Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Is macroevolution a religion? Should we rename it evolutiontarianism?
Loudmouth
Inactive Member


Message 46 of 112 (90631)
03-05-2004 4:43 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by kendemyer
03-05-2004 4:36 PM


Re: TO: misteropus
quote:
Without a credible evidence to show that abiogenesis could realistically occur the materialist have not earned the right to go up to bat against the Christian creationnist.
So what is the credible evidence that creationists have that proves life required supernatural origins?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by kendemyer, posted 03-05-2004 4:36 PM kendemyer has not replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 47 of 112 (90632)
03-05-2004 4:44 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by kendemyer
03-05-2004 4:36 PM


to kendemyer
kendemyer,
No one knows how the universe began. So what?
No one yet has a complete picture as to how life began. So what?
We do have ample evidence that the earth has a long history, and that present species have evolved from earlier species, regardless where the very first life came from. Do you want to argue about evidence, or do you want to link to some more websites?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by kendemyer, posted 03-05-2004 4:36 PM kendemyer has not replied

  
MisterOpus1
Inactive Member


Message 48 of 112 (90645)
03-05-2004 5:20 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by kendemyer
03-05-2004 4:36 PM


Re: TO: misteropus
Ken-
Are we talking about abiogenesis or evolution?
Surely an astute researcher such as yourself realizes that these are two separate subjects, right?
Is it me, or is there an influx of creationists coming through knowingly/unknowingly mixing these 2 topics together?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by kendemyer, posted 03-05-2004 4:36 PM kendemyer has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by kendemyer, posted 03-05-2004 5:25 PM MisterOpus1 has replied

  
kendemyer
Inactive Member


Message 49 of 112 (90647)
03-05-2004 5:25 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by MisterOpus1
03-05-2004 5:20 PM


Re: TO: misteropus
The materialist always run when abiogenesis comes up. I would be afraid of this issue too if I were a materialist who eventually is going to meet his Creator. The materialist often worship the god of science but that god cannot help them escape death. Is science close to solving the "death thing" yet.
Sincerely,
Ken
[This message has been edited by kendemyer, 03-05-2004]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by MisterOpus1, posted 03-05-2004 5:20 PM MisterOpus1 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by Loudmouth, posted 03-05-2004 5:38 PM kendemyer has not replied
 Message 51 by wj, posted 03-05-2004 5:40 PM kendemyer has not replied
 Message 52 by Chiroptera, posted 03-05-2004 5:43 PM kendemyer has not replied
 Message 53 by MisterOpus1, posted 03-05-2004 5:50 PM kendemyer has replied

  
Loudmouth
Inactive Member


Message 50 of 112 (90654)
03-05-2004 5:38 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by kendemyer
03-05-2004 5:25 PM


Re: TO: misteropus
Ken,
You seem to be posting the same things on two different threads, verbatim. Why don't we get back to the topic at hand. Please identify the religious nature of evolutionary theories. Explain how it is only faith that allows one to accept the theory of evolution.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by kendemyer, posted 03-05-2004 5:25 PM kendemyer has not replied

  
wj
Inactive Member


Message 51 of 112 (90656)
03-05-2004 5:40 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by kendemyer
03-05-2004 5:25 PM


Re: TO: misteropus
You initiated this thread on macroevolutin, cretin. Now, just for the record, describe the difference between abiogenesis and macrevolution. Then restrict you silliness to macroevolution.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by kendemyer, posted 03-05-2004 5:25 PM kendemyer has not replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 52 of 112 (90657)
03-05-2004 5:43 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by kendemyer
03-05-2004 5:25 PM


focus, ken, focus
And document your claim:
quote:
It seems to me though that the macroevolutionist are the academic equivalent of the Taliban....

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by kendemyer, posted 03-05-2004 5:25 PM kendemyer has not replied

  
MisterOpus1
Inactive Member


Message 53 of 112 (90659)
03-05-2004 5:50 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by kendemyer
03-05-2004 5:25 PM


Re: TO: misteropus
If we are equating materialist = evolutionist, you are incorrect.
Since abiogenesis has little to do with evolutionary processes, perhaps the evolutionist/materialist chooses not to engage in a conversation that has little/nothing to do with their given field.
So why are you continually referring to abiogenesis when it is clear it has no relation to evolution, but continue to address it as though it does?
Furthermore, why are you willfully continuing to de-rail the original topic at hand? I believe you have some direct questions that require explanation on your part.
Is this your normal practice of argumentation?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by kendemyer, posted 03-05-2004 5:25 PM kendemyer has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by kendemyer, posted 03-05-2004 6:35 PM MisterOpus1 has replied
 Message 55 by kendemyer, posted 03-05-2004 6:35 PM MisterOpus1 has not replied

  
kendemyer
Inactive Member


Message 54 of 112 (90674)
03-05-2004 6:35 PM
Reply to: Message 53 by MisterOpus1
03-05-2004 5:50 PM


