Is evolution a religion?

[random_guy]

Please enlighten us oh master of evolutionary science. Have you ever heard of Mike Morwood and Peter Brown? I have and I have worked with them both and studied under them both. They are the guys who "discovered" the "Hobbit" or Homo Floriensis if you would prefer its correct name.Under their tutalege we found out there are a few theories of evolution.

1. Phyletic Gradualism nicknamed "Evolution by Creeps", has these main atributes:
a. A new species arises by the gradual modification of an ancestral population. (no real evidence of this in human species)
b. The transformation is generally slow. (again no real evidence as the discovered fossils are either one species or another.
c. The transformation may (they say may because they don't really know) involve most of the ancestral population (which goes against the Y-chromosomal Adam and Mitochondrial Eve ideas because if these 2 were the basis of both modern male and female mtDNA and male Y chromosomes then that leaves out all others), but it more commonly involves allopatric populations (populations living in different and seperate geographical areas.
d. The transformation takes place over all or at the very least most of the ancestral populations geographical range (this to goes against the Adam & Eve idea.

2. Punctuated Equilibrium nicnamed "Evoltion by Jerks", has these main attributes.
a. Most new species come from the splitting of existing lineages (all well and good but there is very little if any at all between Genus's).
b. Most new species develop rapidly then stabilise. (there is no evidence of quick development from one species to another. The evdence that is available has anatomically differnet species and there is no real evidence of a hybrid between Ardepithicus and Australopithecine, and between Australopithecine and Homo.
c. A small subpopulation of the ancestral species brings in the new species (if this isn't by birth then how is it done? do they just popup from nowhere?).
d.The new species originates in a very small, isolted part of the geographical range of the ancestral species. (mmm, how is this done I wonder could it be through the birth process?)
e. Once they arive , the species does not change much throughout their remaining history (Oh, so they do not evolve ithrough a hybridisation procees into another species! Instead they give birth to another species. Funny at least on 2 occasions by evolutionary theory it wasn't just a species it was a totally new Genus!).

These 2 theories clearly do not agree on major points. And there is no real evidence to support either. The outcome of each theory depends onthe interpretation of the evidence by the people involved in the analysis. Unfortunately Human interpretation is often wrong.

Now you have the chance to tell everyone here how mankind come about according to evolutionary science and how you interpret it. If they were born from previous species how did they appear? Evolutionists in this forum have already stated modern man evolved from previous species and that God gave modern man a soul and decided to commune with him. So again I'll ask you to please enlighten us oh master of evolutionary science. You know YECs stance so please explain yours and give us the evidence.

So show me where any of this states or how this supports that Australopithecines gave birth to a Homo Sapien. Populations evolve, individuals do not. Not only that, evolution is not only gradual or only punctuated, but a mixture. You keep saying there no evidence, and that you seem to understand evolution and science, so answer one simple question: What is the scientific definition of a transitional fossil, and why you think there's no transitional fossils?

Also, if there's competing theories, why does it invalidate all theories? You seem to be unaware how science works. If two different theories explain the evidence, we keep both of them until one is falsified or another comes along. How is this a bad thing?

Finally, your entire argument is all gibberish, and hard to follow. You seem to have a hard time understanding how speciation works. When it occurs, the animal doesn't stop being part of the original group. For example, evidence points that both us and modern apes share a common ancestor. We didn't stop being apes, we still are. Why don't you choose one point (something about MitoEve or Y-Adam, no evidence for speciation, etc...) and make a new thread and focus the questions.

You may think it is silly dear Brother but it is a definition. A question for you why doesn't this definition cheapen Communism? You singled it out to leave out when I specifically mentioned it. Did you leave it out because you do not agree with it and so you don't care if it is cheapend? I never said forms of Gov't are religions, I said Communism and Capitalism are religionsby the definition in Wikipeadia. Capitalism is not a system of gov't and Communism does not have to be a system of gov't. Gravity is not something that people base their way of lifes on , Communism and Capitalism are. Why is it evolutionists always throw in something left of field. Is it to cheapen the value of the discussion because they are unable to discuss something without resorting to sarcasm and silly side tracks.

