Why evolution should not be a religious issue

[Mountainmike]

@tagliatellemonster
I think you missed the point. I never even mentioned fusion. When I query the mechanism of chromosomal increases, on atheist forums someone always ignores the question and writes the usual three reams about fusion, as if they feel obliged to try to prove human evolution in every post even when it is not the issue, I can only assume because it is so important to their faith!

What interests me , is that for all the speculation about deletions, duplications, snaps and so on is that the normal presentation of most of DNA abnormalities is in dysfunctional organisms. Genetic material is generally not inconsequential. It codes for proteins and other things, and can have manifest effects on the organism. You can find 100 papers on all the nasty effects of added or removed material, physical and psychotic. So such organisms have to both survive the changes and find lucky partners, for which the jury is out.

Aside from which, no new species change arising from chromosal number change in observed population has ever been observed in practice, (as far as I am aware) so it remains on the pure conjecture list.

So as I concluded, the ToE is a misnomer, but in as far as it is a ragbag of proven, part proven, unproven and some cases unprovable hypotheses(like common descent) and a few theories, some of the so called "hypotheses" are not even hypotheses just conjecture: to be a hypothesis it must be testable, that is the rule of science!

The 1 percent of how you think all the rest of life developed, is all in essence irrelevant to the "life was a chemical accident" argument, until someone finds a route to the 99% problem of a massive chemical factory with reproductive capability appearing (ie a cell) from nowhere. And in that context, there is not even a hypotheses. just a name "abiogenesis" for big hole in the conjecture of life was a biochemical accident

I dont have a skin in the game here. So I just see the science for what it is. I am not obliged to try to pretend it is a "fact" like atheists seem to want to do.

 

[Speedwell]

The subject is whether evolution should be ignored because it is irrelevant to a belief in a creator. That depends on whether theistic or atheistic evolution is being proposed. The concept taught in schools is totally atheistic. So naturally parents who teach their kids about an ID would be concerned.

How many parents do you suppose teach their kids about ID? Any at all? Do you really imagine that across the nation there are erudite breakfast-table conversations about irreducible complexity and complex specified information?

Most parents teach their kids that God is author of the universe. In this country that would be the Christian God, since the majority of us are Christians. The teaching of evolution in the public schools does not contradict or interfere with it, except for those who have tied their belief in God to a literal interpretation of scripture.

 

[Speedwell]

Those subjects do not or at least need not directly contradict the Genesis account. To the extent that they do contradict it, to that extent they can be deemed atheistic.

Only by those who have tied the existence of God to a particular interpretation of the Genesis account.

 

[Radrook]

The pope doesn't think that biology contradicts his bible, so why do you insist that it does?



Errr... all other religions contradict your bible. Are other religions atheistic?



None of that applies here.

God isn't mentioned in biology, only because no gods are showing up in biology.
For the same reason, there is no "God variable" in E = mc² etc.

Not because these sciences are "atheistic". But just because there is no God that shows up in these sciences.

If there is a process within biology, or any other field, where it can be demonstrated that a God is playing a role, the sciences in question will happily include this God in their explanations. But until then, why on earth would they?

As I said, to the degree that they do. That is a very clear qualifier that you choose to ignore. The Pope isn't my religious leader nor my mentor.

 

[Radrook]

The pope doesn't think that biology contradicts his bible, so why do you insist that it does?



Errr... all other religions contradict your bible. Are other religions atheistic?



None of that applies here.

God isn't mentioned in biology, only because no gods are showing up in biology.
For the same reason, there is no "God variable" in E = mc² etc.

Not because these sciences are "atheistic". But just because there is no God that shows up in these sciences.

If there is a process within biology, or any other field, where it can be demonstrated that a God is playing a role, the sciences in question will happily include this God in their explanations. But until then, why on earth would they?

Of course it applies. That you choose to call it irrelevant is really of no logical consequence since you provide absolutely no basis why it doesn't apply. So for all practical logical reasons, it is really tantamount to a mindless magical chanting of a mantra. Your example of other religions is silly. Of course they don't support atheism. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that.

 

[AV1611VET]

I never implied that she was alone in her beliefs.

"She"?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Of course it applies.

It does not. Because there is NO "omission". An omission is when something is KNOWN to be a part of something, but then isn't mentioned.

God and biology do not have such a relation. There are no gods showing up in biological processes, just like there are no gods showing up in E = mc².

Not mentioning God in context of such subjects isn't any more of an "omission" then not mentioning Gandalf The Grey in a discussion about volcano's, or undetectable graviton pixies in discussions about gravity.

That you choose to call it irrelevant is really of no logical consequence since you provide absolutely no basis why it doesn't apply.

That's exactly the point. You have that exactly backwards.

