Is Evolution A Truth Or Fact?

[Guest Admin3]

Evolution should be able to support itself, for as many have claimed that it has become fact. So new ideas, that basically have no support, should be not needed. And what's amazing to me is that old admitted lies from the past are now being dug up. Remember Haeckel's lie? It's been redone and will be reprinted in our school text books.

 

So what's next? Piltdown man?

 

Here are some sites that claim evolution as fact.

 

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html

http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/lenski.html

http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/gou...and-theory.html

 

Evolution true.

 

http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navc...ion%2Dis%2Dtrue

 

If evolution is a theory, should these questions need to be asked? Or is the implying of truth and fact, as a wanting to make evolution more of a faith than theory?

 

Why would evolutionist do this? It's for the same reason evolution is always in conflict more so with religion than it's own ideas. For there are really only two things that will conflict with a religion on a regular bases as evolution does.

 

1) Another conflicting religion.

2) An occult.

 

To put it in better terms. Evolution vs creation is the same as saying science vs religion. What is there really to verse the two against one another unless one is not what it claims to be. Or it is denying what it has become.

[Guest Admin3]

Several sites that are considered evolution supports sites, cannot resist the conflict of creation. Creation is totally based on God and His power. But yet why does a theory that claims not to be a belief, feel that it always has to conflict with what would not be considered scientific (by the means of being testable)?

 

Examples:

http://www.skepticreport.com/creationism/t...ionistshate.htm

 

Even this site boasts a disclaimer, the disclaimer is really a oxymoron after you read what is written.

 

http://www.infidels.org/index.html

 

The site itself is pretty much self explanatory.

 

http://www.skepticfriends.org/

 

Notice they are non-profit organization. Sites that promote evolution become what religion is?

 

And if you ever wondered where some of the silly threads or posts come from, when a non-believer posts on a Christian forum. here's where they get some of that info: http://www.skepdic.com/

 

So here we have the face of evolution, and those who are militant supporters (fundies) of it. They spend so much money and time to discredit a "RELIGION". And they won't answer as to why a theory needs to compete with a religion on the level they are carrying this to.

 

So has evolution become a faith, or an occult through the face that these websites put on it? And because these sites need supporters that donate, they make evolution even closer to becoming a religion than they realize.

 

So how long will it be before we see a t.v. network called the TOE network, where the preachers of evolution start asking for money? It's already being done on the websites and radio, why not t.v. too?

 

Added: I found this on one of the forums known for encuraging what is being done by evolutionist. It pretty much sums up what I have always thought about why all this is done. Evolution wants to become a religion, so Christians become the main threat to it.

[Springer 5]

Several sites that are considered evolution supports sites, cannot resist the conflict of creation. Creation is totally based on God and His power. But yet why does a theory that claims not to be a belief, feel that it always has to conflict with what would not be considered scientific (by the means of being testable)?

 

Examples:

http://www.skepticreport.com/creationism/t...ionistshate.htm

I didn't have a chance to visit all of the links, but I did look at the one above.

If you analyze the arguments set forth to defend evolution, they really amount more to a disbelief in creation than to an actually conviction of evolution itself. "Poor design", vestigial organs, trivializing religion... these persuasions are all used to argue that man evolved from slime. If you corner someone on any point, such as abiogenesis, then the final defense is, "it's more credible than creation", regardless of how irrational the claim may be. When I was going through college I was persuaded for a time to believe in theistic evolution. My perspective has changed, partially because of the pathetic arguments used to defend evolution, which helped me to realize that, despite it's widespread acceptance, there really isn't any credible evidence whatsoever that evolution occurred.

[Guest Admin3]

Thought this thread might need a bump.

[lwj2op2 1]

Thought this thread might need a bump.

6277[/snapback]

One of the biggest problems I find in the debate, evolution vs. creation is when creationists allow the debate to be stated as science vs. religion. If (as I believe) God created the universe, science and religion are mutually INCLUSIVE. As soon as we allow the argument to become science vs. religion we lose. Science studies the created universe. Religion studies the relationship between the creator and His universe. They are separate, not exclusive.

