Is evolution a religious belief?

Well, if you are declaring that "science gets it right" and you are not refuting the notion that scientists are prophesying, then those scientists who make such predictions about the future and "get it right" are in fact prophets.... Thus making science a religion which does utilize the assistance of prophets. That sounds about right to me and probably to those others who are saying that science is a religion and evolution is a religious tenet.

 

The highlighted text above is about the best display of scientific intelligence I have seen on this forum since I first became a member. Congratulations GFP. BTW: Welcome back.. did you have a nice extended vacation?

 

This is just pointless semantics. Nobody cares whether you define religion to include science. I and most people define religion to include beliefs for which there is not evidence. So enjoy your reality detached worldview.

 

Prove that it's the best display of scientific intelligence you've seen. Oh... that's right... you can't since you've defined "proof" to mean anything that compels ONLY the mind of the person asking for proof.

 

Don't need to prove it... it is my OPINION.... deal with it.

- - - Updated - - -

Don't worry.. I will enjoy everything that life has to offer... in the meantime.. you make sure that you enjoy your fantasy enhanced worldview.

 

I am telling you it is a waste of time.

He will NEVER reply in a logical manner.

AboveAlpha

 

According to Incorporeal if you think it's going to rain you're a prophet and started a new religion.

- - - Updated - - -

And what fantasy is that?

 

Sure I can. Fact = something believed to be true or real. There are many things that I believe to be true or real. Care to be unscientific and challenge my beliefs.... after all, it is claimed that science can prove something false, so let science prove that God is false.

 

Gee, I can look out the window and tell you whether or not it is going to rain locally.. no big deal.
The fantasy of Multiverses.

 

Nobody needs to prove anything at all, ever, unless they want to. People take time out of their day to provide evidence for you of evolution for various reasons. Some people probably want to feel superior to you, some may see it as a net benefit to society for you it to be proven to you, etc. And what do you do? You squander people's time and energy by acting like a child. Not once have I EVER seen you provide an explanation as to what WOULD be proof to you. Not once. Instead what do you spend your time arguing about? The definition of proof (or various other words), and why you don't have to abide by logic and rationality. Why don't you just come out and admit that there is NO such thing as proof of evolution for you?

 

Did you ever stop to think of the definition of the term 'compel'? Well compel is part of the definition of proof. It is a *mysterious* force that attacks the mind of a person, and makes that person accept an assertion as true. So, if you or others are desiring that I accept your evidence or arguments pertaining to evolution, then it is up to you to find and provide that argument or evidence that contains that attribute of being compelling. You complain about me not saying what would be compelling... well to be honest with you,,,, I don't know. That is why I keep asking for PROOF... hoping that someday one of you scientifically minded people will stumble upon that one thing that will be compelling to my mind. So far... all of you have failed in stumbling upon that one thing that would compel my mind. Sorry bout that.

 

So you're reduced to mindless slander?

- - - Updated - - -

But we succeeded in establishing it's a waste of time responding to you.

 

The oldest trick in the book is if you can't disprove a persons statement....attempt to discredit the person.

AboveAlpha

 

No, it's one part of ONE definition from ONE source.

No... no, not for me it isn't. If something is backed by evidence, especially a lot of it, then that makes me accept something. Do you not control your own thoughts? Your beliefs are shaped by whimsy?

Then there are three options: One, our arguments have not been sufficient. Two, you don't understand some concept, or a variety of concepts involved in an explanation. Three, you're just being malicious. Considering the evidence I have seen provided by myself and others, I see no reason to believe that the first option is the correct one.

 

My assertion is that a literal interpretation of Genesis is bad for religion, and in fact bad for America.

First, it is the worst possible interpretation of the descriptions of Adam and the events surrounding him in Genesis. It trivializes his actions as being a simple case of disobedience, while in fact the Bible is clearly presenting a rich allegory of man's state through the descriptions of Adam, Eve, the Tree of Life, the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, and other actors, including their family. Turning that into one big ham handed miracle of instant creation is a huge disservice, besides being a gross misinterpretation.

Secondly, a literal interpretation is clearly counter to what all of science has found to be the case. That is, there is a very real cost to the literal interpretation in that it places Christianity in direct opposition to science on a subject for which science has overwhelming evidence. And, it does so on a topic that is not in any way central to Christianity. The realignment of the religion that comes with the new testament directs man on many points of belief, especially the central tenets necessary for salvation. Whether someone believes that Genesis is literal is not part of that. In fact, once again the understanding of original sin is more difficult if one limits oneself to a literal translation. In emphasizing this topic, Christians are making their task of promoting their religion harder - taking on not only the standard religious issues, but also taking on science as a whole.

Beyond that, this direction leads Christians to do stuff like fight against education - especially science education, but by extension it plays to those who describe our universities as dens of inequity. There are several reasons why this is bad not just for religion, but for America as a whole - not the least of which is our weak emphasis on science at a time when America is moving into a post-manufacturing era wherein it is increasingly important for America to compete in areas that require higher education, especially in science and engineering.


The Pope has shown a way around this, and we should be encouraging those who can't understand science to see the Pope's direction as an important direction for a ceasefire. His direction is not sectarian in any way. The result would free Christians to some extent from this requirement to defeat science and allow them to focus on religious issues.

