Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Evolution and Religion

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • loseyourname
    replied
    Originally posted by Anonymouse [B]A cow is still a cow. Even though may be changed and adapted due to environment and diet overtime, it is nonetheless a cow, and not something else.
    Mouse, it is a different species.

    Furthermore, your reference about selective breeding is precisely evidence of intelligence interfering for purposes of creating a "new species" and more tends to support the idea of a God interfering to create new species. Since these are not species changing our of their own volition, but are having intelligence ( humans ) interfere and create new ones.
    So what? The fact is, it happened. I have said many times before, the uncertainty comes in when you try to explain how it happened. Maybe it was God intervening. Maybe mutation alone isn't enough after all. Nonetheless, currently existent species came from species that are now extinct. That's a fact.

    Leave a comment:


  • Anonymouse
    replied
    Originally posted by loseyourname Way to completely ignore what she said. One species became two. That right there is an example of macroevolution. It is not an alteration within a species. It is a change to another species. Another example, also one done through selective breeding, is the transformation of wild cats and dogs into house pets, which are new species. Examples of this abound in early agriculture. Take a look at what dairy cows were before they were domesticated. They bear very little resemblance to what we see today. The simple fact is, point mutations and natural selection are known to produce microevolution within a population. When enough of this has been built up speciation may occur, and this is macroevolution. It has been observed to have happened before, and it is rather obvious, once again, that new species did not come from nowhere. They came from previous species. This is not a guess, Mousy. There is no other place they could have come from, unless God is playing a cruel trick on us by periodically exterminating old species and creating new species that are nearly completely identical. If this makes sense to you, Mouseboy, I urge you to take a class in logic. It will do you wonders.
    Hold on hold on. Which species became to? What are you talking about? Did you read any of my responses in this thread? Do do you have to say to the various points I raise other than "way to completely ignore" mumbo jumbo. In fact I answered her just fine.

    A cow is still a cow. Even though may be changed and adapted due to environment and diet overtime, it is nonetheless a cow, and not something else.

    Furthermore, your reference about selective breeding is precisely evidence of intelligence interfering for purposes of creating a "new species" and more tends to support the idea of a God interfering to create new species. Since these are not species changing our of their own volition, but are having intelligence ( humans ) interfere and create new ones.

    So if we read your post, you would have us believe evolution is a scientific law. You can weave a web of scientific aura with your words and tiny examples and give readers a thorough illusion of evolution in act, yet it remains that evolution has many points which prevent it from becoming a scientific law, therefore constituted as knowledge, per the rules of the scientific method.

    It is, as you would call it "an educated guess".

    Leave a comment:


  • sleuth
    replied
    Originally posted by loseyourname There is magnificence in such a world. I am glad to live in it.

    Leave a comment:


  • loseyourname
    replied
    Originally posted by sleuth reconciliation religion and evolution will solve this conflict.
    Exactly. Evolutionary theory has absolutely nothing to say about where anything came from or why it is here. These are questions to be addressed through religion. Evolution answers quite effectively how the current diversity of species observed on this planet came to be. When you have fully learned it, and how it integrated into every other realm of the biological sciences, one cannot help but feel overwhelming wonder at the beauty of all. Life has a built-in capacity to adapt and advance and continually better itself and diversify. If the universe is indeed created, I thank whoever created it for doing it in such a way that there is a natural tendency for life to develop and for intelligence to evolve from it that may eventually come to discover exactly how it happened and appreciate it all. There is magnificence in such a world. I am glad to live in it.

