Can Evolution be Described as a Religion?

UTEOTW is an excellent example of Evolutionists who do not let a few inconvenient facts (from good science) get in the way of "Stories" from junk-science.

I have shown NOT ONLY from my own pro-creation creationist camp the points shown above in my post I HAVE ALSO SHOWN from the atheist evolutionist camp the SAME points!

UTEOTW will readily admit he has failed to come close to that level of objectivity in any of his selective fact-sifting responses.

That alone should be "instructive" to the objective reader and should be enough to see evolution for the junk-science AND poor-religious system that it is.

Richard Dawkings is however very satisified with the religion of evolutionism as it so neatly and fully replaces the creator. AT LEAST he is objective enough to admit that about evolutionism. What is staggering is that there are Christians less able to be objective about evolutionism that atheist evolutionists themselves.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Evolution is a lie, so what does it matter?

 

It does matter because many young Christians are leaving the faith because of the weakness of pastor to study and teach the truth. When you study scripture and get into apologetics it requires an enormous amount of study to get it right. The world is sure giving out its error and as many Christians are too. When people don't hear answer to their questions and the world is feeding them with error they are perplexed. For one who tends to think a little and new or weak in the faith the world tends to tear them apart with its statements of error presented as fact. Sometimes those who claim the facts actually know they are not right but they just give soemthing that sounds believable until someone refutes them. But too often the believer hears the statement maker and nothing that refutes the error.

Prov. 18:17, "The first to plead his case seems right, until another comes and examines him."

 

Natural selection is supposed to be a process by which 'good' mutations are propogated to the next generation, and 'bad' mutations are weeded out of a species. Therefore, natural selection knows the difference between good and bad. It must be like God, right? No, not like God, natural selection is the god of evolution, but natural selection does not even come close to explaining origins. If you claim to be a bible believer, you should believe it all. You shouldn't have any other 'god' before the Lord. Evolution is a drowning man's vain attempt to swim to shore, when a life raft has already been procured and proffered. Why? Maybe he doesn't like the color orange, maybe he doesn't know he is drowning, or perhaps he is just a free thinker. Any case, he is going to drown just to spite the life raft.

 

The following is UTE quoting me and then challenging me to refute his "facts".
-------------------------------------------------
"Clearly, evolution is a religion based on faith in its "facts"."

Feel free to dispute those facts as you can. There are several threads linked to above where you are given that opportunity.

-------------------------------------------------
His obvious error and dodge is seen in his reply.
I did not try to "dispute those facts." My statement went ignored.
I will say it again. Let's all watch and see if he gets it this time.

Clearly evolution is a religion based on faith in its "facts".

One more thing to notice. Our friend UTE did not even attempt to argue my progression of logic from the post he quoted me from. I won't re-post it here to save space. But jump up there and check it out.

In His service;
Jim

 

"One more thing to notice. Our friend UTE did not even attempt to argue my progression of logic from the post he quoted me from. I won't re-post it here to save space. But jump up there and check it out."

I believe that I did, but we can take it line by line if you wish.

"Is evolution a religion as defined by having faith in something you have not seen?"

No. There is no faith involved in the science of evolution. We have directly observed the necessary steps needed for evolution to proceed. We have observed the variety of mutations. We have observed nature's ability to select those that are beneficial. We have observed speciation. We can observe in the fossil record an enormous number of transitional series showing one creature evolving into another. We can sample the DNA of axtant animals and see that the genetics agrees with the fossil record. And this does not even require getting into the other old earth sciences. In astronomy, for example, we can DIRECTLY observe the past because of the great distances involved and the finite speed of light.

"For example the day(s) that the universe came into being."

All the way back? Not quite. But we can observe to about 0.001% of the way back to the very beginning. We can observe a 13.7 billion year history in the stars.

"Ute says no, and then declares that it is a science based on historical facts."

Evolution is a science based on the observable, empirical, repeatable facts.

"By that reasoning then; Christianity is science."

Nope. There is nothing scientific about our religion. It is based on things unseen. It is based on faith. I have never seen God. I have never witnesseda logical, empirical experiment to prove His existence. We do have historical documents, but history is different from hard sciences.

"If Christianity however can not be defined as science then by the same token, evolution cannot."

Wrong. Religion is based on faith. Science is based on fact. Again, see the threads linked above. They lay out a small, tiny part of the case for an old earth and common descent. Dispute them if you can. I doubt that it is possible however. There is a reason those threads are remaining untouched. There is no young earth answer.

