Evolution Is Religion--Not Science

[turnorburn]

Its an affront to God to say his 6 day creation is anything other than what he said it was.. he defined it in detail.. the morning and the evening were the first day did you know that's the only chapter in the bible where a literal day takes shape..

tob

*edit: evolution is a religion not science

 

[jasoncran]

Its an affront to God to say his 6 day creation is anything other than what he said it was.. he defined it in detail.. the morning and the evening were the first day did you know that's the only chapter in the bible where a literal day takes shape..

tob

if its then then tell the pastors and apologist to stop quoting willian lane graig. ravi Zacharias, and ignore james Dobson. yes he is an oec! do I agree that it says that? yes but sometimes we all have biases that are simply something only god can remove. im sure some don't like it when I use jewish oral traditions and views, to me its just taking things of context. you get upset over this and yet when I say what I say about futurism you would blow me off. how often does the modern church take Jesus' words"some of you standing here shall not taste death"?all the time.

 

[turnorburn]

Me thinks we've begun to take the theologian's understanding of Gods word when we should be listening to the holy spirit..

John 16:13 Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.

tob

 

[jasoncran]

Me thinks we've begun to take the theologian's understanding of Gods word when we should be listening to the holy spirit..

John 16:13 Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.

tob

whenever one speaks and other listens its a commentary. sorry but it is.there are grey areas in the bible. end times is one of them. the beginning is more set but its simply not a salvational issue.

I would rather spend time looking at the word meanings in genesis then seeing what the other books said about that.

 

[Barbarian]

TOG wrote:

Barbarian said: ↑
If a man is so ignorant of biology as to believe that blacks are less intelligent and spiritual than other people because of genetics, he's certainly incompetent to talk about it.

TOG writes further...

Thank you.

As I pointed out, genetics were unknown in Darwin's day. So Darwin couldn't have taken that opinion. Genetics made it clear that such a view was scientifically insupportable. Biologists then, did not know that, and like most people of European descent at the time, thought that all other races were inferior. Today, evolutionary theory has shown that there are no biological human races. But creationists like Morris still hold on to the idea of blacks being inferior, and they do this because they reject evolutionary theory.

Again, it's one of the big differences between science and creationism.

 

[TOG]

TOG wrote:


TOG writes further...


As I pointed out, genetics were unknown in Darwin's day. So Darwin couldn't have taken that opinion. Genetics made it clear that such a view was scientifically insupportable. Biologists then, did not know that, and like most people of European descent at the time, thought that all other races were inferior. Today, evolutionary theory has shown that there are no biological human races. But creationists like Morris still hold on to the idea of blacks being inferior, and they do this because they reject evolutionary theory.

Again, it's one of the big differences between science and creationism.

Darwin believed that blacks are inherently inferior to whites. How he believed they inherited that inferiority, whether it be through genes or gemules, doesn't matter. He believed that blacks were born inferior to whites. You said that a person with that view was not qualified to talk about evolution. There's no escaping it. By your own logic, Darwin was not qualified to talk about this subject. The fact that "most people of European descent at the time" believed the same thing is irrelevant. But if you think that majority opinion matters, then I would like to point out that a great majority of people in the world believe in creation. Many believe in some variation of the biblical creation account, others believe in the creation accounts of Hinduism or various other religions, but most believe in some kind of creation. I guess that means we can forget about evolution.

The TOG​

 

[Barbarian]

Darwin believed that blacks are inherently inferior to whites.

Because he thought (as almost all biologists did at the time) that acquired characters could be inherited. Hence his belief that if blacks were brought to England and lived there, they would be as fit as Englishmen in a few generations, and that Englishmen, if brought to Africa, would become like blacks in a few generations. Of course, modern evolutionary theory incorporates genetics, which makes it clear that there are no biological human races, and makes racism, of the sort that we saw from creationists like Henry Morris, unsupportable. That Darwin had the same errors as all people of his time is less significant that Morris, in the 1990s, was blathering about the genetic inferiority of black people according to YE creationist ideas, when evolutionary theory had made it clear that there are no biological human races.

How he believed they inherited that inferiority, whether it be through genes or gemules, doesn't matter. He believed that blacks were born inferior to whites. You said that a person with that view was not qualified to talk about evolution.

