Thread: Evolution is a Religion!

You gotta admit, kim-chan, even if you feel strongly about these things, it won't really do much good to waste your energy. Some people are so dedicated to certain things, they won't budge for the world, for anything at all, even when it's downright obvious they're outright delusional. Just saying.

I'm one to believe reality is relative, and belief is the strongest force in the Universe. So to them, it is the truth and nothing but the truth, and so it shall be forever and ever -- much to the chagrin of folks like you and brady and other staunch atheists, and realists, and such.

As I always say, "they don't make proverbs and clichés for nothing, ya know"; so let's all "agree to disagree", "live and let live", and stop casting coins before cats, or doing your darndest to shove them down their throats -- whomever you view those felines to be.

Sorry, I'm just in a really good mood tonight, surprisngly. So I suggest everyone else do the same. Read over a good psalm or something by LaBerge and revel in the joy it brings you. Who cares. One person's trash is another's treasure. Life runs in cycles. It all works out. Preacher or physicist, all can lucid dream, we as a community have proven that.

So why are we all still sitting awake here glowering and bickering at one another? Get to bed and get to dreaming! Vast, endless dreamscapes await exploration...and that's a proven fact.

I appreciate that - but regardless, I just calls-em-likes-I-sees-em.

I know, and I'm not saying you should try to change who you are -- but maybe, just maybe, you should watch 'em go by and not say anything. If it's right it's right, if it's wrong it's wrong, all whether you calls 'em or not. Just try and hang back for once. See how it feels. I'm not saying "let the opposition win", I'm just saying "have the courage and the maturity to bide the negative vibes and unleash them later as a positive energy somewhere".

Where's the fun in that?

Three men walk up to a pile of dung, one man says ‘man that sh*t sinks!’

The next man says ‘obviously this animal has some health issues as is apparent by the constancy of this stool.’

The next man says ‘wow that’s just what I need for my garden.’

Which of these men are ‘right, or wrong?’

And what does it have to do with the price of tea in china?

I can't believe I'm saying this, but Awaken-san's right on this time: to reiterate what I said from earlier, one man's trash is another man's treasure, and one man's foul obstacle is another's lucky fertilizer find. It's all in what you make of it.

I know you have a general dislike for the guy, kim-chan, and I don't blame you considering he didn't exactly hold back in the past, but -- for analogy's sake; hey, I was an xian once, what the helll... -- like Pontius Pilate said about Jebus (or what the book says he said anyway >_>) "I can find nothing that this man has done wrong" (at least for the moment, anyway...).

*sigh, shrug*

My post was in reply to: "Hard to believe but there has been many threads attacking the bible. "

Sorry - I should have quoted it.

Er, okay -- well, why don't you go ahead and do that then?

Sorry - careless absence of quoting protocol. 'Tis edited now.

Originally posted by Ynot
OK People, listen up

I have a serious problem with each and every arguement in this (and every other damn) thread.

no-one has the common courtesy to admit they could be wrong

no-one has the balls to just say
\"I beleive this, for no other reason than it makes me happy when I wake up in the morning\"

it was only 500 years ago that we thought the world was flat.

flat!

just one outstretched piece of land and if you sailed too far you'd fall off the edge.

flat!!

just a couple hundred years ago, when people complained of headaches doctors would make cuts in the persons head to allow the demons to escape...

Until 60 years ago, Scientists were sure that an aircraft could never fly faster then the speed of sound.

Every time An aircraft had ever approached the speed of sound, it would go out of control before breaking up in flight.

All of the scientific evidence up to that point proved that no aircraft could reach the speed of sound without going out of control and breaking up in flight.

What's my point?

Science has made great leaps through out the ages
changed our way of life
improved our standard of living
expanded our understanding of the universe

there have also been some fantastically wrong assumptions made by science
but science keeps fighting back (evolving - haha) in that there is always progress being made
theories been proven, and dis-proven
counter-theories popping up

it's a mistake to think that you are always right
and that sort of thinking is very un-scientific

Religious folk
you're next - lol
but first I need a fag break
see you in 5 mins for your lesson

How do you know you're right?

Having a debate, which involves asking questions and giving counter arguments, is legitimate activity. It would be silly to have a debate and start every post with, "I might be wrong, but here's an idea." I didn't see you do it. I have flat out said several times that my goal isn't to bash Christianity, but to understand the concept better. I only get rude when my beliefs are bashed, or I am bashed personally.

So you think evolution might turn out to be an incorrect theory? Well, that is exactly the idea I am inviting. If it is an incorrect theory, I have been giving the creationists ample opportunity to explain it, and so have the others. It's not like we've been saying, "Shut up. We're right. We're not here to discuss it!" We've been saying exactly the opposite.

Sure, but I agree with him that if you are shown a legitimate problem with your belief, you could at least admit you might not have all the answers. Instead of evading and acting all-knowing about it - as if the other party hasn't the intellect to understand what is so easy for you to understand. Or any other dodge technique.

ie. Believe in something, but if you're shown to be wrong have the dignity to reassess instead of holding onto old dinosaurs.

