Is macroevolution a religion? Should we rename it evolutiontarianism?

TO: ChiropteraI think I was very clear in my posting to: http://EvC Forum: Young earth creationism is valid and the macroevolutionary hypothesis is not valid -->EvC Forum: Young earth creationism is valid and the macroevolutionary hypothesis is not validI do not think anymore needs to be said.Sincerely,Ken[This message has been edited by kendemyer, 03-06-2004]

Yes, it is clear that you cannot support the assertion and have run away from meaningful discussion in that thread as well as this thread.

Okay, I have made an attempt to answer that post on the proper thread.This thread is supposed to be about evolution being a Taliban-like religion.

Ken, a reply to posts # 24, 26, and 27, please.

quote:

---

A large point is being ignored. When atheism is left on its own and becomes the paradigm of a country and there has not been a foundation of Bible believing or strong Christian input we see large degrees of chaos in a society (Mao, Stalin, North Korea, Eastern Europe, etc).

---

Since every single example you gave were Communist countries, maybe it has more to do with Communism as an economic system?Also, you forgot that both Russia and Eastern Europe DO have a christian input.

Kendemeyer,Your claim is that evolution is a Taliban-like religion.Have the Talibanic evolutionaries ever busted into your home and dragged you or a family member into prison? Have you or a family member or a friend ever lost your job because of your religious beliefs? I am still waiting for you to explain your position.

Did the communist freely choose atheism?There are successful Christian communes. In Israel the Jews have successful communes (called kibbutzes). Communism is made for saints of which there are few. Capitalism is made for sinners of which there are many. Communism and atheism do not mix well in history.also whales: Fossils | Answers in Genesis Missing Link | Answers in Genesis Missing Link | Answers in Genesis To Make a Tail for a Whale | Answers in Genesis Missing Link | Answers in Genesis Sincerely,Ken

Don't trust AiG.

In regards to the second law of thermodynamics and the earth being an open system:http://www.revelationwebsite.co.uk/index1/menton/om5.htmSincerely,Ken

Re: AIG complaintgenetic logical fallacysee:http://www.fallacyfiles.org/genefall.htmlGenetic fallacy - WikipediaSincerely,Ken

Kendemeyer, you have only posted links. I have responded with a link. What fallacy have I committed? To commit a fallacy, there has to be an argument. So far you have avoided any argumentation.Again, I ask you, in what way is evolution a Taliban-like religion?

Ken,I know this is the FFA and is essentially unmoderated, but I am going to step in anyway. If you truly want to make some kind of point on this forum I suggest that you actually attempt to discuss something. Battle of the Links is NOT an effective debating tool.I am also going to suggest that your opponents in these pseudo-debates ask their simple, easily answered questions one more time and then ignore you until you answer. You have no need of their help in looking foolish for your cause, as even some of your fellow Christians and creationists have told you.I will not suspend you, as I think you are the perfect poster boy for poor logic and ineffectual debating skills.Rock On

---

AdminAsgara
Queen of the Universe

bump for all the opponents

---

AdminAsgara
Queen of the Universe

Ken-I have to say right out that your debating skills are absolutely terrible. First you make a completely baseless charge equating evolutionists to the Taliban, then you continue to change directions and refer to abiogenesis as if it is your trump card against evolution.What's worse, you have continued to evade everyone's direct questions to you in every single thread you've been involved with up to the present. And finally, when you do decide to grace us with your responses, they are nothing but debunked websites, and nothing more from you in terms of actual argument. You have much to answer for already, so I'll make my question very short:You do know that there's a distinct difference between evolution and abiogenesis, don't you? Personally, it matters little to me if God put things into motion or not (abiogenesis). What took place after that point in time is of my primary interest, as it is for the rest of evolutionists here. Although there is research in that area of abiogenesis, and a number of theories with some supportive evidence (which is quite a bit more than the positive evidence creationists have on the matter), it is of little concern to an evolutionist. Why are you having such a difficult time understanding that?And if we are done this side issue at hand, could you please do us the honors and stear us back to the topic of this thread?

Ken,From the first site that you used for Genetic fallacy, I get this quote: [qs]So, the Genetic Fallacy is committed whenever an idea is evaluated based upon irrelevant history. To offer Kekul's dream as evidence either for or against the benzene ring hypothesis would be to commit the Genetic Fallacy.[/quote]This is actually arguing against your idea that we must understand abiogenesis before we can make statements about evolution. The "irrelevant history" is abiogenesis while the "idea being evaluated" is evolution. Do you get it now?