Is evolution a religious belief?

The story of Genesis is clearly written by humans who had little understanding of the details that started life. They only documented what they visualized described of what is seen of the natural world any by their limited logic provided a story for its followers. Why don't people with logical thinking to believe a God so powerful but is incapable of showing proof of his existence. Faith is simply brainwashing and it does give you rewards of feel good chemicals released in your body that help you cope with life's hardships. it does help those deal with death by helping them to surrender to it.

Science on the other hand cannot prove the details of how life began because they were not there to witness it. What is observed today in studies of how biology works is still very limited since we do not have the technology to see atoms, molecules in its intricate detail to see how it actually works. They can only observe the outcome of what it produces. Much of science is filled with logical assumptions of what they observe while their peers will agree because they all have been taught a brainwashed mindset of how to think in a particular thought process.

The fact is science discovers a process of life, they name it, they provide its definition, they create a controlled environment that proves it and then it is published as fact. The problem is life in the natural world is not a controlled environment and many of its processes or players are not included in science experiments. So while many science published peer reviewed articles are excepted and published, it does prove that this is what is happening in the real natural environment of life processes.

 

So you don't believe in the speed of light?

(BTW, we all know how you'll "play" this, Incorporeal.....you can't disagree with NB on the age of the Universe....or you anger one of your fellow fundamentalists who is an even more extreme Creationist than you are...

but you can't agree with him either, openly, that the Universe is only 6000 years old....or you look foolish.

Ergo, you will...as you always do....debate the minutiae to death. And once again, show everybody your "debate style" when you are trapped.)

 

You ignore astronomy.

 

Do you understand that this is not about Biblical Creation being a religion, but how evolution also qualifies as a religion for all of the same reasons you stated for belief in the Genesis account?

Do you understand that most (if not all) scientific discoveries made verify many of the Genesis accounts, whereas new discoveries cause evolutionists to jigger their hypotheses to fit the new discovery. That fact in itself would seem to place a significant cloud of doubt over the current claims of evolutionists which may or may not be accepted a year from now.

 

Careful, Margot....Incorporeal will demand that you produce every record the Egyptians ever wrote and if you can't.....it will "prove" that they DID mention the world-wide flood and dinosaurs.

Or he'll insist that since Egyptians didn't call their country "Egypt" (it's from Ancient Greek)....your entire premise is flawed.

 

Ah, but it is based on observation.
I have NEVER seen evidence of god intervening in human affairs.
I have NEVER seen evidence of a god "creating" humans separately from the rest of the biosphere.
I have NEVER seen evidence of the supposed "miracles" that religions promote.
I have NEVER seen evidence that prayers are actually answered
I have NEVER seen evidence that evil human behavior is manifested by a fallen angel.

OTOH, I have seen anthropological evidence of how religions were used by societies and individuals throughout history (regardless of denomination).
I have seen archeological evidence that rebuts biblical mythology and time lines.
I have seen historical documentation on the evil man inflicts on his fellow man, without any intervention by third party forces.
I have seen cosmological, geological, chemical, biological evidence that refutes the primitive creationist mythologies of every religion.

Granted my belief is tempered in my knowledge that I do not have definitive direct smoking gun evidence to refute a supernatural entity's involvement in anything. It is precisely this lack of evidence that makes me not believe in a supernatural entity.

this is not a religion, since it does not require faith in a supernatural entity, but precisely the opposite.

To argue that it is a belief and therefore the equivalent of a religion is semantic nonsense lacking all nuance.

 

Do you understand that this is not about Biblical Creation being a religion, but how evolution also qualifies as a religion for all of the same reasons you stated for belief in the Genesis account?

But you do believe in a supernatural event, an event that could only happen outside the laws of nature.

 

First, I am unfamiliar with what a "cosmic evolutionist" is.

Second, you might want to read a book on quantum physics, since it is well known that particles can pop in and out of existence. As predicted by the theory and observed by scientists.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/are-virtual-particles-rea/

Third, the big bang does not say something from nothing. It begins with an infinitely small singularity. What came before is not within the big bang theory's domain.

since there has been no observations that have refuted this theory, and all of our observational discoveries to date have been predicted by the theory, I would hardly call it "supernatural".

But I grant you that what came before the beginning of our universe is truly supernatural, since it is beyond our natural universe and definitely beyond our ability to comprehend.

Not philosophies, hypotheses. And a great many of those hypotheses have been rendered observed fact thru experimentation.

nice deflection tho.
Do you now agree that the theory of biological evolution has NOTHING to do with the big bang theory?

Oh my. Nothing like trying to conflate the theory of biological evolution with cosmology because the term "evolution" is used to describe the unfolding nature of the natural processes of the origins of the universe.
Given this logic, how can you reject biological evolution when we humans "evolve" from infant to senior citizen before your very eyes?

I do recognize that semantics is a refuge from facts for both the intransigent and uninformed and can neatly side step such a simple thing like logic.

something you continually demonstrate you know a great deal about. Oh the irony.

 

The evolution of the universe. It is a familiar term that is used. I posted this earlier for you.

