Evolution is a Religion for those who believe in it.

[CumminsPower98]

I personally believe the Bible because it makes since and there is SO much evidence all around us to back up what it says. Evolution is the biggest bunch of hogwash I have ever heard of. It's just a bunch of unprovable theories and speculations. If anyone is interested here is a link to a site with a wealth of information on the subject. I have watched many of Kent Hovind's videos and it's just so hard to understand how anyone can believe evaluation. Creation is based on the Bible but is provable with science.

 

[crobertson1]

Well Lowell, you've certainly stirred up a hornet's nest now haven't you? Thanks. I'll just say that believing in evolution requires a lot more faith than believing in creation and the Creator. Look around you. Bang and all this just happened? Please! Come to the Rockies in Colorado and spent some time. It didn't just happen by chance. Look in the mirror. You think you came from an amoeba? Do some research on how the earth is deteriorating, and the rate at which it's doing so. Billions and billions of years? What a joke! Evolution is definitely a religion.

Craig

 

[mcoleman]

Docter Kennedy has a religous radio program and had been talking on the exact subject of Evolution being a religion itself this week. He says evolution is pushed by the homosexual community as it would make their lifestyle more acceptable. Evolution is also from man just like the non-beleivers are saying the bible is from man. Only difference is evolutionist aren't near as good at prophecy as the bible is. I'll stick to the bible.

 

[BigCarl64]

I despise homosexuality as much as the next person, but a moral argument in no way invalidates scientific facts.

 

[jponder]

Originally posted by BigCarl64

Radiocarbon dating is good fro about 50,000 years, which is well beyond the 7,500 years creationists like to believe.



Radiometric dating is good for about 14. 6 billion years depending on which isotope is used to date.



Of course, creationists argue both method are inaccurate and incorrect, but I have never heard a valid argument as to explain the millions of fossils and geologic data that is known to exist which clearly indicates the earth is approx 4 billion years old.

Originally posted by jponder

Okay here is the argument about how dinosaurs might never have existed



When god made the earth and all things living he made things like trees. On day 1 god could have made a tree fully grown. This tree could still have rings. These rings were from a time that never was, so too could god make the earth with Layers of strata that could have been but werent, Just like the tree.



I like that argument

Okay here is the argument about how dinosaurs might never have existed



When god made the earth and all things living he made things like trees. On day 1 god could have made a tree fully grown. This tree could still have rings. These rings were from a time that never was, so too could god make the earth with Layers of strata that could have been but werent, Just like the tree.



I like that argument

 

[lpearson]

Basis of Evolution is assmptions not facts.

Evolution is based on many assumptions that are unprovable, and therefore not science. The VERY BASIS for this religion and belief is the HOT BIG BANG THEORY.



This Theory came about by cosmologiest in the 1950's, -----was taught in schools and now is ingrained in the minds of those taught, "as fact". Wellllllllllllllllllllllllllllll. IT ISN'T.



I have many articles that are written by scientists who question this theory. Science Digest, Nature, Scientific American, New Scientist, 21 Century, Second Look, Science News and Astronomy Publications.



One of the Big Names in Cosmology is Geoffrey Burbdge, This is what he had to say in Scientific American (February 1992), p120



"Big Bang cosmology is probably as widely believed as has been any theory of the universe in the history of Western civilization. It rests, however, on many untested, and in some cases untestable, assumptions. Indeed, big bang cosmology has become a bandwagon of thought that reflects FAITH as much as objective truth. "



"This situation is particularly worrisome because there are good reasons to think the big bang model is SERIOUSLY FLAWED. Why then has the big bang become so deeply entrenched in modern thought? Everything evolves as a function of time except for the laws of physics. Hence, there are two immutables: the act of creation and the laws of physics, which spring forth fully fashioned from that act. The big bang ultimately reflects some cosmologists' search for creation and for a beginning. That search properly lies in the realm of metaphysics, not science. "



Again this man is not a creationist. The foundations are crumbling.



Lowell

 

[lpearson]

On Creating Something from Nothing?

