Most atheists dont know about science (Page 544) GeraldtheGnome: God created nothing, a god of no origin is a made up god. The Bible even includes odd spontaneous versions of evolution in the third chapter. Check it out. Life never evolved in the Pokémon kind of style of the third chapter. GeraldtheGnome: The Bible doesn’t even include certain life forms yet I am supposed to believe that all life was created by magic. Why should I believe that it is so when it doesn’t even include that all life was created and there’s no proof that magic was used in order to create all that is claimed to have been created according to the anonymous authors of the book ? Earlier on I was also going to also mention some myths some people have as to why they, without proof, think that things about evolution go against everything else about evolution to some degree or another. (Edited by GeraldtheGnome)  (Post deleted by Blackshoes ) Blackshoes: “Scientists who go about teaching that evolution is a fact of life are great con-men, and the story they are telling may be the greatest hoax ever. In explaining evolution, we do not have one iota of fact.” Dr. T. N. Tahmisian “The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution.” Stephen Jay Gould “Contrary to what most scientists write, the fossil record does not support the Darwinian theory of evolution because it is this theory (there are several) which we use to interpret the fossil record. By doing so we are guilty of circular reasoning if we then say the fossil record supports this theory.” Ronald R. West “Why do geologists and archeologists still spend their scarce money on costly radiocarbon determinations? They do so because occasional dates appear to be useful. While the method cannot be counted on to give good, unequivocal results, the number do impress people, and save them the trouble of thinking excessively. Expressed in what look like precise calendar years, figures seem somehow better … ‘Absolute’ dates determined by a laboratory carry a lot of weight, and are extremely helpful in bolstering weak arguments.” “No matter how ‘useful’ it is, though, the radiocarbon method is still not capable of yielding accurate and reliable results. There are gross discrepancies, the chronology is uneven and relative, and the accepted dates are actually selected dates. This whole bless thing is nothing but 13th-century alchemy, and it all depends upon which funny paper you read.” Robert E. Lee, (Edited by Blackshoes)  GeraldTheGnumbnut: Arrogant, narcissistic egotist = I only tell the truth! Sure you do (as YOU see it) GeraldtheGnome: Each video he put on proved nothing, none of those in any of them proved what they claimed to be true. The same with the other 'tripe' that Bob put on that's supposed to wow people. Robert E. Lee ? Yes, that bit was as informative and as worthwhile as if Bruce Lee gave an expert opinion on Nuclear Science. Either way it meant nothing and for the record I know that the two Lee's were not related to each other and also I just used the Bruce Lee bit as a hypothetical scenario as well. After the way some come out with way out guesses on these forums I had to make sure another stupid belief about what I've mentioned isn't made ever again. Evolution is not anything but evolution, it is not stupid and it is not anything that is claimed in the video. It certainly isn't a person. Life never came from inorganic material ? Well that unproven claim has the idiot who said that rule out the magic creation theory and abiogenesis. It never actually ruled out anything to do with evolution. Even abiogenesis, which the false claim was really about, is an unproven theory that life came from nothing. If Bob puts up some more bull$#17 about life certainly didn't come from nothing again then I'll show him Bible quotes about life coming from nothing. Something of which I have already done on this forum. This bit is a portion of the video, it's really a part of a longer sentence, but it's basically this genius statement, "We cannot and we still have not made something that is alive", well we haven't and no one has. Has Bob worked out why it is impossible to do that ? If something is alive then of course you can't make something alive alive. I'm sure it was meant to mean that no one has made inorganic material alive, well that is true, it's also true about the claims that are in The Bible about such claims as well. The exaggeration about a cell is so complex was a silly one too. A cell was never created by any god or goddess. All religious gods and goddesses are made up. To Bob. Is everyone whoever was into alchemy stupid ? GeraldtheGnome: וְאֵיבָה אָשִׁית בֵּינְךָ וּבֵין הָאִשָּׁה וּבֵין זַרְעֲךָ וּבֵין זַרְעָהּ הוּא יְשׁוּפְךָ רֹאשׁ וְאַתָּה תְּשׁוּפֶנּוּ עָקֵב ס Massoretic Text Hebrew. The Book of Genesis, chapter three, verse 15. w'ëyväh äshiyt Bëyn'khä ûvëyn häiSHäh ûvëyn zar'ákhä ûvëyn zar'äH hû y'shûf'khä rosh w'aTäh T'shûfeNû äqëv š Massoretic Text Hebrew. The Book of Genesis, chapter three, verse 15. And I will put enmity between thee and the woman and between thy seed and her seed it shall bruise thy head and thou shalt bruise his heel. Well