Jump to content


Photo

Is Evolution A Religion?


  • Please log in to reply
57 replies to this topic

#21 jason78

jason78

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,349 posts
  • Age: 30
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Birmingham, UK

Posted 10 January 2009 - 04:55 AM

So you can watch chimps become humans? I'd like to see that.
Not all of the claimed processes of evolution can be observed. But if you want, you can argue that and we'll just say that it's an absolute and no longer a theory. But then again, you would also have to provide the evidence to make that so.

So does evolution have any problems? Or has the whole thing been proven? You can't have it both ways. That makes it an oxymoron theory.

Added: Plus Judy V would disagree: http://www.evolution...indpost&p=22692

Is she allowed to do that?

View Post


No, you can't watch chimps become humans. Apes and humans had a common ancestor, but after that particular branch of the tree of life separated they became different species.

The core processes of evolution can be observed, and they are.

The theory of evolution does have problems. So do a lot of other theories like the theory of quantum mechanics. That doesn't make them wrong though does it?

Judy said:

Actually, the theory of evolution is not a fact.  It's a theory.  But it's supported by  evidence.


So there we would be in agreement. She's entitled to hold any opinion she feels like as long as she has something to back it up with.

Remember, atheists are just people that don't believe in gods. Not members of a club with rules and regulations.

#22 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 10 January 2009 - 05:25 AM

No, you can't watch chimps become humans.  Apes and humans had a common ancestor, but after that particular branch of the tree of life separated they became different species.


The common ancestor excuse.

The core processes of evolution can be observed, and they are.


Core processes? And given enough time, anything can evolve into anything, right? Problem is, your core is like being able to buld windows vista and xp, but without the rest of the operating systems. Abiogenesis to what we are today is not an observable process, and never will be. But is more that 50% of what evolution is. So the use of the word core does not work.

The theory of evolution does have problems.  So do a lot of other theories like the theory of quantum mechanics.  That doesn't make them wrong though does it?


I started a thread to test if evolution was a theory. Care to take the test?
http://www.evolution...?showtopic=1951

Judy said:
So there we would be in agreement.  She's entitled to hold any opinion she feels like as long as she has something to back it up with.


So as a evolutionist, you are not allowed to disagree or have an opinion? Seems to me the creationists were accused of the same thing in another thread by Judy herself. Kinda ironic.

Remember, atheists are just people that don't believe in gods.  Not members of a club with rules and regulations.

View Post

But yet clubs do pop up. Ever heard of the Rational Response Squad? And guess who their members are and believe? And guess what is not welcome?

#23 de_skudd

de_skudd

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,518 posts
  • Location:North Augusta, SC
  • Interests:reading, learning, talking and stuff
  • Age: 41
  • no affiliation
  • Creationist
  • North Augusta, SC

Posted 10 January 2009 - 05:35 AM

Constantine wrote the bible in 313 CE didn't he?  I thought that it was a matter of historical record?

View Post


No, Constantine had absolutely nothing to do with writing the Bible. You may wish to dust off your “actual” history books, and not the revisionist copy. If you want to find out the “Historical” truth on Biblical historicity (and get a real education to boot), open another thread with your questions and comments on Biblical historicity, and I’ll help you out. But Constantine has nothing to do with this thread…

Evolution is a fact.  You can watch it happen in a laboratory.  How evolution happens is the subject of the theory, and is an on going area of investigation for biologists.

View Post


Oh, really… Can you give evidence of that? This should be fun…..

Edit:  I read de_skudd's post above, and you would have to expand the definition of religion to include an explanation of the diversity of life to make evolution a religion.

View Post


You have to expand absolutely nothing to the definition of Religion for evolutionists. Your above comment stating “Evolution is a fact” is covered in the following dictionary definitions I posted earlier:

Encarta Dictionary:

3. Personal beliefs or values: a set of strongly-held beliefs, values, and attitudes that somebody lives by.

4. Obsession: an object, practice, cause, or activity that somebody is completely devoted to or obsessed by.

The Encyclopedia of Philosophy “Religion”:

• A world view, or a general picture of the world as a whole and the place of the individual therein. This picture contains some specification of an over-all purpose or point of the world and an indication of how the individual fits into it.

• A more or less total organization of one’s life based on the world view.

The Free Dictionary:

4. A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.

But, religion is also defined as; an object, practice, cause, or activity that somebody is completely devoted to or obsessed by.


And, anyone so obsessed with evolution, to feel it is a fact (contrary to ALL published scientific papers), is definitely a religious zealout…

#24 jason78

jason78

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,349 posts
  • Age: 30
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Birmingham, UK

Posted 10 January 2009 - 05:59 AM

The common ancestor excuse.

