Evolution is a Religion

http://www.delusionresistance.org/creation/evofaith.html ^ | Dave Ruffino

[twittle]

Sometimes I like to ponder things in my mind. I will look at an idea or someone, examine their good points as well as their bad points. By looking at the actions of a person, or someone who believes in an idea you can pretty well figure out what is right and wrong or what a person's intentions were. While this works most of the time, there are still some times when I am wrong and I feel that I am man enough to admit it.

I have been looking at and reading about evolution for quite some time. In high school I took an anthropology class and was very interested in the supposed ancestors of humankind. I knew all of the names; such as australopithicus africanus and such and really embellished what I thought was intelligence.

As I approached the end of my teenage years I found out that Jesus Christ is really the answer, which changed my thoughts about evolution. My thoughts about evolution didn't change overnight. Many a night I would wonder how evolution played into God's creation, but I really never could make the two adhere to each other. After a couple of years of basking in the love of God I came to the conclusion that evolution was dead wrong.

There are Christians I learned, who still believed in evolution. These people, called theistic evolutionists, try to unite the theory of Evolution with God's creation, and many of them think that they are successful. Such people, I think, really lack a lot of faith in God, thinking that it was too hard for the Master of The Universe to create all that we see in just a literal 7 days. They look at passages in the Bible that might have dual meanings, or words that have that same way, and they twist them to meld their love for evolution into Biblical Christianity. It's too bad that they just can't believe the Bible literally.

There is a strange thing in this whole evolution versus Christianity thing though. I have not heard of any evolutionary scientist who is trying to bring the Bible into an evolutionary light. Scientists are either hot or cold where the Bible is concerned. When a scientist learns and accepts the truth of Creation, they change totally and become strong Bible believing Christians.

The important thing here is to define what science is. According to the dictionary, the definition of science is:

Science: knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method ..... the state of knowing : knowledge as distinguished from ignorance or misunderstanding.

So we see by the above definition, that true science should be defined as facts, backed up by tests using the scientific method. So, what is the scientific method? It is defined below.

Scientific Method: principles and procedures for the systematic pursuit of knowledge involving the recognition and formulation of a problem, the collection of data through observation and experiment, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses.

From the definitions above, we know without a shadow of a doubt that something can only become a scientific fact if it passes all of the rigors of scientific method. When a theory is established as fact, it becomes a law of science. Laws do not have to be proven anymore, they are established and concrete.

Take for instance the Law of Gravity. It is readily observed, you can experiment to your hearts delight and it still stays the same, because it is a law. On the other hand, theories are mere conjecture, as is stated in the definition below. They should not be presented as fact and certainly not taught as fact. But we must remember that to become a theory, there has to be a reason to believe that the speculation could be true.

Theory: Pronunciation: 'thE-&-rE, 'thi(-&)r-E Function: noun Etymology: Late Latin theoria, from Greek theOria, from theOrein Date: 1592 The analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another : abstract thought : SPECULATION : a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena : a hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation b : an unproved assumption : CONJECTURE.

Take for example seeing a house out in the country from very far off. When you first see it, you might make a few assumptions. You think, well, since this is out west, it is probably a stucco or adobe house with an old tile roof. Your theory is that you saw in a great distance an white adobe house with a tile roof. That is what you will tell your friends about your journey. You believe you are right but it is only through conjecture or speculation (theory).

Had you taken the time to hike to the house, as you would have gotten closer you would have had to change your opinion, because you notice now that you can see slats going across the house, denoting that the house has a wooden exterior with a dark tile roof. So you continue to walk onward toward the house and you notice that the roof is not tile at all, but is made up of shingles. Just by observing the house over a period of time, you have had to realize that the first conjecture was wrong. The fact (or law) is that the house is a wooden exterior with a shingled roof. If so required, you could even perform more tests on the house. For instance, it is possible that the siding is plastic siding, which is made to look like wood siding. A simple knock on the material would confirm or deny your suspicions. You could even take a core sample to examine if it is wood or particle board. You will notice that this was only done with direct observation. The only way you knew for sure was by time and tests.

For the next step, we jump 2000 years into the future. The observer is walking where that old house once stood. The elements have destroyed almost all vestiges of the old structure. The only thing that remains is a foundation. He looks real carefully because he wants to know how the old house was built. He wants to know what it looked like. He speculates that old houses in this part of the country were built of stucco or adobe, and that that they had tile roofs. If he is lucky, he might have found some old rusty nails or perhaps some copper pipe, but that is all he can find. Both of those materials were used in many types of homes. So, without knowing much, he makes his assumption, and writes his theory. He knows that he can't be wrong about his theory because he has been taught that all houses had that type of foundation 2000 years ago and because of where it was, it had to be adobe or stucco with a dark tile roof. He is dead wrong, but because of the status quo of current thought, he is right on the mark. If he were proved wrong, he would cover it up and continue the lie. Some institutions do not like to be challenged that they might be wrong.

Now let us look at evolution. First of all, what they say is evidence is really only taken from dead things. The foundation of evolution is what is called the Geologic Time Table. You see, without time, evolution is dead. The interesting thing about the geologic time table is that it was formulated back in the nineteenth century, close to 100 years before radio-metric or isotope dating ever came on the scene. With this time table, it was assumed that the deeper you go, the older the fossil or layer of rock should be dated. So someone got the bright idea and said, "this clam shell is on the bottom layer. It must be the oldest, so I say it is 750 million years old." So the assumption that all layers of that particular shell had to be around 750 million years old was formulated. Today in evolution something called "circular reasoning" is used to explain dates. If you were to find a fossil and send it to a archeologist and ask them how old it was, he would look at index fossils and tell you the age of the fossil, judging by the index fossil. How did he know the age of the fossil? He knew by what layer it was found in. If you took him a mineral sample from the same layer, he would ask you what sort of fossils are in the same layer and would make his assumption on that basis. Thus you have circular reasoning. It is faulty whether you are talking about 2000 year old house foundations or fossils, or anything else for that matter.

Scientists might argue that they have reliable dating methods that they use to date fossils and rock layers. The first method that they argue for is called Carbon-14, a radioactive carbon that is found in all living things. What science will not tell you is that it is not very reliable. Carbon 14 tests done on living animals have shown them in some instances to be hundreds if not thousands of years old. Where is the reliability here? Some try to say that they have used Carbon 14 to date fossils back hundreds of thousands of years. Carbon 14 has a relatively short half life and dates past ten thousand years are impossible and absurd.

