For Creationists.....

[Aron-Ra]

]I am not interested in the ''Bhagavad Gita'', your arguments from personal incredulity nor what you imagine a god would or wouldn’t do ''if he(?) really did exist in some form''.

The point was that you're resting all your beliefs on one of many similar mythos. [/color]

Faith = trust = faith.

No, because faith can be trust, confidence, and/or belief, but that's not all it is. The qualifying factor of faith in any case, is that it is adopted without evidence and stoic in that it will not be changed despite all evidence to the contrary.
faith = trust/confidence/belief without evidence.

The only way to improve your understanding of anything is to question your assumptions…

And the assumptions of others.

No, obviously the only way to improve your understanding is to question your own assumptions. Evolutionary science requires this, but faith forbids it.

Mega-evolution - Not observed, not repeatable, not testable = Flawed.

On that we agree, but only because "megaevolution" is meaningless because you made it up yourself.

But by assuming your conclusions and insisting that they're flawless from the start, you're only going to start out wrong and stay wrong forever.

Note to atheists.

We already know that. That's why we never believe anything without indicative evidence, and whatever we do believe is only tentative and subject to change as the evidence demands.

I already proved that your definition is wrong.

It wasn’t my definition and it wasn’t wrong.

You cited it as the definition you use. That makes it yours. And like everything else you've said, it too is wrong.

I can't believe anything without compelling evidence…

This is something I am trying to determine with my questions about the origin of the universe, life and, mega-evolution.

Then quit avoiding the topic with these stupid taunts of yours.

I can’t believe the unbelievable either.

But you do! You believe things which are not only completely illogical and wholly irrational, but are also impossible according to everything we know about anything at all, and you believe them completely without question and for literally no reason at all.

Because I don't have faith.

But you do, every time you take another’s explanation for something you were not there to witness.

No, that's what you do. I keep an open mind to all possabilities and tentatively side with the greatest probability according to the evidence as I understand it. That's nothing like faith.

You can stop trying to recite the old creationist slogan that everyone has faith, because I remind you that 2 Thessalonians 3:2 says no, we don't, and I particularly don't.

This is the deliberate oversight I made mention of in an earlier post.
Was Paul referring to a faith in particular or faith in general?

Doesn't matter.

Verse 1 makes it plain enough with, ''the word of Lord …''
I therefore take verse 2 to mean, ‘’for all men have not faith.’’ in (the word of) the Lord. Simple really isn’t it.
Using your definition of faith What do you think Paul means by ''the Lord is faithful'' in verse 3?

How you interpret your improbable and inconsistent folklore is up to you. I find it condradicts itself too often to be taken seriously.

with only one notable exception) everyone who has ever published anti-evolutionary rhetoric to any medium did so only according to a prior religious agenda rather than any amount of scientific comprehension. They’ve all revealed inexcusable ignorance in the very fields where they claim expertise, and their arguments are all dependant on erroneous assumptions, prejudicial bias, logical fallacies, ridiculous parody, misdefined terms, misquoted authorities, distorted data, fraudulent figures, or out-and-out lies. Thus, there are only two types of arguments for creationism; those which can never be either vindicated or disproved, and those which have already been disproved many times over, both scientifically and in a court of law. So if you contend that this is only my opinion, then produce an exception to this rule and let me see one verifiably accurate argument in favor of creationism.

What rule? All you have given here is your subjective opinion.

Prove it then. The rule is that there has never been either a credible proponent of evangelical creationism nor a single verifiably accurate argument for it.

The objective reality of course is that not everyone must conform to your rule nor, necessarily, to the rule(s) of methodological naturalism.

It becomes objectively demonstrated when neither you nor anyone else can produce either one in all the years I've been making this challenge.

The appeal to ''science'' and ''a court of law'' are irrelevant, in my view, unless it can be shown that either one is infallible.

Nothing is ever infallable. Your own mythology says that even your god makes mistakes, does things he regrets. And while your god is described as being without sin, he is also said to be laden with a few of the deadly ones; pride, vengeance, jealosy, wrath. You sacred book certainly isn't infallible, and how could it be? Because it was written by mere fallible men, and even the expert theologians who are creationists still admit that the Bible was subject to their interpretations and prejudice, intellectual limitations and polital agendas.

For me as a Christian the ''laws'' of man are no different to the ''science'' of man… if either one contradicts the Bible then it is wrong.

Thus you'e practicing a form of idolatry wherein you fail to distinguish doctrine from dogma and worship a man-made compendium as though that were God himself.

 

[Loudmouth]

All joking aside, you really are going to explain "mega-evolution", and how it differs from macro-evolution...actually, a definition of macro-evolution wouldn't hurt either.

Is mega-evolution one thousand times faster than giga-evolution? Or even better, mega-evolution is 1E12 times slower than micro-evolution.

 

[Edx]

We are to look for these signs.

Right, okay, so where are these signs and why should we assume its true before we have no reason to believe it is?

Its like if I was the one telling you the pixies were causing global warming, and that you should be looking for the signs of the pixies when I tell you we have no reason to think pixies either exist or have anything to do with global warming.

Ed

 

[Edx]

Faith and trust are synonymous, you can apply your definition of faith to what you perceive to be the faith of others but it does not apply to mine

If you want to claim faith is synonymous and exactly the same as trust, then fine. I have faith and so does Aron-Ra. However what makes our "faith" different is your "trust" doesnt depend on evidence - which is the point. See, your sematics games are pretty boring.

