The blind faith of the evolutionists

[JustWondering2]

I once asked a ******* country boy; "JoeBob, which is closer, the Sun or New York City?" He looked me in the eye and said in his best West Texas accent "why any Damn fool knows the Sun is closer! Hell I can see the Sun, but I cannt see New York" ! As Ron White said so well "You can't fix Stupid"!

 

[Farrukh]

Dr. Henry M. Morris says
Evolution is Religion and not Science

 

[Parsimony]

Dr. Henry M. Morris says
Evolution is Religion and not Science

I see nothing new or compelling there. The statement, "The fact is that evolutionists believe in evolution because they want to. It is their desire at all costs to explain the origin of everything without a Creator. Evolutionism is thus intrinsically an atheistic religion," is just plain wrong. There are many people (myself included) who simultaneously believe in God and accept evolution. I'd even imagine that this is the norm for groups such as deists.

 

[Skwim]

"These are some of the key findings from a nationwide Pew Research Center survey conducted March 21-April 8, 2013.



​

 

​

source

​

(BTW Farrukh, Henry M. Morris' Ph.D. is in hydraulic engineering )

 

[religiousfreedom]

The problem with the topic of evolution is that evidence exists to support evolution, but the support of HUMAN evolution is week.

 

[Parsimony]

The problem with the topic of evolution is that evidence exists to support evolution, but the support of HUMAN evolution is week.

This should help with that.

 

[Ouroboros]

Dr. Henry M. Morris says
Evolution is Religion and not Science

If you trust Dr. Henry M. Morris to be correct about evolution being a religion and God existing, then you should also trust Dr. Henry M. Morris to be correct when it comes to religion and that Jesus is God. Why haven't you converted to Christianity?

Or perhaps you consider Dr. Henry M. Morris to be right about somethings but inaccurate about other, well, I have my considerations as well, especially Dr. Henry M. Morris's view on evolution in particular is wrong.

Dr. Henry M. Morris happened to be a hydralic engineer, not a biologist. I don't consider anyone, especially not a doctor in engineering to be an authority on evolution science. Just saying.

 

[johnhanks]

The problem with the topic of evolution is that evidence exists to support evolution, but the support of HUMAN evolution is week.

Well spotted. In fact, evidence for human evolution is extremely "week", as long as you discount

• embryology
• comparative anatomy
• comparative physiology
• comparative biochemistry
• cytogenetics
• haplotype analysis
• DNA sequencing
• palaeontology.

Why, apart from these, there's virtually no evidence at all!

 

[Ouroboros]

The problem with the topic of evolution is that evidence exists to support evolution, but the support of HUMAN evolution is week.

Nah. It's not. It's very strong. We know several species of humans to have existed before us and that we are related to them. We don't need more than that. We know evolution is happening and was happening for a fact, what the theory is about is how it is happening and that's the only place anyone really could have different views.

 

[Bunyip]

For those of us not in the United States, the notion that there is any controversy over the fact of evolution is frankly astonishing.

In most other developed and developing nations the 'controversy' was resolved in the mid nineteenth century.

I find it constantly amazing that so many Americans imagine that a scientific theory established beyond doubt before people had cars, electricity and flight is still in question. I can only assume it to be an indication of the extraordinary power of the US religious right over the education system.

The first time I heard the term 'evolutionist' I burst out laughing, imagining evolution to be an ideology is about as mixed up and fatuous a misconception as it is possible to hold. Are people who accept that gravity is a fact 'gravityists'?

 

[FearGod]

Were humans so intelligent and with an amazing ability to speak compared to all animals on earth just due to mutations and natural selection.

How human did live as stupids (lets say millions of years) and all of a sudden he was in need to be intelligent to survive (lets say the last few thousands of years) and how they did survive so long in the first place.

A convincing answer will show us that your believe is based on science and not just a blind one.

Please no need for silly comments,such as (go to school,study biology,read some books, ....etc)

 

[Bunyip]

Were humans so intelligent and with an amazing ability to speak compared to all animals on earth just due to mutations and natural selection.

No. There are other factors, such as genetic drift and migration along with mutation and selection. Those four factors drove human evolution.

How human did live as stupids (lets say millions of years) and all of a sudden he was in need to be intelligent to survive (lets say the last few thousands of years) and how they did survive so long in the first place.