I don't require reasons to NOT include something. I require reasons to do the opposite.
If you are of the opinion that God or gods SHOULD be mentioned in biology.......... then guess who needs to roll up his sleeves and get to work in order to justify such an inclusion.

Until you can provide a rational justification to include X as a factor in process Y, why on earth would anyone include X????

So for all practical logical reasons, it is really tantamount to a mindless magical chanting of a mantra.

No. It is "tantamount" to not including things that don't have any measurable effect, that don't play any demonstrable role in anything.

Gravity is gravity is gravtiy.
"Gravity + god", works in the exact same way as "Gravity - god" or just "gravity", full stop.

Your example of other religions is silly. Of course they don't support atheism. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that.

Then you should be a bit more carefull in how you word your silly statements.

Because the actual reason you provided for saying that this science is "atheistic" was, and I quote, "they do contradict it".

You called it "atheistic" because if the ideas contradicting what you perceive your religion to say.

If contradicting your religious lore is what is "atheistic", then Islam is atheistic, since that contradicts your religious lore as well.

I agree it's silly. But I call it like I see it. If you badly expressed yourself, that's fine. But I still get to call you out on it.

Reword your statement if you must.
Until you do though, your statement, as written, has been shown to be invalid.

So, until you reword your statement in a way that isn't so obviously self-defeating, I can only assume that your underlying conclusion is incorrect. Which means that science is NOT atheistic. I'll add to that that it isn't theistic either.

It's neither. Science is just a way to evaluate evidence. The only reason why the supernatural isn't mentioned or factored in, is because it doesn't show up anywhere. That is all. That's not the same as saying that it doesn't exist, however. Nore is it the same as expressing the belief that it doesn't exist, or not even that it isn't likely to exist.

It JUST means that it hasn't shown up anywhere and that is it.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

The Pope isn't my religious leader nor my mentor.

But the pope clearly is a christian believer.
The pope clearly isn't an atheist.

So clearly, the biological sciences aren't synonymous to atheism either.

That is all. I know you aren't a catholic and that doesn't matter. I'm assuming, off course, that you consider it a fact that the pope is not an atheist, but a christian.

So clearly, not all christians agree with you that biology is an "atheistic" science that contradicts christianity.

In fact, most christians disagree with you, as most christians actually don't have any problems with science in general and biology in particular.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

What interests me , is that for all the speculation about deletions, duplications, snaps and so on is that the normal presentation of most of DNA abnormalities is in dysfunctional organisms. Genetic material is generally not inconsequential. It codes for proteins and other things, and can have manifest effects on the organism. You can find 100 papers on all the nasty effects of added or removed material, physical and psychotic. So such organisms have to both survive the changes and find lucky partners, for which the jury is out.

Every single newborn comes with a set of mutations. In humans, the mutation rate is an average of 50-ish mutations per individual.

Clearly, your statement is incorrect that most such genetic changes result in "dysfunctional organisms".

If that were the case, how did we ever manage to get to a population of 7 billion? If that were the case, how come life hasn't gone extinct a billion years ago?

Aside from which, no new species change arising from chromosal number change in observed population has ever been observed in practice, (as far as I am aware) so it remains on the pure conjecture list.

It is not conjecture. It's right there, in your DNA. Telomeres in the middle. Matches with the "missing" chromosome in the chimp DNA when split at the fusion site. It is what it is.

There's also the case of an asian horse species of which I forgot the name, which has also undergone a chromosome fusion not that long ago.

And I'm sure there are other examples to be found as well...
It certainly doesn't happen every day, but it seems that in the great scheme of things, this isn't exactly inexplicably rare either.

So as I concluded, the ToE is a misnomer, but in as far as it is a ragbag of proven, part proven, unproven and some cases unprovable hypotheses(like common descent) and a few theories, some of the so called "hypotheses" are not even hypotheses just conjecture: to be a hypothesis it must be testable, that is the rule of science!

Evolution is very testable in a multitude of ways.

The 1 percent of how you think all the rest of life developed

, is all in essence irrelevant to the "life was a chemical accident" argument,

What argument?

until someone finds a route to the 99% problem of a massive chemical factory with reproductive capability appearing (ie a cell) from nowhere.

Life exists and we can study it.
It doesn't matter how it originated in that context.

Just like we can study how gravity works without knowing where matter came from.
You're making a nonsense argument and are completely ignoring the scopes of explanation here. I see no sense doing so.

And in that context, there is not even a hypotheses. just a name "abiogenesis" for big hole in the conjecture of life was a biochemical accident

So?

I dont have a skin in the game here. So I just see the science for what it is. I am not obliged to try to pretend it is a "fact" like atheists seem to want to do.

Life sharing ancestry is a genetic fact.
Reproduction with variation is a fact.
Natural selection is a fact.
Inheritability of DNA is a fact.
Populations changing over time as a result of the above, is a fact.