My (absolute) faith in God is (absolute) trust in God and I see nothing in God’s word that explicitly requires it to be anything more than that.

Except Aron didnt say it was anything more than what you just said above. "Absolute" means everything Aron-Ra just said faith was that you just disagreed applied to faith.

If I may be permitted to do a little quote mining from The bible myself I like this one that you chose:
Hebrews 11 (King James Version) - 1Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.
It can be directly applied to mega-evolution. Do I need to explain why?

This Hebrews quote supports Arons contention that faith is trust without evidence, actually.

And if you tried to explain how this quote related to "mega-evolution" (whatever that is) I suspect it would only show your ignorence of evolution anyway.

 

[Aron-Ra]

IDists are creationists by definition.

What definition would that be?

Whether we’re talking about Muslim, Christian, Sikh, or Hindu variants, creationism can be accurately defined as a form of religious extremism which rejects both the conclusions of science and its methodology where either appear contrary to their own preferred assumptions. Instead, creationism promotes an exclusively religious belief that organisms did not evolve naturally, but that life, the universe, and everything was created magically -as according to their sacred legends.

4. Is intelligent design theory the same as creationism?
No. Intelligent design theory is simply an effort to empirically detect whether the "apparent design" in nature acknowledged by virtually all biologists is genuine design (the product of an intelligent cause) or is simply the product of an undirected process such as natural selection acting on random variations. Creationism is focused on defending a literal reading of the Genesis account, usually including the creation of the earth by the Biblical God a few thousand years ago. Unlike creationism, the scientific theory of intelligent design is agnostic regarding the source of design and has no commitment to defending Genesis, the Bible or any other sacred text. Honest critics of intelligent design acknowledge the difference between intelligent design and creationism. University of Wisconsin historian of science Ronald Numbers is critical of intelligent design, yet according to the Associated Press, he "agrees the creationist label is inaccurate when it comes to the ID [intelligent design] movement." Why, then, do some Darwinists keep trying to conflate intelligent design with creationism? According to Dr. Numbers, it is because they think such claims are "the easiest way to discredit intelligent design." In other words, the charge that intelligent design is "creationism" is a rhetorical strategy on the part of Darwinists who wish to delegitimize design theory without actually addressing the merits of its case. For more information read Center Director Stephen Meyer's piece "Intelligent Design is not Creationism" that appeared in The Daily Telegraph (London) or Center Associate Director's piece " Intelligent Design and Creationism Just Aren't the Same" in Research News & Opportunities.
http://www.discovery.org/csc/topQuestions.php
(Emphasis added.)

There has never been any empiracle indication of any intelligent designer. Every ID theorist was already committed to their creationist beliefs before promoting Intelligent Design, and those involved in that admit to a religious agenda to undermine scientific methodology. Some of the leaders of the Intelligent Design movement have admitted that their proposed designer is God and can only be a religious belief. Casey Luskin, paleontology expert for the the Discovery Institute admitted that to me right here in this forum. He also maintains creationism websites in his spare time, as do they all. They all deny scientific methodology, and specifically oppose evolution in favor of “creator” whom they admit can only be supernatural. That is creationism by definition.

No you don't know that.

Yes I do know that. It’s in The Bible.

Exactly! Its in a many-times disproved montage of man-made mythology and not indicated anywhere else by anything else. It is no different from the baseless assertions of any other religion.

There are lots of religions each claiming to know the others are wrong. Because faith often amounts to pretending to know what you know no one even can know, but instead only believe on faith. But the difference between knowledge and mere belief is that knowledge can always be tested. If you can't show it, you don't know it.

What do you mean by ‘’faith often amounts to’’?

I was being unusually polite. Faith always means pretending to know what no one even can know.

And why does ‘’If you can't show it, you don't know it’’ not apply to the origin of the universe, origin of life and mega-evolution?

Well “mega-evolution” is excluded because it is a bogus nonsense word you just made up. But as for the rest, science only claims to know those things we can show a preponderance of evidence for, provided there is enough of that to prove the case in the sense that a court of law would use that word. Evolution has that. Evolution has done that. And at the same time, Intelligent Design was also proven to be a branch of creationism –all as a matter of public record.

And hundreds of millions of Hindus "know" it is Krsna/Vishnu, and hundreds of millions of Muslims and Jews "know" it is El/Abba/Allah/YHWH, and not Jesus at all. But the fact is that none of you really knows what you all pretend to know.

Let those of other faiths defend their faith.

Why? Why do you all need to defend your beliefs? Why can’t you be like non-religious people, and simply change your mind without having to resort to apologetics forever never accepting or admitting any error? Ah yes, I forgot. Because religion is irrational and disingenuous.

You know, repeating the same lie again and again still can't make it become truth.

Yes you have demonstrated that.

By citing you many failed attempts as an illustration of that point.

The fact that evolution has happened and still is happening has been very well established by now. But it is still questioned and its still being tested.

What do you mean by evolution?

See? I told you, you don’t know what you’re talking about. Yet how many times have I explained this to you before?

Evolution: “Descent with modification”. A process of varying genetic frequencies among reproductive populations; leading to (usually subtle) changes in their morphological or physiological composition, which –when compiled over successive generations- can increase biodiversity when continuing variation between genetically-isolated groups eventually lead to one or more descendant branches increasingly distinct from their ancestors or cousins.
It is not "How life began without God." Its not "how life began" at all, and it certainly isn't 'anti-god', and its got nothing to do with the origin of the universe. Its simply how lineages change and diversify over many generations; that's all!

