The Religion of Science (Evolution as Faith!)

CHJ ^ | Jan 14, 2006 | Nathan Tabor

[WatchYourself]

How can someone observe, study or experiment on evolution? Evolution is the process of something moving from one stage of development to another. What do we really have to scientifically prove evolution?

A scientist might have a fossil, but we can only speculate as to the age and appearance of the animal creating that fossil. No one has ever witnessed evolution of life, no one here now was there to observe, study and experiment. Like it or not, we can only form theories and beliefs about what might have been. As sound as these theories might be, they are and will always be theories. Evolution is simply a system of belief based on what we think might have happened. Those who believe in evolution have faith in the scientist’s abilities to speculate and imagine what might have been. This is not science. This is faith.

It is time we removed the phony and inaccurate label of ‘science’ from evolution and see it for what it really is - a religion, based on faith and a system of belief. If public schools are not allowed to teach religion, then the theories of evolution have no place in a public school classroom. If they are allowed to teach theories based on faith, like evolution, then creationism should be taught also.

[Oztrich Boy]

whence flightless birds?

That;s easy, they were created as flying birds, but microevolution developed neoteny has made them flightless.(The ostrich is a neotenous Roc -Hanville Svetz of the Institute for Temporal Research can explain)

[ChessExpert]

correction:
I think math and statistics are critical, and should not be ruled out.

[Baraonda]

Nice cut-and-paste.

I'm very impressed!

[js1138]

I suppose our creationist friends has never see a newborn. Most of the connections are formed due to learning after birth. This is true of most critter have enough neurons to be called a brain.

Even birds have to learn how to sing the species song, build nests, raise offspring.

I grew up alongside a flock of free range bantam chickens and observed them for more than 15 years. None of the hens ever succeeded in raising their first or second batch of hatchlings. They stepped on them while trying to protect them, and killed them all. so much for pure instinct.

[Baraonda]

"Colossians 1:16 "For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him."

There ain't much to add to the word of God, other than to say, Amen!

Thanks for the ping.

[From many - one.]

Congratulations.

That's the first post that ever came near to making my head explode.

[freedumb2003]

See! Evolution kills children!

ROTFLMAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

That is a classic for those who see the context!

[freedumb2003]

I just did support my claim, and I'll gladly do it again: evolutionists are anti-christians intent on the destruction of Christianity and Christian societies.

And your proof again? I backtracked and don't see any proof that has any basis outside of assertion.

They (evolutionists) are of their father the devil.

This is funny on so many fronts. Are you sure you aren't a DUer pretendinging to be a Pat Robertson "God Is In His Hoooly House" Fundamentalist?

Of course, this might fit in with the standard Bible-thumper egomania of being "better" than everyone else on account him being saved and all unlike the unclean 85% of the population that understands evolution.

[metmom]

What evolution has been witnessed in the last hundred years or so? Or even thousands, for recorded human history?

[Baraonda]

"And your proof again?"

I just gave it to you and all readers, unless you want me to lie to you and say that which is contrary to the truth.

"Of course, this might fit in with the standard Bible-thumper egomania of being "better" than everyone else on account him being saved and all unlike the unclean 85% of the population that understands evolution."

You sure are mixed up with that statement. Evolutionists are less than 85%, much, much less. You're in the numerical and power minority, thank God.

[Mulch]

Since there is huge body of evidence supporting evolution and the theory explored infinitely deep, what projections can be made as to how species will evolve in the future?

[Baraonda]

"What evolution has been witnessed in the last hundred years or so?"

None whatsoever.

This cult of evolution, like any other cult, takes over apparenlty intelligent minds.

"Evolution is all speculation and zero speciation." (copyrighted)

[Baraonda]

Excellent question.

Since evolution says that humans evolved from monkeys, it follows that it must be able to predict what humans will evolve into next.

"Evolution is a making-the-shoe-fit theory - it adjusts the evidence to make its theory fit." (copyrighted)

[metmom]

Really though, the fact that evoltuionists try so hard to distance themselves from abiogenesis, does not look good for evolutionists. It really does come across looking as a copout. Now I know that they will deny that they are doing that (copping out) but it would only help them if they came up with a better answer than, "Evolution has nothing to do with abiogenesis". Asking about the *origins* is really a logical step. If you keep going back to the simplist forms, eventually you get to the first one and it only makes sense to ask where that came from. I don't see that that is an unreasonable question to ask.

BTW, your last statement makes it sound like science considers abiogenesis to be a supernatural event. I don't know if you intended that or not.

[Dimensio]

What evolution has been witnessed in the last hundred years or so?

Well theres this.

Or even thousands, for recorded human history?

People weren't looking for it for most of recorded history, though there has been some that resulted from human intervention in the environment. Corn is a good example of that.

[freedumb2003]

"And your proof again?"

I just gave it to you and all readers, unless you want me to lie to you and say that which is contrary to the truth.

One more time -- just so we can somehow see how it deviates from Assertion

"Of course, this might fit in with the standard Bible-thumper egomania of being "better" than everyone else on account him being saved and all unlike the unclean 85% of the population that understands evolution."

You sure are mixed up with that statement. Evolutionists are less than 85%, much, much less. You're in the numerical and power minority, thank God.

I hadn't realized how far you had dragged down the US -- but I checked and you might have a slight opinion edge.

You should be ashamed of the damage you have done.

Next up -- "who needs aerodynamics when we have angels to hold up airplanes?"

[Dimensio]

Really though, the fact that evoltuionists try so hard to distance themselves from abiogenesis, does not look good for evolutionists. It really does come across looking as a copout.

It's not our fault that people want evolution to explain events outside of its scope. The fact is that it does not matter how the first life forms came to exist; evolution is unaffected by that process.

Now I know that they will deny that they are doing that (copping out) but it would only help them if they came up with a better answer than, "Evolution has nothing to do with abiogenesis".

So we should lie? Or we should expand evolution to cover every inane unrelated topic that creationists throw out?

Asking about the *origins* is really a logical step.

From a standpoint of "the history of earth" or even "the history of life on earth", yes. For the theory of evolution, no, it has no bearing on the process. I could name four different possible means by which the first life forms came to exist, and not one of them would have an effect on the evolution of life that followed.

If you keep going back to the simplist forms, eventually you get to the first one and it only makes sense to ask where that came from.

And then you get to the question of where the atomic particles that made up those first life forms come from. Yes, you can regress back on the origins questions, but that does not make those origins a part of the theory of evolution. Evolution is not an attempt to explain the origin of everything, it only explains the existence of diverse life from common ancestor life forms. Before that, evolution simply does not apply.

[metmom]

While I disagree with some of your statements concerning religion, I do appreciate you willingness to speak your mind. I also admire your willingness to set yourself up like that and take what comes. It takes a lot of courage on these threads.

[freedumb2003]

Since there is huge body of evidence supporting evolution and the theory explored infinitely deep, what projections can be made as to how species will evolve in the future?

If your mama was ugly does that mean that kittens will be all white?

Your strawman arguments might draw in others, but I am now on the scene and I won't tolerate logical fallacies (IOW, all that creationists can muster).

[RunningWolf]

No one actually says that though, save for a very few on these thread that think it clever.

NOT

Wolf