Evolution Is A False Religion

[VCViking]

Really? Maybe the atheist ones agree but by no means do "almost all" of them agree about much of anything and what every agreement there is it is likely to change tomorrow.

Sealacamp

This is too funny! Check out this article that was posted today from Yahoo.



I call it The Ever Confused World of "Extremely Intelligent Scientists"


Questions raised about 'Ardi' as man's ancestor - Yahoo! News

Questions raised about 'Ardi' as man's ancestor

By MALCOLM RITTER, AP Science Writer Malcolm Ritter, Ap Science Writer – Thu May 27, 2:38 pm ET

NEW YORK – Last fall, a fossil skeleton named "Ardi" shook up the field of human evolution. Now, some scientists are raising doubts about what exactly the creature from Ethiopia was and what kind of landscape it inhabited.

New critiques question whether Ardi really belongs on the human branch of the evolutionary tree, and whether it really lived in woodlands. That second question has implications for theories about what kind of environment spurred early human evolution.

The new work is being published by the journal Science, which last year declared the original presentation of the 4.4 million-year-old fossil to be the magazine's breakthrough of the year.

Ardi, short for Ardipithecus ramidus, is a million years older than the famous "Lucy" fossil. Last October, it was hailed as a window on early human evolution.

Researchers concluded that "Ardi" walked upright rather than on its knuckles like chimps, for example, and that it lived in woodlands rather than open grasslands. It didn't look much like today's chimps, our closest living relatives, even though it was closer than Lucy to the common ancestor of humans and chimps.

Such questioning isn't unusual; big scientific discoveries are typically greeted that way. Until more scientists can study the fossil and other work can be done, broad consensus may be elusive. The 2003 discovery of diminutive fossil "hobbits" in Indonesia, for example, has spurred a long-running debate about whether the hobbits were a seperate species or not.
Tim White of the University of California, Berkeley, one of the scientists who described Ardi last year in Science, said he isn't surprised by this week's debate.

"It was completely expected," he said. "Any time you have something that is as different as Ardi, you're probably going to have it."

Esteban Sarmiento of the Human Evolution Foundation in East Brunswick, N.J., wrote in the new analysis that he's not convinced Ardi belongs on the evolutionary tree branch leading to modern humans.

Instead, he said in an interview, he thinks it came along earlier, before that human branch split off from the ancestors of chimps and gorillas.
The specific anatomical features of teeth, the skull and elsewhere that the researchers cited just don't make a convincing case for membership on the human branch, he argued. Some, like certain features in the wrist and where the lower jaw connects to the skull, indicate instead that Ardi arose before humans split off from African apes, he said.

In a written rebuttal in Science and in a telephone interview, White disagreed with Sarmiento's conclusion. "The evidence is very clear that in Ardipithecus, there are characteristics shared only by later hominids ... and humans," White said.

If Ardi were really ancestral to chimps, certain features of its teeth, pelvis, and skull would have had to later evolve back to their more ape-like conditions, an "evolutionary reversal that's highly unlikely," White said in an interview.

Two other experts, however, said in interviews that they think it's too early to tell where Ardi fits on the evolutionary tree.

Will Harcourt-Smith, a research associate at the American Museum of Natural History and member of the anthropology department at Lehman College in New York, said he could not say whether Sarmiento was right or wrong.

"It's early days" in the analysis of Ardi, he said. "Until there is a more complete description of the skeleton, one has to be cautious about interpreting the initial analyses one way or another... I still think it's open season."

Harcourt-Smith said he did disagree with Sarmiento's assertion that Ardi was probably too old to belong to the human branch of the evolutionary tree.


Rick Potts, head of the human origins program at the Smithsonian Institution's Natural History Museum, said Ardi is known chiefly from just one site. And it lived during a dimly understood period of evolution when there might have been "a lot of experimentation," he said.

Potts said that makes it hard to draw conclusions about how the species relates to Lucy and modern humans.

"I think it's just too soon to tell exactly where it stands in relationship to the branching point of humans from other African apes," he said.

