Evolution, the religion

I feel I should be upfront about what I think.

1. I think that God created the world in a literal 6 days as we know it.
2. I am a Christian and certainly not the best, heck I'm probably way below average. Just PM about my life history lol
3. I think that Evolution has been essentially disproved and the reason it exists is now, not originally, is because men don't want to believe in a god that they are accountable too.
4. Evolution, just like any creationist point of view, is a religion because it takes FAITH to believe either.

Okay with that said.

Lots of the foundations in which evolution have been built were made up before the science, or understanding of principle had been established.

The best example of this is the alleged Geologic Column.
1. It doesn’t exist anywhere in the world but textbooks.
2. It uses circular reasoning for dating the layers of sediment.
3. Layers have been proven to not indicate any time whatsoever. There are in fact petrified trees which permeate many layers of sedimentary rock.
4. You can prove to yourself that layers don’t indicate time. Get a glass jar, sand, and dirt. Pour in water and shake it up. Set it down on a table and watch the layers form.

This is just one of many examples in which evolution does not have much truth in factual basis anymore.

I have seen so many theories arise due to an unwillingness to just admit that evolution isn’t possible.

Evolution according to science is a theory. So when a Fact come about to contradict a theory the theory is then tossed out. But instead it seems today we find that some scientist will either ignore data or create a new theory as to why the data fits their evolution theory.

Here’s an example so you know I’m not just rambling.

It was stated in the early forming of evolutionary theory that it was ESSENTIAL to the theory that gradual changes over time would HAVE to be present all throughout our fossil record. This is before we did tons of digging for fossils or at least before it was a big deal or well known. Since then ANY scientist that deals with archeology will tell you they have found NO such fossil record. So at the point one of the fundamentals was proven to be wrong they came up with many other theories. Like some gap theory where just all of a sudden an ape produces a non-ape, and so on and so forth. Why would they do this? Because they don’t want to admit they are wrong, and they don’t want to admit that there is a god. Also they didn’t do like all science teachers will tell you to do. Look at the facts and prove or disprove theories based on them. Not make up more science theory to prove a theory that was just disproved.

I hope we’ll have a civil discussion and one that is based on educated answers.
As I am new here what little of the posts I’ve read seems to indicate that it will be. However I often don’t have the patience to explain the theories to you. Please educate yourself about both sides of the story.

In conclusion,
Evolution is a religion in which you must believe for it to be true because it is not based on factual evidence. In this my tax dollars in the USA shouldn’t go to teaching people this religion just as many evolutionists don’t want my religion taught to their kids, paid for by tax dollars.

Firts of all, can somebody move this stupid thread to religion?`

Second, I think in america you can teach your children on your own.

Third, if you really "belive" this, please stay in america, you are not better then islamic terrorists (they believe you don´t pray to the right god)

forth, don´t tell others what they should believe.

fifth, think a little bit more (and maybe on your own) and don´t copy things!

and last but not least: You are so ignorant to science! Go out in the wood and live with fur of animals you killed with your own hands!

First, thanks to Brakdur, from the guild of psychos, for the well-thought out, eloquently stated, and constructively tolerant views.

Second, without taking sides about what is being taught in schools,(though I freely admit I personally believe that God created this world and all of us) you've got to understand the stupid political machinery that in the end dictates what should, can, and will be taught in schools.

Theoretically, what is taught in public schools is what the public can agree on as being what their own children need to learn. This can be seen in the fact that different states in the U.S. have different guidelines. There has been an effort to standardize what is taught nationwide (starting in 1992 with Bush Sr.'s "Educate America Goals 2000 Act"), but it's difficult, especially when you get to touchy subjects like science, which has increasingly started treading on what most of us consider "sacred ground".

I got married this last summer, and we're expecting children sometime, but it hasn't happened yet. Anyway, I'm afraid to send my children to public schools for a variety of reasons. The main reason is political correctness. I'd rather not have my 5-year-old go to school story time and have read something like "Katie's Two Mums". Though I have homosexual friends, I personally find advocating and embracing "non-traditional families" morally offensive. In the name of tolerance, a lot of garbage goes around.