 

"Short answer: Absolutely!

Evolution is a religion."

Nope. It has none of the attributes of a religion. It is not based on faith but on observable, empirical evidence. If you disagree, perhaps you could take issue with some of the lines of evidence linked to above.

"When you believe in evolution then it affects you whole life, you have a certain way of life when you believe this junk."

and

"Evolution is a lie, so what does it matter?"

I used to be young earth. But I did not have a reason for it. So i started reading young earth literature. I discovered that these guys tell more mistruths and untruths than just about anything I had come across. They disgusted me. They led to me looking at the other side. I am convinved that there is not an honest case to be made for a young earth. We had a recent thread on this. Twenty pages of lies, not just mistakes but deliberate lies, told by YE leaders.

http://www.baptistboard.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi/topic/28/2740.html?

 

"I have shown NOT ONLY from my own pro-creation creationist camp the points shown above in my post I HAVE ALSO SHOWN from the atheist evolutionist camp the SAME points!"

Bob

You have done nothing but misquote scientists and then continued to misquote them even after the actual statements are presented for all to see. The archy conference may be the easiest to see. You have made the claim that the "atheist evolutionists" decided that it was just a bird. I phave presented pages of evidence that show that this was not the opinion of those at the conference and asked you to provide a citation from the conference. You have both refused to provide any proof or to stop making the claim. That kind of dishonesty gives all Christians a bad name.

So, you have a reference yet?

 

"Natural selection is supposed to be a process by which 'good' mutations are propogated to the next generation, and 'bad' mutations are weeded out of a species. "

This is the fallacy of equivocation. You are making two different definitions equate to the same thing. Let me give an example. If I stub my toe, is this a good thing or a bad thing? Does it fall into the same category as the knowledge of good and evil?

"Therefore, natural selection knows the difference between good and bad. It must be like God, right?"

Nope. It can sort between things that make an organism more likely to reproduce and those that make it less likely to reproduce.

Another anolgy. If one car in your driveway has three tires on it and another has four, which is more likely to get you to work? Does this mean you are acting as God in being able to sort that out?

"No, not like God, natural selection is the god of evolution, but natural selection does not even come close to explaining origins."

Your premise was wrong and therefore your conclusion is wrong.

"If you claim to be a bible believer, you should believe it all. "

So, wnybody who does not agree with you on a matter of interpretation does not believe the Bible? That is a confident position to take. You never see old earthers claiming that young earthers are heretics or are calling God a liar or using any of the other slanders that YEers mistakenly think constitute an arguement even though we think that you are as wrong as you think we are. When you do not have a logical argument to make, name calling is not the way to go.

"You shouldn't have any other 'god' before the Lord."

Your premise was based on a fallacy so your conclusion is not true.

"Evolution is a drowning man's vain attempt to swim to shore, when a life raft has already been procured and proffered. Why? Maybe he doesn't like the color orange, maybe he doesn't know he is drowning, or perhaps he is just a free thinker. Any case, he is going to drown just to spite the life raft. "

Nope. It is good science based on logical and empirical evidence. Evidence which the deniers in this thread seem unwilling (or unable) to challenge. It is YE that must be propped up with half-truths, misrepresentations and untruths.

 

So UTEOTW - when your argument utterly fails you simply engage in revisionist history???

How sad.

Not only do I EXACT QUOTE your OWN Atheist brethren - I ALSO show (as in the case of Entropy) that when YOU add MORE quotes from them (as "if" this was going to help) that your OWN additions betray the pausity of scientific support for your views from atheist sources.

It was your OWN quote that showed Asimov to "confess" that in fact "A MASSIVE DECREASE in entropy" was needed at the local biological human systems level for molecule-to-human-brain evolution to occur.

That Asimov quote of YOURS combined with the EXACT quote of Asimov where he says that the OBSERVED INCREASE in entropy in all human systems IS "what entropy is ALL about" -- was a shut-out, slam dunk devastating your entire argument.

AND THIS was made from your OWN Atheist evolutionist camp NOT from a pro-creation real 7 day week camp.

As has been stated - this is a level of objectivity you can not exhibit in any of your posts!

How can you pretend to miss this - as if the reader "just does not get it"??

Only the most dedicated devotee to evolutionisms dogma would have to pretend not to see this.

Hence - the religion.

I made the claim that atheist evolutionists confess that Archaeopteryx is "A TRUE BIRD".

(Are you allergic to exact quotes now?)

So far you have twisted it as much as possible - yet without being able to actually refute that statement.

