The Absurdity Of Evolution Exposed!

[StormanNorman 432]

 

Is that supposed to be a stumper? It's an easy question to answer. There are obvious reasons someone might choose the Evolution story. One of the first would be to avoid ridicule in social/academic settings as our society generally considers it intellectual blasphemy to question the tenets of Darwinian mysticism. A young person is made keenly aware of this well before they will ever get the chance to examine the matter themselves. Here we see that all things are not equal, as you had loaded your question.

 

I'll remind you again that you failed to even attempt to argue your distinction of Evolutionary "science" vs. Creation "religion", and you've spent the last 2 pages doing everything but that. That's the StormanNorman shuffle I've come to expect though. Bald assertions, refusal to back them up. Waste of my time even trying to get it out of you.

 

But, I don't see the spiritual advantages, LP. Let's be honest .... as far as a story goes, evolution kind of sucks. It certainly isn't very uplifting, e.g., the idea that we are the result of the culmination of genetic mutations and genetic material passed down over millions and millions of generations .... just like the fly buzzing around your head. In a way, it's somewhat depressing; there is no promise of an afterlife or a heavenly father looking over you, etc. I don't see why you think anyone would spiritually put their chips down on evolution .... you get absolutely nothing out of it.

 

Now, some people (including some on this board) are able to mix a belief in God with the viability of evolution; but, again, the existence of God has nothing to do with the theory of evolution. Now, that's probably a better story; but it still isn't as spiritually uplifting as special creation .... where some heavenly father has specially created you, etc. There's no comparison. Again, with all things being equal, special creation is the easy choice; it's a no brainer. And, that's probably why up until the late 17th and 18th Centuries, virtually everyone in the Western World was a creationist; Biblical Creation was simply not questioned, not even by scientists ....at least, not openly. But, of course, the Scientific Revolution changed all that.

 

BTW, LP, as far as arguments go, you certainly have not made much of an argument yourself ..... at least as far as I can tell. You've continually made the same claims about a group of nameless people whom I'm guessing you've never met concerning their "mysticism" ..... none of which have been very convincing.

 

How about this, LP? You don't have to accept or believe evolution ... that's entirely your right; it's a free country .... and just leave it at that.

[lifepsyop 230]

But, I don't see the spiritual advantages, LP. Let's be honest .... as far as a story goes, evolution kind of sucks. It certainly isn't very uplifting, e.g., the idea that we are the result of the culmination of genetic mutations and genetic material passed down over millions and millions of generations .... just like the fly buzzing around your head. In a way, it's somewhat depressing; there is no promise of an afterlife or a heavenly father looking over you, etc. I don't see why you think anyone would spiritually put their chips down on evolution .... you get absolutely nothing out of it.

 

The story doesn't have to be spiritually uplifting to offer incentive. People desire fleshly things here and now. And the Evolution creation story gives them the excuse to pursue those lusts without fear of judgment after this life. It is the ultimate ear-tickling sermon for the sinner.

 

If after the manner of men I have fought with beasts at Ephesus, what advantageth it me, if the dead rise not? let us eat and drink; for to morrow we die.

[piasan 1,402]

There are many ways to falsify Biblical Creation. Dogs giving birth to turtles. Whales giving birth to humans. etc. etc. Spontaneous generation of the living from the non-living....

.... a universe billions of years old ? ? ? ?

[piasan 1,402]

Certainly, some .... of course, there have also been false convictions even when there have been eye witnesses.

In fact, eyewitness accounts are considered LESS reliable than forensic evidence.

[FaithfulCenturion 206]

In fact, eyewitness accounts are considered LESS reliable than forensic evidence.

Perhaps in a court of law, but when God says His writings, the bible and what it says, are theópneustos, meaning they are His words through the hand of the eye witnesses He chose, I will take that all day long. Therein lies the problem Pi. You put your faith in secular science, and God's word takes a back seat.

[piasan 1,402]

Perhaps in a court of law, but when God says His writings, the bible and what it says, are theópneustos, meaning they are His words through the hand of the eye witnesses He chose, I will take that all day long. Therein lies the problem Pi. You put your faith in secular science, and God's word takes a back seat.