In short, and going back to science, usually what gets taught in a community (and eventually the nation) is directly related to who whines the loudest. Those who insist that THEIR method or theory gets taught will often get their way. And it's hard to go to Washington and picket the fact that we DON'T want things to change or get out of hand. Fighting for status quo is always a losing battle.

Anybody else remember the Bryant and the Scopes Monkey Trials?

I like this topic. And also I don't like it. That seems contradictionary, so i'll explain myself.

I know the discussion between evolutionists and creationists and even intelligent-design-ists. I've read the arguments from both sides. That's why I don't like the subject: there is so many written about it, I don't think it's usefull to try to repeat it all here in a forum like this one. Take a book and read the arguments.

In the other hand I got interested in the subject some time ago. I even wrote an article in wich I mentioned it. Because this subject is such a great example to write about the major difference between theology and biology.

I myself do not know a lot of biology. I can't tell if the scientific backgrounds for evolution are correct or false. Maybe they are correct, maybe they aren't. But I'm a scientist. And therefore I know what is written in biology is a theory. It's a theory with a purpose: the purpose to understand something about this world. To understand why it is like it is, to predict a little what will happen. Biology isn't history. Biology is about the world as it is NOW. That means: the evolutist theory could be a perfect thesis to work with to predict what will happen in this world.

I myself study theology. In my case that means: I am a scientist, but I have one very large presumption: God exists. If He wouldn't exist, I wouldn't have anything to study. I study the relationship between God and humans and the relationship between human beings where this relationship is about religion.
But that presumption is a presumpsion: I cannot PROVE God exists. I believe He does. And I also believe He is much bigger than I am, and He has power I'll never understand. But hey, that's also a presumption. I can't prove it.
But when it comes to science, I can practice science. That means: if I would like to study biology, I would study the questions from biology with in my mind the presumption that God does exist. For a biologistic theory about the future my presumption isn't very usefull: maybe the evolutionistic theory works to make good predictions about what will happen to the world. If it does, I can use it. If it doesn't, I will look for another scientific theory.
If I would like to know something about the starting of this world, I would first of all gather as many facts about it as I could find. These facts I would study and with these facts I would consider the scientific theories about this world. But in fact there would be one major difference between me and an atheist: I have this presumption. I would add to these facts the presumption there is a God. Maybe He has created this world. Someone who doesn't believe there is a God would submit this presumption to the facts and he would try another theory. He has a theory, I have one. But because we both weren't there and because we both use presumptions, there isn't a 100% proof about if there was such thing as an evolution or something like a creation.
In fact, it doesn't mather so much: I as a scientist study this world with all I can now about it. Thereby I make presumptions. That is completely legal. I only have to say wich presumptions I make. That gives me the freedom to believe AND study this world in a scientific way. Because science is about making THEORIES about a world. Theories wich can be falsified. With presumptions that can't, because the very nature of a presumption.

So please, don't talk anymore about evolution or creation. Don't try to PROVE either of them. You can't. Tell us what your presumptions are and THEN talk about the world.

JohanFH

Note: excuse me for talking so much Wink

Let’s tone down the derogatory talk, shall we? Smile

Here’s another way to look at this subject. I’d like your opinions on the following, which I just whipped up for y’all. Smile

Any belief is a religious belief if it’s believed on faith.

Any belief is a scientific belief if it’s believed based on one’s sincere attempt at rational proof.

Distinguishing religious and scientific beliefs completely depends on the method that the believer used in coming to that belief.

This means that, yes, it is possible for someone to believe in evolution religiously (for example, if they are just following others’ opinions rather than checking the evidence and thinking through for themselves). But this by no means fits everyone who believes in evolution.

It also means that, (it might be rare, but) it is possible for someone to believe in God and Creationism scientifically (for example, if the believer does not accept them on faith, but because they’ve sincerely done the science).

Some scientific beliefs are wrong (meaning, they are not consistent with Reality). Just because someone is trying to do science does not mean they succeeded at it.

