Evolution Is Religion, Not Science

[Freedom777]

Evolutionists often insist that evolution is a proved fact of science, providing the very framework of scientific interpretation, especially in the biological sciences. This, of course, is nothing but wishful thinking. Evolution is not even a scientific hypothesis, since there is no conceivable way in which it can be tested. www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-107.htm

 

[kaotic]

HOW many times is people going to make a thread like this. Its a theory DO you know what a theory is HUH do ya.

If you don't here from Dictionary.com

the·o·ry Pronunciation Key (th-r, thîr)
n. pl. the·o·ries
A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.
The branch of a science or art consisting of its explanatory statements, accepted principles, and methods of analysis, as opposed to practice: a fine musician who had never studied theory.
A set of theorems that constitute a systematic view of a branch of mathematics.
Abstract reasoning; speculation: a decision based on experience rather than theory.
A belief or principle that guides action or assists comprehension or judgment: staked out the house on the theory that criminals usually return to the scene of the crime.
An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture.

Evolutions isn't a religion you don't worship, and pray to evolution. A theory is a way to explain something and it doens't have to be tested to be a theory, just evidence of something and if alot of scientist agree with the evidence it is a theory.

 

[kaotic]

And if you don't know what evolution is here.

ev·o·lu·tion Pronunciation Key (v-lshn, v-)
n.
A gradual process in which something changes into a different and usually more complex or better form. See Synonyms at development.

The process of developing.
Gradual development.
Biology.
Change in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations, as a result of natural selection acting on the genetic variation among individuals, and resulting in the development of new species.
The historical development of a related group of organisms; phylogeny.
A movement that is part of a set of ordered movements.
Mathematics. The extraction of a root of a quantity.

And some of evolution has been tested.

 

[Morat]

  Any aspect of evolution can be, and has been, and continues to be, tested.

   Darn hit-and-run posters.

 

 

[XtremeVision]

Originally posted by Morat
  Any aspect of evolution can be, and has been, and continues to be, tested.

   Darn hit-and-run posters.

 

You're just plain wrong here.  Show me evidence directly showing an INCREASE in genetic information (DNA, etc), proliferation as a result of mutations, more complex life forms from simple ones, show how a mechanism of Neo-Darwanism processes can result in evolutionary claims, etc.  Don’t just show me horizontal adaptation or new, by-product "features".


And yes, secular science is a “religion” in the sense that it requires just as much “faith” in man’s imperfection and unempirical evidence as any theistic religion.  There are no absolutes after all, right?


 

 

[blader]

Originally posted by XtremeVision
You're just plain wrong here.  Show me evidence directly showing an INCREASE in genetic information (DNA, etc), proliferation as a result of mutations, more complex life forms from simple ones, show how a mechanism of Neo-Darwanism processes can result in evolutionary claims, etc.  Don’t just show me horizontal adaptation or new, by-product "features".

Provide me with a way to differentiate between "increase in genetic information" and "horizontal adaptation or new, by-product features." Give an example of each, and then we can see exactly what sort of evidence you are requesting.

As of now, your request is like me asking "Show me a video of God flooding the earth, a photo of Jesus rising from the dead, and then resurrecting my dead aunt. Otherwise, Christianity is FALSE!"

And yes, secular science is a “religion” in the sense that it requires just as much “faith” in man’s imperfection and unempirical evidence as any theistic religion.  There are no absolutes after all, right?  

So, yeah, it's a religion, as long as you redefine the word "religion.

 

[kaotic]

Originally posted by XtremeVision
You're just plain wrong here.  Show me evidence directly showing an INCREASE in genetic information (DNA, etc), proliferation as a result of mutations, more complex life forms from simple ones, show how a mechanism of Neo-Darwanism processes can result in evolutionary claims, etc.  Don’t just show me horizontal adaptation or new, by-product "features".


And yes, secular science is a “religion” in the sense that it requires just as much “faith” in man’s imperfection and unempirical evidence as any theistic religion.  There are no absolutes after all, right?


 

If you know anything about a theory you would know that a theory isn't based on faith its based on evidence. The science community doens't accept a theory on faith that would be really dumb.

 

[TheBear]

WOW!!!

