Evolution Is A Theory On Which You Base A Religion

[hitch420]

Let me make it clear that I do believe in variations within species. Some dogs appear to have
evolved from large to small (or small to large), but no "evolution" has actually taken place.
They are still dogs.
So I do believe in something called "microevolution"--variation within a species.
However, there is no evidence for man evolving from primates, commonly known as "the theory
of evolution."
Professor Louis Bounoure, Director of Research, National Center of Scientific Research so
rightly stated:
"Evolution is a fairy tale for grown-ups. This theory has helped nothing in the progress of
science. It is useless."
Sir Arthur Keith (Sir Arthur Keith wrote the foreword to the 100th edition of Origin of the
Species) said, "Evolution is unproved and unprovable."
Malcolm Muggeridge, the famous British journalist and philosopher said,
"I myself am convinced that the theory of evolution, especially the extent to which it’s been
applied, will be one of the great jokes in history books of the future." (The End of Christendom,
Eerdmans, Grand Rapids, Mich., 1980, page 59).
Dr. T. N. Tah-misian of the Atomic Energy Commission said,
"Scientists who go about teaching that evolution is a fact of life are great con-men, and the story
they are telling may be the greatest hoax ever."
USA Today March 21, 2001
"Paleontologists have discovered a new skeleton in the closet of human ancestry that is likely to
force science to revise, if not scrap, current theories of human origins."
Reuters reported that the discovery left "scientists of human evolution…confused," saying,
"Lucy may not even be a direct human ancestor after all."
The phrase "scientists of human evolution" is an oxymoron.
Evolution isn't "scientific." It's a theory.

6
If you go to www.raycomfort.com to will see an offer of $250,000.
Dr. Kent Hovind $250,000 "to anyone who can offer any scientific evidence that evolution is
true."
Take him to court. Become famous. Make this another Scopes trial.
But you won't, because you can't. All you have is faith in a theory.
Evolution is actually a religion.
Dictionary: "Religion": "A set of beliefs concerned with explaining the origins and purposes of
the universe…"
The belief of evolution even has its own religious language:
"We believe, perhaps, maybe, probably, could've, possibly."
The founding father of the faith is Charles Darwin.
The god of the religion of Darwinism is referred to by the faithful as "Mother Nature."
She is the one who is responsible for everything we can see in creation.
What's more, she's very attractive to sinful men. They gravitate to her like a moth to a flame.
Why? Because she's deaf, blind, and mute.
Mother Nature doesn't hear anything, she doesn't see anything, and what's most important--she
doesn't say anything.
Mother Nature doesn't have any moral dictates.
So, if you make her your creator, YOU CAN DO ANYTHING YOU WANT
…every sinful pleasure can be enjoyed with no qualms of conscience.
That's why evolution is so appealing.
7
Such a belief system is called "idolatry" (making up a non-existent god to suit yourself)
It is a transgression of the First and Second of the Ten Commandments.
To believe in the theory of evolution takes a great leap of bind faith.
Like little children, they believe without the need of a thread of evidence.
The theory doesn't disprove the existence of God.
It just reveals that those who believe it are truly capable of faith in the invisible…
and confirms Napoleon's great observation:
"Man will believe anything, as long as it's not in the Bible."
Thank you for listening. Please feel free to avail yourselves of the literature on the table.

 

[Anonononymous]

'"Evolution is a fairy tale for grown-ups. This theory has helped nothing in the progress of
science. It is useless."'

I seriously fuckin doubt a real scientist said that, it sounds quote mined to me. Evolution is used daily. You know that flu jab you got last winter? You know why you had to get another one? Why it's different from the one you got last winter? Because influenza evolves...

I hate this 'microevolution/macroevolution' bullshit. It's like saying 'I can pick my nose for 1 second, but not for 10'. 'Macroevolution' is just 'Microevolution' given a larger timescale.

 

[Anonononymous]

And for the record, there is a huge difference between 'Theory' and 'theory'. The Theory of Evolution is as proven the Theory of Gravity.

 

[Anonononymous]

Oh, and once again, 'Dr. Kent Hovind $250,000 "to anyone who can offer any scientific evidence that evolution is
true."'

He's a convicted fraudster.