Your definition (and wiki's) is probably incorrect or you're using it incorrectly. Try answering these questions. You'll find out why your argument is so silly.

1) You say gravity isn't something we base our lives off of, but it is. We plan our buildings, airplanes, trips, etc... all off of gravity.

2) Is weather also a religion then, too? We all base our lives off of that.

3) Now explain how atheists base their lives off evolution any more than gravity?

4) Also, if I study computer science (my degree), is it my religion?

You have been rude and you are not the 1st evolutionist to be rude either.

I don't see it being rude but honest. When people's arguments are silly, I call them on it. When they make scientific errors (like your post) I call them on it. When they don't understand how science works, I call them on it. However, I'm always open to change. Show me you understand the issues, and I'll take back that you don't understand science. Just tell me what the scientific definition of a transitional fossil is and why you think none exist and I'll take it back.

 

[KerrMetric]

You're probably just a heathen, one that worships the Lakers or Golden State, not a true believer like me, who worships the Utah Jazz.

I'd be careful with the Jazz reference since that would possible make you a non-Christian Mormon in this forums eyes.

 

[Mallon]

I wonder how many creationists here feel similarly about astronomers? I mean, they require light from distant stars to travel thousands, millions, even billions of years before it reaches our eyes. It is much easier to believe that God magically burns the light directly into the backs our retinas, is it not? Indeed, astronomers worship time, too!

Your evidence is theoretical at most, far from solid.

How much education do you have in the sciences? High school? Undergrad? Grad school? I ask because I don't think you would be saying such things if you had even a basic understanding of geology, biology, palaeontology, etc.
This:

isn't theoretical.

This:

isn't theoretical.

This:

isn't theoretical.

No, the evidence is NOT theoretical. The evidence is fact. The theory is theoretical. It is what ties these disparate lines of evidence together. Creationism cannot explain why God made grades between fish and amphibians. Creationism cannot explain why God made grades between australopithecines and men. Creationism cannot explain why God made grades between reptiles and mammals. Evolution can.

Please enlighten us with teh evidence that shows that an Ardepithicus gave birth to an Australopithicene and that the Australopithecines gave birth to a Homo. There is no evidence of this at all.

Firstly, I will point out that once again you are putting words in the mouths of evolutionists. First it's 'all mold spores go to heaven.' Now it's 'australopithecines gave birth to a Homo.'
Australopithecines did not give birth to Homo. They share a common ancestor.
But despite your strawman, I will tell you what the evidence is for understanding these two groups to be related. It's the very same evidence that suggests you and your sister are related: synapomorphy. You may both very well share many of the same features. You may share your father's eye colour or the shape of your mother's nose. Maybe you have the same freckled cheeks. And I can guarantee you you have VERY similar DNA. The more similar the DNA, the more closely related you are. Your DNA is much more similar to your sister's than to your cousin's.
Not surprisingly, the very same holds true for humans and other hominins. We share with them the same hip structure, the same enlarged brain, the same movable shoulder joint, and many of the same social behaviours. Most importantly, we share with them >95% of our DNA. In statistics, that's considered proof beyond reasonable doubt. Just as the similarity in DNA attests to the close relationship between you and your sister, so too does it attest to the close relationship between the human and other hominin species. Creationists will argue that there is some sort of magical/invisible barrier to heritability, and that somewhere between siblings and species, the criterion of shared DNA breaks down. But they have not been able to identify such a barrier, and I would argue it is because it does not exist.
Homology. Synapomorphy. That's the evidence you were asking for.

 

[KerrMetric]

Australopithecines did not give birth to Homo.

Are you sure there were no gay Australopithecines?

Sorry - couldn't resist.