I put my faith in the forensic evidence God gives us in His creation.... which has not been subjected to the handling of fallible man for over 2,000 years.

[FaithfulCenturion 206]

I put my faith in the forensic evidence God gives us in His creation.... which has not been subjected to the handling of fallible man for over 2,000 years.

Except it has, unless you believe that scientists are infallible and inerrant. But again you prove my point. Science first, scripture....somewhere down the line...

[Calypsis4 640]

Except it has, unless you believe that scientists are infallible and inerrant. But again you prove my point. Science first, scripture....somewhere down the line...

 

Forensic evidence over God's inspired written words? So the writers of scripture who claimed that what they were writing was directly from God were all liars? And Jesus Himself was a liar?

 

The trouble is that piasan can't even get forensic evidence right. He has misinterpreted the evidence on almost everything as far as age is concerned and he has deliberately and stubbornly refused the evidences of a young earth that creationists have forwarded even though most of it is very solid, his nit-wit, half-baked rationalizations notwithstanding.

[lifepsyop 230]

I put my faith in the forensic evidence God gives us in His creation.... which has not been subjected to the handling of fallible man for over 2,000 years.

 

Once upon a time some geologists believed they had forensic evidence proving uniformitarian earth-shaping processes that demanded millions of years. They probably used the same flimsy arguments as you. "See? God's creation is telling us that it cannot be young like the Bible says!" The problem is that a century later, much of that "forensic evidence" turned out to be the product of erroneous interpretation. They believed science was telling them for certain how the past unfolded and they were wrong. But it seems that every generation of researchers comes up with new interpretations that they consider to be sacrosanct.

[Giovanni 56]

 

I put my faith in the forensic evidence God gives us in His creation.... which has not been subjected to the handling of fallible man for over 2,000 years.

 

Once upon a time some geologists believed they had forensic evidence proving uniformitarian earth-shaping processes that demanded millions of years. They probably used the same flimsy arguments as you. "See? God's creation is telling us that it cannot be young like the Bible says!" The problem is that a century later, much of that "forensic evidence" turned out to be the product of erroneous interpretation. They believed science was telling them for certain how the past unfolded and they were wrong. But it seems that every generation of researchers comes up with new interpretations that they consider to be sacrosanct.

 

Once upon a time there was some person using the nickname piasan to post on some forum. He claimed that he puts his faith in the forensic evidence God gives in His creation, while he continuously denied the Scriptures. Sad, but true.

[Enoch 2021 412]

 

Evolution is a scientific theory .... nothing more, nothing less.

 

 

 

evolution is neither "Scientific" or a "Theory".....

 

Well to be "Science" it must adhere to the Scientific Method:

Step 1: Observe a Phenomenon

Step 2: Lit Review

Step 3: Hypothesis

Step 4: TEST/EXPERIMENT

Step 5: Analyze Data

Step 6: Valid/Invalid Hypothesis

Step 7: Report Results

Well... "The scientific method requires that an hypothesis be ruled out or modified if its predictions are clearly and repeatedly incompatible with experimental tests. Further, no matter how elegant a theory is, its predictions must agree with experimental results if we are to believe that it is a valid description of nature. In physics, as in every experimental science, "experiment is supreme" and experimental verification of hypothetical predictions is absolutely necessary." "Theories which cannot be tested...do not qualify as scientific theories." {Emphasis Mine}

http://teacher.nsrl.rochester.edu/phy_labs/appendixe/appendixe.html

"Experimental verification of hypothetical predictions is absolutely necessary"----BUT...

“Evolution is not a process that allows us to predict what will happen in the future. We can see what happened in the past only".

Carol V. Ward (paleoanthropologist) University of Missouri; Experts Tackle Questions of How Humans will Evolve; Scientific American, Vol 311, Issue 3; 19 August 2014

Ahhh, Don't you have to OBSERVE A PHENOMENON to then make "PREDICTIONS" (Hypothesis) so as to then TEST for VALIDATION? But Dr. Ward said You can't make "PREDICTIONS" regarding evolution; Ergo...No "VALID" Hypothesis!