View Post


It's not an excuse. It's how evolution works. By the same token, rabbits and humans are both mammals, because they shared a common ancestor that was a mammal. It's a nested hierarchy, which is why you don't see cows spontaneously giving birth to chickens.

Core processes? And given enough time, anything can evolve into anything, right? Problem is, your core is like being able to buld windows vista and xp, but without the rest of the operating systems. Abiogenesis to what we are today is not an observable process, and never will be. But is more that 50% of what evolution is. So the use of the word core does not work.

View Post


I didn't say that anything could evolve into anything. I don't understand the operating system analogy. Operating systems as a general rule don't reproduce copies of themselves with gradual changes on their own. Windows XP could have conceivably been designed and written as the first operating system ever.

I started a thread to test if evolution was a theory. Care to take the test?
http://www.evolution...?showtopic=1951

View Post


I'll get back to you on that.

So as a evolutionist, you are not allowed to disagree or have an opinion? Seems to me the creationists were accused of the same thing in another thread by Judy herself. Kinda ironic.

View Post


Where did I say that Judy could not disagree with me? Where did I say that she could not have an opinion?

I said that I agreed with her. If the quote you had directed me to was wrong I would have said so.

But yet clubs do pop up. Ever heard of the Rational Response Squad? And guess who their members are and believe? And guess what is not welcome?

View Post


Yes, some atheists do get together and form clubs. There are clubs with atheists as members, and there are atheists that do not belong to any clubs.

You do not have to be in a club to be an atheist.
Clubs may exists that require you to be an atheist to join.

#25 jason78

jason78

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,349 posts
  • Age: 30
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Birmingham, UK

Posted 10 January 2009 - 06:12 AM

No, Constantine had absolutely nothing to do with writing the Bible. You may wish to dust off your “actual” history books, and not the revisionist copy. If you want to find out the “Historical” truth on Biblical historicity (and get a real education to boot), open another thread with your questions and comments on Biblical historicity, and I’ll help you out. But Constantine has nothing to do with this thread…

View Post


Well then I'm wrong on that point. Thank you for correcting me.

Oh, really… Can you give evidence of that? This should be fun…..

View Post


I refer you to the For Evolutionists: What Evidence Would Prove Creation To You? thread. And my post:

I can do better than that, I can refer you to the research here : Phagotrophy by a flagellate selects for colonial prey: A possible origin of multicellularity

View Post


You have to expand absolutely nothing to the definition of Religion for evolutionists. Your above comment stating “Evolution is a fact” is covered in the following dictionary definitions I posted earlier:

Encarta Dictionary:

3. Personal beliefs or values: a set of strongly-held beliefs, values, and attitudes that somebody lives by.

4. Obsession: an object, practice, cause, or activity that somebody is completely devoted to or obsessed by.

The Encyclopedia of Philosophy “Religion”:

• A world view, or a general picture of the world as a whole and the place of the individual therein. This picture contains some specification of an over-all purpose or point of the world and an indication of how the individual fits into it.

• A more or less total organization of one’s life based on the world view.

The Free Dictionary:

4. A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.

But, religion is also defined as; an object, practice, cause, or activity that somebody is completely devoted to or obsessed by.
And, anyone so obsessed with evolution, to feel it is a fact (contrary to ALL published scientific papers), is definitely a religious zealout…

View Post


It's not a belief system, or a view of how the entire world works, it's not a guide on how to live ones life, it's not a cause, or a principle, it's not an activity pursued with zeal or devotion.

Evolution is the change observed in populations over time. That's it.

It could be an obsession for some. You could cite the number of people that regularly show up on this forum as evidence for that.

#26 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 10 January 2009 - 07:56 AM

Evolution is the change observed in populations over time.  That's it.

View Post

I would like to address the "That's it" part of your comment above. If evolution truly stuck to studying observable speciation as normally understood, then hallelujah!

Now we both agree that the hard science of evolutionary theory is indeed studying things like stickleback fish going from salt water to fresh water or gaining and losing body armor. Finches getting bigger beaks and then losing them again. Rabbits diversafying into independent breeds.

Then on the artificial end we manipulate Dogs by artificially making all kinds of funky variations same with pigeons, like during Darwin's day. Not to mention goldfish seem to have a strong capacity to diversify.

Now these are all fun things to study. Are they gaining or losing genetic data? Are genetic code being convinced to shut off and turn back on? Hey, lets even study what's similar between; say plants and animals on the genetic level to see if we can get a greater depth of understanding for the core functions of life and how great a depth of understanding can be obtained from it.

If evolution was truly just that, Jason78, then we would have to find something else to debate because I would agree with you...

