• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Evolution is illogical and idolatry

nnmartin

Well-Known Member
yeah, and, so, what? this has nothing to do with evolution. that's thermodynamics.

Wrong there! - Thermodynamics and Evolution work together.

It all started as order to disorder but now order is being made through evolution.

The creation of order is one of the main goals of evolution - This is one of the reasons that the Law of thermodynamics was passed.

The construction of organisms puts order back into the universe and as I've said before - this is to stop the universe expanding into nothing.
 
Last edited:

tumbleweed41

Resident Liberal Hippie
...The issues of evolution's illogical nature is presented there (for my perspectives) and center around the progressive nature of evolutionary theory...

And it has been pointed out to you time and again, biological evolution is not of a "progressive" or "regressive" nature.


Starting a new thread does not change the fact that you have absolutely no understanding of basic biology.
 

tumbleweed41

Resident Liberal Hippie
The creation of order is one of the main goals of evolution...
Biological evolution is not a conscious entity with goals or intentions.

It is a process of nature that results in the improved survivability in some species, and the mass extinction of others.
 

nnmartin

Well-Known Member
Evolution is not a conscious entity, I agree , but one of its purposes is to put order back into the Universe. You could say that this follows the laws of physics or God.

Both are possible.
 

Photonic

Ad astra!
Evolution is not a conscious entity, I agree , but one of its purposes is to put order back into the Universe. You could say that this follows the laws of physics or God.

Both are possible.

Evolution really has nothing to do with order or chaos. It simply is, and goes either way.

It doesn't make systems more organized as a method.
 

Me Myself

Back to my username
*Deleted*

You are so humble my evolutionist self feels envy :(

Now I must go have sex and eat a lot to feel better :(

I am angry and bathed in my arrogance I blame you for all my sins! :banghead3:
 
Last edited by a moderator:

The Neo Nerd

Well-Known Member
I have two threads asking important logical questions that are in the evolution forum. But the responses given back to me by evolutionists are childish ad hominems.

The issues of evolution's illogical nature is presented there (for my perspectives) and center around the progressive nature of evolutionary theory.

My point here is that evolution is a human quality placed upon nature and this is the definition of idolatry.

To put man into creation as opposed to God.

The illogical aspects of evolution are because God is infallible, and perfect logic and therefore any human element inappropriately applied to nature will be illogical.

I'm waiting for evolutionists to explain the logical attributes of evolution but if they can't then we can easily argue evolution is idolatrous.

http://www.religiousforums.com/foru...ons-evolutions-applied-logic.html#post2692604

Have we become accustomed to evolutionists being unable to properly defend their beliefs?

Yes we as a group on this forum can be rather sarcastic when approached by creationists who are denying evolution. These creationists usually come at us with a couple of tactics:

A. Try to debunk evolution by arguing against concepts that scientists do not put forward. This is called attacking a strawman and is indicative of a complete lack of understanding of the subject.

B. They make claims and when asked to back them up, refuse to. I'm sure you realise why this tactic is problematic.

C. They claim that all evolutionary scientists are part of a massive conspiracy to deny god. This is ridiculous, if there was scientific proof of god the scientists would be all over it considering the vast sums of money that churches could put towards such research.

The thing is that no matter how we explain the flaws in their tactics they will either:

A. Ignore the post and continue on.

B. Leave the thread

C. Change tactics

The thing is that this happens SOOO much that most of us no longer even bother to try.

That being said, if you look at the thread you posted you will notice that a number of us actually responded to your posts.

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2692638-post12.html
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2692640-post13.html
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2692643-post14.html
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2692723-post18.html

So yes we have been a little snarky and i would like to apologise on their behalf.

So i have a proposition for you. You tell us your understanding of evolution. There is a section of this forum that allows to posters to have a one on one discussion.

One-on-One Debates - Religious Education Forum

I would be more than willing to discuss evolution with you in a polite, respective and rational manner.

Thankyou,

-Q
 

ID_Neon

Member
Well the thing is the questions are SOOO straight forward that perhaps you can correct the general public as to why they are not part of evolutionists theory ?

Particularly the non-progressive nature of evolution that just seems to me to he absurd cowardice.
 

ID_Neon

Member
And without refeshing the page so I don't know if there is a new post, I do promise however combative I seem, I do accept strong arguments.

I'm not blind or daft, if the questions are adequately explained.
 

ID_Neon

Member
How did accepting the TOE become a form of idolatry?

Because I think it is reasonably assured that evolution is based from human qualities and ideas and not the actuality of nature, and so by injecting himself into nature has removed God's nature from it and replaced it with man's.

This is no different than worshipping creation thru any other means, the the method may be more intellectual.
 

Draka

Wonder Woman
Okay, the biggest thing about the OP that struck me was arguing that evolution was idolatrous. Now, what gets me is that in order to make a factual statement about something being idolatrous, especially when dealing with something as concrete as a Scientific Theory, shouldn't one have to prove the basis for calling it idolatrous? That is to say, why have I not seen proof positive of such a god that is opposed to idolatry in order to make idolatry a claim even worth making? Not to mention, that I have yet to figure out how someone can idolize a concept. Isn't idolatry supposed to be the worshiping of idols? Physical objects? Like a statue or whatnot? Idolizing evolution sounds as absurd as idolizing gravity or solar energy or regret. It makes no sense whatsoever.
 

Renji

Well-Known Member
Because I think it is reasonably assured that evolution is based from human qualities and ideas and not the actuality of nature, and so by injecting himself into nature has removed God's nature from it and replaced it with man's.

This is no different than worshipping creation thru any other means, the the method may be more intellectual.