Microevolution: “Small scale” evolution within a single species / interbreeding population.
It does not include speciation! Horses and asses and zebras are different species, not different kinds of the same one.

Macroevolution: “Large scale” evolution between different species / populations: The emergence of new taxa at or above the species level.
It is not 'molecules to man', nor is it the origin of life, nor is it ever "one thing giving birth to another completely different thing."

Mega-evolution: FoeHammer’s imaginary monster and favorite straw-man fallacy.

Again, because you don't understand it and can't deal with it. That's why you still can't explain why humans are in the category of apes and Old World monkeys.

Of course I can explain it… Because someone decided to put them there.

Oh no no no. This was not a matter of choice! Unlike faith-based beliefs, everything in evolution is objectively demonstrable. Just to prove the point, why don’t you tell me what you think an ape or a monkey is?

Unless they do as former YEC, Glenn Morton did, and see it for themselves. Dr. Morton said every one of the YECs he hired from his old creationist school suffered a crisis of faith once they saw the reality for themselves in the day-to-day job of petrogeology.

Shall I post testimonies of atheistic evolutionists who have become Christians and creationists? Would that impress you?

No, because I’ve already met several of these people. None of them ever knew what evolution even was before or after they renewed their religious vows. All of the ones claiming to have been swayed by evidence lied and admitted elsewhere what the real religious reasons were.

I wouldn't say so if it wasn't true, or if I couldn't back it up. Read RichardT's recent posts in this very thread!

As I have said I know of one now… so what?

So it doesn’t matter how ridiculous a religious belief is, or how much reality has to be ignored to accept it, faith will blind rationale to believe it anyway.

 

[RichardT]

Right, okay, so where are these signs and why should we assume its true before we have no reason to believe it is?

Its like if I was the one telling you the pixies were causing global warming, and that you should be looking for the signs of the pixies when I tell you we have no reason to think pixies either exist or have anything to do with global warming.

Ed

You said it yourself, we are to look for signs of things that might have happened differently in the unobserved past. Not only presume philosophical naturalism, that would be highly dishonest.

 

[Loudmouth]

You said it yourself, we are to look for signs of things that might have happened differently in the unobserved past. Not only presume philosophical naturalism, that would be highly dishonest.

Look up at the night sky and you can directly observe the past. If physical constants were different in the past we would see it in how stars emit energy. There is no change for the past 11 billion years, or 13.3 billion years if you include the cosmic microwave background radiation. All of this from DIRECT OBSERVATION.

We can also observe the past indirectly in the same way that a forensic scientist can recreate a crime. Things in the past leave evidence in the present. Ice cores, tree rings, and lake varves alll attest to slight changes in historic C14 levels and a complete absence of a world wide flood, for one example. Need I go on?

 

[Mumbo]

You said it yourself, we are to look for signs of things that might have happened differently in the unobserved past.

Well, we are looking for such signs, but despite an extensive search, nothing groundbreaking has turned up.

 

[RichardT]

Evolution: “Descent with modification”. A process of varying genetic frequencies among reproductive populations; leading to (usually subtle) changes in their morphological or physiological composition, which –when compiled over successive generations- can increase biodiversity when continuing variation between genetically-isolated groups eventually lead to one or more descendant branches increasingly distinct from their ancestors or cousins.

Yes.

Microevolution: “Small scale” evolution within a single species / interbreeding population.
It does not include speciation! Horses and asses and zebras are different species, not different kinds of the same one.

Macroevolution: “Large scale” evolution between different species / populations: The emergence of new taxa at or above the species level.
It is not 'molecules to man', nor is it the origin of life, nor is it ever "one thing giving birth to another completely different thing."

This is where the confusion arises, Timothy Wallace in his glossary of terms has redefined macro-evolution differently. This confusion has caused some creationists to want to create a new word all together to describe what they meant, since speciation is 100% consistent with biblical Creationism, and even needed for post flood conditions.

Mega-evolution: FoeHammer’s imaginary monster and favorite straw-man fallacy.

Mega-evolution is simply a word invented by Christopher Ashcraft to stop the confusion of micro and macro evolution that Creationists are having with evolutionists. The difference that Creationists have with the ToE is not speciation, but it has to do more with Claude Shanon's measurement of information.

 

[FoeHammer]

Only if God exists, which he evidently doesn't.

''Evidently''? Should I prepare myself for yet another argument from personal incredulity?

And even if he did exist, he never says anything. *****

I beg to differ.

It must. Why else would you defend a belief system based entirely on a series of falsehoods with not one element of it that is verifiably accurate?

I have admitted to having faith I am not going to discuss my faith with you here.

Why do you insist ***** denying evidence and redefining terms into strawmen fallacies?

I do not deny evidence only evolutionary interpretations of alleged evidence that cannot be tested and demonstrated. If all life is descended from a common ancestor (simple(?) life-from) Then I fail to see how calling it mega-evolution (simple(?) life-form to human evolution) qualifies it as a strawman fallacy.

And I accused you of saying they were both equal in that you assert that they both require faith. You keep proving my point.

It was glaringly obvious that I think that they both require faith it was also glaringly obvious that I was referring to the inequality in the degree of faith required. Am I going to have to repeat myself yet again?

And there you go again, denying evidence, and redefining "mega-evolution" to suit your fallacy.

I AM DENYING EVOLUTIONARY INTERPRETATIONS OF (so called) EVIDENCE. Is that clear now?

***** If you somehow my position still requires faith somehow, then do please explain how I might rid myself of what little faith you imagine is left.