Is not. In the same sense that a person who is ignorant of radioactive decay is not fit to speak on physics. However, you can't apply that to Issac Newton, who had no knowledge of nuclear decay. Of course, if a creationist today should have a fundamental misunderstanding of isochrons and the way they indicate age, then he would be rightly considered an ignoramus, even if he had no less understanding of the matter than Newton.

Think.

There's no escaping it. By your own logic, Darwin was not qualified to talk about this subject.

Read the above paragraph and think about it, for a bit. It isn't that hard to figure out.

I would like to point out that a great majority of people in the world believe in creation.

In fact, the largest proportion of the world's theists are Christians, and the vast majority of them belong to denominations that acknowledge evolution to be consistent with creation.

I guess that means we can forget about evolution.

If you think Christianity is wrong, I suppose. On the other hand, the fact that so many Christians accept God's creation of life as it is, though natural means, should be a clue for you.

 

[Doulos Iesou]

Darwin believed that blacks are inherently inferior to whites. How he believed they inherited that inferiority, whether it be through genes or gemules, doesn't matter. He believed that blacks were born inferior to whites. You said that a person with that view was not qualified to talk about evolution. There's no escaping it. By your own logic, Darwin was not qualified to talk about this subject. The fact that "most people of European descent at the time" believed the same thing is irrelevant. But if you think that majority opinion matters, then I would like to point out that a great majority of people in the world believe in creation. Many believe in some variation of the biblical creation account, others believe in the creation accounts of Hinduism or various other religions, but most believe in some kind of creation. I guess that means we can forget about evolution.

The TOG​

You understand that bearing false witness is a sin right?

Barbarian said:

If a man is so ignorant of biology as to believe that blacks are less intelligent and spiritual than other people because of genetics, he's certainly incompetent to talk about it.

Let's look at this rather basic use of the word "because."

be·cause
biˈkôz,-ˈkəz/
conjunction

1. 1.for the reason that; since.

So let's now examine Barbarian's logic.

Men are incompetent to talk about biology..
If..
They believe that blacks are less intelligent and spiritual than other people..
FOR THE REASON OF..
GENETICS!

Darwin couldn't possibly have come to this conclusion via Genetics, as it had not been discovered. Therefore, by his own logic, his statement does not exclude the opinion of Darwin from discussions on biology. He explicitly said that a person who holds this view, due to genetics is not qualified to speak on the matter.

You need to repent of this falsehood, and apologize to Barbarian.

 

[turnorburn]

I don't care what people may think.. when you have a question and i mean any question you can trust God for the answer..

Jeremiah 29:11 For I know the thoughts that I think toward you, saith the LORD, thoughts of peace, and not of evil, to give you an expected end.

12 Then shall ye call upon me, and ye shall go and pray unto me, and I will hearken unto you.

13 And ye shall seek me, and find me, when ye shall search for me with all your heart.

If your looking for the answers be serious when you go to find them. I used to be a drunk not an alcoholic a DRUNK the word alcoholic makes that sin look like a sickness. The day i asked the Lord to take it away i added a statement in the asking i said "The day i take a drink i want you to kill me where i stand" that was 9 years ago Jason

tob

 

[Barbarian]

You still don't get it. There is no magic bullet against science. It's not that you can't come up with a sufficiently clever argument. It's that you're struggling against the reality of God's creation. Your verses don't support creationism, and could just as easily be presented as evidence that you are wrong.

Faith in God can indeed heal. Alcoholism is a disease that needs healing, and God can help you do what you can never hope to do for yourself. But you don't have to turn your back on His creation to do that.

It's O.K. to let it be as it is. It's His creation, after all. Let Him be God and do it His way.

 

[TOG]

You still don't get it. There is no magic bullet against science.

But the theory of evolution isn't a scientific theory. It's more of a religious or philosophical point of view. For something to be considered scientific, we must be able to apply the scientific method to it. The scientific method involves observation and experimentation. The experiments involved must be designed in such a way that their failure would prove the theory false. Nobody has ever observed evolution from one species to another, but only relatively minor changes within a species. And no scientific experiment could ever be devised that could test evolution. In addition, the theory itself is designed in such way as to be unfalsifiable. That alone makes it unscientific.

The TOG​

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
You still don't get it. There is no magic bullet against science.

But the theory of evolution isn't a scientific theory.