so far I have shown that the myth is actually about gods and goddesses, all of which are not depicted in the fantasy as being all powerful, all knowing, all present but it has shown that they are very flawed, unforgiving, spiteful/hateful and cruel, basically that they all held grudges and cursed those that they wished to curse. The verse I'm now referring to has it that the gods and goddesses decided to make sure that the one who was once a talking Serpent whom was spontaneously evolved into a Snake, with which there is nothing to suggest that it was about a talking Snake, was to hate the human female and she was to hate that one, also that their offspring were to hate each other each other too. The bruising nonsense really amounts to nothing, it's just crap. Anyway the gods and goddesses are made up, the spontaneously generated woman was made up and the, by this stage of the story, the spontaneously evolved Snake also didn't exist. No life form has ever been mentioned to evolve that quickly outside of fantasy stories. No life form was ever created at all and since it has that only Snake evolved it meant that it could not breed, since no life form was created and since that is more than one Snake around now it is proof that the story is made up nonsense. In the myth the Snake never did anything evil yet got punished by the evil gods and goddesses of the myth. Each religious god and goddess is made up. The letter o shouldn't be there, it never shows up when I try to edit it to remove it. (Edited by GeraldtheGnome) Blackshoes: “The chance that higher life forms might have emerged in this way is comparable with the chance that ‘a tornado sweeping through a junk yard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein’.” Sir Fred Hoyle “The entire hominid collection known today would barely cover a billiard table, … the collection is so tantalizingly incomplete, and the specimens themselves often so fragmented and inconclusive, that more can be said about what is missing than about what is present. …but ever since Darwin’s work inspired the notion that fossils linking modern man and extinct ancestor would provide the most convincing proof of human evolution, preconceptions have led evidence by the nose in the study of fossil man.” John Reader “A five million-year-old piece of bone that was thought to be a collarbone of a humanlike creature is actually part of a dolphin rib, …He [Dr. T. White] puts the incident on par with two other embarrassing [sic] faux pas by fossil hunters: Hesperopithecus, the fossil pig’s tooth that was cited as evidence of very early man in North America, and Eoanthropus or ‘Piltdown Man,’ the jaw of an orangutan and the skull of a modern human that were claimed to be the ‘earliest Englishman’. “The problem with a lot of anthropologists is that they want so much to find a hominid that any scrap of bone becomes a hominid bone.'” Dr. Tim White “We add that it would be all too easy to object that mutations have no evolutionary effect because they are eliminated by natural selection. Lethal mutations (the worst kind) are effectively eliminated, but others persist as alleles. …Mutants are present within every population, from bacteria to man. There can be no doubt about it. But for the evolutionist, the essential lies elsewhere: in the fact that mutations do not coincide with evolution.” Pierre-Paul Grassé GeraldtheGnome: אֶל־הָאִשָּׁה אָמַר הַרְבָּה אַרְבֶּה עִצְּבוֹנֵךְ וְהֵרֹנֵךְ בְּעֶצֶב תֵּלְדִי בָנִים וְאֶל־אִישֵׁךְ תְּשׁוּקָתֵךְ וְהוּא יִמְשָׁל־בָּךְ ס Massoretic Text Hebrew. The Book of Genesis, chapter three, verse 16. el-häiSHäh ämar har'Bäh ar'Beh iTZ'vônëkh' w'hëronëkh' B'etzev Tël'diy väniym w'el-iyshëkh' T'shûqätëkh' w'hû yim'shäl-Bäkh' š Massoretic Text Hebrew. The Book of Genesis, chapter three, verse 16. Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception, in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children and thy desire [shall be] to thy husband and he shall rule over thee. This bit is now the claim, with the he added, that it's only one god in the story that talked to her, no, it was the gods and goddesses, the he bit was added in to give the impression that it is only about one god. So what has happened so far in the myth is that the gods and goddesses of no origin have punished the Snake, even though the Snake didn't do anything wrong, also the punishment of all over animals, except for Humans in the garden except for the female of the story, all of which did nothing wrong, only three were accused of wrong doing after all. It's basically about the evil, uncaring gods and goddesses cursed her and told her that each time she gave birth she was going to be in torture and pain. That she was to have kids, that she was to be faithful to her husband and that he was the boss over her. That was sexist. The garden was never around, nor were the gods and goddesses and the spontaneously generated Human couple never existed. The myth has that she was punished when she did nothing wrong, in fact at no time did it have that she was never told to go eat from the magical tree or to even touch it. The magical tree didn't exist. Also the couple were told just to eat fruit, look at the stories about Steve Jobs and Ashton Kutcher. No one is meant to have a fruit only diet and it does mess you up.  