Evolution and Religion

[Anonymouse]

Now, it seems that evolution is just too addictive to let go. Sort of like nicotine in your body, you just gotta have it because it just explains everything yet explains nothing. It seems that the last thing evolutionists can say is that this theory is the "most plausible" theory, since it explains everything, kind of like Marx' dialectic, which explained everything. Theories that explain everything, also explain nothing, but yet why do people cling to it?

They contend, much like Darwin that changes are there, visible, for everyone to see. But the variations that are actually observable today, and which Darwin cited in this book as evidence for evolution, are changes within a species. No one has ever observed one basic kind of plant or animal naturally change into another basic kind. Is evolution theory falsifiable? I remember Karl Popper the philosopher of science stating that all theories are falsifiable, yet time and again evolution seems to be holy, and can not be falsified. It's become so dogmatic and so plastic that no matter what the data are, they can be made to fit the theory.

[loseyourname]

I'm completely certain this won't be good enough for you, because you seem to actually want a change in genus or even family, but these all fit the criteria of speciation according to the biological species concept. Just so you might quit saying no one has ever observed one species change into another:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html#part5

[Anonymouse]

Evolution explains everything and anything. Proposing a mechanism which looks plausible to human beings and mechanisms which are consistent with other mechanisms which have been discovered, it is still an unfalsifiable theory. Evolution cannot be observed and the theory is non-falsifiable. It thus fails to satisfy the criteria of a scientific theory. The same can be said of creation theory. We do not see God creating anything today, and as a theory, creation is non-falsifiable. Anything that is non-falsifiable false outside the realm of scientific theory per what Karl Popper has said, and places them in the realm of religion.

[Crimson Glow]

Evolution also still fails to answer one other thing. How did the evolution begin? As in, where did the first species, person, what have you come from in order to start the process of evolving into what we have today?

[dusken]

It does not fail to answer that; you just have not read anything.

[loseyourname]

Evolution cannot be observed and the theory is non-falsifiable.

Changes within a species can be observed. A species changing into another species can be observed. What else do you want to see exactly? The theory can be falsified if any structure is discovered that cannot plausibly have arisen from stepwise mutations from a simpler structure. Michael Behe attempts to do this with examples of what he calls "irreducibly complex" systems in Darwin's Black Box. Of course, he is lying. Every example he gives has a simpler analog found in nature. Still, he tries, and had he succeeded, the theory would have been falsified.

Evolution also still fails to answer one other thing. How did the evolution begin? As in, where did the first species, person, what have you come from in order to start the process of evolving into what we have today?

Come on, man, I thought you were smarter than that. The origin of the first living cell does not fall under the auspices of evolutionary theory. There are several hypotheses regarding abiogenesis. None has enough evidential support to come anywhere near being called a theory.

[Anonymouse]

Changes within a species can be observed. A species changing into another species can be observed. What else do you want to see exactly? The theory can be falsified if any structure is discovered that cannot plausibly have arisen from stepwise mutations from a simpler structure. Michael Behe attempts to do this with examples of what he calls "irreducibly complex" systems in Darwin's Black Box. Of course, he is lying. Every example he gives has a simpler analog found in nature. Still, he tries, and had he succeeded, the theory would have been falsified.

So even those that are falsifying the theory are lying and/or wrong. There is virtually nothing that can be hurled at Darwinism that cannot have a comfortable excuse. So this paragraph doesn't mean anything. We've already covered the semantics and the ramifications of referring to micromutations as "evolution", and the tautology that ensues. There is nothing in that that suggests we see macromutations or should see them. It is only believed on the micromutations. That is religion plain and simple.

[loseyourname]

You stupid sack of crap. No part of evolutionary theory proposes macromutations as a mechanism. Saltationism does that. You're so confused, I don't know why I even bother with you.

[Anonymouse]

Boohoo, you start this, not I. If you are going to be a baby about it, we might as well not discuss it.

[sleuth]

I am sick of the evolution---creation people arguing. So I sat in a donut shop one night... all night and thought about it. I came to the realisation that both sides were telling the same story, just with a different focus. One told the order of things from a day by day distance, the other with a microscopi scrutiny.(lose) One looked to appreciating God for the work,(mousy) the other looked to the work and an appreciation of the process. Same story, different time lines.

As i stated before reconsiliation of creation and evolution can solve this problem....there is no real contrast between them in the sense of one being faith the other one being reason...



mousy and lose ...