• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Is Evolution a religion?

painted wolf

painted wolf

Grey Muzzle
actually the evidence indicates it is a few thousands to a few million... no billions. Unless your talking star and planet evolution.

Tuna fish are warm blooded as well as some sharks.

All Macro evolutuion is, is the buildup of micro evolutionary steps over time. If you believe in one then logically you should believe in the other... "Macro" evolution is often misrepresented as one 'big' change, it isn't it is the buildup of lots of little ones.

wa:do
 
Ceridwen018

Ceridwen018

Well-Known Member
1) Life just HAPPENED

2) DNA just HAPPENED

3) Something came from NOTHING

4) The "Big Bang" came from nowhere

We could go on, but there are a LOT of assumptions to swallow a non-theistic evolution.
Click to expand...
NetDoc, you disappoint me! Just because you are ignorant of the processes of how DNA was formed, etc., doesn't mean that scientists don't have a handle on it.
 
Scuba Pete

Scuba Pete

Le plongeur avec attitude...
Dear Ceridwen,

Please point us to the definitive study that absolutely has the origin of DNA pegged. I don't think you can produce it. However, many times the same logic has been applied to spiritual evidence, so I unserstand where you are coming from. Just direct us to that answer. :D
 
painted wolf

painted wolf

Grey Muzzle
hmm.. Some of the more common current working theories are:
RNA World theory
Iron-sulpher world theory
Panspermia
Biopoiosis
there are also theories about hot world, ocean vents, cold world and so on.

Amino acids, the building blocks of life are known to be natually forming both on Earth and in space... prions show that protiens can replicate without being 'alive'... RNA and DNA are both found in viruses that manage to reproduce without being 'alive'... Complex Viruses show some incination to be 'more alive' than their more common fellows.

Unlike Evolution, wich has been studied for almost 150 years, the chemical origins of life have only been a theory since the 1920's... only 85 years and only realy studied since 1953... only 52 years. We still have a long way to go, but it isn't impossible that they wont make more advances in the coming 50 years.
Especally with the advances in tecnology especally in the areas of Genetics.

wa:do
 
Sunstone

Sunstone

De Diablo Del Fora
Premium Member
Seeing the progress science has made in so many fields, isn't it reasonable to suppose that science will make similar progress on the question of the origins of life? I don't think it takes too much faith to make that supposition, merely an observation of how much progess science tends to make when it tackles questions.
 
T

The Giz

New Member
Smart's Dimensions of Religion

1) Ritual
2) Mythological
3) Doctrinal
4) Ethical
5) Social
6) Experiential
7) Material/Artistic

Of course it is not necessary for a religion to have all seven dimensions, but it should have several. And I suppose it also depends on which dimensions someone finds to be of more importance. But following these dimensions I'd have to say that evolution is not a religion.
 
Scuba Pete

Scuba Pete

Le plongeur avec attitude...
I see 1, 2, 3, 5 and 7 as part of the Evo Experience. Does that make it a full blown cult??? :D Bwahahaha!
 
C

CMIYC

Member
First I must apologize for my eager point making where I completely misread the figures 150 million to 15 million, While one is attached to the universe age and the other to earths age which of course, earths age is anywhere from 8,000 to 15,000,000 I hope this is not going to tarnish the point I was trying to make. That point was; I million years is not enough for evolution to be accomplished, when we have animals today that can be backdated to dinosaurs era.. The scientific age for our universe and our earth is as mythical as religious beliefs on creation.

The scientific finding very in billions of years.

http://www.gate.net/~rwms/AgeEarth.html

http://www.mindspring.com/~jeffpo/earthage.htm

http://www.abqjournal.com/2000/1mill10-22.htm

http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/geotime/age.html



you can go to any site or any scientific analogy and they all will contradict each other on different bases. So I have come to the conclusion; science is 70% belief while only 30% fact.
 
Jayhawker Soule

Jayhawker Soule

-- untitled --
Premium Member
CMIYC said:
First I must apologize for my eager point making where I completely misread the figures 150 million to 15 million, While one is attached to the universe age and the other to earths age which of course, earths age is anywhere from 8,000 to 15,000,000 I hope this is not going to tarnish the point I was trying to make.
Click to expand...
That is absolutely absurd. Show me any scientific consensus that suggests a universe anywhere close to "150 million" years. Show me any scientific consensus that suggests an earth's age anywhere close to "8,000 to 15,000,000" years.

CMIYC said:
The scientific finding very in billions of years.

http://www.gate.net/~rwms/AgeEarth.html
http://www.mindspring.com/~jeffpo/earthage.htm
http://www.abqjournal.com/2000/1mill10-22.htm
http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/geotime/age.html
Click to expand...
You have a very serious problem with reading comprehension. Let's take your references one by one and let's see if "scientific finding very in billions of years":
  • http://www.gate.net/~rwms/AgeEarth.html
    Scientists have settled on the age of the earth of about 4.6 billion years as a result of research started almost 50 years ago.​
  • http://www.mindspring.com/~jeffpo/earthage.htm
    There are two basic schools of thought when it comes to the age of the earth. Science generally presents the age of the earth to be somewhere around 4.5 billion years old. That's quite a huge number. The bible on the other hand, when analyzed, puts the earth at around 6 thousand years old (with includes 6 days for its creation).​
  • http://www.abqjournal.com/2000/1mill10-22.htm
    By the reckoning of 17th-century Irish biblical scholar James Ussher, God created the heaven and the Earth "upon the entrance of the night preceding the twenty third day of October" in 4004 B.C.
    Because our calendar has no year zero, that makes our planet 6,000 years old today, if you believe Ussher.
    Some scientists do not.
    Modern geologic dating techniques have convinced scientists that Earth is far older -- some 4.5 billion years.​
  • http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/geotime/age.html
    The age of 4.54 billion years found for the Solar System and Earth is consistent with current calculations of 11 to 13 billion years for the age of the Milky Way Galaxy (based on the stage of evolution of globular cluster stars) and the age of 10 to 15 billion years for the age of the Universe (based on the recession of distant galaxies).​
So, you claim that "scientific finding very in billions of years", offer four sites as referrence, and we find estimates of (1) 4.6 billion, (2) around 4.5 billion, (3) some 4.5 billion, and (4) 4.54 billion! Again, do you have the slightest clue as to what you're reading and saying?