Scientists claim with great pride the second test, called potassium argon dating. It too has shown to be unreliable. To prove my point, tests recently done on a fresh lava flow has shown it to be hundreds of millions of years old. The lies and falsehoods go on and on....

Let me ask you something. Let us suppose that you were not feeling well and you went to the doctor. Let us say that you have pain in the right upper quadrant of your abdomen. To add to this, you have yellowing of the skin and the white part of your eyes is a shade of yellow too. The doctor takes a blood sample from you and sends it to the laboratory. The laboratory performs the tests of your blood, but the tests are faulty. The laboratory sends back the result of the test telling the doctor that you are low in iron. The doctor (albeit a very stupid physician) prescribes you iron pills and sends you home. The weeks go by and you get progressively worse. You have faith though that the doctor and lab knew what they were doing, so you do not question them. A year goes by and you find out that you are dying because you have had hepatitis the whole time and the laboratory and doctor didn't tell the truth. This all happened because of faulty tests and a doctor that you thought you could blindly trust.

I think we all agree that the little story above is pretty horrible. I also think we all know doctors who would fit into that category. But I pose another question to you. Why do people blindly believe that science is right about evolution? It is because modern society has mistakenly put supposed highly educated people in a god-like class. We assume that because they have a diploma from an institution of higher learning hanging on their wall, they are correct about almost everything. What most people do not realize is that although much intelligence is taught in those institutions, very little morality or common sense is taught to the students. You can master all of the knowledge of the universe, but if it is not coupled together with morality and common sense then it is useless.

Evolution Is The Religion:

There are some of you who are probably thinking that I have gone crazy for making the statement that evolution is actually a religion. Before you judge any further, let us look at what a religion is and what one has to do to participate in a religion. Below is a definition of religion found on the Internet at the Webster's site:

I suppose we should look at ways in which those who believe in evolution are faithful in their religious beliefs.

1. Belief in a "Big Bang," that they have no proof of.

2. Belief in life which resulted from chemical processes, of which they have no proof.

3. Belief in an old Earth, for which no convincing proof has ever been found.

4. Belief in macro-evolution without producing any transitionary forms.

5. Belief in uniformitarianism, that all environmental processes have always been the same on Earth, with no proof of that hypothesis.

I like to read articles in the newspapers that promote evolution theory. It is the only reason that I take the paper at all. If you examine the articles you will notice that the scientists are not very sure of themselves. There are in many instances phrases like: "scientist's hope," "scientist's suppose," and "scientist's surmise," all phrases that should be big red flags for the reader. The articles are filled with other words, such as: "could," "if," "may," and "might." Think about what is being said. There is not a great deal of confidence in those words.

I think that a person who believes in such a doubtful religion is really grasping for straws. I know that as a practicing, Bible believing Christian, I have a great deal of faith. For instance, I know that Jesus Christ was born of a virgin, lived here on Earth, died for my sin, and was resurrected. I also know, like I know the map of my own hand, that He will return again. Now, my hope is that it will be during my life time, but I know it will happen. But where evolution is built on suppositions without any evidence at all, I have a book, called the Bible, which has been proven to be ancient. That book has prophecies, many of which have been proven by their fulfillment with many more to be fulfilled in the future, and that, might I add, is more scientific than evolution.

Why Do Evolutionists Believe So Ardently?

That is one of the simpler questions to answer in the whole big mess. The basis for their disbelief is blatant disregard for the Living God and a rebellious attitude that has hardened their hearts. Actually, their actions are a sign of the times, and a sign of things to come. Below you can read about what was prophesied in the Bible about these times, and these people:

For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables. 2 Timothy 4: 3-4

It is not hard to see how big a fable that evolution is. Men do not want to be accountable to God, so they listen to the things that they want to hear. In the end this will only lead to destruction. Incidentally, the definition for the word "fable," is: "a fictitious narrative or statement: as a : a legendary story of supernatural happenings." That is what evolution is, fiction!

This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come. For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, Without natural affection, truce breakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good, Traitors, heady, high-minded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God; Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away. For of this sort are they which creep into houses, and lead captive silly women laden with sins, led away with divers lusts, Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth. 2 Timothy 3: 1-7

The scripture above says just about all about the heart of the evolutionist. If a man loves himself, he cannot love God. It is even hard for such a person to love other human beings. The words that follow in that scripture give an illustration of the attributes of those who value themselves above others. And isn't that what the theory or evolution is all about, survival of one's self, survival of the fittest. Nothing else matters but self and the perpetuation of one's self. Finally, the end sentence illustrates what I said about some people who are educated at institutions of higher learning. A person can attain all the information that there is to learn but still not know the truth.

Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts, And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation. For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished. 2 Peter 3: 3-6

The above scripture reads as a prophecy of evolutionary theory. It is quite evident that evolution mocks Christianity. They are scoffers who say that they have a better way. They say that creation is not possible. Because they deny creation, they deny God and our Lord Jesus Christ, and cannot possibly believe in his return.

Where the scripture says, "for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation," talks about the belief that many evolutionist's hold which is called "uniformitarianism." That belief suggests that all of the processes of nature have been uniform since the formation of the Earth. This denies the creation and the Genesis flood.

The scripture goes on to say, "For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished," which has some very interesting implications. First, it says that the evolutionist is willingly ignorant, meaning that they know the truth, but willfully refuse to believe it. Next the article says that God created the Earth and universe with the appearance of being old. The evolutionist teaches that the Earth was formed billions of years ago, denying the Word of God. The evolutionist teaches that the Earth was formed as a molten globe and that water later formed as a result of steam from volcano's and such. The Bible teaches that God had water on the Earth first and then formed the land. And finally, the evolutionist denies a worldwide flood and that God preserved mankind and animals through escape in the ark. This is where the evolutionist is very much willfully ignorant because of all of the evidences of Noah's flood all over the fact of the globe.

What is Religion?