Lets have a listen to what evolution is by arguably the TOP evolutionist of the 20th Century....

 

Ernst Mayr PhD Professor Emeritus, Museum of Comparative Zoology at Harvard University. (evolutionist)....

"Darwin introduced historicity into science. Evolutionary biology, in contrast with physics and chemistry, is a historical science—the evolutionist attempts to explain events and processes that have already taken place. Laws and experiments are inappropriate techniques for the explication of such events and processes. Instead one constructs a historical narrative, consisting of a tentative reconstruction of the particular scenario that led to the events one is trying to explain."

Ernst Mayr, Darwin's Influence on Modern Thought; Scientific American, 24 November 2009

Dr. Mayr---"Laws and experiments are inappropriate techniques for the explication of such events and processes."

What in the World!!! So now you have NO Hypothesis (SEE: Above) and (Obviously... now Documented) NO EXPERIMENTS!!!

Please show us, How On Earth evolution is "science" and not a Demonstrable "Just So" Story and Begging The Question Fallacy IN TOTO!!----(aka: Pseudo-Science)

 

 

 

evolution is a Metaphysical Religion (Nothing more....nothing less)....

 

Richard Lewontin (evolutionary biologist) PhD Zoology, Alexander Agassiz Research Professor at Harvard University....

Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection in particular is hopelessly metaphysical, according to the rules of etiquette laid down in the Logic of Scientific Inquiry and widely believed in by practicing scientists who bother to think about the problem. The first rule for any scientific hypothesis ought to be that it is at least possible to conceive of an observation that would contradict the theory. For what good is a theory that is guaranteed by its internal logical structure to agree with all conceivable observations, irrespective of the real structure of the world? If scientists are going to use logically unbeatable theories about the world, they might as well give up natural science and take up religion. Yet is that not exactly the situation with regard to Darwinism? The theory of evolution by natural selection states that changes in the inherited characters of species occur, giving rise to differentiation in space and time, because different genetical types leave different numbers of offspring in different environments... Such a theory can never be falsified, for it asserts that some environmental difference created the conditions for natural selection of a new character. It is existentially quantified so that the failure to find the environmental factor proves nothing, except that one has not looked hard enough. Can one really imagine observations about nature that would disprove natural selection as a cause of the difference in bill size? The theory of natural selection is then revealed as metaphysical rather than scientific. Natural selection explains nothing because it explains everything." {Emphasis Mine}

 

 

 

 

evolution is science and creation is faith

 

Define science?

 

Define Faith?

[Giovanni 56]

Define science?

 

Define Faith?

 

Science: The intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.

 

Faith: "Evolution has been observed. It's just that it has not been observed (?) while it's happening" - Richard Dawkins.

 

- Since: Evolution has never been observed while it's happening

- Therefore: Evolution is not science.

 

Therefore: Evolution is based on faith that it has occurred. However, it was never observed in order to validate such hope.

[StormanNorman 432]

 

The story doesn't have to be spiritually uplifting to offer incentive. People desire fleshly things here and now. And the Evolution creation story gives them the excuse to pursue those lusts without fear of judgment after this life. It is the ultimate ear-tickling sermon for the sinner.

 

If after the manner of men I have fought with beasts at Ephesus, what advantageth it me, if the dead rise not? let us eat and drink; for to morrow we die.

 

Sure, everyone desires "fleshly" things now and again. But, let's discuss this further. In simplest terms, I see a spectrum of religious conviction in people with atheists on the far left, let's say, and the devout evangelicals & born agains on the far right .... and a pretty wide range in between these two. And, I believe people arrive at different spots on the spectrum different ways and for different reasons. No doubt there are those on the far left end who have chosen that path because it gives them the spiritual and moral freedom to live the life they wish including pursuing the "fleshly" things. But, A) such behavior is not monopolized by those on the far left of the spectrum and B ) more importantly, it is not the defining characteristic for the far left .... at least, based on my own personal experience. I've known several atheists and most were good, hard-working people who were trying to raise and care for their families as best they can.

