Why evolution should not be a religious issue

[Jimmy D]

Is this eric hovind?

Without the charisma or ideas.

 

[Neatz]

Could you guys please take this argument somewhere else? You are hijacking my thread with completely unrelated topics.

My apologies to you. You are right about that. It did slip on me, seeing I'm fairly new, and every time I answered one Darwinian, two more were posting more bunkum, in typical anti-God fashion.
I gave them the gospel, they don't want to believe in the truth of God, that's their biz. Out of respect for you,
I will let it go, and pray for them. Peace.

 

[Renee Tahass]

Awww, you seem pretty sure of yourself for one who's been around such a short time and explored so little of God's creation.

Not sure just realistic, why should there be a God just because you want there to be a God? every nation on earth wanted there to be a God so every nation imagined and constructed a God for themselves.

Hmmm, perhaps my God of love is merely exercising His authority to allow, (as you said) allow, what your God of hate likes to cause.

So if I don't believe in your God then I must hate you God, is that how you see it? Question... How can I hate something I don't believe exists?

(I'm not insisting that's the case, I'm just pointing out that He has every right to do or allow whatever He wants to, seeing how He IS God and all.)

How convenient is that? the truth is your God either doesn't exist, doesn't care or is unable to do anything about it.

You say you'll stick with the reality of life?
That includes the reality of your death then, too, right?

Exactly right, we all came in alone and we will all go out alone, we will revert back to the state we were in before we were born, blissful nonexistence.

 

[Jimmy D]

Not sure just realistic, why should there be a God just because you want there to be a God? every nation on earth wanted there to be a God so every nation imagined and constructed a God for themselves.So if I don't believe in your God then I must hate you God, is that how you see it? Question... How can I hate something I don't believe exists?How convenient is that? the truth is your God either doesn't exist, doesn't care or is unable to do anything about it.Exactly right, we all came in alone and we will all go out alone, we will revert back to the state we were in before we were born, blissful nonexistence.

I think you've made your beliefs clear by now, the topic is "why evolution should not be a religious issue".

 

[Renee Tahass]

Could you guys please take this argument somewhere else? You are hijacking my thread with completely unrelated topics.

Creationists have made evolution a religious issue because they don't have any evidence for creationism, they can't defend so they try to deflect or change the subject, they mistakenly think that if they can show evolution to be at fault it will somehow miraculously make creationism more believable, even if evolution was proven to be false creationism would still remain as ridiculous as it has always been.

 

[Jimmy D]

Creationists have made evolution a religious issue because they don't have any evidence for creationism, they can't defend so they try to deflect or change the subject, they mistakenly think that if they can show evolution to be at fault it will somehow miraculously make creationism more believable, even if evolution was proven to be false creationism would still remain as ridiculous as it has always been.

Strange.... but true.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

As I said, you leap to the defense of fusion because it is part of your faith so you fail to read what was actually said. I only commented on fusion at all response to another poster who equally failed to read what I said.

It's not faith. It's data and evidence.
There are genetic markers that mark the start and end of chromosomes. These markers are found in the middle of chromosome 2, which by itself already suggests a fusion.

Then there are the markers which are found in between the start and end marker.. and there are 2 of those as well in the second chromosome, 1 in each "half". Wich further suggests a fusion.

On top of that, the fusion site has been identified, with rather great precision. When we split the chromosome at that point, we get exact matches with chromosome 2 and 13 in the other other primates. Which makes insane sense, since we are "missing" chromosome 13 but not 2.

So in conclusion, if this evidence is what can be called "faith", then I can only wonder what you would consider "evidence" instead.

The issue I raised is there is no proven hypothesis, indeed so far credible hypothesis for how the chromosome count increase

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/04/21/basics-how-can-chromosome-numb/
Changes in Chromosome Number - Modern Genetic Analysis - NCBI Bookshelf
https://www.quora.com/How-does-a-sp...volve-to-be-a-species-with-a-different-number
The Talk.Origins Archive Post of the Month: January 1999

and diversity happened from your supposed accidental first replicatable cell

??

, which I presume you think had only one strand of genetic material.