TheismIsUntenable: "Theodore N. Tahmisian, a nuclear physicist" OK so not someone who has any idea about biology, genetics, or anything to do with evolutionary theory. Cool...and your next source is... Gould...who is a proponent of evolution... I can't even with you anymore BS. You're literally a walking potato. Blackshoes: No amount of evidence. No amount of science. No amount of facts will open their eyes to the overwhelming truth, that they cannot reason beyond their, faith, beliefs, opinions, conditioning, and academic programming. Even a child can reason enough to see how ridiculous faith in Abiogenesis and chance is.  "Evolutionists often insist that evolution is a proven fact of science, providing the very framework of scientific interpretation, especially in the biological sciences. This, of course, is nothing but wishful thinking. Evolution is not even a scientific hypothesis, since there is no conceivable way in which it can be tested. THE RELIGIOUS ESSENCE OF EVOLUTIONISM As a matter of fact, many leading evolutionists have recognized the essentially "religious" character of evolutionism. Even though they themselves believe evolution to be true, they acknowledge the fact that they believe it! "Science", however, is not supposed to be something one "believes". Science is knowledge—that which can be demonstrated and observed and repeated. Evolution cannot be proved, or even tested; it can only be believed. For example, two leading evolutionary biologists have described modern neo-Darwinism as "part of an evolutionary dogma accepted by most of us as part of our training". 1 A prominent British biologist, a Fellow of the Royal Society, in the Introduction to the 1971 edition of Darwin's Origin of Species, said that "belief in the theory of evolution" was "exactly parallel to belief in special creation,"with evolution merely "a satisfactory faith on which to base our interpretation of nature". 2 G.H. Harper calls it a "metaphysical belief". 3 Ernst Mayr, the outstanding Harvard evolutionary biologist, calls evolution "man's world view today". 4 Sir Julian Huxley, probably the outstanding evolutionist of the twentieth century saw "evolution as a universal and all-pervading process"5 and, in fact, nothing less than "the whole of reality." 6 A leading evolutionary geneticist of the present day, writing an obituary for Theodosius Dobzhansky, who himself was probably the nation's leading evolutionist at the time of his death in 1975, says that Dobzhansky's view of evolution followed that of the notorious Jesuit priest, de Chardin. The place of biological evolution in human thought was, according to Dobzhansky, best expressed in a passage that he often quoted from Pierre Teilhard de Chardin: '(Evolution) is a general postulate to which all theories, all hypotheses, all systems must henceforward bow and which they must satisfy in order to be thinkable and true. Evolution is a light which illuminates all facts, a trajectory which all lines of thought must follow.’ 7 The British physicist, H.S. Lipson, has reached the following conclusion. In fact, evolution became in a sense a scientific religion; almost all scientists have accepted it and many are prepared to 'bend' their observations to fit in with it. 8 The man whom Dobzhansky called "France's leading zoologist." although himself an evolutionist, said that scientists should "destroy the myth of evolution" as a simple phenomenon which is "unfolding before us". 9 Dr. Colin Patterson, Senior Paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History, by any accounting one of the world's top evolutionists today, has recently called evolution "positively anti-knowledge", saying that "all my life I had been duped into taking evolutionism as revealed truth". 10 In another address he called evolution "story-telling". 11 All of the above-cited authorities are (or were) among the world's foremost authorities on evolutionism. Note again the terms which they use in describing evolution. Evolutionary dogma A scientific religion A satisfactory faith The myth of evolution Man's world view Anti-knowledge All-pervading process Revealed truth The whole of reality An illuminating light Metaphysical belief Story-telling Charles Darwin himself called evolution "this grand view of life". Now such grandiloquent terms as these are not scientific terms! One does not call the law of gravity, for example, "a satisfactory faith", nor speak of the laws of thermodynamics as "dogma". Evolution is, indeed, a grand world view, but it is not science. Its very comprehensiveness makes it impossible even to test scientifically. As Ehrlich and Birch have said: "Every conceivable observation can be fitted into it.—No one can think of ways in which to test it". 