Is evolution a religious belief?

Sure it is. Evolution doesn't mean changing from one species into another, or one family into another. Your crowd doesn't seem to understand that taxonomy is a HUMAN creation. There are no such things as species, breeds, or anything else in nature. We apply these titles to help US. Evolution has been, and always will be, changes in genetic frequency in populations over time. That's the definition of evolution. Therefore, a bacteria "turning" into another bacteria is evolution as long as there are changes in genetic frequencies in the populations.

 

There is NO evidence. We should see evidence of intermediate critters today or even in fossils of dead organisms, which we don't. Biological evolution goes against the Laws of Thermodynamics, Chemistry, Mathematics and Nature. It is like asking what evidence would I accept that Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles exist.

- - - Updated - - -

Which I why I prefer the use of the term, kinds. One kind of animal can not breed with another kind of animal, but there is limited variation within all kinds of animals. There is NO evidence of one kind oif animal 'evolving' into another kind.

 

Are you clairvoyant? The only way you could see "intermediate critters" is if you knew what the end result of its evolution is.

Actually we do. Go to a museum. Look online. Specifically horse or whale evolution.

As has been pointed out, your naive acquaintance with the above "problems" are just that, naive. You claim that evolution violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics, while ignoring that ANY decrease in entropy (ice forming, life existing, the creation of buildings, literally any INCREASE in COMPLEXITY) would also be a violation of the law.

That's because you can't even (*)(*)(*)(*)ing explain what the word kind means. It's a damned vague term coming from an almost 2,000 year old book. I have seen people claim that the word kind refers to the taxonomic classifications of species, family, and also kingdoms.

Regardless, why would it matter if we have no evidence that some "kind", whatever the hell that means, turned into another "kind"? Evolution happens at the genetic level, not the macro visual level.

 

I've been trying to talk about proof - not the theory of evolution.

The thing is, you are playing a game.

Your game is called "it's not proof, because it didn't convince me".

Clearly, the most important argument for the theory of evolution is that biology is accepted as a founding principle of all modern biology.

If you want to dig into it more than simply recognizing that, then there has to be some way to come to agreement on what is considered proof.

Otherwise, we're just playing nonsense games.

 

We see the end result all around us but none of the intermediate forms to these animals or towards the next shapeshift.

False, you see statues and drawings, no intermediate fossils.

I guess I am debating with someone ignorant of Laws of Thermodynamics as proved with your post.

Life existing from what a mud puddle? That's not scientific, but a religious belief.

This is what a building looks like if not for man's energy input. DUH!?!?

So, because of your ignorance of language and biology you believe cursing at me will elevate your argument? I even explained to you what an animal kind is. Wow. A box of rocks here.

 

You don't seem to be able to comprehend times or spaces beyond your immediate surroundings.

If you want to see an existing intermediate form, plenty of people exist with low IQ that haven't been selected out yet.

 

Doesn't evolution teach that one life form slooooooooooooowly changes over a loooooooooooooong time? It that were true we should see an animal that is 99% horse and 1% marmot (or whatever evolutionists claim was the predecessor of the horse), another that is 98% horse and 2% marmot, some that are 50/50% some 80/20%, but, we don't. Then there should be a 99% horse and 1% pegasus critter (or whatever) another 80% horse and 20% pegasus, etc. etc. etc.

We should also find billions more fossils of intermediate life forms than of complete, fully functioning life forms, but we don't. Intelligent people know why we don't.

 

Ahhh.. Practicing the ancient art of predicting the future. That would imply that the new age scientists are still engaged in fortune-telling or prophesying.

 

This is the problem. You don't even bother to find out what evolutionists say before making some absurd dishonest caricature.

Tell me, how frequently do animals fossilise?

- - - Updated - - -

The difference is science gets it right.

 

EVERY species is an "intermediate form". Change is constantly happening, even if it's very minor genetic changes over hundreds of millions of years.

Actually, I've been able to personally see the actual fossils, and not the castings, in person for whale evolution.

You really need to get a grasp of the English language, man. I have no idea what you're trying to say here. You previously claimed that evolution violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics because "everything is decaying" except for... the story of "mud to man", which I'm assuming is your idiotic characterization of what evolution is. Everything is NOT decaying. If everything were simply decaying, we would not be able to build anything. You posted a picture of a decaying building and said something to the effect of "this is what happens when man doesn't input energy into it". HELLO, you just admitted that your interpretation of the Second Law was wrong. We CAN reverse entropy with the input of energy. And guess what? The Earth has a MASSIVE input of energy. From where?

THE SUN. There's a reason why Earth isn't some rock slowly decaying in space. There's a reason why we have life on this planet, which is the REVERSE of entropy. Because of energy from the sun. Because we have a massive heat source.

No you didn't. Where did you explain to me what an animal kind was? What is a kind of animal? Give me an example.

 

Suppose you tell me where I am wrong. Evolution, if true, would have a mouse-like creature (MLC) with partial webbing and longer phalanges evolving towards a bat , the next critter would have even longer phalanges and more webbing and a partial but non functioning (therefore unnecessary) echolocation structures. The next would have more webbing, more structures but still 96% MLC and only 4% bat. A few million years later evolutionists would insist there would be (but never found) a 50% MLC and 50% bat. At this stage it can no longer climb trees or run, nor can it fly yet. That critter would be classified in modern day taxonomy as 'lunch'. The process is then over. End of story, evolution failed.