There are a half dozen or more theories of what quantum mechanics is, beyond a scientifically fancy sounding term. It can have nothing to do with what is thought to be the big bang since you must postulate a preexisting space for the virtual particles to fluctuate. Also science does not find equal amounts of anti-matter to matter, so the whole concept falls apart.

Where did the "infinitely small singularity" come from? Supernatural object?

I appreciate your honesty and thoughtfulness.

You are trying to redefine evolution as used for this debate as set in the OP.

 

apparently you are not familiar with the big bang theory. It says NOTHING about the nothing that came before it other than it was nothing. the big bang concerns itself with the "creation (small c)" of our universe.

To call somebody a "cosmic evolutionist" is semantic sophistry. By using this particular semantic label, it is just as easy to claim that humans evolve from infant to old age with all kinds of observable and experienced changes. So those that dismiss human evolution are denying a fundamental fact of our lives. Can't have it both ways.

Actually you should do some research on quantum physics since virtual particles were predicted and have now been observed "popping in and out of existence".

As to what came before the big bang, yes, I would have to say that whatever it was precisely fits the definition of the word supernatural.

now you wish to conflate philosophy and science. apparently quantum theory is a philosophy in your world despite observational verification of many of its predications.

The fact that you so snidely make such a request is indicative that you have no clue about what the big bang theory is nor how our understanding of quantum physics is INTEGRAL to it.

I know exactly what I believe, because I believe it.

then stop making such statements. repeated stunnings can be deleterious to one's health.

 

Jonsa?

Ask NaturalBorn when he believes the Universe came into being.....how long ago?

 

Something had to either explode or expand (depending on the person's belief), but that something could not be naturally eternal, it would have had to be super-natural So we are back to a belief in a super natural material, being or event. There is no logical or scientific way around that fact.

Biological evolution (macro-evolution) has NEVER been observed and is obviously in contention. There are no scientific evidences (not hypotheses, suppositions, opinion, etc.) to show validating biological evolution. At best science can validate micro-evolution (variations within a kind, selective breeding, hybridization, etc.) It can not rise to the level of a scientific theory (not the layman's use of the term 'theory') without any evidence.

I understand quantas from energy, but there must first be energy. Where did the energy come from? It needs a source of matter to convert to the energy. Also, there has only been discovered minute amounts of these ethereal particles, nowhere close to the balancing amount to nullify matter.

Once again you have confirmed the premise of this debate, you believe because you believe not because you have scientific evidence. Which is all I have been claiming.

 

Micro evolution is biological. We cannot observe something occuring over thousands of years.

- - - Updated - - -

No, it's because the theory fits the evidence.

 

Again it doesn't because your definition of a religion is purposely distorted to encompass a belief based on science, without a deity, without ritual, without dogma, without the supernatural. If you can offer up any actual evidence that categorically disproves the theory of evolution then I am eager to see it.

The so called evidence presented by creationists so far has amounted to pointing out unresolved questions, pseudo-science, misrepresentation mixed with a large dollop of ignorance of both the theory and the science.

I believe that what came before the big bang is "supernatural" in the truest sense of the word.
It is fallacious to suggest that this also means that I believe in supernatural events or entities within our natural universe

 

this sounds like an awakening, when one finally start to see that the stories do not make sense

.

 

Microevolution is not in dispute. Evolution over thousands or millions of years can not be observed nor is there any scientific evidence evolution has ever occurred. All we have are conjecture and artist's renderings. Nothing has been produced to validate evolution.

Think for a moment, if there was irrefutable evidence, such as there is that modern dog breeds had a common ancestor, the wolf, don't you think those Darwinists would use that bit of evidence in support of their religion? Yet, we have not been given any such evidence, even here with college educated (indoctrinated) members, they can not provide that evidence. I have read their links to very high-falutin suppositions, conjecture or opinions though.

 

What is the evidence dog breeds have common origin with wolves?

 

We are not debating if evolution is true or not, but if it is a religious belief. When using the logic from the SCOTUS ruling, (absence of a deity is in itself that which is believed) evolution does qualify. Since evolution requires belief in a super-natural event, being, law or matter, it qualifies by those metrics also.

You saying so does not make it true. Science validates the Genesis account in thousands of ways.

That is all I am saying belief in the super-natural is a belief in a non-scientific event, deity, material or law which give that the connotation of a religion.

- - - Updated - - -

Genetics.

 

Interesting. Genetics can establish common ancestry? How?

 

Wolves and domestic dogs can breed. A man and a gibbon can not.

 

But you said genetics established common ancestry. I'm interested how that works. Can you explain?

 

I guess I can say this since NB has me on Ignore and he won't see this post but....

I wonder if he smells the trap you're laying for him, mikemikev?

 

This is off topic. If you really do not understand that, then you need to go read some grammar school textbooks. Come back then.

 

No it's absolutely spot on topic. Would you agree that greater degrees of genetic similarity among dog breeds indicate shared ancestry?

 

How does genetics on topic?

[h=1]Thread: Is evolution a religious belief?[/h]