Is evolution a religious belief?

Why do you repeatedly post this cartoon?

 

No, it doesn't. Try learning what science actually says before you try to dispute it.

The Big Bang theory does not claim that nothing banged. It says that we cannot know anything about what may or may not have existed prior to the Big Bang.

http://www.universetoday.com/15051/thinking-about-time-before-the-big-bang/

It is only the total entropy that must increase according to the second law of thermodynamics. Entropy can decrease locally (like in a living organism) as long as there is an equal increase elsewhere (like in the Sun).

http://physics.bu.edu/~duffy/py105/Secondlaw.html

You've already been shown that the CMB isn't as uniform as you think. Try again.

http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/

 

So, it comes back to THIS post, I guess.

Here, in your first paragraph you say proof is evidence that "compels the mind".

In the last paragraph, your discussion switches to the definition of proof used in science, which is more like the sense of definition #2 in the link you hadn't posted to me yet (http://www.tfd.com/proof).

When science proves something false, it is a proof in the sense of definition #2 - it is not just "compelling the mind". What I have been pointing out is that there is no way to prove something true in science in the #2 sense, even though over time one can gain great confidence.

So, when someone asks for the "proof" of the theory of evolution, you're going to hear that scientists agree that it is the best explanation we've got as it consistently predicts what will be found.. In fact, it's one of the premier theories in all of science - up there with relativity and quantum mechanics. But, you aren't going to find a statement of proof in the sense of #2.

Einstein's theory of relativity was not accepted for a significant period of time while it was tested. These tests were verifications of predictions that the theory made concerning light bending in a gravitational field and its ability to explain a known feature in Mercury's orbit that breaks Newton's laws. But, it wasn't possible to test the theory in cases of very strong gravitational fields until 1974 - 60 years later! The tests in 1974 could have found limits. One can not say that the theory of relativity has been proven true in the #2 sense. There isn't a document that has the proof of the theory of relativity.

So, if you ask for the "proof" of the theory of relativity you're going to get a statement along the lines that scientists agree that it is the best explanation that has been found, as it consistently makes accurate predictions And, surely that sounds a lot like the answer you get when you ask for the proof of the theory of evolution.

 

Because you do not admit that Evolution is just as valid an explanation for the Genesis genealogy as your medieval based beliefs that accept it for you.

 

Evolution is not explained through ANY scientific evidence, especially not your cartoon. The Genesis genealogy is clear. There were never any ape-men, it is impossible. Humans can not breed with apes.

 

As I said, you should submit a paper to the scientific journals showing how the Big Bang and Evolution cannot be possible because they break the laws of physics. You would probably get a Nobel Prize.

 

Science people disagree with you on the science and many believe in Theistic Evolution as the explanation for Genesis genealogy.

Why do you oppose these science mind bible believers simply because you still believe in magic.

 

The term religion is really quite a new one. Up until recently, no one really used the word but I do admit that it is commonly used and must be defined. In order for the courts to include atheism as a religion, they had to redefine it to include the absence of religion as a form of religion. It makes no sense really but we are stuck with it until such time as a future court corrects this contortion. Evolution is not religion, it is science. Science can be simply described as the search for the best explanation. Best means the most likely, the one that can be counted on to predict the future and one that can be tested, verified, questioned and tested once again. Religion relies upon miracles. By definition, a miracle is the least likely explanation for any event. A miracle cannot happen within the norms of the possible world as we know it nor can it be proven by any means possible. For instance, let us say both your legs were cut off at the knees. The chances of your legs growing back are extremely small but it is possible. We could find the source of genetic markers and sequences that made your legs in the first place and find a way to turn them back on. Since it happened once, it is more possible than your legs being recreated by a miracle. An instance of it being a miracle would be for a man praying that your legs grew back and it worked prior to us knowing how to remake your legs using science. Has this ever occurred in the history of man? To the best of my knowledge, no double amputee has regrown their legs yet.

 

I did not post a definition ? What nonsense are you making up now ?

All I did is call you on your fallacy. There is no point in discussing anything relating to objective reality with you because when you get proven wrong you will just claim that nothing in objective reality can be proven.

It is not like we have not seen this from you over and over again. It is your modus operandi. You have gone as far as claiming that the freezing point of water is subjective.

If you cant even figure out that the freezing point water can not be proven, then what is the point of discussing local flood layers with you.

What a banging head against wall session that would be.

 

And you know this through personal experience?

 

You want to be a debater, THE judge, AND you aren't presenting any argument against evolution - the solution that has earned such confidence that it is a foundation of all modern biology.

Does that actually make ANY sense to you?

 

I think you totally misunderstood what I was saying. If the tornado had consciousness and information, it could very well have created a car as it moved through a junkyard, Without that, it would have just made a bigger mess.