Some religious beliefs are correct (meaning, they are consistent with Reality). But, in this case, the believer is correct by chance, because they believe without rational evidence, i.e., for the “wrong” reasons.

(To be clearer, the orange terms must be further defined, of course.)

Max, that’s just the kind of thinking response I’m looking for! I will enjoyably reply in depth a bit later, but maybe in the mean time others will want to say something about mine or yours.

To give you a teaser, my purple comment is about your method of writing as opposed to the content of your writing. Just like the method one uses to come to a belief is different from (and thus is judged differently from) the content of that belief, so too is one’s method of writing different from its content. (More, later.)

Assumptions made via a preponderance of the available facts can be extremely dangerous, and innaccurate. An assumption cannot be deemed as factual as it uses only the available facts to draw a conclusion based solely on those facts and not allowing anything else to deter it.

A very stupid example could be:

"my table has legs, and my dog has legs, therefore it is safe to assume my dog is a table"

No comment for the article below:

"
Evolution and Religion Can Coexist, Scientists Say
Stefan Lovgren
for National Geographic News

October 18, 2004
"Science without religion is lame; religion without science is blind." —Albert Einstein

Joel Primack has a long and distinguished career as an astrophysicist. A University of California, Santa Cruz, professor, he co-developed the cold dark matter theory that seeks to explain the formation and structure of the universe. He also believes in God.

That may strike some people as peculiar. After all, in some corners popular belief renders science and religion incompatible.

Yet scientists may be just as likely to believe in God as other people, according to surveys. Some of history's greatest scientific minds, including Albert Einstein, were convinced there is intelligent life behind the universe. Today many scientists say there is no conflict between their faith and their work. "

This is a post I made up at a message board I mod at (gamewinners.com). I compiled most of it myself. If there is fault it in, please address point by point (they are numbered for a reason)...

This is going to be a thread that will enumerate all the of the VALID points for both sides of the argument.

THE RULES

NO FLAMING, if there is any flaming in this thread or any trolls WHATSOEVER you will immediatly be banned from contributing in this topic and if you continue further you will be forum blocked. I am taking this INCREDIBLY seriously. I want this to actually work out
More to come...

Useless "Points"

"Some evolutionist/creationist was asked to explain how X, Y, and Z happened and he couldn't, so evolution/creation is wrong.
- This argument is flawed at it's very being. Referencing "some person" is wrong because that doesn't prove anything, even if the person is widely known in their respective field it doesn't matter, because just because HE doesn't know it doesn't mean the theory is wrong if someone can very easily answer it here, then it was obviously made up.
More to come (post some)

If a Refute completly destroys a piece of evidence, the evidence will be marked red and moved to the bottom of the list (so it can be noted if anyone brings it up again), and the paired refute will be colored blue (since it "won") Any point can be brought back up to remove the "refuted red" status, but they must first prove how that evidence actually wasn't actually proved wrong by the accompanying refute.

If a piece of evidence currently doesn't have standing refute, then it will be colored blue. Anyone can suggest a refute for any piece of evidence, and it will be placed in the list. If the refute is destroyed, that comment will be placed in the original evidence for that numbered point, and the refute will be colored red.

It's the best way I could find of catagorizing EVERYTHING, so threads don't need to come up all the time, or we could just cite here whenever we need to for anything. It's kind of complicated, but I think it'll be fun.

[hr="100%"]center[/hr]

Previous Threads

*[url="http://forums.gamewinners.com/forums/showthread.php?t=467325"]Original[/url]

[hr="100%"]center[/hr]