Well because our ancestors were not stupid. Even before they were homo sapiens, they would have been particularly intelligent primates. Close relatives, like chimps and orang outans are amongst the most intelligent creatures on earth.

 

[FearGod]

No. There are other factors, such as genetic drift and migration along with mutation and selection. Those four factors drove human evolution.

Well because our ancestors were not stupid. Even before they were homo sapiens, they would have been particularly intelligent primates. Close relatives, like chimps and orang outans are amongst the most intelligent creatures on earth.

ِAnd that simply is your blind faith.

You said they were intelligent from the start,so they lived hundreds thousands of years before starting to write, so do you think that is rational.

Why only the last 12000 years were significant compared to the hundreds thousands of years.

Definition of Natural selection

The process in nature by which, according to Darwin's theory of evolution, only the organisms best adapted to their environment tend to survive and transmit their genetic characteristics in increasing numbers to succeeding generations while those less adapted tend to be eliminated.

Why the homo erectus were extincted while still we have chimps & monkeys.

 

[Bunyip]

ِAnd that simply is your blind faith.

Nope. Evolution is an observable fact - no faith required. The theory of evolution is drawn entirely from the available evidence, so again - no faith whatsoever required.

You said they were intelligent from the start,so they lived hundreds thousands of years before starting to write, so do you think that is rational.

No, I did not say 'from the start', I said from before they were human. And yes of cpurse it is rational to believe that humans existed long before writting - there is a great deal of evidence to validate that belief.

As to why only the last 12000 years are significant - well why would you think that only the last 12000 years were significant?

Definition of Natural selection

The process in nature by which, according to Darwin's theory of evolution, only the organisms best adapted to their environment tend to survive and transmit their genetic characteristics in increasing numbers to succeeding generations while those less adapted tend to be eliminated.

Why the homo erectus were extincted while still we have chimps & monkeys.

Homo erectus evolved into homo sapiens, I'm not sure what problem you see there for evolution.

The bottom line is that evolution demands no faith, it is an observable fact.

 

[Farrukh]

The bottom line is that evolution demands no faith, it is an observable fact.

then why nobody ever observed it ?

 

[Bunyip]

then why nobody ever observed it ?

Evolution at the species level was first observed under scientific conditions more than a century ago. Speciation (macro evolution) along with higher level transitions have been observed in nature, in agriculture and in the lab many, many times.

If you google 'observed instances of speciation' you will find dozens of examples.

It is observations of evolution that led to the formation of the theory of evolution, that is how science works - evolution was observed to occur and the theory was drawn from those observations.

 

[FearGod]

Nope. Evolution is an observable fact - no faith required. The theory of evolution is drawn entirely from the available evidence, so again - no faith whatsoever required.

No, I did not say 'from the start', I said from before they were human. And yes of cpurse it is rational to believe that humans existed long before writting - there is a great deal of evidence to validate that belief.

As to why only the last 12000 years are significant - well why would you think that only the last 12000 years were significant?

Homo erectus evolved into homo sapiens, I'm not sure what problem you see there for evolution.

The bottom line is that evolution demands no faith, it is an observable fact.

Can you tell me why and how the Neanderthals had disappeared.

They walked earth hundreds thousands of years and evidences show that they were extincted only before 24000 years ago.

Where and why they gone and evidence shows also that there was no connection found between the modern human and the Neanderthals and one of the expectations that modern human killed and eradicated the whole population of the Neanderthals.

 

[Bunyip]

Can you tell me why and how the Neanderthals had disappeared.

They walked earth hundreds thousands of years and evidences show that they were extincted only before 24000 years ago.

Why not look it up? I don't understand why you are asking where extinct creatures are, or why they are extinct - is there a point?

 

[Pedroinspain]

Evolution at the species level was first observed under scientific conditions more than a century ago. Speciation (macro evolution) along with higher level transitions have been observed in nature, in agriculture and in the lab many, many times.

If you google 'observed instances of speciation' you will find dozens of examples.

It is observations of evolution that led to the formation of the theory of evolution, that is how science works - evolution was observed to occur and the theory was drawn from those observations.