The second critique focuses on Ardi's environment. Last year's analysis said it was predominantly a woodland setting. So that argued against the "savanna hypothesis," the idea that early human ancestors started to walk upright because they lived on grassy plains and savannas.

In this week's critique, geochemist Thure Cerling of the University of Utah and other scientists said their reading of the evidence shows Ardi roamed in a savanna with no more than 25 percent covered by a woody canopy. So they disagreed with last year's emphasis on the leafy setting.

The critique focused on evidence like analysis of ancient soils, tooth enamel from animals found at the site and tiny silica grains found in plants.

In a published rebuttal and the interview, White agreed that Ardi's environment included grasslands but said the totality of the evidence shows Ardi preferred living in its wooded areas instead.

For example, the skeleton shows adaptations for climbing and "it wasn't climbing grass," he said. And animals found with Ardi's remains are mostly woodland creatures like leaf-eating monkeys, he said.
Potts said he thinks White is right about the environment of the site in dispute. But again, he said, that's just one site, and not enough for drawing conclusions about the general environmental conditions of early human evolution — if indeed White is also right about Ardi's place on the family tree.

 

[Adoniram]

This is too funny! Check out this article that was posted today from Yahoo.



I call it The Ever Confused World of "Extremely Intelligent Scientists"


Questions raised about 'Ardi' as man's ancestor - Yahoo! News

Don't worry...they'll make something up that will sound plausible, and everyone will be happy again.

 

[sealacamp]

Don't worry...they'll make something up that will sound plausible, and everyone will be happy again.

And that in a nutshell is exactly the problem, they make up something.

This was prophesied long ago and has been rejected by many people now, including many who claim to follow Christ.

For a time is coming when people will no longer listen to sound and wholesome teaching. They will follow their own desires and will look for teachers who will tell them whatever their itching ears want to hear. They will reject the truth and chase after myths.

That is exactly what I see going on around the world daily. We have been warned repeatedly about the world trying to engulf us and deceive us and that is just what is going on, still it is nothing new just more exposed.

Sealcamp

 

[Duckybill]

I believe that evolution is a type of 'faith'. Faith in sinful humans' theories.

 

[JesusFreak78]

Evolution is a religion. They have to believe it happen millions and billions of years ago because they have no proof for their lies.

 

[Redneck12]

Evolution started out as a scientific theory, but has indeed become a religion. Science prides itself on open-mindedness, free inquiry, and open discussion. None of these are now present with evolution. Anyone who questions it, even on purely scientific grounds, is ostracized by the scientific community, and their books and writings censored. Particularly in the schools and colleges, open discussion is forbidden. The high priests of evolution refuse to allow orthodoxy to be questioned. Evolution has a lot of attractiveness as a religion. If there is no God, and we are just highly developed animals, there is no one to answer to, no absolutes, no right or wrong. We are free of all restraint. There are two problems with that: 1. The survival of civilization depends on being answerable to a "higher power". Otherwise everyone does what is right in their own eyes. Laws are only arbitrary rules imposed by those with the firepower to do so, and we are free to disobey them if we can get away with it, or authority loses its grip. No one has the right to tell me what to do! A society based on godless evolution can have no ethics except those imposed by force, and will descend into anarchy and then dictatorship. Democracy is impossible without a unifying religion. As Voltaire said "If God didn't exist we would be forced to invent Him". And John Adams: "We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a religious and moral people. It is wholly inadequate for the government of any other. " 2. Atheistic Evolution strips all hope from life. If there is no God, we will cease to exist when we die. Everything we do is futile in the long run, including scientific research. The best we can do is "eat, drink, and be merry" and live for the moment. Some fool themselves into thinking they are improving life for others or building for future generations, but the human race itself will eventually cease to exist due to self-destruction, the sun burning out, some unexpected reason, or the universe coming to an end. With no God, no one will be around to remember that man ever existed. No one will know or care about anything we have accomplished. "Vanity of vanities, saith the Preacher, vanity of vanities; all is vanity." Solomon

 

[sealacamp]

