Is evolution a religious belief?

Compel comes into it by means of the word 'proof'. Proof is defined as "evidence or argument that compels the mind to accept an assertion as true." In this particular case, you are presenting what you consider as evidence and argument for my evaluation. In my evaluation, I have determined that the evidence and argument which you have presented are not sufficient to compel my mind to accept what you have asserted as true.

"truth" comes into it in that you have stated that you are telling the 'truth'. Again, your assertion of you telling the truth is insufficient to compel my mind to accept your assertions as true, with the exception of one in which I openly declared that I would accept it.

'admission' comes into it when a statement is made which confirms a previous claim. In this particular case you admitted that science cannot prove anything; that laws cannot be proven. Those are admissions.

 

Science is so much more complex than you can imagine. No one person can know all the different fields which is why there are specialists. You can't come on an Internet forum and throw a bunch of questions that only a specialist would know the answer to and then sit there a gloat that those of us that support evolution can't answer them while holding this up as proof that evolution doesn't exist. If you want to argue that the Big Bang couldn't happen, take it up with an astrophysicist. Want to argue against the age of the Earth or the age of fossils? Take it up with a geologist. Want to argue about the irreducible complexity of the eye? Talk to a biologist. Of course you would get totally trounced in any such debate since you would barely be able to comprehend their answers due to your lack of knowledge of science.

So I am no longer going to debate the specifics of evolution with you guys any more. It is not my fault that you don't understand basic science and it is not my job to teach you. Science has already shown that evolution is the best explanation for the diversity of life, so if you have any problems with that, please take if up with a scientist. Now, if you have a problem with the validity of science as a way to view the world, I will gladly debate you, but if you don't believe that science is a valid way to view the world, than why are you trying to push creationism into science? Just stay away from it.

Now if you believe that evolution, or any science for that matter, is a religion, than you have neither an understanding of science nor religion.

 

Don't be coy.

What assertion? What do you think I'm trying to convince you of?

And, you are switching definitions of proof - sometimes you want to use the definition of science. Sometimes you want to use the far less rigorous definition that is not science - merely evidence. How about picking one and sticking with it?

 

Well how about the most recent one found immediately below and underlined.

For the past several months I have been using the same definition. www.tfd.com/proof definition #1
"
1. The evidence or argument that compels the mind to accept an assertion as true."

 

Oh, good lord. You should listen. There are mountains of evidence concerning ALL scientific theories, obviously, so yours is a useless definition of "proof". That's a bar far to easy to reach. Remember the problem of proving all crows are black? Finding a black crow means nothing. You can find mountains of confirming instances and still NOT have proven the hypothesis that all crows are black.

I've said over and over that there is only proof of falsity in science - not of truth. And, for clear reasons - reasons that deserve your respect. Also, whether YOU are convinced or not isn't really the objective.



Besides, what is it you want to be convinced of?

You didn't answer that question.

 

That your assertions are 'true'. Convince me. So far you have failed. All you have done is perform in a redundant manner... constantly reiterating the same ole song and dance.

 

What assertion?

Surely you can't be speaking of scientific method - that's a well documented fact you can look up just as easily as definitions of words like "proof".

If you want an answer to a specific point, you have to state what that point is.

Otherwise, you're just making noise.

 

Why should anybody care if you are convinced? The universities have no time for the absurd views you espouse. Your assessment of this debate is nothing but crass hypocrisy.

 

You obviously have no comprehension of what evolution is. Or maybe you think evolution only occurs in the human species.

 

One last time: In that last example I cited you had (in relevant part) asserted "you are switching definitions of proof ...." and did not provide any evidence to support your assertion.

Any further acts of intentional 'blindness' of what has been written will only result in you being placed on my very special list.

 

That is the goal of debate.teams. Convince the judges. Now for the fun part. Your closing remark amounts to nothing more than an empty claim without any proof (evidence or argument) to support the claim.

hypocrisy: "hy·poc·ri·sy
(hĭ-pŏk′rĭ-s&#275n. pl. hy·poc·ri·sies 1. The practice of professing beliefs, feelings, or virtues that one does not hold or possess; falseness."

What specific element of the definition of hypocrisy is it that you allege I am practicing?

 

We all should have a bit of natural common sense which would tell us that the whole of the universe could not come into existence from nothing or "from a spot no larger that the dot at the end of this sentence." It should also be common sense that a lizard will not lay a lizardbird's egg no matter how many years it tries.

If the experts only use words like, "believe, suppose, maybe, might be, assume" that should, by human common sense tell us that they do not have a definitive answer or explanation for the discovery. Where I read common sense lacking in almost all of the evolutionists/ Darwinists here is they do not understand how or read critically to glean such non committal language from the scientific facts. Instead if someguy writes something they wish to be true, they *assume* it is a scientific fact supporting their faith in the belief they blindly hope is true.

 

And a bit of common sense would tell you that neither of these things are what science argues.