I got to the Websters Online Dictionary and looked up the word, "religion," for this little study. The definition of religion is:

Main Entry: religion Pronunciation: ri-'li-j&n Function: noun Etymology: Middle English religioun, from Latin religion-, religio supernatural constraint, sanction, religious practice, perhaps from religare to restrain, tie back Date: 13th century 1 a : the state of a religious b (1) : the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2) : commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance 2 : a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices 3 archaic : scrupulous conformity : CONSCIENTIOUSNESS 4 : a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith

Another dictionary explains "religion" in these terms:

Religion: a belief in, recognition of or an awakened sense of, a higher, unseen controlling power or powers with the emotion or morality connected therewith: rites or worship: any system of such belief or worship: devoted fidelity: monastic life.

So we see that a definition of a religion, as defined above in choice number two and especially in choice number four, does not necessarily have to do with a belief in God, but can be defined as principle or cause held to with ardor and faith. Now let us look now at what defines faith:

Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. Hebrews 11:1

Below I have put the definition of faith from the Websters electronic dictionary, for those of you who may not accept a Biblical interpretation:

Main Entry: faith Pronunciation: 'fAth Function: noun Inflected Form(s): plural faiths /'fAths, sometimes 'fA[th]z/ Etymology: Middle English feith, from Old French feid, foi, from Latin fides; akin to Latin fidere to trust -- more at BIDE Date: 13th century 1 a : allegiance to duty or a person : LOYALTY b (1) : fidelity to one's promises (2) : sincerity of intentions 2 a (1) : belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2) : belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion b (1) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2) : complete trust 3 : something that is believed especially with strong conviction; especially : a system of religious beliefs

You will notice that the Webster's definition of "faith" is the same as the Biblical definition. I think that we can, in simple terms, explain the faithful of a religion as those who have become an institution by their faith, which is belief in something in which there is no scientific proof. If you can't see it, and no one has ever seen it, and there is no proof that it happened then to believe it is certainly faith and when it is instituted with a group of others, it is a religion.

The first part of the definition of a religion has to do with faith. It is a belief in something, a faith in an unseen but controlling being or force. Where do evolutionists fall into this category? Evolution is permeated with faith. First, the belief in the Big Bang. Evolutionists believe that the whole universe started from just a small area of matter that exploded in some way to cause the universe. They however don't have an answer as to what caused the initial spark for the bang. They don't know where it started from or anything else about if for that matter. Yet, they believe in the bang and the force (whatever it was) that started the whole ball of wax in progress. Isn't it faith to believe in something that you never saw, in whatever started it. Yet, when a Christian professes a loving God that created the whole deal, they are called narrow-minded and arrogant.

Secondly, evolutionists believe that life started from a single cell. For a long time science thought that a cell was a simple thing, sort of trivial. Recent studies in biology have shed light on a whole new world. A cell is like a little factory, taking in food, producing energy and sustaining itself if need be. The DNA in each cell could fill many volumes with your personal information, yet it is all kept in one little package, the cell. It is virtually impossible to even think that such complexity could be manufactured by some amino-acids getting together billions of years ago. Again, there is a lot of faith involved here.

Lets look at a third aspect of evolution faith. Any biologist should be able to tell you that 99 percent of mutations that occur are detrimental or fatal to any organism. Yet, the faith of evolutionists would have you believe that hundreds of thousands, if not millions of mutations have occurred to produce all of the varied species that live now or have lived in the past on the Earth. Since the miraculous only is believed by those with faith, then we have to assume that evolutionists live by faith in miraculous mutations.

A fourth aspect of faith could be summed up by what Charles Darwin said about evolution. He said that if evolution is true, then we should stumble over transitional fossil forms when we step out of our houses. In essence, what he was saying is that there should be a lot of fossils of animals that were transitional forms. For instance, there should be many fossils of animals that are between reptiles and birds, or between reptiles and mammals, in the evolutionary scale. To this day, not one viable transition fossil has been found. So, since nothing of this sort has been found, to believe them (or that they will be found) is faith. There are other examples of the faith of evolutionists, but time and bandwidth cause me to move on.

Emotions and Morality:

Emotions:

While some debaters on the evolution side do conduct themselves in a dignified manner, the majority do not. When you challenge a evolutionist by debating him or her about their beliefs and theories, you are attacking their foundational theology. Similar responses can be seen with any religions debate.

Recently, I saw a debate on the Larry King Show, where there was a quite a debate. The debate centered on whether it was wrong for Christians to tell Jews about Jesus. You could tell that the air at the station was filled with fuel and it took all the expertise of Larry King to keep an explosion from happening. There was a militant Rabbi there who came out of the gates in anti-Christian rhetoric. For an hour he more or less made an ass of himself and constantly threw contentious remarks at everyone.

Now, why was the Rabbi acting in such a matter. I believe that he thought that attacking from the start would give him the edge. He felt intimidated and wanted to establish that he was right before anyone else could talk. The same thing happens in many Creationism versus evolution debates. Now, I am not saying that all creationists are above this form of attack, but many are because they have a solid foundation to stand on.

Laurence Tisdall, founder and president of the Christian Science Association of Quebec, tells a interesting story of a debate that he had with one female evolutionist. Mr. Tisdall tells of a teacher at one university who was a very calm person. She was known in her school as having a very even personality and it seemed that she didn't get mad about anything. Mr. Tisdall says that he presented the creationist side of the debate. He turned to look at the teacher, who was now red in the face. She yelled at Laurence and stomped out of the room. Why was such an even tempered person provoked to such anger? It is because Mr. Tisdall challenged the very foundation of the woman's beliefs. He stomped on her religious toes. You can visit Laurence Tisdall's site by following the link below: http://www.creation.ca/creationnisme/index_e.htm

Morality:

So, we know from the definition of a religion, that morality has a lot to do with being religious. The definition of a moral person is thus:

Moral: of or relating to character or conduct considered as good or evil: ethical: conformed to or directed toward right, virtuous: esp, vortuous in matters of sex: capable of knowing right and wrong: subject to moral law: supported by evidence of reason or probability.

So, in essence, a moral person, should, through a moral code of laws, be able to tell the difference between right and wrong and they should also be directed toward right, rather than wrong.

It seems that evolution is lacking in this aspect of a religion. There have been finds that have been falsified, such as Nebraska man and Piltdown man that been proved as fakes. The moral person would have been quite embarrassed by such forgeries, humbled themselves and done a self examination. Yet, evolutionists just sweep such frauds under the rug and move on.