Evolution started out as a scientific theory, but has indeed become a religion. Science prides itself on open-mindedness, free inquiry, and open discussion. None of these are now present with evolution. Anyone who questions it, even on purely scientific grounds, is ostracized by the scientific community, and their books and writings censored. Particularly in the schools and colleges, open discussion is forbidden. The high priests of evolution refuse to allow orthodoxy to be questioned. Evolution has a lot of attractiveness as a religion. If there is no God, and we are just highly developed animals, there is no one to answer to, no absolutes, no right or wrong. We are free of all restraint. There are two problems with that: 1. The survival of civilization depends on being answerable to a "higher power". Otherwise everyone does what is right in their own eyes. Laws are only arbitrary rules imposed by those with the firepower to do so, and we are free to disobey them if we can get away with it, or authority loses its grip. No one has the right to tell me what to do! A society based on godless evolution can have no ethics except those imposed by force, and will descend into anarchy and then dictatorship. Democracy is impossible without a unifying religion. As Voltaire said "If God didn't exist we would be forced to invent Him". And John Adams: "We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a religious and moral people. It is wholly inadequate for the government of any other. " 2. Atheistic Evolution strips all hope from life. If there is no God, we will cease to exist when we die. Everything we do is futile in the long run, including scientific research. The best we can do is "eat, drink, and be merry" and live for the moment. Some fool themselves into thinking they are improving life for others or building for future generations, but the human race itself will eventually cease to exist due to self-destruction, the sun burning out, some unexpected reason, or the universe coming to an end. With no God, no one will be around to remember that man ever existed. No one will know or care about anything we have accomplished. "Vanity of vanities, saith the Preacher, vanity of vanities; all is vanity." Solomon

Bravo! You should write a book. That was very accurate and concise.

Sealacamp

 

[wpbarrett]

Evolution started out as a scientific theory, but has indeed become a religion. Science prides itself on open-mindedness, free inquiry, and open discussion. None of these are now present with evolution. Anyone who questions it, even on purely scientific grounds, is ostracized by the scientific community, and their books and writings censored. Particularly in the schools and colleges, open discussion is forbidden. The high priests of evolution refuse to allow orthodoxy to be questioned. Evolution has a lot of attractiveness as a religion. If there is no God, and we are just highly developed animals, there is no one to answer to, no absolutes, no right or wrong. We are free of all restraint. There are two problems with that: 1. The survival of civilization depends on being answerable to a "higher power". Otherwise everyone does what is right in their own eyes. Laws are only arbitrary rules imposed by those with the firepower to do so, and we are free to disobey them if we can get away with it, or authority loses its grip. No one has the right to tell me what to do! A society based on godless evolution can have no ethics except those imposed by force, and will descend into anarchy and then dictatorship. Democracy is impossible without a unifying religion. As Voltaire said "If God didn't exist we would be forced to invent Him". And John Adams: "We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a religious and moral people. It is wholly inadequate for the government of any other. " 2. Atheistic Evolution strips all hope from life. If there is no God, we will cease to exist when we die. Everything we do is futile in the long run, including scientific research. The best we can do is "eat, drink, and be merry" and live for the moment. Some fool themselves into thinking they are improving life for others or building for future generations, but the human race itself will eventually cease to exist due to self-destruction, the sun burning out, some unexpected reason, or the universe coming to an end. With no God, no one will be around to remember that man ever existed. No one will know or care about anything we have accomplished. "Vanity of vanities, saith the Preacher, vanity of vanities; all is vanity." Solomon

awesome post, a great statement ( 2. Atheistic Evolution strips all hope from life. If there is no God, we will cease to exist when we die.)

 

[shinbits]

awesome post, a great statement ( 2. Atheistic Evolution strips all hope from life. If there is no God, we will cease to exist when we die.)

So then you'd be ok with theistic evolution?

 

[Izdaari Eristikon]

Personally, I think OEC (specifically the Framework Interpretation variant) is the most satisfactory explanation. But I have no quarrel with Christians who believe in YEC or TE, so long as they don't obsess over it.