Become omniscient. Failing that you’re stuck with it (to one degree or another) like the rest of us.

Because when I look at the fact that evolution is observed in real time presently and consistently

evidenced* in the fossil record as well as in taxomomy and genomics, and that it is testable in each of those cases, I have to think that it must take less faith to tentatively believe in these things which are demonstrable and testable and which we can understand with a measurable degree of accuracy -than to believe in ***** who believe *****…

*Interpreted.

… who can't agree even with each other, and not only can't give any reason to believe them, but are constantly destroying their own crediblity.

As a Christian I only need to agree with scripture. I do not let other peoples personal disagreements about scripture interfere with that.

Because as you define it, evolution is a necessarily atheist yet faith-based religion concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, and that macroevolution has never been observed, and neither have there ever been any transitional species ever discovered. Everything you argue for is a strawman, and all your arguments are completely wrong.

Evolution is atheistic to someone who believes in One God and His revealed word The Bible (including a straightforward reading of Genesis).
Evolution has not been observed beyond variation within a kind. (Argue among yourselves as to the differences between micro and macro evolution, I don’t care.) From now on, whenever I discuss evolution with anyone on this forum, or anywhere else for that matter, I will be referring to mega evolution (simple(?) life-form to human evolution). Not observed, not testable, not demonstrable.

Evolution meets none of the criteria shared in common with all actual religions,

Then it is an uncommon religion.

and as a science it denies the involvement of faith, yet most Christians are evolutionists .....

As a consequence of a papal diktat? I take the pope and his cohorts less seriously than I do you.

we know of

hundreds of examples of transitional species even according to the strictest definition possible,

We have discussed this particular issue before and as I pointed out then it is too loose a definition. Basically - If it looks transitional it is - does that not strike you as weak?

and macroevolution has been observed and documented dozens of times.

Variation within kinds has been observed.

"They" are the scientific communty you're trying to argue against, and the way they define it is pretty much as I have done. But I'll give you the official version:

Biological evolution, simply put, is descent with modification. This definition encompasses small-scale evolution (changes in gene frequency in a population from one generation to the next) and large-scale evolution (the descent of different species from a common ancestor over many generations).

As I have said, variation within kinds has been observed.

Yes. I was never a fan of Big Bang cosmology. I don't know. It just doesn't sit well with me. But I can't argue against it. At Talk.origins I tried, and I got my ass handed back to me. So I have to concede that the Big Bang is the best-supported theory of universal origins. But I'm hoping someone figures out another explanation that works better.

So you don’t have absolute faith in Big Bang cosmology?

Now how does the origin of the universe have jack to do with evolutionary development on this planet?

As I have said links in a chain.
(not to scale ) OOOOrigin of the universeOOOsunOOOearthOOOchemicalsOOOfirst life-formOOOdiversity of life on earth today (extremely simplified version ).
I don’t want you to attempt to explain it from some arbitrary point in the past to the present I would like you to start from the present and work back, you see each stage is dependant on the one before it.

Nope. There's no relation, and you're talking like a loony.

Nope. You’re just trying to avoid the issue.

FoeHammer

 

[RichardT]

Look up at the night sky and you can directly observe the past. If physical constants were different in the past we would see it in how stars emit energy. There is no change for the past 11 billion years, or 13.3 billion years if you include the cosmic microwave background radiation. All of this from DIRECT OBSERVATION.

We can also observe the past indirectly in the same way that a forensic scientist can recreate a crime. Things in the past leave evidence in the present. Ice cores, tree rings, and lake varves alll attest to slight changes in historic C14 levels and a complete absence of a world wide flood, for one example. Need I go on?

Do you concede to be able compare and contrast evidence for both frameworks, before going on? If God created, there should be evidence for it, and I believe there is.

 

[TheOutsider]

Mega-evolution is simply a word invented by Christopher Ashcraft to stop the confusion of micro and macro evolution that Creationists are having with evolutionists. The difference that Creationists have with the ToE is not speciation, but it has to do more with Claude Shanon's measurement of information.

Like I've said several times now, mega-evolution is a term made up by Creationists. They realized that couldn't disprove "macro-evolution" so they decided to move the goalposts. I'd still like a definition of this "information" too. I know RichardT isn't going to answer me, so I'd take an explanation from anyone.

 

[Aron-Ra]

Only if God exists, which he evidently doesn't.

''Evidently''? Should I prepare myself for yet another argument from personal incredulity?

You haven't heard one of those from me yet. But either you have evidence of God or your belief in him is based on faith instead. Which is it? Are all the world's religious leaders right when they say one must have faith to believe in him? or are you in line for the Nobel prize with the first ever evidence of God?

And even if he did exist, he never says anything.

I beg to differ.

Really? What did he ever write himself that doesn't attribute itself to mere human authors?

Why else would you defend a belief system based entirely on a series of falsehoods with not one element of it that is verifiably accurate?

I have admitted to having faith I am not going to discuss my faith with you here.

You should, because we both know there's never been a single credible proponant of evangelical creationism anywhere ever, but there are a lot of huxters our there lying for your God in the name of Bibliolatry. And we both know there's never been a single verifiably accurate argument for creationism either, but there have been a lot of creationist frauds; including the infamous Chick tracts, Carl Baugh's Paluxy man tracks, Hovinds' plesiosaur, Gish's bombadier beetle, Morris' moon dust, Wyatt's ark, Demski's icons, and every last one of Jonathan Wells' alleged "weaknesses of evolution."

Why do you insist on following dishonest creationist practices of denying evidence and redefining terms into strawmen fallacies?