Then there are the dating methods that are constantly thrown at an unsuspecting and unknowing public. Evolutionists know that most methods are unreliable, giving different readings all of the time. They take the time reading that most closely fits their model and accept it no matter how many other "dates" are contrary to their find.

So, how can such people be so immoral, yet still be classified as being in a religion. The answer is very simple. You see, there are many religions in the world today. Most of the larger religions, such as Christianity, Judaism and Islam live under strict guidelines, basically the Ten Commandments. We know right from wrong and have a conscience. Even the Eastern Religions, including but not limited to Hinduism and Buddhism live by moral codes. While they differ greatly with the Western Religions, they still ponder cause and effect before (hopefully before) they act. And even if they don't consider cause and effect before they act, they are aware of the effect of their actions, and perform some sort of act, asking their deity for forgiveness.

There are however other religions who act with different intent than the main religions of the Earth. Take for instance the headhunters of Borneo. They thought nothing of cutting off the head of enemies or visitors. There was no ill effect to their moral codes for doing such things that made men of other religions recoil in terror. So you see, a religion doesn't have to conform to the basic religious model.

To the evolutionist, there really is no moral code to speak of. To them, if you make a mistake, just go out and find another skull that looks a little less apelike. If you make a mistake in dating a find, just use another dating method until you find the one that shows you correct. If you find rock layers that don't jive with your thinking, just think up some sort of geological event that changed the rock layers. To quote an infamous American leader, "it's all according to what your definition of the word 'is,' is"

Rites and worship:

I believe that before we go to this next subject of rites and worship; we should first define such terms:

Rite: n. a ceremonial form or observance, especially religious: a liturgy.

Worship: n. adoration paid, as to a god: religious service: profound admiration and affection: the act of revering or adoring.

The best analogy to the evolutionist's rites and worship of their finds and religion can be compared to the various apparitions of the virgin Mary that I have heard of throughout my life. First, there is the fame that is given to the person who first sees the image of the virgin. Next, there always a picture either on television or in the newspaper of the supposed image, even though it never looks remotely like the virgin Mary. Next, there are the faithful who flock to see the image and finally the image disappears, or is refuted as being imaginary or just a coincidence. After it is all over, the faithful people still believe that they saw an image of the virgin Mary even though they never really had any tangible evidence that it was there.

In the evolutionist example, the discoverer is praised for the discovery. If that person is famous, like Louis Leakey, it is all the better. Sort of like a priest finding the virgin Mary, there is no question that it is real. Next, the few pieces of skull, and perhaps a tooth are miraculously fashioned into a full skull that looks something like a cross between ape and human. It is photographed by the press, or the all faithful National Geographic Society and the image is shown to million of faithful worldwide. Those even more faithful, Leakey's fellow archeologists see the find and worship it with full adoration because although it was just a tooth and a few pieces of skull, it proves in their eyes that their religion is valid. Finally, the truth comes out and we hear from unbelievers, that the tooth was really found half a mile from the skull fragments, and that those fragments are really inconclusive, and could have originated from a true ape or a true man. The faithful still believe that the skull is from the missing link, knowing that the tooth was moved to it's place half a mile away by some geologic force and that that the skull just has to be what they were looking for. All without tangible evidence.

Now we have to look at what happens when certain relics are found, and the care that they are given. In many religions certain relics are kept to prove to the faithful that their faith is not in vain.

Take for instance the Shroud of Turin. There are many of the faithful who believe that the shroud actually covered the body of Jesus Christ when he was placed in the tomb. While science has neither proved or disproved this to be a fact, the shroud is held as sacred to many Catholics. It is placed in a church in Turin and is taken out from time to time to exhibit to the faithful.

Evolutionists do the same thing for the faithful in their religion. The pieces of skull that I mentioned are meticulously fashioned into the image that the discoverer wants. Even though no one ever saw the creature that the bones belonged too, a mental image is made into reality using clay and implements. The finished product is displayed in a museum or in magazines for the faithful, to bolster their faith.

So you see, both modes of belief took a great deal of faith. Both modes could not be substantiated by scientific method but both religions had faith that what they believe is true. You make the call.

Devoted fidelity:

Another word for fidelity is faithfulness. When a spouse has cheated on another spouse, it is called infidelity, or unfaithfulness. So, to have devoted fidelity to one's religion is to have unswerving faith in your God. The argument could be made that evolutionists have no god, but in all reality their god is mankind, whom they have elevated to the highest form of evolution, therefore god over evolution.

To persons of many religious faiths, fidelity comes in some basic forms. First and foremost is the adherence to a set of moral codes, set upon them by their deity. Secondly, there is an unswerving faith that their faith is the one and only true faith. Thirdly, but not necessarily last in the order, is the devoted commitment to the deity itself.

So how does the evolutionist fit into this mold? The moral code that evolutionists believe in is that whatever they have written is the gospel. Evolution is true and all other modes of belief are moot, even to the point of publicly denouncing other forms of faith in the press or in great debates. Since man is their deity, and the highest form of evolution, then the smartest men (in their eyes, scientists) are the writers of their moral codes. Those codes are gospel. And since man is the deity to evolutionists, then they are dedicated to committing themselves to man, and only man. That is one of the reasons why they become so impassioned about their cause in debates. When they are defeated in debates, they are dethroned from their divinity title. So, we see that in this aspect, evolution is a religion. They just have different gods.

Monastic lifestyle:

Many religions around the world incorporate those who live in a monastic lifestyle. Catholicism, Hinduism and many of the eastern religions have those who remove themselves from worldly concerns in order to find a path closer their god. Many of these sects are so far removed that they rarely see normal people in the outside world.

So, how are evolutionists like this. The higher ups in evolution have basically removed themselves from normal society. They rarely leave the college campus and really refuse to fellowship with those who are less enlightened then themselves. Those who are out in the field usually stay in the field, only to come into public light when they want to show something that they have discovered, after which they sneak back to their form of monastery.

Implications:

I think that I have proved that evolution is a religion. Lets face it; there are more similarities than differences where modes of belief are concerned. As a religion, there are some social implication that have not been addressed.

First, since evolution is a religion, it should not be subsidized by the government. To me this seems like what the ACLU terms a violation to the separation of Church and State, as accorded in the Constitution. Billions of dollars of government grants are given each year for the furtherment of evolutional study.

