Evolution and Religion

[DZB84]

What is that supposed to mean Dusken? Can of worms sounds like a saying I have heard but I cannot remember

[Anonymouse]

A baby about it? Again, all I ask is intellectual honesty. Display the slightest bit of integrity here Mousy. Evolutionary theory does not propose macromutations as a mechanism, so quit criticizing the fact that macromutations have not been observed. Just be honest with us. It isn't that hard.

We have been through this a thousand times and now I wonder whether you are really obtuse or merely driving the same tautologies simply to have something to respond with. We have already stated that micromutations are believed to eventually lead to macromutations. Without macromutations how can there be a change in species to another totally different form? Macromutations have not been observed, and I will continue to bring that up because that is the grand assumption. Evolution is so elastic and pliable that there are constantly reshaping the facts to fit the theory, making up comfortable excuses, and always maintaing that "evolution is a fact" or "evolution occurs". My only point was that it's not that it's wrong to believe in evolution, but that, it is no different than creation, or any other religion that is bent on explaining reality. Don't call it "fact" when alot of it is based on "educated guesses" and assumptions. That is as honest as I can get, and if you can't deal with that on its face value, you are indeed trying too hard to believe.

[dusken]

It is obvious evolution is happening, you can look at nearly any species and seen how they have evolved (famous darwins finches as you all know)...

[DZB84]

Hey,
A few things:
I think my anthropology teacher put it best by saying evolution is a fact AND a theory. It is obvious evolution is happening, you can look at nearly any species and seen how they have evolved (famous darwins finches as you all know), yet it is not fully known how it happens. It is believed to happen through mutation, natural selection, gene drift, and gene flow, but what actually triggers the change remains a mystery, hence the theory of it.
About the religion thing, I personally believe that religion and evolution coincide quite nicely, there are little things contradictory about it. I have heard even the pope advocates the study of evolution
-Dave

[loseyourname]

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

A baby about it? Again, all I ask is intellectual honesty. Display the slightest bit of integrity here Mousy. Evolutionary theory does not propose macromutations as a mechanism, so quit criticizing the fact that macromutations have not been observed. Just be honest with us. It isn't that hard.

[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 ...

[Anonymouse]

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

[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]

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]

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.