Evolution: A religion?

[Lincoln]

Originally posted by SKILORD
SUBJECT REALIGNMENT

the subject here pertains not to the validity of either system only the defenition of religion really and whether or not Evolution fits into that defenition. I have noticed that this discussion meanders between the two subjects and would perfer that we stick with the latter.

It fits for some evidently but not for others. I don't think it is correct to call it a religion but some fanatics have made it into one and they have staked their whole world view on their belief in the god they call "evolution". The difference is between fanatics and reasonable people who think of evolution as exactly what it is -- a theory.

[Provost Harrison]

Originally posted by Lincoln


It fits for some evidently but not for others. I don't think it is correct to call it a religion but some fanatics have made it into one and they have staked their whole world view on their belief in the god they call "evolution". The difference is between fanatics and reasonable people who think of evolution as exactly what it is -- a theory.

Well we don't have any sleepness nights over what we comprehend about the world around us. The one thing that sometimes may make us look so 'fervent' is because of the impenetrability of the skull of a theist to try and get them to acknowledge the most basic points that underpin neodarwinism. It's frustrating, hence the flared tempers.

[SKILORD]

you must comprehend that creationist often feel the same way about you evolutionists. I will have no sleepless night either because..... well check the signature.

[Provost Harrison]

Ah, ignorance must be bliss. When you can look at the facts and reality, sweep them aside, and see something underneath that is just an illusion, and convince yourself it is true. Is it easy to convince yourself to believe for that neurochemical kick?

[Seeker]

How many times must this go on?

Creationists are motivated by Faith.

Faith is believing in something because you wish it to be true.

Therefore, you can never have a truly rational discussion with somebody about their faith. It's just a waste of time.

Of course, Creationism is a complete load of BS.

I rounded out my education this last year with several courses in geology (crust of the earth, environmental geology, stratigrahpy) and I can assure you that the earth is quite old. Rubidium, C-14, Uranium, multiple dating techniques confirm this, in the context of common sense re: deposition, the behaviour of igneous and metamorphic rocks under pressure. If the world was 10 000 years old, the Rocky Mountains could not exist as they do.

The Marianas Trench could not exist as it does.

The Great Barrier Reef could not exist as it does.

The eskers, drumlins, moraines, and other glacial deposits could not exist as they do.

The Arva Moraine here in London is real. It is very old, from a time when ice sheets covered southern Ontario. The bedrock near it is deeply scored by glacial abrasion, and is a type of rock that erodes such that we can date when this abrasion occured. You can stick your fingers in these grooves.

You can go and touch the Arva Moraine. You can run your hands over boulders from hundreds of miles away. You can see the depositional layers in bands, and calculate based on reliable data how old it is. You can go on a 'field trip' with the GEO 020 class and classify, analyze, and date the rocks and conglomerate as well as the structure itself.

You can go north to Sarnia to the rock salt mines. We know how halite forms because we can see and simulate it everyday. We know that in order to form halite like this, an ancient basin of evapourating water was trapped here many eras before Genesis.

We can analyze coal from the carboniferous era, see preserved examples of the ancient plants which made it up, use our knowledge of chemistry and the effects of pressure to date it.

We can go to the Burgess Shale in BC, and look at the preserved Devonian, Silurian, and Cambrian creatures. We can analyze the shale, fit it in with the geologic past, and date it relatively accurately. You can trace your fingers over fossils arranged so that the progression from armoured primitive fish to true fish is plain on the wall of Lab 001.

All plain, all things you can see and touch, and can be dated via multiple techniques.

What do the creationists have? A bunch of fairy tales and a lot of morons who are afraid of death.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Lincoln
You are welcome to your beliefs in the "fact" of evolution Ranger. I wish I had the faith that you had. At least you proved the title of this thread.

Originally posted by Lincoln
Definition from American Heritage Dictionary:

religion: An organized system of beliefs etc. 2. Adherence to such a system. 3. A belief upheld or persued with zeal and devotion.

In other words: Urban Ranger= religious person.

Is that the best you can do? Make some proclamations and call it a debate?

Again, you did not even look at the evidence we showed you. Again you avoided direct questions. Again, you failed to establish science is a belief system.

I am not surprised though. As Seeker so astutely pointed out, the outcome of this debate is a foregone conclusion.

[monkspider]

How's it unreasonable to proclaim there is a degree of faith in believing evolution to be absolute truth comrade ranger?

[monkspider]

Of course when speaking on this matter, I'm referring to the rigid evolutionists who accept it as the final answer to everything in nature. Certainly, most Christians will acknowledge varying degrees of evolution.

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by Lincoln
Etheired,

"Who has faded? You did that in your threads."

You must be joking. My thread was over 400 posts long and my last post was alomost the last one.

It was pretty weak at best. I was there remember. To the end.

And I was talking about posting on an 'atheist' forum anyway, not here.

