The Gullibility of Evolutionists

Originally posted by AshleyD
Everything you just described showed adaptations. Again, many thanks for verifying the Genesis account.

Doesn't this all boil down to what/who a person feels created life and not so much how that life evolved? Whether god started the spark of life with a designed plan that humans will one day evolve from that initial spark, or we just randomly happened from a spark that was just right due to the energies and chemicals available, or even something else, such as a ancient race seeded us, it all comes down to what started life, and evolution is just a side topic to it all that really does not prove or disprove how life was initially created or how/why humans are here.


[edit on 8-3-2008 by Xtrozero]

Originally posted by AshleyD


First of all, please lay off the bold font.

SORRY ASH!

Originally posted by Xtrozero
Doesn't this all boil down to what/who a person feels created life and not so much how that life evolved? Whether god started the spark of life with a designed plan that humans will one day evolve from that initial spark, or we just randomly happened from a spark that was just right due to the energies and chemicals available, or even something else, such as a ancient race seeded us, it all comes down to what started life, and evolution is just a side topic to it all that really does not prove or disprove how life was initially created or how/why humans are here.

Absolutely. This is why we have theistic evolutionists. They combine evolution (micro and macro) with theology and believe 'the origins of the species' as theorized by Darwin as being a process of God.

Now, I do believe in evolution being a process of God but not in the sense we started out as single cell organisms and went on from there. I, however, believe adaptations and mutations is a method God uses to sustain His creation.

I hear what you're saying: Even evolutionists do not know what caused 'the spark of life' although they have their speculations. The Origins of the Species doesn't begin at 'step one' but starts off at the point where life was already existing. And I know you know all of this, I'm just putting it out there so others will know I understand where they are coming from.

My spot of contention is the lack of solid evidence of macroevolution stemming from micro, the gaps, dubious evidence, and the failed forecasts by Darwin.

Originally posted by Bigwhammy
reply to post by AotearoaSon

 

Wow you are truly a scholar and a gentleman.

Thanks for the post.

HA HA HA That isn't a scholar whammy wait till you see the u2u's I got from him LOL HA HA HA he calls me names I guess he thinks he won't get away with posting so he sends me them u2u. He's a little kid.

reply to post by Conspiriology


No kidding he wasn't acting like either... I just wanted to help along the road to embarrassment. He needed some assistance, his sense of decency seemed to be mildly retarded,

Originally posted by AshleyD
My spot of contention is the lack of solid evidence of macroevolution

Hope you're having a good day, ash. Just a quick question.

Can we have a defintion of macroevolution?

Might help if we are talking about the same thing.

You may confer...

Originally posted by AotearoaSon
Next you'll be telling me that the bible is the word of god!!!

Next you'll be telling me "Darwit" was right!

I never claimed to have a staggering intellect,

I know,, I said that.

I was just showing that I am not coming to this table uninformed.

Looked like bragging to me

I would question any textbook that uses the Piltdown Manas anything else than an example of a hoax and the need to be extremely questioning of any and everything (which is what science does, and stands the test, too).

yeah well thats just it, it doesn't moreover it seems the science of evolution has a bad habit of manufacturing data to fit its theory. The whole thing was built on a lie and continues getting caught yet I don't see your indignation about that. All I see is you making excuses for it, then sweeping it under the rug to be over looked in light of so called new data when we have heard that more then enough times where the new data is later to be found as MORE hoax.

Was your mentioning of paraplegia meant to be offensive, insensitive or something? Because it just shows that you have no (moral) legs to stand on.

No it was meant as a comparison, so your attempt to give me a Christian moral reputation to live up to just so you can attack me as a hipocrite is noted. As much as I would care to point out that Atheists have an advantage in that they have no moral base but their own might explain while you felt it necessary to call me such childish names in several u2u's you sent me

Your buffoonery shows your lack of trust in that which you try to promote.

my what? Just what is that supposed to show us? That formal education you allegedly got?

Save the names guy,, I've been called em all.

That goes for your childish u2u's too.

- Con

Originally posted by melatonin

Originally posted by AshleyD
My spot of contention is the lack of solid evidence of macroevolution

Hope you're having a good day, ash. Just a quick question.

