We’ve been reading Charles Darwin all wrong

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Like the War of 1812?

No, not in the slightest.

 

[The Barbarian]

Atheists have turned the theory of evolution into a religion

Impossible. Scientific theories cannot consider the supernatural. You might as well claim that the theory of gravitation was turned into a religion.

The problem with their alleged "fact" is that no one can even demonstrate that the history of life on earth is the result of a natural process, let claim to know what that process was.

Mutation and natural selection. Even many knowledgeable YECs admit that much. That was Darwin's great discovery.

 

[The Barbarian]

Only Christians think this because of their inability to imagine that people manage quite well without believing in God.

Only a minority of Christians. Most of us are quite aware that evolutionary theory neither supports nor denies atheism or theism.

 

[AV1611VET]

Scientific theories cannot consider the supernatural.

Then science can take a hike, can't it?

 

[Hans Blaster]

Atheists have turned the theory of evolution into a religion ... and never weary in their heroic zeal to spread the gospel that their beloved theory is also a fact.

Oh good grief! What would we want with a religion? Atheists need religion the same way God needs a starship. (Not at all.)

Science is the study of the natural world. Nothing more, nothing less.

 

[The Barbarian]

Scientific theories cannot consider the supernatural. Chemistry cannot consider epistemology. Accounting cannot consider voodoo.

Then science can take a hike, can't it?

And accounting, I suppose.

 

[The Barbarian]

Oh good grief! What would we want with a religion? Atheists need religion the same way God needs a starship. (Not at all.)

Good reference:

Science is the study of the natural world. Nothing more, nothing less.

Today's winner.

 

[Buzzard3]

Mutation and natural selection.

Easy to say but impossible to prove.

How did "mutation and natural selection" allow mammals to (allegedly) descend from fish, for example?
The truth is, you can't even demonstrate that such a transition was the result of a natural process, let alone claim to know what mechanisms were responsible.

 

[BCP1928]

Easy to say but impossible to prove.

How did "mutation and natural selection" allow mammals to (allegedly) descend from fish, for example?
The truth is, you can't even demonstrate that such a transition was the result of a natural process, let alone claim to know what mechanisms were responsible.

I guess there is no point in bringing the evidence to your attention. You'll obviously go on believing it's impossible anyway.

 

[Buzzard3]

Can you demonstrate that life is the result of supernatural processes?

No ... but science strongly suggests that life arising naturally from inanimate matter is impossible.

If so, what is the process?

You want me to describe a process that is supernatural? If I could describe it, it wouldn't be supernatural.

 

[Buzzard3]

I guess there is no point in bringing the evidence to your attention. You'll obviously go on believing it's impossible anyway.

If you can't so much as demonstrate
that mammals descended from fish via a natural process, your "evidence" for the theory of evolution amounts to nothing more than pointless story-telling.

 

[public hermit]

No ... but science strongly suggests that life arising naturally from inanimate matter is impossible.

No? Good, at least you can admit that much. The theory of evolution isn't about the genesis of life, but it does pertain to the "history of life," as you put it. And there is plenty of evidence in support of it. Whether you agree with the evidence is another matter.

You want me to describe a process that is supernatural? If I could describe it, it wouldn't be supernatural.

No, I didn't want you to describe the supernatural. I just wanted to see if you knew the difference between scientific theory and religion. It seems you do, so your initial comment about evolutionary theory becoming a religion doesn't make much sense. Maybe you meant something else?

 

[Buzzard3]

Science is the study of the natural world. Nothing more, nothing less.

... and viz-a-viz the history of life on earth, the theory of evolution amounts to nothing more than a bedtime story, yet atheists worship it as a scientifically established fact.

 

[Buzzard3]

Atheists need religion the same way God needs a starship. (Not at all.)

Atheists need a belief system, which effectively serves as a replacement for religion. Their belief system is the theory of evolution.

 

[Buzzard3]

Then science can take a hike, can't it?

When it comes to understanding what produced the history of life on earth, science and the theory of evolution are useless. Science can't so much as prove that that history is the result of a natural process.

 

[Buzzard3]

Mutation and natural selection. Even many knowledgeable YECs admit that much. That was Darwin's great discovery.

Darwin didn't make any "discovery" about what process produced the history of life on earth.

A "discovery" is something that can be demonstrated to be true - no one can demonstrate that the history of life on earth is the result of mutations and natural selection.

 

[Buzzard3]

The theory of evolution isn't about the genesis of life, but it does pertain to the "history of life," as you put it.

i know. Abiogenesis and evolution are mutually exclusive.

And there is plenty of evidence in support of it. Whether you agree with the evidence is another matter.

Science can't so much as prove that the history of life on earth is the result of a natural process, which means, viz-a-viz that history, the theory of evolution and evidence for it amount to nothing more than a bedtime story.

 

[River Jordan]

Atheists have turned the theory of evolution into a religion ...

That's weird since the vast majority of people who accept the reality of evolution are theists.

 

[River Jordan]

How did "mutation and natural selection" allow mammals to (allegedly) descend from fish, for example?

By the same mechanisms that drive speciation events we see today. Why would the past be any different?

The truth is, you can't even demonstrate that such a transition was the result of a natural process, let alone claim to know what mechanisms were responsible.

Sure we can, in the same way a geologist can come across a certain type of formation and know what mechanisms produced it.

If you're going to argue that everything was different in the past then you're going to have to provide some evidence for that.

 

[River Jordan]

When it comes to understanding what produced the history of life on earth, science and the theory of evolution are useless.

But scientists across the world, from all sorts of backgrounds, completely disagree and have disagreed for well over 100 years.

So why should anyone go with your unsupported claim instead of the conclusions of the world's scientists?