What a thread!

 

[kaotic]

Yeah I love this thread.

 

[Angel75]

Wow this is such a joke. I am amazed at how many christians claim evolution is a religion. Just because you think it throws doubt on your religion, doesnt mean it is. Forgiv eme for forgetting who said this but someone made a point with this and it is so true. are all theories religions? theory of relativity is only a theory too.

edited for saying mean stuff about the size of your brain if ya think its a religion....

 

[paulewog]

/me would like to see a direct testing on the big bang.

 

[Morat]

me would like to see a direct testing on the big bang

  Happens all the time. Weren't you the one I explained the CMB to? What do you think that was, but a direct test of the Big Bang theory?

You're just plain wrong here.&nbsp; Show me evidence directly showing an INCREASE in <B>genetic</B> information (DNA, etc), <I>proliferation</I> as a result of <B>mutations</B>, more <B>complex</B> life forms from <B>simple</B> ones,&nbsp;show how a mechanism&nbsp;of Neo-Darwanism processes can result in evolutionary claims,&nbsp;etc.&nbsp; Don’t just show me horizontal adaptation or new, by-product "features".

&nbsp; And If I use enough bolded comments my point will be true.

&nbsp;&nbsp; Evidence: Duplication and a single point mutation. Happens all the time. Sometimes in the same generation with plants. Increases in&nbsp;Shannon information (indeed, by all measures of information) have been noted in genomes. It's quite simple to see, if you have even the barest understanding of&nbsp;common mutations.&nbsp;

&nbsp;&nbsp; As for "more complex", define "complexity". How do you measure it? How do I determine if something is "more complex" or "less complex".

&nbsp;&nbsp; I'll let you get back to me on that.

And yes, secular science is a “religion” in the sense that it requires just as much “faith” in man’s imperfection and unempirical evidence as any theistic religion.&nbsp; There are no absolutes after all, right?

&nbsp;&nbsp; Ah, is that all you've got? You can't hack the evidence, so you claim it's "Just a religion too!". What a lame copout.

&nbsp;&nbsp; Tell you what: Name one thing a scientist must have faith in.For every one you can&nbsp;name&nbsp; (and I'm only counting stuff scientists actually have to have faith in. Not whatever strawman you feel like building today) I'll name you two a Christian must have.

&nbsp;&nbsp; Here's a hint: There's only one a scientist must have. Everything after that is testable. As a further hint: It's the bare-bones minimal assumption you can make, and still function in the world.

&nbsp;

 

[Smilin]

Originally posted by Freedom777
Evolutionists often insist that evolution is a proved fact of science, providing the very framework of scientific interpretation, especially in the biological sciences. This, of course, is nothing but wishful thinking. Evolution is not even a scientific hypothesis, since there is no conceivable way in which it can be tested. www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-107.htm

Okay,

You've convinced me...but now I'm confused on a NUMBER of other things I've observed.&nbsp; I'll list a few to keep it brief.&nbsp; Since evolution is not a science...and can't be tested, (much less shown)... Please explain the following to me.

1.&nbsp; Antibiotic resistant strains of bacteria.

2.&nbsp; Selective Breeding...i.e. new breeds of different animals such as dogs, cattle, horses, pigs, etc.

3.&nbsp; Hybrids...which probably account for the majority of the landscaping in your yard.

4.&nbsp; Genetic mutations which have introduced a HOST of new diseases within the creation.

&nbsp;

I eagerly await your answers...and your Nobel Prize awaits.

 

[Smilin]

Originally posted by XtremeVision

And yes, secular science is a “religion” in the sense that it requires just as much “faith” in man’s imperfection and unempirical evidence as any theistic religion.&nbsp; There are no absolutes after all, right?&nbsp;
&nbsp;

What are you referring to&nbsp; 'secular science'.

I guess there are no 'absolutes' when you turn on any electrical device, listen to your CD player, use your cell phone, use your microwave oven, ..... Shall I continue?

If science is a religion...please let me know what 'God' I am worshiping...

&nbsp;

 

[Smilin]

Originally posted by paulewog
/me would like to see a direct testing on the big bang.

