Evolution: A religion?

[gonzo_for_civ]

Originally posted by monkspider
Interesting post Skilord, I think that the some of the rigid evolutionists have a certain zeal for defending it that make it seemto resemble religion in everything but name. And of course, the fact that it requires a degree of faith also makes it very religion-esque.
My stance on evolution you ask? Micro Evolution: certainly, macro evolution: possibly, in some form or another. Evolution, the final answer to everything in biology? Most certainly not.

Wow! A post ON-TOPIC!! Thanks for being mature in the posting of your views, monk.


" If there was strong scientific evidence against it, I would conclude it is wrong."

Yeah, have you ever looked for one?

[monkspider]

And don't worry Skilord, though many in this thread may be hostile to God, and many may try to disuade you to lose faith through their brute-force attacks. Be strong.

[monkspider]

By the way, thanks for your kind words Gonzo.

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by SKILORD

really, can you prove that any such "pressure and isolation" ever happened?

I don't need to prove it happened to show that it can happen. Neither do I have to prove humans evolved from apes to show that evolution occurs.

Is it really? prove it.

Its been proved many times and in many ways. I can not help you if you insist on remaining ignorant about the obvious.

How can you disprove any of those things? btw, you sound like a coverup agent is there something you don't want us to know?

What the heck are you talking about now. I am not even remotely covering up anything. That you would say such blatant nonsense is a sign you have a thinking problem.

There is NO evidence for the FLood yet it should be nearly everywhere. The Flood is supposed to have occured 4400 years ago give or take 100 years. The Tower of Bable comes after that. Since the Egyptians have existed as a culture for over 5000 years and were in the middle of building the Pyramids 4400 years ago it is clear they were never drowned and gone for for hundreds of years as would be the case if the Flood and the Tower were real things. That alone is ample proof that flood is a fairy story.

[gonzo_for_civ]

Originally posted by Ethelred


I read Genesis and Exodus. That was more than enough evidence to show the Bible is wrong on many things. There was no flood but its in the Bible. There was no Tower of Babel but its there as well. Nothing in the Bible can make those fantasies true.

Prove it



Its like environmental pressure. Peers are part of the enviroment. So with humans it is possible that actual peer pressure resulted in isolation for some groups of humans.

Don't play LOL instead of thinking with me. I can use to help my postition. Try thinking a bit.

I'm "playing" LOL with you because you will not concede your points no matter how hopeless your arguement gets. You still haven't explained how "environmental pressure caused evolution.



Creationists can't prove anything. Thats why they make up nonsense.

Hey genius, try reading what I was replying to.

[SKILORD]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov


This is a bull**** bit of illogical catchphrasing.

and herin we see that we cannot all be adults here

Evolution can indeed be disproved, as it is a scientific theory. Any scientific theory can be tested by scientific means and observation.

but evolution cannot be

So far, evolution has not been disproven. In fact, the plethora of fossil evidence has show it to be a truth.

doesn't this contradict your above statement?

Creationism is not scientific, and ergo cannot be tested scientifically, and thus cannot be disproved by science.

Herein we see Creationists still haven't learned the definition of 1) Theory or 2) Science.

you MAKE NO SENsE! you contradict yourself several times.

No, it can certainly be disproved!

and so you beleive something you know can be proven false?

Don't play LOL instead of thinking with me. I can use to help my postition. Try thinking a bit.

a frustrated coverup agent!

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by Combat Ingrid
I read somewhere that the black sea area was flooded some 6-7000 years ago. Sounds like a good real-life inspiration for the flood story

I agree that it was likely the inspiration. However its not the Flood as it is described in the Bible. The world isn't even supposed to have existed then by Fundamentalist Creationist standards.

[Combat Ingrid]

Originally posted by gonzo_for_civ
" If there was strong scientific evidence against it, I would conclude it is wrong."

Yeah, have you ever looked for one?

I read the scientific journals and find evidence supporting evolution quite often even though I admit I don't actively look for it. It's just so much it's hard to ignore

[monkspider]

Hmm, you and I have discussed this before Ethel? I once considered the theory of Noah's ark merely being allegory, as you may recall. I now think it was a localized flood, that flooded the world as Noah knew it. I think you ought to look into that theory Ethel before so quickly dismissing it.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by SKILORD

if not just a little biased.

Biased...no, just factual. But Creationists don't have facts, just the Bible.

