Is Evolution a religion?

[Scuba Pete]

Oh Mr Spinks...

I KNOW you can read better than that. I asked where ALL LIFE came from. I do believe in evolution, but niether archeology or evolution tells us where life came from. Now does it.

 

[Scuba Pete]

What is spiritual evidence?

That you ask this indicates that you can not see it. If you can't see it, then you will have a much harder time understanding it.

just because you are strongly convinced that something you can't see or understand is there, doesn't mean it's there.

I see and understand it just fine. It is you who are blind to it.

why it should have lead us to conclude the existence of bacteria and viruses long ago.

Did you ever study the cleanliness laws of the Isrealites? If they had been followed the Black plague would NEVER have happened. Really. At the time, Pharoah's court taught that the best way to treat a deep scratch was to coat it with horse manure. Can any one say "tetnus"?

Inadequate to the task? No.

Your blind faith in science is commendable, my dear Spinks.

 

[painted wolf]

actually Honey was prescribed for most serious wounds... a natural antibiotic.

its true Eovlution says nothing about the origen of life, Abiogenisis is working on telling us where life came from... the joy of chemistry.

Evolution doesn't ask for faith... it is constantly working to find more and better evidence to justify its existance... after 146 years its only growing stronger thanks to this.
Evolution like all scientific ideas is thrown to the masses to be picked at and prodded to see if it holds up to scruteny. If it can't it dies and is thrown onto the heap of junk science, such as the theroy of Ether and Lamarkian genetics.

wa:do

 

[joeboonda]

Is evolution a religion? Evolution is a theory. Many evolutionists defend it religiously, and to some it may be a religion. But I won't say that it IS a religion, although I have said it, and read articles about it. It's not right to say it to a person who is really, truly trying to learn about origins, etc. using science.


Its like someone saying Christianity is NOT a religion, that would offend a Christian. So to tell an evolutionist that evolution IS his religion is disrespectful toward him. Now if an evolutionist comes to that conclusion on their own, then they can be happy to themselves and others of like mind.

As I look at it, it is like name calling, eh? Made that mistake the other day myself, lol. People do it to me all the time, but I would rather make an effort to not do it back if I can possibly help it. I appreciate you all, and I hope that together many people can find the answers they are looking for. PEACE!

 

[Mr Spinkles]

I KNOW you can read better than that. I asked where ALL LIFE came from.

You asked: "Tell us just WHERE does cosmology and String Theory tell us we came from?" I thought by "we" you meant us humans. I'm sorry I misinterpreted you.

That you ask this indicates that you can not see it. If you can't see it, then you will have a much harder time understanding it.

Okay. What is spiritual evidence?

I see and understand it just fine. It is you who are blind to it.

I'm blind to all things which reside solely within the imaginations of others. What is spiritual evidence?

Did you ever study the cleanliness laws of the Isrealites? If they had been followed the Black plague would NEVER have happened. Really.

Following some of them would have, yes. Other cleanliness laws would not have prevented the Black Plague. Many cultures had customs about cleanliness. So?

At the time, Pharoah's court taught that the best way to treat a deep scratch was to coat it with horse manure. Can any one say "tetnus"?

I'm not saying you're wrong here, but I would appreciate if you could provide a source for this, please.

Furthermore....after you have defined 'spiritual evidence' for us, please explain what this 'spiritual evidence' consisted of, and why it should have lead us to conclude the existence of bacteria and viruses long ago.

 

[CMIYC]

I suppose you could make it into a religion. There are two types of evolution, one is “micro” which comes with proof and the other is “macro “ which is only a unsubstantiated speculation. It is macro evolution which is a belief and I suppose any belief could be classed as a religion.

 

[Sunstone]

... I suppose any belief could be classed as a religion.

What leads you to suppose that?

 

[CMIYC]

What leads you to suppose that?

Macro evolution comes with no proof, therefore it is only a belief by speculation.

 

[Sunstone]

Macro evolution comes with no proof, therefore it is only a belief by speculation.

It's my impression there is a very large body of evidence in support of macro evolution. Do you know something I don't?

 

[michel]

A religion or faith depends upon a belief in something not necessarily based upon evidence.

NOW FAITH IS THE SUBSTANCE OF THINGS HOPED FOR, THE EVIDENCE OF THINGS NOT SEEN - (Hebrews 11:1)

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Macro evolution comes with no proof, therefore it is only a belief by speculation.

From TalkOrigins

Nothing in the real world can be proved with absolute certainty. However, high degrees of certainty can be reached. In the case of evolution, we have huge amounts of data from diverse fields. Extensive evidence exists in all of the following different forms (Theobald 2004). Each new piece of evidence tests the rest.