 

[random_guy]

I'd be careful with the Jazz reference since that would possible make you a non-Christian Mormon in this forums eyes.

No worries about that. I get beer instead of ice cream at Jazz games .

 

[simplyg123]

I wonder how many creationists here feel similarly about astronomers? I mean, they require light from distant stars to travel thousands, millions, even billions of years before it reaches our eyes. It is much easier to believe that God magically burns the light directly into the backs our retinas, is it not? Indeed, astronomers worship time, too!




How much education do you have in the sciences? High school? Undergrad? Grad school? I ask because I don't think you would be saying such things if you had even a basic understanding of geology, biology, palaeontology, etc.
This:

isn't theoretical.

This:

isn't theoretical.

This:

isn't theoretical.

No, the evidence is NOT theoretical. The evidence is fact. The theory is theoretical. It is what ties these disparate lines of evidence together. Creationism cannot explain why God made grades between fish and amphibians. Creationism cannot explain why God made grades between australopithecines and men. Creationism cannot explain why God made grades between reptiles and mammals. Evolution can.


Firstly, I will point out that once again you are putting words in the mouths of evolutionists. First it's 'all mold spores go to heaven.' Now it's 'australopithecines gave birth to a Homo.'
Australopithecines did not give birth to Homo. They share a common ancestor.
But despite your strawman, I will tell you what the evidence is for understanding these two groups to be related. It's the very same evidence that suggests you and your sister are related: synapomorphy. You may both very well share many of the same features. You may share your father's eye colour or the shape of your mother's nose. Maybe you have the same freckled cheeks. And I can guarantee you you have VERY similar DNA. The more similar the DNA, the more closely related you are. Your DNA is much more similar to your sister's than to your cousin's.
Not surprisingly, the very same holds true for humans and other hominins. We share with them the same hip structure, the same enlarged brain, the same movable shoulder joint, and many of the same social behaviours. Most importantly, we share with them >95% of our DNA. In statistics, that's considered proof beyond reasonable doubt. Just as the similarity in DNA attests to the close relationship between you and your sister, so too does it attest to the close relationship between the human and other hominin species. Creationists will argue that there is some sort of magical/invisible barrier to heritability, and that somewhere between siblings and species, the criterion of shared DNA breaks down. But they have not been able to identify such a barrier, and I would argue it is because it does not exist.
Homology. Synapomorphy. That's the evidence you were asking for.

I openly admit im no scientist, However i do know that there is no hard or as you said Solid evidence that evolution is fact, or there would be no debate on it. Creationists, points are just as valid as evolutionists.

You ask Why did God do this why did God do that. God is God, and who are you to question his reasoning. The fact is God did it.

 

[Dannager]

I openly admit im no scientist, However i do know that there is no hard or as you said Solid evidence that evolution is fact, or there would be no debate on it.

False.

There is an overwhelming amount of factual evidence for evolution. There is debate on it because religiously-motivated individuals who cannot reconcile their beliefs with modern scientific findings reject all of the evidence without cause. The debate occurs because, quite simply, most creationists are not willing to consider the evidence.

Creationists, points are just as valid as evolutionists.

No, they're not. Creationists' points are usually pretty clearly invalid. Some of them are downright deceitful and dishonest.

 

[Gwenyfur]

Please, remember to maintain civility and courtesy when posting.

 

[random_guy]

I openly admit im no scientist, However i do know that there is no hard or as you said Solid evidence that evolution is fact, or there would be no debate on it. Creationists, points are just as valid as evolutionists.

This is wrong. A simple search on PubMed, Nature, or Google Scholar shows an abudance of scientific papers published in support of evolution, all of which are backed by scientific evidence.

Second, Creationists points are not as valid as evolutionists points because one uses science and one doesn't. Let's take a look at a Creationist point, this thread. The point is evolution is a religion. However, as pointed out by many other posters, the same definition would net stuff like gravity, computer science, etc... all fall under religion. Take a look at the Open EvC forum. Many Creationists points are pure gibberish. One member states that evolution says you're kids will look like your parents, another one says that evolution is refuted by the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.

