What is evolution, not what some think

originally posted by: borntowatch


Please sway me into your beliefs with more than a few assumptions
The floor is all yours, wipe it with me
Goat weeds and Bacteria, going to turn them into wine or just more weeds and bacteria.

Prove to me evolution can change a species into another species, just dont use a bucket of water and drips as an analogy, talk about miracles. Evolution has her own miracles.

Not trying to sway you. That would obviously be futile, your mind is so closed to reality. There have been so many answers given to you and you ignore them all so far.

It also doesn't really matter if you can't be swayed because you prefer clinging to primitive anti scientific/anti intellectual belief systems. It is the people who do have an open mind yet might be unsure about it all (including the many Christians who aren't fanatical/fundamentalists), that will benefit from threads like this. In many ways you are helping spread genuine science through such religious based ignorance and obstinance.

originally posted by: Cogito, Ergo Sum

originally posted by: borntowatch


Please sway me into your beliefs with more than a few assumptions
The floor is all yours, wipe it with me
Goat weeds and Bacteria, going to turn them into wine or just more weeds and bacteria.

Prove to me evolution can change a species into another species, just dont use a bucket of water and drips as an analogy, talk about miracles. Evolution has her own miracles.

Not trying to sway you. That would obviously be futile, your mind is so closed to reality. There have been so many answers given to you and you ignore them all so far.

It also doesn't really matter if you can't be swayed because you prefer clinging to primitive anti scientific/anti intellectual belief systems. It is the people who do have an open mind yet might be unsure about it all (including the many Christians who aren't fanatical/fundamentalists), that will benefit from threads like this. In many ways you are helping spread genuine science through such religious based ignorance and obstinance.

Yawn/sigh, you cant sway me because your evidence is all assumption and faith, dont pretend you have something when you cant prove it.
My bucket catches all the water drops so that proves evolution.

Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion -- a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality. I am an ardent evolutionist and an ex-Christian, but I must admit that in this one complaint -- and Mr. Gish [Duane T. Gish the Creation Scientist] is but one of many to make it -- the literalists are absolutely right. Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today.
Michael Ruse
www.huffingtonpost.com...

www.omniology.com...

originally posted by: borntowatch
Yawn/sigh, you cant sway me because your evidence is all assumption and faith, dont pretend you have something when you cant prove it.

What evidence? Haven't offered you any (certainly none recently) and don't intend to. I have other interests in threads like this, more to do with sociology (religious cults, effects of brainwashing, delusions etc). I never really expect Heaven's Gater's, Scientologists, or fundamentalists of any type (especially when religion is involved), to listen to reason. Even though many of them are otherwise intelligent people.

Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion -- a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality. I am an ardent evolutionist and an ex-Christian, but I must admit that in this one complaint -- and Mr. Gish [Duane T. Gish the Creation Scientist] is but one of many to make it -- the literalists are absolutely right. Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today.
Michael Ruse

This is simply hot air.

Though I did enjoy the implication that there is any such thing as "creation science". Would be every bit as valid as "voodoo science". lol.

originally posted by: Cogito, Ergo Sum

Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion -- a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality. I am an ardent evolutionist and an ex-Christian, but I must admit that in this one complaint -- and Mr. Gish [Duane T. Gish the Creation Scientist] is but one of many to make it -- the literalists are absolutely right. Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today.
Michael Ruse

This is simply hot air.

Though I did enjoy the implication that there is any such thing as "creation science". Would be every bit as valid as "voodoo science". lol.

I think the evolution believing scientist who made that statement a Mr Michael Ruse, ardent anti creationist like yourself would consider your position hot....oh never mind, it is probably beyond comprehension.

originally posted by: borntowatch

originally posted by: Cogito, Ergo Sum

Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion -- a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality. I am an ardent evolutionist and an ex-Christian, but I must admit that in this one complaint -- and Mr. Gish [Duane T. Gish the Creation Scientist] is but one of many to make it -- the literalists are absolutely right. Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today.
Michael Ruse

This is simply hot air.