Evidence for Evolution

[url="http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,17162341-13762,00.html"]The Vatican said the Genesis description of how God created the universe and Darwin's theory of evolution were "perfectly compatible" if the Bible were read correctly.[/url]
- This shows that those who understand the bible the most think evolution isn't disproved by the bible. Therefore catholics should remove all uses of the bible against evolution, unless someone is supposing they understand the bible better then the vatican. If so this can be discussed.
- Catholic Church says it is "perfectly compatible, not that it supports it
It's the "theory of evolution"
- In general, both a scientific theory and a scientific law are accepted to be true by the scientific community as a whole. Both are used to make predictions of events. Both are used to advance technology.
- The biggest difference between a law and a theory is that a theory is much more complex and dynamic. A law governs a single action, whereas a theory explains a whole series of related phenomena. ~jackenape ([url="http://wilstar.net/theories.htm"]Linky[/url])
Fossils, which show that similar creatures exists in different times, that one could put them up against a timeline ~Shaolin Buddha (more details needed)
- There are no viable scientific reasons for believing fossils to be fake. I have no links and no proof, but the vast majority of the scientific community agree that fossils prove the Earth to have had life-forms on it for hundreds of [millions] of years. ~The Smart Patrol
- Folks who say fossils are fake typically have a vested (and unscientific) interest in the Earth being a lot younger. I've heard Creationist scientists- real scientists with real degrees and Phds, claiming that 'God put the fossils here to trick the non-believers'... make of that what you will. ~The Smart Patrol
The distribution of DNA codes throughout the animal and plant kingdoms, of protein sequences, of morphological characters that have been analyzed in great detail. Everything fits with the idea that we have here a simple branching tree
The distribution of species on islands and continents throughout the world is exactly what you'd expect if evolution was a fact.
No fossils have been found in the wrong place, such as to disprove the fact of evolution. ~The Smart Patrol (quoting [url="http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2005/04/30/dawkins/"]Richard Dawkins[/url])
[url="http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/creation/polyploidy.html"]polyploidy in plants[/url] ~realillusion
- Some human cells for example are diploid--they have twice as much genetic material. If all of my cells were diploid, I would probably cease to be human and not be able to reproduce with other humans. If I was able to successfully reproduce and create fertile offspring with other all-diploid-people, then we would be the first generation of a new species. This seems to have happened a lot in nature and can be reproduced in labs. ~realillusion
- (On Beha's comment) But it proves that it is possible, that every species is able to evolve; it is just a question of if it has done it before. ~Shaolin Buddha
- (On Beha's comment) 1. First you say that you DON'T BELIEVE that one species can become a new species, and now you're saying it is possible but coming up with some new excuse. If you're going to do that you should be very clear that you are changing your original position.
  2. Read up on the subject. I think even the brief page that I linked explains that this sort of thing DOES happen in the natural world, and that we merely have ways to catalyze the process. ~realillusion
- "Species A is made when species B/C mate." Also, though, polyploidy deals with what happens when species A multiplies the amount of genetic material in its own cells. If Species A doubles, it might make a new species.
  
  Also this particular link mentions that we have made plants that exist--tulips and irises, for example--with this method. The mint plant that was "re-created" was never extinct. ~realillusion
- You seem to think that by "cross" we are talking about genetic splicing, mad scientists, labratories, and crazy chemicals. That's not what this topic is about at all--we're talking about two different species MATING with each other. You know how mules are born, right? You mate a donkey and a horse. Now imagine that mules are able to reproduce (and create fertile offspring) with one another but not with their parent generation. THAT is what this topic is about.
  Now you seem to think that crossing two plants and making a new species of plant (or crossing two dogs, making a new species of dog) somehow is not evolution. You'll have to explain why the creation of a new species is not evolution. If it made a new species of bird instead of a new plant/dog would it be evolution? Or if it made a fury baby with wings that could breathe fire? That seems to be what you imply, but that of course is flawed thinking. Making a new species of dog is as much evolution as if it created the first species of fury dragons, since "species" is the ONLY empirical part of our taxonomy. Stipulating that evolution has to cross into a new kingdom or anything like that is thus wrong a priori.
  