I don't think any particular thing concerning "first life", because the origins of life is a puzzle yet to be solved.

I don't pretend to know things that aren't yet known.

The supposed chemical factory that popped into existence out of nothing

The only people who think life "popped into existence out of nothing" are ex-nihilo creationists.

is already too stupidly complex to be in any sense real!

To be fair.... complexity is not the same as probability.

That is one of many holes in the ragbag of theories , part proven hypotheses, unproven hypotheses, and complete guesses that constitute the so called ToE.

Actually, the origins of life aren't even within the scope of evolution theory.

Kind of strange that you don't know this, given your insistance on you being a "scientist". I mean... high school students know this....

It is a work in progress, that has to succeed for atheists because of their religion.

Atheists have no religion... that's kind of the meaning of the word "atheist".
And my non-belief in deities doesn't really have anything to do with the accomplishments of science or the lack thereof.

And the moment you accept the flaw in your reasoning over common descent, that by the very assumption that a first cell is possible by random chance

For crying out loud....

Common descent has nothing whatsoever to do with how first life came to be.
Common descent is about existing life.

, then others are equally possible if not probably, you have absolutely no logical basis for ruling out multiple starts that life had indepenent start points, so many species are the result of different origins.

Yet, the collective genomes of extant species, don't reflect that.

Common descent is therefore unprovable as well as unlikely.

Actually, common descent is pretty much a genetic fact.

Considering you dont have the first clue how a first cell came to be either

Again, that's irrelevant. Evolution is about the origin of species. Not the origin of life itself.

, and abiogenesis is just a long word you use for a gaping whole in your atheist faith in life as a random accident

Abiogenesis is the name of the field and the collective of hypothesis that investigates the origins of life. And it has exactly zero to do with my atheism. And, once again, atheism is the opposite of a faith-system.

, I suggest you are far less dogmatic about what is there and how it came to be.

You have yet to identify a single thing concerning this subject where I am supposedly being "dogmatic".

I am dispassionate on this.

Your post suggests the opposite.

 

[Neatz]

I appreciate that you feel strongly about this but this thread is not the place for your preaching. It's against the rules and all you are going to achieve is getting the thread closed.

Yes, agreed, and I already apologized to the OPer. It wasn't my intention to derail, nor to preach... But, in fairness, I made the case for believing in God as opposed to evolution, and was ganged up on by a small handful of Darwinians who insisted that belief in God was nonsense, but belief in their religion of accidents and ancestral apes is intelligent, LOL, so I gave them the truth, and this IS a christian website. It's ok, though, Jesus knows, and forgives.

 

[AV1611VET]

I gave them the gospel, they don't want to believe in the truth of God, that's their biz.

Just leave a tract.

(Give 'em a Chick tract! )

 

[Gene2memE]

Oooh, yes, obvious to most here, on a website called christian forums, but supposedly

Why supposedly?

evolved

That's what the evidence points to. Evolution via means of variation through natural selection, among other mechanisms.

Darwinian

I'm more of an Extended Evolutionary Synthesis-ian myself. An ESSian. Might need some work on that acronym.

monkeys

Humans are apes, not monkeys.

They're related, under the primate order, but very different. If you're going to critique a view point, its a good start to understand it first.

think they have the answers to life, death, heaven, hell, creation and God.

I'd like to think I have some answers, but I'll certainly not claim to have all the answers.

Their answer.....?
Duhhh, there isn't none, so there, end of story, and we know, 'cause we evolved from monkeys, and now we're smart, 'cept we don't know why we're here, or where we came from, or where we're going, or.........

1. This is a terrible strawman. At least debate the actual points raise.
2. Very few atheists claim "there isn't none". Apart from the horrible grammar, most atheists don't make the positive claim that no God/gods exist, except for certain specific god claims.
3. Wrong again on the monkeys thing
4. Not knowing the answers to questions of origins, purpose and direction of life doesn't make the evidence for evolution any less strong, or support the claims of supernatural creation or the existence of God/gods. All it means is that these are unanswered questions.