Though I did enjoy the implication that there is any such thing as "creation science". Would be every bit as valid as "voodoo science". lol.

I think the evolution believing scientist who made that statement a Mr Michael Ruse, ardent anti creationist like yourself would consider your position hot....oh never mind, it is probably beyond comprehension.

Yes, you are quite right. It seems that science is beyond your comprehension. Can you please stop pretending otherwise? This thread has been vastly extended by your ability to stick your fingers in your ears and hum really loudly.

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg

originally posted by: borntowatch

originally posted by: Cogito, Ergo Sum

Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion -- a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality. I am an ardent evolutionist and an ex-Christian, but I must admit that in this one complaint -- and Mr. Gish [Duane T. Gish the Creation Scientist] is but one of many to make it -- the literalists are absolutely right. Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today.
Michael Ruse

This is simply hot air.

Though I did enjoy the implication that there is any such thing as "creation science". Would be every bit as valid as "voodoo science". lol.

I think the evolution believing scientist who made that statement a Mr Michael Ruse, ardent anti creationist like yourself would consider your position hot....oh never mind, it is probably beyond comprehension.

Yes, you are quite right. It seems that science is beyond your comprehension. Can you please stop pretending otherwise? This thread has been vastly extended by your ability to stick your fingers in your ears and hum really loudly.

No sadly it wasnt beyond my comprehension at all, it was a quote by an evolutionist philosopher and your contemporary assumed he was a creation scientist, I guess? I didnt understand their reply so assumed they didnt understand the quote. I could be wrong.

and this thread has been vastly extended by evolutionists threats to explain why they have an religious like acceptance of evolution and then evaporating away when hard empirical evidence is asked for.

water collecting in buckets indeed LOL

originally posted by: borntowatch

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg

originally posted by: borntowatch

originally posted by: Cogito, Ergo Sum

Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion -- a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality. I am an ardent evolutionist and an ex-Christian, but I must admit that in this one complaint -- and Mr. Gish [Duane T. Gish the Creation Scientist] is but one of many to make it -- the literalists are absolutely right. Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today.
Michael Ruse

This is simply hot air.

Though I did enjoy the implication that there is any such thing as "creation science". Would be every bit as valid as "voodoo science". lol.

I think the evolution believing scientist who made that statement a Mr Michael Ruse, ardent anti creationist like yourself would consider your position hot....oh never mind, it is probably beyond comprehension.

Yes, you are quite right. It seems that science is beyond your comprehension. Can you please stop pretending otherwise? This thread has been vastly extended by your ability to stick your fingers in your ears and hum really loudly.

No sadly it wasnt beyond my comprehension at all, it was a quote by an evolutionist philosopher and your contemporary assumed he was a creation scientist, I guess? I didnt understand their reply so assumed they didnt understand the quote. I could be wrong.

and this thread has been vastly extended by evolutionists threats to explain why they have an religious like acceptance of evolution and then evaporating away when hard empirical evidence is asked for.

water collecting in buckets indeed LOL

And once again you lie and shift the blame. YOU are the one who has ignored every piece of evidence by pretending that it does not exist. YOU are the one who has been extending the thread by popping up again and again and pretending that the conversation is still going. And you've also been using the word 'evolutionist' again. There's no such word, no matter what creationists believe to the contrary.

originally posted by: borntowatch



Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion -- a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality. I am an ardent evolutionist and an ex-Christian, but I must admit that in this one complaint -- and Mr. Gish [Duane T. Gish the Creation Scientist] is but one of many to make it -- the literalists are absolutely right. Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today.
Michael Ruse
www.huffingtonpost.com...

www.omniology.com...

