Is Evolution A Religion?

[deadlock 3]

And as far as suspension goes, I have been told at a non-believing forums that I was not welcome because of what I believed. So don't make this look as if only Creationists forums do this. Atheist-evolutionist forums do it as well.

 

I was banished from 2 cetic forums for no reason.I didn´t break any rule of the forums, I never used bible or any religious argument.I only used logic, math, genetics and etc. like I have been using in this forum.Evolutionists always become nervous if you use science against their faith.Vision in verse said it was pointless to discuss with me, it´s the same phrase I read in other two cetic forums as the reason why I was being banished. But all my posts use scientific arguments, so what is really pointless ? Of course to defend evolution.

[Guest Vision in Verse]

I was banished from 2 cetic forums for no reason.I didn´t break any rule of the forums, I never used bible or any religious argument.I only used logic, math, genetics and etc. like I have been using in this forum.Evolutionists always become nervous if you use science against their faith.Vision in verse said it was pointless to discuss with me, it´s the same phrase I read in other two cetic forums as the reason why I was being banished. But all my posts use scientific arguments, so what is really pointless ? Of course to defend evolution.

10251[/snapback]

The reason I said this was because your ideas were so deviant from established scientific knowledge, and you had no support for them from what I could see. The same goes for those other websites. The same goes for those other websites that banned you. They know you won't contribute to their knowledge of the theory. They are biased in favor of evolution.

[ikester7579 19]

They don't mention it because the racism doesn't exist in evolution. If they mentioned it, they would have to admit some social aspect to their book. It's supposed to be all science.

You just made my point on why it will never happen. And why evolution will continue to be used for racism, by the people who do not know it's past. So which is better, the continuation of racism, an possible killings through it? Or admitting to the past history of evolution? Has the theory become more sacred than life itself?

 

There is no need. There already is an overwhelming consensus with all scientists that racism is totally unfounded in biology.

Then the evolution tree final product should illustrate all human races, instead of just one (white man). I have yet to see one printed evolution of man, in any teaching text book that illustrated any other race besides a white man. Is there a problem with having the finished product either a black person, or a Jew? Must be. Or is it because Hitler's Hit-list was correct?

 

Creation being a lie doesn't make me an atheist.

Agnostic: one who believes that the evidence for and against the existence of God is inconclusive.

 

Which also means you take a neutral stance. But calling creation a lie makes you an atheist due to the fact you just denied God. Which by the way is considered the Creator. So if creation is a lie, so is the Creator. Which also means you do not believe their is a God, which makes you an atheist.

 

If the majority is aware of the lie, it will be removed. Wikipedia allows for a consensus among people, usually it is backed by sources.

The person was doing it on a temporary bases to win a debate. He would change the info back as soon as he was finished debating.

 

Close threads, move threads, moderate threads.

So we take away one of the moderator rights to make you happy? You should pm Fred about that.

 

And this is what I'm talking about. I did nothing to warrant a "warning". I am worried that you may have a desire to ban me for speaking my mind, which would be a shame.

You have already spoke your mind, did I ban you? Besides, I only warned about lying for evolution. lying is something fabricated for evolution. were you going to fabricate something?

 

I don't believe in righteousness or "justification" in evolution. You've asked me this before. I am here to debate evolution. The forum is titled Creation vs Evolution. We're here to discuss that. I don't base beliefs on faith. I base my beliefs on information.

10248[/snapback]

You believe in information that never becomes an absolute truth?

Absolute truth: Actual truth perceived without one's mental obscurations and fabrications.

 

Because the evolution theory is a "forever" changing idea, your information is always changing. Which means your perceived truth is always changing as well. Which is why evolution theory will "never" achieve becoming anywhere near a absolute truth. Believing in something that can never be proven, takes faith regardless to what degree of truth you preceive it to be. For if the standards of absolute truth have to be lowered to believe something is true, then faith is required to do so. And even by your own admission, your "belief", which requires faith, is based on that unprovable information.

 

Here is a evolutionists definition of absolute truth, which is a oxymoron to what absolute actually mean:

 

Absolute truth can be interpreted in different ways based on its usage, just like truth. Some believe that the correct communication cannot be found fordescribing ideas of absolute truth by entities that possess the metaphysicallytrue state of the ability to lie and have lied before, thus making the followingdescription vulnerable to potential inaccuracy as long as those entitiesmaintain the definition.