Is evolution truth or fact? There are many facts which have an appearance of fitting the ToE. No proven fact cannot also fit YEC. The facts being equal, we must look elsewhere; opinion. Opinion is belief based on some form of reasoning. Faith. Obviously evolutionists have faith that their interpretation is correct. This may not be the equal of the faith I have in God but it is similar in aspect regarding how we each form our opinion of the data presented.

We must then, attempt to verify the reasoning behind the opinion. Is the source of the information, which caused the formation an opinion, reliable? The source of information supplied to form an opinion tending toward ToE is man and his knowledge. Knowledge is sometimes innaccurate. Man is corruptable. The source of information supplied to form an opinion tending toward YEC is God (the Bible). No portion of the Bible has been proved innaccurate. God is uncorruptable.

[Springer 5]

One of the biggest problems I find in the debate, evolution vs. creation is when creationists allow the debate to be stated as science vs. religion. If (as I believe) God created the universe, science and religion are mutually INCLUSIVE. As soon as we allow the argument to become science vs. religion we lose. Science studies the created universe. Religion studies the relationship between the creator and His universe. They are separate, not exclusive.

  Is evolution truth or fact? There are many facts which have an appearance of fitting the ToE. No proven fact cannot also fit YEC. The facts being equal, we must look elsewhere; opinion. Opinion is belief based on some form of reasoning. Faith. Obviously evolutionists have faith that their interpretation is correct. This may not be the equal of the faith I have in God but it is similar in aspect regarding how we each form our opinion of the data presented.

  We must then, attempt to verify the reasoning behind the opinion. Is the source of the information, which caused the formation an opinion, reliable? The source of information supplied to form an opinion tending toward ToE is man and his knowledge. Knowledge is sometimes innaccurate. Man is corruptable. The source of information supplied to form an opinion tending toward YEC is God (the Bible). No portion of the Bible has been proved innaccurate. God is uncorruptable.

6282[/snapback]

The theory of evolution, IMO, deserves no respect. Evolution is touted as "science" but, in reality, is based only on imagination and religious persuasions. If they're going to pretend to be scientists, then they need to adhere to the empirical approach, which is totally foreign to their way of thinking. I think the biggest fallacy of evolutionary thinking is the wreckless use of extrapolations....e.g., peppered moths "prove" that natural selection is operative... therefore, man evolved from slime. This is not science. This is a misuse of "science" as a means to an end.

[Guest George R]

Well, there are 3 things to get straight before this question can be answered

 

(a) Get straight ... what definition of evolution are you going to start with (and stick to throughout)

 

Clearly if evolution just means the bare-bones ... "over time... evolution is any variation in a population that is apparent as a change down generations of related individuals"

 

On that definition... Then the Bible even supports human evolution ... by affirming that all races of mankind and all variable individuals were descended from a pair of original humans.

 

The loose cannon is ... when the definition shifts.

 

The evolutionist takes the bare-bones definition, proven by population swings within biological types (such as dog breeding, finch beaks variation, and proportions of moth types that already existed).

 

In a definition-shift, he then claims the full blown mud-to-dawkins meaning of evolution has been "proven".

 

(2) Get straight ... where is the burden of proof?

 

If for me to call evolution a fact, all I need to do is

(a) show that it is the best set of all-naturalist models that I can come up with ... ( regardless of

(i) disconfirming and opposing facts ...

(ii) how much squirming I have to do with ad hoc explanations

(iii) how much ducking and dismissive treatment of resounding improbabilities

(iv) how much slithering I do around definitions of evolution

 

Then I guess evolution is that type of "fact".

 

If, on the other hand, I must actually stick to (that's stick to ... not hand-wave) empirical supportive facts, clear reasoning, minimal extrapolation, and no wildly improbable guesses...

 

Then I guess evolution is not that type of "fact".

 

 

© Get straight ... whether the compatibility with religion is compatibility between what?

 

If by evolution you mean population swings. So what.

 

If by ":evolution" you really mean that all living things were created by random purposeless material forces with out a direction...

 

Then only one religion is compatible: one that includes the creation story of a mindless void working through purposeless time to spin a roulette wheel of material entities resulting in morality, human minds, and rational law... the that is a highly directionless religion with a unfettered faith in a unwarranted happy ending and no real recpognition of the mindless nature of materialism. One whose God is having an eternal nap, never craeted anything real, and has no impact on anything.

