Is Evolution a Religion?

[notto]

Such is what passes for science in evolutionary circles.

*cough*
http://www.cryptozoology.com/
(didn't you just feed me this link)

 

[notto]

new scientific breakthroughs and each one in the last 10 years turned out to be a fraud

Name 3.

 

[lismore]

Pure delusion coupled with willful ignorance does a Creationist make.

Of course it does! Evolutionists on the other hand are the salt of the earth, knights in shining armour!

Here is my point:

This fantasy was hailed in newspapers as the missing link after the discovery of a pigs tooth:

Needless to say the missing link is missing and always will be

 

[notto]

This fantasy was hailed in newspapers as the missing link after the discovery of a pigs tooth:

And scientists discoverd it and corrected it.

Not much of a point.

Basically all you seem to be saying is 'Science Bad'.

Nice source for you picture. You should be sure to link the whole article.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/a_nebraska.html

It is simply not true that Nebraska Man was widely accepted as an ape-man, or even as an ape, by scientists, and its effect upon the scientific thinking of the time was negligible. For example, in his two-volume book Human Origins published during what was supposedly the heyday of Nebraska Man (1924), George MacCurdy dismissed Nebraska Man in a single footnote

Nebraska Man should not be considered an embarrassment to science. The scientists involved were mistaken, and somewhat incautious, but not dishonest. The whole episode was actually an excellent example of the scientific process working at its best. Given a problematic identification, scientists investigated further, found data which falsified their earlier ideas, and promptly abandoned them (a marked contrast to the creationist approach).

 

[lismore]

And scientists discoverd it and corrected it.

Not much of a point.

:

Yes the same way scientists discover and correct all supposed evidence for evolution

They hail it as a breakthrough for a while, put it in the media and then quietly drop it when people ask embarrasing questions.

 

[notto]

Yes the same way scientists discover and correct all supposed evidence for evolution

They hail it as a breakthrough for a while, put it in the media and then quietly drop it when people ask embarrasing questions.

This is such and incorrect observation it is hard to know where to start.

1) With things like Nebraska man, there was not consensus and in the end, it was found out that it was not what the original scientist said - that is how science works.

2) The media should not be a judge of anything scientific as they usually get it wrong and add hype where it doesn't belong. The scientists are not the ones pushing the hype.

3) I doubt very much that scientists perceive questions as embarrasing. After all, the method of peer review is based on it.

Misrepresenting reality and making claims about scientists and the way the work is not a good way to make a point. Your accusations are far from reality.

Can you provide us with an example of
1)Something hailed by scientists as a 'breakthrough' that later turned out to be incorrect
2)This same something put in the media and hyped by scientists.
3)This same thing quitely dropped after people start asking embarrasing questions.

Come on, lets see it.

 

[The Lady Kate]

Needless to say the missing link is missing and always will be

Of course it will be! As soon as we find it, it's not "missing" anymore, now is it?

 

[lismore]

Can you provide us with an example of
1)Something hailed by scientists as a 'breakthrough' that later turned out to be incorrect
2)This same something put in the media and hyped by scientists.
3)This same thing quitely dropped after people start asking embarrasing questions.

Come on, lets see it.

http://www.talkorigins.org/

No of course that didn't make the headlines. This was in 1927 when that was announced but it was announced in sort of the back pages. Actually in Nature, which is one of the scientific journals, I think it took 4 lines in one of the back pages to say that there had been a 'misinterpretation'. Very nice, but it didn't get headlines

Discovered by Eugene Dubois in 1891 near Trinil in Java. Its age is uncertain, but thought to be about 700,000 years. This find consisted of a flat, very thick skullcap, a few teeth, and a thigh bone found about 12 meters away (Theunissen, 1989). The brain size is about 940 cc. Trinkaus and Shipman (1992) state that most scientists now believe the femur is that of a modern human, but few of the other references mention this.

In December 1923 world wide publicity was given to the discovery of the skeletons of ten men on the Pekin Man site. Dr. Davidson Black promised to make an important announcement about the new discoveries. Nothing more was ever mentioned about them in any scientific periodical. They simply vanished ! What could have happened ? It seems likely that, after the blaze of publicity, they were later were found to be human beings and not ape-men missing links. An admission of their existence on the site would have destroyed any credibility in the "ape-men" they claimed thay had discovered on the site and were therefore quietly ignored.http://www.mbowden.surf3.net/ape.htm

 

[lismore]

Of course it will be! As soon as we find it, it's not "missing" anymore, now is it?