  Besides that, the topic ALSO covers when one plant adapts/mutates/changes to have X*N number of chromosomes (2N, 3N, 4N) thus creating a new species, which EXACTLY fits your description: a species transforming into another one.([url="http://www.wsu.edu/NIS/Universe/instant.html"]Linky for clarification[/url])
Fruit Fly speciation has happened
- Experiments done with fruit flies (every biology student's favorite) have concluded that temperature isolation can cause speciation. Colonies of flies were kept in different temperature environments (including a control group). Over multiple generations, the result was that flies kept in separate temperatures could no longer mate with eachother, though they COULD mate with other flies who had been kept in the same temperature environment (even those from different "colonies"). This confirms the idea of "parallel speciation," that sometimes animals evolve similarly under similar pressures, while simultaneously confirming the idea of "allopatric speciation" which says that organisms evolve into separate species when exposed to different environmental selective pressures. A pretty damn successful experiment in my mind. ~realillusion

Refutes for Above Evidence

Which version?
- Need a more detailed article about how the Vatican believes evolution is supported by the Bible.
Evolution is a theory, and is therefore not fact
There are sites that says that these fossils are fake (Details needed)
None
None
None
it just explained that certain plants and animals are hermaphrodites. So how does that tie in with making a new species? ~ Jimmy Page
- Well, that's just the thing. Evolution is supposed to be natural, so how can it be natural if nature didn't change it? ~ Behas
- Well, the thing is, a species didn't transform itself into another one, it was crossed with another one, which can create a new species. I, nor did ANYONE ELSE, ever say that genetic splicing was impossible. Evolution is basically that an old species eventually developed into a new one over time, correct? It's not that it's mixed with another one and created a new one, although that can create new breeds, etc, it's not like on Shrek 2 that Dragon and Donkey have furry babies with wings that can breathe fire, two breeds of dogs that are crossed still make a dog.
None

[hr="100%"]center[/hr]

Evidence for Creationism

In Darwin's Black Box, Dr's. Michael Behe makes an argument for "irreducible complexity,"
- which basically means that cells are so complex, that the removal of even one of the mechanisms that make up the cell would cause the whole system to collapse. This, according to him, is what makes Darwinism an impossibility: how could nature take these individual, organic Lego's and create a variety of viable, working cells, and then take those cells and mush them together in such a way that they could create a thumb, or a nose, or an eye? Sounds pretty impressive, no? ~jackenape (in order to counter) ([url="http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/050530fa_fact"]Linky[/url])
Cambriran Explosion idea proves it impossible (mentioned by Mametro)
Microevolution HAS happened but Macroevolution hasn't
- [url="http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=microevolution"]Microevolution[/url] different from [url="http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=macroevolution"]Macroevolution[/url] ~ Behas
Concrete "day" in the bible proves evolution false
- The KJV says stuff like "And the evening and the morning were the fourth day." The definite article "the" there shows that the word "day" in those verses means a 24 hour period. If it wasn't a 24 hour period, it probably would've said something like "the fourth days" or "a fourth day." The whole "evening and the morning" kinda gives it away too. I said that because the "Gap Theory" proposes that each day was a long period of time like a thousand years instead of one day, and that's one place where people think evolution fits into the Bible.
- When Moses wrote Genesis, they still considered a day as the being from sunrise to sunrise ~ Behas
Index fossils are circular reasoning[/color]
- Index fossiles are used to tell the age of the rock layer it is in. “Using index fossils to match up rock layers at locations that may be far apart.” But the index fossil has to “occur in only one time period, but several different location”. Also it uses the known rock layer to tell how old the fossil is. The problem with that is it is called circular reasoning. They use the fossil to find the age of the rock layer and use the rock layer to find the age of the fossil.
If we evolved and had so much success, why don't Ape's, and other animals?
The bible says it happened, so it must be true.