Another article I have is from the New Scientist publication, vol. 151 (Sept. 14, 1996) Scientist David Darling wrote:



"What is a big deal---the biggest deal of all ---is how you get something out of nothing. "



"Don't let the cosmologists try to kid you on this one. They have not got a clue either----despite the fact that they are doing a pretty good job of convincing themselves and others that this is really not a problem. 'In the beginning,' they will say, 'there was NOTHING---NO TIME, SPACE, MATTER OR ENERGY. Then there was a quantum fluctuation from which... ... Whoa!!! Stop right there. You see what I mean? First there is nothing, then there is something. And the cosmologists try to bridge the two with a quantum flutter, a tremor of uncertainty that sparks it all off. Then they are away and before you know it, they have pulled a hundred billion galaxies out of their quantum hats. "



"You cannot fudge this by appealing to quantum mechanics. Either there is nothing to begin with, in which case there is no Quantum vacuum, no pregeomtric dust, no time in which anything can happen, no physical laws that can effect a change from nothingness into somethingness; or there is something, in which case that needs explaining. "



Ok let me see if I've got this evolution basic straight. The corner stone for this theory many believe. :------



1. Nothing was in the beginning.

2. A Quantium Fluctuation happend and something came from that.

3. That something was the size of a pin head.

4. That pin head heated up until there was a great explosion.

5. That explosion created all the know Universe.

6. Part of that explosion is Earth

7. Gas and matter combined on the Earth that would allow life.

8. Rocks then produced life from no life.

9. Life evolved into what we see today.



In a nut shell this is what is being taught to our children-----------------------and they say this is science? Yea right!!!

It's a belief system---------It's a religion. Glad it's not mine.





Lowell

 

[klenger]

The problem with the above types of arguements is that a humanist will not consider any theory that involves a creator.



The very fact that arguments like the ones above lead person to consider creation is enough to cause them to discard the theory.



The 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics are in direct contridiction to the big bang theory and evolution.

 

[MCummings]

Originally posted by BigCarl64

Most importantly, creationists do not have a testable, scientific theory to replace evolution with.

That's right. We don't.

Scientists have studied and tested evolution for 150 years. There is voluminous evidence for it.

There are also volumes against it,, just like creationism.

Until creationists formulate a scientific theory, and submit it for testing, they have no right to demand equal time in science class to present their ideas.

*I* Feel that until we can accuratly re-enact the events, neither side should be allowed to be taught as truth.

Evolution has earned a place in the science curriculum. Creationism has not.

Why? Because it has been taught for so long?

Prayer has earned it's way out, now the 10 Commandments are nearly gone. Seems that creationists, and that way of thinking are being pushed aside for what feels good.

Science is based on an open and honest look at the data. Much of creationism is built on dishonest debating techniques and special pleading for a case the data does not support.

I think that can be said for both sides. .

Evolution is science. Creationism is not. It's that simple.

Neither Creationism, or Science can be proven. Nor can the fact that we've always exsisted be scientific, or proven.



How ever you believe we came around is exactly that. A Belief. It cannot be a fact, or scienific because it cannot be reproduced, or studied.





Merrick

 

[timjones]

All it comes down to is who to Blame. The nuts Blame it on God, The thinkers Blame it on evolution. All in all it's a blame game and NOBODY yet has a clue. Religion is a way for the unsure to have some grasp of what is happening around them and to give some stability to early societies through a form of law. Your 10 commandments are the "law", the rest is the why. Most people cannot deal with life with out having some sense of why are we here and how did we get here? Religion of ANY sort is a way to give the answers to those whom don't know.

 

[lpearson]

Originally posted by BigCarl64

And what is your background? Are you a scientist? Are you an expert on the bible? The bible was written by humans, who tend to embellish on stories to make them sound better. I do believe most of the stories captured in the bible are true, but you must understand the context in which the stories are written. People believed the weather was a sign of "God" which we know today is false. Stories and tales are just that. Scientific theories are based on facts and details. Plain and simple. So I guess we are supposed to believe that Einstein and other scientists are kooks because their findings don't mesh with the bible? Whatever!

You believe in Evolution. You say men wrote the Bible and therefore they embellished on stories. What Stories do you believe and What Stories did they lie about?