 

Speaking for myself personally, I grew up in a religious family (Lutheran) although not devout; we went church every Sunday. I was definitely spiritual; I believed in God; and , all in all, it was a good experience and I have fond memories of it. But, as I got older (into my mid and late 20s), I became less and less spiritual. I don't know why; it certainly wasn't a conscience decision .... and it wasn't because I wanted to live my life a certain or to pursue the "fleshly" desires. My life style didn't change one iota. And I certainly don't begrudge people like you, FC, and others who clearly have very high levels of spirituality and religious conviction; if it's made you a better person; helped you conquered vices; etc. .... then good for you. But, just keep in mind, not everyone has shared the same life experiences as you .... and those experiences have led them to different points on the spectrum ... and that does not necessarily make them lesser people.

 

Now, as far as evolution goes, many of those people that do evolutionary research or feel that it is a viable theory are also spiritual to varying degrees and include Christians and other faiths. There's quite a bit of overlap ..... and we see examples of those people on this forum. And I certainly wouldn't argue that they are more tempted by the "fleshly" desires than you or anyone else. And, I think if you went to the universities and surveyed those whose research involves evolutionary theory, you would find that most of them are your basic good people, raising or having raised families, and doing the best they can. Are some "less than good" ..... of course. But, that's true everywhere .... and throughout the spectrum.

[lifepsyop 230]

Sure, everyone desires "fleshly" things now and again.

 

What I mean by that term, is that people desire to "do as thou wilt" in this world. They want to live by their own authority. The evolution creation story gives them that authority. And if Evolution were actually true, then I would agree. But it's not.

 

 

But, let's discuss this further. In simplest terms, I see a spectrum of religious conviction in people with atheists on the far left, let's say, and the devout evangelicals & born agains on the far right .... and a pretty wide range in between these two. And, I believe people arrive at different spots on the spectrum different ways and for different reasons. No doubt there are those on the far left end who have chosen that path because it gives them the spiritual and moral freedom to live the life they wish including pursuing the "fleshly" things. But, A) such behavior is not monopolized by those on the far left of the spectrum and B ) more importantly, it is not the defining characteristic for the far left .... at least, based on my own personal experience. I've known several atheists and most were good, hard-working people who were trying to raise and care for their families as best they can.

 

 

I don't think your description is accurate. I see plenty of fanaticism in the middle of your spectrum, just not advertised. In my experience, I see this type of "secular" person become fanatical at the suggestion that Evolution is false. Not always, but often.

 

If you tell them that Zeus really controls thunderstorms, they will laugh. If you tell them they were specially created as humans by God, then for some reason they get very uncomfortable. I've even seen it provoke physical reactions from seemingly "go with the flow" type of people. It's as if the light is being thrown on them and they don't like it.

 

Evolution is the barrier between certainty and a type of grey "nobody really knows for sure" area. I've noticed that 'Secular' people tend to care very much about preserving that barrier when it is threatened.

 

Speaking for myself personally, I grew up in a religious family (Lutheran) although not devout; we went church every Sunday. I was definitely spiritual; I believed in God; and , all in all, it was a good experience and I have fond memories of it. But, as I got older (into my mid and late 20s), I became less and less spiritual. I don't know why; it certainly wasn't a conscience decision .... and it wasn't because I wanted to live my life a certain or to pursue the "fleshly" desires. My life style didn't change one iota.

 

 

I wouldn't expect it to. I don't think going to church or "believing in god" makes much of a difference of anything. Satanists go to church and believe in god.

 

And I certainly don't begrudge people like you, FC, and others who clearly have very high levels of spirituality and religious conviction; if it's made you a better person; helped you conquered vices; etc. .... then good for you. But, just keep in mind, not everyone has shared the same life experiences as you .... and those experiences have led them to different points on the spectrum ...

 

 

This is part of the "secular" ideology. "Everyone has their own path / whatever works for you", and we shouldn't say one or the other is right or wrong. This is the kind of thing you see people get very fanatical about all of the sudden when you suggest that this view may be false - and instead that there is only one way - Jesus Christ.

 

and that does not necessarily make them lesser people.