 

The Vatican specifically Pope John Paul II handled the reality of Evolution and the Possibility that LIFE most likely exists on other planets in the Universe very well and Pope John Paul II WAS WAY AHEAD OF THE CURVE compared to other Christian Sects.

But all other existing sects of Christianity EXCEPT BAPTISTS.....have followed the examples set by Pope John Paul II who understood in the Modern Era for the Catholic Church or any other Sect of Christianity to attempt to either disclaim, refute, argue or ignore all too clear REALITIES OF EVOLUTION, COSMOLOGY AND PHYSICS....well the Pope KNEW to do this would only drive many people away from Christianity.

Pope John Paul II who was always since he was a KID interested in Scientific Advancements made good use of the Vatican Science Team and Vatican Sciece Committee and back in the 1980's after personally studying and working with the Vatican Science Team and Committee Pope John Paul II decided to PUBLICALLY ANNOUNCE that the at the time existing evidence backing the Reality of Evolution was so detailed and so comprehensive that it would be just a short matter of time before the Theory of Evolution was changed to the FACT OF EVOLUTION...which it was back in 1999 by the American Acadamy of Sciences.

The Pope informed the Catholic Faithful as well the Pope directed this speech TO ALL CHRISTIANS....as he informed them that the evidence of Evolution being a FACT was overwhelming as well the Pope conscious of the NASA Robotic Missions to Mars and other worlds told the Christian Faithful to be prepared and not surprised if such American Probes found life upon MARS or other worlds.

The ITALIAN PRESS WENT CRAZY!!! LOL!!!

The next day the Rome Papers Headlines read.....POPE SAY'S WE COME FROM MONKEYS!!!

And when the Pope was questioned about that Newspaper Headline the Pope properly corrected the Headline saying....Human Beings are APES....not Monkeys and Humans did not evolve from Monkeys.

Willreadmore.....you are RIGHT.

When certain Christians and Christian Sects attempt to squash and hinder AMERICAN CHILDREN LEARNING SCIENCE AND MATHEMATICS AND BIOLOGY AND COSMOLOGY AND ASTRONOMY AND PHYSICS....especially in a modern world where such skills are EXTREMEY NECESSARY......these Christians are.......................HURTING AMERICA!!!!!

AboveAlpha

 

Another false definition designed to support a false world view. Can you prove the Easter Bunny false? Because you obviously cannot prove the Easter Bunny false you are now in the unenviable position of having demonstrated logically that the Easter Bunny and God are equivalent.

 

No! However it is IMHO that you have been drinking too much of that kool-aid.

Yes! It is a waste of time for you to respond to me, because you cannot defeat my claims.

 

There never has. Claiming there are transitional fossils is a lie.


I

No it isn't, for you presume to tell me how I define a term is arrogant and deceitful?

View attachment 32900

The term "Kind" is roughly equal to the modern classification, "Family" as shown in this graphic. Animals within the "kind" can interbreed. Science has not shown any interbreeding of animals outside of it's "kind". You can call a tree an airplane, it still won't fly and neither does your argument.

Show a mouse/bat fossil, or even an extant creature.

 

Even your own link states it is an extinct bat. The request is for the intermediate form, half mouse/half bat. Do you want to try again, or do you concede?

 

And it is one part of one definition from one source that you cannot defeat.

Then give logical reason why you believe the things that you believe. Thought control... very interesting... That makes it appear that you are considering government mind control conspiracies. Are you? Of course I control my thoughts. Beliefs.... Can you show positive PROOF that MY BELIEFS are "shaped by whimsy"? I would enjoy seeing you produce/manifest that PROOF of claim.

Only three options? Why only three? From my perspective there is at least one other option: Four... you are delusional. Delusional because you declare that you have presented some evidence when in fact all you have presented is words on a computer screen. So options 2 and 3 and 4 point back at #1 being the most effective option.

 

What would YOU call a "belief system which has at it central belief supernatural events and supernatural processes that are counter to all known scientific Laws". In all other religions those supernatural occurrences are called "Miracles".

What do you call; "A belief system which believes in Miracles, and has zero observable, repeatable evidence to scientifically show the belief to be a fact of science and nature?"

 

There has not been any posts that I have seen claiming science is a religion. Do you want to back up that false assertion or concede you lied?

 

Well I agree that a literal interpretation is a bad thing. But look at what you are saying. Do you read, write and speak the ancient language from which the story of Genesis was taken? I presume that you don't and will most assuredly guaranty that I don't either. Therefore, the translations that have been made are all interpretations from the mind of man and have been handed down to be either accepted as true, rejected as false, or given further consideration with the hope of gleaning some truth out of what is considered by some as a 'literal translation'. So, is it really possible for anyone today to make a 'literal interpretation' when most have not seen the original writings nor do most speak or know that ancient language that would allow them to make a translation... literal or otherwise?

 

Whoa... hold your horses there dude. Have you challenged the folks at "American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fifth Edition. Copyright © 2011 by Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company. Published by Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company. All rights reserved." who published the definition found here:
www.tfd.com/fact specifically definition 2.c. ? If they are publishing false information, then they should be notified. Are you willing to contact them and complain to them about their false publication?

Can you prove that the Easter Bunny is false? Where specifically did I make a comparison between God and the Easter Bunny? Please show a link to the exact thread and post #.