Secondly, evolution should not be taught as a theory or fact in public schools. This is another clear violation of the constitution. I have proved that evolution is a faith, and if one looks at it clearly, it takes more faith to believe in it than other faiths do. So, lets get it out of our schools.

Thirdly, evolution is a danger to our society. It is the foundation for racism, abortion and hatred in this society. We would all do better without it.

[SengirV]

Sorry, I'm already in the middle of two books. I don't have time to read this one. Since you appear to be a creationist - are you an old universe or young universe creationist?

[twittle]

Since you appear to be a creationist - are you an old universe or young universe creationist?

I probably lean towards being an old universe person, but then again, I don't spend a lot of time pondering the tactics of God.

I accept the well-founded science of the universe as we know it.

[gg188]

Whe will these Darwin-thumping, backwards, mouth-breathing evolutionists get with the times and give up up their superstitious religion.

Probably not in their lifetimes---which is a testament to the success of the left in taking over education and colleges and brainwashing other wise reasonably smart people from the first grade through their undergraduate degree.

Global warming is real and requires Kyoto-like action; capitalism (read: freedom) is bad, and doesn't work, resulting in poverty and racism; white Europeans and all things JudeoChristian are the root of all evil in the world; anyone who doesn't believe in "evolution" is a backwards dunce; conservatives are stupid; the Founding Fathers were hateful old men; government must take from those that have and give to the poor to provide fairness; government knows what is best; criminals are just misguided little darlings and with some love they will start behaving; if we'd just be nice to Osama and Islams they would be nice to us; give peace a chance; and on and on with what colleges have brainwashed people into buying into. Evolution is part-and-parcel of the left agenda.

Communists figured it out long ago, and the socialist elite left of America understands: GOVERNMENT cannot be above all things if there is GOD. So therefore, to ensure the ascendance of government over all people and things, they must destroy God. And of course our Founding Fathers knew that this grand and glorious experiment called the USA required the recognition of the primacy of the ond God.

[Pahuanui]

We know right from wrong and have a conscience. Even the Eastern Religions, including but not limited to Hinduism and Buddhism live by moral codes. While they differ greatly with the Western Religions, they still ponder cause and effect before (hopefully before) they act.

What a stupid statement. Their moral codes 'differ greatly'? Oh, let's see here.... don't lie, don't steal, don't kill, do not engage in self-abuse, etc....

This isn't rocket science.

Thirdly, evolution is a danger to our society. It is the foundation for racism, abortion and hatred in this society.

Oh, I see. So, although this country practised legal slavery, based on race, for hundreds of years before Darwin, it's actually evolution that's the foundation of racism in this society.

[twittle]

What a stupid statement. Their moral codes 'differ greatly'? Oh, let's see here.... don't lie, don't steal, don't kill, do not engage in self-abuse, etc....

Oh, I see. So, although this country practised legal slavery, based on race, for hundreds of years before Darwin, it's actually evolution that's the foundation of racism in this society.

These are straw men which miss the point. Yes, religions do have basic beliefs which utilize the conscience given to us by God. I won't bother a discussion as to what constitutes "differing greatly" between these religions.

Darwin didn't invent inhumanity in treatment between the races, but his works certainly condoned it, or at best, looked upon bad treatment of blacks by whites as "cruelty to animals."

[Pahuanui]

These are straw men which miss the point. Yes, religions do have basic beliefs which utilize the conscience given to us by God. I won't bother a discussion as to what constitutes "differing greatly" between these religions.

Not at all. I just pointed out a few of the manifold assumptions and incorrect statements that are rife in the article. They are indicative of its overall lack of quality.

Darwin didn't invent inhumanity in treatment between the races, but his works certainly condoned it, or at best, looked upon bad treatment of blacks by whites as "cruelty to animals."

Another unjustified assumption.

[RobbyS]

Racism is a pseudo-scientific theory and a product of modern anthropology. It was given a boast by Darwinism, and Darwin's counsin Galton made it an integral part of his eugenics theory. Margaret Sanger made eugenics one of the foundation stones of palnned parenthod, and received much money from the Carnegie Foundation. Carnegie was a sponsor of Herbert Spencer when he made his tour of the united State to promote his theory of social darwinism.

[dangus]

I believe in evolution, but I disbelieve the distortions of evolution which atheists hold, and which cause many Christians to reject atheism. Sadly, evolution has become a tenet in the religion of atheism. This comes from a simple logical fallacy:

Science describes how events occur in the physical realm, according to a presumption of a universal set of laws. All it does is demonstrate that the physical universe is consistent within itself. It does not suggest anything to as to the cause of the physical universe. Atheists confuse consistency with causation. BUT THIS ATHEISTIC PRESUMPTION IS CONTRARY TO SCIENCE. *One* prominent physicist, Steve Hawkins, has become quite the media darling for trying to to devise a physical universe which would escape this logical trap by postulating that an infinite number of universes are being created at the same time, within infinitessimal amounts of time, for in infinite duration, in an infitinite amount of dimensions. This is his philosophy. *Science* has negated every major expectation of Hawkins' hypotheses, while Hawkins' hypothesis is counter to several key elements of the scientific method, including Occam's razor and observability.

Ironically, Hawkins, an atheists, appears to have been driven to such radical extremes when the Pope pointed out to him that the big bang had demonstrated three core priciples of Christianity:

1. That the universe is a creation, with a finite beginning, and definite future.
2. That the universe was caused by an event external to its own nature.
3. That the nature of the universe depends on events external to the means of scientific observation.

>>"Such people, I think, really lack a lot of faith in God, thinking that it was too hard for the Master of The Universe to create all that we see in just a literal 7 days."

The problem with the entire article is that the author substitutes his assumptions for fact. Has the author ever, I mean EVER, met someone who actually *said* this? Not understanding Christian scientists' (small "s"!) beliefs, he presumes one which is utterly implausible, and then shoots it down for being implausible.

Other such assumptions:
>>"First of all, what they say is evidence is really only taken from dead things."

No, evolution was based on the study of living things, as anyone who learned a single whit about Darwin or Mendel would know. True, the fact that evolution offers an explanation for phenomena in the fossil record (which had already been observed) helped confirm the theory in many scientist's minds. Evolution, by which is meant the acquiring of an accumulation of changes within a population over time, has been observed quite frequently in the less than 2 centuries since it was proposed. Macro-evolution is what requires geologic evidence, but nearly *all* science is done of small scales than projecyed onto larger scales. The burden is on the one who rejects evolution to suggest why the principles of evolution would not apply on a macro scale.

