Evolution is a Religious Issue

But care to prove the following?"There is no blind belief, only voluminous evidence and thousands and thousands of borne-out preditions."That was the first response to the opening post, and one of if not the first point in that post. I have not read further, I must admit, but it strikes me that claiming thousands upon thousands of borne-out predictions is an exegerration, and cannot and is not subtantiated here, and will not be since no is probably going to list, or even be able to list the thousands upon thousands of born-out predictions.So why make that point? It reminds so much of TalkOrigins by the way.Seems to me that this point is made to bolster the real points made subsequently. In other words, make a statement that cannot and will not be verified, but one that already makes it appear like the debate and argument has been won on advance, is over, etc,...It's a cheap shot, in other words.Personally, I don't care that much if evolution is true or not, but the fact that such tactics are employed to argue for evolution, basically the tactics of propoganda, that makes me doubt the validity of the entire theory as real science.If it's real science, then let's don't deal in exegerration, propoganda, etc....

OK, well list 2000 predictions, and the time they were made, that are specific to evolution and have borne out, and then the statement will have been backed up.Not trying to be ugly, and as a newbie here, I was just recently told you are not suppossed to make assertations without being willing to back it uo by documentation. So I guess we can wait for the documentation for that statement?Btw, my point here is as much about the use of rhetoric and honest debate tactics as evolution per se, just in case anyone did not get that the first time around. Thanks.This message has been edited by randman, 05-28-2005 05:09 PM

I suspect, and you guys can tell me if I am wrong and show some specifics, that what you term "evolution" in applied biological research is nothing but the general concept of evolution, and really even YECers believe that. They beleive, for example, that new species arise all the time via evolution.But the issue is much more narrow that that. It is common descent, and the idea that every day, people's jobs in research depends on whether the specific concept of common descent from a single organism is true rather than just evolution of species from prior species, well, I suspect just the general concept is necessary and predictive.Please give some specifics.Btw, I notice on other threads, such as the existence of Jesus, that most of you guys do not play by the same rules. The vast majority of scholars, for example, accept there was a historical Jesus, and yet some here demand some sort of proof of that when even googling an encyclopedia would tell the same.As far as the theory of common descent, as long as evolutionists present it via exegarrations, imo, it is not worthy of consideration as real science, for the most part.This message has been edited by randman, 05-28-2005 08:20 PM

"Farmers wouldn't go to a plant breeder (who uses many inferences from evolutionary biology) for a new variety to plant, they would go to their local priest to pray for the crop or the weather. "Um, this is not actually correct. Those same inferences are not exclusive to evolutionary biology, and frankly, I consider it disingenious to make such a claim because it is an overstatement, and the arguments for common descent so rely on overstatements that after awhile, I think someone truly looking at the subject objectively would come to the conclusion that even if true, it is not treated in general as real science, but relies on indoctrination and propaganda.That's certainly how I came to view the way evolution is presented, taught, argued and believed, and I once accepted it's tenets.

Mick,In response to both posts, perhaps what is occuring here is a difference in definitions. When someone talks of the theory of evolution, that to me is the theory of common descent.Speciation is not denied by any camp that I know of.I am not a YEC, but my understanding of what they believe, for example, is that all species of cats derived from just one or 2 cat "kinds", and even go as far as to claim that, for instance, on Noah's ark, there would not need to be all of the various species, just species that could rapidly evolve into new species "after their kind."So all the different bears could have come from one bear group, and so on.So the debate, as far as I can tell, is not whether speciation occurs, or evolution occurs, but whether everything descended from one common ancestor, and moreover descended via the methods evolutionists argued. For example, if one accepts the anthropomorphic principle as valid, then that would make one an IDer and not a materialist evolutionist because there would be a goal intended prior to the development and evolution of species.I think it's critical for these discussions if they are to be at all fruitful, to at least recognize what the different sides of the argument and debate, and the different camps are saying.Don't you agree?

"No, not really. The YECs are simply wrong. That is aFACT."Uh huh. So really the proper way to discuss this whole issue is to not even bother to listen to what others say, but instead to insist they are wrong and do so loudly.Gee, and I am supposed to think that is a logical and well-reasoned argument?