...but wait there is a problem. All those things above, which are perfectly scientific aren't really what evolution is about. Evolution is about Origins. Which means evolution has all the underpinnings of extrapolated out stories, with a creation account in hand, competing directly with every other creation account. However, the people who believe it is their job to protect evolution want their cake and eat it too.

When no one's looking they hand their grand Origins candy out to little kiddies about how it has been proven that you evolved from pond scum and it's a proven fact!

When the adults come in the story changes to; "Oh, we're just looking at how big puppies can become little puppies and how big horsies can make small horsies."

It's actually disingenuous to say "That's it" above because you and I both know that that's not it.

#27 CTD

CTD

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,059 posts
  • Age: 44
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Missouri

Posted 10 January 2009 - 08:52 AM

Variation is a fact. Doesn't take a great deal of insight to figure it out. One would involuntarily conclude a defect existed in the perception of anyone who could not see that offspring differ from parents.

I've never met anyone who challenges the fact of variation. Have you?

#28 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 10 January 2009 - 08:55 AM

I've never met anyone who challenges the fact of variation. Have you?

View Post

Just the creationists that are imagined in the minds of evolutionists.

#29 de_skudd

de_skudd

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,518 posts
  • Location:North Augusta, SC
  • Interests:reading, learning, talking and stuff
  • Age: 41
  • no affiliation
  • Creationist
  • North Augusta, SC

Posted 10 January 2009 - 09:40 AM

Well then I'm wrong on that point.  Thank you for correcting me.

View Post


No problem my friend. Although I was hoping you would consider learning more on this subject, as the overwhelming evidentiary landslide of correct information should reverse the atheistic/agnostic/skeptic/liberal theologian’s misconceptions on the historical facts of the dating for the Old and New Testaments (if they were open minded and free thinking. Not given to a priori opinion)…. Many mistakenly believe the Council of Nicaea gave us the New Testament, but this is erroneous at its core. All the letters of this book were in great circulation, and the doctrine of Christianity founded and followed nearly three centuries prior to that council.


I refer you to the For Evolutionists: What Evidence Would Prove Creation To You? thread. And my post:
It's not a belief system, or a view of how the entire world works, it's not a guide on how to live ones life, it's not a cause, or a principle, it's not an activity pursued with zeal or devotion.

View Post


It IS a guide to live ones life, if that person or persons makes bold claims like “Evolution is a fact”, when it clearly is not…

There is absolutely NO evidence for evolution (other than micro-evolution… That is; adaption within a species. i.e.; When I stay in the sun too long I burn and tan. When I live in the cold, I acclimate myself to that life. When I lift weights, I get stronger (etc…). If I do these things over my entire life, I will adapt. If generations of my family follow this routine, permanent changes takes effect unless that lifestyle changes… No one argues this point). There is especially NO evidence for macro-evolution (changing, or splitting from one species to another… i.e. goo to fish and fish to ape and ape to man)…

This is all purely speculation, and has NO right being called science…. If I’m wrong, forward the evidence and I WILL acquiesce. But don’t postulate, or hypothesize, that germs and micro-organisms adaptation, without speciation change is anything but micro-evolution. Because IT IS NOT! And please don’t drag out that tired “over millions of years” thing, because it simply won’t fly. If you can show me species change of germs and micro-organisms over millions of years (i.e. you or someone else has observed it over and over [Induction]) then you have a leg to stand on. But if you don’t, and continue to say things like “Evolution is a fact”, when it clearly is not “Apes and humans had a common ancestor” when they clearly DID NOT … Then you are living on faith, and are living a crypto-religious lifestyle….



Evolution is the change observed in populations over time.  That's it.

View Post


Here, on this point, you and I totally agree! But, that is micro-evolution, not macro-evolution (as I clearly stated above. And, if you are staking your claim on this, and only this, than I will stand with you on it… BUT…. This has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with one species changing into another… I am originally from Missouri, and am highly skeptical, so I will quote a lame movie and say “SHOW ME THE MONEY”!!!

It could be an obsession for some.  You could cite the number of people that regularly show up on this forum as evidence for that.

View Post


Again, if you make statements like “Evolution is a fact”, when it clearly IS NOT. And “Apes and humans had a common ancestor” when they clearly DID NOT then you are obsessing (by the way, “Evolution is a fact” and “Apes and humans had a common ancestor” are both cited from you), and therefore are living by faith my friend…

#30 de_skudd

de_skudd

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,518 posts
  • Location:North Augusta, SC
  • Interests:reading, learning, talking and stuff
  • Age: 41
  • no affiliation
  • Creationist
  • North Augusta, SC

Posted 10 January 2009 - 09:44 AM

Just the creationists that are imagined in the minds of evolutionists.

