Evolution is a False Religion not Proven Science.

[amrchaos]

I believe the sky is blue.

Therefore I practice the Blue sky religion.

Logical, or is this the logical fallacy of equivocation?

You go back and tell those religious posters. Even old 7-eyes is probably shaking his head at them.

 

[MaryL]

GISMYS: I know what science IS. Evolution is a theory, not a DOGMA. Science uses logic, clear, precise facts to define a concept. Religious people have nothing to say about evolution, and that includes you. The same thought process that leads us to evolution also gave us theories about electrons, and led up to the PC you are using NOW. Religion didn't have anything to do with that, one way or the other. Apples and oranges.

 

[guno]

When I first believed in Jesus Christ our Lord, I still believed in evolution myself because that is what I was taught as "fact" in schools and from the general population for the first 24 or so years of my life. Though over the years I've changed my view entirely upon listening to several scientists or teachers or people's points of view whom from a Creationist standpoint, and most importantly to me, what the Word of God/Bible says about His Creation. To me, Creation is 100% more logical from a human standpoint and evolution doesn't even make sense.


One reason I say this is that most of us would agree that we everything our own human hands have created suggests intelligent design. Everything we as humans have created with own brains/hands from Lincoln Logs to the Empire State Building suggests "intelligent design" behind it. We just don't "poof" things into existence ourselves, so how could we say our whole existence was just some "accident"? Especially with the amazing complexity of the design our own human bodies.


Overall now my belief is that common sense would show this universe as we know it; the earth, humankind and everything we see in the universe suggests intelligent design. How could we have "poofed" into existence from nothing or evolved from some primodial soup?


The Bible talks of this also; though sadly some will not even "consider" intelligent design because that would mean having to answer to God. Here are a couple verses in regard to what we see around us as humans and that we are "without excuse".

Romans 1:20
For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.

The Bible also teaches from the very beginning that everything was made "after it's kind". Meaning, a horse is still a type of horse, a bird is still a type of bird, and humans are humans. Nothing has "evolved" though there are variations in a species. Darwin's Finches were still all birds.

Genesis 1:24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.

Genesis 1:25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

Genesis 7:14 They, and every beast after his kind, and all the cattle after their kind, and every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind, and every fowl after his kind, every bird of every sort.

It is my personal belief that the enemy, Satan, is fooling thousands upon thousands with lies and one of those lies is the teaching of any kind of "evolution" instead of God's Creation - to try to keep people from coming to the truth of Jesus Christ our Lord.

If interested, below are some videos and/or topic links from Scientists/Teachers/Creationists from a creationist standpoint. I don't agree 100% with everything in the below links/videos, or even how some people in the vids "come across".. but the points of the Creation vs Evolution I mostly agree with.


Jason Lisle - PhD in Astrophysics / On the Big Bang
https://answersingenesis.org/big-bang/


Topics about evolution/Darwin
https://answersingenesis.org/evolution/


Age Of The Earth - K. Hovind
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=szBTl3S24MY]Creation Seminar 1 - Kent Hovind - Age of the Earth (FULL) - YouTube[/ame]

Dinasours - K. Hovind


Evolution Wants To Make A Monkey Out Of You - Series
(1 of 5)
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ku2CNmlQD_Q]VenomFangX - Evolution Wants to Make a Monkey Out of You part 1.mp4 - YouTube[/ame]

Kent Hovid?? !!!! He got his Ph from a mail order outfit and was caught selling phony degrees from his house. He is now serving prison time in a federal penitentiary

Kent Hovind (or, to use his correct academic title, Mr. Kent Hovind) is an Independent Baptist young Earth creationist and convicted felon from Pensacola, Florida. He promoted young Earth creationism and dominionist views in lectures and videos sold through his Creation Science Evangelism organization, and started Dinosaur Adventure Land, a small amusement park in his backyard.
In November 2006, he was convicted on a variety of tax-related charges, and received a 10-year sentence with a scheduled release for summer 2015.

