Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Evolution and Religion

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

  • loseyourname
    replied
    Originally posted by Anonymouse Well, my initial post to this thread should give you an idea, furthermore I'll be adding stuff when I return.
    Extend the timeframe and Gould's punk-eek looks exactly the same as Darwin's original notes. No one less than the staunchly Christian Norman Miller pointed this out.

    Leave a comment:


  • sleuth
    replied
    note the terms which they use to describing evolution

    evolutionary dogma
    A scientific religion
    A satisfactory faith

    Man's world view


    As Ehrlich and Birch have said: "Every conceivable observation can be fitted into it.—No one can think of ways in which to test it".

    Leave a comment:


  • felizitation
    replied
    Originally posted by loseyourname If you think science leaves no room for polemics, you don't know much history. Every single revolutionary scientific theory that has ever been formulated has been met with fierce resistance, in particular by religious organizations. Nobody within the mainstream scientific community questions whether or not evolution happened. The questions all lie in how it happened. Religion's place is to question why it happened.
    I meant "no room for polemics", not from a social point of view, of course, but for the science itself.
    This is to say: if there is a scientific point bringing polemics, then it is not (yet) a science. It becomes science when it is proven.

    Thks for the religion point, loose and sleuth, i didn't get that.
    Anyway, my point of view is different. I don't believe in this creation religious craps, but i still believe in God. And i'm wondering why. The fact is that faith is not as bounded to science as mentionned in this thread.

    Sciences tend to discredit religion, but as i said very early (badly) in this thread, the idea of God is natural when we look at mankind. Religion and God are definitely not the same things. At least, it's my opinion.

    Leave a comment:


  • Anonymouse
    replied
    Originally posted by loseyourname You have also yet to name a contradiction or a flaw.
    Well, my initial post to this thread should give you an idea, furthermore I'll be adding stuff when I return.

    Leave a comment:


  • Anonymouse
    replied
    Originally posted by loseyourname You have still yet to propose an alternative. If there is no connection between old and new species, why are they so closely anatomically related? Furthermore, if point mutation and natural selection are not the culprits, how does speciation occur?
    Propose an alternative? Isn't it obvious what the alternative is? Creation. A finch is a finch. Adaptational differences don't make it anything else.

    As for close anatomical relationship, for all we know God was perfecting his creatures, creating one with the blueprint of the previous. Who knows, I don't claim to know, why does science assume it alone knows?

    Leave a comment:


  • loseyourname
    replied
    Originally posted by Anonymouse Precisely, which is why evolution is a like class of faith. But look for a response saying "evolution is testable, and provable". Well that all depends on what you agree, macro or micro evolution?

    There have been enough contradictions and flaws since Darwin, to now, for it to be an infallible theory. Theories are theories, treat them all the same.
    You have also yet to name a contradiction or a flaw.

    Leave a comment:


  • loseyourname
    replied
    You have still yet to propose an alternative. If there is no connection between old and new species, why are they so closely anatomically related? Furthermore, if point mutation and natural selection are not the culprits, how does speciation occur?

    Leave a comment:


  • Anonymouse
    replied
    Originally posted by sleuth As a matter of fact, many leading evolutionists have recognized the essentially " religious" character of evolutionism. Even though they themselves believe evolution to be true, they acknowledge the fact that they believe it! "Science", however, is not supposed to be something one "believes". Science is knowledge—that which can be demonstrated and observed and repeated. Evolution cannot be proved, or even tested; it can only be believed.

    see how close they are ...evolution is theory as much as creation
    Precisely, which is why evolution is a like class of faith. But look for a response saying "evolution is testable, and provable". Well that all depends on what you agree, macro or micro evolution?

    There have been enough contradictions and flaws since Darwin, to now, for it to be an infallible theory. Theories are theories, treat them all the same.

    Leave a comment:


  • Anonymouse
    replied
    Originally posted by loseyourname There is a mountain of evidence consisting mostly of experiments conducted with bacteria and by observations of galapagos finches. Small changes are observed - in the case of microorganisms, jumps to entirely new species have been observed.

    You have yet to propose an alternative explanation as to why the fossil record shows closely related species following one another chronologically and geographically.
    No one denies microevolution. If I got a penny for every time I stated this I would have 112 pennies.

    Leave a comment:


  • sleuth
    replied
    As a matter of fact, many leading evolutionists have recognized the essentially " religious" character of evolutionism. Even though they themselves believe evolution to be true, they acknowledge the fact that they believe it! "Science", however, is not supposed to be something one "believes". Science is knowledge—that which can be demonstrated and observed and repeated. Evolution cannot be proved, or even tested; it can only be believed.

    see how close they are ...evolution is theory as much as creation

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X