Because Darwin's hypothesis was testable, and made predictions which have been repeatedly verified, it is a scientific theory. Perhaps you're not familiar with what a theory is in science. Learn about it here:
A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on knowledge that has been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experimentation. Scientists create scientific theories from hypotheses that have been corroborated through the scientific method, then gather evidence to test their accuracy. As with all forms of scientific knowledge, scientific theories are inductive in nature and aim for predictive and explanatory force.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory

For something to be considered scientific, we must be able to apply the scientific method to it. The scientific method involves observation and experimentation.

Hence, one can test Darwin's theory by his predictions, such as:
"There should be fossils of whales with functional legs."
"There should be fossils of fish with functional legs."
"There should be fossils of transitionals between birds and dinosaurs, but not birds and mammals."
"A population moving into a new environment will change over time to become more fit in that environment."
"Humans will be found to have first appeared in Africa."

and many more. Because all of these and more were later verified by observation and experiment, scientists consider the theory of evolution to be one of the best established theories.

The experiments involved must be designed in such a way that their failure would prove the theory false.

Indeed. So if a transitional between birds and mammals was found, or if DNA analysis showed frogs more closely related to humans than humans are to apes, or if any of the above predictions turned out to be false, it would have shown evolutionary theory to be false.

But of course, none if it did. Even more impressive, none of the things that shouldn't be found, if evolution is true, have ever been found.

Nobody has ever observed evolution from one species to another,

The first directly observed case was about 1914. O. gigas from O. lamarckania, but a polyploidy event. D. miranda was another example of an observed new species.

And no scientific experiment could ever be devised that could test evolution.

See above. Lots of other ways. I'm sure you can think of a few yourself, if you tried.

In addition, the theory itself is designed in such way as to be unfalsifiable.

See above. Lots of other ways it could be falsified. Haldane's suggestion of a rabbit in undisturbed Cambrian deposits, for example.

That alone makes it unscientific.

Would have. But as you see, every time we test it, the test verifies evolution.

 

[Doulos Iesou]

But the theory of evolution isn't a scientific theory. It's more of a religious or philosophical point of view. For something to be considered scientific, we must be able to apply the scientific method to it. The scientific method involves observation and experimentation. The experiments involved must be designed in such a way that their failure would prove the theory false. Nobody has ever observed evolution from one species to another, but only relatively minor changes within a species. And no scientific experiment could ever be devised that could test evolution. In addition, the theory itself is designed in such way as to be unfalsifiable. That alone makes it unscientific.

The TOG​

All the scientists of the world call it a scientific theory. TOG, a non-scientist, with no apparent expertise on the matter says that it isn't.

Who to believe...

You still haven't apologized for bearing false witness either.

 

[turnorburn]

Drunkenness is a sin alcoholism is an excuse..

tob

*edit: and evolution is a religion

 

[Doulos Iesou]

Drunkenness is a sin alcoholism is an excuse..

tob

*edit: and evolution is a religion

Alcohol like almost anything can cause a psychological dependence and even a physical dependence, where the person has compulsive and uncontrolled consumption of alcohol. Did the person make choices to drink continually, so as to become dependent? Yes, does that mean that they don't have a real issue that sometimes goes beyond will power to overcome? Absolutely not. Alcoholism is a result of continual drunkness, and has held hundreds of thousands and perhaps millions in bondage.

For you to say that alcoholism is an excuse, demonstrates an ignorance in regards to the very real dependency that is formed from habitual usage.

Your opinion that Evolution is a religion is noted, and has been proven false numerous times.

 

[Barbarian]

Physiological Basis of Drug Addiction

Role of Dopamine
The mesolimbic dopamine system originates in the ventral tegmental area (VTA) and projects to regions that include the nucleus accumbens and prefrontal cortex. Dopamine is believed to be the final common pathway for drugs such as cocaine, morphine and alcohol. The neurobiological substrate for self-administration of all addictive drugs by animals and drug abuse in humans is believed to, in some way, involve the dopamine system of the nucleus accumbens, a primitive structure that is one of the brain's important pleasure centers.
http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/585219_2

It's not a process that will-power can control. It requires a re-wiring of the brain, in some comprehensive way. An epiphany that accompanies the surrender to God would be one way.