Hovind refers to himself as "Dr. Kent Hovind" or as "Dr. Dino" to provide a veneer of respectability to those who have not examined his education or background.[2] He also claims to have "taught high school math and science" for fifteen years.[3] These are less impressive than they sound: he obtained his doctorates by mail-order and never taught at a school requiring accredited credentials.
As of 2013, Hovind claims four doctorates, in education, theology and biblical ministry with an honorary degree in divinity.[4]
His first Ph.D., obtained before his vacation in club fed:
is from Patriot Bible University, a degree mill. Patriot sells doctorates for approximately $2,000.is in "Christian education." Hovind ignores the "Christian" part, instead describing it merely as in "education."
is not recognized by any legitimate university, professional association, or governmental agency. Patriot Bible University only offers "programs which are religious in nature" and their "degrees or diplomas have no state recognition. Is officially unavailable to the public. Real doctoral dissertations are readily available through libraries or online. On December 9, 2009, Hovind's dissertation was uploaded to WikiLeaks and that copy mirrors the substandard quality - with spelling and grammar mistakes typical of a high school student - previously described by the few who had read it.


Despite having no scientific credentials or even an accredited degree, he presents himself as someone who understands the science of evolution better than people with advanced science degrees who research in labs and publish peer-reviewed papers. During his presentations, he sounds like an auctioneer or a used car salesman when he is attempting to make a point by getting his audience to buy a video or book from him. Many of his slideshows read like a top 10 list of commonly seen (and refuted) "evidences" for creationism that contain little to no actual data or proof. These arguments are interjected with unfunny "jokes" and anecdotes, which are topped off with a healthy serving of mined quotes. And like any good creationist, he is not above and in fact seems to enjoy spreading the false claim that Darwin caused the Holocaust.

Anyone who follows him or gives Hovide any credance to him has a very low IQ

 

[alang1216]

sorry, but that isn't a test, that's the subject that requires testing.....show me a scientific test.....demonstrate that said fossil can only exist because its a transition between two other creatures.....what if, heaven forbid, its actually a transition between two other completely unknown fossils who's line crossed your anticipated transition at right angles.....

I'm sorry you don't like science and the scientific method but, fortunately it is not your call.

If you want something other than what I provided feel free to give me an example of a "scientific" test of creationism.

does that mean you aren't going to provide me with a test like you promised?.....next time you want to talk all "sciency" you would be wise to refresh your memory as to what the scientific method actually is......."conforms to the whims of our imagination" is not one of the elements.......

I note that you can't hold creationism to the same standards as evolution. That should be clue that one is science and one is not.

I'm not able to provide you with a eye witness account of dogs becoming cats so how about these tests of disproving evolution:

1. Charles Darwin himself proposed a rather strong test of evolution: "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down." [Darwin1859, pg. 175]. This is the basis of claims by various intelligent design writers that various biological structures, such as the vertebrate immune system or the bacterial flagellum, are "irreducibly complex" -- they consist of multiple components that could not develop in the absence of the others. However, these structures have been exhaustively studied in the scientific literature, and scientists have demonstrated entirely plausible evolutionary pathways. See Complexity.
2. Famed biologist J. B. S. Haldane, when asked what evidence could disprove evolution, mentioned "fossil rabbits in the Precambrian era" [Ridley2004, pg. 66]. This is because mammals, according to current scientific analysis, did not emerge until approximately 40 million years ago, whereas the Precambrian era is prior to approximately 570 million years, when only the most primitive organisms existed on earth.
3. Biologists had long conjectured that human chromosome number two was the result of a fusion of two corresponding chromosomes in most other primates. If DNA analysis of these chromosomes had shown that this was not the case, then modern evolutionary theory would indeed be drawn into question. This "fusion hypothesis" was indeed confirmed, rather dramatically, in 1993 (and further in 2005), by the identification of the exact point of fusion. For additional details see DNA.
4. Modern DNA sequencing technology has provided a rigorous test of evolution, far beyond the wildest dreams of Charles Darwin. In particular, comparison of DNA sequences between organisms can be used as a measure of relatedness, and can further be used to actually construct the most likely "family tree" hierarchical relationship between a set of organisms. Such analyses have been done, and the results so far dramatically confirm the family tree that had been earlier constructed solely based on comparisons of body structure and biochemistry. For additional details see DNA.

from: Is Evolution Falsifiable?
see also: Disproving evolution - RationalWiki

 

[PostmodernProph]

I'm sorry you don't like science and the scientific method but, fortunately it is not your call.

