Evolution and Religion

[loseyourname]

It has been mentioned before. I have said it several times.

[sSsflamesSs]

Originally posted by loseyourname It has been mentioned before. I have said it several times.

My bad.

[loseyourname]

Little miss Flamer - you're a bio student, no? What do you think about all this?

[sSsflamesSs]

I think it's a headache, and you guys are proving this.

And what the hell is up with the assumption that bio students are evolution fanatics?

[loseyourname]

My only assumption is that bio students have a requisite amount of knowledge pertaining to the subject and might have something to contribute. You needn't be fanatical.

[sSsflamesSs]

I wasn't referring to you about the assumption part, but rather people I have come across in my daily life.

As far as my input...I offered my take on this issue in my very first post in this thread, in the form of a question. I don't feel that babbling on about it is necessary.

[Anonymouse]

Originally posted by loseyourname Evolution has an evidential basis, and both Gould and Dawkins have shown it quite well. Your belief in God is based entirely on personal conviction, much like the belief of the young earthers. In addition, nothing about evolution rules out creation. I don't see your conflict.

And Gould and Dawkins have been wrong as well.

Basically, this is no different than personal conviction.

"Evidential basis". I like how nice language is used to give it an aura of empiricism. The fact is, your assertion that one species leads to another is anything but on an evidential basis. It is assumed.

[loseyourname]

Science is an inductive process, pal. Hume pointed out several hundred years ago that we do not witness any connection that might be named either "cause" or "effect." This does not negate the strength of the inductive logic. One species disappears, and is replaced by another species that is very closely related anatomically with one small variation that made it better suited to survive at that time and in that environment. Tell me what you think happened.

[Anonymouse]

Originally posted by loseyourname Science is an inductive process, pal. Hume pointed out several hundred years ago that we do not witness any connection that might be named either "cause" or "effect." This does not negate the strength of the inductive logic. One species disappears, and is replaced by another species that is very closely related anatomically with one small variation that made it better suited to survive at that time and in that environment. Tell me what you think happened.

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?

[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.