Evolution and Religion

[Arvestaked]

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.

[Arvestaked]

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.

[Arvestaked]

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.

[Arvestaked]

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.

[loseyourname]

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.

[Arvestaked]

Originally posted by loseyourname 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.

Well if you could direct me to a website I would appreciate it.

[loseyourname]

Sorry, but I've never gotten any info regarding evolution from the internet. Take Heather Weber's general biology class and she'll show you some KCET video that talks about it.

[Arvestaked]

Originally posted by loseyourname Sorry, but I've never gotten any info regarding evolution from the internet. Take Heather Weber's general biology class and she'll show you some KCET video that talks about it.

Do you have her e-mail address?

[Anonymouse]

Originally posted by Arvestaked The mathematical improbability is only in reference to mutations being responsible for evolution. Not evolution itself.

Mutations and natural selection are what comprise the backbone of the theory of evolution. If it is improbable mathematically, the theory itself is fallible and therefore should arise doubt in people.

You are trying to give an aura of validity by trying to create exclusiveness between the two, when the two in reality go hand in hand.

[Arvestaked]

Originally posted by Anonymouse Mutations and natural selection are what comprise the backbone of the theory of evolution. If it is improbable mathematically, the theory itself is fallible and therefore should arise doubt in people.

You are trying to give an aura of validity by trying to create exclusiveness between the two, when the two in reality go hand in hand.

No they do not. Evolution is an explanation of why genetics seems to be getting progressively complex, why we have vestigial structures, and why we do not have fossils of all species from all time periods. Mutation and natural selection were proposed explanations of the mechanism by which it occurs. It most likely has another cause we do not understand yet. I can understand if you want to advocate creationism, but at least understand the relationship between those concepts.