Ultimately, I know but one thing: Jesus Christ, Crucified and Resurrected. All this hullabaloo about the hows and whys and whens of how we got here is a sideshow -- perhaps an entertaining sideshow, even a fascinating one for some -- but still a sideshow.

 

[Glass*Soul]

What is religion?

 

[JesusFreak78]

According to dictionary.com:

1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.

2. a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.

3. the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices: a world council of religions.

4. the life or state of a monk, nun, etc.: to enter religion.

5. the practice of religious beliefs; ritual observance of faith.

6. something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience: to make a religion of fighting prejudice.

7. religions, Archaic . religious rites.

8. Archaic . strict faithfulness; devotion: a religion to one's vow.


If you believe in evolution I will say category 6 will fit you.

 

[Glass*Soul]

According to dictionary.com:

1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.

2. a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.

3. the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices: a world council of religions.

4. the life or state of a monk, nun, etc.: to enter religion.

5. the practice of religious beliefs; ritual observance of faith.

6. something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience: to make a religion of fighting prejudice.

7. religions, Archaic . religious rites.

8. Archaic . strict faithfulness; devotion: a religion to one's vow.


If you believe in evolution I will say category 6 will fit you.

I see. Thank you.

 

[JesusFreak78]

I see. Thank you.

You're welcome.

 

[Mick116]

"Evolution" is not a religion, at least according to any meaningful definition of the word. It is a scientific theory, used to explain observable phenomena. Even if Christians disagree with the science, we should all acknowledge that the theory has its merits (and be willing to learn what they are), and be humble enough to concede that we could be wrong. If we do choose to make a stand against 150 years of observation and interpretation made by experts in a plethora of related scientific disciplines, we should not do so lightly, but very cautiously, acknowledging our own incomplete understanding of God's creation and how it came to be.

 

[Duckybill]

"Evolution" is not a religion, at least according to any meaningful definition of the word.

Perhaps a 'faith' might be more accurate.

 

[sealacamp]

we could be wrong.

Indeed we could be, and most certainly are, wrong. However God is not and what He has stated takes precedence over anything that "we" may conjure up. I am standing with God and despite your claim for many evolution is a much a religion to them as Christianity is a religion to we that follow Christ. It takes faith to believe all of the claims of evolution just as it takes faith to believe in Gods creation. Frankly I will believe God over any statement that is contrary to His word.

Sealacamp

 

[MalReynolds]

Indeed we could be, and most certainly are, wrong. However God is not and what He has stated takes precedence over anything that "we" may conjure up. I am standing with God and despite your claim for many evolution is a much a religion to them as Christianity is a religion to we that follow Christ. It takes faith to believe all of the claims of evolution just as it takes faith to believe in Gods creation. Frankly I will believe God over any statement that is contrary to His word.

Sealacamp

So do you support slavery?

 

[sealacamp]

So do you support slavery?

I guess you do, otherwise it would not enter your mind.

Sealacamp

 

[JesusFreak78]

"Evolution" is not a religion, at least according to any meaningful definition of the word. It is a scientific theory, used to explain observable phenomena. Even if Christians disagree with the science, we should all acknowledge that the theory has its merits (and be willing to learn what they are), and be humble enough to concede that we could be wrong. If we do choose to make a stand against 150 years of observation and interpretation made by experts in a plethora of related scientific disciplines, we should not do so lightly, but very cautiously, acknowledging our own incomplete understanding of God's creation and how it came to be.

Has anyone observed anyone evolve from a rock? Yet that is what evolutionist is saying. They say it rained on the earth for million of years old and from the rain falling on the rocks it evolved bacterias which again evolved into something else and so it goes. That takes more faith that I have.

Also have everyone observed a big bag? Still evolutionists are claiming it happen and it come from nothing. They say nothing come together and it become more of nothing and nothing started to spin and it spun faster and faster until it exploded. Still basic physics teach us that if something is spinning and whatever is spinning with it is being thrown out it will continue to spin in the same direction. Then why do we have a couple planets and a few moons spinning in the opposite direction?