I love when you quote mine. Though in this instance I may give you a pass on quote mining and just laugh at your lack of due diligence by simply accepting what was posted on creation.com and not bothering to check the veracity of what your were actually quoting. For proper context, lets look at exactly what Dr. Ruse meant when he made that statement many years ago. You do realize that the gentleman you think is making a statement to your liking was the key witness in McClean v Arkansas 1981 where he stated that "Creation Science is NOT Science" in a case where Arkansas state law mandating "creation science" be taught side by side with evolutionary science was on trial and found in violation of the US Constitution and thereby struck down.

Dr Ruse also refers to the "FACT" of Evolution in other writings. I would implore you to be a little more knowledgeable about who you're quoting, the context of the actual quote as well as their actual stance on the topic you are dragging them into.

Is evolution, Darwinian evolution in particular, a religion? To sound like the philosopher that I am, it all depends on what you mean by "religion." It is "Intro to Philosophy of Religion," Lecture 1 material. Religion is not something like a right-angled triangle. Either you have a right angle or you don't, and that is the end of the matter. Religion calls for what we in the trade call a "polythetic" definition. There is no one feature that is necessary, but having several is sufficient. Belief in God? Very important, but what about the Unitarians or the Buddhists? Having a priesthood? Also important, but what about the Quakers? Having rituals or ceremonies? Quakers again. And so on.

What this means is that some things are clearly religions, some not and some on the border. Roman Catholicism has a priesthood, a moral code, a belief in God and much more. It is paradigmatically a religion. (This does not mean that it is better, but that it is clear cut.) Being an undergraduate at Florida State University is not joining a religion, even though on Saturdays in the fall at the football stadium one might wonder. What about the Freemasons? Well, really, you pays your money and you takes your choice.

So, what about Darwinism? I don't think believing that Charles Darwin's theory of evolution through natural selection (his version or today's version) commits you to religious belief. I think that if, as I myself would, you extend the scope of the theory to an understanding of knowledge acquisition and justification and the same for morality -- evolutionary epistemology and evolutionary ethics -- then it can act as a religion substitute or alternative. It gives you a world picture that some people, starting with me, find entirely satisfying. I can't answer all of the questions -- Why is there something rather than nothing? How does the conscious mind arise from the physical brain? Is there a purpose to it all? -- but I am not sure that anyone can answer these questions in a satisfactory manner and I certainly don't go to bed worrying about them.

So, if someone like Richard Dawkins indignantly protests that his passion about these sorts of things -- the passion that drives the "God Delusion" -- should not be taken as a religious passion, I am happy to accept that. I do nevertheless think that often Dawkins and company show the sociological characteristics of the religious. This comes across particularly in what Freud calls the narcissism of small differences, the hatred of those who are close to them but not quite close enough. Just as evangelicals can differ bitterly over the true meaning of the host, so the New Atheists loathe people like me who (like them) have no religious belief but who think that science as such does not refute religion.

Having conceded this, I do also think that there are and have been Darwinians who have made something of a religion -- call it a secular religion, if you like -- out of their science. At the time of Darwin himself, his great defender Thomas Henry Huxley (grandfather of the novelist Aldous Huxley) set out consciously to make of Darwinism a phenomenon that not only substituted for religion but that gave the same emotional satisfactions of religion. Like those who were to follow, Huxley did not see the world (as would I and Dawkins) as blind and meaningless, but rather as something with a direction -- a direction upwards as evolution led progressively to our species. As the Christian sees the world made for humans, so Huxley saw the world preparing for humans, and as the Christian sees moral action centered on humans so likewise Huxley saw moral action centered on humans.

Huxley gave what he himself called "lay sermons," and he worked hard to promote his world vision. In one of the most interesting moves, he and fellow workers even set about building churches -- cathedrals -- to their new religion. Except they called them "museums of natural history." These were places where, instead of going to a Christian cathedral on a Sunday morning, a family could go on a Sunday afternoon and seen magnificent panoramas of past life: all of those fossil dinosaurs being dug up in the American West and shipped east for all to see and admire. On the principle that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, natural history museum after museum was built in the style of a gothic cathedral or earlier. Gaze at the Norman architecture of the Royal Ontario Museum in Toronto and you could be in Durham, England.