Dont hold your breath.

 

[notto]

http://www.talkorigins.org/. This was in 1927 when that was announced

Discovered by Eugene Dubois in 1891 near Trinil in Java.


In December 1923 world wide publicity was given to the discovery of the skeletons of ten men on the Pekin Man site.

That is the best you can do? 80 year old vague references?

Your source story on Peking man seems a bit suspect. Nothing was hidden from the site and claiming that Nothing more was ever mentioned about them in any scientific periodical. They simply vanished is far from reality.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/peking.html

The site and the fossils there certainly have been part of research since then.
http://www.unesco.org/ext/field/beijing/whc/pkm-site.htm

The claim of 10 skeletons that supposedly came from Black seems to be a bit of a stretch as well.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/lostskels.html

Of course, if you accept the word of a site that doesn't provide any references to its claim and says things like this and neaderthals:
He was a degenerate variety of Homo Sapiens having a larger brain and suffering from rickets, osteoarthritis and syphilis.
I suspect you will never question the validity of sources that support your point of view with any honesty. It is funny that you bring up supposed problems from 80 years ago and link us to a site with claims about neaderthals that were wrong and pretty silly to begin with. How can an entire population of men, women, and children have rickets, osteoarthritis, and syphilis?

 

[Dannager]

well...if G-d used evolution He'd have to be one sadistic G-d.

Why? I don't think that's true.

Which came first...food or us? Our digestive acids or our stomache lining to keep the acids from eating us from the inside out?

Such things always evolve concurrently. I suggest reading up on modern evolutionary theory before making obviously leading questions like that (your answer is, undoubtedly "Neither, they were created"). If you'd like someone to explain it to you in more depth, any number of us would be happy to help.

Oh...how did we evolve with our blood vessels on the outside of our retina instead of the inside, like an octopus?

I have a feeling you have some vitally important bit of information for this. The blood vessel claim isn't something that creationists (or anyone for that matter) come up with off the top of their heads, so my follow-up question would be: who has been providing you with your information?

Why then don't we have tails, when we all know how useful a monkey tail would be to open a door when our hands are full? Or not have 4 arms instead of 2? Ask any mom how handy that would be....

Are you sure you've studied evolution? If you'd done any sort of thorough research, you'd know that the excess extremeties prove physiologically inefficient. There are creatures who posses more or less than four limbs normally, but such creatures lie outside the kingdom of mammals. Again, who's been feeding you this stuff?

Evolution does state that we evolved to our current state based on the neccessities of our species....I think we got the short end of the stick if that's true...

Haha, I certainly don't think that's true. On the whole, humanity seems to be doing rather well, survival-wise (which is, of course, what evolution is about). Our population has skyrocketed in the last couple centuries. It's almost to the point where we're doing too well. I think we could have afforded to get our stick handed to us a little shorter.

PS nice insults.

That they were. And not unmerited, either.

I don't know why you insist on speaking down to me.

I'm not some brainwashed robot who's been programmed by fundamentalists.

Then forgive us for passing judgment. You simply sound a lot like someone who's been brainwashed by fundamentalists.

I have studied. I have read Darwin's orgin of species and until the last year I also subscribed to several scientific maganzines.

And you didn't trust any of these scientific magazines? Look, Gwenyfur - I've been here for a long time, and whenever a creationist says that they "studied and looked at all the evidence and in the end disagreed with it", they aren't always lying. Some did study, and continued to disagree with it. But they uniformly end up disagreeing with it because someone else - a creationist - decides to start feeding them lies, misinformation and questions designed to itch the part of your brain that tells you certain parts of evolution are counter-intuitive and thus can't be right.

In the end, it just didn't add up. All the hype and furor over new fossils, or new proof, or new scientific breakthroughs and each one in the last 10 years turned out to be a fraud, or tested using faulty processes or data.