I do not deny evidence only evolutionary interpretations of alleged evidence that cannot be tested and demonstrated.

No, you're denying testable demonstrable evidence. But we can't really get started on the science yet, because I can't even get you to accept a concensus of authorative sources to even define what we're talking about! !

If all life is descended from a common ancestor (simple(?) life-from) Then I fail to see how calling it mega-evolution (simple(?) life-form to human evolution) qualifies it as a strawman fallacy.

Why call it "mega" at all? If you have a problem with some aspect of evolutionary theory, you can say you have a problem with evolution, because that's what it is. What does "mega" evolution even mean?

I accused you of saying they were both equal in that you assert that they both require faith. You keep proving my point.

It was glaringly obvious that I think that they both require faith it was also glaringly obvious that I was referring to the inequality in the degree of faith required. Am I going to have to repeat myself yet again?

No, I'm having to repeat MYSELF because I understood you, but you still don't understand what's going on here. Evolution is not equal to creationism in any sense, not because it requires a different amount of faith, but because it requires no faith at all, and in fact doesn't permit faith either.

And there you go again, denying evidence, and redefining "mega-evolution" to suit your fallacy.

I AM DENYING EVOLUTIONARY INTERPRETATIONS OF (so called) EVIDENCE. Is that clear now?

Of course not. How could it be? You haven't addressed any of this evidence, and never explained any alternate interpretation for any of it. All you've done in each case was try to project your own faults onto me while jeering like a playground bully. You've never even so much as explained what "interpretations" you're talking about, and I think that's because you haven't the first clue what this discussion is even about.

If you somehow think my position still requires faith somehow, then do please explain how I might rid myself of what little faith you imagine is left.

Become omniscient. Failing that you’re stuck with it (to one degree or another) like the rest of us.

OK so EVERYTHING requires faith -rendering that word effectively meaningless. All the theologians are wrong about our needing faith because we can't discard it no matter how much we want to. The Bible is wrong about not everyone having faith because we all have it no matter how little we want it. And if omniscience is required to deny faith, then sliding downward on the scale, would a mentally deficient person have more faith than someone closer to omniscience? If so, at least I can still claim to have less faith than you. But would that mean that a mustard seed has more faith than anything possessing a brain? In order to have enough faith to do even more miraculous things than Jesus himself could do, would I have to be completely brain-dead?

Fortunately, your definition of faith is indefensibly wrong.

Because when I look at the fact that evolution is observed in real time presently and consistently evidenced in the fossil record as well as in taxomomy and genomics, and that it is testable in each of those cases, I have to think that it must take less faith to tentatively believe in these things which are demonstrable and testable and which we can understand with a measurable degree of accuracy -than to believe in some collection of ignorant crackpots who believe only in the most illogical magic nonsense, who can't agree even with each other, and not only can't give any reason to believe them, but are constantly destroying their own crediblity.

*Interpreted.

Perhaps English isn't your first language. Interpretation was never a factor in anything I just said. In a rational perspective, one would obviously consider the more credible source, assuming the arguments were equally valid. But of course they're not. In this case, the more credible source has all the data and all the most logical explanations, but we still reserve some room for error. However, on YOUR side, we have arguments which are beyond stupid coming from people who not only immediately reveal prejudice and ignorance from the onset, but will even admit that they'll lie to promote their position if they have to.

As a Christian I only need to agree with scripture. I do not let other peoples personal disagreements about scripture interfere with that.

That's one of the many falsehoods of creationism. You don't have to agree with scripture. You're supposed to worship the god of creation, not a book which you pretend speaks for God.

Because as you define it, evolution is a necessarily atheist yet faith-based religion concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, and that macroevolution has never been observed, and neither have there ever been any transitional species ever discovered. Everything you argue for is a strawman, and all your arguments are completely wrong.

Evolution is atheistic to someone who believes in One God and His revealed word The Bible (including a straightforward reading of Genesis).

In other words, an idolater who worships the words of men over the works of God. And those works include evolution from a mainstream Christian perspective.

Evolution has not been observed beyond variation within a kind.

"Kind" has never been defined because creationists refuse to define anything so rigidly that it might prevent them from moving the goal posts to avoid being falsified. But evolution can never occur beyond variation within a clade. I've told you this before, but you ignored it of course. Another Christian explained it very well recently. Perhaps you'll more likely accept it from her?

(Argue among yourselves as to the differences between micro and macro evolution, I don’t care.) From now on, whenever I discuss evolution with anyone on this forum, or anywhere else for that matter, I will be referring to mega evolution (simple(?) life-form to human evolution). Not observed, not testable, not demonstrable.

How is it not testable? Don't you realize that what you just said about evolution within kinds actually holds true here? We can objectively prove that you still belong to every clade you ever evolved from?

Eukarya
Opisthokonta
Animalia
Eumetazoa
Bilateria
Coelemata
Deuterostomata
Chordata
Craniata
Vertebrata
Gnathostomata
Osteichthyes
Sarcopterygii
Stegocephali
Tetrapoda
Anthracosauria
Amniota
Synapsida
Therapsidae
Cynodonta
Theria
Eutheria
Euarchontoglire
Archonta
Primata
Haplorhini
Anthropoidea
Catarrhini
Hominoidea
Hominidae
Hominini
Homo
Sapiens ..........How do you explain that?

 

[Aron-Ra]

Evolution meets none of the criteria shared in common with all actual religions,

Then it is an uncommon religion.