    Leave a comment:


  • loseyourname
    replied
    Originally posted by Anonymouse After groundbreaking research, and more than a century since Darwin, I don't see any reason to accept evolution. Whether it is citing the moth as an example, or the antibiotics and genes resisting. All these examples forget one basic thing, these are examples of microevolution which I have not denied. You are only stating the obvious. The point is not to dispute whether microevolution happens, but whether it means anything at all?
    Way to completely ignore what she said. One species became two. That right there is an example of macroevolution. It is not an alteration within a species. It is a change to another species. Another example, also one done through selective breeding, is the transformation of wild cats and dogs into house pets, which are new species. Examples of this abound in early agriculture. Take a look at what dairy cows were before they were domesticated. They bear very little resemblance to what we see today. The simple fact is, point mutations and natural selection are known to produce microevolution within a population. When enough of this has been built up speciation may occur, and this is macroevolution. It has been observed to have happened before, and it is rather obvious, once again, that new species did not come from nowhere. They came from previous species. This is not a guess, Mousy. There is no other place they could have come from, unless God is playing a cruel trick on us by periodically exterminating old species and creating new species that are nearly completely identical. If this makes sense to you, Mouseboy, I urge you to take a class in logic. It will do you wonders.

    Leave a comment:


  • sleuth
    replied
    I would like to point out that I don't think there is, first of all, a real contrast between religion and science in the sense of one being faith and the other being reason. I think both can be reasonable. And it's interesting that in science, one often refers to the best explanation, and the best explanation then often involves postulating the existence of something you would never observe or ever could observe.
    They both have an element of trust needed to belive that either are correct or incorrect.

    reconciliation religion and evolution will solve this conflict.

    reconsiliation is only solution...

    Leave a comment:


  • Anonymouse
    replied
    After groundbreaking research, and more than a century since Darwin, I don't see any reason to accept evolution. Whether it is citing the moth as an example, or the antibiotics and genes resisting. All these examples forget one basic thing, these are examples of microevolution which I have not denied. You are only stating the obvious. The point is not to dispute whether microevolution happens, but whether it means anything at all?

    First bacteria develop resistance to antibiotics becuase of the differential survival of mutant forms possessing the advantage of resistence. Second the melanism in moths changes. If we take these examples as the best observational evidence of natural selection we can draw the following conclusion.

    There is no reason to doubt that certain circumstances can compel bacteria to resist antibiotics, or dark colored moths to light colored ones. In these given circumstances the population that are susceptible to drugs and the light colored moths may decline as long as the circumstances prevail. Furthermore, none of these "proofs" provide persuasive reason to believe that natural selection can produce new species, new organs, and other major changes, or even minor ones, that are permanent. The problem with what bejug is saying as "species" is essentially the problem of evolution, its semantics. Even the most staunch creationists will agree that microevolution occures. These are all such examples. That the melanism in moths which bejug raises shows natural selection, it also shows it as a conservative process. It induces some relatively trivial variation within the species boundary but which also conserves the original genetic blue print so population frequencies can shift in the other direction when conditions change again. This is nothing more than adaptation. Such a process does not produce permanent, and irreversible change that is required to produce a wholly new species, let alone a new phyla.

    The problem arises from one term "evolution" that is used to designation ( as in the case for moths ) processes that may have little or nothing in common. A shift in the number of dark and light moths in a population is called "evolution", and so is the creative process that produced the cell, the multicellular organism, the eye, the mind. The implication of the semantics is that evolution is fundamentally a single process, and most evolutionists, whether consciously or unconsciously will exploit this as a substitute for scientific evidence. Even seperating "evolution" into "micro" and "macro" implies that all the creative processes involved in life comprise single phenomenon. The vocabulary inherent in darwinism limits our comprehension of the difficulties by misleadingly covering them with a blanket term "evolution" and from this vagueness evolutionary theory becomes a tautology. This is why bejug asked me if I deny these changes, since now for her, the definition has changed.

    And what "alternative" is it that you seek? If evolution is something that relies on more faith than a bible thumper has in Jesus, or Agent Mulder in UFOs, then surely it must have stood up to scrutiny and evidnece, but it lacks everything science is supposed to uphold, and has transformed into a tautology, since it is nothing more than a philosophical assumption that we evolved, not an empirical one. The other alternative, is there is a purpose and intelligence that has guided all living things on this planet and is responsible for their creation, and indeed this is what the fossil record shows, species randomly appearing out of nowhere only to disappear without a trace.