And this definition is on a wiki, and does not define absolute truth. It only makes an excuse as to why a theory will never become one. Redefining truth in this matter only shows how science has to rewrite truth so it's theory can "seem" more truer so that it can be called a true fact. Or a proven fact. So here again is a illustration of the standards for absolute truth having to be lowered so that evolution can "try" to make the step to becoming an absolute truth. When even science admits that a theory is not designed to acheive such a status.

[ikester7579 19]

The reason I said this was because your ideas were so deviant from established scientific knowledge, and you had no support for them from what I could see. The same goes for those other websites. The same goes for those other websites that banned you. They know you won't contribute to their knowledge of the theory. They are biased in favor of evolution.

10252[/snapback]

So it's ok to be biased for evolution, but not for creation? Sounds like a double standard to me.

[Guest Vision in Verse]

So it's ok to be biased for evolution, but not for creation? Sounds like a double standard to me.

10255[/snapback]

They don't pride themselves in being a battleground for evolution. Creation is a battleground against evolution. That is the difference. I know of no country/city that creation is fully accepted.

[Guest Vision in Verse]

You just made my point on why it will never happen. And why evolution will continue to be used for racism, by the people who do not know it's past. So which is better, the continuation of racism, an possible killings through it?

 

Actually, if you didn't know "evolution's"(wrong) past, with today's teachings that say racism is unfounded in biology, you are more likely not to be racist.

 

Then the evolution tree final product should illustrate all human races, instead of just one (white man). I have yet to see one printed evolution of man, in any teaching text book that illustrated any other race besides a white man. Is there a problem with having the finished product either a black person, or a Jew?

 

Most books just write "homo sapien". The reason the person there is caucasian probably has something to do with where the book was printed or published. It has nothing to do with racism.

 

Agnostic: one who believes that the evidence for and against the existence of God is inconclusive.

Which also means you take a neutral stance. But calling creation a lie makes you an atheist due to the fact you just denied God. Which by the way is considered the Creator. So if creation is a lie, so is the Creator. Which also means you do not believe their is a God, which makes you an atheist.

 

A God musn't be a creator. A creator musn't be a god. I am still agnostic.

 

The person was doing it on a temporary bases to win a debate. He would change the info back as soon as he was finished debating.

 

This is possible. This is why you check wiki's sources.

 

So we take away one of the moderator rights to make you happy? You should pm Fred about that.

 

I don't care, as long as you don't threaten my will to speak my mind.

 

You have already spoke your mind, did I ban you? Besides, I only warned about lying for evolution. lying is something fabricated for evolution. were you going to fabricate something?

 

I was under the impression I was being accused of fabrication.

 

You believe in information that never becomes an absolute truth?

Absolute truth: Actual truth perceived without one's mental obscurations and fabrications.

 

Because the evolution theory is a "forever" changing idea, your information is always changing. Which means your perceived truth is always changing as well. Which is why evolution theory will "never" achieve becoming anywhere near a absolute truth. Believing in something that can never be proven, takes faith regardless to what degree of truth you preceive it to be. For if the standards of absolute truth have to be lowered to believe something is true, then faith is required to do so. And even by your own admission, your "belief", which requires faith, is based on that unprovable information.

 

In this definition, nothing we see is absolute truth becuase we can not think outside of ourselves, we can only percieve. Such a definition is not applicable to anything within our minds (ie. all thought)

 

Here is a evolutionists definition of absolute truth, which is a oxymoron to what absolute actually mean:

And this definition is on a wiki, and does not define absolute truth. It only makes an excuse as to why a theory will never become one. Redefining truth in this matter only shows how science has to rewrite truth so it's theory can "seem" more truer so that it can be called a true fact. Or a proven fact. So here again is a illustration of the standards for absolute truth having to be lowered so that evolution can "try" to make the step to becoming an absolute truth. When even science admits that a theory is not designed to acheive such a status.

10254[/snapback]

It's not redefining truth. If you want another definition, another type of truth, call it something else to avoid confusion. Call it impersonal truth: Truth regardless of the spectator.

[deadlock 3]

The reason I said this was because your ideas were so deviant from established scientific knowledge, and you had no support for them from what I could see. The same goes for those other websites.

10252[/snapback]

So you should buy eyeglasses. If my ideas are deviant from scientific knowledge why don´t you show me with proofs ? Every time I ask you for a proof the only things you say are "I don´t have" , "There´s none", "it´s impossible to know". Beyond that, an abused using of all kinds of fallacies and you think that´s all right

 

The same goes for those other websites that banned you. They know you won't contribute to their knowledge of the theory. They are biased in favor of evolution.