Can we have a defintion of macroevolution?

Might help if we are talking about the same thing.

You may confer...

Hi Mel,, We may not agree on much but I just wanted to compliment you on your posts with Ashley and those of you and dbates. If their was anyone to show they have the foundation of a formal education for those of the opposing point of view, it has been you.

Just my opinion

- Con

You know what is so compelling in the argument between evolution and intelligent design is that Science uses something that many allege was "happenstance" without planning without blue prints or schematics of any kind what so ever.

We have mapped the genome DNA and RNA and have developed artificial intelligence and yet all the marvels we have created, required intelligence.

I am certain someday in the future we will be creating life similar to the way we have studied it using copies of DNA or artificial DNA. As much as many argue the importance of crediting the discoveries and new innovation to their rightful intellectual property owners, we don't see how we steal the intellectual property of whose original works we have copied so much of it from.

If we were to find a planet and inhabit it with our own creations only to come back ten thousand years later. I wonder if their would be arguments between two sides of the same argument we see going on here.

One side saying the life we created there just happened and that all the advances their society would have created by then would be heralded as the great inventions of intellectual minds while they learn more and more of thier own existence, they credit NOT even the remote chance they themselves were the product of intelligence purposefully made.

I wonder if their wouldn't be another side of that argument that would be so humbled by the magnificent artfully and wonderfully way they are made as they are criticized for asking the age old question,,

How did we get here, why are we here and could it be


we were created?

by a creator?


- Con

Originally posted by Conspiriology

Originally posted by Bigwhammy
reply to post by AotearoaSon

 

Wow you are truly a scholar and a gentleman.

Thanks for the post.

HA HA HA That isn't a scholar whammy wait till you see the u2u's I got from him LOL HA HA HA he calls me names I guess he thinks he won't get away with posting so he sends me them u2u. He's a little kid.

yes, and you called me names, so we're even...and we have made up in U2U so party's over...move along folks, nothing to see here.

[edit on 8-3-2008 by AotearoaSon]

Originally posted by Bigwhammy
reply to post by Conspiriology

 

No kidding he wasn't acting like either... I just wanted to help along the road to embarrassment. He needed some assistance, his sense of decency seemed to be mildly retarded,

At least my sense of reality is grounded on fact, not supposition. And that's as close to a personal attack I am going to go.
I am an Atheist. I am an evolutionist. I don't need to believe in a god for this world/universe to exist.
I don't need the crutch of bigotry or ignorance to 'guide' me through the day. I deal with facts and observations that back up those facts. I do not deal in flights of fairy fancy

Originally posted by Conspiriology

I was just showing that I am not coming to this table uninformed.

Looked like bragging to me

For goodness sake, it wasn't bragging, I was just trying to give a bit of background to show that I am not uninformed about this. I'm sorry you feel threatened by an education.

I am reposting this, as it is important to reiterate:


If I am to be called gullible for being rational and holding these views (no god, evolution is real), then let me be called gullible.
If I am to be called gullible for focusing on fact supported by hard evidence (and such a wealth of hard evidence there is!) rather than relying on an unprovable faith-based premise, then let me be called gullible.
If I am to be called gullible because I am the product of over a billion years of evolution, then let me be called gullible.
If I am to be called gullible because I stand strong in the denial of ignorance by supporting these theories and facts, then let me be called gullible.
Just, please, don't call me any less of a person because of these truths (small t, requiring fact supported by hard evidence) and please don't offer me prayer or spiritual consolation because I most certainly do not need these.


[edit on 8-3-2008 by AotearoaSon]

Originally posted by Conspiriology
How did we get here, why are we here and could it be


we were created?

by a creator?

That's what philosophy is for.

Anyway, regarding blueprints and what-nots, here's a fascinating article about how a team of scientists used DNA to build a 3D structure out of gold:

DNA Is Blueprint, Contractor And Construction Worker For New Structures

Using just one kind of nanoparticle (gold) the researchers built two common but very different crystalline structures by merely changing one thing -- the strands of synthesized DNA attached to the tiny gold spheres. A different DNA sequence in the strand resulted in the formation of a different crystal.