You sure did apear to be saying about THIS thread.

However I am glad you said what you said. You admitted to trolling the Atheists in their own forums. I will keep that in mind the next time you protest threads about religion.

I have found that atheists only have one legitimate argument and that is where did God come from?

Rubbish. Its the only one YOU think is legitimate. Considering that YOU are a fundamentlist christian its very clear that there are MANY very effective arguements PROVING the Bible is not the truth about the universe we live in.

They are then overcome by that which they do not understand so they pretend that God cannot exist. If you do not believe that way then that is good but other 'people' do so I am justified in using that generality as I clearly intended.

The only thing that was clear in that post was that you deliberatly trolled people. I don't have to pretend Jehovah does not exist, I have proved that he either does not exist or is so disceptive that nothing can be said for sure about Jehovah. I go with non-existant as it fits all the data perfectly.

"Since it isn't taught in our schools you are makeing that up."
If it isn't taught in your school then does that mean I am making it up? It is widely taught in American schools and throughout the modern world.

Again that is false. Evolution is not taught in the US school system to any significant degree untill people reach college. No one has to take those classes in college either unless of course they want to understand reality.

There is no truth taught at talkorigins that disturbs my beliefs.

Nothing disturbs your fantasies.

Read this thread and you will see that evolution has been called a fact by some. If you are talking about micro evolution then there is no dispute with me.

Evolution IS a fact. That is not what you said was said however. Changing your statement won't make it go away. Evolution IS a fact. I said that. Neither I nor anyone else made the claim YOU said was made. No one has claimed proof that man came from a single celled ancestor. Its very likely the case but NO ONE SAID IT WAS PROVED. Its a plain lie to claim it was said by anyone. Yet you made the statement.

Don't try to evade like that. You know I will call you on it.

Now for that last sentence. Micro or macro its still evolution and evolution is proved. There is no difference between micro and macro except time. You deny the time exists because you think the world is young. It isn't young. Its very old and so is life.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by monkspider
How's it unreasonable to proclaim there is a degree of faith in believing evolution to be absolute truth comrade ranger?

First of all, you have to be positively clear as to what you talk about. There are several meanings to "evolution." At least one refers to the prevailing theory explaining the mechanism of evolution, then there is one that refers to the phenomenon itself.

What I said is fact is the phenomenon itself. Speciation has been observed in nature, thus decisively refuting Creationism. There is absolutely no need for faith - I personally do not like to use this word because of possible religious connotations.

When it comes to scientific theories, they all have basic assumptions - called postulates - that need to be taken as true without proof. That does not make these theories religions, however.

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger


That's not correct, either. Atheism is not a belief about religions but the lack of belief in the existence of god(s).

Agnostics have a lack of belief. Strong Atheists actively disbelieve. making it a religious belief. There are some people that call themselves atheists that are really more like Agnostics.

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by Lincoln
There is evidence for God. You just do not fit that evidence into your belief system. On the other hand I consider both evolution and creation as valid options. One of us is discarding evidence.

Where is this evidence you so blithely claim? There is no evidence for the Biblical creation. None for creation at all for that matter.

Do try to answer this. Show the evidence. The Bible is not evidence. Its a book written by men long ago. You must show PHYSICAL evidence to support the claim you just made.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Ethelred
Agnostics have a lack of belief. Strong Atheists actively disbelieve. making it a religious belief. There are some people that call themselves atheists that are really more like Agnostics.

Agnosticism was coined by Thomas Huxley in 1869 in a semi-jokingly way to describe his own position on the question:

Huxley, on the other hand, wrote in "Agnosticism" published in The Nineteenth Century in February 1889 that he invented it as a label for himself at the Metaphysical Society, although he didn't say when. He also said, "It [agnostic] came into my head as suggestively antithetic to the 'gnostic' of Church history, who professed to know so much about the very things of which I was ignorant...." (Huxley, Thomas Henry. "Agnosticism" The Nineteenth Century. February, 1889, p. 183.)

[source]

It does not denote a lack of belief as much as a lack of knowledge.

Atheism is formed by adding the Greek prefix "a-," meaning "a lack of," "without" to the word "theism," which denotes a belief in a deity (or a group of deities). Thus, atheism is very broadly the lack of religious beliefs.

Positive (strong) atheists hold that there are good reasons to not believe in the existence of a deity (or a group of deities).

If I strongly believe that dragons do not exist, does that make me religious? It doesn't seem so.

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger


Positive (strong) atheists hold that there are good reasons to not believe in the existence of a deity (or a group of deities).

If I strongly believe that dragons do not exist, does that make me religious? It doesn't seem so.

I NEVER said Atheists were religous. I even warned that it was a troll. I said Atheism is a religious belief which is not that same as being a religion.

Watch Dragonslayer the movie, not the game Dragon Slayer. It sure looks like they had a real dragon. What more proof do you need?

[Lincoln]

t