Is evolution a religious belief?

It is Humans that wrote all religious text books and it is Humans that wrote every scientific text books. Each with their own description of how life emerged with their own specific language that defines it. There has been no evidence of a "God" involved writing anything for us or verifying which Human is correct in his text books.

Religion wants to claim that every species was created in the same image of its origin while science wants to claim that a species image changed several times since its origin. We already know that religion is wrong because we have created several different images in the canine family with its last image origin of wolves.

This is just one of many examples where science books is far more factual then any religious book.

 

You have not been following along. We agree that wolves and dogs are in the same animal Kind, (Family), and that wolves and dogs can interbreed. What has never been shown by science is a change of animal kind from one Family to another, e.g. mouse to a bat, or an amoeba to a man.

The religion of evolution preaches that mud puddles came alive. That sounds like some sort of miracle to me.

 

Defeat? It's a dictionary, Incorporeal, there's nothing to defeat. I'm pointing out that you are cherry picking definitions and then claiming that they are THE definitions of a word. No, they're definitions of words, not THE (implying that they are the only ones) definitions.

Why? You don't abide by logic, so what good would that do to either of us?

Sure, it would appear that way if you were an absolute moron.

No, are you a moron?

Wow, because you just claimed that your thoughts were controlled by mysterious forces.

Not until you stop defining proof in a way that nobody else here agrees with.

Words cannot be evidence now? How is that even an argument? That's like saying "You claim you presented evidence, but you only showed the murder weapon and the DNA evidence that I used it!" ...Yeah, that's evidence.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils

So, what are all these, then?

No, it isn't. You just defined Kind as "animals that can interbreed". That's the definition of a species, not a family.

Why? You haven't answered my questions, so why should I continue to go along pretending like you know the answers to them?

 

I had you on my ignore list for a good reason. I decided to unblock you so I could remember why. This post reminds me quite clearly why I did it originally. Let us take a look at the difference between science and religion as it pertains to predicting the future. If tomorrow you drop a rock from the top of a building, I can predict with almost 100% certainty that it will fall to the earth if left to the forces of gravity. However, if you predict that Jesus is coming in a month or so and he does not appear, your prophecy will not be fulfilled. In all the days of man, the end of times has been prophesied over and over again, nothing happened. A prediction based upon reason, science and the laws of nature has a much higher degree of success than a prophecy such as Jesus returning because one is based upon science, the other upon faith.

 

If you're interested in families, why in the world are you bringing up mice, bats, and amoebas. Those aren't families, nor are they species. They aren't even at the same taxonomic level. The term bats refers to a taxonomic order, the term mice refers to a genus, and the term amoeba refers to a genus.

No, it doesn't. Abiogenesis has nothing to do with biological evolution. This sounds like some sort of naivety to me.

 

?
Church people are supposed to get people to accept the Bible, but you and others work hard to just sell your way of accepting it while opposing the ways other might.

That has nothing to do with voodoo.

 

Evolution seems to support the whole Bible story which starts with Cosmic Evolution described clearly and then lists the 22 now extinct species of Humans that preceded Modern Homo sapiens who actually did come in three racial stocks, AKA Ham, Shem, and Japheth.

Why you attack people who believe in evolution instead of promoting the correspondence with Evolution shows you are interested in they way you understand Genesis, not Genesis itself.

 

No IT DOES NOT, and that you believe it does indicates your grasp of that which you think you know is incorrect as well. The Abiogenesis "hypothesis" has absolutely nothing to do with the Evolution "Theory".

 

Exactly. In fact, scholars see Genesis of a melding of 2 or 3 different authors, so we don't even have the originals or the translations of the originals. What we have is the work of those who did that melding, undoubtedly translated multiple times before reaching us.

But, my point is not that Genesis is false. Being an allegory doesn't make something false. The allegory of Genesis has truths in it regarding the state of man that are seen today - regardless of whether you believe there is a god.

What I'm saying is that interpreting the creation allegory as literal fact is bad for religion as well as being bad for America. Of course, I would never suggest choosing ones religion on the basis of it being good for America. But, given the situation with Genesis, it does seem to mitigate for not stressing the aspect of Christianity that is today actively opposed to science on grounds that are, after all, not optimal for Christianity. The current and previous Pope push for this cease fire, too, and they aren't particularly focused on America.

 

Nope. This has been denounced over and over again. Your ideas are dumb and you should be ashamed by them.

 

First, since when is Wikipedia a scientific journal. Check back in an hour and it may be changed.

Second, do you understand that thousands of certain classes of animal are thought to be extinct? What your junk "science" link shows are fossils of animals thought to be extinct, many are only drawings (like a comic book) as well as extant animals.

You are ignorant of the classifications being used. Try to educate yourself before you reply.

Embarrassing isn't it when you can't find any "science" to bolster your assertions?

- - - Updated - - -

Rather than nit-picking my delibertly absurd examples, address the point, if you can, which you can't.

- - - Updated - - -

I know, you don't want to include it because it debunks your whole belief system. I'd probably deny that too if I had nothing to support the evolutionary church's miracle of abiogenesis/spontaneous generation.

 

You ignore mutations here, though

The fusion of two of the 24 ape chromosomes inside the womb of surrogate mother ape created the number 2 Chromosome which contains two chromosomes we can see today.

Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Evolution
Human chromosome 2 is widely accepted to be a result of an end-to-end fusion of two ancestral ape chromosomes.[5][6]
Fusion of ancestral ape chromosomes left distinctive remnants of telomeres, and a vestigial centromere.

