Evolution and Religion

[loseyourname]

Orthodox Jews and Young-Earth Creationists doubt that the earth is more than 10,000 years old. That is not legitimate doubt. Again, you cannot refute the fossil record. There is a very obvious progression of closely related species leading to those that currently exist today. Unless you are suggesting they were separately created by some unknown means, and the fact that they appear to have evolved is simply coincidence, you must admit evolution. Any reasonable person will.

[Anonymouse]

Originally posted by loseyourname Orthodox Jews and Young-Earth Creationists doubt that the earth is more than 10,000 years old. That is not legitimate doubt. Again, you cannot refute the fossil record. There is a very obvious progression of closely related species leading to those that currently exist today. Unless you are suggesting they were separately created by some unknown means, and the fact that they appear to have evolved is simply coincidence, you must admit evolution. Any reasonable person will.

Once again, evolution must be so because it appears to be so, seems the prevailing them in your writing. At some point evolution begins to be a tautology. I cannot refute the fossil record because there is some sort of progression that makes us believe there is evolution. Because it appears so, it must be so.

[loseyourname]

There is no reason to question it, unless, as I said, you have some better explanation as to why the fossil record somehow deceives us into thinking that evolution took place. At some point, you're going to follow this reasoning into saying that the existence of the sun is a tautology. It appears to be there and so it must be there.

[Anonymouse]

Originally posted by loseyourname There is no reason to question it, unless, as I said, you have some better explanation as to why the fossil record somehow deceives us into thinking that evolution took place. At some point, you're going to follow this reasoning into saying that the existence of the sun is a tautology. It appears to be there and so it must be there.

The sun is there, and it doesn't exist as anything else aside from its self evident purpose, and no one certainly claims so.

The fact that Darwin himself stated that the lack of intermediate forms presented a counter argument to his theory, is telling. Like I said, there are no intermediate forms. To couch this embarrassing fact, we have punctuated equilibria. And those that babble about "saltationism" well, that in itself contains another problem since it appears to be nothing more than a silly middle ground between evolution and special creation. In terms of fossil evidence saltation just means that we have a new form appearing out of no where and we havent the faintest idea how.

I believe there are enough questions to raise in every aspect of evolutionary thought, to keep doubt alive, to question it and not regurgitate like mindless sheep. Essentially you are in the field of science, thus you must atune to the establish academia or kiss your ass goodbye for dissent is not tolerated. Science becomes no more than an arena of politics and mass mindedness, since everyone believes it, it must be so.

The Emperors New Clothes is something that needs to be re-read by many.

So in the end, you insist one cannot question the fossil record, simply because it cannot be questioned, because it is assumed there is a progression. So what? There is a progression from a horse, to the automobile, yet one wouldn't assume the automobile evolved from the horse. I am left without a reason as to why I cannot question it.

[loseyourname]

There are no anatomical correlations between a horse and a car. Of course every scientific theory is open to revision. Evolution is pretty damn soundproof, but still, it is not completely certain. Nothing is. What exactly is it that you're expecting here?

[Anonymouse]

Originally posted by loseyourname There are no anatomical correlations between a horse and a car. Of course every scientific theory is open to revision. Evolution is pretty damn soundproof, but still, it is not completely certain. Nothing is. What exactly is it that you're expecting here?

Then if it is not certain, why are you saying that one cannot doubt it?

You contradict yourself.

[loseyourname]

I apologize. It is a scientific fact, as certain as relativity or thermodynamics.

[Anonymouse]

Originally posted by loseyourname I apologize. It is a scientific fact, as certain as relativity or thermodynamics.

That's where I can safely say, you're wrong.

Evolution is no where near the laws of thermodynamics.

It is just a guess with faith on how we got here, no different than God.

How you seek to establish evolutions holyness, I have yet to encounter. If people like Hawkins, or Gould couldn't, what will you present they overlooked? Or is this just your opinion with faith, no different than I, believing God created all?

You can state all you want, evolution is not a fact, because its truth cannot be proven, beyond a certain limit of what can prove.

Micro and macro are two different things. How one leads to another is only assumed and imagined.

[loseyourname]

Evolution has an evidential basis, and both Gould and Dawkins have shown it quite well. Your belief in God is based entirely on personal conviction, much like the belief of the young earthers. In addition, nothing about evolution rules out creation. I don't see your conflict.

[sSsflamesSs]

I don't know if this has been mentioned before, but has it ever occurred to you guys that evolution and religion are not mutually exclusive but can coexist?