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.

[dread78645]

"There are no transitional fossils." placemark

[connectthedots]

So explain gravity. State what it is, how it works, what causes it and demonstrate that it is more than "theory".

I can demonstrate gravity very easily. Just let me release a 10# brick from 20 feet over your head. What happens after I release it will demonstrate gravity. Want to give it a try?

You're not very bright.

[Dimensio]

I can demonstrate gravity very easily. Just let me release a 10# brick from 20 feet over your head. What happens after I release it will demonstrate gravity. Want to give it a try?

That would be setting up a single data point. That would not explain what caused the brick to fall. It would not explain how the process worked or what caused the fall (saying "it was dropped" is a statement of an event, not a statement explaining the force that pulled the brick downward).

You're not very bright.

You're not very honest.

[roadking95th]

Can't the theory of evolution accept a "ID" or Creationist-like beginning? Maybe everyone has little pieces of the story wrong. Sort of like when you tell someone a story and by the time the story reaches the 20th person it is different. Suppose God created all life and set nature into motion with set rules(evolution). Man is Man and ape is ape, creation says this. Creationists also allow for lizards developing new species of lizards and birds developing new species of birds. As far as I know, and I am not a professional scientist so..., we have only observed that kind of evolution. Just want to know your thoughts on this. You seem to have well thought out opinions and have knowledge on Evo.

[connectthedots]

That would be setting up a single data point.

How many times would like a 10# brick released from 20 feet above your head? If you doubt the expected result, you would have no reason to move, would you?

I have an interesting question for you. Why do evolutionists claim that the 'theory of evolution' is just as valid as the 'theory of gravity'? Seems to me that it would be impossible for both of them to enjoy the same level of credibility; wouldn't it?

If evolution was as valid at the law of gravity, there would be no reason to compare the two. They don't really have anything in common. Only only possible reason why evolutionists compare the two is to mislead those who aren't all that bright into thinking that evolution is just as valid as gravity. The fact is, evolution cannot stand on its own apart from using some accepted scientific fact to lend evolution credibility.

This reminds me of an old saying, "the only purpose served by economic forecasting is to lend credibility to astrology.

[Dimensio]

How many times would like a 10# brick released from 20 feet above your head? If you doubt the expected result, you would have no reason to move, would you?

No matter how many times it were done, it would not, in any way, explain why the brick falls in a regularly observed pattern. It would merely establish strong evidence that such a pattern exists. You have once again completely ducked the question of explaining why gravity occurs.

[Dimensio]

Can't the theory of evolution accept a "ID" or Creationist-like beginning?

The theory? No. The theory simply explains how existing life originated from common ancestry through mutation and natural selection. There's no "beginning" beyond the existence of the first life forms. Moreover, nothing in science can allow for supernatural explanations. Any situation with a supernatural cause cannot be explained by science.

An "ID" beginning may be correct, but it's outside of the scope of evolution. A supernatural-based ID beginning might also be correct, but it is outside of the scope of science completely.

[qam1]

I don't see the contradiction. Secondly, I was not trying to sound or be self righteous to anyone. If I came across that way to anyone I appologize, that was not my intent.

OK, I'm sure you mean well, but c'mon the mental gymnastics needed to wave away the obvious contradictions is staggering

Genesis 1

Day 5

1:20 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.

1:21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good...

1:24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so....

Day 6

1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

Genesis 1 is very clear, Animals came first, a whole day before man

Now contrast that with Genesis 2

2:18 And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help-meet for him.

2:19 And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.

See it now, man was ALONE, and then God created EVERY animal. It doesn't say "and even after creating some animals God saw man was still alone and created even more animals for him", no man was alone, all by himself.

Gen 1 = Animals-->Man & Women
Gen 2 = Man-->Animals-->Women

You can't miss it. But if you still don't see it, I suggest your problem is this.

[RunningWolf]

The theory of gravity does not explain why either. The theory only describes the pieces of what can be measured.

Wolf

[connectthedots]

Your inane questioning as to why gravity exists caused me to consider an interesting question. Assuming macro-evolution and universal descent are true, an assumption I obviously disagree with, please explain what purpose is served and why would single cell organisms have a need to become more complex? Couldn't they simply continue to exist as single-celled organisms? If there was some sort of environmental condition existing that made it impossible for single-celled organisms to survive, why do they still exist? If survival did not require more than single-celled organisms, evolution serves no purpose.

I assume you go along with the relatively recent claim that evolution has nothing to say about the origin of life. Well, couldn't what/whoever that caused/created single-celled organisms also create/design organisms that are far more complex; including man?

After all, isn't it the evolutionist position that most life forms have a great deal in common. If there is so much in common, why couldn't what/whoever created single-celled life design/create man and everything in between that evolutionists claim happened over vast quantities of time.

As any rational person can see, this whole business about evolution having nothing to say about the origin of life creates its own problems for evolutionists.

[connectthedots]

did you realize just how close your screne name is to "dementia'? They have so many letters in common and in a very similar order, they must be related. after all, if it works for DNA as evolutionists claim, it must also be true for letters of the alphabet.

[Dimensio]

Your inane questioning as to why gravity exists

Nice cop-out. Rather than admit that you can't explain what causes gravity, you simply call the question "inane".

Assuming macro-evolution and universal descent are true, an assumption I obviously disagree with, please explain what purpose is served and why would single cell organisms have a need to become more complex?

Who said that it was a "need" or done for a "purpose"? It happens because it is what inevitably happens with imperfect self-replicators when replication success is dependent upon inheritable traits working with the environment?

