Evolution is a Religious Issue

quote:

---

There is not one scrap of evidence for the THEORY of evolution. Show me some.

---

I know it's against christian morals to mock the afflicted but I ain't no christian.Pray tell, if we had some evidence what would happen to this theory would it become a fact?

quote:

---

And even if Hovind does't have the money mabey that's because you don't have any evidence to show.

---

Run that one past me again?It because of the theory of evolution that Kent Hovind doesn't have the money he claims?Did some bugs mutate and eat it?

Oh, man, there's a huge amount. Just to sum up:1) The evidence from genetics.
2) The evidence from taxonomy.
3) The evidence from fossil stratiography.These are all independant lines of evidence; the only reason they can be explained by the same theory is if that theory is actually describing something that really happened.Closer to home, my wife is doing research in the lab that she couldn't do if evolution hadn't actually happened. Oh, he's been shown it, over and over again. What happens is that he denies it and keeps the money. You could show him compelling proof that evolution was true, and he wouldn't admit it. Why should he? Why would he pay 250,000 dollars to admit he was wrong? What on Earth would compel him to fess up and pay out? Honesty? Please. The man is under investigation for being a tax cheat. Honesty has no power to compel Kent Hovind.

The actual position of Creationism is not that evolution has no evidence, but that the evidence is either wrong or misinterpreted. For example, evolutionists cite the fossil record of change over time in support of evolution. Creationists counter that this evidence is misinterpreted and that the fossils are actually just the remains of creatures killed in the flood.The difference between faith and science is that science has evidence for its theories, while religious beliefs are accepted on faith and do not require evidence. This thread's topic is true, evolution is very much a religious issue, but only because religious fundamentalists make it so by objecting on religious grounds.--Percy

Actually, there is scads of evidence in favor of evolution.When people deny that there is evidence for evolution, most do not know the facts of the matter -- the link above (I always enjoy linking to my favorite web page) should help correct this, at least of one is actually willing to learn something.On the other hand, many people who deny that there is evidence for evolution either do not understand what evidence means in science, or they do not understand what evolution is, what it means, and so do not know what evidence would actually look like.My favorite evidence is the heirarchical classification of life -- this is the major point that first led me to doubt creationism and finally accept evolution.The truth is, all known life fits right into a precise spot in the phylogenic tree. What is even more remarkable is that whenever we find new fossils they also fit right into this same tree of life. We have found, for instance, fossils that are remarkable inbetween modern whales and known land mammals. This fits right into the evolutionary picture. We will never, ever find, according the theory of evolution, fossils that are an intermediary between whales and fish.Whales evolved from land mammals. We therefore have this prediction: there must have lived animals that were intermediaries between land mammals and whales. Therefore, there were animals that show a mixture of characteristics between whales and land mammals. And, lo and behold, fossils of precisely such animals have been found!On the other hand, there are no direct connections between fish and whales, according to evolution, except through land mammals. Therefore, there will never, ever be found fossil intermediaries between whales and fish.Why would God have created the "Ambulocetus kind", an intermediary between whales and land mammals, knowing that it would be used as evidence against special creation? Why wouldn't God create an animal that was intermediate between whales and fish, in order to confuse the evolutionists?The fact that evolution predicts as a necessary consequence of its effects, the nested classification tree of living (and extinct) species means that this classification is evidence for evolution. Since there is no reason to suppose that a creator would do such a thing, this evidence can therefore be used as one piece of evidence in favor of evolution over creationism. There is a lot more evidence just like this.

There is still no evidence for Evolution to this point. I have seen none provided here or anywhere else.The thing with Kent Hovind is that whenever someone doesn't like what he says they try to discredit him by talking about his PhD or where he went to school. You know I wouldn't get on here and talk about where any of you all went to school. Those that throw dirt lose ground. Whenever anyone starts throwing dirt it just shows they are loosing the battle.