 

[hitch420]

And for the record, there is a huge difference between 'Theory' and 'theory'. The Theory of Evolution is as proven the Theory of Gravity.

If you think evolution is as proven go claim your 250,000 reward, i know i would, if i had the evidence to back it up of course lol.
There is a reason it isn't science fact.
Maybe its somthing to do with the massive holes and flaws in the theory.

 

[hitch420]

Oh, and once again, 'Dr. Kent Hovind $250,000 "to anyone who can offer any scientific evidence that evolution is
true."'

He's a convicted fraudster.

Still take him to court. It should be easyier to win if hes allready a convicted fraudster lol

 

[Anonononymous]

'Maybe its somthing to do with the massive holes and flaws in the theory.'

Name 3.

 

[hitch420]

'"Evolution is a fairy tale for grown-ups. This theory has helped nothing in the progress of
science. It is useless."'

I seriously fuckin doubt a real scientist said that, it sounds quote mined to me. Evolution is used daily. You know that flu jab you got last winter? You know why you had to get another one? Why it's different from the one you got last winter? Because influenza evolves...

I hate this 'microevolution/macroevolution' bullshit. It's like saying 'I can pick my nose for 1 second, but not for 10'. 'Macroevolution' is just 'Microevolution' given a larger timescale.

I am aware that flu "evolves" as my best friends mum is Cheif of medicine at the local hospital.
It is also likley that these flus, like for instance swine flu are created in a lab and released on the public, to make us scared. so they hype it up in the media evan though the normal flu kills more a year.
just so they can have access to your bodies to put the chip into you. This may not be happening right now, but it will be soon.

ps Haven't you ever thought why monkeys are still around today, if there was such a great need for monkeys to evolve why are there so many alive today

 

[Anonononymous]

'It is also likley that these flus, like for instance swine flu are created in a lab and released on the public, to make us scared. so they hype it up in the media evan though the normal flu kills more a year.
just so they can have access to your bodies to put the chip into you. This may not be happening right now, but it will be soon.'

Did you post in the tinfoil hat thread by any chance?

'ps Haven't you ever thought why monkeys are still around today, if there was such a great need for monkeys to evolve why are there so many alive today'

You clearly don't understand human evolution. We share a common ancestor with monkeys. We didn't evolve directly from them. Hence why they still exist.

Who ever said there was a great need for monkeys to evolve anyway? They adapted to their respective environments, IE some hominidae such as orangutans have longer arms than other hominidae as they're mainly tree dwelling and as such they need to be able to reach further away branches, whereas more ground dwelling hominidae such as Gorillas don't need long arms as they crawl on their knuckles.

I'm still waiting for my 'huge flaws in evolution'. Or are you avoiding that part?

 

[hitch420]

'It is also likley that these flus, like for instance swine flu are created in a lab and released on the public, to make us scared. so they hype it up in the media evan though the normal flu kills more a year.
just so they can have access to your bodies to put the chip into you. This may not be happening right now, but it will be soon.'

Did you post in the tinfoil hat thread by any chance?

'ps Haven't you ever thought why monkeys are still around today, if there was such a great need for monkeys to evolve why are there so many alive today'

You clearly don't understand human evolution. We share a common ancestor with monkeys. We didn't evolve directly from them. Hence why they still exist.

Who ever said there was a great need for monkeys to evolve anyway? They adapted to their respective environments, IE some hominidae such as orangutans have longer arms than other hominidae as they're mainly tree dwelling and as such they need to be able to reach further away branches, whereas more ground dwelling hominidae such as Gorillas don't need long arms as they crawl on their knuckles.

I'm still waiting for my 'huge flaws in evolution'. Or are you avoiding that part?

I have never believed in evolution so yes you are right i do not understand it fully, so to understand it i have allready began reading into it from the athiest/scientist view and the christian view because i like a fair arguement, but yes do expect me to point out the flaws because i will, but it would be foolish of me to do so without reading alot more first from both sides. I somehow doubt that you will be reading both sides of story as you MAY chose to accept what you want to hear.
You cannot say the same for me as I wanted to believe there was no god, all of my life and believed it. Untill i decided to challange my way of thinking becuase i relised i had never given the other side of the story a chance.

