Evolution a Religion

a reply to: Astyanax

not facts but extrapolated data from a brief time in history. to be fact one would have to view the whole firsthand and not through study of fossils. the percentage of the data is high but not 100%

a reply to: deadeyedick

In science you can not have 100% certainty, as that is something for faith.

a reply to: deadeyedick

not facts but extrapolated data from a brief time in history.

No, facts. Sorry about that.

a reply to: Astyanax

Ah well thanks so much for proving that to me, noone had ever put it like that before.

All I have received so far as dismissals and attacks against my character, people saying they won't bother to try and correct me, but why has noone tried? I have just had insults...

All I have really asked is - if hundreds of cultures tell of a huge flood and now, someone has proven that structures like the grand canyon would be made in weeks instead of millions of years in such conditions and, has also shown that in such conditions, fossilisation would occur and in the same order that it appears in the fossil record we see, why is this idea dismissed out of hand, without presenting any logical argument?

You might be right, but noone has been able to show me how, nor have they even tried.

You people are very arrogant, you assume a lot about me, I used to be fully convinced of evolution and as I've got older i have my doubts, but it's arrogance like this that is the problem with science today, how far could we have gotten without close-mindedness and elitism like you have all shown, good going...

a reply to: Noinden

Micro and macro evolution are scientific terms though they weren't invented by creationists! They were indeed weasel words, for evolutionists to assert something unobservable, extrapolated from something observable. Who's changing the goal posts now?

And sorry, who's bible? And what does my faith have to do with evolution anyway? I actually have no religion and I don't think it takes faith to believe in an intelligence behind creation, I think it's self-evident. But if you add enough numbers, sure you can make anything possible.

I find it funny, the amount of effort everyone has put in to try and mock me, when if evolution was so evident, so true and so proven, surely someone would have been able to easily explain it with fewer words.

Again, you've assumed I'm a YEC or a Christian or ignorant and that's not the case at all, I've just wanted to get involved and rather than try and debate my opinion, people have tried to attack my character.

Unless I've missed it, there has been not one response that has tackled what I've asked, and this is indicative of the attitude of every other evolutionist I have encountered so is it any wonder there are people who find it hard to believe.

I call it a philosophy because it has no useful product for humanity. It's purely a matter of interest.

a reply to: Dem0nc1eaner
To pick up just one of your points the only thing self evident intelligence behind creation is that it is not an answer regardless if you mean it in a religious sense or not. In order for there to be intelligence responsible for creation there would need to be something responsible for creation of that intelligence and so on.
Religions make special pleading that god is somehow the exception to their own rule.

originally posted by: deadeyedick
labcoats= priestly garments
labrats=animal sacrifice
rituals=expierments
study of source material
gatherings=worship
houses of science=churches

there is so much likeness the only part i see missing is prayer to hawking and others but i imagine some do it

So now you are saying science in general is a religion? The topic was that evolution is a religion. In either case you are wrong, but you shouldn't change the direction of the thread arbitrarily like that.

a reply to: Dem0nc1eaner

Ah well thanks so much for proving that to me, noone had ever put it like that before.

I didn't set out to prove anything to you. What would be the point of that?

People saying they won't bother to try and correct me, but why has noone tried?

I can't speak for others. For myself, why, I've performed this service for dozens of others on this site; I still do, from time to time, if I feel the asker is genuinely receptive. I'm afraid you haven't convinced me that arguing with you would be any use, except as a pastime — and I'm not in the mood for that sort of pastime just now.

hundreds of cultures... huge flood... grand canyon would be made in weeks instead of millions of years... fossilisation would occur... why is this idea dismissed out of hand, without presenting any logical argument?

Why? Because, frankly, it is a load of creationist bunkum. Bunkum, moreover, that has been debunked about five hundred times on this site already. Do you seriously want me to go through it all again, just for you?