>> Cardon 14...potassium argon

The author uses examples wherein Carbon 14 (C14) and Potassium Argon (K-Ar) measurements appear to suggest that the samples are far older than they should be.

Radiological dating such as this is based on the fact that newly deceased organisms and newly exposed geological formations have experienced replenishment of their radiologically active substances (such as C14). Thus long-dead organisms' C14, for instance, is much less radiologically active than that of new organisms. Various rather rare things can occur to prevent replenishment. This hardly refutes the correlation that things which appear to be old according to radiological testing are usually found in places which appear to be old according non-radiological means. If I say, "If you drive a car for many, many years, it will eventually wear out," I am not refuted if you buy a used car and it wears out quickly!

>>>Scientists are either hot or cold where the Bible is concerned.

Basis for this assertion, which is very contrary to my experience?

>>When a scientist learns and accepts the truth of Creation, they change totally and become strong Bible believing Christians.

Reverse logic: the author accepts as "bible-believing Christians" only those who have accepted creationism. And since (almost) no-one would come to creationism except through biblical literalism, (almost) no scientist could ever come to what the author considers "the truth of Creation" without having *first* become a biblical literalist. I personally know scientists, however, who have come to Christianity without accepting "new-Earth" biblical literalism. (I might include myself in that category: Although brought up a Christian, I certainly have grown in my faith.)

>>1. Belief in a "Big Bang," that they have no proof of.
This is true, but like I stated early, the Big Bang is such a powerful argument for Christianity that atheist scientists have desperately, even absurdly, tried to offer counter-explanations

>>2. Belief in life which resulted from chemical processes, of which they have no proof.
This is also true, although evolutionary biologists are the most likely of all scientists to believe that life on earth is a unique creation, because they best understand this theory. It is physicists and chemists who regard this problem as "easy."

>>3. Belief in an old Earth, for which no convincing proof has ever been found.
"No convincing proof" = "not convincing to the author, who has demonstrated a poor understanding of science. (See below)"

>>4. Belief in macro-evolution without producing any transitionary forms.
Actually, it's the transitionary forms (micro-evolution) that were the basis of evolution.

>>5. Belief in uniformitarianism, that all environmental processes have always been the same on Earth, with no proof of that hypothesis.
If (by uniformitarianism) he means that universal laws have been constant throughout Earth's history, uniformitarianism is true, but proven. If he means that the processes which have *directly* caused life on earth have been constant, evolutuon, in fact, requires the opposite to be true.

Why all these mistakes?

>>I like to read articles in the newspapers that promote evolution theory.

Oh. Thought so. Christians should understand that the media doesn't always report things validly, truthfully, precisely, accurately, or fairly.

(Quick quiz on scientific understanding: What are the differences among "valid," "true," "precise" and "accurate?")

Why should Christians defend something, a distortion of which is a tenet in atheism?

Because it's true. The devil, through atheists, is using half-truths to mislead people away from God. If people find the truth in something, and there are no Christians to lead them to a fuller truth, than only those who distort that truth will remain. Evils such as "social Darwinism" are able to be spread only when people do not understand evolution.

Even as our genetic makeup may be the product of evolution, our souls are not. To say they are is to substitute Occam's razor (a valid scientific tool) with reductionism (an enemy of science). It is not an accident that intermediate species (between Man and ape) do not exist; rational, spiritual man was such a radical leap forward that he eliminated all intermediate species. Yet this revolution happened in spite of an unfathomably minute change in the physical make-up of human beings, yet even thos was not contradictory to the laws which God established. But it is only the physical which may be observed by scientists.

[dangus]

>>The burden is on the one who rejects evolution to suggest why the principles of evolution would not apply on a macro scale.

I should add:

Some people have argued that certain complex evolutionary changes, such as the development of a feather, do precisely this. Often, adaptations serve intermediate functions which may be beneficial, but seperate from a later function. For instance, in the feather example:

Rudimentary feathers are useless for flight. But, a form similar to "down" they can very useful for insulation. In fact, feathers often serve this purpose today, and the appearance of feathers seems to closely correlate with warm-bloodedness. Once such primitive feathers appeared, those on certain gliding animals became more adapted for flight. Intermediate functions may not always be apparent after a later function is "found;" and intermediate populations may be quite small and difficult to find in the fossil record (not surprising-- the continued brisk svolutionary pace is fed by the struggle to survive), so it should not be surprising if there are always structures which defy understanding.

It should also be noted that radical *outward* appearances are not always a sign of complex genetic alteration, bizzarre birth abnormalities are usually the result of single mutations. (For instance, a grasshopper born with legs where antennae should be.)

[f.Christian]

tw ...

Whe will these Darwin-thumping, backwards, mouth-breathing evolutionists get with the times and give up up their superstitious religion.


gg188 ...


Probably not in their lifetimes---which is a testament to the success of the left in taking over education and colleges and brainwashing other wise reasonably smart people from the first grade through their undergraduate degree.

fC ...


... post # 1 (( twittle )) above --- deleted ?

[f.Christian]

To perpetuate the cult of power the new religion of statistism is evolution (( confusionism ))...

anything to cripple the brain - faith - freedom - Creator of the individaul ---

dependence on the state - authority --- atheocrats - devils !

[SengirV]

I believe in evolution, but I disbelieve the distortions of evolution which atheists hold

...

>>"Such people, I think, really lack a lot of faith in God, thinking that it was too hard for the Master of The Universe to create all that we see in just a literal 7 days."

I believe God created the universe and his grand design for us and all living things in the Big Bang. But it doesn't really matter to me if God created living beings through evolution or spontaneous creation. God created all, and that is good enough for me. The people I really don't understand are the Old universe creationists. They choose to believe the bible account of the creation of Man, but ignore the bible when it comes the the timeline spelled out in it. Seems a little hypocritical.

[<1/1,000,000th%]

Science: knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method...

Typical creationist blather. Circle the wagons.

[dangus]

>>The people I really don't understand are the Old universe creationists. They choose to believe the bible account of the creation of Man, but ignore the bible when it comes the the timeline spelled out in it. Seems a little hypocritical.