In 2005, a peer-reviewed scientific journal published results of the tests.

It turns out that chromosome 2, which is unique to the human lineage of evolution, emerged as a result of the head-to-head fusion of two ancestral chromosomes that remain separate in other primates.

Humans have only 23 pairs of chromosomes.

 

I do not include it because science does not do so. It is clear you are incapable of understanding much of science and rational thought. You make yourself seem a fool so often I must assume it is a game or a joke....the alternate explanation is almost unimaginable.

 

These fellows are actually defending the way they have come to believe what Genesis says.
They believe magic was used to do the whole thing, and that science opposes that idea.

They do not argue with evolution believers that the theory still supports Genesis, but they argue against Evolution because it seems to be used to disqualify Genesis in the way they understand it.

 

Oh no, and? I can link to respectable websites if you want. It was just a quick link.

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/lines/IAtransitional.shtml

Artist renderings can be found even in scientific textbooks. The fact that you have a problem with them astounds me.

Definition of species: a group of living organisms consisting of similar individuals capable of exchanging genes or interbreeding. The species is the principal natural taxonomic unit, ranking below a genus and denoted by a Latin binomial, e.g., Homo sapiens.

So, I'm making the above definition up?

I'm not sure how that's a reply to what was posted...

Ohhhhh, they're deliberately absurd now? Because you've been harping on about a mouse to a bat now for more than a few pages. And the points HAVE been addressed: you have a naive view of evolution. You seem to think that evolution is "one species turning into something COMPLETELY different". That isn't what evolution is. Hell, not once have you EVER even been able to DEFINE evolution.

 

No! You are attempting to put words in my mouth. I have never said that the definitions that I use are the only definitions. On numerous occasions I have published the entire set of definitions for a given word and asked the readers to "take your pick": all I have indicated is that you and others cannot defeat that particular definition when it is applied to the scenario. You also cannot ignore that definition if that definition can fit the context of the subject matter. Let me correct that last statement. You can ignore that definition when the definition fits the context IF you desire to be intellectually dishonest.

Answer: As an attempt on your part to use one of your tools in a hope that you might be able to compel my mind to accept what you assert as true.

Well, as a possibility it does appear that way. So does my perspective make me "an absolute moron."?

Would my negative answer compel your mind to alter your perspective on that subject matter? If not, then I have to conclude that you are emphatically calling me a moron. If you are calling me a moron, then I shall have no recourse but to report you to the moderators for violating the TOS.

No! Can you explain what I meant by "*mysterious* force"? I didn't think you could unless of course you are a genuine mind-reader. To me, it is no "*mysterious* force" yet you want to make an issue of my choice of terminology when my terminology was not fully explained... only emphasized by use of asterisks. Therefore, your comment was written through ignorance of the particular subject matter, which subject matter was not fully explained.

'Nobody' is an absolute.... Can you show proof of that your claim is true? BTW: the dictionary of my choice shows that the #1 definition of proof is "evidence or argument that compels the mind to accept an assertion as true." see www.tfd.com/proof .

Are the words used actually the 'evidence' that they describe?

See my statement immediately preceding your question above.

Did you show (by using words) the "murder weapon" or the "DNA"? If you did show the 'murder weapon' what proof do you have that "I used it". If you showed the DNA what proof would you have that my DNA could not have already been at the scene of the crime prior to the crime being committed? You see, your so called words in describing the 'evidence' is capricious and whimsical when analyzed more completely.

 

Do you often compare apples with fish in making analogies? What does a rock falling have to do with Jesus coming in a month or so? I also find that you stipulated a condition that renders your analogy questionable. You stated that the rock would fall to the earth if left to the forces of gravity. What forces would prevent it from falling to the Earth? Perhaps some "*mysterious* force"?

 

As though your 'private interpretations' do not serve the same purpose? "Reality is actually God" or "God is actually Reality" (whichever the phrase was that you used while inserting those into the language of the otherwise quoted text of scripture)?

 

So, in short, your concern is that a literal interpretation is 'bad for religion and America'. Don't you think that the term 'bad' is a little bit ambiguous? Or that the finger pointing at America is a little bit prejudicial... as if the literal interpretation might be 'good' for other countries?

- - - Updated - - -

As if your ideas are not 'dumb'?

 

Comparing apples with fish is undoubtedly your area of expertise.

 

Speaking of areas of expertise.... what possible area of "expertise" would you be claiming?

 

They don't hold supernatural beliefs, they believe that the evidence points a certain way on certain matters, but that they don't have all the answers on some (like what started the big bang). Not having an answer for everything isn't religious - an absence of a belief isn't supernaturalism, nor is having a view w/o certainty religious. I might believe someone in a public court case is guilty without being certain - that doesn't mean my belief that so and so is guilty is a religious or supernatural belief.

 

How silly, an extinct land animal that turned into a whale? Wouldn't that be the OPPOSITE of evolution, loosing it's legs?

An artist rendering is exactlyu that, an artist's imagination.

Didn't you want the definition of "kind"?

Did someone post the mouse/bat fossil and I missed it?

 

You are twisting what I stated, I stated when someone BELIEVES in supernatural events and processes, if by any other group, those would be called miracles, which are part and parcel of a religion. To believe and claim as a fact something that is supernatural is a religious belief, no matter what anyone claims.