The fossil record of which you speak was gained through a process proven time and again to be inaaccurate: unless of course you have something other than carbon dating backing it up. perhaps you were there?ldman:

Which, pray tell, dating method are you saying is proven inaccurate?

Here's one that isn't--counting layers of a glacier. We know through observation precisely how thick the layers of a glacier are and can count how old a glacier is similarly to counting rings on a tree. We have counted glacial layers that go back well over the 10,000 years the most liberal Biblical interpreters give for Genesis. No carbon dating. Simple...counting...proving Creationism...wrong.

geologic evidence may not be. but lets say that evidence was gathered by evlutionists. people who would take their own beleifs into account as they pretty much guessed at the date.

This is why Creationists will always be blind. Even when confronted with the evidence, they will merely say "Oh it was put up by an EVOLUTIONIST, so I can't trust it." This is akin to covering your ears and singing Mary Had a Little Lamb loudly.

[SKILORD]

Originally posted by Combat Ingrid


I read the scientific journals and find evidence supporting evolution quite often even though I admit I don't actively look for it. It's just so much it's hard to ignore

ok so: here's the point you guys have tried to make so far:
Ecolutionist printed documents=OK factual thumbs up would never ever lie uh-uh no way siree bob.
Creationist printed documents=EVIL all lies! where do they get this stuff? honestly?!

Now back to carbon dating. without it can evolution be proven? Is it factual in the slightest bit? i haven't heard dissention on that.

[Combat Ingrid]

Skilord: yes I "believe" in something I know can be proven to be false, just as I "believe" that the earth is more or less spherical, that can also (at least theoretically) be proven to be false you know

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by SKILORD


The problem with evolutionism is that it cannot be disproved, you already know for certain it is true, no matter what science tells you.

Actually it could be disproved if it wasn't real. It has been proved though so it would be darn hard to disprove it.

alright then what does this mean? Active ignorance eh? i could say the same of you.

You could say it but you couldn't show it since I have looked at the creationist stuff and I don't have to make things up about it to show it false. Its the Creationists that must at all costs remain stubbornly ignorant about reality and that is what makes it active rather than passive ignorance.

You may by passivly ignorant. Depend how much you have learned of science. However many members of the ICR have had good educations. They simply went to great lengths to ignore all that they had learned. Hence they are actively and intentionaly and deliberatly ignorant.

you did not say it wasn't a cult, only that it's focus was "Enviroment" as opposed to "chance"

I said nothing that even remotely hinted at a cult. You made it up. This is not a responce by you its a refusal to respond at all to what I actually said.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by SKILORD

and herin we see that we cannot all be adults here

but evolution cannot be

doesn't this contradict your above statement?

You're playing stupid word games. Even you should know the difference between "CAN BE PROVEN FALSE" and "HAS BEEN PROVEN FALSE." The notion that man evolved from lower species was scientifically testable, and therefore, like all science, capable of being proven false. But it has not been. It has been proven to be true, through scientific tests/observation.

The initial postulation was testable. The test came back positive.

Creationism is not testable whatsoever. Ergo, not science.

you MAKE NO SENsE! you contradict yourself several times.

It wouldn't make sense to someone who has no concept of how scientific hypothesis works. There was nothing contradictory about it.

and so you beleive something you know can be proven false?

More specious word games. ABILITY to be proven false vs. ACTUALLY PROVEN false.

That the earth revolves around the sun can be proven false. It is a theory one is capable of testing. However, when one tests it, one will soon easily see it is not false.

Not a hard concept, people...

[SKILORD]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov


Biased...no, just factual. But Creationists don't have facts, just the Bible.

see above post

Here's one that isn't--counting layers of a glacier. We know through observation precisely how thick the layers of a glacier are and can count how old a glacier is similarly to counting rings on a tree. We have counted glacial layers that go back well over the 10,000 years the most liberal Biblical interpreters give for Genesis. No carbon dating. Simple...counting...proving Creationism...wrong.

God created an adult world... sorry to rain on your parade but that therefore disproves nothing.

This is why Creationists will always be blind. Even when confronted with the evidence, they will merely say "Oh it was put up by an EVOLUTIONIST, so I can't trust it." This is akin to covering your ears and singing Mary Had a Little Lamb loudly.

This is why Evolutionists will always be blind. Even when confronted with the evidence, they will merely say "Oh it was put up by an CREATIONIST, so I can't trust it." This is akin to covering your ears and singing Mary Had a Little Lamb loudly.