Hmm, but it is evidence based. It did not just popped out of someone's thoughts and then was legitimized because there are people who just simply believed in it. I think it isn't right to bash something when evidences are just right "after your face". Also, TOE doesn't actually replace God in anyway. In fact, if you are going to read Darwin's book (I forgot the title already), it doesn't actually talk anything against any god/ God.

I respect your opinion though.
 
Last edited:

ID_Neon

Member
Ellaborating the concept of idolatry. It is man that has a will to over come, or to adapt to a situation or to adapt a situation to him. It is man who thinks of progress and of competition.

Just looking back to the original finches of Darwin, I know that form of adaptation is generally disregarded as a mechanism but the point is well suited to illustrate. A bird has built in it for its purposes, by God, the requisite genetics to adapt to all changing conditions to which it is exposed. With this basic premise no need to assume the changes someday express themselves in a permanent difference.

Expand this to bacteria, which is commonly thought to be actively evolving in our time frame.

But we have never observed bacteria evolve into a new organism.

Rather like the finch, the bacteria are incredibly adaptive, and capable of becoming new forms of bacteria in many conditions.

God has allowed this in His great machine.

It is mankind who sees these adaptations and sees the progress that adaptations of man allow.

We, confronted with a shortage of whale oil, adapted to oil and called this progress.

And that would arguably be an evolutionary step.

However because nature is adaptive does not mean it is evolving. No organism becomes another organism and this leads me to another serious question I'd like answered

Question: Why is evolution linear and shown only to occur once? The evolution of eyes do not occur commonly, likewise the most important step in evolution of prokaryotes and eukaryotes occurrs only once?

Why!

When both organisms still exist why no evidence of new evolution from the old organisms?

I mean that was what..1.6 Billion years ago?

Think it's been long enough for another evolution of the same continuosly living organism?
 

Alceste

Vagabond
Well the thing is the questions are SOOO straight forward that perhaps you can correct the general public as to why they are not part of evolutionists theory ?

Particularly the non-progressive nature of evolution that just seems to me to he absurd cowardice.

Your questions are not at all straightforward. In order to answer them, one must either share or accept your misapprehensions regarding science and evolution. Because you have not shared your own understanding of the theory of evolution, there is no way for anybody to guess what mysterious a priori suppositions about evolution you are arguing from.

Your questions are confusing because we all share an understanding of what the theory of evolution actually is that is radically different from what you seem to think it is.

It's partly that, and partly your spelling, grammar and syntax. I am guessing English is not your first language. Where are you from?
 

ID_Neon

Member
Hmm, but it is evidence based. It did not just popped out of someone's thoughts and then was legitimized because there are people who just simply believed in it. I think it isn't right to bash something when evidences are just right "after your face". Also, TOE doesn't actually replace God in anyway. In fact, if you are going to read Darwin's book (I forgot the title already), it doesn't actually talk anything against any god/ God.

I respect your opinion though.

I disagree, evution has considerable logic errors.

But apparently my view of evolution is no longer accepted so I need that resolved, I need some better clarification of what constitutes evolution.

I thought of evolution as progressive meaning a more advanced or
Better adapted organism will
Survive.

But several persons have said this is not the case so that needs resolution.
 

ID_Neon

Member
Your questions are not at all straightforward. In order to answer them, one must either share or accept your misapprehensions regarding science and evolution. Because you have not shared your own understanding of the theory of evolution, there is no way for anybody to guess what mysterious a priori suppositions about evolution you are arguing from.

Your questions are confusing because we all share an understanding of what the theory of evolution actually is that is radically different from what you seem to think it is.

It's partly that, and partly your spelling, grammar and syntax. I am guessing English is not your first language. Where are you from?


I think I just answered you're apprehensions to my question.

For instance why is or is not evolution "progressive"? See previous post
 

Renji

Well-Known Member
I disagree, evution has considerable logic errors.

Like?

But apparently my view of evolution is no longer accepted so I need that resolved, I need some better clarification of what constitutes evolution.

I thought of evolution as progressive meaning a more advanced or
Better adapted organism will
Survive.

But several persons have said this is not the case so that needs resolution.

Yes. I guess you needed to clarify that first before giving out statements like "I disagree, evolution has considerable logic errors.", because it'll make an impression that you aren't actually unsure of something, or that you're just giving out personal comments without having/lacking evidence.
 

Alceste

Vagabond
I disagree, evution has considerable logic errors.

Fortunately, we don't need to rely on logic when we have so much evidence. :)

Also, I think what you are calling "logic" is what people who study logic would actually call "common sense": You don't understand something, you don't know the answer, so you just grab onto of the first answer that feels right to you and hold on for dear life. Nothing you've written has the appearance of logic to me.

But apparently my view of evolution is no longer accepted so I need that resolved, I need some better clarification of what constitutes evolution.

I thought of evolution as progressive meaning a more advanced or
Better adapted organism will
Survive.

But several persons have said this is not the case so that needs resolution.

You are unnecessarily bringing in the concept of progress or advancement. Change is always occurring. Whales, for example, crawled out of the sea for a few million years and then crawled right back into it. All along they were adapting to their environment. The environment itself was changing, meaning what worked 100,000 years ago didn't work any more. And so on and so forth.

The world is always changing, the life forms on the earth are always adapting and sometimes even contributing to the changes, as is the case with bacteria and plant life that change the atmosphere: when that happens, you'd better be able to breathe it or die.

It's not necessary to assume that because the world is always changing it must be going in some linear direction - more this, better that, yada yada, toward some ultimate goal.

Are the planets going somewhere, or do they simply orbit the sun, round and round, wobble wobble wobble, winter, spring, summer, fall, new moon, half moon, gibbous (love that word), full. Tide goes in, tide goes out.

To make a long story short, change and progress are entirely independent of one another. Evolution tells us only how we change over time in response to the changes around us. It has nothing to do with where we are going or where we came from.
 
Top