I guarentee that I can find more threads of Creationists mangling science than you will of evolutionists mangling science. I also bet that when an evolutionist incorrectly states something about science, another evolutionist will correct him. Good luck finding the same thing with Creationists. How many Creationists refuted dad's beliefs that the Earth has a giant diamond at the core?

EDIT: I also noticed another mistake in your post. Evolution is a fact as well as a theory. It's a fact that allele frequencies change in a gene pool over time. It's also a theory that explains why this occurs (selection+mutation). You admit you're not a scientist, so what makes you qualified to make such a blanket statement like no evidence exists? What makes you more qualified than almost every single university that says there is evidence that supports evolution? Why do you think your lack of knowledge makes you more credible than the millions of scientists that have had a science education?

 

[simplyg123]

False.

There is an overwhelming amount of factual evidence for evolution. There is debate on it because religiously-motivated individuals who cannot reconcile their beliefs with modern scientific findings reject all of the evidence without cause. The debate occurs because, quite simply, most creationists are not willing to consider the evidence.

No, they're not. Creationists' points are usually pretty clearly invalid. Some of them are downright deceitful and dishonest.

All of this evidence is inconclusive, the majority bones of most so called ape men, have been proven to be deformed or diseased humans.

Why do we find millions of dinsaur bones, but bery few apeman bones?


debate continues because creationist have found flaws in evolution that cant be explained.

also the method of radio- metric dating is an accurate

Remember the Mount St. Helens volcanic eruption? It occurred on May 18, 1980. That was less than twenty seven years ago. As a result of that catastrophe, a new lava dome was formed on the site. Not long ago, it was “dated” by the radio-metric method. Guess how old it turns out to be? It yielded a date of 2.8 million years! If that does not demonstrate that the “clock” is broken, then what would?

 

[KerrMetric]

All of this evidence is inconclusive, the majority bones of most so called ape men, have been proven to be deformed or diseased humans.

Where do you get this hogwash. That is exactly what they have been shown NOT to be.

Why do we find millions of dinsaur bones, but bery few apeman bones?

Huh? We don't find millions of either -and you don't expect too either. Please Google fossilisation.

debate continues because creationist have found flaws in evolution that cant be explained.

No they haven't. A few nitwits have tried to but they fall flat on their faces doig so. That is why they are either laughed at or ignored.

also the method of radio- metric dating is an accurate

Yes it is accurate but I know you mistyped and didn't mean that.

Remember the Mount St. Helens volcanic eruption? It occurred on May 18, 1980. That was less than twenty seven years ago. As a result of that catastrophe, a new lava dome was formed on the site. Not long ago, it was “dated” by the radio-metric method. Guess how old it turns out to be? It yielded a date of 2.8 million years! If that does not demonstrate that the “clock” is broken, then what would?

I thought this one was explained to you before.

Of course it dated wrong - it was supposed to given the method used. This was your typical dishonest professional liars for Christ (read AIG or ICR) making sure they got a silly result. They are liars and frauds, pure and simple.

 

[shernren]

In response to the Mt. St. Helens dating flap: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD013_1.html

 

[simplyg123]

Where do you get this hogwash. That is exactly what they have been shown NOT to be.



Huh? We don't find millions of either -and you don't expect too either. Please Google fossilisation.




No they haven't. A few nitwits have tried to but they fall flat on their faces doig so. That is why they are either laughed at or ignored.



Yes it is accurate but I know you mistyped and didn't mean that.




I thought this one was explained to you before.

Of course it dated wrong - it was supposed to given the method used. This was your typical dishonest professional liars for Christ (read AIG or ICR) making sure they got a silly result. They are liars and frauds, pure and simple.

after further research i see it was a flawed process, but He was completly honest and upfront about it, i would go as far as callimg him a lier, it just goes to show you even if sciences was 100 % accurate, the common man is not, therefore science in general is flawed

 

[KerrMetric]

after further research i see it was a flawed process, but He was completly honest and upfront about it,

No he was not.