 

I don't think of anyone as less than me. There are no greater or lesser people. God has no respect of persons. All are guilty and He offers the free gift of salvation to anyone.

 

 

Now, as far as evolution goes, many of those people that do evolutionary research or feel that it is a viable theory are also spiritual to varying degrees and include Christians and other faiths. There's quite a bit of overlap ..... and we see examples of those people on this forum.

 

In my view, those Christians who promote Evolution are either ignorant of God's word, or they have a desire to conform to the world at the expense of compromising God's word. One of those "fleshly" desires is the importance placed on having respect from one's peers. Especially in academic settings, if you question the sacred cow of Evolution, you're almost certainly going to lose it.

 

We see many so-called Christians embracing things like h*m*s*xuality for the same reason. They need to go along with society or be left out. Of course, this doesn't magically make Christianity and h*m*s*xuality compatible.

 

And I certainly wouldn't argue that they are more tempted by the "fleshly" desires than you or anyone else. And, I think if you went to the universities and surveyed those whose research involves evolutionary theory, you would find that most of them are your basic good people, raising or having raised families, and doing the best they can. Are some "less than good" ..... of course. But, that's true everywhere .... and throughout the spectrum.

 

When you hear "fleshly desires", I think you're thinking of an alcoholic, or a P*rn addict, or a thief, or just someone that is extremely selfish. That's true of course, but like I said, I am referring to people who simply want to live the way they want to live. They want to be in charge of their life, and yes I think most of these people would like to think of themselves as good, decent, upright people, role models for their children, etc.

[StormanNorman 432]

 

What I mean by that term, is that people desire to "do as thou wilt" in this world. They want to live by their own authority. The evolution creation story gives them that authority. And if Evolution were actually true, then I would agree. But it's not.

 

 

 

I don't think your description is accurate. I see plenty of fanaticism in the middle of your spectrum, just not advertised. In my experience, I see this type of "secular" person become fanatical at the suggestion that Evolution is false. Not always, but often.

 

If you tell them that Zeus really controls thunderstorms, they will laugh. If you tell them they were specially created as humans by God, then for some reason they get very uncomfortable. I've even seen it provoke physical reactions from seemingly "go with the flow" type of people. It's as if the light is being thrown on them and they don't like it.

 

Evolution is the barrier between certainty and a type of grey "nobody really knows for sure" area. I've noticed that 'Secular' people tend to care very much about preserving that barrier when it is threatened.

 

 

I wouldn't expect it to. I don't think going to church or "believing in god" makes much of a difference of anything. Satanists go to church and believe in god.

 

 

This is part of the "secular" ideology. "Everyone has their own path / whatever works for you", and we shouldn't say one or the other is right or wrong. This is the kind of thing you see people get very fanatical about all of the sudden when you suggest that this view may be false - and instead that there is only one way - Jesus Christ.

 

 

I don't think of anyone as less than me. There are no greater or lesser people. God has no respect of persons. All are guilty and He offers the free gift of salvation to anyone.

 

 

 

In my view, those Christians who promote Evolution are either ignorant of God's word, or they have a desire to conform to the world at the expense of compromising God's word. One of those "fleshly" desires is the importance placed on having respect from one's peers. Especially in academic settings, if you question the sacred cow of Evolution, you're almost certainly going to lose it.

 

We see many so-called Christians embracing things like h*m*s*xuality for the same reason. They need to go along with society or be left out. Of course, this doesn't magically make Christianity and h*m*s*xuality compatible.

 

 

When you hear "fleshly desires", I think you're thinking of an alcoholic, or a P*rn addict, or a thief, or just someone that is extremely selfish. That's true of course, but like I said, I am referring to people who simply want to live the way they want to live. They want to be in charge of their life, and yes I think most of these people would like to think of themselves as good, decent, upright people, role models for their children, etc.

 

I think at the end of the day, LP, you and I are just very different people with very different approaches to life. And, yes, I am one of the "Everyone has their own path / whatever works for you" crowd. Why? Well, there are 6 billion+ people on this planet and among them countless faiths and religious beliefs. I honestly don't know which (if any) path is the correct one. And, even if I thought I did .... and no offense, but, I'm not arrogant enough to think that my views on such matters are any more worthy than the next guy's. Except in cases of brutality, victimization, etc., everyone has their own path ... and, of course, whatever works for you, dude. And the same goes for two consenting adults behind bedroom doors.

