Is evolution a religion?

Share this page!

The reason I ask this question is because quite often during debates there will be a atheist-evolutionist that will claim: I was a Christian and believed in creation until I heard about evolution. So the question applied is: If evolution is purely science, why did you have to quit believing in a God?

The logic behind the question is simple. Only religion can compete with religion. Only a religion requires conversion (non-belief to belief, or belief to non-belief). And only religion requires evangelism. Atheists go all over the web trying to convince people that evolution is true (evangelism). They put up websites, forums, and blogs with that same goal. They meet and discuss evangelism ideas. They even put up webpages to show how an atheist can ask questions to weaken ones faith so that conversion from one belief to another can take place (evangelism).

And the evolutionist goal is to convert every Christian to evolution. Don’t believe me? Look at the shirt pen you can buy on one of their sites:

Atheism conversion will lead to a belief in evolution. So even attempted conversions to atheism prove evolution is a religion. And here are some examples:

Wiki How to convert a Christian to atheism (link).Yahoo answers on converting Christian to atheist (link).Was Darwin the first to think up the idea about man evolving from animals?

This belief dates way back even before Darwin. Back to Egyptian time and Egyptian gods (link).Evolution in Egyptian religion

Other creation myths depicted creation as proceeding from out or primordial chaos, or from a primordial slime, which had eight elements, namely matter and space, darkness and obscurity, the illimitable and the boundless and the hidden and concealed). The annual flooding by the Nile, leading to new life, may lie behind this mythology.

1) Primordial chaos = Big bang.
2) Primordial slime = Abiogeneisis.

So basically, the idea of evolution is really a Pagan creation belief. This is why evolution competes with religion so well, because it is a religion itself. Now how did this idea, that has Pagan roots, get into Darwin’s head? Darwin had a degree in theology. Which means he had to learn about Pagan beliefs as well as the Christian ones. So he had that Pagan idea in his mind when he boarded the ship named the Beagle. He read Charles Lyell’s book on the geologic column. He then saw the animals on Galapagos Island and his new founded idea started to look like that it makes sense. Problem was, it still has it’s roots in Paganism. And pure science would in no way conflict with religion, but evolution does and the reason why is clear.

So here is what we have so far:

1) Evolution idea from animals to man can be traced back to Egyptian pagan religions.
2) Darwin had a degree in theology which means he knew about Egyptian Pagan religions.
3) A believer has to totally give up his belief in God to 100% believe in evolution. True science needs no conversion from religion.
4) Evolutionists and atheists, often surf the web trying to see who they can convert (evangelism) from the Christian belief.
5) Evolutionists often get together on blogs, forums, etc… To discuss ways to convert more Christians to evolution. Basically discussing evangelism among like minds in what can be considered a ministry for evolution.
etc…

The Theory of Evolution has all the earmarks of being a religion. No other non-evolution theory in science has this. Which tells us a lot.

Does the Bible mention evolution (indirectly) and the people who believe it?

Romans 1:20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.
24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:
25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

deut 32:18 Of the Rock that begat thee thou art unmindful, and hast forgotten God that formed thee.

Here is a list of some theories, and if they require a person to totally convert from God in order to believe them:

1. Atomic theory does not require conversion.
2. The Theory of Matter and Energy does not require conversion.
3. The Cell Theory does not require conversion.
4. The Germ Theory does not require conversion.
5. The Theory of Plate Tectonics does not require conversion.
6. The Theory of Evolution does require conversion to totally believe it.
etc…

Are any of those theories, besides evolution, currently being used to convert people?
Example: Does an atheist go to a blog or forum trying to use the Atomic theory to convert someone to atheism?

Share this page!

 

 

 

 

 

 

FaceBook Feed
Comments Box SVG iconsUsed for the like, share, comment, and reaction icons

... See MoreSee Less

Thousands not Billions: How Old is the Earth?

For our friends and supporters near St. Louis, the CUS Society of Creation is hosting its 7th annual conference 14 and 15 June. 

http://www.societyofcreation.org/conferences.php

Several CRS members are speaking, and we’d love to have you there.

Thousands not Billions: How Old is the Earth?

For our friends and supporters near St. Louis, the CUS Society of Creation is hosting its 7th annual conference 14 and 15 June.

http://www.societyofcreation.org/conferences.php

Several CRS members are speaking, and we’d love to have you there.
... See MoreSee Less

This is something you don't see everyday. 2 dolphins and 2 whales playing together. ~ Issac

https://facebook.com/SciencePhileOfficial/videos/…
... See MoreSee Less

The Living Quarters on the ark are practical but comfortable.