If you want something other than what I provided feel free to give me an example of a "scientific" test of creationism.

does that mean you aren't going to provide me with a test like you promised?.....next time you want to talk all "sciency" you would be wise to refresh your memory as to what the scientific method actually is......."conforms to the whims of our imagination" is not one of the elements.......

I note that you can't hold creationism to the same standards as evolution. That should be clue that one is science and one is not.

lol.....sorry dude......the fact that your claims about transitional evolution don't meet the standards of the scientific method should be your clue that neither is science

"If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down."

okay...so tell me about butterflies......are they crawling creatures that started to evolve into flying creatures because they would have a better chance at surviving but then stopped halfway through.......or are they flying creatures that started to evolve into crawling creatures because they would have a better chance at surviving but then stopped halfway through?........

 

[Steven_R]

I don't know where this idea that evolution can't be subjected to a testable hypothesis comes from (other than ignorance, either intentional or not). Right off the top of my head, I can think of two great examples of evolution being subjected to a testable hypothesis.

Paleontologists said there would be a lobe-finned fish at such and such geological layer that would have certain physiological features. Sure enough, they found exactly what they predicted at exactly when they said they would in the form of Tiktaaik. It had the features they expected, it was where they expected, it was when they expected. It fulfilled the hypothesis and met the prediction. Tiktaalik - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The other one I can think of is in human genetics. Humans have 23 pairs of chromosomes and apes have 24 pairs. If evolution is correct, there should be a fused chromosome somewhere. Lo and behold, it's human chromosome #2 and chimp chromosomes #2 and #13. We look at our chromosome and see the expected telomeres on the end, a centromere in the middle, but we also see a second centromere and a telomere in the middle, which shouldn't be there unless there was a fusion of two chromosomes. There was a predictable hypothesis and if that hypothesis didn't pan out, evolution was busted. But it did pan out. We found exactly what we expected to find.

 

[alang1216]

does that mean you aren't going to provide me with a test like you promised?.....next time you want to talk all "sciency" you would be wise to refresh your memory as to what the scientific method actually is......."conforms to the whims of our imagination" is not one of the elements.......

I note that you can't hold creationism to the same standards as evolution. That should be clue that one is science and one is not.

lol.....sorry dude......the fact that your claims about transitional evolution don't meet the standards of the scientific method should be your clue that neither is science

"If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down."

okay...so tell me about butterflies......are they crawling creatures that started to evolve into flying creatures because they would have a better chance at surviving but then stopped halfway through.......or are they flying creatures that started to evolve into crawling creatures because they would have a better chance at surviving but then stopped halfway through?........

Transitional evolution does meet the standards of the scientific method, it is you who won't/can't see it.

I don't think we know everything about butterfly evolution and probably never will. Insect metamorphosis, which I think is your real question has been extensively studied and appears to fit in the theory of evolution. (How Did Insect Metamorphosis Evolve? - Scientific American)

 

[PostmodernProph]

I don't know where this idea that evolution can't be subjected to a testable hypothesis comes from (other than ignorance, either intentional or not).

probably from the fact you can't test the hypothesis......claiming that what you observe is what you expect to observe is simply circular reasoning, not scientific testing......

I can use the same approach.......hmmm.....if there were an intelligent designer creating human beings, I would expect to find human beings, capable of reproducing, intelligent enough to function, and with thumbs......holy shit, guess what I found!.......

 

[PostmodernProph]

Transitional evolution does meet the standards of the scientific method, it is you who won't/can't see it.

even Science Buddies says you're wrong, so you fail even the 4th grade level standard...