 

[Anonononymous]

I was Christened, and the 3 schools I went to were Christian. So yeh, I have 'given the other side of the story' a listen. I don't see how a God could possibly exist.

IMO it's a fairytale.

 

[dontexist21]

Let me make it clear that I do believe in variations within species. Some dogs appear to have
evolved from large to small (or small to large), but no "evolution" has actually taken place.
They are still dogs.
So I do believe in something called "microevolution"--variation within a species.
However, there is no evidence for man evolving from primates, commonly known as "the theory
of evolution."
Professor Louis Bounoure, Director of Research, National Center of Scientific Research so
rightly stated:
"Evolution is a fairy tale for grown-ups. This theory has helped nothing in the progress of
science. It is useless."
Sir Arthur Keith (Sir Arthur Keith wrote the foreword to the 100th edition of Origin of the
Species) said, "Evolution is unproved and unprovable."
Malcolm Muggeridge, the famous British journalist and philosopher said,
"I myself am convinced that the theory of evolution, especially the extent to which it’s been
applied, will be one of the great jokes in history books of the future." (The End of Christendom,
Eerdmans, Grand Rapids, Mich., 1980, page 59).
Dr. T. N. Tah-misian of the Atomic Energy Commission said,
"Scientists who go about teaching that evolution is a fact of life are great con-men, and the story
they are telling may be the greatest hoax ever."
USA Today March 21, 2001
"Paleontologists have discovered a new skeleton in the closet of human ancestry that is likely to
force science to revise, if not scrap, current theories of human origins."
Reuters reported that the discovery left "scientists of human evolution…confused," saying,
"Lucy may not even be a direct human ancestor after all."
The phrase "scientists of human evolution" is an oxymoron.
Evolution isn't "scientific." It's a theory.

6
If you go to www.raycomfort.com to will see an offer of $250,000.
Dr. Kent Hovind $250,000 "to anyone who can offer any scientific evidence that evolution is
true."
Take him to court. Become famous. Make this another Scopes trial.
But you won't, because you can't. All you have is faith in a theory.
Evolution is actually a religion.
Dictionary: "Religion": "A set of beliefs concerned with explaining the origins and purposes of
the universe…"
The belief of evolution even has its own religious language:
"We believe, perhaps, maybe, probably, could've, possibly."
The founding father of the faith is Charles Darwin.
The god of the religion of Darwinism is referred to by the faithful as "Mother Nature."
She is the one who is responsible for everything we can see in creation.
What's more, she's very attractive to sinful men. They gravitate to her like a moth to a flame.
Why? Because she's deaf, blind, and mute.
Mother Nature doesn't hear anything, she doesn't see anything, and what's most important--she
doesn't say anything.
Mother Nature doesn't have any moral dictates.
So, if you make her your creator, YOU CAN DO ANYTHING YOU WANT
…every sinful pleasure can be enjoyed with no qualms of conscience.
That's why evolution is so appealing.
7
Such a belief system is called "idolatry" (making up a non-existent god to suit yourself)
It is a transgression of the First and Second of the Ten Commandments.
To believe in the theory of evolution takes a great leap of bind faith.
Like little children, they believe without the need of a thread of evidence.
The theory doesn't disprove the existence of God.
It just reveals that those who believe it are truly capable of faith in the invisible…
and confirms Napoleon's great observation:
"Man will believe anything, as long as it's not in the Bible."
Thank you for listening. Please feel free to avail yourselves of the literature on the table.

You sir do not do a damn thing about science. The highest order for a scietific hypothesis is a theory, there is nothing higher. No one is the scientific community states that evolution or ANYTHING 100% . NO ONE. But with all of the data, test, that have been done and have shown to be accurate and consistent when reproduced it has shown that the theory is proven. Gravity is scientific theory to, just like evolution. Sorry if this is hard for someone that does not understand the basis of science or how it works. I have spent most of my academic life either in a lab or in a class devoted to this way of thinking. Always questioning, and believing in what gives us the best consistent answer that holds up to the test again and again. And this point in time evolution has the best data which is consistent. You loss credibility for you argument when you said evolution was not science it was a theory, sorry but in the scientific community a theory amounts to a fact, till it can be dissproven other wise. Have you not heard of the THEORY of relativity, tell me that is not science, even when it is a theory.