He sent samples to be dated by a process he knew would give false dates then he claims - A HA - see dating is flawed.

How is that honest? Do you have a different definition of honest than the rest of us?

If someone said he was going to measure your weight and he turned up with a truck weigh station that doesn't register less than 2000 lbs and he claimed you weighed 0 lbs - would you say that was a honest method and a honest claim you weighed 0 lbs? Would you?

 

[grimbly]

also the method of radio- metric dating is an accurate

Remember the Mount St. Helens volcanic eruption? It occurred on May 18, 1980. That was less than twenty seven years ago. As a result of that catastrophe, a new lava dome was formed on the site. Not long ago, it was “dated” by the radio-metric method. Guess how old it turns out to be? It yielded a date of 2.8 million years! If that does not demonstrate that the “clock” is broken, then what would?

As others have said, you are the victim of unscrupulous flim - flam artists who purposely rigged the game to ensure failure. If Steve Austin was truly interested in obtaining an accurate age of the Mt. St. Helens dacite, he would have used the more appropriate 40Ar/39Ar technique and he certainly would not have used Geochron to do the test since they clearly advertised that the could not get accurate results with samples younger than 2 million years.

Here's another linky
http://www.answersincreation.org/argument/G1232_creation_science.htm
Very, very dishonest!!!

Don't feel bad, you are not the first nor will you be the last to be hoodwinked by these con artists

 

[grimbly]

after further research i see it was a flawed process, but He was completly honest and upfront about it, i would go as far as callimg him a lier, it just goes to show you even if sciences was 100 % accurate, the common man is not, therefore science in general is flawed

No he wasn't honest about it at all. He got caught with his hands in the cookie jar yet this nonsense still is being propagated around the net.

google Steve Austin Mt. St. Helens dacite and see how many hits come up still using this dreck as an example of why radiometric dating is unreliable. If these people had a nanogram of integrity, they would have printed a retraction or at the very least told everyone not to use this work because it was an inappropriate application of a dating technique that was purposely designed to fail.

They don't care if there readership is mislead. Most people are not going to go out and check if this was a fair test of radiometric dating. So yep, still lying for Christ!!

Maybe it's just me, but I don't like to see someone associate my religion with a pack of liars.

 

[imind]

it just goes to show you even if sciences was 100 % accurate, the common man is not, therefore science in general is flawed

no, it doesn't. yes, people make mistakes, but sciences peer review process tests and retests its conclusions all the time.

 

[simplyg123]

no, it doesn't. yes, people make mistakes, but sciences peer review process tests and retests its conclusions all the time.

these test are developed by man, an imperfect man. you cant say something is pefect because it was tested by something imperfect.

if man is imperfect, how could the test he devlops or anyhting he develops be perfect.

i assure you nothing man develops is perfect.

airplanes crash, computers crash, Clothes fade, Shoes wear, Batteries die.

 

[Melethiel]

these test are developed by man, an imperfect man. you cant say something is pefect because it was tested by something imperfect.

if man is imperfect, how could the test he devlops or anyhting he develops be perfect.

i assure you nothing man develops is perfect.

airplanes crash, computers crash, Clothes fade, Shoes wear, Batteries die.

I think I'm missing something. Where has science ever made the claim of perfection? The point is that one scientist's results are usually repeated by other scientists, sometimes with slightly different parameters, to make sure that the results are really true. It is thus a self-correcting system.

 

[chaoschristian]

Is Creation knowable?

these test are developed by man, an imperfect man. you cant say something is pefect because it was tested by something imperfect.

if man is imperfect, how could the test he devlops or anyhting he develops be perfect.

i assure you nothing man develops is perfect.

airplanes crash, computers crash, Clothes fade, Shoes wear, Batteries die.