 

So now you recognize the evolution is a religion, evolutionists are biased in favor of evolution because of their faith and they don´t want to discuss it with anyone who disagree with them

[Guest Vision in Verse]

So you should buy eyeglasses. If my ideas are deviant from scientific knowledge why don´t you show me with proofs ? Every time I ask you for a proof the only things you say  are "I don´t have" , "There´s none", "it´s impossible to know". Beyond that, an abused using of all kinds of fallacies and  you think that´s all right

 

Lol, I am wearing eyeglasses. To have crdible deviant scientific theories, you must have the credentials to be a respected scientist. The religious/mythical bias of most creationists lowers their prestige among their scientific peers.

 

So now you recognize the evolution is a religion, evolutionists are biased in favor of evolution because of their faith and they don´t want to discuss it with anyone who disagree with them

10267[/snapback]

Evolution is as much a religion as Quantum mechanics is a religion.

[ikester7579 19]

Just thought I would leave this as an example of how rules at evolutionist-atheist forums deny free speech of a Christian. Since some here do not believe they do.

 

[ikester7579 19]

Evolution is as much a religion as Quantum mechanics is a religion.

If evolution is not a religion, then to believe in it totally, why does it require someone to deny a creator? A non-religious idea should not require that you deny a religious creator to 100% believe in it. In fact, there should not even be a evolution vs creation, unless evolution is a religion. For on what grounds does a non-religious idea conflict with a religious one?

 

For if they were not related in some fashion, there would be no debate. In fact, they would be such oxymorons, there would be no common ground to debate on. But because Evolution is a cult, it competes with creation because it's followers chose to use it to deny God. And it is for that reason it is a religion.

[ikester7579 19]

Actually, if you didn't know "evolution's"(wrong) past, with today's teachings that say racism is unfounded in biology, you are more likely not to be racist.

Then explain to me how the two students at Columbine high school made the connection to evolution and Hitler? When studying is done, there are books that go beyond the normal teaching text books. Do you think every student will only read what the school provides them?

 

Most books just write "homo sapien". The reason the person there is caucasian probably has something to do with where the book was printed or published. It has nothing to do with racism.

Nice dodge. But you did not wiggle out of the fact it is always a "white" person that is considered the supreme human. And this was also Hitler's final solution, if he would have succeeded in his extermination attempt, the white race would have been the only race.

 

A God musn't be a creator. A creator musn't be a god. I am still agnostic.

If you say so. But your posts do not support it.

 

This is possible. This is why you check wiki's sources.

I should not have to. And people who do this should not be allowed to edit wikis.

 

I don't care, as long as you don't threaten my will to speak my mind.

When the forums and blogs that support your views do the same, then it maybe considered. But I believe in a fair playing field.

 

I was under the impression I was being accused of fabrication.

If that were the case, I would have addressed you directly, and pointed out what was fabricated. Are you feeling guilty about something that would give such an impression?

 

In this definition, nothing we see is absolute truth becuase we can not think outside of ourselves, we can only percieve. Such a definition is not applicable to anything within our minds (ie. all thought)

I guess we all make our own realities, correct? I think that teaching goes along with being gods of our own universe as well.

 

It's not redefining truth. If you want another definition, another type of truth, call it something else to avoid confusion. Call it impersonal truth: Truth regardless of the spectator.

10261[/snapback]

Is it common practice for evolutionists to redefine words to fit their world views?

[Guest Vision in Verse]

Just thought I would leave this as an example of how rules at evolutionist-atheist forums deny free speech of a Christian. Since some here do not believe they do.

10275[/snapback]

Don't use their intolerance as an excuse for your own.

[Guest Vision in Verse]

If evolution is not a religion, then to believe in it totally, why does it require someone to deny a creator? A non-religious idea should not require that you deny a religious creator to 100% believe in it. In fact, there should not even be a evolution vs creation, unless evolution is a religion. For on what grounds does a non-religious idea conflict with a religious one?

 

The creationist idea that the earth was created 6000 years ago is false. This is my position. Evolution does not require you to deny a creator. I like the idea that God could use evolution to create humans, but don't necessarily agree with it. Evolution comes into conflict with a minority of religious views.

 

For if they were not related in some fashion, there would be no debate. In fact, they would be such oxymorons, there would be no common ground to debate on. But because Evolution is a cult, it competes with creation because it's followers chose to use it to deny God. And it is for that reason it is a religion.

10276[/snapback]

Evolution certainly encourages people to deny the young earth myth of the Christian Bible. However, it has less power over theism in general.

[Guest Vision in Verse]

Then explain to me how the two students at Columbine high school made the connection to evolution and Hitler? When studying is done, there are books that go beyond the normal teaching text books. Do you think every student will only read what the school provides them?