 

[dontexist21]

I have looked at the arguments made by the other side, and have found them to be weak. Saying that God created everything, is weak, since you can not prove or disprove the existence of God. You cannot really argue with someone that believes this since they can simply state it is so it has to be. It is based on faith not data unlike evolution. There is not a single alternative that has so much evidence to back it up. Religion is based on faith without evidence, science is based on testable theories that can be questioned and dis proven.

 

[what... huh?]

The first presumption with the argument is that it implies that there is something wrong with belief in science that we laymen have only a simple understanding of, or lack thereof.

In this it implies an absurdity involved with faith in something you are not capable of comprehending at this point. Which is interesting... considering...

The second problem is that it discredits all that science and technology have brought us... that religion really just hasn't. An ancient book... which makes you feel safer or logic and scientific method which has tangible results.

I trust the people who dedicate their lives in the pursuit of science... not money from suckers.



We know we do can not truly know all of the facts, as we can only interpret what can sense.

 

[fish601]

why do we see color?

 

[Nocturn3]

why do we see color?

For fuck's sake.

 

[jfgordon1]

why do we see color?

the answer is obviously God.

 

[hanimmal]

why do we see color?

Possible reason:

Because in the jungle black and white vision would be very disadvantagous. If you could not make out the yellow of a tiger, you may end up as a meal.

As the mutations in evolution move forward the ancestors that could see color were able to survive better, and therefore were able to mate. So those genes moved forward, and as the chain closed our ancestors more and more were able to see color until we were no longer colorblind as a species.



We are a very weak species, the only thing that really makes us survive is our brains. If it was not for our ability to think and ration we would have been distinct for a long time. Things like sight just made it easier to get to the point that we were able to think.

So I do believe in something called "microevolution"--variation within a species.
However, there is no evidence for man evolving from primates, commonly known as "the theory
of evolution."

There is a ton of evidence out there. There are bone collections showing evolution. Your own genes can point to evolution along with DNA. You can look at living things today and be able to see the evolutionary changes that took place over hundreds of millions of years. The list goes on and on.

So lets try this, as there is so much that backs up evolution it would take several books to get you up to speed. Why don't you inform us what examples that the creationists have told you to get you to believe this. Or are you just going off of what they told you in church about the bible being the only way and anything else being a sin.

 

[Nocturn3]

Let me make it clear that I do believe in variations within species. Some dogs appear to have evolved from large to small (or small to large), but no "evolution" has actually taken place.
They are still dogs.
So I do believe in something called "microevolution"--variation within a species.
However, there is no evidence for man evolving from primates, commonly known as "the theory of evolution."

I have never believed in evolution so yes you are right i do not understand it fully, so to understand it i have allready began reading into it from the athiest/scientist view and the christian view because i like a fair arguement, but yes do expect me to point out the flaws because i will, but it would be foolish of me to do so without reading alot more first from both sides. I somehow doubt that you will be reading both sides of story as you MAY chose to accept what you want to hear.

So, there is no evidence for evolution, which is not something you have researched. You disbelieve it, whilst not understanding it, you think it would be foolish of you to argue about it without research, yet you post this thread, and you express doubts that others will research things properly, even though you obviously haven't done yourself.

Evolution does not have to be based on belief. If you are excessively stupid or lazy then yes, you can rely on the fact that smart men have already been through all this stuff before, and concluded that it holds true.

However, if you wish to make up your own mind, then simply research the evidence available. Many of us have, to varying degrees, and have done so without bias. Forget about belief completely, and approach it as an exercise in logic and lateral thinking. Also, consider the sources of what you read. Some places are more biased than others, particularly if they have an agenda to push.

 

[fish601]

Possible reason:

Because in the jungle black and white vision would be very disadvantagous. If you could not make out the yellow of a tiger, you may end up as a meal.

.

How did we know to evolve color sight?
how did we even know it existed?
how many things did we try before we found color?
how did we survive without sight?
what made use even think we could evolve eyes to see with?
did we start with one eye and it wasnt good enuf?
where was that first eye placed? did it work its way up to see better?
how did we know that if we had two eyes we could judge distance?
did eyelids evolve the same time as eyes?
at first were our eyes allways dry then we evolved tears?