As it happens, toward the end of his life, Thomas Henry Huxley began to doubt the worth of his philosophy. He did not return to God, but he began to doubt that evolution had all of the answers. But this has not stopped his successors, starting with another grandson, Julian Huxley. This younger Huxley even wrote a book called "Religion without Revelation," where he saw Darwinian evolution working progressively up to our species and where he saw nature itself giving directives about proper action -- action to preserve and help humankind. Today, the world's most distinguished Darwinian, Edward O. Wilson of Harvard University, likewise thinks that evolution progresses up to humans and speaks of his world picture as a "myth" that must replace conventional religions.

So the answer to the question "Is Darwinism a religion?" is varied, interesting and insightful. But I bet a million dollars that for the next 10 years it will be the first paragraph and only the first paragraph of this piece that will be quoted and requoted by those who are more interested in using my words for their own ends rather than for understanding what I am really trying to say.

originally posted by: peter vlar


Dr Ruse also refers to the "FACT" of Evolution in other writings. I would implore you to be a little more knowledgeable about who you're quoting, the context of the actual quote as well as their actual stance on the topic you are dragging them into.

Allegations of quote mining, thats really ....thats just sad you cant read, research and comprehend.

Better go find the source and do a little research, them come back and withdraw your comments.

or do you have to much pride to admit you are wrong, course you will defend your faith to your last drop of blood, fundamentalist religious people make me sad.

originally posted by: borntowatch


Allegations of quote mining, thats really pathetic that you did NO research at all in relationship to the quote and made allegations of quote mining, really pathetic.

Better step up and justify me quote mining that statement, care to or are you going to run away like a scolded child.

Why would I run away like a scolded child? The statement is taken completely out of context and used to imply a meaning other than that intended by Dr. Ruse. That's pretty textbook quote mining. If you were capable of a rational rebuttal instead of making it personal with your ad hominem tripe you might've had a leg to stand on

Quote mining indeed, go read the document it came from and call it quote mining.

I did read it and despite your lack of reading comprehension, I stick with my assessment of quote mining. Whether it was intentional on your end or just the byproduct of laziness and convenience because
You simply copied it straight from creation.com remains to be seen. You haven't attempted to demonstrate any context that supports your POV and that in and of itself is rather telling.

It amazes me how scared evolutionists get, how defensive when one of their own dares asks a question or doubts. thats really pathetic, go to the source before making silly arrogant and ignorant allegations.

Except that Dr. Ruse isn't actually doubting the validity of evolutionary theory.Nor is
He questioning anything at all. Did you read the tract, in his own words I included? Doubtful if your that butt sore and making accusations of which you are the only guilty party. Pathetic? Oh I agree. Just not that it's a charge they I am guilty of. You on the other hand...

Quote mining, thats truly one of the dumbest things I have read around here and that says a lot
Do your research before pretending to have done it.

Try taking your own advice. I feel sad for you that you likely believe the drivel you type. Maybe if
You avoided intellectual dishonesty and presented the entire context instead of actually quote mining, you wouldn't come off so desperate. Just like this entire thread.

Congratulations, borntowatch.

There's one born every minute and they're all on this thread. Except for you, of course, you're the smart one.

Sometimes I wonder if you're a social-media experiment.

originally posted by: peter vlar

originally posted by: borntowatch


Allegations of quote mining, thats really pathetic that you did NO research at all in relationship to the quote and made allegations of quote mining, really pathetic.

Better step up and justify me quote mining that statement, care to or are you going to run away like a scolded child.

Why would I run away like a scolded child? The statement is taken completely out of context and used to imply a meaning other than that intended by Dr. Ruse. That's pretty textbook quote mining. If you were capable of a rational rebuttal instead of making it personal with your ad hominem tripe you might've had a leg to stand on

Quote mining indeed, go read the document it came from and call it quote mining.