12 RELIGIONS BASED ON EVOLUTION In view of the fundamentally religious nature of evolution, it is not surprising to find that most world religions are themselves based on evolution. It is certainly unfitting for educators to object to teaching scientific creationism in public schools on the ground that it supports Biblical Christianity when the existing pervasive teaching of evolution is supporting a host of other religions and philosophies. The concept of evolution did not originate with Charles Darwin. It has been the essential ingredient of all pagan religions and philosophies from time immemorial (e.g., atomism, pantheism, stoicism, gnosticism and all other humanistic and polytheistic systems). All beliefs which assume the ultimacy of the space/time/matter universe, presupposing that the universe has existed from eternity, are fundamentally evolutionary systems. The cosmos, with its innate laws and forces, is the only ultimate reality. Depending on the sophistication of the system, the forces of the universe may be personified as gods and goddesses who organized the eternal chaotic cosmos into its present form (as in ancient Babylonian and Egyptian religions), or else may themselves be invested with organizing capabilities (as in modern scientific evolutionism). In all such cases, these are merely different varieties of the fundamental evolutionist world view, the essential feature of which is the denial that there is one true God and Creator of all things. In this perspective, it becomes obvious that most of the great world religions—Buddhism, Confucianism, Taoism, Hinduism, Animism, etc. are based on evolution. Creationism is the basis of only such systems as Orthodox Judaism, Islam and Biblical Christianity. The liberal varieties of Judaism, Islam, Catholicism and Protestantism, as well as most modern pseudo-Christian cults, are all based on evolution. All of this points up the absurdity of banning creationist teaching from the schools on the basis that it is religious. The schools are already saturated with the teaching of religion in the guise of evolutionary "science". In the modern school of course, this teaching mostly takes the form of secular humanism, which its own proponents claim to be a "nontheistic religion". It should also be recalled that such philosophies as communism, fascism, socialism, nazism, and anarchism have been claimed by their founders and promoters to be based on what they regarded as scientific evolutionism. If creation is excluded from the schools because it is compatible with Christian "fundamentalism", should not evolution also be banned since it is the basis of communism and nazism? THE SCIENTIFIC IRRELEVANCE OF EVOLUTION Some people have deplored the questioning of evolution on the ground that this is attacking science itself. In a recent debate, the evolutionist whom the writer debated did not attempt to give any scientific evidences for evolution, electing instead to spend his time defending such scientific concepts as atomic theory, relativity, gravity, quantum theory and science in general, stating that attacking evolution was tantamount to attacking science! The fact is, however, that the elimination of evolutionary interpretations from science would hardly be noticed at all, in terms of real scientific understanding and accomplishment. G.H. Harper comments on this subject as follows: It is frequently claimed that Darwinism is centeral to modern biology. On the contrary, if all references to Darwinism suddenly disappeared, biology would remain substantially unchanged. It would merely have lost a little color. Grandiose doctrines in science are like some occupants of high office; they sound very important but have in fact been promoted to a position of ineffectuality. 13 The scientific irrelevance of evolutionism has been strikingly (but, no doubt, inadvertently) illustrated in a recent issue of Science News. This widely read and highly regarded weekly scientific journal was cormmemorating its sixtieth anniversary, and this included a listing of what it called the "scientific highlights" of the past sixty years. 14 Of the sixty important scientific discoveries and accomplishments which were chosen, only six could be regarded as related in any way to evolutionist thought. These six were as follows: (1). 1927. Discovery that radiation increases mutation rates in fruit flies. (2). 1943. Demonstration that nucleic acids carry genetic information. (3). 1948. Enunciation of the "big bang" cosmology. (4). 1953. Discovery of the "double helix" structure of DNA. (5). 1961. First step taken in cracking the genetic code. (6). 1973. Development of procedures for producing recombinant DNA molecules. Four of these six "highlights" are related to the structure and function of DNA. Even though evolutionists have supposed that these concepts somehow correlate with evolution, the fact is that the remarkable DNA molecule provides strong evidence of original creation (since it is far too complex to have arisen by chance) and of conservation of that creation (since the genetic code acts to guarantee reproduction of the same kind, not evolution of new kinds). One of the two other highlights showed how to increase mutations but, since all known true mutations are harmful, this contributed nothing whatever to the understanding of evolution. One (the "big bang" concept) was indeed an evolutionary idea but it is still an idea