Again, this isn't the kind of statement I'd expect from someone reading scientific magazines. This is the kind of statement I'd expect from someone who watches the news and picks up on a scientific scandal every now and then. Science is a human process and is vulnerable to human error just like any other process we use. That doesn't mean you shouldn't trust science, though. For every blown-out-of-proportion scandal you hear about, there are hundreds of worthwhile, innovative and enlightening scientific discoveries made, including regarding evolutionary theory. As to your claim of them being tested using faulty processes, this is a common creationist claim, leading me to further believe that someone has been feeding you these things. If you'd like to hear the refutation, just say the word and let us know which process you take issue with.

It didn't seem to make sense to believe something that really was held together by scotch tape and faith.

Evolution is held together by a set of observed facts and a solid theory that is supported by these facts and, to date, has not been disproven. It is therefore a healthy theory, scientifically speaking, and has about as much controversy in the scientific community surrounding its validity (though finer points of the theory are always up for debate) as the theory of gravity does.

So instead of wasting my faith on something dreamed up by man, I returned to the Bible.

Well your first problem was placing the same faith you use for the Bible in evolutionary theory. Science doesn't require your faith, only your acceptance. Faith and skepticism don't mix. Science and skepticism do mix.

G-d's word for us.

And whether you believe it was divinely inspired or not, the Bible was inarguably penned by, translated, altered, cropped, amended and interpreted by men.

Did some more studying both scientific sources and religious. Went back to the Bible again.

Why did you leave the Bible in the first place?

It's there in the word of G-d that I found reason for faith of my origins

And that reason would be...?

G-d is G-d, and perhaps, just perhaps he left all this misinformation go on, to sort through the wheat and the tares

Mmm, I don't think so. I prefer not to think of God as the deceitful type.

Edited: If you knew anything about me, you would know I'm the last person to be controlled...by anyone...

Then it's a real shame that we don't know anything about you, beyond that you are employing some very common creationist claims. Are you interested in learning more about these claims, or are you just here as a hit-n-run poster?

Edit: Alright, Gwenyfur, after reading some of your previous posts in this thread it looks like you're worse off than I thought. You've been equating evolution with atheism, with immorality, with abiogenesis and with a whole lot of other things that it isn't. What has made you think that any of these things are linked to the scientific theory of evolution? Evolutionists don't espouse any of these things. So who is it who has told you that they do?

 

[chaoschristian]

Your statements interest me, because I think what lies behind them are some of the fundemental differences between how some Creationists view the world as opposed to others.

First, let me say that all Christians are Creationists (capital C) in that we all believe that God is the Father of Creation and the reason why is exists and the will behind how it exists.

Now, speaking only for myself I see Creation as an ongoing mystery and miracle. I see God as still being in the process of Creating and that God is active within His Creation all the time.

Now, let me ask you these questions because I am genuinely interested in your response and I hope that it will lead me to understanding your position better:

1. Is Creation primarily corrupt and deceitful?
2. Is Creation finished?
3. Is Creation a revelation and testiment of the character, nature and will of God?

I've phrased these as yes or no questions, but of course feel free to expound as you desire.

I look forward to your response.

When G-d sat back on the 7th day and everything was "good" it wasn't the earth we live on today...it was destroyed by sin...the earth was cursed for man's sake, the ground hardened...

what ... you think sin had no effect on the planet itself? Have you read past Genesis 2? How badly do you think a flood would change the face of the earth??

 

[lismore]

That is the best you can do? 80 year old vague references?

Your source story on Peking man seems a bit suspect. Nothing was hidden from the site and claiming that Nothing more was ever mentioned about them in any scientific periodical. They simply vanished is far from reality.

How can you assert from a '80 year old vague reference' that your dogma is correct then? . How can you say nothing was hidden from a site you were not at and have no info on?

 

[lismore]

Why? I don't think that's true.

Because you would be saying God would take 4.5 billion years of death, suffering and misery to do something he said he could do in 6 days without suffering. So he would have to be a sadistic God according to you.

 

[notto]

How can you assert from a '80 year old vague reference' that your dogma is correct then? .

You are trying to paint a picture of deceit and coverup by using 3 vague examples (with no supporting references) that have occured over the last 150 years with the most recent being 80 years ago. Doesn't really paint a picture of deceit like you would like it to.