I did read it and despite your lack of reading comprehension, I stick with my assessment of quote mining. Whether it was intentional on your end or just the byproduct of laziness and convenience because
You simply copied it straight from creation.com remains to be seen. You haven't attempted to demonstrate any context that supports your POV and that in and of itself is rather telling.

It amazes me how scared evolutionists get, how defensive when one of their own dares asks a question or doubts. thats really pathetic, go to the source before making silly arrogant and ignorant allegations.

Except that Dr. Ruse isn't actually doubting the validity of evolutionary theory.Nor is
He questioning anything at all. Did you read the tract, in his own words I included? Doubtful if your that butt sore and making accusations of which you are the only guilty party. Pathetic? Oh I agree. Just not that it's a charge they I am guilty of. You on the other hand...

Quote mining, thats truly one of the dumbest things I have read around here and that says a lot
Do your research before pretending to have done it.

Try taking your own advice. I feel sad for you that you likely believe the drivel you type. Maybe if
You avoided intellectual dishonesty and presented the entire context instead of actually quote mining, you wouldn't come off so desperate. Just like this entire thread.

I copied it from the Huffington post and the context was there as well, then read it in a book and finaly a creationist website.

I knew pride would stand in the way of truth.
If you are right and I am wrong how about you quote the three paragraphs around that quote and then we will see who is the one quote mining, its an open challenge to everyone

I think PV will go missing soon

originally posted by: Astyanax
Congratulations, borntowatch.

There's one born every minute and they're all on this thread. Except for you, of course, you're the smart one.

Sometimes I wonder if you're a social-media experiment.

Wow thanks for that in depth analysis on the evolution theory, getting closer to believing it all the time now.

Social media experiment would go like this.
Ask an evolutionist foe empirical evidence and watch them cower or act indignant and turn to insults.

Been done to many times in the past.

Evidence?

a reply to: borntowatch

You really expect me to take any further part in your fun and games?

No

I dont see the point of your post, I dont see the point of the majority of posts around these forums in relation to this issue.

No evidence, just buckets of water and assumptions.

a reply to: borntowatch

Perhaps you could show me some of these assumptions?

I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you understand the evidence that has been presented to you in these threads. At this point it is clear that the evidence used to support evolution is solid to those who do support the theory. And on the other hand, that it is not solid enough for those who reject it. There isn't likely to be any groundbreaking new evidence to present to you for your consideration.

Perhaps instead you can explain why the evidence falls short? What are the assumptions? Where are the assumptions? What exact flaws do you see and why? Surely you are capable of breaking down the information that has been presented and describe your reasons for rejecting it in detail?

If you cannot do that, than I see no reason for you to continue posting in this thread. Unless you are just trolling people, or whatever you want to call it. Prove to everyone here you aren't just having fun at the expense of others. You can either explain your position in more detail than some vague "No evidence, just buckets of water and assumptions." statement or you can't. In which case you have no business doing this run around game.

If you want people to think you actually have a grasp on the concepts, and the theory it should be easy for you to do. Defend your point of view by taking the offensive and going over the theory, what it entails, and why it is wrong.

I am referring specifically to biological evolution, just fyi.

Thanks in advance. God bless.

originally posted by: WakeUpBeer
a reply to: borntowatch

Perhaps you could show me some of these assumptions?

I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you understand the evidence that has been presented to you in these threads. At this point it is clear that the evidence used to support evolution is solid to those who do support the theory. And on the other hand, that it is not solid enough for those who reject it. There isn't likely to be any groundbreaking new evidence to present to you for your consideration.

Perhaps instead you can explain why the evidence falls short? What are the assumptions? Where are the assumptions? What exact flaws do you see and why? Surely you are capable of breaking down the information that has been presented and describe your reasons for rejecting it in detail?