/me hands Paulewog a stick of TNT...complete with a blasting cap..and electrical ignitor.....

READY????

 

[XtremeVision]

Originally posted by blader
Provide me with a way to differentiate between "increase in genetic information" and "horizontal adaptation or new, by-product features."

Increase = more = in addition to original.


Horizontal = random/relative change/mutation of the existing.&nbsp; E.G. - peppered moth, Darwin’s finches, antibiotic/herbicide/insecticide resistance, sickle cell, hermaphrodites, new plant colors, new “traits”, etc.


Example: "At such-and-such a time I can show, in a sequence, that x base pairs and y genes existed in Sample ‘A’.&nbsp;Now, observing the same linear genome, I can observe x + z and/or y + z."


As of yet, there is no such thing as ANY evidence that even BEGINS to just suggest a mechanism of how a simply constructed, low gene organism could obtain new features from a great increase in genetic information.


Here is a quote from an AiG article:


“The main scientific objection to the GTE is not that changes occur through time, and neither is it about the size of the change (so I would discourage use of the terms micro- and macro-evolution — see the appendix to this book). The key issue is the type of change required — to change microbes into men requires changes that increase the genetic information content. The three billion DNA ‘letters’ stored in each human cell nucleus convey a great deal more information (known as ‘specified complexity’) than the over half a million DNA ‘letters’ of the ‘simplest’ self-reproducing organism. The DNA sequences in a ‘higher’ organism, such as a human being or a horse, for instance, code for structures and functions unknown in the sort of ‘primitive first cell’ from which all other organisms are said to have evolved.”


http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2002/1022re2ch3.asp

Originally posted by blader
As of now, your request is like me asking "Show me a video of God flooding the earth, a photo of Jesus rising from the dead, and then resurrecting my dead aunt. Otherwise, Christianity is FALSE!"

Funny, that IS what most atheists want from us.&nbsp; However, your analogy is incorrect.&nbsp; I am simply holding the popular evolutionary dogma to the standards of science it so ardently claims to uphold. Our foundation is faith – do you wish to challenge that?&nbsp; How does one do so?


Faith does not exclude scientific application, only if you are predisposed against it in the first place.

Originally posted by blader
So, yeah, it's a religion, as long as you redefine the word "religion”.

Lay off the semantics. The main issue here is "faith" - as in without absoluteness.&nbsp; You seem to think we are ignorant and our beliefs are false because, ultimately, it relies on faith.&nbsp; This is illogical due to the hypocritical nature of the position (i.e. it requires just as much faith. Read previous response).

&nbsp;

 

[XtremeVision]

Originally posted by Smilin
What are you referring to 'secular science'.

Science that excludes divine/intelligent inspiration as a possible influence.

Originally posted by Smilin
I guess there are no 'absolutes' when you turn on any electrical device, listen to your CD player, use your cell phone, use your microwave oven, ..... Shall I continue?

Are you implying that I said there were none?

Originally posted by Smilin
If science is a religion...please let me know what 'God' I am worshiping...

Whatever your uttermost absolute is.

 

[Pete Harcoff]

I have faith in France. I guess France is my religion (although, I'm starting to lose that faith...).

 

[XtremeVision]

Secular science has faith in it’s approach; aspiring that imperfect humans can eventually obtain a perfect understanding of anything.

Because you cannot ultimately know without a doubt that some unforeseen force, law, nature or principle of this universe exists, or that our current understanding of the ones will not change – thus that our current observations could be tainted.

Aside from that, interpretation of evidence relies heavily on predisposed assumptions (framework).&nbsp; The mere fact that empirical testing is impossible for many of the propositions and that we require inferring evidence is faith by nature.

It’s much like taking the concept of Godel’s Theorem and applying it to life in general.

http://www.christiananswers.net/q-sum/sum-r002.html

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/189.asp

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/philosophy.asp

More if necessary.

 

[XtremeVision]

Originally posted by Pete Harcoff
I have faith in France. I guess France is my religion (although, I'm starting to lose that faith...).

More semantics.&nbsp; We are talking about “faith” in a religious context.


Do you rely on France to explain your existence and let it formulate your ideas and philosophy for carrying out life?&nbsp; I think not.