Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Evolution and Religion

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

  • Anonymouse
    replied
    Originally posted by loseyourname You are aware that the prefix a- is a negation, are you not? Atheism is the negation of theism; it is not itself a theism. Just as someone who is atypical is not typical.
    It may claim it is not a theism, yet its adherents are no different than bible thumpers in their adamance.

    Leave a comment:


  • loseyourname
    replied
    Originally posted by sleuth ANY THEISM is religion ,so is aTHEISM..and i refer that not to science but evolution....
    You are aware that the prefix a- is a negation, are you not? Atheism is the negation of theism; it is not itself a theism. Just as someone who is atypical is not typical.

    Leave a comment:


  • sleuth
    replied
    ANY THEISM is religion ,so is aTHEISM..and i refer that not to science but evolution....

    Leave a comment:


  • Anonymouse
    replied
    Originally posted by Arvestaked No they do not. Evolution is an explanation of why genetics seems to be getting progressively complex, why we have vestigial structures, and why we do not have fossils of all species from all time periods. Mutation and natural selection were proposed explanations of the mechanism by which it occurs. It most likely has another cause we do not understand yet. I can understand if you want to advocate creationism, but at least understand the relationship between those concepts.
    For a long time, evolutionists were so caught up in their theory that it is believed that random mutations and natural selection go hand in hand with evolution. Indeed, in my physical anthropology class, it wasn't even a question of if, it simply was. So if random mutations are mathematically improbable, then it is safe to say, that there is no point in clinging to that as a mechanism for evolution. That to me seems to have been one of the pedestals of evolutionary thought and the backbone of it, and even now it still is. That one day it was hand in hand with evolution, now evolutionists can point to it as a means of escape citing that, "it was only one reason of trying to explain the mechanism that led to change", whereas when I read Darwin he is more certain of that, then a priest preaching the Bible. What is the other alternative to mutation? How else would something evolve? How else is anything to have supposed to have evolved? The only other option is creation, in my opinion, unless something more valid within the realm of mathematical probability is proposed.

    I haven't advocated anything yet, I am simply trying to understand evolution and indeed discuss it with those who subscribe to it, because I believe that I have not seen enough evidence, as any scientific person would require, to give evolutionary theory a label of infallibility and having answered what it set out to answer. In this instance, one can make a good case against God and Bible, but since those deal with the realm of faith, and evolution is supposed to be about science, not about faith, that is my point of contention.

    Leave a comment:


  • Anonymouse
    replied
    Re: Re: Re: Evolution and religion....

    Originally posted by Arvestaked That is actually exactly what I wanted to see as a response. It is true the mechanism for evolution is not known and that natural selection and mutations are, most likely not responsible. But I feel it is illogical and arrogant to have the "right until proven wrong" attitude that the godfearers tend to have.
    I'm not "right until proven wrong", I'm simply right in this sense because I ask for the evidence that leads from one species to another, and that evidence is lacking. Whether I am right or wrong in the long term sense of whether or not evolution will prove meaningful, well I might be just as wrong. Whether the theory of evolution is right or wrong, or the belief in God is right or wrong, in my opinion, will never be revealed to us on this physical dimension. Those that claim it is about observation, well, obviously no one has observed any species changing to some other new unknown or unpredicted species. All the changes that we exhibit, for the thousandth time, are within species, and one must be a really paranoid Bible thumper to deny within species variation. Macroevolution, or puncuated equilibria, is something of a mystery that was simply asserted and believed. Even now you are expressing faith in the theory by admitting that we do not know the mechanisms yet clinging to it because you have hopes. Thus by doing so, you are by your own hand putting faith in the theory, something that no evolutionist dares admit to. Simply put, if all we have is statement that say "This leads to that" but no way to prove that, then there is no need to claim evolution is immutable fact, which you are doing, yet at the same time admitting indirectly there is no evidence for those assertions with the "mechanism for evolution is not known".


