Evolution and Religion

[sleuth]

evolution and religion

Evolutionists often insist that evolution is a proved fact of science, providing the very framework of scientific interpretation, especially in the biological sciences. This, of course, is nothing but wishful thinking. Evolution is not even a scientific hypothesis, since there is no conceivable way in which it can be tested
i will quote the british physicist lipson
""In fact, evolution became in a sense a scientific religion; almost all scientists have accepted it and many are prepared to 'bend' their observations to fit in with it.

back to religion and evolution....The most great world religions BUDDHISM,thaoism,hinduism,animism( lol it sounds like onanism hahah) are based on evalution...


Charles Darwin himself called evolution "this grand view of life".Evolution is, indeed, a grand world view, but it is not science. Its very comprehensiveness makes it impossible even to test scientifically.

[loseyourname]

Punch away.

[Anonymouse]

Re: Evolution and religion....

Originally posted by Arvestaked Two things to start:

1) Scientifically, evolution is considered A FACT. It is irrefutable. The "theory" part is in regards to the mechanism by which evolution takes place. Darwin's contribution was to PROVE EVOLUTION and have a theory on the mechanism by which it occurs, which in his educated opinion was "natural selection." If you are still arguing the validity of the concept of evolution you are completely misinformed or swimming in an ocean of denial because Father xxxxfondler to you it was not so. For the scientific community it is as simple as "a = a" because they are willing to go in enough depth to understand that. Ever wonder why beds and doors 300 years ago were shorter?

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.

2) "Only a theory." Bunk as an arguement. Misinformed. Colloquially, the word "theory" often means a mere speculation. But in science, "theory" means "a statement of what are held to be the general laws, principles, or causes of something known or observed." Credit: Oxford English Dictionary. Scienfically speaking, it is a very credible concept. A difficult label to achieve. And done by people much xxxxing smarter and more skeptical than

Have you observed species making a jump to another species?

Next:
It is not possible to argue whether there is a "creator." Science accepts the fact that the more questions it answers, the more questions it has.
Example:

Q. Why are my eyes green and your eyes brown?
A. DNA
Q. What is DNA? What is it made of? What does it look like? Where did it come from? What else is it responsible for?

Therefore, from the point of view of the "believer" the creator can always exist as the answer to the questions science has not yet tackled. A never ending cycle. A creator is infinitely possible and infinitely improbable (I sound like the Urantia).

And yes, science says matter and energy were never created, and religion can say the creator was never created. We know this. One is not more credible than the other.

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.

[felizitation]

Interesting.
I would have taken another point of view. I agree with point 1 but not point 2.
Sciences are based (yes based, even mathematics) on the human understanding (taken from a phylosophiacl point of view).

Theories are logical consequences of the primaries definitions of sciences.

For physics, for instance, it is essentially based on general observation. This is certainly why quantum mechanics made so much time to be proved, since they are not obviously observable for human being.
You would say that now we reached such a level that everything seems limpid, I would answer that we always have to stay relativist, even on science.
Since human being is finite, its sciences are also finite and does not stand as intangible.
The strenght of the sciences lies in the fact that, like everything else, it evolves. It implies that it is not perfect (at least yet).



Your idea of the Creator, weel, I should agree with you. It just a matter of probability paired to favorable conditions. Besides, univers being infinite, another life elsewhere should exists.
The theory of big bang relies on actual human observation on doppler effect (mainly), and my conviction is that this is crap. I can express my opinion because there does not exists a complete scientific referential in which it has been proved.


By the way. Do you mean God by Creator ? If yes, i have another theory. If we look at some intelligent animals (elephants, whale) they seem to believe in something after the death (common cemetary and i don't know that much).
I think they are clever enough to have the idea of their self death, and thus, being finite, imperfect.
From this, there is only one step to the idea of human bounds, and again a step to an infinite entity, God's (perfection, onmiscience and omnipresence).
God is a natural idea.

[Arvestaked]

Two things to start:

1) Scientifically, evolution is considered A FACT. It is irrefutable. The "theory" part is in regards to the mechanism by which evolution takes place. Darwin's contribution was to PROVE EVOLUTION and have a theory on the mechanism by which it occurs, which in his educated opinion was "natural selection." If you are still arguing the validity of the concept of evolution you are completely misinformed or swimming in an ocean of denial because Father xxxxfondler to you it was not so. For the scientific community it is as simple as "a = a" because they are willing to go in enough depth to understand that. Ever wonder why beds and doors 300 years ago were shorter?


2) "Only a theory." Bunk as an arguement. Misinformed. Colloquially, the word "theory" often means a mere speculation. But in science, "theory" means "a statement of what are held to be the general laws, principles, or causes of something known or observed." Credit: Oxford English Dictionary. Scienfically speaking, it is a very credible concept. A difficult label to achieve. And done by people much xxxxing smarter and more skeptical than
you.

------------------
Next:
It is not possible to argue whether there is a "creator." Science accepts the fact that the more questions it answers, the more questions it has.
Example:

Q. Why are my eyes green and your eyes brown?
A. DNA
Q. What is DNA? What is it made of? What does it look like? Where did it come from? What else is it responsible for?

Therefore, from the point of view of the "believer" the creator can always exist as the answer to the questions science has not yet tackled. A never ending cycle. A creator is infinitely possible and infinitely improbable (I sound like the Urantia).

And yes, science says matter and energy were never created, and religion can say the creator was never created. We know this. One is not more credible than the other.
------------------

Where did life come from?

First of all:
If you really care, study all the scientific material that has answered that question to the satisfaction of scientists as opposed to sitting around asking ignorant people just so you can feel empowered by the illusion of your grand ability to debate.

Secondly:
To looked at it simply, it is all a matter of entropy. Things just happened. They happened because conditions were favorable. Cause and effect. And if that seems like too much of a coincidence for you, think of it in these terms: The universe has been around for an infinite period of time. That means the opportunites for life to occur have been INFINITE. Introductory probability and statistics takes care of that nonsense.
-------------------

Religion is arrogance anyway.

Agnosticism dominates.