The steps of the scientific method are to:
Ask a Question
Do Background Research
Construct a Hypothesis
Test Your Hypothesis by Doing an Experiment
Analyze Your Data and Draw a Conclusion
Communicate Your Results

Steps of the Scientific Method

I know, it sucks to be ignorant about science when you worship it, but hey......study a bit, you may get the hang of it......

 

[Steven_R]

I don't know where this idea that evolution can't be subjected to a testable hypothesis comes from (other than ignorance, either intentional or not).

probably from the fact you can't test the hypothesis......claiming that what you observe is what you expect to observe is simply circular reasoning, not scientific testing......

I can use the same approach.......hmmm.....if there were an intelligent designer creating human beings, I would expect to find human beings, capable of reproducing, intelligent enough to function, and with thumbs......holy shit, guess what I found!.......

Not every hypothesis requires testing in the sense of setting up an experiment. You have a hypothesis and either you find evidence that supports the hypothesis or you fail to find evidence to support the hypothesis. Some fields such as astronomy are almost entirely observation based with almost no real experimentation.

You claim to be a professor. Tomorrow, crack open your faculty directory and call any of your colleagues in any science department and ask them if the discovery of Tiktaalik or the chromosome as I've described above would follow the scientific method. Let us know what they say.

 

[itfitzme]

I don't know where this idea that evolution can't be subjected to a testable hypothesis comes from (other than ignorance, either intentional or not).

probably from the fact you can't test the hypothesis......claiming that what you observe is what you expect to observe is simply circular reasoning, not scientific testing......

I can use the same approach.......hmmm.....if there were an intelligent designer creating human beings, I would expect to find human beings, capable of reproducing, intelligent enough to function, and with thumbs......holy shit, guess what I found!.......

You mean like I drop ball and expect to observe it accelerate at 9.8 m/s^2. And, what do you know, it does accelerate at 9.8 m/s^2.

That's not circular reasoning, it is scientific proof.

You are confused. The reason is that you don't understand what scientific proof is.

You are right about one thing, all you have is circular reasoning.

The distiction is that yout "intelligent designer" is a thing. You haven't proven that that thing exists.

Newton's law of gravity and evolutionary theory are descriptions of processes that are observable. They aren't unobservable things.

Here is the problem and it is so basic that it is unfathomable as to why you can't get it. Maybe, for all I know, you actually cannot distinguish between reality and imagination. Reality is distinctive in that we are aware of it as an experience of our five senses. We see it. We hear it. We taste it. We smell it. We touch it.

As an example, I want you to get a candle, place it on a stand on the desk and light it. Now, imagine placing your hand above the flame, just touchin the flame, and holding it there for a minute. Now, repeat this except now really move you arm so your hand is really above the flame. If you are sane, the second will hurt like a mother fucker.

The process of heat transfer from the flame to your hand is described by the laws of themodynamics, it describes how heat moves from the flame to your hand. Like the theory of evolution and Newton's laws of motion, thermodynamics describes the process. None of them are objects, seperate and distinct from the objects subject to the process of change. They are descriptive of the change, requiring no additional objects.

The flame can be observed in reality. Darwin's finches can be observed in reality. Bacterium can be observed in reality. A rock can be observed.

Your hand blistering can be observed. A rock falling can be observed. Bacterium evolving canbe observed. And when the body of all natural object of life are considered, how they change is observable in reality.

An "intellegent designer" cannot be observed as an object in reality. It isn't a description of an observable process.

An "intellegent designer" does not exist in reality.

 

[Derideo_Te]

The story has been told of a person who went back to his university professor many years after completing his degree in Economics. He asked to look at the test questions they were now using. He was surprised to see that they were virtually the same questions he was asked when he was a student. The lecturer then said that although the questions were the same the answers are were entirely different!

I once debated with a geology professor from an American University on a radio program. He said that evolution was real science because evolutionists were prepared to continually change their theories as they found new data. He said that creation was not science because a creationist's views were set by the Bible and, therefore, were not subject to change.