I see. If it doesn't walk like a duck, doesn't quack like a duck and doesn't even look like a duck, then you think it must be an uncommon duck. Why can it not be a duck at all? Does it just have to be a duck only because you can't admit when you're wrong? Since you failed to define religion in any way which both accounts for all the accepted mainstream religions and includes evolution at the same time, then on what grounds can you claim evolution to be a religion? ​

 

[Aron-Ra]

as a science it denies the involvement of faith, yet most Christians are evolutionists and most evolutionists are Christian

As a consequence of a papal diktat? I take the pope and his cohorts less seriously than I do you.

Well, Pope Benedict did recently describe evolution as an “enriching reality” and described creationist contests against it as “absurd”. Both of the popes before him advised Christians ‘round the world to consider evolution to be “more than an hypothesis” and not to fear acceptance of that as being any challenge to their faith in Christ. Still, this supposed controversy never was about whether or not there is a god. Most people believe there is a god, and they believe he is in control of all the seemingly-random events of our lives. This is true of most of the people who accept evolution also. Most of them believe in God as well, and they believe that God is in control of evolution; that evolution, like every other system in nature, is part of God’s design. The early pioneers of evolutionary science were all initially Christian, (including Darwin) and many leading proponents of modern evolutionary science are still Christian today. All these men agree that even if there really is a god, and even if that god is the Christian god, and even if that god created the universe and everything in it, which they all believe, evolution would still be at least mostly true, and creationism would still be completely wrong. Accepting evolution, or even abiogenesis, simply does not threaten Christian beliefs, even according to some interpretations of Genesis.

"For many evangelical Christians, the debate over teaching evolution in public schools touches a vital spiritual nerve. Some see evolution as a path to perdition, while others see it as a example of God's handiwork."​

--Monterrey Herald​

Of all the developed nations throughout Christendom, only the United States has a significant number of creationists, and they’re the minority even here! Every other predominantly-Christian country tends to regard creationism as an insane, (or at least incredulous) radical fringe movement which is an almost exclusively American phenomenon, and not taken seriously anywhere else. Poll after poll continues to reveal that, around the world, most “evolutionists” are Christian, and most Christians are evolutionists.​

"Although most scientists subscribe to the theory of evolution as the best explanation for the origin of human beings, a recent Gallup poll shows that the American public is much more dividedin its own beliefs. Americans choose "creationism" over "evolution" when asked which of these two terms best describes human origins, but slightly larger numbers of Americans choose one of two evolutionist explanations than choose a strict creationist explanation when given a choice between three specific views."...[only] 12% chose "Human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God had no part in this process."
The public has not notably changed its opinion on this question since Gallup started asking it in 1982."

--Gallup

"After asking Americans which of the three statements on the origin of humans they agreed with, Gallup asked,by name, which of the two theories they believe in more. Given this choice, more than half of Americans say they believe in or lean toward the "theory of creationism" while far fewer believe in or lean toward the "theory of evolution" (57% for creationism vs. 33% for evolution) and one out of 10 say they are unsure.
The first question reviewed above explains the precepts of the creationist and evolutionary approaches without mentioning the labels, while the second gives respondents only the labels without explanation. The results indicate some differences in interpretation based on which question is used. More Americans agree with the word "creationism" than agree with "evolution," but a slightly larger number choose an evolutionary explanation rather than a creationist explanationwhen given specifics.
"In order to better understand these issues, we examined the relationship between responses to these two questions, looking at how people who said they believed in or leaned toward one of the two theories answered the more specific question describing the three approaches to the origin and development of human beings.
Generally, there is a good deal of consistency between responses to the two questions. The majority (two out of three) of the people who said they believed more in "creationism" selected the statement "God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so." But interestingly, more than one-quarter of "creationists" selected a statement that can be seen as compatible with the scientific findings of evolutionary scholars: "Human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God guided this process." Only 1% of "creationists" selected the evolutionary statement saying that "God had no part in the process." Thus, while almost no "creationists" believe that humans developed without God's help, a not insignificant minority believes that human beings developed from lower forms of life, as evolutionary scientists suggest, but that God helped the process along.
People who choose "evolution" as their preferred theory are most comfortable with the idea that God guided an evolutionary process of human development. A majority -- 51% -- selected the statement "Human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God guided this process," while 34% selected that statement with the condition that "God had no part in this process." Finally, just 10% chose the statement that God created human beings within just the last 10,000 years.
What do these findings tell us? First, only a very small minority of "evolutionists" choose a creationist explanation when confronted with the specifics of the theories. Thus, the vast majority of "evolutionists" are consistent and choose an evolutionary explanation, with or without God's involvement.
On the other hand, over one-quarter of Americans who say they believe in the creationist perspective choose an evolutionary statement -- albeit the one that has God's involvement. Thus, it appears that a substantial proportion of "creationists" cannot be distinguished from the majority of "evolutionists" in the way they think about the origins and development of humankind. While 57% of Americans claim to lean toward the label of "creationist," in actuality, only 41% of Americans are "creationists" who do not support an evolutionary way of thinking about human development. The difference suggests that there is either a very broad interpretation of the term "creationism" -- one that does not support the biblical account of the creation of the human race -- or that there is misunderstanding about what the label "creationism" means, among at least some of the creation-leaning public."
--Gallup​

All this explains how more Christians accept the scientific perspective than that of traditional creationism. But they say "adaptation", "genetics" or "change over time" rather than "evolution" because creationist organizations have taught their following to execrate that word, by deceiving them into believing it means something it doesn't, like an "impossible gain" in "information", or "godless materialism", neither of which are supported in any evolutionist literature anywhere. They are strawman fabrications deliberately intended to confuse the language, and the listener. But if you describe evolution correctly, -without using that word- then most Christians accept evolution even in the U.S.