You people are very arrogant

Hmm. Perhaps others, like me, have had their fill of creationists and their debating tactics on Above Top Secret.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Its moving the goal posts Fail on one attack, redefine and try again.

a reply to: Dem0nc1eaner

This someone who proved the grand canyon could be carved out in weeks ... did they show their evidence to peers to review? Nope. Its not possible.

a reply to: Dem0nc1eaner

Invented by creationists and IDers no, used by them incorrectly... oh yes. Thus weasel words.

originally posted by: Dem0nc1eaner
a reply to: Noinden

Micro and macro evolution are scientific terms though they weren't invented by creationists! They were indeed weasel words, for evolutionists to assert something unobservable, extrapolated from something observable. Who's changing the goal posts now?

Not scientists that's for sure. Both of those words have definitions, but really the difference between macro and micro evolution is the same as the difference between a mountain and a hill. Scale.

And sorry, who's bible? And what does my faith have to do with evolution anyway? I actually have no religion and I don't think it takes faith to believe in an intelligence behind creation, I think it's self-evident. But if you add enough numbers, sure you can make anything possible.

You just admitted to evolution being true. If you add enough numbers, well evolution is a LOT of numbers being added up over a LOT of years.

I find it funny, the amount of effort everyone has put in to try and mock me, when if evolution was so evident, so true and so proven, surely someone would have been able to easily explain it with fewer words.

Terrible comparison. Just because it is self-evident, doesn't mean it is easy to explain. You could always go look up what evolution says yourself in any case. If it is hard to understand, then maybe your knowledge level isn't up to snuff.

Unless I've missed it, there has been not one response that has tackled what I've asked, and this is indicative of the attitude of every other evolutionist I have encountered so is it any wonder there are people who find it hard to believe.

The reason people attack you is because you use slurs like "evolutionist". Evolutionists aren't a group of people. It's just people who accept evolution as fact. Maybe try to be a bit more respectful to the people you are talking to and they will respect you back? It also doesn't help that you repeat tired Creationist claims against evolution. So it's no surprise that people labeled you a Creationist.

I call it a philosophy because it has no useful product for humanity. It's purely a matter of interest.

Give an example of something that is useful for humanity. Everything we do outside of eating and procreating is a matter of interest, so your statement here is just fluff words.

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: Dem0nc1eaner

This someone who proved the grand canyon could be carved out in weeks ... did they show their evidence to peers to review? Nope. Its not possible.

I'm still waiting on any sort of citation that even supports the claim that the Grand Canyon can be carved out in the blink if a geological eye. I'm not going to hold my breath though!

a reply to: OperationBlackRose

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Thank you and good night

a reply to: OperationBlackRose

a reply to: peter vlar

I don't blame you. If it were as simple as they say, they could repeat it on a smaller scale, and then repeat it again, and again and...

Young earthers are amusing for a time, then its just head against cement block time

a reply to: OperationBlackRose

Charles Darwin said:

"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."

Bacterial Flagellum is that complex organ.

So, in the words of the 'Father of Evolution', the theory absolutely broke down years ago.

Double post
I

a reply to: OperationBlackRose
evolutionfaq.com...
Or you could try looking at non creationist web sites.

originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: OperationBlackRose
evolutionfaq.com...
Or you could try looking at non creationist web sites.

Interesting that the 'evolution of the eye' came up. Did you know that one of the most complex eyes ever, was the eyes of the trilobite, one of the earliest creatures, according to evolutionists?

That is a great big problem for the theory. How can one of the earliest eyes be one of the most complex? Even in 'evolutionary bases', that is impossible. And then why would the eye go through 'devolution', when the evolutionists believe that be are becoming better?

And on the Flagellum, if the Flagellum evolved from an "ancestor" (that was also a motor), how did the 'original' motor evolved? All the video does, is solve one problem with another.

(a 2D illustration that was created in some free Microsoft software does not show the actual biological problems that would arise in practice)