Why evolution should not be a religious issue

[Speedwell]

The part is that this may not be a unique observation upon which the ToE is the sole explanation. If other explanations exist, then this observation's falsifiability is irrelevant, because it may be a moot point to begin with.

That is true for the absence of mammalian fossils in the Cambrian, but the discovery of a mammal fossil there would falsify the theory.

 

[Alithis]

none of it

you might want to remove the winner tag .. i was going to add .. none of it is shown to be incorrect because none of it is shown to be corerct but none of it fact or truth

 

[Sultan Of Swing]

That is true for the absence of mammalian fossils in the Cambrian, but the discovery of a mammal fossil there would falsify the theory.

But if it is true for the absence of mammalian fossils, then what is the worth of the falsifiability of this absence? If the absence can be explained by other means, then the falsifiability loses its value.

 

[durangodawood]

That's correct, but the theory of evolution makes no mention of it. As a practical matter, the proposition that biological evolution has occurred over long periods of time and that all living things share a common biological ancestor contradicts the way some people read the holy book, but that is not the fault of the theory of evolution.

That right there is part of a religion, to some people, whether you or I agree with that reading or not.

ToE has implications that challenge that part of their religion. Who's fault that is is beside the point.

If evolution is to avoid being a religious issue, it means some people will have to let go of certain aspects of their faith.

 

[Alithis]

whwre is any one here getting any information abut any of the topic .. ? from books man wrote .so its what man said vs what man said according to some including . but if the scripture is written only by men ,then it would be a fable and would not deliver that which is promised within it . but it does .and i testify of it along with Millions of others throughout the world .
we know of the foretelling of Jesus within its pages factually penned onto paper from 400 to 2000 years before the events occurred and we know they could not have known nor influenced what occurred at the cross . yet the mathematical probabilities of every single things foretold happening exactly as foretold is astronomical .. no, these words penned on parchment by man did not originate from man .. and while of course the fools who say there is no god will decry it .. woe to those that claim to be his own disciples that join them in their folly .

 

[Speedwell]

But if it is true for the absence of mammalian fossils, then what is the worth of the falsifiability of this absence? If the absence can be explained by other means, then the falsifiability loses its value.

Because the absence is what the theory predicts. The discovery of such a fossil would represent a failure of that prediction, thus falsifying the theory. It doesn't matter if other theories also predict the absence of such fossils.

 

[Alithis]

evolution ...the OP says should no be a religious topic .. and it isnt
this is a christian forum .. it is non christians and non believers who come here and then push the topic on the site -i have always found that interesting
i don't believe in santa clause .. so i go to forums and decry that which does not exist..? no lol i dont .
because no one need decry or resist that which does not exist ..if one pushes against what does not exist one falls on their face .. no they come here to resist that which does exist .to resist there must be something to be resisted .

 

[Speedwell]

evolution ...the OP says should no be a religious topic .. and it isnt
this is a christian forum .. it is non christians and non believers who come here and then push the topic on the site -i have always found that interesting
i don't believe in santa clause .. so i go to forums and decry that which does not exist..? no lol i dont .
because no one need decry or resist that which does not exist ..if one pushes against what does not exist one falls on their face .. no they come here to resist that which does exist .to resist there must be something to be resisted .

This forum is open to non-Christians. Further, not all Christians regard the theory of evolution as a religious issue.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

And I am poking fun at all those like him, who let their atheist faith, get in the way of science.

"atheist faith", lol.

You need to learn what atheism is.

He describes evolution as a "theory" it is not.

Every biologist and their mother calls it a theory, because it is a theory. A widely accepted one, at that.

 

[Alithis]

This forum is open to non-Christians. Further, not all Christians regard the theory of evolution as a religious issue.

never said it was not open to non christians i just note its not christians who push the topic ..it is for the most part .non christians and unbeleivers (not all who use the title christian are actual believers-many are just raised in "churched circles" and so title themselves chrsitian -there is a vast difference ) and i'm agreeing -it is not a religious issue .it is a non religious vain topic from people the psalmist deemed to be fools . when christians gather and meet ,they don't even have the thought of the topic in their minds .. those that do , tend not to gether with us for they are not of us . they were among us but they went out from us because they were not of us .

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

All life is accounted as a directionless biochemical accident. A non starter for a theory, because there is no hypothesis for how it started.