View Post


B)

#31 CTD

CTD

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,059 posts
  • Age: 44
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Missouri

Posted 10 January 2009 - 12:27 PM

Variation is a fact. Doesn't take a great deal of insight to figure it out. One would involuntarily conclude a defect existed in the perception of anyone who could not see that offspring differ from parents.

I've never met anyone who challenges the fact of variation. Have you?

View Post

Actually I might be a little vulnerable here.

If someone who denies that facts exist were to come along, and be consistent in denying all facts, including this one...

But what are the odds! B)

#32 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 10 January 2009 - 03:22 PM

It's not an excuse.  It's how evolution works.  By the same token, rabbits and humans are both mammals, because they shared a common ancestor that was a mammal.  It's a nested hierarchy, which is why you don't see cows spontaneously giving birth to chickens.


How evolution works? Have you actually observed goo to you evolution? You cannot even observe the changes from chimp to man which is a much smaller change. And because of that, you also cannot show the process that would prove we have a common ancestor, now can you?

Then you might say: Well it's only a 1-3% difference, so why can't we be ancestors? I might believe that if the actual numbers were revealed, instead of selling everyone on the percent. 1-3% equal 3,000,000 - 9,,000,000 (3-9 million) differences. Not giving the actual numbers means you guys have something to hide. Why else would you not list this that would make the hidden truth viable? It's not like the average person can't do basic math.

I didn't say that anything could evolve into anything.  I don't understand the operating system analogy.  Operating systems as a general rule don't reproduce copies of themselves with gradual changes on their own.  Windows XP could have conceivably been designed and written as the first operating system ever.


You mean you don't agree with a person who teaches evolutions and claims: Given enough time, anything can evolve into anything?

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/GBwXFBBXcS0&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en&feature=player_embedded&fs=1%22></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/GBwXFBBXcS0&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en&feature=player_embedded&fs=1 type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

I'll get back to you on that.


No one has taken it yet, so you'd be the first.

Where did I say that Judy could not disagree with me?  Where did I say that she could not have an opinion?


Quote: She's entitled to hold any opinion she feels like as long as she has something to back it up with.

Putting rules to free thinking is not free thinking. It's controlled because the rule exists. So Judy can belong to your peer group as long as she has something to back up what you two may disagree on.

I said that I agreed with her.  If the quote you had directed me to was wrong I would have said so.


Is the idea that a peer would actually disagree, is what makes it wrong? Or that one person might start a new idea that would eventually alter the majority view, is what makes it wrong?

Yes, some atheists do get together and form clubs.  There are clubs with atheists as members, and there are atheists that do not belong to any clubs.


So by justifying it, you have no problem with how the clubs work that represent what you believe?

You do not have to be in a club to be an atheist.
Clubs may exists that require you to be an atheist to join.

View Post


But if a club is not a good representation of the group as a whole, but yet no one says anything. Then that is approving of their actions by being silent. Are people afraid to go up against the majority to correct a wrong? Or is the wrong actually right, and the main reason no one from your group objects to their actions?

#33 de_skudd

de_skudd

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,518 posts
  • Location:North Augusta, SC
  • Interests:reading, learning, talking and stuff
  • Age: 41
  • no affiliation
  • Creationist
  • North Augusta, SC

Posted 15 January 2009 - 12:57 PM

So there we would be in agreement.  She's entitled to hold any opinion she feels like as long as she has something to back it up with.

View Post


And there's the sticking point... Not having the evidence to back it up!

Yeah, there's no doubt it's a religion. The problem is undeluting its adherants..

#34 Guest_mikellogz_*

Guest_mikellogz_*
  • Guests

Posted 16 January 2009 - 12:23 PM

Hello to Everyone...

Evolution is not a Religion.. It is a Science..

A Science is different from a Religion..

A Science is Understanding Before Belief while Religion is Belief before Understanding..

#35 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 16 January 2009 - 12:44 PM

A Science is Understanding Before Belief while Religion is Belief before Understanding..

View Post

What is a hypothesis then? Isn't that a belief before understanding?

I think your trying to confuse the issue. First evolution is not scientific. It is not subject to the scientific method. It is a belief, maybe a loose hypothesis, that has some unverifiable observational evidence contorted into a theory that can't be demonstrated.

Adam

#36 de_skudd

de_skudd

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,518 posts
  • Location:North Augusta, SC
  • Interests:reading, learning, talking and stuff
  • Age: 41
  • no affiliation
  • Creationist
  • North Augusta, SC

Posted 16 January 2009 - 09:42 PM

Hello to Everyone...

Evolution is not a Religion.. It is a Science..

A Science is different from a Religion..

A Science is Understanding Before Belief while Religion is Belief before Understanding..