I don't have a dogma. I don't use 80 year old references like you do. Science has come a long way and the value of science is that as we understand phenomena, we incorporate new knowledge into our understanding. That is how science works.

How can you say nothing was hidden from a site you were not at and have no info on?

How can you say it was based on an unsupported reference that cannot be confirmed? You are the one presenting the the argument that something was hidden. You should be able to provide some credible evidence and references to it that support the specific event that is being claimed. Don't rely on others. Back up your adhoc assertions and wild claims with evidence, support, and references.

It seems like you are saying that unless we as individuals directly observe something we should not trust that it happened even if it is well documented and the history of an event is clear. What a silly idea. The site in question was a valuable source of information and was used for research for many years with many fossils coming from it. This is well documented. Claiming it isn't is silly.

 

[Dannager]

Because you would be saying God would take 4.5 billion years of death, suffering and misery to do something he said he could do in 6 days without suffering. So he would have to be a sadistic God according to you.

Oh, so I assume the last 6,000 years were completely devoid of death, suffering and misery then. I mean, really, why would God decide to put us through 6,000 years of trials and tribulations when an all-powerful, all-knowing being could have done it in an instant if he'd wanted to? Your argument does not hold up, I'm afraid.

Kindergarteners stick their tongues out when they think they've made a point. Somewhere around middle school people stop doing that. It's probably because people quickly realize it's impolite, disrespectful and downright annoying.

 

[lismore]

Oh, so I assume the last 6,000 years were completely devoid of death, suffering and misery then. I mean, really, why would God decide to put us through 6,000 years of trials and tribulations when an all-powerful, all-knowing being could have done it in an instant if he'd wanted to? Your argument does not hold up, I'm afraid.
.

Remember adam's fall. There was no death before this. Jesus Christ came so that we could live without these things as we will when he returns.

God would be cruel to use 4.5 billion years of evolution if he didnt need to.

Kindergarteners stick their tongues out when they think they've made a point. Somewhere around middle school people stop doing that. It's probably because people quickly realize it's impolite, disrespectful and downright annoying.

Try and remember that your culture is not universal. I have no idea what kindergarteners refers to.

 

[Robert the Pilegrim]

Remember adam's fall. There was no death before this.

That is your interpretation.

Since Adam did not physically die when he tasted the fruit and since he was denied the Tree of Life it seems more likely that he was going to eventually die regardless of whether he fell.

Further, it appears that childbirth was also going to occur which implies eventual physical death to prevent overcrowding.

In any case, death is not the question you should be dealing with, suffering is.

Suffering only started 1 billion years ago at the earliest, arguably not until 200 million years ago or so when brains started developing a bit higher level processing.

Do I understand it?

No, but I do know what the physical evidence says. If you reject a God that allows suffering before the Fall, then fine, do so on the basis of faith and theology, but please, do not claim the physical evidence supports you.

Peace be with you
Robert the Pilegrim

 

[Dannager]

Remember adam's fall. There was no death before this. Jesus Christ came so that we could live without these things as we will when he returns.

God would be cruel to use 4.5 billion years of evolution if he didnt need to.

Then I think that God would be cruel to use 6,000 years if he didn't need to (which, as an omnipotent being, he didn't).

Try and remember that your culture is not universal. I have no idea what kindergarteners refers to.

The word "kindergarten" (derived from the German kinder for child and garten for garden) refers to the year of education immediately preceeding first grade, usually attended at the age of 5 or 6.

EDIT: Assuming your culture is based in Scotland, this might be equivalent to your Primary 1 class.

 

[artybloke]

It's there in the word of G-d that I found reason for faith of my origins...G-d is G-d, and perhaps, just perhaps he left all this misinformation go on, to sort through the wheat and the tares

So your G-d is a liar then. Says one thing, means another...

My God, however, doesn't tell lies. What He reveals in the universe, He means. The Bible, however, is the words of men inspired by God, not the Word of God Himself (who is Christ.)

I have read Darwin's orgin of species and until the last year I also subscribed to several scientific maganzines. In the end, it just didn't add up.

How come, in most of your posts, you seem to have so little understanding of what the current theory of evolutuion is then, if you haven't been brainwashed by fundamentalist literature? Just because you've read a few books doesn't mean you've understood them.