Is Evolution a Religion?

CJK · Post by **CJK** » Sun Jan 08, 2006 6:40 pm

Simple question.

Is Evolution a Religion?

Sender · Post by **Sender** » Mon Jan 09, 2006 10:46 pm

juliod wrote:I actively solicite alternative pints of view. But I mean, really! The alternatives have to have some sort of quality. Evolution a religion? That's an absurdity inside an absurdity. I'm sorry you are offended by that, but what else can I say? Evolution and religion are opposites. There's not even anything to discuss.

Blah blah blah. You are such a liar. Apparently you also are a legend in your own mind sweety. Proof? Look at your post. I only question why even be involved in a thread where you see no point to an alternative. I take no offense julie, it seems the author of this thread wanted to discuss it, but apparently we are unable to because you have to be a condesending putz.

Cathy, why did you have to butt in? Like I care what you have to say?

The thread had a short question, and grumpy's answer was as short as mine, did you point out this to him in a belittling manner as well? Or is that reserved for those with opposing views.

Censorship went out along time ago girls, get up to speed.

We got a couple of real weiners here, lol. Please take no offense, I am only kidding...NOT!!!

QED · Post by **QED** » Tue Jan 10, 2006 6:09 am

Please let's not stray into personal attacks here. Sender, I think it is reasonable for me to ask you not to attempt to mock others by distorting their aliases. I think everyone would prefer to hear your reasons for thinking that evolution is a religion.

I seem to be spending quite a bit of time on these forums lately showing how evolution is a general principle for the autonomous generation of novel design that can be applied in a variety of different settings. Indeed, I would happily argue that it has unlimited scope of application. So having seen practical applications of this general principle, I would suggest that it would clearly be wrong to refer to "evolution" as a religion -- except in the sense that some might say Baseball was their religion. As a general working principle evolution is definitely not a myth.

Cathar1950 · Post by **Cathar1950** » Tue Jan 10, 2006 7:47 am

I don't care if you call me Cathy. I am not afraid of my femininity .
Grumpy would you please use two sentences so I don't get in trouble?
I agree you can make anything a religion including a coke bottle.
But evolution is a process. I even think religion is an evolutionary process.
So are cultures, societies, and ideas.

Sender · Post by **Sender** » Tue Jan 10, 2006 7:59 am

QED wrote:Please let's not stray into personal attacks here. Sender, I think it is reasonable for me to ask you not to attempt to mock others by distorting their aliases. I think everyone would prefer to hear your reasons for thinking that evolution is a religion.

It would also be reasonable for cathy and julie to use proper etiquette as well, or are they excluded? Funny you don't mention them, yet all you have to do is look and you'd see they were the instigators, and I get called on it. I wonder why that is? They can make sport of my post, they can be condescending in their rhetoric towards me, yet when I respond I am the one pointed out. Some things never change. I feel I was attacked or at least put down, and when that happens IMO they are fair game.

QED wrote:I seem to be spending quite a bit of time on these forums lately showing how evolution is a general principle for the autonomous generation of novel design that can be applied in a variety of different settings. Indeed, I would happily argue that it has unlimited scope of application. So having seen practical applications of this general principle, I would suggest that it would clearly be wrong to refer to "evolution" as a religion -- except in the sense that some might say Baseball was their religion.

Yeah, so you spend time defending evolution, I am sure not as much time I spend defending Christianity.

Look, I simply made a three word post just like another poster, who BTW didn't get put down for his response. I was planning on more dialogue in this thread, then as usual trolls come out start talking junk and it gets us off topic. No great surprise there.

QED wrote:As a general working principle evolution is definitely not a myth.

Neither is Christ dyeing on a Cross for our sins.

Sender · Post by **Sender** » Tue Jan 10, 2006 8:18 am

Cathar1950 wrote:I don't care if you call me Cathy. I am not afraid of my femininity .
Grumpy would you please use two sentences so I don't get in trouble?
I agree you can make anything a religion including a coke bottle.
But evolution is a process. I even think religion is an evolutionary process.
So are cultures, societies, and ideas.

Then the moderators shouldn't challenge me then because you have given me permission to call you cathy. Please just call me sender, that is all I am giving you permission to call me.