They die and must be buried rapidly. Cells are mineralized within a few years as the soft tissue decays. Is that a problem for your cult?

"Science" can not do anything, and definitely can't discern between right and false.

- - - Updated - - -

Read my post above

 

Evolution can't teach anything, human beings teach things. And no, the theory doesn't really state that. Evolution basically relies on three things: the environment, mutation rate changes, and the lifespan of a species.

Because fossilization is an incredibly rare phenomenon (especially with soft-bodied organisms that don't even have bones to fossilize), and that only less than 1% of all species that have ever lived on this planet are known through the fossil record?

 

Flying squirrel. Has flaps of skin that it uses to glide, is still able to run and climb trees. Are you claiming flying squirrels don't exist?

Your post below what?

 

that's a vague answer. Do you think you would hbe willing to stick your nefck our and tell me what your faith teaches.

But bilions of fossils have been found with ZERO missing links to any of the animal kinds we see today.

Kind: animals which can interbreed.

- - - Updated - - -

Why are you changing the subject. I stated, bats. Play along or you will have to go home.

ABOVE

 

I can tell you the basics of what evolution is, sure. The problem is that you don't want to start at the beginning, you want to jump into a conversation posing questions that you get from anti-evolution sites like AnswersinGenesis. If you were able to actually give me the definition of what you thought evolution is, then we could have a conducive dialogue.

Except that we do have the fossils you're claiming don't exist. When I told you this, you claimed that they were "statues". Whatever the hell that means.

...So, how does bacteria fall into this categorization? What about plants? It's a bit more "nuanced" than interbreeding. Animals that can interbreed is what we call a SPECIES. And yes, we actually have seen one species change into another species within our life time.

 

And I stated that a flying squirrel possesses exactly the qualities that you claim would make the intermediate species "lunch". It is essentially half mouse, half bat, is it not?

Your above post doesn't answer any of the questions that I posed.

 

So you don't know. Just say so, there's no shame in that.

There have never been found any missing links between animal kinds ever found of the billions found.

I can't help it if you don't like the definition.

- - - Updated - - -

Used a mouse to bat example, where are the 1/2 mice 1/2/ bat fossils?

 

I don't know what? You haven't asked me any specific questions. I just told you that I can help you, and what you got out of that was that "I don't know" something?

Yes, there have. Just saying that they haven't over and over again doesn't make it true. I can link you to pictures of the fossils. I can even probably tell you of there current whereabouts.

I'm saying that the definition that you provided is exactly the same as what we call a species. And yes, we have seen one species turn into another... so your entire argument is moot anyways.

- - - Updated - - -

Okay, so you're not going to admit that your claim that such a species would be "lunch" is bunk based on a currently example of a creature with half the attributes of a bat and half of a mouse. Why do you think that we SHOULD find these fossils? Again, fossilization is incredibly rare, ESPECIALLY in creatures that have no bones or light bone structures. Do you understand how rare fossilization is?

 

Transitional bat.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onychonycteris
Once they started being selected for flight transition would have been rapid.

 

Call me on all the fallacies you desire. I am not subject to your man-made logic. It is you and others who volunteer to be subject to the whims of some ancient man (Plato who claimed to have been taught by some fairytale creature that he called Socrates.)

 

fdalsfkjdasfj;aslfjd;asfkd;lasdfkaspfdas ';lfasfas fdasfdasfdas fdas fdasfdasf afsdasfdasf afsdfdafdafda fdafdafda

I am not subject to your man-made languages, I can do what I want! Stop acting like a child, Incorporeal. Also, calling logic the "whims" of ancient men is as stupid as calling math the same thing. Logic is like the math of language.

 

Evolution isn't a religion. Yes, Atheism is legally a religion, but evolution isn't a religion or religious belief.

The key difference is that people don't believe evolution because they're Atheists. In fact, most Christians either believe in or "see the sense" in evolution. Do people ever become creationists and THEN become Christians? Not really.

 

I have stopped playing with this guy as he is a complete waste of time for any member attempting to have a rational and enjoyable debate.

I urge you and others to simply not play his game as he get's off on it and it is purposeful on his end.

He crossed the line with me as he said a few things one man should NEVER say to another man and he is VERY LUCKY INDEED he didn't say such things to me face to face as I would have reacted even though I abhore violence but in this case I would have made an exception.

I urge all members to simply not talk, post or debate with him at least until he learns that what he is doing is a dicredit to this forum....is completely illogical and without merit....and is simply a childish way to waste other good intentioned members time.

You will NEVER get him to post in a non-disigenous manner....unless he is taught a lesson.

He is DEAD to me.

AboveAlpha

 

Is that game a table game, board game, a game relating to athletic events, or what? Is it available at the local gaming stores? The thing is you don't know what you are talking about; You cannot prove your assertions; and you cannot convince me that your assertions are true.

'Accepted' does not mean proven. And the 'Bible' is accepted as the founding principle of all modern 'Bible'.

On my end, it is real simple. Provide evidence or argument that is capable of compelling my mind to accept your assertions as true. Convince me.

Yes! Without you providing evidence or argument that compels my mind to accept your assertions as true, then you would be playing games.

 

Obviously debating you is a waste of time since you cannot admit facts.