Well, I'm not so sure the timeline is exactly what the most superficial reading suggests it is. "A day" to the ancient Hebrews meant the period of light that is useful for working in; it varied by several hours over the course of the year, so it is not a fixed period of time. The bible plainly says that a day is a thousand years to God, could it not be a billion? And its ancient thought, older than the NT that we now exist within the 7th day of creation.

I can border on "old-earth" creationism, but I found it involves a level of abstract wordplay I was uncomfortable with. I simply have confidence that the bible is the truth for any question it seeks to answer, and the age of the universe is irrelevant to me spiritually, other than the length of creation is greater than the human mind can comprehend. (Sorry, I forgot which Psalm, but one refers to the ageless building of mountains and wearing away of valleys; a process which took more than 6 days!)

Meanwhile, my inability to answer such things keeps me humble as I invetsigate other scientific ideas.

[Blessed]

The problem with the Day Age Theory is it requires God to absent himself from his creation for a thousand years or as you theorize 1 Billion years.

[Lurking Libertarian]

I believe in evolution, but I disbelieve the distortions of evolution which atheists hold

Excellent post, Dangus. This Jew agrees with your points.

[Dimensio]

The problem with the Day Age Theory is it requires God to absent himself from his creation for a thousand years or as you theorize 1 Billion years.

While I'm not a theist, my understanding was that the "Day Age Theory" wasn't that God abanoned the creationism to let it "stew" for several thousand/million/billion years but that the act of creation occured over the course of those thousands/millions/billions of years, with God doing the work -- just not snapping His fingers and having it happen all at once.

[Blessed]

Bible says he rested on seventh day. Any extended period for one day makes him absent.This would include Day age.

[dangus]

Only if you continue to take it fantastically literally. On the other hand, it *does* say that God rested. Is resting, say 1/2 the time, less odd if its 3 out of 6 billion years, or 3 out of 6 days?

[dangus]

This line of attack is quite odd. Because natural science is more verifiable than any other subject of a liberal-arts education, the HR departments have never succeeded in turning it into a Marxist bastion; the result is that usually natural science departments are the most conservative on any given campus (referring to "establishment" schools and state schools, not new bible colleges, of course.)

Because science departments *are* a natural base for conservative revolt, it is especially tragic that misguided Christians attack natural science first, always. And yet, even so, the conservativism persists.

[dangus]

And yet, science majors never study Galton. Why is that? Because his work is *uniformly rejected* by science departments?

[dangus]

>>To perpetuate the cult of power the new religion of statistism is evolution (( confusionism ))... anything to cripple the brain - faith - freedom - Creator of the individaul --- dependence on the state - authority --- atheocrats - devils !

Actually, U.S. social darwinists tended to be, and still are, libertarians. The socialist belief that the weakest, or poorest members of society should be provided for by the most productive is the antithesis of social darwinism, which holds that the wealthy are successful because they are superior, and that society - for its own vitality - should continue to reward their success. Rush Limbaugh often veers uncomfortable close to social darwinism; Ayn Rand is openly a social darwinist.
On the other hand, it was the Roosevelt-era socialists who made social darwinism such a scare word in American politics, using the term as a slur against libertarians and free-market conservatives to suggest that they were not Christians.

[f.Christian]

Evolution - Darwin (( mongol hordes )) is just a cold war army - general ...

Hitler - stalin - false - science (( liberal overlords )) that crossed the rubicon - constitution ---

to make a federalacracy of technowhacks - slaves - tyranny under the guise of ' free ' -- atheism -- libertarianism !



Main Entry: Ru·bi·con
Pronunciation: 'rü-bi-"kän
Function: noun
Etymology: Latin Rubicon-, Rubico, river of northern Italy forming part of the boundary between Cisalpine Gaul and Italy whose crossing by Julius Caesar in 49 B.C. was regarded by the Senate as an act of war
Date: 1626
: a bounding or limiting line; especially : one that when crossed commits a person irrevocably

[dangus]

Incoherent - Babbling (( ranting madmen )) is just a fish with a mayonnaise sandwich.

Mao - Idi Amin - ignorant suppositions (( space aliens )) that conducted painful probes - federalist papers ---

Shamalama Ding Dong. Boogie oogie - madmen - knowledge without understanding -- Shamanism - existentialism!

Main entry: Rube
Pronunciation: 'rUb
Function: confusion
Entymology: The study of insects

Or more simply put:

Is there a coherent thought in there, or are you just having fun throwing around prejudicial hate-inspiring word association games?

[f.Christian]

To liberals ... all conservatives are education - evolution failures --- drop outs !

To a liberal // libertarian ... democracy is consentual slavery to an atheist state - ego (( libido )) --- tyranny - social engineering (( evolution )) !

All done through brainwashing - indoctrination ... ' voluntary ' --- robots - YOU (( dumb )) !

[RobbyS]

No, because eugenics went out of fashion because of its association with Hitler. I think we have got beyond the point where we believe the scientist's work is not affected by public opinion/his personal opinions/his self-interest.

[dangus]

So you're asserting he *was* in textbooks before 1945? (sorry, no dice.)

[dangus]

At least I can talk in complete sentences, ya frikkin' headcase!

[f.Christian]

ya frikkin' headcase!

wouldn't know a false theory from science --- YOU !

[dangus]

>>wouldn't know a false theory from science --- YOU !

Words order sentence thought cannot speak in --- You!

*chuckle*

I haven't heard such incoherent nonsense since college when our Residence Life coordinator brought in some performance artists to express their rage against "homophobia." O well, the left is so full of flakes and nutcases, I suppose we should get a few over here.

C'mon, now, Effie, you can do it... First you say who you're talking about. That's called the "subject." Then you say what the "subject" does. That's called a ve-- O, nevermind. If your kindergarten teacher couldn't teach you, I'm not going to.

[f.Christian]

You are nobody to tell me what to do - believe ... especially lies !

[dangus]

>> You are nobody to tell me what to do - believe ... especially lies !

Why, O Why does this break me up so?
Subjects! Verbs! They're lies, I tell you, all lies! There's no such thing as subjects and verbs! Grammar is just all a bunch of lies concocted by evil, socialist atheists. (waitasec... The MLA *are* a bunch of evil socialist atheists... the guy may have a point there!)
BwaHAhahaHAHAHAHAHAHhahah!

[f.Christian]

Libertarian ...