 

[jeff77]

I read an article that addiction could be a nuerological disorder. It explained that most people can't wiggle their ears because they have never activated the part of the brain that controls the muscles to do that, but if you put electrodes on the area where the muscles that contract the ears are and give them some shock then the person's could do it on their own cause the part of the brain needed for that is now active. The same could be for drugs. Someone that has never used is not going to just one day start craving for a high but, after using a drug over and over it activates a pathway in the brain that creates a need for dependence. I know the way I explained it is kind of sloppy but if you were to google addiction a neurological disorder a good article might come up.

I am an ex-addict of 17 years and I know it was a sin but at the same time it seemed to be something I couldn't help. Maybe a an illness, I can't say for sure. The only thing I am sure of is the answer to the problem is having faith in Christ. He can completely heal addicts. It may not happen over night though.

 

[TOG]

Perhaps you're not familiar with what a theory is in science. Learn about it here:
A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on knowledge that has been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experimentation. Scientists create scientific theories from hypotheses that have been corroborated through the scientific method, then gather evidence to test their accuracy. As with all forms of scientific knowledge, scientific theories are inductive in nature and aim for predictive and explanatory force.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory

Emphasis by TOG

That's exactly what I said. You just used more words.

Hence, one can test Darwin's theory by his predictions, such as:
"There should be fossils of whales with functional legs."
"There should be fossils of fish with functional legs."
"There should be fossils of transitionals between birds and dinosaurs, but not birds and mammals."
"A population moving into a new environment will change over time to become more fit in that environment."
"Humans will be found to have first appeared in Africa."

You seem to totally misunderstand the theory of evolution. The theory is not that there should be fossils of various kinds. In fact, the theory of evolution has nothing to do with fossils. Fossils are merely the remains of dead organisms. These remains can be interpreted in a number of ways. They can be interpreted to support evolution, but they can also be interpreted to support creation. What the theory of evolution is really about is change. But not just any change. We all know that things change and that different species adapt to changes in their environment in various ways. That's not being debated. According to the theory of evolution, these minor changes can accumulate over time to such an extent that a new species, genus, family, order or even higher classifications can arise. While evolution does predict that certain fossils should exist, other explanations predict the exact same thing. You need more than just fossils to test evolution. You need to actually observe a new species coming into being. Because of the time involved (millions of years) this can never be done. Another thing you need to be able to test this theory is an objective definition of the terms used. We've discussed this before. As long as the definition of the word "species" is subjective, the way evolutionists use it, it can never be considered scientific.

The first directly observed case was about 1914. O. gigas from O. lamarckania, but a polyploidy event. D. miranda was another example of an observed new species.

There doesn't seem to be a lot of information about this on the Internet. What I was able to find was that this mutant was the result of chromosome doubling. I've heard of this happening a number of times in plants (never heard of it in animals, though). One example is maize (aka "corn"). While it is indeed a different species than it's ancestor from which it doubled it's chromosomes, it is totally incapable of reproducing without human intervention. That may work in a field, but it won't work in nature and can't be used to support evolution. Mutants form all the time and mutants die all the time. What you need to test evolution is a viable species. It also has to arise without human intervention. Just because we can make something happen doesn't mean it can happen in nature.

The TOG

 

[jeff77]

Physiological Basis of Drug Addiction

Role of Dopamine
The mesolimbic dopamine system originates in the ventral tegmental area (VTA) and projects to regions that include the nucleus accumbens and prefrontal cortex. Dopamine is believed to be the final common pathway for drugs such as cocaine, morphine and alcohol. The neurobiological substrate for self-administration of all addictive drugs by animals and drug abuse in humans is believed to, in some way, involve the dopamine system of the nucleus accumbens, a primitive structure that is one of the brain's important pleasure centers.
http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/585219_2

It's not a process that will-power can control. It requires a re-wiring of the brain, in some comprehensive way. An epiphany that accompanies the surrender to God would be one way.

When I clicked on the link to the article it requires a password. We might be talking about the same type of addiction/brain disorder here.

 

[jeff77]

Sorry I didn't mean to start going so far off topic.

What I have observed about evolution and the way people think the way they may think about it is....most of the scientist that believe in evolution do not believe in God. Remember I said most and not all. If this is true then I can see how it would be difficult for a Christian to believe what the scientist are saying who don't believe that God is the creator. If someone ask me to prove to them how evolution is false then I couldn't do it because I don't know enough about it one way or the other. I just believe God is the creator, but I can't explain the mechanism he used to do it.