The technique, to be published in the journal Nature, and reflecting more than a decade of work, is a major and fundamental step toward building functional "designer" materials using programmable self-assembly. This "bottom-up" approach will allow scientists to take inorganic materials and build structures with specific properties for a given application, such as therapeutics, biodiagnostics, optics, electronics or catalysis.

Sweet! Nanotech + biotech = the future

Originally posted by AotearoaSon

Originally posted by Conspiriology

Originally posted by Bigwhammy
reply to post by AotearoaSon

 

Wow you are truly a scholar and a gentleman.

Thanks for the post.

HA HA HA That isn't a scholar whammy wait till you see the u2u's I got from him LOL HA HA HA he calls me names I guess he thinks he won't get away with posting so he sends me them u2u. He's a little kid.

yes, and you called me names, so we're even...and we have made up in U2U so party's over...move along folks, nothing to see here.

[edit on 8-3-2008 by AotearoaSon]

I called you names?. If accusing you of acting childish in response to those u2u's is calling you names then yes I am guilty as charged.

- Con

Originally posted by Beachcoma

The technique, to be published in the journal Nature, and reflecting more than a decade of work, is a major and fundamental step toward building functional "designer" materials using programmable self-assembly. This "bottom-up" approach will allow scientists to take inorganic materials and build structures with specific properties for a given application, such as therapeutics, biodiagnostics, optics, electronics or catalysis.

Sweet! Nanotech + biotech = the future

Yeah I read a lot of about that myself. I'm a big fan of wired science, shows and books like that. I have been a software developer for many years Java, VB, and several multimedia authoring languages but never felt I had the aptitude for it because I suck at math and trigonometry. It's been my private hell so to speak.

Originally posted by melatonin
But, of course, your thread was somewhat a weak attempt to denigrate a group of people (i.e., 'evolutionists' - heh, I hate that word, I suppose there should also such a thing as 'atomicists'). Not that it bothered me, as it's just an erroneous claim, and where there's muck there's brass.

Well, it is a real word, as I'm sure you know. I don't think 'atomocist' is not a real word and it is doubtful anyone would have known what on earth we were talking about.

Anyway, that was an aside. I use the term 'liar for jesus' quite often.

Yes, you were the one who had repeatedly used the phrase on here but it felt rude to call you out by name so you were never specified. Even when people U2Ued me to ask they were never told but I guess you let the cat out of the bag now.

And it has good uses. I don't think that anyone who questions evolution is a liar for jesus. Many of this sort of person doesn't even understand the theory or know of its evidence, and they are, therefore, open to the misleading rhetoric of certain people.

I've talked about this a bit before. A creationist once told me evolutionists believe things like whales give birth to cows and that is how new species come about. This is obviously false and they apparently never heard of natural selection. Thankfully, I'm not that dense. But it was a little annoying to get the scientific method explained to me fifty times on the thread, what all evolution entails and how it works, being accused of denying wholesale evolution due to theological reasons when I explained 20 times it had nothing to do with it, and shown many examples of micro experiments that were already explained as being believed by both evolutionists and creationists.

There are people who, IMO, can sit happily with the L4J label (e.g., Hovind, Jonathan Wells, Billie Dembski, Ken Ham, Casey Luskin, and many of the other of the creationistas). These people are liars. Why do they do it? Well, maybe a bit of money - as people buy their books and stuff to spread around churches etc - but mainly to sustain the fundamentalist position.

I agree and even brought up some examples on the thread. Some creationists say some incredibly stupid things. The thing is, those people are ignorant. Not all creation scientists. Both fields have had their share of dunces. However, it does get irritating to automatically be labeled a 'creationist crackpot' when you don't use the definition of the word 'theory' as a defense, the Palauxy tracks as evidence, and cite Dr. Dino every five minutes. Not all creationists are 'one of those.' Contrary to what many people claim, our IQ does not drop 50 points the minute we accept Jesus.

The problem is that the people who digest and regurgitate their lies don't even know they are lying, it's just ignorance (and, again, ash, I just mean they don't have an understanding of particular issues, rather than being fools).