Main Entry: ex·is·ten·tial·ism
Pronunciation: -'ten(t)-sh&-"li-z&m
Function: noun
Date: 1941
: a chiefly 20th century philosophical movement embracing diverse doctrines but centering on analysis of individual existence in an unfathomable universe and the plight of the individual who must assume ultimate responsibility for his acts of free will without any certain knowledge of what is right or wrong or good or bad

[dangus]

Well, give the boy a cigar, he *does* believe in nouns!

Boy, let me let you in on something. I was mocking you, boy. I ain't no libertarian. I didn't say I was. I just threw out a bunch of words. Just like you did. You have to learn how to write, otherwise you just look silly. There may be a half-way decent thought in your head, but no-one's going to know that if all you do is sputter incoherent words out. The more inflammatory they are, the more clearly you have to state your case. Just hurling a bunch of slanderous accusations and prejudices at people only makes you look like a fool. It discredits your beliefs, your religion, and your morals.

What is funny is that you and I are probably politically allies. We'd probably vote the same in any election, even in the Republican primaries. We probably have very similar ethics. Which is why I'm telling you this: You make us all look stupid. Knock it off.

Hydrogenation ...

Main entry: man·i·cot·ti
Pronunciation: -"man&-'cot(d)-y
Function: noun
Date: Last Thursday night... Kinda getting funky by now.
: Pasta in large-sized tubes; A dish consisting of such tubes stuffed with meat or cheese, usually served hot with a tomato sauce.

[f.Christian]

Sorry I ever posted and misunderstood you !

I'll try to avoid it !

To: f.Christian

Dakmar...

I took a few minutes to decipher that post, and I must say I agree with a lot of what you said.

fC...

These were the Classical liberals...founding fathers-PRINCIPLES---stable/SANE scientific reality/society---industrial progress...moral/social character-values(private/personal) GROWTH(limited NON-intrusive PC Govt/religion---schools)!

Dakmar...

Where you and I diverge is on the Evolution/Communism thing. You seem to view Darwin and evolution as the beginning of the end for enlighted, moral civilization, while I think Marx, class struggle, and the "dictatorship of the proletariat" are the true dangers.

God bless you, I think we both have a common enemy in the BRAVE-NWO.

452 posted on 9/7/02 8:54 PM Pacific by Dakmar

I got the impression you were a reality fudger (( no ))...

grammar - thought nazi (( yes )) !

[dangus]

Awww, now I feel *guilty* :)

[f.Christian]

I apologise ... ask your forgiveness --- forget it (( repent )) !

I' ll change my wicked writing !

[Omegaseeker]

Pretty monumental piece on evolution, Twittle, but some links were dropped. You write "As I approached the end of my teenage years I found out that Jesus Christ is really the answer, which changed my thoughts about evolution." "Such people (evolutionists) really lack a lot of faith in God, thinking that it was too hard for the Master of the Universe to create all that we see in just a literal 7 days."

There are so many Christian issues, Twittle. Why is evolution so central to anything? Do I lack faith, believing as I do that God made the world whatever way he did, of course including forms of evolution, and that Genesis is not a scientific treatise? Or do you, possibly, lack faith and therefore cling to a belief that one and only one scientific interpretation--yours--must be imposed on Genesis? Remember the Middle Age debate about how many angels could fit on the head of a pin? Is this debate any different?

One of the dangers here is requiring unbelievers to buy into some scientific/pseudo-scientific stuff in order to become followers of Christ. Is that a good thing? You say "Sometimes I like to ponder things in my mind." So do others, Twittle, but you seem to want to impose your musings on others as a matter of faith, no?

Isn't it true, Twittle, that we really don't need to have an absolute grasp of either evolution or the abstruse meanings of the creation verses in Genesis in order to be good men and women of faith?

I think we should all learn to treat the topic with a great deal more humility. God's ways are not our ways. He surely plans to reveal the details of his creation to us more fully and completely in another time and place.

[Questioneer]

>>One of the dangers here is requiring unbelievers to buy into some scientific/pseudo-scientific stuff in order to become followers of Christ. Is that a good thing? You say "Sometimes I like to ponder things in my mind." So do others, Twittle, but you seem to want to impose your musings on others as a matter of faith, no? <<

I realize that you are responding to "Twittle", but if you don't mind, I'd like to say that there are too many who would try to impose issues on others as a matter of faith.

>>Isn't it true, Twittle, that we really don't need to have an absolute grasp of either evolution or the abstruse meanings of the creation verses in Genesis in order to be good men and women of faith? <<

Yes, this is true. I don't think evolutionists nor creationists actually have a absolute grasp on their issues to be called their respective names - and they don't have to.

>>I think we should all learn to treat the topic with a great deal more humility. God's ways are not our ways. He surely plans to reveal the details of his creation to us more fully and completely in another time and place.<<

Affirmative! And one of the first things I'd sure like to do is to ask questions of God in that other time and place that will follow the demise of our present home. Let me give you a hint as to what line I might take this to: A question arises (maybe more than one) - follow this along:

The Bible says:
After Cain killed Able he was cursed and driven out of the land by God Himself. In Gen. 4:14 Cain is quoted as saying:
"I shall be a fugitive and a vagabond in the earth; and it shall come to pass, that every one that finds me shall slay me."

Hmmm...If only Adam and Eve existed, then who was Cain afraid of that would kill him? Who was it that he would be a fugitive from? Think: It seems clear that the "every one" which Cain was referring to could not be Adam and Eve.

Then, in Gen. 4:15 (the next verse) we find this stated:
"And the Lord said unto him, Therefore WHOSOEVER slayeth Cain, vengeance shall be taken on him sevenfold. And the Lord set a mark upon Cain, lest ANY finding him should kill him."

Hmmm....Seeing as how the text says that "whosoever" (ADAM and EVE, who supposedly were the only ones left alive on the earth at that particular time?) might slay him will have vengeance against him, the question comes up as "who are the WHOSOEVER seeing that only Adam and Eve, according to fundamentalists, lived on earth?" Going a little further into this thinking process, why would God have to put a mark on Cain to identify him to his mother and father, or were there OTHER PEOPLE, not of Adam's race living on the earth?

I could go on in this thinking process, but enough for the present. These are questions that a close reading of the Bible makes one ask. And I'm inquisitive...

Thanks for being open...