If there was some sort of environmental condition existing that made it impossible for single-celled organisms to survive, why do they still exist?

Who said that there was an environmental condition which made it impossible for single-celled organisms to survive?

If survival did not require more than single-celled organisms, evolution serves no purpose.

It's not that "more than single-celled organisms" were "required", it's that there were environments where multicellular organisms (originally single-cell organisms working as a collective) were able to thrive.

I assume you go along with the relatively recent claim that evolution has nothing to say about the origin of life.

Yes.

Well, couldn't what/whoever that caused/created single-celled organisms also create/design organisms that are far more complex; including man?

According to evolution the only thing that could have led to such things would have been environmental selection pressures leading to increased success of multicellular life forms. The cause of such environmental conditions isn't addressed by evolution, so it's "possible" that a divine agent could have been the cause for that and for the ultimate origin of life. Such speculation is outside of the scope of scientific inquiry, however.

After all, isn't it the evolutionist position that most life forms have a great deal in common.

Actually, that's an observation of biology. You don't have to accept the theory of evolution to notice it.

If there is so much in common, why couldn't what/whoever created single-celled life design/create man and everything in between that evolutionists claim happened over vast quantities of time.

Given available evidence, evolution is the best explanation for species diversity. If you wish to push forth a different explanation then please present evidence for your explanation, rather than asserting that it is valid simply because it "might" be true.

As any rational person can see, this whole business about evolution having nothing to say about the origin of life creates its own problems for evolutionists.

You've failed to demonstrate any alleged problems.

[Havoc]

You've got a long way to go and like many others, when the trend of a debate is not to your liking, brand them with a name.

No, I simply chopped through your statement. You stated that you don't like "if" preceding an assumptive - in the case of an assumptive from a source you didn't like. Yet, when "if" precedes an assumptive about carbon dating, etc.. you have no problem with that. I didn't name call. I used proper language and applied it to the situation. You're a close minded idealogue. And your position painted you a hypocrite - which I didn't state before; but will now.

You can handwring as is the usual want of your type; but, I've no use for it.

[connectthedots]

Given available evidence, evolution is the best explanation for species diversity.

Back to speculation once again. It may be the best explanation you can come up with, but that does not make it true. As you know, even the plaintiffs' witnesses in Dover admitted that evolution is only a theory and not a fact.

I'd make other comments concerning your post, but I need to get some sleep so I can get to church early in the morning.

[RunningWolf]

WTH is a imperfect self-replicator?

Nice cop-out. Rather than admit that you can't explain what causes gravity, you simply ask someone else to, and they cant answer it either,r good very good.., NOT.

Who said that there was an environmental condition which made it impossible for single-celled organisms to survive?

who said there is one made that it exist? DOH!!


It's not that "more than single-celled organisms" were "required", it's that there were environments where multicellular organisms (originally single-cell organisms working as a collective) were able to thrive.

Prove this assertion give examples, be specific, now would be good.

You've failed to demonstrate any alleged problems.

In the mind of evo, it is an impossibility that there are any problems concerning any and all problems with evo.

Wolf

[Dimensio]

Back to speculation once again. It may be the best explanation you can come up with, but that does not make it true.

Which is why all explanations in science are considered "tentative": accepted as truth, but always open to falsification. There is absolutely nothing in science that is considered irrefutable truth.

As you know, even the plaintiffs' witnesses in Dover admitted that evolution is only a theory and not a fact.

You once again dishonestly disregard the numerous explanations of what exactly is meant by "theory" in favour of making a meaningless semantic argument.

[PatrickHenry]

Endlessly repeated, frequently disregarded placemarker. Virtual Ignore for all trolls!

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"My faith in Jesus Christ is based on the historical evidence confirmed by eyewitnesses, secular history, archeology, and the internal and external consistency found in the Bible which was written over a very long period of time by numerous authors with no inconsistencies contain therein."

That's nice, and completely outside of what I was talking about.

" I don't think gravity can practically be considered a theory. I would say it is a fact."

There is a fact that gravity happens, and there is a theory of how gravity works. They are two separate things.

"Can't say that about evolution, can you? "

Yes, you can.

"Absent unusual circumstances, it you release a rock from the top of a building, it is going to fall towards the ground every time. No ration person would claim that involves speculation."

No educated person would say that is what the current theories of gravity entail. The fact that things fall down has been known since the dawn of history, and I would daresay much earlier. Why they fall is a very different matter.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"I’ve been accused of not reading the chapter, not understanding the chapter, and now, misrepresenting the chapter. All accusations are made with absolute certainty, no evidence, and are all wrong."

No, Darwin didn't see the fossil record as a problem. Only a creationist revisionist would be able to read the entirety of the chapter and come to the conclusion that Darwin thought the fossil record didn't support evolution. " I’m not a creationist (yet), but I have read the book. It’s O.K., certainly nothing to fawned over."

Might be good to read it again. And, SURE you're not a creationist. :) I currently live in Clayton (half an hour from Raleigh).

[Just mythoughts]

Now where is the contradiction??? Maybe you just do not like that there is a description of creating man in the flesh on two different days. (Peter says that a day with the LORD is as a thousand years to us.)

Gen. 2:4 Says this is the GENERATIONS, which means "family history" before The Adam was ever formed from the dust and breath of life = soul made him alive.

See makes sense why evolution cannot touch the origin stays only in the backwater of the river of life.

Who is NOT listed in Adam's genealogy, yet has his own genealogy given?