The Hot Big Bang is a theroy (not based on Science)-- that ALL Evolution is BASED on and MEN WROTE that too. If I follow your thinking, The men that wrote the Bible Embellished,---------But the men that wrote about Evolution did not. Interesting outlook??????



I am not a scientist nor am I an expert on the Bible.



You say you Believe most of the stories in the Bible. How can that be? --------------------------------------------------How do you know which ones are true and which ones were embellished?



Last Question are you a Christian???



Lowell

 

[lpearson]

The unproven theory of Evolution has caused a tremendous damage to societies all over the earth. It directly affects the way people behave.



Caryl Marx was a student/follower and dedicated his book on Communism to his most admired writer Charles Darwin. At one time Caryl had a belief in the Bible, but once he read Darwin, Communism was born.



Lenin and Stalin kill some estimated 18 million of their own people, because Communism excludes God. --- and if no God no judgement. We're all no better than a worm or a snail.



Hitler in his youth was taught Evolution too. He was taught by Lanz Von Liebenfels (author of Theozoology), about the evolving of apes and humans. Aryans (Asings) and the Animal People (Apes). The Aryans were the earthly divine race, they were endowed with supreme intelligence, electronic minds, blond, blue-eyed, beauty, and creativity.



The Animal People were the worldly counterparts, they were cursed with stupidity (except in the art of deception, in which they excelled), gorilla-like ugliness, and the urge to destroy. At some early time, the Apes began to envy and hate the Asings. They pondered methods of destroying the Aryans and decided to attack the superior race through miscegenation. Conveniently, the Aryan women had a fatal susceptiblilty to the Apes. (Lanz insisted that the story of the temptation of Eve in Genesis was an esoteric account of her seduction by one of the monsters). {textual criticism, common among evolutionists} After several centuries of such interbreeding, the original Asings and Animals disappeared. Now the earth was populated by mixed races, which could be ranked as higher or lower according to the proportions of Aryan and Ape blood that they possessed, apporximately as follows:



Nordic (blond, blue-eyed)-----------------Close to pure Aryan

Germanic (brown hair, blue-eyed or,

less desirable, brown-eyed)-----Predominatly Aryan

Mediterranean (white but swarthy)--------Slight Aryan

Slavic (white but degenerative bone structure-- Aryan-half Ape

Oriental--------------------------------Slight Ape preponderance

Black African-------------------------------Predominatly Ape

Jewish (fiendish skull)--------------------Close to pure Ape



We all know the brutal murdering that went on because of his belief (millions and millions and millions). He was out to purify his race from the Apes. Evolution at it's finest.



Evolution is merely an excuse for some to promote extreme political agendas. Communism, Socialism, Euthanasia, Racism, Gay Rights, Pornography, Abortion, Feminism, Naziism, Humanism and Extreme Environmentalism.



Evolution has destroyed the notion of God and faith in the Holy Bible to many, and that was it's intent.



Lowell

 

[BigCarl64]

This will be my last post on this topic. I have better uses of my time than to debate this topic when it is obvious our beliefs are unchangeable. I also fail to see the cause and effect of teaching evolution that led to evil dictators throughout history. That is a fallacy religious fanatics would have you believe. For those of you who believe in Kent Hovind, there is a prominent scholar, Dr. Michael Shermer, who clearly and concisely debunks all the evidence put forth by Mr. Hovind. It also seems Mr. Hovind is also in trouble with the IRS.



Dr. Shermer has written several books on the bible and evolution. There is also a book written by Tim Callahan “Secret Origins of the Bible” which is an excellent source of facts on how and why the bible came into being.



Book

 

[MCummings]

Hey Carl,



I don't believe that book too much. It seems to follow a bit of circular reasoning, just from the review.



Here's another discussion we had a while back. .



What if we found Noah's Ark?



Merrick

 

[lpearson]

Originally posted by MCummings

Hey Carl,



I don't believe that book too much. It seems to follow a bit of circular reasoning, just from the review.



Here's another discussion we had a while back. .



What if we found Noah's Ark?



Merrick

Merrick, I agree



Lowell