earth has slowly cooled down. You do have to wonder why there would be an ice age if we are still cooling down, then global warming.



Belief in evolution justified the excesses of the industrial revolution, the Nazi elimination of the Jews, and the rise of Marxism and Communism. It also serves as the justification for the disbelief in God. Although modern evolutionists try to distance themselves from the consequences of taking their theory into a social realm, these historical atrocities are the result of taking evolutionary philosophy to its logical conclusion. If we are a product of biological forces why not extend these forces into our own dealings with other humans? Animal groups do not lament wiping each other out in order to survive. Why shouldn't we do the same if we are just part of an evolutionary process that formed us? Creation is the event that ultimately gives us life value because it links every human's values to their Creator who loved him enough to die for him.


that enough?
...i'd get stuff from ham, but my head already hurts from the ignorance of hovind



posted on Mar, 17 2008 @ 07:38 PM
link   
A belief that a theory is fact is a religious belief. Period.

Darwinism is a religion.



posted on Mar, 17 2008 @ 07:40 PM
link   
Also, the Nazis and the communists based their philosophies on Darwin. This is a fact. Mao's mass extermination program was called "the great leap forward". I would advise you to read Andre's responses on that thread. He really does leave the Darwinian believers without words.



new topics

top topics



 
6
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join