 

[Renee Tahass]

It wasn't my intention to derail, nor to preach... But, in fairness, I made the case for believing in God as opposed to evolution, and was ganged up on by a small handful of Darwinians who insisted that belief in God was nonsense,

But you didn't make a case you made a claim.

but belief in their religion of accidents and ancestral apes is intelligent,

And here you go again mixing evolution with religion, try talking about one topic at a time.

LOL, so I gave them the truth, and this IS a christian website. It's ok, though, Jesus knows, and forgives.

Jesus knows and forgives less than you do.

 

[Renee Tahass]

Just leave a tract.
(Give 'em a Chick tract! )

Try giving them a break.

 

[Renee Tahass]

Humans are apes, not monkeys.
They're related, under the primate order, but very different. If you're going to critique a view point, its a good start to understand it first.

The very very very last thing creationist want to do is understand.

 

[Subduction Zone]

My apologies to you. You are right about that. It did slip on me, seeing I'm fairly new, and every time I answered one Darwinian, two more were posting more bunkum, in typical anti-God fashion.
I gave them the gospel, they don't want to believe in the truth of God, that's their biz. Out of respect for you,
I will let it go, and pray for them. Peace.

Nope, you only posted nonsense and when that did not get you anywhere you started to preach. You made the mistake by claiming that evolution was "anti-God". Evolution is only against your own personal version of God.

 

[AV1611VET]

Evolution is only against your own personal version of God.

Now that's funny.

It's against mine too.

Do you think we attend the same church?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Now that's funny.

It's against mine too.

Do you think we attend the same church?

Yes,but we all know that you are wrong already. That goes without saying here. I never implied that she was alone in her beliefs.

 

[Radrook]

Simply not mentioning a creator does not make a subject "atheistic". God isn't mentioned in math, English, chemistry, foreign languages, or computer science classes either, does that make all of those subjects "atheistic" too?

Those subjects do not or at least need not directly contradict the Genesis account. To the extent that they do contradict it, to that extent they can be deemed atheistic.

BTW
Omission does convey opinion. In fact, there are crimes which are punishable based on malicious omission of information in reference to a person who was supposed to have been provided with it for safety's sake. There are also serious insults which depend on total omission for their effectiveness. So omission isn't the entirely neutral, innocently innocuous factor that you are imagining it to be.

 

[Kenny'sID]

Not really. You have to actively avoid reality. I embrace it.

Christian bad, Atheist good....classic.

 

[Kenny'sID]

Then instead of just talking why don't you try and prove HitchSlap wrong?

What's to prove wrong? Stating someone is wrong without giving detailed reason why leaves nothing to prove wrong.

It's like me saying you are wrong for telling me that, and leaving it at that...it's just a claim with no basis. I gave a very good starting point for argument and all they could do was whine about it, not address it.

Why don't you prove him right? Or better yet, have HIM prove me wrong, and not just make claims...isn't that what you would expect from me? Of course it is. You want me to step up now, while completely bypassing the fact they would not. Meaning I have all the responsibilities here and they have none...what a joke.

Again, the double standard is so hard at work here, it's impossible to take you people seriously, yet I foolishly come back here to see if anyone has awakened as of yet, but I think I finally get it.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Those subjects do not or at least need not directly contradict the Genesis account.

The pope doesn't think that biology contradicts his bible, so why do you insist that it does?

To the extent that they do contradict it, to that extent they can be deemed atheistic.

Errr... all other religions contradict your bible. Are other religions atheistic?

BTW
Omission does convey opinion. In fact, there are crimes which are punishable based on malicious omission of information in reference to a person who was supposed to have been provided with it for safety's sake. There are also serious insults which depend on total omission for their effectiveness. So omission isn't the entirely neutral, innocently innocuous factor that you are imagining it to be.

None of that applies here.

God isn't mentioned in biology, only because no gods are showing up in biology.
For the same reason, there is no "God variable" in E = mc² etc.

Not because these sciences are "atheistic". But just because there is no God that shows up in these sciences.

If there is a process within biology, or any other field, where it can be demonstrated that a God is playing a role, the sciences in question will happily include this God in their explanations. But until then, why on earth would they?