The Living Quarters on the ark are practical but comfortable. ... See MoreSee Less

Comment on Facebook

i have driven by a cattle farm...i bet that place stunk bad lol

Just remember, this is all artistic license...

Does everyone see the irony in the ark flooding? Wasn’t it suppose to survive the great flood? Do you not know unless you have flood insurance, you are not covered. Flooding is an “act of God”. Ask Louisiana residents how they faired after the flood. How about Puerto Rico? Maybe Missouri or even your neighbor, WV. Did you donate money to help those flood victims? Were the dinosaurs ok???

I'm sorry but I just don't think the ark was that comfortable....In fact I doubt that Noah's home was that comfortable.

They were probably better and more comfortable than my quarters on board the USS Abraham Lincoln! 😂

I doubt it.

It doesn’t seem they would’ve been that comfortable.

View more comments

Video image

May we be as bold as this young lady to speak up at our city council meetings: https://youtu.be/oQ8eob45f1I ... See MoreSee Less

Comment on Facebook

Indeed such a strong faith!

I also would not be here Miriam!

love her.

Ray Comfort has mental retardation ... See MoreSee Less

n case you did not know this. ~ Issac

n case you did not know this. ~ IssacIn case you did not know this. ~ Issac ... See MoreSee Less

Name: Monito del Monte
Status: Thought to be extinct until its rediscovery.
Information: A remarkable, diminutive marsupial thought to have been extinct until one was discovered in a thicket of Chilean bamboo in the southern Andes.
Thought to exist: 55 million years ago.
Reference: http://historysevidenceofdinosaursandmen.weebly.com/living-fossils.html
The fossilised ankle and ear bones are those of Australias earliest known marsupial, Djarthia, a primitive mouse-like creature that lived 55 million years ago. ..a new study in the journal PLoS ONE [http://www.plosone.org/] has confirmed that Djarthia is also a primitive relative of the small marsupial known as the Monito del Monte - or little mountain monkey - from the dense humid forests of Chile and Argentina.
Reference: http://www.create.unsw.edu.au/news/2008-03-25_monito.html
The monito del monte, Spanish for ‘little bush monkey’, named after its monkey-like partially prehensile tail, is a diminutive marsupial native to South America in the Valdivian temperate rain forests of the southern Andes (Chile and Argentina). It is the only extant species in the ancient order of Microbiotheria. ...Genetic studies show that this species retains the most primitive characteristics of its group, and thus is regarded as a “living fossil.”
reference: http://www.eartharchives.org/articles/scientists-uncover-two-new-species-of-elusive-south-american-marsupial/

Name: Monito del Monte
Status: Thought to be extinct until it's rediscovery.
Information: A remarkable, diminutive marsupial thought to have been extinct until one was discovered in a thicket of Chilean bamboo in the southern Andes.
Thought to exist: 55 million years ago.
Reference: http://historysevidenceofdinosaursandmen.weebly.com/…
"The fossilised ankle and ear bones are those of Australia's earliest known marsupial, Djarthia, a primitive mouse-like creature that lived 55 million years ago. ..a new study in the journal PLoS ONE [http://www.plosone.org/] has confirmed that Djarthia is also a primitive relative of the small marsupial known as the Monito del Monte - or "little mountain monkey" - from the dense humid forests of Chile and Argentina."
Reference: http://create.unsw.edu.au/news/…
"The monito del monte, Spanish for ‘little bush monkey’, named after its monkey-like partially prehensile tail, is a diminutive marsupial native to South America in the Valdivian temperate rain forests of the southern Andes (Chile and Argentina). It is the only extant species in the ancient order of Microbiotheria. ...Genetic studies show that this species retains the most primitive characteristics of its group, and thus is regarded as a “living fossil.”"
reference: http://eartharchives.org/articles/…
... See MoreSee Less

Comment on Facebook

Your picture makes it seem like the two species shown are found 55 Ma apart even though they are both modern species. Rather, it was the genus Djarthia (whose exact taxonomic position is uncertain) that occurs in the Paleocene, as noted in the PLOS paper you provided. This graphic is either a misunderstanding or diliberate misrepresentation of the references cited. May I ask what formal training in paleontology the admin of this page has had?

We didn't claim the skulls were from a 55 million year old fossil, it is the references that claim Monito del Monte is regarded as a living fossil and thought to exist: 55 million years ago.

Colby, please stop spamming the contrasts. There is no need to post the same link multiple times, Thank you.

I was just doing a one shot on each post. I didnt even think anyone even looked at this page anymore. I apologize.

Looks like the Colbinator deleted his post 😭

View more comments