As for your view on evolution, why would I want to listen to such blather? And why isn/t your post longer, brain lock?

Cathar1950 · Post by **Cathar1950** » Tue Jan 10, 2006 8:48 am

I take back the permission and I didn't give it. I just I just don't care what you say. I find it sad and pathetic if not funny.
It seems every time I turn around I hear some one say evolution is a religion, Atheism is a religion or science is a religion with out any justification. I am not sure you understand the depth and variation in Christianity.

Sender · Post by **Sender** » Tue Jan 10, 2006 9:07 am

Cathar1950 wrote:I take back the permission and I didn't give it. I just I just don't care what you say. I find it sad and pathetic if not funny.

You take back permission you never gave? Are you on meds or what? In another thread didn't you just refer to juliod as julie? So it does bother you I call you cathy? lol.

Cathar1950 wrote:It seems every time I turn around I hear some one say evolution is a religion, Atheism is a religion or science is a religion with out any justification. I am not sure you understand the depth and variation in Christianity.

Do not presume what I know or don't know. What we do know is you do not like opposing views being posted, and you are unable to articulate an intelligent response.

I did not start this thread BTW. I only responded to the author, then you chimed in, putting me down immediately for having an opposing view. Then before I am able to share my position, you and juliod get me OT., and in a condescending manner to boot! That's how I see it, and neutral parites would agree you guys fanned the flames FIRST.

I just don't back down from idiots who haphazardly throw out barbs that were neither solicited nor warranted.

Myself, I prefer a more civil dialogue.

McCulloch · Post by **McCulloch** » Tue Jan 10, 2006 9:48 am

Moderator Intervention
This is intended to be a debate forum not a discussion thread. All posters, please keep your posts on topic. If you agree or disagree with the opening post, please include your reasoning. If you agree or disagree with the reasoning of another debater, attack his reasoning not his person.

Grumpy · Post by **Grumpy** » Tue Jan 10, 2006 11:34 am

Cathar1950 and juliod

When the first post of the question"Is evolution a religion" was posted I gave my own simple answer and moved on. I now come back to find a controversy about my short answer, so I will expand to further clarify my thoughts on the matter.

While the question, as presented, is not a stupid one, Yes is a stupid answer for which there can be no justification.

Religion is a belief system which requires no "proof" of it's precepts, which indeed CAN HAVE NO PROOF, because it posits a supernatural cause outside of the realm of the real world. A believer must accept on faith the concepts of that religion and new concepts can rarely be accepted by the sect involved leading to the splintering into different competing(often hostile) sects instead of correction of erronious concepts.

Science, including evolution, requires "proof" for all of it's precepts, such "proof" coming from observation, experimentation and testing of the real world, and is self correcting when new concepts are better at explaining reality than the old. Faith in the concepts is not required, evidence and reason are required to support them. All this leads to a more or less unified(though not perfect) field of the sciences using the same methods in many different disciplines.

(in the above paragraphs I have used the word "proof" not in it's scientific sense(used only in math) but in it's popular language sense(meaning evidence, logic, testing, repeatability, etc.) to avoid being overly verbose and to make myself understood by the...shall we say scientifically challenged)

As you can see from the above two descriptions science and religion could hardly be more DIFFERENT, in many ways they are exact opposites. So anyone claiming that any science is a religion doesn't understand anything about one or both of the concepts.

Is this a more acceptable response?

Grumpy 8)

PS I kept my previous response so short because I'm a smartazz and also because I did not think there was anyone...shall we say definitially deficient enough to actually confuse science and religion, I stand corrected.

Sender · Post by **Sender** » Tue Jan 10, 2006 12:33 pm

Grumpy wrote:... and also because I did not think there was anyone...shall we say definitially deficient enough to actually confuse science and religion, I stand corrected.

Another asshole in the thread, surprise surprise surprise. If heaven and hell are real, I'll be in heaven and you jerks will burn in hell, sad yet comforting.

I have no idea what I did to any of you, but your antagonistic behavior is reprehensible.

Then I am told by a moderator that I shouldn't say who started it! Deck is stacked against me before I even start, go figure.