which has never been proved and today is increasingly being recognized as incompatible with basic physical laws. Consequently, it is fair to conclude that no truly significant accomplishment of modern science either depends on evolution or supports evolution! There would certainly be no detriment to real scientific learning if creation were incorporated as an alternative to evolution in school curricula. It would on the other hand, prove a detriment to the pervasive religion of atheistic humanism which now controls our schools." BY HENRY M. MORRIS (Edited by Blackshoes) GeraldtheGnome: You two bring out the worst in each other at times, Bob is not like a walking spud and Bob's crap above is from his other forum. How is even one part of it right ? GeraldtheGnome: וּלְאָדָם אָמַר כִּי־שָׁמַעְתָּ לְקוֹל אִשְׁתֶּךָ וַתֹּאכַל מִן־הָעֵץ אֲשֶׁר צִוִּיתִיךָ לֵאמֹר לֹא תֹאכַל מִמֶּנּוּ אֲרוּרָה הָאֲדָמָה בַּעֲבוּרֶךָ בְּעִצָּבוֹן תֹּאכֲלֶנָּה כֹּל יְמֵי חַיֶּיךָ Massoretic Text Hebrew. The Book of Genesis, chapter three, verse 17. ûl'ädäm ämar Kiy-shäma'Tä l'qôl ish'Tekhä waTokhal min-häëtz ásher tziûiytiykhä lëmor lo tokhal miMeNû árûräh häádämäh Baávûrekhä B'iTZävôn TokháleNäh Kol y'mëy chaYeykhä Massoretic Text Hebrew. The Book of Genesis, chapter three, verse 17. And unto ´Äðäm he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife and hast eaten of the tree of which I commanded thee saying, Thou shalt not eat of it, cursed [is] the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat [of] it all the days of thy life. Once again he has been added in which gives the false belief that it is about one god, it's about gods and goddesses that told 'Adam' off. It's basically that because he listened to his wife and at from the magical tree that he was supposed so the ground is now cursed because of it, whatever that means, I just think it means that the ground will not be as arable, also that as a punishment he shall eat fruit for the rest of his life. He who was told not to eat it hardly got a punishment at all and yet all the others that were not told to stay away from it did get punished. Have you notice also that the claim that if he ate it he would die ? Well every real Human who ever lived died, the myth never really was about him dying if he at from it. Him and his wife never ate from the magical tree. The imaginary tree, the human couple and everything else claimed to have existed in there never existed. The garden was never around and all of the gods and goddesses are made up. No one was spontaneously generated. (Edited by GeraldtheGnome) GeraldtheGnome: I prefer Morris Minor and the Majors, some smokers prefer Phillip Morris. Someone guessed something about Whale evolution therefore without proof that Whale evolution has never occurred we all should believe that everything about Whale evolution is false. In the words of Homie the Clown, “Homie don’t play that !” Sure, those words didn’t make any sense, nor does the idea that if something is false or probably false about something then everything about it must be false without the proof that everything about it is false. Whales didn’t evolve ? Whales evolved, plants that needed sunlight on Earth in the past never went a day without The Sun around despite what is in The Book of Genesis, chapter one. It has that land plants with seeds spontaneously generated at the start of when an unknown and unproven light source started to emit light from an unknown location that day on the flat domed Earth and made them grow to the fully mature stage before the light went away on that day. That never happened, spontaneous generation was disproven long ago by the use of science and all of the rest of that was disproven too. (Edited by GeraldtheGnome) Blackshoes: Blackshoes: "Evolutionists cannot find transitional forms If evolution really occurred, the fossil record should reveal countless transitions from one species evolving to another kind. However, though billions of fossils have been unearthed, not one genuine transitional form in the process of evolving has ever been discovered. Instead of filling in the gaps in the fossil record with so-called missing links, palaeontologists have found many gaps but no evidence of transformational intermediates between documented fossil species. Evolutionists cannot explain how some invertebrate creature in the ancient ocean, with all its “hard parts” on the outside, managed to evolve into the first vertebrate — that is, the first fish– with its hard parts all on the inside. Many evolutionists use similarities in DNA or other biochemical components of organisms to “prove” evolution is a scientific fact. They frequently argue that if two organisms have similar DNA structures, they must have a common ancestor. The best-known example of similarities in DNA is that of the human and chimpanzee, since their DNA is approximately 90% in common and both have many physiological resemblances. However, similarity in DNA is no proof that man is a more highly evolved species of the chimpanzee. The superficial similarities between all apes and human beings are nothing compared to the differences in any practical or observable