Surely you can allow yourself to actually read the posts and "See that"?

Wouldn't it be better to respond to it - rather than continually insert your own wording and then say "now prove that"?? Why not try the direct approach? Is it because you "have no defense"?

That's what it appears to be each time you try that little trick above.

In Christ,

Bob

 

UTEOTW, is a about as far from the truth as anyone who claims to be a "Christian" can be. All his eggs are in the basket of EVOLUTION and he makes no bones about it. I much rather he were an atheist, at least then we would understand.

 

"Not only do I EXACT QUOTE your OWN Atheist brethren..."

Bob, the words you quote are generally accurate as far as that goes. The problem is that you remove the contextual material and make the quote sound as if it means something other than what it does. Like the Simpson quote where he says that the simple A to B to C horse series never existed because it was much more complicated than that and was really bushy and jerky. You excise the key parts of that statement and quote Simpson as saying that the horse series does not exist at all. That is very dishonest.

"That Asimov quote of YOURS combined with the EXACT quote of Asimov where he says that the OBSERVED INCREASE in entropy in all human systems IS "what entropy is ALL about" -- was a shut-out, slam dunk devastating your entire argument."

Bob, you quote Asimov as evidence that entropy is somehow a problem for evolution. But you always leave this part of the quote out.

"I made the claim that atheist evolutionists confess that Archaeopteryx is "A TRUE BIRD"."

Yes you made that claim. On that we agree. And you tell us they decided this at a conference in Germany. But you cannot give us a citation for that claim even though I have given you plenty from that conference to show the opposite to be true. You cannot give us a citation from that conference to show us your claims are true. Neither can you give us a citation to back up your broader claim that scientists think that archy is just a bird unrelated at all to reptiles. Until you can provide such a citation, it is dishonest for you to keep making the claim without a shred of support. But when have YEers ever worried about honesty in their arguments. We went over this for twenty pages in your "junk" thread.

"Wouldn't it be better to respond to it - rather than continually insert your own wording and then say "now prove that"?? Why not try the direct approach? Is it because you "have no defense"?

That's what it appears to be each time you try that little trick above."

Oh Bob, it is entertaining to hear you call refuting your argument thoroughly and then asking you to try and make a defense a "little trick."

 

Am I reading this right?

Somebody with the word "Christian" in their screen name has said that they wish I were an atheist?

I think it should be quite clear to you now that I feel that it is important for us as Christians to seek the truth. The truth of the matter is that all life on this planet is related through common descent. Trying to support another view invariably leads slandering those that disagree with you and misrepresenting the data since there is no support for a young earth. Trying to prop up a young earth leads to us teching our kids lies. When they find out the truth, we risk them asking what else about Christianity is built on lies (I am not advocating that Christianity is built on lies but illustrating the response that some will have) and losing their faith. When we try and prop up YE with lies, those on the outside will see through it and wonder how we can claim to have the truth if we cannot even quote a scientist without distorting what he said. This flase believe cause those in the fold to turn away and those on the outside to never know God to begin with. We will be stronger when we end this just as we eventually accepted that geocentrism was not true despite the same sorts of arguments.

BTW, it is still very revealing that no one who supports a young earth has been willing to stand up and be heard in any of the threads linked above.

 

This is the height of arrogance. You have forthrightly declared yourself right and everyone else wrong. Are you your own god? Forgive me for asking, but "when I am right and everyone else is wrong," attitude props up something is desperately wrong. I have a background in science (biology), and I know for a fact that your assertions are easily proven false. I know that if Helen were down in this forum she would have much to say about your continual banterings and false disputations. I also know that in all my studies in science I have never encountered one scientifice fact that contradicts, or cannot be reconciled with what the Bible says. I also know that the hypothesis of evolution is so riddled with holes that contradict the very laws of science that it is not even worthy to graduate to the level of a theory much less be called science.

Evolution is built on lies, not the Bible. The Bible gives a literal historical account of six, 24 hour days of creation. There is no other option when given the Biblical evidence. If you believe the Bible that is the conclusion you will arrive at. If you will honestly and objectively study the Bible that is the only honest conclusion one can arrive at. If you don't arrive at that conclusion, then you have a problem with belief, and a problem with God. There is only one interpretation of Genesis one. It is literal and historical, written just the way that God intended for us to understand. That in itself leaves no room for evolution. It is an either or situation. Either you believe in the "religon" of the Bible, or the "religion" of evolution. Both are based on faith. Neither one is based on science.
DHK

 

I am not claiming this of my own account. This has nothing to do with how smart I am or am not or what I know or do not know. There is a whole world out there. There is no dispute within the scientific community of these facts. None.