    Originally posted by Arvestaked Between vestigial structures, the increasing complexity of genetics, and the fact that fossils of all species cannot be found from any given period is enough to feel that evolution is something that exists.
    So whether or not it was proven that one fossil led to another, it is something that you "feel" to be true so therefore it must be so. All we have are some fossils that appear out of no where, and the die out all of a sudden. This is why evolution was in an embarrasing area prior to punctuated equilibria for the long contended notion of the intermediate forms was lacking and the embarrasments that mainstream evolutionists went through to provide missing links, from gemmules to bathybius, to Nebraska Man, were sad attempts to give examples of intermediate forms. To compensate for that we have Gould and Eldridge using the powers of human imagination to try to alleviate this problem and patch up the holes. Now we don't need intermediates for the jump from one species to another is a drastic, rapid jump, therefore eliminating the notion of any intermediate forms. Fossils are fossils, they exist whether one is a creationist or an evolutionist. I myself have a hard time trying to conjure how some random mutations would be enough to produce a whole new species, since we see in our everyday lives examples of mutations and their harm on the organism. Thus the numbers I highlighted in the human body are anything but the result of randomness, for they are all multiples of 11. That our DNA is our blueprint containing our specific information, and all the nucleotides are arranged in a specific order, and when that is violated we have harmful effects, is to any thinking mind automatically a sign that randomness is out of the question, for that exhibits purpose.

    Originally posted by Arvestaked Just because we do not know why does not mean it is wrong. There were many things just 100 years ago that were not unknown and attributed to God that are now answered and obvious. The only reason that people feel the need to attribute the origin of species to God is because they are used to the idea and put the pressure on themselves to prove he exists (and by prove I mean point out what science yet has not). If the idea of God was never invented by man, the lack of evidence for the mechanism by which evolution occurs would not have brought it about. Some feel the need to be faithful when it comes to Darwinism and neo-Darwinism. However, them aside, remember, technology works, so do not judge science as a whole because of a certain few. The ones that argue against the said mechanisms claim that adherence to either of those theories is unscientific.
    I should add that, I am not here to indict science, for I believe it is an integral part of the human species, for it deals with how things react and behave in our natural world, which we are a part of. When science attempts to step into a different realm, not of the material world, and tries to answer questions, then I will say science is going overboard, since we already have other forms of thought to deal with what is unknown and the paranormal or the superstitious. Perhaps evolution is indeed responsible for the changes that occured, meaning there is no purpose and it was randomness all along, but I will be waiting for the evidence that led one species to jump to another. Perhaps it is the hand of God stepping in to make these changes possible, answering the improbable, why certain things may seem improbable mathematically, but logically apparent ( that we see a progression in the fossil record ); that maybe because of God these improbabilities are moot since some force may have intervened and caused these changes. Perhaps it was God all along. Of course everyone is entitled to their personal view here, based on your own arbitrary experiences and worldviews.

    Even within the evolutionary community there are disagreements and bickering. I believe that most scientists have deviated far from their stated aims and have gotten bogged down way too much with the evolution vs creationist debate, and that can have harmful effects on the scientific academia, and it has in fact led to the intolerance towards any scientist who might question the dogma that evolution is responsible for where we are now.

    Leave a comment:


  • Arvestaked
    replied
    Originally posted by Anonymouse Mutations and natural selection are what comprise the backbone of the theory of evolution. If it is improbable mathematically, the theory itself is fallible and therefore should arise doubt in people.

    You are trying to give an aura of validity by trying to create exclusiveness between the two, when the two in reality go hand in hand.
    No they do not. Evolution is an explanation of why genetics seems to be getting progressively complex, why we have vestigial structures, and why we do not have fossils of all species from all time periods. Mutation and natural selection were proposed explanations of the mechanism by which it occurs. It most likely has another cause we do not understand yet. I can understand if you want to advocate creationism, but at least understand the relationship between those concepts.
    Last edited by Arvestaked; 01-20-2004, 04:39 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Anonymouse
    replied
    Originally posted by Arvestaked The mathematical improbability is only in reference to mutations being responsible for evolution. Not evolution itself.
    Mutations and natural selection are what comprise the backbone of the theory of evolution. If it is improbable mathematically, the theory itself is fallible and therefore should arise doubt in people.

    You are trying to give an aura of validity by trying to create exclusiveness between the two, when the two in reality go hand in hand.

    Leave a comment:


  • Arvestaked
    replied
    Originally posted by loseyourname Sorry, but I've never gotten any info regarding evolution from the internet. Take Heather Weber's general biology class and she'll show you some KCET video that talks about it.
    Do you have her e-mail address?

    Leave a comment:


  • loseyourname
    replied
    Sorry, but I've never gotten any info regarding evolution from the internet. Take Heather Weber's general biology class and she'll show you some KCET video that talks about it.

    Leave a comment:


  • Arvestaked
    replied
    Originally posted by loseyourname Sorry, bud. Again, just refer to the Galapagos, or Hawaii, or any archipelago where speciation happens very quickly (relatively speaking, of course). Selective advantage due to point mutations have occured to the point where two groups that could once interbreed no longer can. That is a new species.
    Well if you could direct me to a website I would appreciate it.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X