• All life shows a fundamental unity in the mechanisms of replication, heritability, catalysis, and metabolism.
• Common descent predicts a nested hierarchy pattern, or groups within groups. We see just such an arrangement in a unique, consistent, well-defined hierarchy, the so-called tree of life.
• Different lines of evidence give the same arrangement of the tree of life. We get essentially the same results whether we look at morphological, biochemical, or genetic traits.
• Fossil animals fit in the same tree of life. We find several cases of transitional forms in the fossil record.
• The fossils appear in a chronological order, showing change consistent with common descent over hundreds of millions of years and inconsistent with sudden creation.
• Many organisms show rudimentary, vestigial characters, such as sightless eyes or wings useless for flight.
• Atavisms sometimes occur. An atavism is the reappearance of a character present in a distant ancestor but lost in the organism's immediate ancestors. We only see atavisms consistent with organisms' evolutionary histories.
• Ontogeny (embryology and developmental biology) gives information about the historical pathway of an organism's evolution. For example, as embryos whales and many snakes develop hind limbs that are reabsorbed before birth.
• The distribution of species is consistent with their evolutionary history. For example, marsupials are mostly limited to Australia, and the exceptions are explained by continental drift. Remote islands often have species groups that are highly diverse in habits and general appearance but closely related genetically. Squirrel diversity coincides with tectonic and sea level changes (Mercer and Roth 2003). Such consistency still holds when the distribution of fossil species is included.
• Evolution predicts that new structures are adapted from other structures that already exist, and thus similarity in structures should reflect evolutionary history rather than function. We see this frequently. For example, human hands, bat wings, horse legs, whale flippers, and mole forelimbs all have similar bone structure despite their different functions.
• The same principle applies on a molecular level. Humans share a large percentage of their genes, probably more than 70 percent, with a fruit fly or a nematode worm.
• When two organisms evolve the same function independently, different structures are often recruited. For example, wings of birds, bats, pterosaurs, and insects all have different structures. Gliding has been implemented in many additional ways. Again, this applies on a molecular level, too.
• The constraints of evolutionary history sometimes lead to suboptimal structures and functions. For example, the human throat and respiratory system make it impossible to breathe and swallow at the same time and make us susceptible to choking.
• Suboptimality appears also on the molecular level. For example, much DNA is nonfunctional.
• Some nonfunctional DNA, such as certain transposons, pseudogenes, and endogenous viruses, show a pattern of inheritance indicating common ancestry.
• Speciation has been observed.
• The day-to-day aspects of evolution -- heritable genetic change, morphological variation and change, functional change, and natural selection -- are seen to occur at rates consistent with common descent.

Furthermore, the different lines of evidence are consistent; they all point to the same big picture. For example, evidence from gene duplications in the yeast genome shows that its ability to ferment glucose evolved about eighty million years ago. Fossil evidence shows that fermentable fruits became prominent about the same time. Genetic evidence for major change around that time also is found in fruiting plants and fruit flies (Benner et al. 2002).

The evidence is extensive and consistent, and it points unambiguously to evolution, including common descent, change over time, and adaptation influenced by natural selection. It would be preposterous to refer to these as anything other than facts. ​

 

[CMIYC]

From TalkOrigins

Nothing in the real world can be proved with absolute certainty. However, high degrees of certainty can be reached. In the case of evolution, we have huge amounts of data from diverse fields. Extensive evidence exists in all of the following different forms (Theobald 2004). Each new piece of evidence tests the rest.

​

I wrote a bit on this in another thread where evidence lacks form in macro evolution.


All life started as cold blood creatures, eventually at some stage transition between cold blooded and warm blooded would have to occur. This transition will not happen overnight, perhaps over several billion years. At this stage mating would be impossible, because of genealogical difference. Eventually the species would die out. Another one is the transformation from water to land, also would take over several billion years. Therefore at some stage of this process the animal would be very vulnerable as prey, and most likely lead to extinction before the process cold be complete.

 

[Jaymes]

If the entire species is going through a warm/cold blood change, how is there going to be a genealogical difference?

And if there's nothing on land tofall prey to when they're making the water-land transition, how are they going to fall prey to it? Come on now. :banghead3

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

... This transition will not happen overnight, perhaps over several billion years. ...

... Another one is the transformation from water to land, also would take over several billion years. ...

And this claim of yours is based on what science? It's not nice to just make things up on the fly because they conform to your prejudices. It's also not credible.

 

[CMIYC]

If the entire species is going through a warm/cold blood change, how is there going to be a genealogical difference?

And if there's nothing on land tofall prey to when they're making the water-land transition, how are they going to fall prey to it? Come on now. :banghead3

Lets say to complete evolution would take 1 billion years and lets look at only one specie, lets say dog for example. Not all dogs would go through the same process at the same time, there fore at some stage of evolution at least half would be sexually and biologically incompatible. Which I believe would lead to extinction. And when you are talking about a major transformation between cold blooded to warm blooded, then this would be most likely impossible.

 

[Jaymes]

Is there a reason you're tossing in billions of years in there? Do you have something to base that on, or do you just enjoy tossing in high numbers to make it seem less probable?

Out of curiosity, how do you explain 'warm blooded' sharks... sharks that can warm regions of their body but have parts of their bodies determined by outside temperature? Not true warm bloods, but not cold blooded either? They don't seem to be too extinct...

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Lets say to complete evolution would take 1 billion years and lets look at only one specie, lets say dog for example.

Let's say you stop fabricating things on the fly and answer my question. Upon what science do you base your "several billion years" claim?

 

[CMIYC]

Let's say you stop fabricating things on the fly and answer my question. Upon what science do you base your "several billion years" claim?

Its like this; if you can give me an exact time process for evolution Ill stop including several billion years.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Its like this; if you can give me an exact time process for evolution Ill stop including several billion years.

This isn't a negotiation. you've made a repeated claim and I'm asking you to defend it. If you choose not to, i.e., if you choose to simply fabricate arguments as needed, you merely demonstrate the poverty of your position and the irresponsibility of your posts.

 

[CMIYC]

This isn't a negotiation. you've made a repeated claim and I'm asking you to defend it. If you choose not to, i.e., if you choose to simply fabricate arguments as needed, you merely demonstrate the poverty of your position and the irresponsibility of your posts.

How am I fabricating anything? I’m going along with scientific estimation, which is anywhere between several million to several billion. Like I said, educate me on the exact time evolution takes place, so I could be more precise.

Cheers