I answered, "The reason scientific theories change is because we don't know everything, isn't it? We don't have all the evidence."
"Yes, that's right," he said.
I replied, "But, we will never know everything."
"That's true," he answered.
I then stated, "We will always continue to find new evidence."
"Quite correct," he said. I replied, "That means we can't be sure about anything."
"Right," he said.
"That means we can't be sure about evolution."
"Oh, no! Evolution is a fact," he blurted out. He was caught by his own logic. He was demonstrating how his view was determined by his bias.

Models of science are subject to change for both creationists and evolutionists. But the beliefs that these models are built on are not.

The problem is that most scientists do not realize that it is the belief (or religion) of evolution that is the basis for the scientific models (the interpretations, or stories) used to attempt an explanation of the present. Evolutionists are not prepared to change their actual belief that all life can be explained by natural processes and that no God is involved (or even needed). Evolution is the religion to which they are committed. Christians need to wake up to this. Evolution is a religion; it is not a science!
Evolution is Religion

These pathetic little fables that are invented to somehow "prove" that "creationism" is "legitimate" are as transparent as glass!

The gullible swallow them every time.

 

[itfitzme]

Transitional evolution does meet the standards of the scientific method, it is you who won't/can't see it.

even Science Buddies says you're wrong, so you fail even the 4th grade level standard...

The steps of the scientific method are to:
Ask a Question
Do Background Research
Construct a Hypothesis
Test Your Hypothesis by Doing an Experiment
Analyze Your Data and Draw a Conclusion
Communicate Your Results

Steps of the Scientific Method

I know, it sucks to be ignorant about science when you worship it, but hey......study a bit, you may get the hang of it......

Yeah, you have a very inexperienced and uneducated understanding of what an experiment is.

One of the experiments that added further proof to be Einstein's theary of relativity was observing the change in the location of stars during solar eclipse. Gravitational lensing by galaxies has also provided a natural experiment of the theory of relativity. Neither are laboratory expreriments.

More importantly, the theory of relativity isn't a thing. It is a description of a process of things undergoing change.

 

[Zmrzlina]

I don't know where this idea that evolution can't be subjected to a testable hypothesis comes from (other than ignorance, either intentional or not).

probably from the fact you can't test the hypothesis......claiming that what you observe is what you expect to observe is simply circular reasoning, not scientific testing......

I can use the same approach.......hmmm.....if there were an intelligent designer creating human beings, I would expect to find human beings, capable of reproducing, intelligent enough to function, and with thumbs......holy shit, guess what I found!.......

Evolution is tested through experimentation. Experiments are performed in the fields of genetics, paleontology and archaeology. How is intelligent design tested? How is empirical evidence for the hypothesis of a creator collected?

 

[PostmodernProph]

I don't know where this idea that evolution can't be subjected to a testable hypothesis comes from (other than ignorance, either intentional or not).

probably from the fact you can't test the hypothesis......claiming that what you observe is what you expect to observe is simply circular reasoning, not scientific testing......

I can use the same approach.......hmmm.....if there were an intelligent designer creating human beings, I would expect to find human beings, capable of reproducing, intelligent enough to function, and with thumbs......holy shit, guess what I found!.......

Not every hypothesis requires testing in the sense of setting up an experiment.

true......only those that claim to be scientific......

You claim to be a professor.

?????.....no, that would be PostmodernProf.......my name on boards that permit more letters is PostmodernProphet......

 

[PostmodernProph]

I don't know where this idea that evolution can't be subjected to a testable hypothesis comes from (other than ignorance, either intentional or not).

probably from the fact you can't test the hypothesis......claiming that what you observe is what you expect to observe is simply circular reasoning, not scientific testing......

I can use the same approach.......hmmm.....if there were an intelligent designer creating human beings, I would expect to find human beings, capable of reproducing, intelligent enough to function, and with thumbs......holy shit, guess what I found!.......

You mean like I drop ball and expect to observe it accelerate at 9.8 m/s^2. And, what do you know, it does accelerate at 9.8 m/s^2.