Refutes for Above Evidence

There are alternative methods of evolution that he forgot to consider such as the possibility that:
- one mechanism was co-opted from system A into system B to perform a different function
- or that mechanism A only came about to improve system A, but didn't become necessary for function until mechanism B was built on top of it.
- Behe, realizing he was wrong, admitted his mistake. He still believes that unaided evolution is improbable, but he does admit that it is possible. Behe is still an ardent creationist. ~jackenape
"[url="http://www.answers.com/main/ntquery?s=the%20%22Cambrian%20explosion.%22%20It%20isn't%20%20&fw=2&fc=120&gwp=16"]New evidence[/url] shows that the massive dropping of new species during the Cambrian period to have been mistaken. What's thought of as the Cambrian Explosion actually started 30 million years earlier. ~jackenape"
There's no differenciation between Microevolution and Macroevolution except time scale. ~ Tom.
- (On the definitions) Enough microevolution occurs that those subspecies become their own species, and guess what, species are taxonomic groups. ~shortkut
- (Also on definitions) As shortkut has pointed out (over and over and over again), most biologists consider the two nothing but a difference of scale. And of the two arguments proposed to differentiate them, Behe himself has admitted to there being fundamental flaws in his irreducible complexity theory, and aside from just pulling numbers straight out of his ass, Dembski's specified complexity fails to take into account that evolution is a process tailored to the environment. ~jackenape
day = period of time
- on earth: day = time it takes for one complete rotation around its axis = 24 hours. note, dividing the day into 24 hours was done by nonjudeo-christians so day in the bible would not mean 24 hours. On another planet: day =/= 24 hours.
  In bible:
  evening = end of previous day/time period (could be thousands, millions, or even billions of years depending on which day)
  morning = start of the next one
  hence there was evening and there was morning, one "day" has to end for the next one to start. modern terms were put in to make it easier for people to understand. terms like evening, morning, and day were all included when they were translated into the vernacular. ~ shortkut
- The 5 books of moses (the old testament) was written after moses already died. ~ shortkut
- The bible marks the passage first couple of days in genesis without the presence of the sun or the moon ~ Heretic Monkey
first: the rock layer is used to determine the age of the fossil
next: if the fossil fits the criteria to be an index fossil, whenever it is found, they do not need to test for the age of the rock layer or anything else because they already know it has to be around a certain age for that fossil to be there ~shortkut
- Rephrased: "you can test the age of rock levels. you can also determine the age of fossils seperately.
  an index fossil is found within a specic (almost always short) time range and wide spatial distribution that is used in the identification of related geologic formations. so when they have enough evidence to label a fossil as an index fossil whenever they find it again they know that the rock layer it was found in is from a specific time period. "
They don't need to. They get by so there is no threat. and if one animal gained an advantage big enough, we'd just kill it. We are too far ahead to be threatened by another creature on earth. Not on an individual level, but on a species level. ~Chris
Several major and minor events in the bible are simply wrong. So that proves that the bible alone cannot be taken as stand alone evidence for anything. It is simply not worthy to base our scientific trust in without further support since it DOES error. ~Chris

More will be added, feel free anyone to go through this. It'd be a lot easier to refute anti-evolutionist points if they were numbered, I'd just throw them on the list and do it. Also if you have evidence FOR creationism (not the same as "evidence" against evolution) then post that too. Smile

So I'm bias, it happens, I'm not going to hide it, but I'm going to treat this argument as fairly as I've doen to any other I've had. But If there is a point on either side that goes without a refute, I will post it up here. I'll post everything in this thread up in some way if it is related to this discussion. I have no idea why the color is so weirded out here...

The formatting is a little messed up, but you can understand it I think

I think of scientific beliefs more like paradigms. Different theories are given more time and stock than other theories, but are technically never proven. They are just held to be true in hypothesis.

A religious belief to me is similar, but is based on a deeper tradition than the information that is at hand. There is a religion involved. It gets messy, but the mess allows flexability. (something that we need more of in this world)

I hope at some point our societies can move beyond intolerance through tolerance to get to acceptance of diversity.

Who All Believes In Evolution?
science vs. religion
Intelligent Design?Or Evolution?
God a superstition?
Give me a HOLLA if you are a fervent agnostic!

The Whole "GOD" Thing
Is the human race truly the final product of evolution?
Is the human evolution a regression?
Changing views - no longer believing in religion
Is morality a consequence of evolution ?

The Origins and Evolution of Religion
Free thought
Intelligent Design - Science or Religion?
Coming out and the people that come with it