 

These kids were in high school. Every college student is required to take sociology where they teach that racism is biologically unfounded. These kids were probably taught it too, but simply were too blindly deviant that they denied everything they were taught.

 

 

Nice dodge. But you did not wiggle out of the fact it is always a "white" person that is considered the supreme human. And this was also Hitler's final solution, if he would have succeeded in his extermination attempt, the white race would have been the only race.

 

White people are not any better than anyone else. There is no pure "white" person. Racial groupings are completely arbitrary.

 

I should not have to. And people who do this should not be allowed to edit wikis.

When the forums and blogs that support your views do the same, then it maybe considered. But I believe in a fair playing field.

 

The vast majority of wikis are factually correct. Spammers and vandals are banned from wikipedia regularly.

 

If that were the case, I would have addressed you directly, and pointed out what was fabricated. Are you feeling guilty about something that would give such an impression?

 

I have no guilt.

 

I guess we all make our own realities, correct? I think that teaching goes along with being gods of our own universe as well.

Is it common practice for evolutionists to redefine words to fit their world views?

10280[/snapback]

We are not gods. Words change, words are invented. Everybody changes and uses words. Let's agree there are different definitions of the same thing. We use ours, you use yours. There is no need to choose one over the other.

[ikester7579 19]

The creationist idea that the earth was created 6000 years ago is false. This is my position. Evolution does not require you to deny a creator. I like the idea that God could use evolution to create humans, but don't necessarily agree with it.

And when you add a God to a theory, what do you get?

 

Evolution comes into conflict with a minority of religious views.

Why would it, if it is not a competeing religion?

 

Evolution certainly encourages people to deny the young earth myth of the Christian Bible. However, it has less power over theism in general.

10284[/snapback]

And the God's word encurages people to deny the myth of evolution when they find that God can fill a void evolution, naturalism, and humanism cannot.

[ikester7579 19]

Don't use their intolerance as an excuse for your own.

10283[/snapback]

Why not? Is not a level playing field much better? Or do you believe that one side should always dominate, and the other should just shut up and conform?

[ikester7579 19]

These kids were in high school. Every college student is required to take sociology where they teach that racism is biologically unfounded. These kids were probably taught it too, but simply were too blindly deviant that they denied everything they were taught.

Can you be sure of this? And why would evolution be written all over this event?

 

White people are not any better than anyone else. There is no pure "white" person. Racial groupings are completely arbitrary.

Then who is the civilized human race supposed to exterminate, as Darwin puts it?

 

The vast majority of wikis are factually correct. Spammers and vandals are banned from wikipedia regularly.

So wikis have flaws.

 

We are not gods. Words change, words are invented. Everybody changes and uses words. Let's agree there are different definitions of the same thing. We use ours, you use yours. There is no need to choose one over the other.

10285[/snapback]

Is not choice a part of freedom?

[Guest Vision in Verse]

And when you add a God to a theory, what do you get?

 

God + Anything = Religion.

 

 

Why would it, if it is not a competeing religion?

 

Because of the Young Earth Myth. Evolution does not contradict the Bible in any moral sense, just the creation story.

 

And the God's word encurages people to deny the myth of evolution when they find that God can fill a void evolution, naturalism, and humanism cannot.

10300[/snapback]

There is no void to fill. I am a whole human being.

[Guest Vision in Verse]

Why not? Is not a level playing field much better? Or do you believe that one side should always dominate, and the other should just shut up and conform?

10301[/snapback]

If you did so, I would not debate here anymore. It would be room full of yes men. That doesn't lead you closer to the truth. Conflict brings you toward truth.

[Guest Vision in Verse]

Can you be sure of this? And why would evolution be written all over this event?

 

I think they mentioned it once on a website. It's not exactly all over. What's written all over is that the kids were made fun of, outcasts. They took revenge on society for isolating them.

 

Then who is the civilized human race supposed to exterminate, as Darwin puts it?

 

There is none. Darwin was wrong.

 

So wikis have flaws.

 

Yes.

 

 

Is not choice a part of freedom?

10302[/snapback]

It most certainly is. However, we should inclusive of our definitions, not exclusive. Let's "do the math" with "different equations". It'll be interesting to see what happens.

[ikester7579 19]

God + Anything = Religion.

Agreed.

 

Because of the Young Earth Myth. Evolution does not contradict the Bible in any moral sense, just the creation story.