"You have forthrightly declared yourself right and everyone else wrong."

This is precisely what the young earthers do. They declare that they have the truth and everyone else is wrong. They then bend and twist the data to fit their preconcieved notions. Why do you think that groups like AIG and ICR require their members to agree beforehand to YE. Earlier young earth groups did not have such requirments and they kept getting folks who would look and xhange their mind.

YEers feel justified in throwing every slander in the book at those that disagree with them.

"I have a background in science (biology), and I know for a fact that your assertions are easily proven false. "

Then do so. If you have the background and you know you are right then this should not be a problem. Assertions are one thing. If you follow the links I provided, you will find that I have suported my assertions wtih data. You simply assert that I am wrong but will not or cannot support this.

"I know that if Helen were down in this forum she would have much to say about your continual banterings and false disputations."

If you follow the links provided, you will see that she has been in the forum since those were posted and has looked at most of them. She, for whatever reason, has chosen not to respond to most of them of to only respond weakly. There has not been much correction going on.

"I also know that the hypothesis of evolution is so riddled with holes that contradict the very laws of science that it is not even worthy to graduate to the level of a theory much less be called science."

Your opinion but most of those who have immersed themselves in it disagree. You are entitled to your opinion but it is in the tiny minority.

"Evolution is built on lies, not the Bible."

Who said the Bible is built on lies? Why drag things down by implying that something was said that was not?

Just what lies do you think evolution is built upon? I have given you the opportunity above to show that several lines of evidence are nothing but "lies" and you have not done so.

 

Do you claim omniscience here? How do you that? The fact is that there are many creationists among the scientific community. You just choose to ignore them.
DHK

 

It goes like this doesn't it:
If he is a creationist he doesn't belong in the sceintific community.
Only evolutionists are permitted into the scientific communitiy.
Therefore all who are in the supposed "scientific communtiy" are evolutionists; (these are the true scientists). All others will never be brought up for consideration.
You have that all worked out quite neatly don't you?
DHK

 

There are also many fine Christians who work in these fields and have no problem with the research they do.

I may have worded my statement a bit too strongly. There are obviously some people who do not yet accept evolution. Some may even be scientists. But as you look at those who have more and more knowledge of the subject, you find that those who disagree become fewer and fewer. If you talk to 1000 PhD biologists, how many do you think would express doubt that evolution happens? How many of 1000 PhD astronomers do you think doubt the ancient age of the universe? How many of 1000 PhD geologists do you think reject moder ngeology?

There will always be a few dissenters to any concept. There are groups out there who think that Relativity is completely wrong. But in the end, the statement is true. There is not dissent within the scientific community on the fact of evolution. That does not exclude the few oddballs, but as a whole the science is as good as any other.

And I do not chose to ignore them. I was once YE. I ent to these folks first. What they had to say was so full of holes (remember this is coming from someone who at the time was inclined to believe them and was wanting to believe them) that I was forced to examine the issue more closely. What I found, and what I continue to find to today, is that most of what passes for young earth science is based upon misrepresentations and halftruths. A number of them are so blatent that I have been forced to conclude that this is often done on purpose. Exhibit one will be the endless supply of quote mining. Folks such as AIG have demonstrated over and over that they do not have the ability to quote scientists accurately and in context.

 

"It goes like this doesn't it:
If he is a creationist he doesn't belong in the sceintific community.
Only evolutionists are permitted into the scientific communitiy.
Therefore all who are in the supposed "scientific communtiy" are evolutionists; (these are the true scientists). All others will never be brought up for consideration.
You have that all worked out quite neatly don't you?"

Nope. The young earthers were the first I went to. At the time I accepted their position and was eager to accept what they had to say. But most of it immediately sounded fishy. Then I came across the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics line. I knew immediately what was wrong with that one. My opinion of them then became that they either were speaking as experts in fields they did not understand or that they were misrepresenting things. I found either dishonest.

I as I continued to look I found that most of what they said fell into one of these two categories. I gradually found that both were likely explanations but a majority point to deliberate misrepresentation rather than just honest mistakes. When you repeatedly say that someone has said one thing when they actually said another, it is not hard to conclude that you are doing it on purpose.

 

You come across the Second Law of Thermodynamics, one of the basic Laws of Science, which the evolutionists in almost every facet of their thinking continue to deny: whether in Biology, or geology, or whatever,
DHK