Americans' level of education is also closely related to beliefs about evolution, with only 41% of non-college Americans accepting evolution and 55% rejecting it. Americans with "some" college, by contrast, favor evolution by a 50% to 45% margin, compared with a 58% to 41% margin of support among college graduates, and a 66% to 30% margin of support among those with some post-graduate education."
--Gallup

"In the United States, creationism is popular among the general Christian population, and considered to be scientifically irrelevant in the academic and scientific communities. According to a 2001 Gallup evolution poll on the origins of humans, 72% of Americans believe in some form of creationism. About45% of Americans assented to the statement that "God created manpretty much in his present form at one time within the last 10,000 years. ..Most vocal creationists are from the United States, and creationist views are much less common elsewhere in the Western World. According to a PBS documentary on evolution, Australian Young Earth Creationists claimed that "five percent of the Australian population now believe that Earth is thousands, rather than billions, of years old." The documentary further states that "Australia is a particular stronghold of the creationist movement." Taking these claims at face value, Young Earth Creationism is very much a minority position in Western countries.
In Europe, creationism is a less well-defined phenomenon, and regular polls are not available. However, evolution is taught as scientific fact in most schools. In countries with a Roman Catholic majority, papal acceptance of evolution as worthy of study has essentially ended debate on the matter for many people.
--Wikipedia

"According to a 2002 poll of adult Europeans conducted

by a professional institute (IHA-GfK, Hergiswil, Switzerland), only 40% of the respondents agreed with the statement that the universe, the earth, and all organisms of the biosphere are entirely the product of a natural evolutionary process. Twenty-one percent were adherents of theistic evolution, 20% believed that God created all organisms at one time within the last 10 000 years, and 19% answered “don’t know/ other opinion”...the highest percentage [of Biblical creationists] was in Switzerland (21.8%), followed by Austria (20.4%) and Germany (18.1%). Compared with the situation in the United States, where almost half of all adults deny evolution as a fact of nature..."

--National Center for Science Education​

Most predominantly-Christian European countries are roughly 60% evolutionist, and only 20% Creationist at most, even in countries with a high degree of trust in religion. The US population usually rates at 89% to 96% Christian. Of them, we have a substantially higher percentage of Biblical creationists than anywhere else (most of the rest of Christendom being largely-evolutionist Catholics). Yet even here, true creationists account for less than half of that percentage. This means that most Christians are evolutionists.



​

 

[Aron-Ra]

we know of hundreds of examples of transitional species even according to the strictest definition possible,

We have discussed this particular issue before and as I pointed out then it is too loose a definition. Basically - If it looks transitional it is - does that not strike you as weak?

Oh yes. Fortunately, it is not limited to what it "looks like" but to what it is, what it can be verified to be. A transitional species can only be determined after an in-depth analysis of its morphology and physiology, and whenever possible, its genetics. They have to determine its apparent lineage to within defensible parameters amid peer-review.

macroevolution has been observed and documented dozens of times.

Variation within kinds has been observed.

There's no such thing as "kinds" unless you want to provide a rigid definition you can defend for that.

"They" are the scientific communty you're trying to argue against, and the way they define it is pretty much as I have done. But I'll give you the official version:

Biological evolution, simply put, is descent with modification. This definition encompasses small-scale evolution (changes in gene frequency in a population from one generation to the next) and large-scale evolution (the descent of different species from a common ancestor over many generations).

As I have said, variation within kinds has been observed.

"Kinds" have not been observed. But variation within a given a lineage is all evolution can ever do because it is impossible to grow out of your ancestry. Evolution never proposes one thing turning into another, fundamentally different sort of thing. Everything that ever evolved is just a modified version of whatever its ancestors were.

So you don’t have absolute faith in Big Bang cosmology?

No one should ever have "absolute" faith in anything. But I don't have faith in anything at all. All my beliefs are provisional, tentative, and limited only to those things which are directly supportable by physical or logical evidence. And if my understanding of the evidence changes to indicate something else instead, my mind with obligately change with it. For me, what I believe is not a matter of choice. I know the faithful can choose to believe whatever they want, but I don't know how they can do that. I certainly can't. If I could choose to believe whatever I liked, I certainly wouldn't believe what I do!

Now how does the origin of the universe have jack to do with evolutionary development on this planet?

As I have said links in a chain.
(not to scale ) OOOOrigin of the universeOOOsunOOOearthOOOchemicalsOOOfirst life-formOOOdiversity of life on earth today (extremely simplified version ).

You're not making sense.

I don’t want you to attempt to explain it from some arbitrary point in the past to the present I would like you to start from the present and work back, you see each stage is dependant on the one before it.

So...at the point where the first eukaryote appears, for exampl; what difference would it make whether the earth was created by Gaia or by the Tao, or by the god of incantation spells, or by the god of theistic evolutionists? No matter which entity created it, or whether it formed on its own -doesn't matter. The world is there, and it is the same world either way.

Nope. There's no relation, and you're talking like a loony.

Nope. You’re just trying to avoid the issue

You creationists are masters of irony. But I do wish you'd stop accusing me of the things only you are guilty of.

 

[MoonLancer]

careful Aron-Ra,

If you post too much, they will have to read all. They will ignore or skip any solid points and go for the throat.

good set of posts non the less. saving the lurkers one post at a time i guess?