View Post



So you're saying evolution is a fact then? Correct me if I'm misunderstanding you. I don't want to have your view wrong before I respond...

#37 Guest_mikellogz_*

Guest_mikellogz_*
  • Guests

Posted 16 January 2009 - 10:58 PM

What is a hypothesis then? Isn't that a belief before understanding?

I think your trying to confuse the issue. First evolution is not scientific. It is not subject to the scientific method. It is a belief, maybe a loose hypothesis, that has some unverifiable observational evidence contorted into a theory that can't be demonstrated.

Adam

View Post


No Evolution is Scientific and it is subject to scientific method… It is been supported by consensus of scientists until today..

Here's why..

The problem is that when people (including scientists) use the word "evolution", they may be referring to either the “ PROCESS “ of evolution, or the “ THEORY “ of evolution. The “ PROCESS “ of evolution is a FACT; and the THEORY of evolution is obviously a theory, but a theory in the scientific meaning of the word “ theory “, which means “ explanation with evidence. “

The “ process “ of evolution is the technical definition of the word " evolution. " This is the “ change “ in a species over time. It is an undeniable FACT that species “ change “ in their heritable traits from generation to generation ... and this “ change “ is what we call "evolution." We can reproduce it in the laboratory, observe it in nature, and in fact we have been “ relying “ on the FACT that organisms change (evolve) over time every time we breed dairy cows, goats, horses, german shepherds, or championship roses.

The “ theory “ of evolution (or ToE) is the “ EXPLANATION “ for (a) how does the “ process “ of evolution occur in nature (natural selection); (:P how does this “ process “ of evolution explain the diversity of life forms on the planet (common ancestry).

So evolution is the name we give both to a FACT, and to the THEORY that “ EXPLAINS “ that fact.

For another example of a word in science that refers both to a fact and a theory ... consider the word "gravity." Gravity is both a FACT, and a THEORY. The FACT of gravity (sometimes called the LAW of gravity because we have evidence that it occurs even in distant parts of the universe) is the fact that objects are attracted to each other by an amount determined by the mass of the objects and the distance between them. The THEORY of gravity (ToG) is the theory that there is a "force" of gravity that affects all mass, and that this force is the result of a curvature in space-time, or the presence of particles called 'gravitons.'

(Aside: The theory of evolution is actually much better understood than gravity! We know what “ causes “ evolution ... we don't know yet what “ causes “ gravity.)

For a Hypothesis… It is “ explanation without evidence. “ and scientist never accept this as long as it is been supported with evidence.. and become a theory.. and of course a theory and hypothesis (both explanation) can never be a fact.. they are only explanations..


So you're saying evolution is a fact then? Correct me if I'm misunderstanding you. I don't want to have your view wrong before I respond...

View Post


It's really important to clarify what the word "evolution" means.

It simply means "change over time." That's it.

In Biology, this "change over time" is given a more precise definition, so that we can measure when it occurs. We say that it is "change of a species over generations" ... (or in more technical terms, "change in the allele frequencies of a population over time."). But either way, it is just "change over time."

So once you understand that, then it is clear that evolution indeed is a fact... and a theory
---------

And now, you will ask me…

How do Christians still believe we came from adam and eve, it doesnt make sense?"

So I'll answer both.

The story of Adam and Eve DOES make sense as long as you don't take it “ LITERALLY “. The Bible was written in a time and for an audience that had no words to express "billions of years"; who had no concept of the vastness of the universe, or the true diversity of life; who had no way to know that each "star" in the sky is actually as big as or hundreds of times bigger than our sun and in fact some of these stars were actually entire galaxies of trillions of suns; or that there are more life forms in a cup of water than you would ever seen in your lifetime. These were people who expressed "deep time" in terms of “ generations “ (usually on your father's side, or the king's side) not millions of years. The story of Adam and Eve is a story about the “ spiritual “ birth of human beings, and our relationship to our Creator. It was never, ever intended to be read “ literally “.

But as for why some Christians reject the FACT of evolution (and the theory that explains it) ... this is because they do indeed take the story of Adam and Eve “ LITERALLY “. That if the Bible describes all of Creation in terms of six "days" that this means six “ literal “ risings and settings of the sun (even though the sun itself was not created until the third day). That if the Bible lists the generations from Adam to Noah name after name, that we are to take this “ literally “ as the actual lineage from the first human being who was hand-created by God on the sixth day of creation. That if the Bible describes a worldwide catastrophic flood that wipes out all humans except for one man and his family, who also rescued representatives of all species on the planet on a big boat ... then this story is “ literally “ true, right down to the number of cubits of gopherwood Noah used on this boat.