Based on: If what you deem as truth, can be proven as truth. So would you now like to prove evolution, and all it's supporting pillars, as absolutes? No? Then you have not proven the Young Earth Creation story as a myth either. Only in your mind have you done this. But the reality in your mind does not change the reality that exists.

 

There is no void to fill. I am a whole human being.

10304[/snapback]

If you had, or have a child. And that child was very sick. And the doctors said there was nothing more they could do. Would you accept that and go home so the child could just die? Or would you start to think beyond the doctor's words to search for the answer to fill the void the doctor could not?

 

For if you love someone enough to give your very life for. You will search beyond the norm to fill a void that man cannot fill. For if you cannot accept the words of the doctor enough to leave it alone, then you admit to a void that man cannot fill.

[ikester7579 19]

If you did so, I would not debate here anymore. It would be room full of yes men. That doesn't lead you closer to the truth. Conflict brings you toward truth.

10305[/snapback]

Yes, and did you come here with a preconcieved truth? One where you want to use the debates at this forum to learn how to destroy the faith in some people you know? If you were truly their friend, and believed in freedom of expression. You would allow them to believe what they wanted. But you won't will you?

[ikester7579 19]

I think they mentioned it once on a website. It's not exactly all over. What's written all over is that the kids were made fun of, outcasts. They took revenge on society for isolating them.

1) One wore a shirt that said natural selection. The other wore clothes that had german symbols dating back to Hitler.

2) They both spoke German while they went around killing people.

3) They mentioned evolution as a motive to kill.

5) And if you go to youtube, and look up the columbine videos. You will hear them mention evolution as their driving force, and that it made them feel as gods.

 

There is none. Darwin was wrong.

I am surprised you have admitted that. But it should be in the text books.

 

It most certainly is. However, we should inclusive of our definitions, not exclusive. Let's "do the math" with "different equations". It'll be interesting to see what happens.

10306[/snapback]

Only if it is done on a level playing field where the other side is inclined to do the same. But I really don't see that happening.

[Guest Vision in Verse]

I am surprised you have admitted that. But it should be in the text books.

 

My Biology teacher mentioned it. I'll check later if it's in the book.

 

Only if it is done on a level playing field where the other side is inclined to do the same. But I really don't see that happening.

10309[/snapback]

Then, let's both suppose each others views could be correct. Is there a fair first step?

[Springer 5]

Evolution is a religion because it is based on ideology, not science. It assumes the non-existence of intelligent design. Evolutionists will readily concede that intelligent design is not falsifiable, so they arbitrarily falsify it not through science, but through belief They proclaim that evoluiton is a fact of nature by eliminating the only competing theory, intelligent design. If they cannot disprove ID, then why do they assume it doesn't exist? The answer is because they're not interested in truth... only in proving themselves correct.

Yes, evolutionists have the politically correct disclaimer that you can believe in God and evolution. The fact is, atheism is always implicit in evolutionary discussions... and atheism is a religion.

I have yet to see a single article or book written on evolutionary theory which eludes to the possibility that ID might be operational. Every attempt is made to explain everything in terms of naturalism. This is not because materialism/naturalism is the obvious explanation, but because it's been decided that ID simply cannot be tolerated as an explanation... it's an insult to man's intelligence... a cop out to suggest that a higher power exists.

Listen to your typical college biology professor and the defensive posture he takes on the first day of class regarding evolution. He is obviously emotionally charged... and wants to let his students know in no uncertain terms that evolution is a fact. This, of course, is utter nonsense and an insult to all true students of science. A true scientist doesn't become emotionally attached to a theory. He is indifferent to the mechanism and only wants to get at the truth. He's not going to categorically exclude a possibility (ID) because it's politically correct to do so. He doesn't care how popular a theory might be in the eyes of the masses... he lets the facts speak for themselves. When he looks at data, he looks at both sides and weighs the evidence. If he finds evidence deemed compelling for evolution, he plays the devil's advocate and questions the conclusions.

None of the above objectivity exists in the vast majority of evolutionary biologists. They are emotiionally committed to ToE and are not interested in any contrary evidence. This lack of open-mindedness can only be explained on religious/philosophical grounds. A classic example of this was brought up several months ago in this forum. A biology professor at Harvard had on his website Haeckles drawings of comparative embryology, touting this as evidence of evolution. This is not science, but indoctrination with lies. Why would a scientist deliberately misrepresent the truth? This example I've given is not isolated.

Some of the leading proponents of evolution show religious zeal to their cause. Dawkins, for example, called those who don't believe in evolution "wicked" and "stupid". Does this sound like an objective scientist, or a religious fanatic?