sense. The apparently small differences between human and chimpanzee DNA produces very great differences in their respective anatomies, intelligence, etc. The conclusion of the evidence is based entirely on perspective, not provable science. Similarities in DNA are better evidence of a “common Designer” than a “common ancestor.” It is logical that an Intelligent Creator would use the same type of genetic code based on DNA for all His created life forms. Evolution defies the law of entropy Evolution is unscientific because it defies a fundamental law of nature: the law of entropy. The law of increasing entropy, also known as the second law of thermodynamics, is that all things decline from a state of order to disorder. This universal law is plainly observable in everyday life. For example, a car requires intelligent and precise construction and maintenance in order for the engine to work. However, the car will rust and disintegrate into disrepair if not maintained. Evolution requires that one species will eventually evolve into a higher species with new and greater information, (such as “modern man” evolving from the primeval caveman). However, the law of entropy demonstrates that things do not evolve into something better if left on its own. All things age, deteriorate and disintegrate without equal or greater intelligent maintenance from an external source. Observable “evolution” is only a variation in type, not a change in kind Evolution is unscientific because it defies a fundamental law of nature: the law of entropy. The law of increasing entropy, also known as the second law of thermodynamics, is that all things decline from a state of order to disorder. This universal law is plainly observable in everyday life. For example, a car requires intelligent and precise construction and maintenance in order for the engine to work. However, the car will rust and disintegrate into disrepair if not maintained. Evolution requires that one species will eventually evolve into a higher species with new and greater information, (such as “modern man” evolving from the primeval caveman). However, the law of entropy demonstrates that things do not evolve into something better if left on its own. All things age, deteriorate and disintegrate without equal or greater intelligent maintenance from an external source. Mutations do not create new life Some mutations have supposed benefits, such as seedless grapes, hairless dogs, etc. Yet though these mutations might be beneficial to humans, it has no benefit to the organism itself (eg. the grape cannot reproduce without seeds). Even “beneficial” mutations are harmful to the organism if it is left in its own environment, without man’s special care. So-called “favourable” mutations such as sickle-cell anaemia can cause resistance to malaria; but if left in its own environment, the sickle-cell anaemia will cause plenty of problems of its own, and is detrimental to long-term survival. Mutations are more commonly harmful than beneficial. Mutations are usually the result of radiation or replication errors, and tend to make the carrier weaker, more disease-prone, and more dependent upon the care of others for survival. Cancer, cystic fibrosis, haemophilia, and color-blindness are all caused by mutational errors, even so much as one missing chromosome. Though evolutionists point to mutations as examples of observable “evolutionary process”, these mutations are better support of the law of entropy rather than macroevolution. Regardless, even if mutations are neutral, they are only changes in genes that already exist. Mutations have never created new genes – which would be required in order for evolution to take place. (For detailed information on mutations, read article by Dr. Gary Parker https://answersingenesis.org/genetics/mutations/mutations/ ) Evolution is Religion – Not Science The following article is an excerpt written by Dr. Henry M. Morris, Ph.D. References and full detail can be obtained from the following link: http://www.icr.org/home/resources/resources_tracts_scientificcaseagainstevolution/ In no way does the idea of particles-to-people evolution meet the long-accepted criteria of a scientific theory. There are no such evolutionary transitions that have ever been observed in the fossil record of the past; and the universal law of entropy seems to make it impossible on any significant scale. Evolutionists claim that evolution is a scientific fact, but they almost always lose scientific debates with creationist scientists. Accordingly, most evolutionists now decline opportunities for scientific debates, preferring instead to make unilateral attacks on creationists. Scientists should refuse formal debates because they do more harm than good, but scientists still need to counter the creationist message. The question is, just why do they need to counter the creationist message? Why are they so adamantly committed to anti-creationism? The fact is that evolutionists believe in evolution because they want to. It is their desire at all costs to explain the origin of everything without a Creator. Evolutionism is thus intrinsically an atheistic religion. Some