Religion of Evolution

UTEOTW, Hovind is a clarlatain. His "degree" is from a paper mill, and his credibility is right up there with Dr Doolittle or Dr Seuss. He is to YEC what Benny Hinn is to faith healing. No YEC supporter gains credibility by quoting this wolf in sheep's clothing.

 

The site that you directed me is one that scoffs at what Hovind is doing. Look at one of the quotes here:

You ask why there should be a requirement to prove evolution beyond a reasonable doubt? That answer is very obvious. It is taught in virtually every textbook as fact beyond any reasonable doubt--from pre-school to the end of college. In children's story books, the first line starts out with this indoctrinating line: Billions of years ago... It starts out with an unproven assumption, a lie, stated as a truth. How arrogant. In virtually every textbook we have the same thing repeated over and over again. "Millions of years ago.." "Billions of years ago..." This is nothing less than soviet-style indoctrination. And it is being perpetrated in the name of education in our public, tax-paid schools, when in fact it is a religion, not a science.

Job 38:3-4 Gird up now thy loins like a man; for I will demand of thee, and answer thou me.
4 Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding.

Science is knowledge gained by observation. If there is no observer it isn't science. Answer God's question to Job. Where were you when God laid the foundations of the earth? If there was no observer it isn't science. Who observed the Big Bang? Who was there?
This is nothing but pure religion. There was no observation to take place. The only observation taking place at the time of creation was by God. That and that alone, puts it closer into the realm of science than the fairy-tale like story of the Big Bang relgion of evolution.
I will demand of thee, and answer thou me! (Job 38:3)
DHK

 

DHK, that's science by analogy, whose practice explained to us that the four elements were earth, air, fire, and water. The YEC crowd should not resort to this when attempting to provide evidence supporting a YEC position.

 

Science:
1 : the state of knowing : knowledge as distinguished from ignorance or misunderstanding
2 a : a department of systematized knowledge as an object of study <the science of theology> b : something (as a sport or technique) that may be studied or learned like systematized knowledge <have it down to a science>
3 a : knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method b : such knowledge or such a system of knowledge concerned with the physical world and its phenomena : NATURAL SCIENCE
From the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary

Science is knowledge. It is gained through observation, particularly the scientific method. It is observed and then systemized or classified.
From the four elements: earth, air, fire, and water, we observe. We also observe all of God's creation. Are you implying that life comes from non-life, defying the law of bio-genesis, such as the evolutionists. Everything is not just earth, air, fire and water. Only God gives life. Life did not just appear from a Big Bang. Order does not arise from chaos. My great, great grandfather was not a rock--was yours?
If science cannot be observed, it isn't science, by its very definition. It is religion. Only religion can deal with origins. Science has no business sticking its nose in the metaphysical realm of the origin of the universe, which God alone can explain.
DHK

 

After all how do you explain creation without God? Evolution.

 

Your prior assertion was that evolution is not science because it was not observed. One can make the same claim for YEC creation. Observation in science does not referr to an event. It referrs to results and evidence.

Since it is now an observed fact that the building blocks of life occur naturally, it is one step closer to supporting that theory. But it is a theory, and no one says otherwise.

Which has nothing to do with observation of HOW life may have arisen.

The Big Bang theory is not a theory of evolution. It's a theory of astronomy.

Chaotistitics would disagree with you. What we call "order" and "chaos" are quite relative. I've always found it odd that a Christian can accept that God can do anything EXCEPT create everything over a gradual (from our pov) period of time.

No, but she's nothing but a few pounds of minerals now, having been dead for some 35 years.

Then by your own definition, YEC science is also not science.

This is a clear example of what I said earlier. In order for the YEC crowd to attempt to refute evolution, it must first attempt to elevate it to the status of religion. Without that strawman arguement, YEC falls apart.

 

But the evidence for evolution IS observed. Fossils are removed from the earth, and are observed. Their resemblences and families are noted. The ages of the layers above and below are determined through observation of what radioactive decay results are present; many other particulars are observed.

The genome in currently living animals is observed. Family relationships are again deduced from the genome. This independently derived family relationship agrees with the previously derived family relationships.

Vestiges are observed. You have a muscle on your tailbone precisely where animals that really have tails have the muscle to lift their tails. Yours doesn't move anything.

This idea that evolution is not based on observation is hogwash; because looking at fossils is an observation!

Another falsehood. Evolutionists believe evolution to be true because the evidence is convincing. It is only not convincing to those who choose to deny it for religous reasons. It is not anthetical to GOd; it is only antithetical to a particular literal interpretation of Genesis.

No real scientific evidence backs up the antievolution stance. However, claims that they do are frequently made, but are, upon investigation, found to be empty of any real science.

It is one way to interpret Genesis One that makes it appear evolution is impossible; other interpretations are possible. And no matter how many times you repeat that evolution is a religion, it will remain a science.

Well, the big bang is observed.

There is no law that says all things tend toward a state of degeneration. If that were the true law, then how did the watch get here? It is a form of organization of formerly simpler materials!

Let me tell you the true law of disorganization. It is this: The total amount of disorganization will increase. But it does allow that in some places organization will increase, as long as we realize organization is decreasing that much more somewhere else.

Thus, life can breed more life, causing elements to be organized from crude food into complicated life, but in the process, the total amount of entropy in the universe is increased more quickly than it would have otherwise increased. The extra entropy is shed from the earth in the form of infrared radiation, but we normally don't pay much attention to that.

Another bad idea of laws of science. Snowflakes are a trivial example to the contrary that proves you have not correctly stated a true absolute law.

If order could never arrive through disorder, then how come a population can grow from just a few to many? Isn't that a reorganization of matter into living material of a more highly organized sort? A thing you just delared to be impossible!