I don't know if the big bang is fact. It's theory. But if that is how the universe got its start, I would say what came from that bang was matter/energy, space/time, information/consciousness. With all of the information there in order that the universe would evolve as it has, along with life being created and evolving as it has. All of this was determined, at the big bang, if it happened, by the consciousness/information fundamental. Therefore, randomness never played any significant role in reality. The coherence necessary for the evolution of the universe and of life, is due to the information/consciousness fundamental. So reality as we know it, was, and is determined. You can leave the chance and randomness for the Craps table in vegas. For superficial activities.

 

prove it

 

Mal 3:6 For I am the LORD, I change not; therefore ye sons of Jacob are not consumed.


Jas 1:17 Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and cometh down from the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning.

As seen below, the term 'repenteth' points more in the direction of 'being grieved' than it does of 'change'.
http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/Lexicon/Lexicon.cfm?strongs=H5162&t=KJV
From Strongs' Bible Dictionary for the word "repent" as used in that passage of scripture:
"

1. to be sorry, console oneself, repent, regret, comfort, be comforted
   
   1. (Niphal)
      
      1. to be sorry, be moved to pity, have compassion
         
      2. to be sorry, rue, suffer grief, repent
         
      3. to comfort oneself, be comforted
         
      4. to comfort oneself, ease oneself
   2. (Piel) to comfort, console
      
   3. (Pual) to be comforted, be consoled
      
   4. (Hithpael)
      
      1. to be sorry, have compassion
         
      2. to rue, repent of
         
      3. to comfort oneself, be comforted
         
      4. to ease oneself"
         
         
         I see nothing which means 'change'.
         
         
         

 

Here, in your first paragraph you say proof is evidence that "compels the mind".[/quote]

You already got off to a bad start. I said "proof is evidence or argument that compels the mind to accept an assertion as true." If you are going to quote me, then quote me.. but don't do a partial quote so that you can attempt to take that partial quote out of context.

If it is not compelling the mind to accept it as 'true', then guess what... it is not accepted as true. Regardless of what the scientists say. ".... over time one can gain great confidence." No argument on that.... as it is in the nature of man to be gullible enough to fall prey to many "confidence games".

'someone'? Is that implying "everyone"? Well it cannot be implying everyone, because there are more people out there, who like me, are not so easy to compel. When I ask for 'proof' relating to some assertion, I am looking for the person in question to present to me evidence or argument that is capable of compelling my mind to accept what they have asserted as true.

That is exactly why I use #1 ... evidence or argument that will compel the mind to accept an assertion as true. I am challenging someone to convince me that their assertion is true.

With that statement of yours above appearing to be an admission to the facts stated therein, then the only proof that would remain available would be that which comes in the form of an 'argument'.

In either case, the request for 'proof' then has failed because the evidence and arguments presented did not compel the mind to accept either the evidence or argument as true. So, in the case of me asking for 'proof', be prepared to continue on in your search for something or some argument that will convince me by compelling my mind to accept it as true.

 

How about you stop trolling people, and just come out and say what evidence WOULD compel your mind? You've literally spent years on this forum doing this same old song and dance; acting like a child, never explaining why the evidence is insufficient, only saying "NOPE" over and over again. Grow up, man child.

Instead of actually having some sort of conducive discussion about why the evidence given to you does not compel your mind, you, for some reason (probably because you're old, have your beliefs set in stone, and are lonely so you want people to listen to your nonsense since people in your life probably have already given up on you), think that it's prudent to point out that it does not constitute "proof" by some cherry picked definition of that word. Except that the definition you use leads us to a quandary where 1) Anything can be proof and 2) Something can be proof and not proof at the same time for different people.

 

This seems exactly the same case for Reality doesn't it???


For I am, Reality, change not, (I become objective History); therefore ye sons of Jacob are not consumed.

 

They never did breed with Apes.

Inside the womb a mothering Ape, by an Act-of-God two of the 24 ape chromosomes FUSED together, and formed the first man with 23 Chromosomes thereafter.

 

The evidence is never accepted because it goes against their religious belief in evolution. It is actually more like a cult relying on blind faith with zero verifiable scientific evidence in support for their beliefs, suppositions, opinions, assumptions, conjecture, etc.

All links and posts all contain, "it is believed", or "the assumption is" or other such non scientific wording. The evolutionists/ Neo Darwinists do not understand how to read critically for the facts in an article and the assumptions by the author, who also believes in the same religion as they do..

 

I'm pretty sure evolution doesn't posit the development of a new taxonomic class in two generations.

 

"many" still believe in and practice Voodoo. So what is your point?

 

Two or two hundred thousand, it doesn't matter. It never happened, and can not be shown to have ever happened. Only speculation. Do you know what speculation means?

 

Actually it does matter. Writing strawman lie about your opponent matters, or why would you do it? Molecular genetic evidence shows it did happen.

 

It has NEVER been shown scientifically to occur, only in the movies and cartoons. A bacteria turning into a bacteria is not evolution.

 

Oh, yeah, NB. As someone against evolution, what do you think would be evidence that would change your mind?