If you cannot do that, than I see no reason for you to continue posting in this thread. Unless you are just trolling people, or whatever you want to call it. Prove to everyone here you aren't just having fun at the expense of others. You can either explain your position in more detail than some vague "No evidence, just buckets of water and assumptions." statement or you can't. In which case you have no business doing this run around game.

If you want people to think you actually have a grasp on the concepts, and the theory it should be easy for you to do. Defend your point of view by taking the offensive and going over the theory, what it entails, and why it is wrong.

I am referring specifically to biological evolution, just fyi.

Thanks in advance. God bless.

Ok Beer
Lets assume someone here suggested that a bucket had drops of water dripping in it and the bucket fills up and that shows species evolving? Does that work for you? Scientific evidence?


That an ecoli develops the ability to produce after 50000 generations, ecoli. Thats not evidence.Thats producing after "Kind" a biblical principle.
Its assumed its a new species by science, by the scientists who want to justify evolution? or a bucket filling with water when its just bacteria producing bacteria.

Simply the evolution proponents havnt offered empirical proof, any at all, how can I argue against nothing of substance. Show me something I can argue. Buckets of water?

Now the question arises: "How did these scientists prove that these genes were not already recessive traits in the bacteria?" They didn't, and that's the problem. They ASSUMED the genes were new information that never existed before because they started the experiment with the ASSUMPTION that billions of years of evolution had occurred. They have a religious presupposition they maintain before they even begin the experiment, so explanations that do not support their religious theory are not even considered.
www.creationliberty.com...

and remember that buckets of water was used by a supporter of evolution to justify evolution, not me. I just enjoyed it so much I had to remind people that buckets of water is not scientific but an assumption.

You cite information that has been presented, there is none.

a reply to: borntowatch

Oh look, it's another post that a) fails to address anything really relevant and b) contains a link to another creationist website with a massive inherent bias against evolution. You keep pretending that no evidence has been presented that supports evolution. This is so intellectually dishonest of you that it used to stagger me. I now regard it as being par for the course so that a creationist like you can troll this thread and pretend that creationism has even a thread of scientific basis. It doesn't. It relies on faith and facts bely faith every time.

a reply to: AngryCymraeg

Just stop responging to him.
We know the truth and thanjfulky most other people do also.
His type is dissapearing due to people being educated.
But you are right many have given him enough evidence. ..he just can't grasp what people are showing him. His mind is not worth it because he can never evolve.
Lets not just repeat ourselves anymore and just let the thread die.

originally posted by: borntowatch


I copied it from the Huffington post and the context was there as well, then read it in a book and finaly a creationist website.

The creationist website was the LAST place you read it huh? Bull S# Can you link the HufPo article then? it's YOUR job to provide context. It's nobody else's job to engage in YOUR due diligence. And you call me pathetic? laughable at best.

I knew pride would stand in the way of truth.

Of course you knew. It's the entire premise and thesis of your worldview. You refuse to let truth and science get in the way of your pride and arrogance.

If you are right and I am wrong how about you quote the three paragraphs around that quote and then we will see who is the one quote mining, its an open challenge to everyone

How about YOU do your own work and provide context to your own lunatic claims.

Did you bother reading what I previously posted? The actual rebuttal from Dr. Ruse himself to the quote mining of his comment?

You are using someone's statement out of context. whether you accept it or not, it is indeed quote mining. Being ignorant or not understanding that the onus lies on you to provide appropriate context to your claims is not an excuse for intellectual dishonesty. The ONLY person who thinks you're on the up and up is YOU and maybe some miscreants from your bible study group who eat up your pseudoscientific explanations and rationalizations of real world science.

I think PV will go missing soon

wait... you think?!?!?! That alone should move this thread to the front page!

And FYI, refusing to further engage trollish behavior isn't disappearing. It's prudent action. Maybe I could take a page from your book and make a bunch of unsubstantiated claims, deny legitimate evidence and then disappear for a dozen pages or so of the thread and then reappear with the same tired argument as if the previous several dozen pages never happened.