 

And, finally, if backseating the literal written word of the Bible (and other holy books) while gathering / analyzing evidence and hypothesizing as to its meaning is "desiring fleshly things," then, yes, evolutionary scientists are indeed guilty as charged.

[lifepsyop 230]

Except in cases of brutality, victimization, etc., everyone has their own path ...

 

This seems bigoted. It is part of some cults' religious expression to brutalize and murder other humans as part of a sacrifice to their god. What gives you the right to say their religious path is wrong?

 

And the same goes for two consenting adults behind bedroom doors.

 

This seems bigoted. What gives you the authority to deem that an 8 year-old boy cannot consent to a romantic relationship with a 40 year-old man?

 

(Just pointing out how illogical and self-contradictory the morally relativistic viewpoint is. )

 

 

I think at the end of the day, LP, you and I are just very different people with very different approaches to life. And, yes, I am one of the "Everyone has their own path / whatever works for you" crowd. Why? Well, there are 6 billion+ people on this planet and among them countless faiths and religious beliefs. I honestly don't know which (if any) path is the correct one. And, even if I thought I did .... and no offense, but, I'm not arrogant enough to think that my views on such matters are any more worthy than the next guy's. and, of course, whatever works for you, dude.

 

I'm not offended, but I think it's funny that you basically just admitted to calling 6 billion people arrogant for assuming their own beliefs are correct.

 

However, if you really want to know the truth, just humbly ask God yourself. I doubt He has patience for your brand of "give me a sign" pseudo-skepticism. The problem is that you have to admit that you're a sinner in need of salvation, and you don't want to do that. Let's face it, nobody who whats to live life on their own terms wants to admit that.

 

I went from mocking Christians as brainwashed zombies one day, to suddenly finding myself surrendering to Jesus Christ the next day. In an instant I could feel the lies I had built up around me melting away and the light of the truth of Christ replacing it. It is written on our hearts that we were created by God, and it is quite a load off to finally stop denying what we know.

 

Apart from that experience, we have the sure word of the scripture. 66 books, written by 40 authors, over the course of thousands of years, and yet it remains entirely unified in its message and prophecy and fulfillment of the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus. It is amazing evidence pointing towards Christianity being true. The case for Christ's resurrection is incredibly strong even without the Bible. No other faiths have anything close to this.

 

For anyone who wants to justify their own way of living, it's obviously favorable to take the position of saying: "There's so many different beliefs out there, who can know which is right?" The whole "many different religions" thing is just a pseudo-skeptical excuse people use to try and blur the evidence pointing them to the true one.

[StormanNorman 432]

 

This seems bigoted. It is part of some cults' religious expression to brutalize and murder other humans as part of a sacrifice to their god. What gives you the right to say their religious path is wrong?

 

 

This seems bigoted. What gives you the authority to deem that an 8 year-old boy cannot consent to a romantic relationship with a 40 year-old man?

 

(Just pointing out how illogical and self-contradictory the morally relativistic viewpoint is. )

 

 

No belief system or way of thinking is without its limits or boundaries .... at least in my world. I'm a strong believer and supporter in the freedom of religion; however, I'm also a strong believer in the right to pursue life, liberty, and happiness. And, it's possible for these two principles to come into conflict; so, we as individuals and as a society must decide when one principle trumps the other. This is not self-contradictory nor is it illogical.

 

I'm also strong believer in personal freedoms, but this too is not absolute .... and has its limitations especially for some actions when the physical and/or mental maturity of those involved are in question. Again, I don't see my viewpoints as inconsistent or self-contradictory .... maybe you can explain that in more detail.

[lifepsyop 230]

maybe you can explain that in more detail.

 

To be honest, I'm not interested at all. I've said what I have to say.

[StormanNorman 432]

 

To be honest, I'm not interested at all. I've said what I have to say.

 

Fair enough. I enjoyed the discussion, LP.