There is a high degree of needless repititon in this post. Do you think that by saying the same thing over and over that will make it true?

 

Sorry, but you're clearly in denial about something that is factual. The formation of the building blocks of life have been observed several times. (Note that I did not say that life was observed as being formed, but ratherm the building blocks of life were formed, under specific conditions which occur naturally).

Never said otherwise. However, it must be noted that Biogenesis and evolution are two different things. Evolution is a theory (or series of theories) which explain the reason for life forms changing over time. Evolutionary theories do not attempt to explain the origin of life prior to the existence of life. This is a YEC promoted fallacy.

The observation of life forms changing over time is abundantly observable in the fossil record. At the same time, there is no evidence int eh fossil record whatsoever that all life forms in their present form existed at the same time anywhere in the past.

Science supports the gradual change of life forms over time. It does not support all life forms existing at the same time.

It certainly is. The study of astronomy and the study of biology are two complete separate things. They are no more related that the laws of chemistry and the laws of music.

Certain aspects of evolution are indeed fact. However, according to my daughter's science textbooks, the topic evolution is found only in one (biology), and it is clearly referred to as a theory. Again, YEC's must convince the rest of us that it's being pushed off as a "fact" in order to further their false agenda.

That's not evolution. That's astronomy. Your ignrance knows no limits.

More YEC grandstanding.

Interesting that you're clearly misunderstanding the second law of thermodynamics. This law referrs fo a closed system. It does not refer to the effect of outside forces, like, for instance, gravity. Last time I checked, gravity was a fact, though at one time, some Christians believed it to be heretical.

If order never arises out of Chaos, then God is a myth. You must be an atheist, then.

Even though it describes a flat earth.

Of course. Only YEC's are allowed that privilege, and get upset when called on it.

Perhaps it is your perception of the facts contained therein are in error. Christianity has been guilty of that countless times in scientific history. Just ask Columbus, Copernicus, Galileo, and Kepler.

Then only that which is supportable by science should be allowed in the science classroom, and then only as theory. Oh wait, I just described the theories of evolution as currently instructed.

Except for all the data.

Science is in the business of looking at data and explaining how. It doesn't attempt to explain whodunnit. YEC's often falsely say that science denies the creator. Since science doesn't attempt to address the nature of the creator, that assertion is yet another YEC strawman.

 

http://www.eso.org/

Please point out the errors with documented references that it really is an error. That you do not agree doesn't count.

You got one for us to try on your side?

 

As Richard Dawkins notes..

QUESTION: What is your view of more liberal religious views that are held by people like your Oxford colleage Arthur Peacocke, who is both a biochemist and an Anglican minister?

MR. DAWKINS: More sophisticated theological views, people like Arthur Peacocke and John Polkinghorne – obviously they're not creationists in any simple sense -- they're not fundamentalists, they're not stupid. So do I respect them more? Well, in one respect obviously I do, because really you could have an intelligent conversation with them -- they're not ignorant. On the other hand, I can't understand what they're doing it for. I mean, I don't understand what it is that is being added, either to their lives or to the storehouse of human wisdom by bringing in this additional dimension of explanation. We have science. Science is by no means complete -- there's a lot that we don't know -- but we're working on it. Both of those two gentlemen are scientists, and they know what that means. They understand it and they respect it. We're working on building up a complete picture of the universe, which if we succeed will be a complete understanding of the universe and everything that is in it. So I don't understand why they waste their time going into this other stuff which never has added anything to the storehouse of human wisdom, and I don't see that it ever will.

</font>[/QUOTE]The Christian believer in evolutionism responds to Richard Dawkins and his observateions - by claiming that Evolutionists know nothing about the claims of evolutionism so who can believe Dawkins.

How "instructive".

What a fresh revelation into the religion that is evolutionism.

In Christ,

Bob

 

DHK

Do you have anything other than personal incredulity to back up your claims? You assert that the earth is not billions of years old but I see no evidence to support your assertion. You claim problems with the Canadian Shield as taught in the textbooks. Then show us where the geologists' mistakes were.

 

http://www.halos.com/index.htm

Oh 'yes' and please use no atheist as "your sources". Also use no "Evolutionists" as "your sources" if you do not accept "Creationists" as sources debunking the bad science methods on your web site that promotes evolutionism's doctrines.

(Just want to make this objective).

As Clarence Darrow observed - how awful it would be if only one side of the debate were allowed.

In Christ,

Bob

 

I have given you many sources where supposedly objective school books would teach science using the scientific method and come to rational conclusions using valid science, science that uses observation. Evolution, as I have pointed out goes against many basic laws of science, so many so that it isn't even a science in and of itself. If it makes a claim that it believes is valid: i.e., the earth being 4.7 billion years old, then it is up to the evolutionist to bring forth the evidence of how the earth could possibly be so old. Their proof is taken entirely by faith, not by fact.
DHK

 

Not a problem. From "Radiometric Dating A Christian Perspective" Dr. Roger C. Wiens

http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/Wiens.html

and

http://www.reasons.org/chapters/spokane/newsletters/200403newsletter.shtml?main

 

Faith? No, fact.

Isochron dating of meteorites consistently dates the formation of the solar system to 4.56 billion years ago.

 

There is no reliable way of dating a hunk of rock from space. How does Isochron dating supposedly put a date of almost five billion years on a chunk of rock from space when you have no point of reference. You don't where the rock came from: moon, mars, saturn, comet, another galaxie, etc. You have no idea of what you are referencing. As far as a Creationist is concerned the rock is no more (at the very most) 6,000 to 10,000 years old, and has the appearance of an age much greater than that. God created this world, and all the universe, and all that is contained therein with an appearance of age. How old were the stars when God put them in the sky? One day old, but they looked a lot older than that. So Adam looked a lot older than a newborn when he was created also.
DHK