 

"Common sense" is meaningless and has no place in a scientific discussion. Common sense says that an object cannot be in two places at one time, yet quantum mechanics has proven this to be true. Common sense says two atomic clocks should keep the exact time regardless of where they are, yet relativity has shown us, and GPS satellites have proven this is wrong. Scientific theories are not based on "common sense", they are based on observation and experimentation.

 

Sure, it is no different from the assumption that materialism made, and continue to make. It is another assumption, for we assume things because there is no way to prove it one way or the other. So, materialism assumes matter is the fundamental, and Idealism assumes that consciousness is the fundamental. Except nothing changes in science and technology if Idealism is the assumption, except just the implications that each assumption yields, that does affect humanity, in regards to meaning, or no meaning. Idealism would not change any existing hard science, it would just change evolutionary theory, removing the dependence upon randomness and astronomical probability. Evolution would remain in place, but some of the philosophical assumptions involved in current theory would change.

As David Chambers voiced, perhaps we need to begin to look even more at consciousness, and come up with theories in regards to it, outside of the materialistic theories implicit in materialism. But Chalmers is not alone, for even mostly retired scientists have talked of the same thing. Many scientists cannot mention it in academia, because of the politics of materialism entrenched in academia. This is a well known fact.

I don't know what else one could reasonably add to the fundamentals of reality. For we surely know that space time, energy matter, is the accepted fundamental today. Which we could never even be aware of, not inquire into with something called consciousness. That consciousness was not included under materialism, is based upon the assumption made about consciousness, which is a tenet of materialism. Yet to kick it to the curb, as simply a by product of matter, which by the way isn't even needed for materialism to work, or so they say, is what they have to maintain, in order to have a materialistic understanding of reality. So consciousness from the materialistic view, is unnecessary, yet by that very consciousness, was materialism invented, as a philosophical concept. Yet it is unimportant? So a quirk, of materialism, is relied upon for all scientific knowledge and technology. Just another coincidence, but one of monumental value.

We know that at the quantum level, there is basically energy and information. The information seems to be essential for any coherence at all to be available. No coherence, no information, then matter would be impossible. We know that observation, which cannot be separated from consciousness affects the very state of matter at the quantum level. To get around this, one has to invent another theory which removes the importance of consciousness, yet such a theory is just basically an assumption, for assumptions are outside the realm of being testable.

The fundamental of dark matter, dark energy would all under the fundamental of matter energy. All you did was to separate energy into two kinds, and you did the same with matter. Any evolution could just as easily point to information/consciousness being a fundamental of reality. It would explain it just as well as a multiverse theory, except when materialism dictates such a thing does not exist, then it is immediately discounted, and inquiry into that comes to a halt. And if anyone, even a retired credentialed scientist brings it up, they are then labeled heretics, as any proper religion does. You are simply a member of the Church of Materialism, with its own assumptions, its own dogma, its own doctrines, and heaven helps the scientist who would ever question the True Faith. And that is what this amounts to.

I actually think materialism has been a great thing. But I think is it nothing more than a tool, but it self limits knowledge, for it insists upon disregarding anything else that might be outside it. And I do not believe we will ever have a more complete understanding of reality, until we include consciousness as a fundamental, with the information that is also of that realm. In order to dismiss both of these things, we have to conceive even more exotic theories in order to disregard information and consciousness. When you will not accept consciousness as a fundamental, you have to create even more unbelievable ideas, like the multiverse theory, in order to negate consciousness as a fundamental. And those are the lengths an atheistic science will go to, for someone might equate consciousness with some anthropomorphic god, which of course I will not do. So, consciousness will never be a consideration for materialists, but this is more of an emotional human nature cause than anything else. Our scientists, are just as human as everyone else, with the same flaws that is human nature, driven by the same thing all men are driven by, the ego, which cannot stand in "not knowing" or for heaven sakes, "ever being wrong about anything"

 

Great posting One Mind. Tell it like it is.

 

Granted, but when Scientific Laws must be defied to postulate hypotheses for a particular model, that does not make common sense nor is it scientifically accurate or possible and may be fraudulent. The BEST evolutionists can claim is some guy, or some group of guys BELIEVE XYZ happened in the way they think it may have happened. The problem with MOST of these BELIEFS is they pick 'n choose their scientific data, ignoring contradictory evidence, even if the contradictory evidence is the majority finding.

 

No, you are absolutely wrong. You have been shown time and again that evolution does not break any scientific laws yet you either choose to ignore this or have low memory retention. Do yourself a favor and take a college level science class, preferably biology. Your basic understanding of science is extremely flawed.

 

Reality is never in a Box.
Reality forms moment by moment, as it unfolds using the Law of Probability for whatever occurs.

 

Reality also does not equate with the descriptions that have been previously offered for God. It has been told that God is always constant, never changing (it is only the perceptions of man that are ever changing). So when you say as you have above that 'reality forms moment by moment' and that reality 'unfolds' using a Law manufactured by man, then you cannot be speaking about God.