Re: TO: misteropus
You can run from the abiogenesis issue but you cannot hide.
Sincerely,
Ken

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by MisterOpus1, posted 03-05-2004 5:50 PM MisterOpus1 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 74 by MisterOpus1, posted 03-07-2004 4:06 PM kendemyer has not replied

  
kendemyer
Inactive Member


Message 55 of 112 (90675)
03-05-2004 6:35 PM
Reply to: Message 53 by MisterOpus1
03-05-2004 5:50 PM


Re: TO: misteropus
You can run from the abiogenesis issue but you cannot hide.
Sincerely,
Ken

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by MisterOpus1, posted 03-05-2004 5:50 PM MisterOpus1 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by Chiroptera, posted 03-05-2004 6:42 PM kendemyer has replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 56 of 112 (90678)
03-05-2004 6:42 PM
Reply to: Message 55 by kendemyer
03-05-2004 6:35 PM


keep going, kendemeyer
Who's running from the abiogenesis issue? We all said we don't know how the first life developed. So what? Do you now want to talk about your claim about macroevolution being a religion?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by kendemyer, posted 03-05-2004 6:35 PM kendemyer has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by kendemyer, posted 03-05-2004 7:08 PM Chiroptera has replied

  
kendemyer
Inactive Member


Message 57 of 112 (90683)
03-05-2004 7:08 PM
Reply to: Message 56 by Chiroptera
03-05-2004 6:42 PM


Re: keep going, kendemyer
Usually when one builds a house he desires a firm foundation. The materialist have no foundation (e.g. origin of the univers's substance and abiogenesis) for their macroevolutionary hypothesis. In short, the are in a materialist tarpit. And the more they thrash in the tarpit the more evident it is that there is no hope available in the materialist philosophy.
Sincerely,
Ken

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by Chiroptera, posted 03-05-2004 6:42 PM Chiroptera has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by Chiroptera, posted 03-05-2004 7:13 PM kendemyer has replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 58 of 112 (90684)
03-05-2004 7:13 PM
Reply to: Message 57 by kendemyer
03-05-2004 7:08 PM


Re: keep going, kendemyer
Kendemeyer, are you arguing against evolution, or against materialist philosophy? Considering that there are many Christians who accept evolution, the two are not the same.
Edited to add:
Anyway, the huge amount of evidence for evolution of life over three and half billion years is plenty good foundation for the theory of evolution. The foundation of any science is the evidence in favor of it, not on any idea of origins. I don't need to know how life originated in order to be certain that life has evolved over the past few billion years; the history after the origin event is pretty well attested, especially during the last half billion years or so.
Edited again to add:
And you are one to talk about firm foundations, seeing how much faith you have in a religious text with very little scientific or archaeological evidence to back it up.
[This message has been edited by Chiroptera, 03-05-2004]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by kendemyer, posted 03-05-2004 7:08 PM kendemyer has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by kendemyer, posted 03-06-2004 11:40 AM Chiroptera has replied

  
kendemyer
Inactive Member


Message 59 of 112 (90805)
03-06-2004 11:40 AM
Reply to: Message 58 by Chiroptera
03-05-2004 7:13 PM


Re: keep going, kendemyer
To previous poster:
I view the macroevolutionary hypothesis as psuedoscience that serves as materialist philosophy window dressing. I realize that some Christians have made bad judgements regarding their decision in regards to this psuedoscience. I would believe there were Jews who decided to make a golden calf, however, and I do not think God was pleased. I do realize, however, that even some agnostics like Michael Denton are beginning to wake up. As you may recall Denton wrote: Evolution: A Theory in Crises. I have heard Denton has either renounced or semi- renounced that book but I I would ask, "Which time was he right? The time he wrote the book or the time he renounced it?" Whether or not Denton renounced or semi- renounced his book I do not know.
Sincerely,
Ken
[This message has been edited by kendemyer, 03-06-2004]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by Chiroptera, posted 03-05-2004 7:13 PM Chiroptera has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by Chiroptera, posted 03-06-2004 1:33 PM kendemyer has replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 60 of 112 (90819)
03-06-2004 1:33 PM
Reply to: Message 59 by kendemyer
03-06-2004 11:40 AM


I'm still waiting for evidence....
In what way is evolution a pseudoscience? Is there some inconsistency to it? Is there a whole set of phenomena that it does not explain (but should)? Is there an entire set of data that contradict it? Is it so malleable that it can explain any sort of data? Please try to present one or more concrete examples and explain how the example shows that evolution is a pseudoscience.
You may post a link to a website, of course, but please pick some example from it that supports your position and explain it in your own words.
By the way, the beginning topic of this thread is that evolution is a religion headed by a Taliban. Is religion the same as pseudoscience? Are you changing your views?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by kendemyer, posted 03-06-2004 11:40 AM kendemyer has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by kendemyer, posted 03-06-2004 1:52 PM Chiroptera has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024