In other words, if you cling to a “ literal “ reading of all of these passages as a description of the “ biological “ origins of humans and all plants and animals, and in fact the entire universe ... then science becomes your enemy. It's not just evolution (the slow appearance and change of organisms over billions of years, and the idea that humans themselves are a result of the very same process) that contradicts the literal word of the Bible, but the paleontologists must be 100% wrong about meaning of fossils; and the geneticists are completely wrong about the relationships in DNA; and the geologists must be idiotically wrong about the age of the earth; and the astronomers must be utterly wrong about the age of the stars and the universe; and the physicists must be idiotically wrong about the constancy of radioactivity (as this is the way we measure old objects like fossils and rocks), and Einstein must have been totally wrong about the speed of light being constant (since we are seeing light that appears to be millions of years old, so that must be wrong, and the speed of light has change “ dramatically “). In short ... all scientists ... ALL OF THEM ... must be utter morons.

But if you understand evolution correctly, and if you take the Bible as a source of “ spiritual “ Truth, (not a biology textbook), then there is no conflict AT ALL.

So Evolution is not an engine for Atheism… Here are a few things you can point out:
1. Here is a letter signed by 11,000 (closer to 12,000) Christian " clergy members " ... ministers, priests, bishops, deacons, preachers, etc. ... all in “ support “ of evolution.
http://www.butler.ed...hrClergyLtr.htm

2. The Catholic church ... home to over half of the world's 2 billion Christians, does NOT see a conflict between evolution and Christian faith.

3. About 40% of scientists (almost all of which accept evolution absolutely) also believe in God.


mikellogz

#38 CTD

CTD

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,059 posts
  • Age: 44
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Missouri

Posted 17 January 2009 - 12:00 AM

No Evolution is Scientific and it is subject to scientific method… It is been supported by consensus of scientists until today..

View Post

Here we go.

1. State an experimentally testable and falsifiable hypothesis that says all life as we know it evolved from whatever you claim the original source was.

2. Show where even one such experiment has been conducted which had the potential to falsify the hypothesis.

I maintain these two simple, elementary things cannot and have not been done. Until they are done, people have no business pretending otherwise.

#39 CTD

CTD

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,059 posts
  • Age: 44
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Missouri

Posted 17 January 2009 - 12:08 AM

Source:
http://answers.yahoo...04034932AAAeiTv


Evolution is BOTH a fact and a theory.

Here's why.

The problem is that when people (including scientists) use the word "evolution", they may be referring to either the *PROCESS* of evolution, or the *THEORY* of evolution. The *PROCESS* of evolution is a FACT; and the THEORY of evolution is obviously a theory, but a theory in the scientific meaning of the word 'theory', which means 'explanation with evidence.'

The *process* of evolution is the technical definition of the word "evolution." This is the *change* in a species over time. It is an undeniable FACT that species *change* in their heritable traits from generation to generation ... and this *change* is what we call "evolution." We can reproduce it in the laboratory, observe it in nature, and in fact we have been *relying* on the FACT that organisms change (evolve) over time every time we breed dairy cows, goats, horses, german shepherds, or championship roses.

The *theory* of evolution (or ToE) is the *EXPLANATION* for (a) how does the *process* of evolution occur in nature (natural selection); (:P how does this *process* of evolution explain the diversity of life forms on the planet (common ancestry).

So evolution is the name we give both to a FACT, and to the THEORY that *EXPLAINS* that fact.

For another example of a word in science that refers both to a fact and a theory ... consider the word "gravity." Gravity is both a FACT, and a THEORY. The FACT of gravity (sometimes called the LAW of gravity because we have evidence that it occurs even in distant parts of the universe) is the fact that objects are attracted to each other by an amount determined by the mass of the objects and the distance between them. The THEORY of gravity (ToG) is the theory that there is a "force" of gravity that affects all mass, and that this force is the result of a curvature in space-time, or the presence of particles called 'gravitons.'

(Aside: The theory of evolution is actually much better understood than gravity! We know what *causes* evolution ... we don't know yet what *causes* gravity.)

>"how do chrisitans still believe we came from adam and eve, it doesnt make sense?"

It's not clear from your question whether you think it's the story of Adam and Eve that doesn't make sense, or the fact that some Christians dispute an undisputable FACT.

So I'll answer both.

The story of Adam and Eve DOES make sense as long as you don't take it *LITERALLY*. The Bible was written in a time and for an audience that had no words to express "billions of years"; who had no concept of the vastness of the universe, or the true diversity of life; who had no way to know that each "star" in the sky is actually as big as or hundreds of times bigger than our sun and in fact some of these stars were actually entire galaxies of trillions of suns; or that there are more life forms in a cup of water than you would ever seen in your lifetime. These were people who expressed "deep time" in terms of *generations* (usually on your father's side, or the king's side) not millions of years. The story of Adam and Eve is a story about the *spiritual* birth of human beings, and our relationship to our Creator. It was never, ever intended to be read *literally*.