Originally posted by Placebo
dinosaurs.

oooh, that's a whole 'nother thread, right there
lol

Note:


Many of the Germans in the Nazi regime believed so strongly in the rhetoric that had been preeched to them and their belief that they could not be beaten that after the regime fell, they were lost. No Idenity. No beliefs. Confused. Shocked.
I think we can see that going on around the world in several areas.
My point is that don't be so sure of yourself. One day you may find yourself proven your beleifs to be incorrect.
So to be so arrogant as to think you know everything.....well. It seems more like ignorant to me.

I was wrong to call anyone a heathen and it was removed.
Learning is a constant threw out life and I am reminded often where I am wrong. The thread title is. Evolution is a religion. It takes belief in what ever you conclude without completed facts, so why wouldn’t it be classified as a religion?
There is no proof of evolution being our source.

Because Religion is belief in the Supernatural; whether it be a divine entity or otherwise, as can be verified by just about any definition of the word Religion.

However, there are basic Principles that relate evolution to religion, and I think this article does a good job of explaining them.

Evolution
First Definition
\"The theory that all forms of plant and animal life are descended from earlier and simpler forms of life whose existence can be explained without reference to a Supernatural Creator.\"
Since the vast majority of the empirical evidence that science (first definition!) has discovered about life does not support this theory, it is largely held by those whose definition of \"science\" (i.e., the second definition) allows no other option.
Therefore, because this theory is basically an a priori* conclusion based on a philosophy of life (materialism or naturalism), and not a theory supported by science (first definition), I often add the suffix \"-ism\" to the term (\"evolutionism\") to help emphasize that fact.
*(A priori reasoning is reasoning from a previous assumption to a conclusion [also called \"deductive\" reasoning], as opposed to a posteriori reasoning, which is reasoning from the empirical evidence to a conclusion [also called \"inductive\" reasoning]. For example, if you assume that the world is flat and, on the basis of that assumption, deduce that you are in danger of sailing off the edge, you are doing a priori reasoning. But your conclusion is only as good as your original assumption. If you use evidence from astronomy and the experiences of other sailors to conclude that the world is round, you are doing a posteriori reasoning.
A scientist who starts with the assumption that everything can be explained materialistically will inevitably deduce that evolutionism [first definition] is true, regardless of any contradicting evidence! That's a priori reasoning. However, if, on the basis of that evidence, he concludes that the nature of life is such that it requires the existence of a Creator, he is doing real science [first definition!] using a posteriori reasoning!)
Second Definition
\"Certain observable small variations, very limited in extent, that occur over a period of time as a species adapts to its surroundings.\"
Here we are talking about the famous \"peppered moth\" example, or the fact that bacteria become resistant to antibiotics, or the fact that the Galapagos finch beaks changed over a period of time.
This second definition of \"evolution\" would be better called \"variation\" or perhaps \"adaptation.\" No one argues that there are observable (but very limited!) variations that occur over time as animals adapt to their surroundings. Everyone knows that offspring are not \"clones\" of their parents. Everyone knows that dogs can be bred into smaller varieties, etc.
However, these slight variations are, by no stretch of the imagination, the same as \"evolution\" (first definition).
When people who believe in \"evolution\" (first definition) try to use the illustrations of variation or adaptation to \"prove\" their theory, those who are not sensitive to the definition of terms may be confused! Don't ever let any one convince you that if you believe that the slight variations mentioned above have occurred, then you are an evolutionist (first definition)!!
Those who believe in \"evolution\" (first definition) would like to claim that the same mechanisms that lead to variations in bacteria, peppered moths, Galapagos finches, breeds of dogs, etc. have led to the transition from one species to another. The evidence does not support that belief. It is a speculative hypothesis based on a philosophical presupposition--the philosophy of materialism (which they would like to call \"science\" [second definition!].)
Have you ever known of a dog breeder breeding dogs into cats? Selective breeding has very definite and impenetrable \"barriers\" or limits beyond which a breeder cannot go! There is no evidence that any mechanism exists which can cause one life form to gradually change into a more complex life form.
So, once again, we should do what we can to make sure that \"evolutionists\" (first definition) are not allowed to claim that small variations in a species are a form of \"evolution.\"
If you make sure that these definitions are very clear in your own mind, you will avoid a lot of confusion when you talk with others about \"science\" and \"evolution.\"
[/b]

And I think this part deserves extra attention, as it breaks down the entire \"Why people shouldn't fight like 2 year olds about this stuff quite nicely, and deserves a second, thorough, look.

