Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Evolution and Religion

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

  • loseyourname
    replied
    Originally posted by Arvestaked I believe this is not true. It is said that experiments regarding mutation show that it is impossible for there to be enough positive mutations for a species to change into another. And, as for natural selection, it is understood that it can only contribute to the creation of subspecies (microevolution). That is why the movement of neo-Darwinism came about to propose the idea of mutations as the cause of macroevolution and natural selection being the mechanism of refinement amongst the mutated populations.
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Arvestaked
    replied
    Originally posted by sleuth i m going to desex arvest for this thread lol
    Hell forbid, we discuss something. You always have the option of going and reading/starting sex threads. Maybe one called "Evolutionists/Creationists I would bang."

    Anyway, judging from my comatose sex life, I would say I have already been neutered for a year and a half so there is no need to fret over that.

    Leave a comment:


  • Arvestaked
    replied
    Originally posted by sleuth and one more thing guy evolution is still THEORYYYYY so is creation....thers is no enough evidence....
    since evolutionists exclude god from science or eny other active function in the creation or maintenance of life and the universe in general, it is very obvious that their position is nothing but atheism. And atheism, no less than theism, is a religion!

    A theory results from the scientific method. Creationism is not a theory; it is the result of the scientific method gone backwards. Take your qualms up with Descartes.

    And science is not Atheism. Science is science. Many scientists being Atheist has nothing to do with it. Plus, the believing in a god or gods does not have an influence on what its role in the universe is. Not believing in Creationism's answer to what the origin of life is does not make one an atheist. I am an agnostic and I am an evolutionist.

    And Atheism is not a religion. One can have a system of beliefs that is both Atheistic and religious and one can have a system of beliefs that is Atheistic and not religious.
    Last edited by Arvestaked; 01-20-2004, 01:12 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Arvestaked
    replied
    sleuth:
    It can easily be a hypothesis because it is a conclusion drawn from observation.

    Originally posted by sleuth No one can think of ways in which to test it".
    First of all, evolution is the observation. It itself does not need to be tested. The mechanism by which it occurs does.
    Techically, said mechanism can be tested. If by observation, one can compose another hypothesis about how macroevolution occurs, one can test it by recreation in a laboratory environment. That would be your test. If in a laboratory environment, a scientist can cause a change in the species of an organism and show that the causeing factor occured before then you have a theory.
    Last edited by Arvestaked; 01-20-2004, 01:04 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Arvestaked
    replied
    Originally posted by Anonymouse why does science assume it alone knows?
    It does not. If I had a penny for everytime I killed a moron who said that I would have 113 pennies.

    Leave a comment:


  • Arvestaked
    replied
    Originally posted by sleuth The fact is that evolutionists believe in evolution because they want to. It is their desire at all costs to explain the origin of everything without a Creator.
    Yes that is true for a good reason that I mentioned a few posts prior to this one. The desire to point to a creator as the responsible party for the origin of species is only that way because people had come up with the idea of a creator prior, and for that reason, the observing eyes are biased. Science seeks answers by observation; accepting the idea of a creator would be unscientific and useless. The idea of a creator is for those who are uncomfortable not having all of the answers.

    Leave a comment:


  • Arvestaked
    replied
    Originally posted by loseyourname the observed effects of point mutations and natural selection, is extremely high, as close to 1 as a scientific theory can get.
    I believe this is not true. It is said that experiments regarding mutation show that it is impossible for there to be enough positive mutations for a species to change into another. And, as for natural selection, it is understood that it can only contribute to the creation of subspecies (microevolution). That is why the movement of neo-Darwinism came about to propose the idea of mutations as the cause of macroevolution and natural selection being the mechanism of refinement amongst the mutated populations.

    Leave a comment:


  • Arvestaked
    replied
    Originally posted by Anonymouse But where is the evidence to suggest that? Of course it's just stated. That's just it. You state it is a fact, that so and so happened. Well? What empirical suggests that species jump to another species? I only ask because I am naturally looking for evidence, much like your quest in evidence for God, or what have you. If I see that I cannot find evidence to support evolution, I will simply deny it as an explanation, nevermind its mathematical improbability. You can't argue against mathematics can you?
    The mathematical improbability is only in reference to mutations being responsible for evolution. Not evolution itself.

    Leave a comment:


  • EvrLstngDaze
    replied
    Science hasn't answered it, because it cannot. Science only deals with the physical and material realm. Only with how things react and behave, not how they got here. You can pin science on everything in the material world, yet how it got there, science is no more of a guess with faith, than God.
    Science is a method in which we humans try to understand, and explain the phenomena that's going around in the world. Sure it hasn't explained everything, but you can't yet assume that it cannot. It's a process that tries to get answers, it's not a definitive doctrine. In my opinion, science is the best tool we've got. You can't really get to answers with only philosophy, it is supplementary to science, but neither one can progress by themselves.

    judging from the number of replies this thred has got, I'm surprised why many of you are not scientists (in training at least)!...or are you?

    Leave a comment:


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

    xxxx. I am gone for a weekend and I have to read 65 posts when I come back. I could have sworn all of this would have been ignored. Anyway, I will respond to this post before I devote my life to reading the rest of the thread...

    Originally posted by Anonymouse Only human arrogance would assume that humans have solved the riddle.

    Of course, I can sit here and puncture holes in evolution and you will argue till your death to defend it, which is a like class of faith. Evolution is nothing but faith.

    One wonders how this fallible theory has been made infallible, whether it was the supposed intermediate "evidence" the early Darwinists brought forth, such as "gemules", "bathybius" and "eozoon", or the militant attitude of evolutionists and their everlasting intolerance, which you display, towards anything dissenting. Thus you, like evolutionists, have made up your mind, and will attack anyone to defend it. I've encountered a few scientists within biology that have questioned the validity of the said theory, only to be smeared.

    Other silly things such as "Nebraska Man" are but ancient history and rarely mentioned. The fact that Darwin spoke of a gradual change over time, and since intermediate fossils could not be found to accomodate it, then the theory was further rewritten to remain immutable by Stephen J. Gould, and Niles Eldridge, and this time in the form of "punctuated equilibria". Since intermediate fossils could not have been found to validate Darwins "gradual" evolution, now all of a sudden, species didn't change gradually, but rather rapidly, it was a rapid jump from species to species. Thus the problem for the lack of intermediate forms was solved. Very unscientific. The evolutionists are more imaginitive and more faithful than your average Bible Thumper.

    Of course evolution is mathematically improbable as Murray Eden of MIT has already showed at the Wistar Institute. And besides, most mutations are harmful anyway. So the probability is very marginal.

    While a case can be made for "microevolution", since I doubt you will find anyone who will dispute within species variation, I find it very hard to accept the "evidence" for "macroevolution", and for the establishment to prove their case on "macro evolution". It is only assumed that species eventually jump.

    Funny since now that Gould has asserted species make a drastic rapid jump to another species, they won't need to linger on the problem posed by missing fossils. But since some of us are quick to jump to nice theories which claim to have answers for everything, we all of a sudden forget to question it.

    Have you observed species making a jump to another species?

    You said it yourself. Science hasn't answered it, because it cannot. Science only deals with the physical and material realm. Only with how things react and behave, not how they got here. You can pin science on everything in the material world, yet how it got there, science is no more of a guess with faith, than God.

    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. 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. 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.
    Last edited by Arvestaked; 01-20-2004, 11:40 AM.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X