 

So your idea is that before Consciousness appeared, there was no Reality,... even though man is only recently arrived on Earth.

So reality did not exist until man and his consciousness appeared???
The Hadean Era did not exist at all, because no life had existed???

 

Of course it does. *

• Zeroth law of thermodynamics – If two thermodynamic systems are each in thermal equilibrium with a third, then they are in thermal equilibrium with each other.
• First law of thermodynamics – Energy can neither be created nor destroyed. It can only change forms. In any process, the total energy of the universe remains the same. For a thermodynamic cycle the net heat supplied to the system equals the net work done by the system.(Something had to bang in the big bang, the claims are that nothing banged, or some state it was "..a spot no larger than the dot at the end of this sentence**." That violates this law.)
• Second law of thermodynamics – The entropy of an isolated system not in equilibrium will tend to increase over time, approaching a maximum value at equilibrium. (Everything in the universe is decaying, except for the [FONT=Lato, sans-serif]imaginary[/FONT] story of mud to man, which requires the opposite of decay.)
• Third law of thermodynamics – As temperature approaches absolute zero, the entropy of a system approaches a constant minimum. (Here we find the violation of the Cosmic Microwave Background *** measuring too uniform for a pinpoint startijng point, plus the presence of ANY thermal measurement after 100's of billions of years is absurd.)

* http://physicsforidiots.com/physics/thermodynamics/
** https://writescience.wordpress.com/tag/cosmology/
*** http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/bb_tests_cmb.html

 

Do you have scripture which says that "God" never changes???

How about this "change" made here???

6 And it repented the Lord that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.

7 And the Lord said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them.

 

The Law (2nd LoT) was first discovered and quantified in the field of energy transfer, or thermodynamics, but its corollaries have now been recognized in “every” field, including information theory. Truly it is a universal law, which applies to every situation.
But what does it mean? Entropy is a measure of the state of randomness or disorder in a system. While the total amount of energy remains the same at all times, the usefulness of that energy spontaneously degrades as the process proceeds--i.e., its entropy increases. For instance, the highly ordered molecules in wood are altered when it burns (oxidizes), with the complex hydrocarbon molecules breaking apart into less complex atoms and recombining, producing carbon dioxide and less useful heat energy. Heat can be used for a while, but it quickly cools and dissipates. Things are becoming less ordered and less energetic all the time. On the surface, this is the opposite of evolution, which states that things have become more complex through time, as molecules evolved into people.
Evolutionists deny these implications by noting that things sometimes spontaneously become more ordered, like ice crystals from water, or when plants grow from a seed. They often claim that an open system with plenty of incoming energy can decrease the entropy of a system, at the expense of the source system. True enough, an open system and excess energy are necessary conditions, but are they sufficient? There are other specific requirements that must be met for order to naturally arise from disorder. In a plant, it is surely an open system and there is plenty of energy available from the sun, but more is needed.
First, there must an energy conversion mechanism already present to convert the raw energy into useful forms. In the plant, the marvelous mechanism of photosynthesis must pre-exist the plant or the abundant incoming energy cannot be utilized. In fact, unbridled solar energy will kill a plant; it must be converted into useful forms before the plant can use it. It fuels the plant’s activities and growth. Photosynthesis is as yet incompletely understood by today’s scientists, and it certainly did not create itself. But the plant already possesses this ability and passes it on to each generation.
Second, there must be a plan in place to direct this now-useful energy into useful work. In living things, the marvelously complicated DNA code contains that plan. Nothing random here. This code is copied and maintained using just the right form of energy. But the machines that manufacture those energy molecules are specified by the code. Which came first, the fuel to copy the code or the code for the fuel's manufacture?
Though cellular machines operate according to thermodynamics, the laws of thermodynamics preclude their origin by random mutation and natural selection.
Evolutionary innovation is thought to occur through unguided mutation and natural selection. How many random tries would it take to either devise a complicated process (like photosynthesis) or write a complex code (like DNA)? Both must be present for life to function and continue. But compare the fact that they already exist and function, guiding the plant through its life cycle, to the evolutionary hope that they can self-generate. The entropy law forbids them to simply appear when the need arises. An open system and raw energy are insufficient.
Thus, evolution violates a basic law of science. A universal tendency toward randomness dominates, and the requirements for overcoming its implications are not met by nature. They are met by intelligence of a surpassing level far exceeding ours.
* Dr. Morris is President of the Institute for Creation Research.
Cite this article: Morris, J. 2010. A Barrier to Evolution. Acts & Facts. 39 (4): 18.

 

But you dispute science which actually agrees with Genesis genealogy and condemn it simply because your medieval ideas support the same verses differently.

You are opposing the belief in Genesis because it differs from the way you have accepted the same verses, yourself.





Why do you care how people use science when it supports the Bible???