*(A priori reasoning is reasoning from a previous assumption to a conclusion [also called \"deductive\" reasoning], as opposed to a posteriori reasoning, which is reasoning from the empirical evidence to a conclusion [also called \"inductive\" reasoning]. For example, if you assume that the world is flat and, on the basis of that assumption, deduce that you are in danger of sailing off the edge, you are doing a priori reasoning. But your conclusion is only as good as your original assumption. If you use evidence from astronomy and the experiences of other sailors to conclude that the world is round, you are doing a posteriori reasoning.
A scientist who starts with the assumption that everything can be explained materialistically will inevitably deduce that evolutionism [first definition] is true, regardless of any contradicting evidence! That's a priori reasoning. However, if, on the basis of that evidence, he concludes that the nature of life is such that it requires the existence of a Creator, he is doing real science [first definition!] using a posteriori reasoning!)[/b]

This is only half the article, though. It gives a great explaination between the two definitions of "Science" as the word is used, today, and gives a lot of insight into the mindframes of the people who fight like cats and dogs over this stuff.

http://www.aboundingjoy.com/define-fs.htm

Originally posted by Placebo
Sure, but I agree with him that if you are shown a legitimate problem with your belief, you could at least admit you might not have all the answers. Instead of evading and acting all-knowing about it - as if the other party hasn't the intellect to understand what is so easy for you to understand. Or any other dodge technique.

ie. Believe in something, but if you're shown to be wrong have the dignity to reassess instead of holding onto old dinosaurs.

Where have I done that? I have answered all of the questions asked of me, and I have not accused anybody of being stupid. However, I have had my best questions dodged time and time again and been accused of being stupid and all kinds of other things. Have you read the "Is God bound by any laws of reality?" thread? I also don't recall being stumped. In my opinion, my explanations have been satisfactorily complete.

My recurring point has been that an infinitely powerful being would not be bound by any laws of reality because he would have infinite potential for changing them around and could therefore create a universe without suffering without there being a problem with there being a complete absence of suffering. Can you show me where that point has been thoroughly countered? If you can, I would be very interested in reading it because it is exactly what I have been looking for. I seek the mind blowing experience of seeing the point successfully countered.

If there is some logic I have overlooked in my analysis of the God existence issue, I want to know about it. If God exists, I want to be directed toward believing it. But the argument tactics used on me so far will never achieve that. It's like what my father's friend said to him a long time ago... "If they find that ark, I need to start my thinking all over." I agree with the statement, and I am persistently asking to be shown the ark.

Originally posted by dreamtamer007
so why wouldn’t it be classified as a religion?

Because it wasn't a cult first.

Originally posted by bradybaker

Because it wasn't a cult first. *

Oh, well then at first it wasn't a religion.

Originally posted by dreamtamer007
Oh, well then at first it wasn't a religion.

I don't know what that means.

Originally posted by bradybaker

I don't know what that means.

How about when evolution the word was started by someone of course, that it was indented to explain small changes in life and now has been adopted as the reason for all forms of life. Like the article found by Oneironaut
Quote:Those who believe in "evolution" (first definition) would like to claim that the same mechanisms that lead to variations in bacteria, peppered moths, Galapagos finches, breeds of dogs, etc. have led to the transition from one species to another. The evidence does not support that belief. It is a speculative hypothesis based on a philosophical presupposition--the philosophy of materialism (which they would like to call "science" [second definition!].)
Have you ever known of a dog breeder breeding dogs into cats? Selective breeding has very definite and impenetrable "barriers" or limits beyond which a breeder cannot go! There is no evidence that any mechanism exists which can cause one life form to gradually change into a more complex life form.

Ok. You win.

Now go back to reading your fancy book of metaphors and leave the rest of the world alone.

"Universal Mind"

Let’s take a different view of this whole issue, let’s just say for all intensive purposes that God does exist, and that He is the origin of all of our inherent predispositions of behavior specifically in child rearing. Our built-in tendencies to love and care for our children are not mere instinct, but are a true inherent gift from our Creator.

This would also give us the understanding that the best way to teach your child is to let them learn for themselves with minimal intervention, other than where safety is the issue. As we all know ‘experience’ is the best teacher. In order for mankind to be able to grow beyond his original formation (childhood)man had to have something which he previously did not have i.e. the ability to evaluate his own actions, (just as a child does in learning) and to compare those actions to the actions of his Father, in who’s sight he is always.

So, mankind needed a new point-of-view with a corresponding understanding as to the result of the fulfillment that point-of-view, with its actions. So, mankind was given the ability to grow into a new realm of understanding, he was given the desire to be more like his Father, so he desired every kind of knowledge ‘just like a child.’

So man began to hunger for more than what he had, so as a result of this newly found hunger, man partook of the ‘tree of the knowledge of good and evil.’ O’ by the way man (his spirit) was not deceived, only his soul desired to know more, and through to the lack of understanding his newly awakened mind ‘through reason’ (the serpent)convinced him to eat, so the soul took it and gave to his spirit, and the spirit received it. And the rest shall we say is history.

The Rev.

"dreamtamer007"