But as for why some Christians (actually a minority) reject the FACT of evolution (and the theory that explains it) ... this is because they do indeed take the story of Adam and Eve *LITERALLY*. That if the Bible describes all of Creation in terms of six "days" that this means six *literal* risings and settings of the sun (even though the sun itself was not created until the third day). That if the Bible lists the generations from Adam to Noah name after name, that we are to take this *literally* as the actual lineage from the first human being who was hand-created by God on the sixth day of creation. That if the Bible describes a worldwide catastrophic flood that wipes out all humans except for one man and his family, who also rescued representatives of all species on the planet on a big boat ... then this story is *literally* true, right down to the number of cubits of gopherwood Noah used on this boat.

In other words, if you cling to a *literal* reading of all of these passages as a description of the *biological* origins of humans and all plants and animals, and in fact the entire universe ... then science becomes your enemy. It's not just evolution (the slow appearance and change of organisms over billions of years, and the idea that humans themselves are a result of the very same process) that contradicts the literal word of the Bible, but the paleontologists must be 100% wrong about meaning of fossils; and the geneticists are completely wrong about the relationships in DNA; and the geologists must be idiotically wrong about the age of the earth; and the astronomers must be utterly wrong about the age of the stars and the universe; and the physicists must be idiotically wrong about the constancy of radioactivity (as this is the way we measure old objects like fossils and rocks), and Einstein must have been totally wrong about the speed of light being constant (since we are seeing light that appears to be millions of years old, so that must be wrong, and the speed of light has change *dramatically*). In short ... all scientists ... ALL OF THEM ... must be utter morons.

But if you understand evolution correctly, and if you take the Bible as a source of *spiritual* Truth, (not a biology textbook), then there is no conflict AT ALL.

    * 5 months ago



#40 Guest_mikellogz_*

Guest_mikellogz_*
  • Guests

Posted 17 January 2009 - 01:30 AM

Here we go.

1. State an experimentally testable and falsifiable hypothesis that says all life as we know it evolved from whatever you claim the original source was.

2. Show where even one such experiment has been conducted which had the potential to falsify the hypothesis.

I maintain these two simple, elementary things cannot and have not been done. Until they are done, people have no business pretending otherwise.

View Post



You are asking a valid question. It is legitimate to ask if evolution is treated differently that the rest of science. What I'll show here is that, if you read a bit about the general history of science (such as the concepts of atoms, or gravity, or light), that concepts like evolution is treated no differently. It is every bit just as falsifiable!

Here are the examples:

1. A trilobite and a tyrranosaur in the same layer of soil. Or a rabbit skeleton next to a tiktaalik skeleton in a Devonian layer. These would falsify the entire fossil evidence for evolution.

2. Lack of any genetic pattern supporting common ancestry. (Remember, Darwin proposed his theory of evolution " before " the basics of genetics was understood.)

3. If some life forms had left-handed DNA and some right-handed, they could not have evolved from a common ancestor. (Remember, the main structure of evolutionary theory was in place before the discovery of DNA.)

4. If all life forms used different amino acids, instead of the same 20 ... or if there were a different mapping of DNA codons to amino acids ... they could not have evolved from a common ancestor. (E.g. if some organism used TGG to code Glutamine instead of Tryptophan as in " ALL " other oganisms, then that organism could not have evolved from the same ancestor.)

5. If the molecular clock (the speed at which mutational markers occur) showed a divergence between humans and apes less than a million years, or older than 20 million years, this would falsify the theory. I.e. if the split between humans and apes was bigger than that between apes and monkeys. In other words, if the molecular clock gave different results than are shown in the fossil record, or are possible given the phylogenetic classification of species, then this would falsify evolution.

6. If new evidence from astronomy were to show the sun being less than 3.5 billion years old (which would make the first signs of life " older " than the sun needed to support it). Or if evidence from geology showed the earth less than 3 billion years old, these would falsify the timescales the biologists believe were necessary for evolution.

7. If all structures were perfectly designed specifically for their function, instead of common structures being " repurposed " for different functions. (E.g. if a bat's wing and bird's wing had the same structure, because they have the same function ... instead of finding, as we have, that the bat's wing is closer in structure to the human hand, or the digging front paws of a mole ... indicating a mammalian front-limb " repurposed " for flying.)

8. If all DNA was functional this would tend to falsify evolution, as there *should* be lots of accumulated non-coding DNA since there are no significant processes for deleting unnecessary DNA. Instead we find that as much as 98% (!) of DNA has no function whatsoever.