[lwj2op2 1]

Springer, I think you missed my point. Don't accept the debate to be stated as science vs. religion. If, as I believe, God created the universe, then science is merely an avenue of studying God through His creation.

On the other hand we must not simply discount an argument because it supports evolution. There are some facts which appear to fit ToE. Discuss them. The evolutionist may evade. Simply make note of the failure and move on. But to deny the existance of the facts removes us from the discussion.

I believe the 7 day creation week was 7, 24 hour days. I doubt it will be proved by science. I have no doubt science will (has) disproved evolution.

[lionheart209 0]

Evolution should be able to support itself, for as many have claimed that it has become fact. So new ideas, that basically have no support, should be not needed. And what's amazing to me is that old admitted lies from the past are now being dug up. Remember Haeckel's lie? It's been redone and will be reprinted in our school text books.

 

So what's next? Piltdown man?

 

Here are some sites that claim evolution as fact.

 

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html

http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/lenski.html

http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/gou...and-theory.html

 

Evolution true.

 

http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navc...ion%2Dis%2Dtrue

 

If evolution is a theory, should these questions need to be asked? Or is the implying of truth and fact, as a wanting to make evolution more of a faith than theory?

 

Why would evolutionist do this? It's for the same reason evolution is always in conflict more so with religion than it's own ideas. For there are really only two things that will conflict with a religion on a regular bases as evolution does.

 

1) Another conflicting religion.

2) An occult.

 

To put it in better terms. Evolution vs creation is the same as saying science vs religion. What is there really to verse the two against one another unless one is not what it claims to be. Or it is denying what it has become.

6266[/snapback]

Hi ADMIN3,

 

I think that one of the main problems with helping people and secular society understand Gods truth on creation, is that many people view religions as simply a belief system that gives you something to believe in.

 

And mentally they push all religions aside from anything truthful, and would rather seek things to believe in that can be explained and proven by man.

Thats why you see all the fuss about evolution, it may not be true or be able to be proven, but it represents an attempt to explain life.

 

And instead of believing Gods word by faith, they seek to grasp something that can be explained, even if its completely made up, like evolution is.

The ironic and sad thing is, when they do this, they are still believing something by faith alone(with evolution not being a proven fact), but end up believing a fallible man made story.

 

People need to understand that just because we can't fully understand Gods power, does not mean we need to question it, and deny it.

And that general outlook on religions I spoke of up above, is one of the main problems that secular society has today, in my opinion.

 

 

 

 

Louie Buren

[willis 1]

One of the biggest problems I find in the debate, evolution vs. creation is when creationists allow the debate to be stated as science vs. religion. If (as I believe) God created the universe, science and religion are mutually INCLUSIVE. As soon as we allow the argument to become science vs. religion we lose. Science studies the created universe. Religion studies the relationship between the creator and His universe. They are separate, not exclusive.

Phillip Johnson's book Defeating Darwinism has a great section on this very issue.

 

From defeating Darwinism pg. 21

 

We must stop seeing this issue as a conflict between science and the Bible, in which the supposed problem is to believe uncritically in one or the other. As we shall see, evolutionary naturalists rely on a cultural stereotype to shut off all criticisms of there philosophy. The stereotype portrays all opponents as extreme Genesis literalists who reject the evidence of science for purley religious reasons. As long as the conflict is preceived this way, the grave scientific defects in the ruling theory, and the philosophical  bias that sustains it can be effectively concealed from view

As long as this creation vs. evolution controversy has gone on the naturalistic side has been very successful at framing the debate as religion against science when that is not the case at all. Both positions are examples of Philosophical world views that offer very different explanations of the world. There are parts of both that are testable and parts that are not. While mainstream science is quick to point out that Creation demands an all powerfull creator, it is not so quick to point out that naturalistic evolution assumes materialistic explanations do exist for this complex universe which is equally faith based just as scientific creation is. However, when it comes to discussing whether or not natural selection and random mutations can account for everything in the world the issue is not one of religion but, of simply discussing the data and determining what is true and what is not. This is just one example of what is so easily glossed over in these debates.