may prefer to call it humanism, and “new age” evolutionists place it in the context of some form of pantheism, but they all amount to the same thing. Whether atheism or humanism (or even pantheism), the purpose is to eliminate a personal God from any active role in the origin of the universe and all its components, including man. The core of the humanistic philosophy is naturalism — the proposition that the natural world proceeds according to its own internal dynamics, without divine or supernatural control or guidance, and that we human beings are creations of that process. It is instructive to recall that the philosophers of the early humanistic movement debated as to which term more adequately described their position: humanism or naturalism. The two concepts are complementary and inseparable. Since both naturalism and humanism exclude God from science or any other active function in the creation or maintenance of life and the universe in general, it is very obvious that their position is nothing but atheism. And atheism, no less than theism, is a religion! Even doctrinaire-atheistic evolutionist Richard Dawkins admits that atheism cannot be proved to be true. Of course we can’t prove that there isn’t a God. Therefore, they must believe it, and that makes it a religion. The atheistic nature of evolution is not only admitted, but insisted upon by most of the leaders of evolutionary thought. Ernst Mayr, for example, says that: Darwinism rejects all supernatural phenomena and causations. A professor in the Department of Biology at Kansas State University says: Even if all the data point to an intelligent designer, such a hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic. It is well known by almost everyone in the scientific world today that such influential evolutionists as Stephen Jay Gould and Edward Wilson of Harvard, Richard Dawkins of England, William Provine of Cornell, and numerous other evolutionary spokesmen are dogmatic atheists. Eminent scientific philosopher and ardent Darwinian atheist Michael Ruse has even acknowledged that evolution is their religion! Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion — a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality . . . . Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today. Another way of saying “religion” is “worldview,” the whole of reality. The evolutionary worldview applies not only to the evolution of life, but even to that of the entire universe. In the realm of cosmic evolution, our naturalistic scientists depart even further from experimental science than life scientists do, manufacturing a variety of evolutionary cosmologies from esoteric mathematics and metaphysical speculation. Socialist Jeremy Rifkin has commented on this remarkable game. Cosmologies are made up of small snippets of physical reality that have been remodeled by society into vast cosmic deceptions. They must believe in evolution, therefore, in spite of all the evidence, not because of it. And speaking of deceptions, note the following remarkable statement. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, . . . in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated commitment to materialism. . . . we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counterintuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door. The author of this frank statement is Richard Lewontin of Harvard. Since evolution is not a laboratory science, there is no way to test its validity, so all sorts of justso stories are contrived to adorn the textbooks. But that doesn’t make them true! An evolutionist reviewing a recent book by another (but more critical) evolutionist, says: We cannot identify ancestors or “missing links,” and we cannot devise testable theories to explain how particular episodes of evolution came about. Gee is adamant that all the popular stories about how the first amphibians conquered the dry land, how the birds developed wings and feathers for flying, how the dinosaurs went extinct, and how humans evolved from apes are just products of our imagination, driven by prejudices and preconceptions. A fascinatingly honest admission by a physicist indicates the passionate commitment of establishment scientists to naturalism. Speaking of the trust students naturally place in their highly educated college professors, he says: And I use that trust to effectively brainwash them. . . . our teaching methods are primarily those of propaganda. We appeal — without demonstration — to evidence that supports our position. We only introduce arguments and evidence that supports the currently accepted theories and omit or gloss over any evidence to the contrary. Creationist students in scientific courses taught by evolutionist professors can testify to the frustrating reality of that statement. Evolution is, indeed, the pseudoscientific basis of religious atheism, as Ruse pointed out. Will Provine at Cornell University is another scientist who frankly acknowledges this. As the creationists claim, belief in modern evolution makes atheists of people. One can have a religious view that is compatible with evolution only if the religious view is