9. A lack of pattern in the commonalities of structures. E.g. the split between the Old World (OW) primates (the African and Asian primates, including all apes and humans) and New World (NW) primates (the Central and South American monkeys) also coincides in the split between opposable thumbs (OW primates have them, NW primates don't); color vision (OW primates have it, NW primates don't); prehensile tails (OW primates don't have them, NW primates do); number of teeth (OW primates have 2 premolars, NW primates have 3); etc. All of these show that the OW primates are more closely related to each other by common ancestry than to the NW primates ... a relationship explainable by the separation of the Old World and New World " continents " ... a relationship that would NOT be apparent if these features were evenly distributed across all these 145 different species of simian primates.

10. If there was no way to classify species into a single hierarchical tree, that would falsify evolution. I.e. if we could not organize species into well-defined kingdoms, phyla, classes, orders, families, genera, species, and subspecies ... if every time we thought we had a grouping, we found reptiles with fur, or mammals with feathers, that could not be organized into any pattern at all, then the concept of diverging ancestry would be falsified. Or if these categories were not verified with DNA or molecular commonalities ... e.g. if the DNA for producing chimp insulin had more sequences in common with the insulin of the mice living in the same forest, than with the howler monkeys living on the opposite side of the world, then the pylogenetic tree is unraveled, and evolution is falsified.

... Do you see the point? As with evidence in all branches of science, it's about " PATTERNS ". So anything that were to " break " these patterns would start to unravel evolution as an explanation. They would indeed be considered " falsifying " data.

But in 150 years of gathering literally " millions " of items of evidence, we have not found " anything " of significance that breaks any of these patterns.


As for mitoEve being older than Y-chromAdam ... you can't accept the scientific evidence of " comparative " age as evidence of Noah's Ark ... while simultaneously ignoring the " absolute " ages that are part of the same evidence ... 60,000 years for y-chromAdam and 140,000 years for mitoEve is indeed consistent with a founder effect (which is part of evolution), but NOT Noah's Ark!


As for punctuated equilibrium, that is a perfect example of how ALL science works! The fact that the fossil pattern shows a non-constant " RATE " of evolution does NOT falsify Darwin's basic theory. Never did. Darwin thought it was constant based on the limited data he had. But there is NOTHING in basic Darwinian theory that requires a constant " RATE " of evolution (slow yes, but " constant ", no). There was a deeper pattern in the fossils we didn't see before ... but not one that "contradicts " the old pattern (fossils still correlate perfectly to the layers in which they are found). That the concept of punctuated equilibrium explains that deeper pattern, without changing the " basic " Darwinian theory, is testament to the " strength " of that theory!

That is precisely how ALL science works!

That is why Einstein can modify Newton's laws of mechanics and gravity without declaring that Newton's laws are "falsified." Instead the theory of gravity " grows " with Einstein's additions (and why we still call it the 'theory of gravity' and always will ... not because 'theory' means 'uncertain' ... but because it means " explanation ").

That is why Planck can note patterns in atomic energies, and can come up with quantum theory to explain it, but without changing the " basics " of atomic theory as proposed by people like Rutherford. Instead the theory of atoms " grows " with Planck's additions (and why we still call it the 'theory of atoms' or 'atomic theory' and always will ... not because 'theory' means 'uncertain' ... but because it means "explanation").

Yes, occasionally there are two " rival " theories like the steady-state and big bang theories that are fundamentally " contradictory " ... and then new evidence is noted that favors one and falsifies the other.

[Aside: If some old steady-state advocates want to keep it alive by proposing multiverses, there's nothing wrong with that ... as long as they call it a 'hypothesis' until there is evidence. If they do eventually find some evidence, then it will graduate to a 'theory' and this will reconcile the steady-state and big bang into one big theory. This is also common in science to find a " synthesis " of two previously incompatible theories (e.g. blending the particle and wave theories of light into a single concept ... the 'photon'). Again, this is fully compatible with how ALL science works.]

But punctuated equilibrium is not fundamentally " contradictory " to Darwinian evolution. It fits the existing data, but adds to the theory in a way that it explains more..

Conclusion: Evolution is just as falsifiable as anything else in science. It is NOT treated differently. The scientific community at large would not stand for it if the biologists were really trying to sneak something through that was not real science ... not falsifiable, not testable. To sneak even a tiny concept in the back door would be unheard of. Something as " central " to modern biology as evolution? Sorry, you would have to have a " VERY " low opinion of all scientists ... to the point of outright contempt for the entire scientific method, and the concept of peer review to believe that!



Source:
http://answers.yahoo...04034932AAAeiTv

View Post


Yeah right.. secretsauce is my idol and my proctor.. I have a permission..

What is the problem with that?




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users