I however like attacking the strongest point because afterworlds attacking the weaker points are not necessary.

 

[Aron-Ra]

So, you have faith in a fallible science I have faith in the infallible God.

No, you have faith in an impossible delusion. I endorse science, and science -by definition and by practice- denies faith.

Your attempt to label evolution as a religion has failed because you could not even produce a definition for 'religion' which includes all of the major ones, and none of the criteria you yourself cited even applied to evolution anyway.

I told what the only possible indication is, and I challenged you to present any counter interpretation you could for all that I was referring to. Because there are no other option to "interpret". For example, remember that deep time, dating methods, and the geologic column were descovered by Christian scientists, and they identified index fossils indicating several successions of speciations and extinctions. Then of course, taxonomy was developed by another Christian scientist to classify all these things and common group relationships were cited even then, and all this was a century before Darwin was even born. How do you "interpret" that?

As irrelevant; I am not persuaded simply because someone is a ''Christian''.

Whether they were Christian or not is only relevant if you try to say that they're all promoting "evolutionism" 100 years before Darwin even proposed the theory. Since there was yet no competition for creationism, and each of these men believed the world was created by God, then how do you account for thier findings in the natural world?

Let me rephrase the question since I obviously didn’t make it plain with the original... My apologies.
How much of what you claimed is based on your own discoveries of original ‘’evidence’’ in each of the fields you are studying/have studied?

Aah, so now I not only have to have studied it for myself, and verified it for myself, but now I have to have been the first to discover it too -or else it will count as faith, right? You guys sure like to move your goal posts, don't you?

Very little of what I claim was my own original discovery. But because I lack faith, then everything I now claim I also already researched and verified. So I have substantiated my position much more than you ever will.

Faith = stoic trust/confidence/belief ...without evidence, and stoic trust/confidence/belief without evidence = faith.

You had better drop the online etymology dictionary a line. I’m sure they’ll be only too happy to have their mistakes pointed out to them and corrected by you. When they have added that correction I'll reconsider my position.

They already have. Didn't you notice? I cited Christian hymns and websites, as well as theologians past and present, and every relevant definitive verse of the Bible itself, as well as a consensus of all dictionaries, and every source consistently supported my definition. You only cited one source, and it was one I had already cited, but you edited your citation to leave out the important part.

I snipped the irrelevant part as the first entry was sufficient.

No it wasn't. Not only was that dishonest, and countered by a complete consensus of definitions from every authorative source, but it still didn't apply to evolution. So even when you consciously distort the definition, you still can't make it work!

When I am wrong I can, and do, admit that I am….. and I’m still a creationist.

Like all creationists, you've been absolutely wrong about absolutely everything you've said since this discussion began, and you still won't admit any of it no matter how obviously wrong you are.

But still, when trying to determine the definition of a word, one would have to turn to definitive sources and cross-reference those as I have done.

That would depend on how desperate you are to be right after the realization that the first definition entry does nothing to help.

Then you must be very desperate, because when your first entry didn't work in any capacity, you deliberately changed it, and it still didn't work!

I doubt very much that you could produce any equal array to counter the real definition as I have revealed it.

No need, I posted sufficient.

Then you can make yourself believe the impossible! What you should have done at that point should have been to produce substantial support for your definition. But you couldn't do that because every source anywhere already agrees with me and nothing supports your definition unless you intentionally alter it to mean what it could not have before.

Well, at least you admit that the Bible is only the opinion of others.

A deliberate misunderstanding of my position in order to score a point… PATHETIC.

But still a true statement, none the less.

I site Christian hymns and websites as well as theologians past and present as well as a consensus of all dictionaries,

.....irrelevant .....

and every definitive verse of the Bible itself,

..... irrelevant .....

Now how "pathetic" is it that you automatically dismiss a unified concensus of definition from every authorative source as "irrelevant opinion"? I guess you just can't admit when you're wrong.

that since every source consistently gave the same definition I do, that it obviously was as I showed it to be in context. What snippet do you think you can show to reveal how "obvious" your misunderstanding of that is?

Faith and trust are synonymous,

Sorry, I -and everyone else in the world- have already proven that's not true.

you can apply your definition of faith to what you perceive to be the faith of others but it does not apply to mine (I can only speak for myself). My (absolute) faith in God is (absolute) trust in God and I see nothing in God’s word that explicitly requires it to be anything more than that.

So you still oppose me, and in the same breath, you prove my point. Faith is a stoic "absolute" trust/conviction/belief that is not based on evidence -and will not change against all evidence to the contrary.

You have failed in your attempts to show that it does but succeeded in demonstrating a complete lack of understanding of scripture. Quote mining would best describe your tactics here.

Its hardly quote-mining. Its citation. At this point, you need an overwhelming preponderance of evidence against me. Yet you still cannot cite any single source to counter my position. That of course is only because you're wrong.

If I may be permitted to do a little quote mining from The bible myself I like this one that you chose:
Hebrews 11 (King James Version)

I already cited this line because it proved my point, remember?

1Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.
It can be directly applied to mega-evolution. Do I need to explain why?

Yes, of course. In fact, I insist.

 

[LittleNipper]

RELIGION is man's reliance on a specific system of belief for either social, economic, personal, educational, eternal reward or some other perceived beneficial element.

 

[TheOutsider]

RELIGION is man's reliance on a specific system of belief for either social, economic, personal, educational, eternal reward or some other perceived beneficial element.

Capitalism is a religion now?