indistinguishable from atheism. Once again, we emphasize that evolution is not science, evolutionists’ tirades notwithstanding. It is a philosophical worldview, nothing more. (Evolution) must, they feel, explain everything. . . . A theory that explains everything might just as well be discarded since it has no real explanatory value. Of course, the other thing about evolution is that anything can be said because very little can be disproved. Experimental evidence is minimal. Even that statement is too generous. Actual experimental evidence demonstrating true evolution (that is, macroevolution) is not “minimal.” It is nonexistent! The concept of evolution as a form of religion is not new. In my book, The Long War Against God, I documented the fact that some form of evolution has been the pseudo-rationale behind every anti-creationist religion since the very beginning of history. This includes all the ancient ethnic religions, as well as such modern world religions as Buddhism, Hinduism, and others, as well as the “liberal” movements in even the creationist religions (Christianity, Judaism, Islam). As far as the twentieth century is concerned, the leading evolutionist is generally considered to be Sir Julian Huxley, primary architect of modern neo-Darwinism. Huxley called evolution a “religion without revelation” and wrote a book with that title (2nd edition, 1957). In a later book, he said: Evolution . . . is the most powerful and the most comprehensive idea that has ever arisen on earth. Later in the book he argued passionately that we must change “our pattern of religious thought from a God-centered to an evolution-centered pattern.” Then he went on to say that: “The God hypothesis . . . is becoming an intellectual and moral burden on our thought.” Therefore, he concluded that “we must construct something to take its place.” That something, of course, is the religion of evolutionary humanism, and that is what the leaders of evolutionary humanism are trying to do today. In closing this survey of the scientific case against evolution (and, therefore, for creation), the reader is reminded again that all quotations in the article are from doctrinaire evolutionists. No Bible references are included, and no statements by creationists. The evolutionists themselves, to all intents and purposes, have shown that evolutionism is not science, but religious faith in atheism." https://www.whatistruth.com.au/the-truth-about-evolution/ https://vimeo.com/150428036 GeraldtheGnome: What is the truth, not what is truth. Apart from that sop making me laugh. Evolutionism ? There’s enough words that dumb down English on this forum, especially by you, without adding that one to them. Religious faith is a form of atheism, outside of religion no form of science, not even dodgy science, is a form of religion. Your blog was full of mistakes. You never literally spoke on here. Now to get to something extremely out of date, the anonymous authors of your favourite book died well over a thousand years ago. At least it was updated for a bit to include Unicorns and Dragons. Did the Unicorns fart out rainbows too ? You might as well have told me that the blog was by Ronald McDonald. It wouldn’t have made a difference. None of it proved anything except that it was religious bias and confirmation bias propaganda. Show what is possible at the very least or prove that it is true. (Edited by GeraldtheGnome) GeraldtheGnome: וְקוֹץ וְדַרְדַּר תַּצְמִיחַ לָךְ וְאָכַלְתָּ אֶת־עֵשֶׂב הַשָּׂדֶה Massoretic Text Hebrew. The Book of Genesis, chapter three, verse 18. w'qôtz w'dar'Dar Tatz'miyªch läkh' w'äkhal'Tä et-ësev haSädeh Massoretic Text Hebrew. The Book of Genesis, chapter three, verse 18. Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee and thou shalt eat the herb of the field. The magicians, in other words the gods and goddesses of the story told the man who was spontaneously generated that from the ground plants with thorns and thistles were going to appear, another case of spontaneous evolution or just standard evolution (spurred on by magic) is what that verse is about. Unlike what is realistic the claim is that every land plant was safe for any Human to eat. In reality there are land plants that can kill a person. So far it's the story of evil, lying gods and goddesses or evil ones that were forgetful since no one died from any plant, so far he was told that fruit and all (species of) land plants were to be be eaten by him. Yes, species wasn't a word back then. Of course anyone is able to prove that each religious god, including one named God, as well as every religious goddess is imaginary. If there be thorns. That is the name of a novel. Have you read that book Bob ? Now Bob, the way evolution is shown to have come about in your favourite book is about a form of evolution that never happened at all. You are an agnostic atheist, you are also a polytheist even though you don't realize that. (Edited by GeraldtheGnome)  mrsmargaret48: The self appointed experts know a thing or two about fairy tales but science is a mystery to them just like reality and facts. | Science Chat Room 1 Person Chatting Similar Conversations |