How all these facts resulted in a "mother population" from eons ago and producing all the various species we know of today, is the theory of evolution.

 

[Radrook]

But the pope clearly is a christian believer.
The pope clearly isn't an atheist.

So clearly, the biological sciences aren't synonymous to atheism either.

That is all. I know you aren't a catholic and that doesn't matter. I'm assuming, off course, that you consider it a fact that the pope is not an atheist, but a christian.

So clearly, not all christians agree with you that biology is an "atheistic" science that contradicts christianity.

In fact, most christians disagree with you, as most christians actually don't have any problems with science in general and biology in particular.

I said to the degree that they ignore or contradict the Bible they can become a religious issue. Obviously there are theistic evolutionist like perhaps your Pope who is willing to bend over backwards to accommodate worldly viewpoints in order to retain converts to his denomination. His proclamation of Christianity means NOTHING if his behavior becomes suspect. Jesus was very clear on that.

 

[Renee Tahass]

His proclamation of Christianity means NOTHING if his behavior becomes suspect. Jesus was very clear on that.

Jesus was clear on nothing because Jesus did not say anything, other people wrote what they thought or wanted Jesus to say.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Christian bad, Atheist good....classic.

No, some Christian Bad, some Atheist Good.

If a Christian does not follow his or her teachings I will point it out.

 

[Subduction Zone]

What's to prove wrong? Stating someone is wrong without giving detailed reason why leaves nothing to prove wrong.

And you seem to know that you will lose that game too.

It's like me saying you are wrong for telling me that, and leaving it at that...it's just a claim with no basis. I gave a very good starting point for argument and all they could do was whine about it, not address it.

Very poor analogy. Our claims are with basis. We can support them. You seem to know that. Otherwise you would tend to defend your claims. Why are you here if not to debate?

Why don't you prove him right? Or better yet, have HIM prove me wrong, and not just make claims...isn't that what you would expect from me? Of course it is. You want me to step up now, while completely bypassing the fact they would not. Meaning I have all the responsibilities here and they have none...what a joke.

Just lecturing at a person that has already decided not to let himself learn is never effective. Your side lost long ago Aren't you at all curious as to why? Why does your side keep losing in court? It can't all be due to biased judges.

Again, the double standard is so hard at work here, it's impossible to take you people seriously, yet I foolishly come back here to see if anyone has awakened as of yet, but I think I finally get it.

There is no double standard. We are more than willing to support our claims. So far you have a tendency to run away when anyone does. Why do you keep making false accusations against your brothers. The Ninth Commandment covers more than just lying.

 

[Subduction Zone]

"She"?

Sorry, not a she? I felt a rather strong feminine vibe, but that may be my fault. I still have a bit of Chauvinism in me I associate weakness with females. Yet I have seen strong competent female debaters and the opposite in men. I still react improperly at times. There is no reason that women can't be intelligent debaters and there is no reason to think that men are strong debaters. Thanks for reminding me.

 

[SteveB28]

Hello Renee.

Could all earthly primates resist that primitive urge, to call any ideology a fact. A fact is something that is proven, the ideology of evolution cannot ever be proven. You will need to retract your statement, this statement is illogical.

Wrong. A fact is a piece of data, information. A theory provides the explanation for that data.


.

 

[klutedavid]

Wrong. A fact is a piece of data, information. A theory provides the explanation for that data.

Hello Steve.

Here is the formal definition of the word, 'fact'.

A fact is a thing that is known or proved to be true. (Oxford Dictionary)

A fact is not a piece of data.

Any theory may be found to be false in time.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Hello Steve.

Here is the formal definition of the word, 'fact'.

A fact is a thing that is known or proved to be true. (Oxford Dictionary)

A fact is not a piece of data.

Any theory may be found to be false in time.

So called "formal" definitions are not of much use in a scientific debate. For example the Oxford English Dictionary's definition of "theory" falls far short of the scientific definition of the term:

theory - definition of theory in English | Oxford Dictionaries

And though the theory of evolution will continue to be fine tuned over the years the odds of it ever failing are as close to zero as imaginable. There is no other scientific explanation in existence today.

 

[SteveB28]

Hello Steve.

Here is the formal definition of the word, 'fact'.

A fact is a thing that is known or proved to be true. (Oxford Dictionary)

A fact is not a piece of data.

Any theory may be found to be false in time.

Put your dictionary down and use your brain....

It is a fact that genetic information in a population will vary over time. That is known. It is a fact. The THEORY of evolution explains HOW that fact comes to be.



.

 

[AV1611VET]

It is a fact that genetic information in a population will vary over time. That is known. It is a fact. The THEORY of evolution explains HOW that fact comes to be.

Can it be supernaturally enhanced?

 

[HitchSlap]

Can it be supernaturally enhanced?

Every Tuesday, and twice on Sunday.