Solid comment, Bunyip,

The OP’s main point was to claim that evolutionists cannot answer basic questions. And the main basic question of that OP was whether there was observable evidence that evolution is ‘true’, “something I don’t have to receive by faith”.

Well, you nailed that, but I strongly suspect that the protagonists on this forum will not accept your claim. So if I may, can I add to your post by showing observable (graphically) examples of evolution:

1) Evolution of Landforms
Creationist view: Genesis I “God created the Earth”. Genesis tells us further that he was satisfied and that on the seventh day he rested. That means that the earth was finished.

Evolutionist view: We know that that is not so. We know that the earth is continuing to evolve. Its shape is changing. Sediments are being transported and deposited elsewhere. We can see growth in river deltas; we see new volcanic islands forming off Iceland and in the Pacific; we see sections of the surface uplifted after major earthquakes; we see massive undersea slumps of sediments rupturing submarine cables; we see Mount St Helen’s changing shape radically and causing a lahar flow that deposited tens of metres of sediment. These are all observable and undeniable changes. The shape and form of the earth evolved. Fact.

2) Evolution of life Forms
Plants have evolved within human lifetimes. The wild Brassica oleracea evolved into cabbages, cauliflower, broccoli, Brussels sprouts, under the hand of man. The wild dog-rose was turned into a myriad of rose colours, shapes, scents and sizes. Wild rice was bred that can be resistant to more arid conditions under which its ancestor would die. Moths changed colours in response to adjustments to camouflage cause by the industrial revolution. Since introduction into Australia, cane toads have become bigger and faster. In the laboratory E. coli have been able to use citrate as a nutrient, something the ‘wild’ ancestors could not do. The Malarial parasite became resistant to quinine. St Bernards and Yorkshire terriers had the same ancestor within human memory. The list is almost endless.

So, in answer to FearGod’s OP – sure there are a vast array of observable examples of evolution (sensu lato).

 

[Bunyip]

Solid comment, Bunyip,

The OP’s main point was to claim that evolutionists cannot answer basic questions. And the main basic question of that OP was whether there was observable evidence that evolution is ‘true’, “something I don’t have to receive by faith”.

Well, you nailed that, but I strongly suspect that the protagonists on this forum will not accept your claim. So if I may, can I add to your post by showing observable (graphically) examples of evolution:

1) Evolution of Landforms
Creationist view: Genesis I “God created the Earth”. Genesis tells us further that he was satisfied and that on the seventh day he rested. That means that the earth was finished.

Evolutionist view: We know that that is not so. We know that the earth is continuing to evolve. Its shape is changing. Sediments are being transported and deposited elsewhere. We can see growth in river deltas; we see new volcanic islands forming off Iceland and in the Pacific; we see sections of the surface uplifted after major earthquakes; we see massive undersea slumps of sediments rupturing submarine cables; we see Mount St Helen’s changing shape radically and causing a lahar flow that deposited tens of metres of sediment. These are all observable and undeniable changes. The shape and form of the earth evolved. Fact.

2) Evolution of life Forms
Plants have evolved within human lifetimes. The wild Brassica oleracea evolved into cabbages, cauliflower, broccoli, Brussels sprouts, under the hand of man. The wild dog-rose was turned into a myriad of rose colours, shapes, scents and sizes. Wild rice was bred that can be resistant to more arid conditions under which its ancestor would die. Moths changed colours in response to adjustments to camouflage cause by the industrial revolution. Since introduction into Australia, cane toads have become bigger and faster. In the laboratory E. coli have been able to use citrate as a nutrient, something the ‘wild’ ancestors could not do. The Malarial parasite became resistant to quinine. St Bernards and Yorkshire terriers had the same ancestor within human memory. The list is almost endless.

So, in answer to FearGod’s OP – sure there are a vast array of observable examples of evolution (sensu lato).

Cheers.

As you say, the evidence is abundant. There are two major misconceptions in the OP as I see it;

1. The catastrophic misconception of how science works - evolution is a word given to a process that we observed in nature. To imagine that belief in evolution is a question of faith is to fail to grasp the fundamental fact that evolution is a term invented to describe a process that was being observed.

2. (this is the big one - it frankly blows me away) The even more catastrophic misconception that there is such a thing as 'evolutionism' in the first place. Evolution is not an ideology, it is not a belief system, it is the name given to an observable process.