I hear what you're saying. Sure, both sides say stuff that will make us cringe and that's fine. Not everyone is going to have a PhD. it goes back to the whale giving birth to a cow. Shockingly, some still do believe this. But I've also seen evolutionists still using debunked evidence to confirm their side though. When you're dealing with people, ignorance is bound to occur. And like someone else mentioned, 'ignorance' is not necessarily a bad word unless someone chooses to be ignorant.

So, in many threads, someone posts some lies taken from one of these creationist sites thinking 'ha! Take that evilutionists', and I just roflcopter - most are easily refuted. We have "Ha! no beneficial mutations"; "Ha! no transitionals"; 'Ha! no increasing genetic information"; 'it's just a bird!' etc, repeated ad nauseum.

Hope you're not referring to me because I never said there were no transitional fossils- only fossils opened to interpretation and Darwin's prediction that seemed to not have been confirmed.

In the main, they are the american evangelistic fundamentalists who do this. Probably some are homeschooled, others might never have even had any school lessons on evolution. All would have been well-exposed to the lies of these people in church and at home.

Originally posted by AotearoaSon


For goodness sake, it wasn't bragging, I was just trying to give a bit of background to show that I am not uninformed about this. I'm sorry you feel threatened by an education.

You were establishing grounds for your authority on the subject. Your education I won't hold in dispute and have by the way given you the benefit of the doubt for having nevertheless. I am not a stranger to higher education myself and am not one to be threatened by someone else's presumptuous assertions that I am. Especially when said scholar says things like this " I may be a scholar, but I surely "aren't" a gentleman. "
I agree you surely "aren't".




I might add that it wasn't I that called you gullible nor was it my intention. The reason for the thread being called what it is was to exploit the almost religious like fervor of Atheism's defense of it i.e; "How dare you question evolution" as similar to the way Christians defend their stable datum the bible. It certainly wasn't directed at you personally but you seem to take it personal which might explain why Christians take any attack on the bible the same way. The point is Ridicule won't shame a believer or "faither" out of his or her belief as endorsed Authors like Sam Harris and Christopher Hitchens, Richard Dawkins etc,.

It will only exacerbate volatility for what is an already extremely contentious subject, one Ashley's thread has proven both sides are and have been guilty of.



- Con









[edit on 8-3-2008 by Conspiriology]

Originally posted by AotearoaSon

I don't need the crutch of bigotry or ignorance to 'guide' me through the day. I deal with facts and observations that back up those facts. I do not deal in flights of fairy fancy

See this is exactly what I am talking about, yet it can be said your entire statement is wrapped in bigotry and intolerance of religion.

I have seen a history of so called phony fabricated evidence supporting evolution later to be found out as fake that was passed off as scientific fact.

So much of it that one would naturally be given to holding anything more they have to say as suspect. evolution wouldn't hold up under the same scrutiny you give to Christianity.

You mentioning you are an Atheist and an evolutionist doesn't surprise me in the least and NO ONE I have ever met tries harder to prove they don't believe in something like the energy and zeal Atheists put forth in their disbelief in God.

Their is many things you can attack as myth such as Santa Clause and the easter bunny, yet we don't see Atheists in shopping malls pulling the beard off Santa saying Ahh HA !! See Kids he is a fraud!

To mock or make condescending remark about peoples belief in God and Religion doesn't shake the foundations of their faith and belief in it. On the contrary, in most cases, it solidifies it making it that much stronger.

- Con

reply to post by Conspiriology

Their is many things you can attack as myth such as Santa Clause and the easter bunny, yet we don't see Atheists in shopping malls pulling the beard off Santa saying Ahh HA !! See Kids he is a fraud!

That's because Santa doesn't threaten their lifestyle choices. We all know he's making a list of whose naughty and nice -right? See wonder why that doesn't scare them enough to debunk Santa at the mall?

But God does scare them.Or they would ignore him like Santa's list. So they go to great lengths to debunk God for their own comfort.

You guys want to get a room or something? This personal junk ends now. No "buts". The T&C will be strictly enforced from this point on. If you're not familiar with it, check it out.