Jar, you specifically claimed that I was wrong to say it is important to recognize the different sides of the argument in debate. You responded in the negative, very emphatically, to the following statement of mine."I think it's critical for these discussions if they are to be at all fruitful, to at least recognize what the different sides of the argument and debate, and the different camps are saying."This has more to do with YEC, OEC, ID, or whatever, and more to do with the general nature of what a large portion of evolutionists seem to think is acceptable means of discussion, debate, etc,...

Thanks for that comment, Crash.Just for the record, if anyone is paying attention, I am not a YEC, but at the same time, I do not consider all of their research and points invalid. I think in some ways YEC presents the most testable model out there. I just don't accept all of their take on the evidence.

But Jar, you evidently were unaware that YEC's accept and believe in rapid speciation, correct?Also, you claimed:"There can't be a debate on the validity of the Genesis Creation myth. It's wrong. It really is as simple as that."Really? It's wrong, eh?How so?I suspect you probably do not know exactly what Genesis even says, but are reacting to your own or other's perception of Genesis.

Charles, I am not going to bother, but jar hear claims the young earth date is testable. Why don't you ask him the 4-5 areas he feels it has been tested and proven wrong?This message has been edited by randman, 05-28-2005 11:35 PM

Jar, your post is good evidence for how evolution is treated as more religious dogma than science.In terms of speciation, if even the YECers accept speciation and everyone else that debates or discusses these issues does, I would hope that bringing that to your attention would be something you would appreciate, but I can see you have no interest in hearing what your critics have to say.

Yawn. Jar if you cannot see it, the well.....ah, lemme just rephrase. You mentioned it was not even necessary to understand what your critics or other sides claim in an argument, and yet you feel fully justified in rejecting their arguments.That's not science. That's ideological dogmatism.Take your comment on Genesis. How can you be sure it is wrong when you do not even comprehend what it says?

It'd be funny if it wasn't so sad. You guys all claim YEC has been virtually disproven by science, and yet claim it is not a testable theory or hypothesis.Sorry, but it's either one or the other. I know you guys want to have it both ways, but all you are doing is showing a basic dishonesty in the debate, imo, and one reason I no longer accept evolutionism, but feel it is largely the product of ideological indoctrination.Keep in mind I am not a YEC and am not even that concerned if common descent is true or not. Even if true, I would feel the same way about how it is presented. I think the approach of evolutionists suggests to me something quite darkening to the mind, and not reflective of a search for truth.That may be harsh, but that's my assessment. I realize some will just dismiss it, but it's quite common to hear guys, like Jar here, go as far as to even say they do not even need to understand their critics because their critics are wrong.I know not all are like that, but it's such a large strain within those passionate about common descent, that it does suggest to me that indoctrination is what is going on, not education.

"Every time we dig up some new fossil bed, we pretty much never find fossils out of order."Sorry, but I am that ignorant of the fact that very often evolutionary "trees" or "bushes" are revised based on fossils "being found out of order."Moreover, your argument is specious anyway since the truth is you could find any fossil "out of order" and not disprove common descent because you can just rewrite the scenario to fit it in.Your argument is inherently wrong in misrepresenting the nature and elasticity of the theory of evolution.

I wrote."I think it's critical for these discussions if they are to be at all fruitful, to at least recognize what the different sides of the argument and debate, and the different camps are saying."You responded."No, not really. The YECs are simply wrong. That is aFACT."You responded it is not necessary to understand the different sides, not just YEC mind you of the argument.Now, you have gone off on a rant about fundies and creationists.Well, it's a free country, but I am also free to ignore you.On Genesis, your comments indicated to me that, imo, you do not understand it. Genesis, even a "literal" reading as you say, is not necessarily at odds with a number of different theories, including evolution, and that is because the Book leaves a certain amount of things unsaid and open.It was pretty clear you are reacting to a perception of Genesis, and not what it actually states.But note, you refused to back up your claims on Genesis, but rather only responded with derision, which imo, deserves derision in turn.Sorry, but you are not engaging the conversation truthfully, and you already boldly said it was not necessary to even understand what your critics to say and beleive in order to dismiss them.Maybe you would enjoy talking with others? You have made it clear your point in posting is more akin to wanting to shout someone down than understand their argument and have a rational discourse concerning it.