Did you read post 34? Just exactly what is wrong with what was given there as evidence?Just saying you've seen none when someone thought they were giving you some without you explaining why you don't think it is might lead us to believe you are blind to it. Care to show that you have actually considered what you have been shown?This message has been edited by NosyNed, 02-14-2005 17:46 AM

What are you talking about? I just told you what the evidence is. The evidence is that when you construct theories based only on the genetics, and then construct theories based only on the taxonomy, and then construct theories based only on the fossil positioning, you wind up with only one theory that explains all three.Look, I don't want to play this game where we show you the evidence and then you deny that you've seen it. If you're not going to be honest, why should we talk to you? The only person who brought up his PhD so far is you. He's not an honest man; he's been caught in several outright falsehoods and inconsistencies, and we can prove it. His academic credentials are irrelevant to the fact that he's a liar, a tax cheat, and a charlatan. Trust us when we say that if you employ his arguments, you're tarring yourself with the same brush.The one who looks like he's losing is you; you're already being forced to defend an indefensible man. Why don't you just employ someone else's arguments? Or better yet, your own arguments?

You say there is evidence in all these places, but I have still not seen any evidence for Evolution yet. It's the usual Evolutionist way of saying there is evidence. It's here, it's there it's everywhere; the Biologist has it, the chemist has it, but none of them can come up with any evidence.

Okay, this is a refutation of Kent Hovind's challenge. There are several problems with this challenge:1) Hovind is demanding that "proof" be supplied in a list of theories that he lists, when science cannot prove that any theory is the correct description of nature;2) He lists several independent theories that he insists must all be proven, or else the conclusion is none can be valid -- he does not understand (or at least he does not acknowledge) that none of these are related, that even if one of these theories can be disproven then we could still have evidence to support any of the others;3) He insists that the challenge be judge by an anonymous panel that he will select; and4) He probably doesn't even have the money.

What you say is true. Evolution is a religion.The definition of SCIENCE:ScienceKnowledge based on observed facts and tested truths arranged in an orderly system.Evolution is not testable. So it is not science.

Check out my post #34. Tell me why you do not think it is evidence for evolution. Simply denying the existence of evidence does not make it go away.

You know what, I think I'm going to agree with this. Not that it makes any sense, but it could make a lot of cents. Why don't all evos simply admit they are teaching a religion, get it standardized and everyone be a minister... then we can all avoid taxes like the jerks teaching people such as sog345 that evolution isn't science.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)"...don't believe I'm taken in by stories I have heard, I just read the Daily News and swear by every word.."(Steely Dan)

sog345, you have been presented with evidence, quite clearly and concisely, in post 34 of this topic. Yet you continue, in delightfully broken written English, to deny that you have ever seen any.I doubt this will produce any positive effect, but perhaps you could tell us why the items in post 34 are not evidence. Just ranting that there is no evidence and refusing to address it went presented with it are the actions of a mindless zealot, and you aren't one of those, are you?

quote:

---

What you say is true. Evolution is a religion.
The definition of SCIENCE:

​

Science

​

Knowledge based on observed facts and tested truths arranged in an orderly system.

​

Evolution is not testable. So it is not science.

---

--Im afraid there is a little more to science than you believe, Sog. Furthermore, your assertion that 'evolution is not testable' is ridiculous. But lets give the new guy the benefit of the doubt. Please help a lowly mind--why does Evolutionary theory fail the concept of potential falsification?--Speaking of sound scientific methodology and potential falsifiability, I suggest you read the ICR's list of prerequesite modifiers to scientific inquiry:Error | The Institute for Creation Research'--Then you can tell me what is and isn't pseudo-science--assuming you have an open mind.

---

"...research [is] a strenuous and devoted attempt to force nature into the conceptual boxes supplied by professional education. Simultaneously, we shall wonder whether research could proceed without such boxes, whatever the element of arbitrariness in their historic origins and, occasionally, in their subsequent development." Kuhn, T. S.; The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, pp. 5, 1996.

quote:

---

The thing with Kent Hovind is that whenever someone doesn't like what he says they try to discredit him by talking about his PhD or where he went to school. You know I wouldn't get on here and talk about where any of you all went to school. Those that throw dirt lose ground. Whenever anyone starts throwing dirt it just shows they are loosing the battle.

---

...