    Any scientific theory or hypothesis must be proved first possible, then probable, then certain. To be a possible theory, it must be reconcilable with many facts , to be a probable theory, it must be reconcilable with many more to be a certain and proven theory ( we have already established that evolution is not mathematically probable as I showed above by the work of Murray Eden of MIT ), it must be reconcilable with all the facts. Whenever it is irreconcilable with any fact, it should be rejected, as it cantbe a true theory. Every true theory passes through these three stages of possibility, probability, and certainty. A theory is not science until it is certainly true, and so becomes knowledge. evolution is in a desperate struggle to show that it may possibly be a true theory or hypothesis. Yet some who are ready to admit that they are "scientists" claim evolution a proven theory. It is clear, to me at least anyway, that this theory cannot withstand scrutiny, therefore must be rejected.
    Last edited by Anonymouse; 01-21-2004, 09:26 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Aphrodit3
    replied
    The problem here isn’t the lack of evidence for evolution or the fossil record. In fact, there is more evidence supporting evolution than creation. Anon, after five pages of nitpicking, you still haven’t given us an alternative. If you’re so adamant on creationism then give something a bit more believable than biblical fairytales.

    You can watch the process of natural selection in a petri dish of bacteria. High doses of antibiotics are introduced to a petri dish containing colonies of bacteria. The antibiotics then kill off most of the colonies except a few with resistance to the antibiotic. These live to reproduce. The next generation of bacteria will carry this resistance gene and be unaffected by the antibiotics. Blah blah blah…you get the idea. You can even see the evolution of drug resistance in HIV. Over time, the percent of resistant viruses to a drug called 3TC increased to 100%.

    You can see anatomical homologies in mammalian limbs that support the theory of common ancestry. There are embryonic homologies such as the presence of pharyngeal pouches in vertebrate embryos that develop for different functions in each species. We share more than 90% of our genetic makeup with apes. The amino acid sequence of human hemoglobin has a total of 146 amino acids in its chain. There are only 8 amino acids that are different in a Rhesus monkey when compared to a human. Don’t even bother arguing with the fossil record. Thousands of scientists have come and gone, found physical evidence to link gaps in the transitions of the fossil record. I doubt you can undo all their work. Go read some science magazines. I’ll lend you some of mine if you’d like.

    Please don’t get me wrong. My beliefs aren’t extreme on either side. I do support evolution but there is that question of “why” that I think can be answered by God. Going back to what Flames and Loser said, I definitely think that evolution and creationism coexist.

    Leave a comment:


  • sleuth
    replied
    ....and the univers goes on with laughter ....Evolution_ Perpetual Revalution :PPP

    Leave a comment:


  • ckBejug
    replied
    Originally posted by Anonymouse There is a good argument against the moth that is so often touted as evidence of Darwinian evolution.



    http://www.apologeticspress.org/inth.../itn-03-36.htm
    Want to know what the problem is with those websites and the New Scientist article mentioned within?? While I can't say whether or not these early scientists did in fact glue the moth to the tree and/or make up the reason their color changed, the FACT of the matter is the color DID change, the species DID change and the light colored moth and dark colored moth, once part of the same species, now became incapable of breeding with eachother. Breeding cannot occur between two different species. I am not asking why this happened. I'm sure in an effort to present the data to the world, or whoever was interested, these scientists, like everyone else in the world trying to convince someone that their point of view is correct, made up some reason for it. That's not the reason, fine, whatever. But, whatever the reason, the FACT remains that the species changed, it was ONE it became TWO, so no matter how much you can disprove the REASON it happened, you can't very well tell me it didn't happen, now can you? As for the girl mentioned on the webpage who said that 'Biology said so' when prodded about evolution, she repeated, regurgitated what she had learned in Biology class to her professor, well it's not the fault of the scientific community that some people just repeat what they read without digesting it and understanding it first. After all, unless you can explain something, you haven't understood it at all.
    Last edited by ckBejug; 01-21-2004, 06:22 PM.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X