The scope of evolution theory is limited to explaining the diversity of life. Not life itself. Kinda strange that as a "scientist", you don't know that.

There are a lot of connected theories (eg in molecular biologic genetics, that explain how species drift in morphology, but not much more)

Yes, evolutionary biology is a big field, covering a large body of knowledge.

There are also hypotheses, unproven, part proven. How for example did viable organisms ever change chromosome numbers? There is only conjecture.

Darwin aludes to the idea that all organisms are the result of small change. Had he known about molecular genetics he would have seen the massive problems in unaccounted genetic jumps

On the contrary... he would have been amazed at how spot on his predictions were.

None of that explains how the even greater problem , a big chemical factory cell) way more complex than any humans create suddenly appeared out of nowhere. How?

Nobody, except creationists, says that life appeared in all its complexity out of nowhere.

So it is all a work in progress. That is all.

All science is a work in progress.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Now if you had looked, I said I could disprove common descent as a provable hypothesis by a mindgame.

How about you disprove it with evidence, instead?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

In some very rare cases that might be true. But most cases I have encountered are based on solid scientific reasoning. Actually, we cannot deny an ID without resorting to convoluted unscientific, illogical reasoning. So this isn't science as opposed to non science as you are erroneously assuming it to be.

ID is a religious reason. What do you think the "D" is?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

It's still detective work, it isn't seeing something happen in front of you. You look at similarities and patterns and make conclusions.

Yes. What is the problem with that?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

whwre is any one here getting any information abut any of the topic .. ? from books man wrote .so its what man said vs what man said according to some including . but if the scripture is written only by men ,then it would be a fable and would not deliver that which is promised within it . but it does .and i testify of it along with Millions of others throughout the world .
we know of the foretelling of Jesus within its pages factually penned onto paper from 400 to 2000 years before the events occurred and we know they could not have known nor influenced what occurred at the cross . yet the mathematical probabilities of every single things foretold happening exactly as foretold is astronomical .. no, these words penned on parchment by man did not originate from man .. and while of course the fools who say there is no god will decry it .. woe to those that claim to be his own disciples that join them in their folly .

The difference is that nobody needs to simply "believe" the biology books or the hundreds of thousands of papers on evolutionary biology. As in science, all of it is independently verifiable.

It's religion that requires you to merely believe it.

 

[Sultan Of Swing]

Yes. What is the problem with that?

It's a different kind of evidence to direct observation of something in the lab. It is educated and elegant guesswork, not comparable to something like physics where you can test it in a lab.

 

[sfs]

whwre is any one here getting any information abut any of the topic .. ?

I'm getting a lot of my information from the DNA that we study here at our research institute. In other words, we're studying the actual creation of God, rather than what you say about what somebody else said in a book about God's creation.

 

[sfs]

never said it was not open to non christians i just note its not christians who push the topic ..it is for the most part .non christians and unbeleivers (not all who use the title christian are actual believers-many are just raised in "churched circles" and so title themselves chrsitian -there is a vast difference ) and i'm agreeing -it is not a religious issue .it is a non religious vain topic from people the psalmist deemed to be fools . when christians gather and meet ,they don't even have the thought of the topic in their minds .. those that do , tend not to gether with us for they are not of us . they were among us but they went out from us because they were not of us .

We discuss evolution at our church.

 

[sfs]

It's a different kind of evidence to direct observation of something in the lab. It is educated and elegant guesswork, not comparable to something like physics where you can test it in a lab.

Well, if you put it that way . . . no. The reason that physics is scientific isn't that it can be tested in the lab -- supernovas, for example, don't fit in laboratories, but they can still be studied by astrophysicists. What makes both physics and evolutionary biology scientific fields is that they can test their hypotheses against empirical data. That means that neither is "guesswork".

 

[Subduction Zone]

It's a different kind of evidence to direct observation of something in the lab. It is educated and elegant guesswork, not comparable to something like physics where you can test it in a lab.

When you call something "guess work" that can be repeated many times over you are simply showing your lack of knowledge and prejudice about the science that you do not like.

Creationism has utterly failed whenever they have tired to use it to explain the biological diversity that we can see today. Creationists are too afraid to even create a proper scientific hypothesis of creationism, much less a theory of creationism.