That's not circular reasoning, it is scientific proof.

You are confused. The reason is that you don't understand what scientific proof is.

no....I am not confused.....you have demonstrated scientific proof by dropping a ball and measuring the speed.....imagine what a physics class would say if you claimed you didn't have to measure the speed, because you assumed if you dropped it, it would hit the floor......or if you didn't even bother to drop it, because the ball you saw laying on the floor was adequate proof.......

 

[PostmodernProph]

As an example, I want you to get a candle, place it on a stand on the desk and light it. Now, imagine placing your hand above the flame, just touchin the flame, and holding it there for a minute.

sweet....now, assume you want to prove a single celled organism evolved into a human being......light a candle and imagine placing your hand just above the flame.....then, open your eyes and say "a single celled organism evolved into a human being".......Science!.......

 

[PostmodernProph]

Transitional evolution does meet the standards of the scientific method, it is you who won't/can't see it.

even Science Buddies says you're wrong, so you fail even the 4th grade level standard...

The steps of the scientific method are to:
Ask a Question
Do Background Research
Construct a Hypothesis
Test Your Hypothesis by Doing an Experiment
Analyze Your Data and Draw a Conclusion
Communicate Your Results

Steps of the Scientific Method

I know, it sucks to be ignorant about science when you worship it, but hey......study a bit, you may get the hang of it......

Yeah, you have a very inexperienced and uneducated understanding of what an experiment is.

One of the experiments that added further proof to be Einstein's theary of relativity was observing the change in the location of stars during solar eclipse. Gravitational lensing by galaxies has also provided a natural experiment of the theory of relativity. Neither are laboratory expreriments.

More importantly, the theory of relativity isn't a thing. It is a description of a process of things undergoing change.

when scientists realized they wanted us to believe things that could not be demonstrated, they created a new scientific method......you come up with a theory and tell people it is true.......they believe you.....its scientifically established......

 

[PostmodernProph]

I don't know where this idea that evolution can't be subjected to a testable hypothesis comes from (other than ignorance, either intentional or not).

probably from the fact you can't test the hypothesis......claiming that what you observe is what you expect to observe is simply circular reasoning, not scientific testing......

I can use the same approach.......hmmm.....if there were an intelligent designer creating human beings, I would expect to find human beings, capable of reproducing, intelligent enough to function, and with thumbs......holy shit, guess what I found!.......

Evolution is tested through experimentation. Experiments are performed in the fields of genetics, paleontology and archaeology. How is intelligent design tested? How is empirical evidence for the hypothesis of a creator collected?

like abiogenesis and macro-evolution, intelligent design is not a scientific theory......if you stop pretending your faith choices are science, you too can be relieved of the necessity of scientific testing......

 

[Zmrzlina]

probably from the fact you can't test the hypothesis......claiming that what you observe is what you expect to observe is simply circular reasoning, not scientific testing......

I can use the same approach.......hmmm.....if there were an intelligent designer creating human beings, I would expect to find human beings, capable of reproducing, intelligent enough to function, and with thumbs......holy shit, guess what I found!.......

Evolution is tested through experimentation. Experiments are performed in the fields of genetics, paleontology and archaeology. How is intelligent design tested? How is empirical evidence for the hypothesis of a creator collected?

like abiogenesis and macro-evolution, intelligent design is not a scientific theory......if you stop pretending your faith choices are science, you too can be relieved of the necessity of scientific testing......

Abiogenesis is a separate field of study from evolutionary biology. Macro-evolution is well established empirically in the fields I mentioned earlier. For example, antibiotic resistant strains of bacteria such as TB and MRSA are examples of Macro-evolution in bacteria. These species of bacteria are put under evolutionary pressure by the medical field which results in bacteria with new genetic material which provides resistance to antibiotics. Evolution is not based in faith, it is a well established science. The scientists in these fields are not operating based in faith but are abiding by the scientific method. Just because what they are studying goes above what you are capable as understanding as a layman doesn't change that.