CMIYC said:
you can go to any site or any scientific analogy and they all will contradict each other on different bases.
Click to expand...
What a joke. Read you own references!

CMIYC said:
So I have come to the conclusion; science is 70% belief while only 30% fact.
Click to expand...
Given the mess you've created for yourself, why would anyone give that conclusion any credibility whatsoever?
 
C

CMIYC

Member
painted wolf said:
no species has survived for so long... families and gnenera have survived but no species.:banghead3

wa:do
Click to expand...
That is probably correct and the probable reason is most likely to be, DNA will not allow Anything more then micro evolution. For the species to survive they would have to do the whole yard and become something else. Not a likely option, this might cause imbalance in nature.

I am always opened for correction. I’m under the impression, carbon dating is only accurate up to 500 years anything above that is hit and miss. There are few various archeological dating which are more accurate, but then again, this doesn’t mean they are any more accurate over longer periods.
 
Jayhawker Soule

Jayhawker Soule

-- untitled --
Premium Member
CMIYC said:
I am always opened for correction. I’m under the impression, carbon dating is only accurate up to 500 years anything above that is hit and miss. There are few various archeological dating which are more accurate, but then again, this doesn’t mean they are any more accurate over longer periods.
Click to expand...
No (again).
Radiocarbon labs generally report an uncertainty, e.g., 3000±30BP indicates a standard deviation of 30 radiocarbon years. Traditionally this includes only the statistical counting uncertainty and some labs supply an "error multiplier" that can be multiplied by the uncertainty to account for other sources of error in the measuring process. Additional error is likely to arise from the nature and collection of the sample itself, e.g., a tree may accumulate carbon over a significant period of time and the wood turned into an artifact some time after the death of the tree. It is sometimes stated that burnt material can be reliably dated to the time of burning.

The maximum range of radiocarbon dating appears to be about 50,000 years, after which the amount of 14C is too low to be distinguished from background radiation. The K-Ar and uranium decay series are used in dating older objects (see Radiometric dating).

- Wikipedia
Click to expand...
 
michel

michel

Administrator Emeritus
Staff member
By the reckoning of 17th-century Irish biblical scholar James Ussher, God created the heaven and the Earth "upon the entrance of the night preceding the twenty third day of October" in 4004 B.C.
Because our calendar has no year zero, that makes our planet 6,000 years old today, if you believe Ussher.

Some scientists do not.

Modern geologic dating techniques have convinced scientists that Earth is far older --
Click to expand...
I agree with both points made above.

Existentially the Earth is 6000 years old.
Geologically it is much older.

That's because God created the Universe with age embedded.

Had he not done so, the Earth would be too young to sustained life. (Reference the Anthropic Principle.)

Note that Adam and Eve were created full-grown; and so was the Universe.
 
C

CMIYC

Member
How old is our Earth?​

5000 years or 5 billion years!

In order to prove their Theory of Evolution, the evolutionists assume the Earth has existed over billions of years because they think that it must have taken millions of years for the molten earth (which is assumed to have originally been a part of the sun or a part of a nebulae in the skies), to form proper environment and ‘a primordial soup’ for life to arise from it and, then, it must have taken billions or millions of years for the inanimate matter to form into molecular life, into amoeba and then, ultimately, to take the shape of man via mutations, adaptations and natural selection. So, Evolutionists estimate the earth to be between 4 and 5 billion years old and they believe life to have begun 4 or 5 million of years ago. The Geologists tell us that the earth is at least 400 million years old. But, the physicists tell us that the earth cannot have possibly existed more than 40 million years. An important question, therefore, is whether the history of the earth is that old. If it is not, then the whole Theory of Evolution falls to the ground and the age of fossils, rock, etc. cannot be billions or millions years.

It would be meaningful to refer to six volumes of Mathematical and physical papers of Lord Kelvin, the founder of modern thermo-dynamics in which he refuted the vast ages in geology. Because of strong bias of the evolutionists against writings, Kelvins’s proofs about the young Age of the earth are not reported in popular publications. But these are substantial proofs, worth studying. These proofs are based on world-wide phenomena and set strict limits on the age of the earth--while it would not be possible to give extensive excerpts of all the proofs, it would suffice here to state briefly his proofs, based on (1) the shape of the earth and (2) the earth’s magnetic core.

1.Proof relating to the shape of the earth.

Kelvin had good data showing that the earth’s rotational speed is slowing down. Using these data, he showed that if one went back a few billion years in time as the evolutionists would want us to go, the earth would have been rotating at least twice as fast as it is rotating to-day. Now, the evolutionists says that, in the beginning, i.e. few billion years ago, the earth was a molten mass. So, Kelvin argues that if a molten earth were spinning at high speed in the past, the faster the spin, the more it would tend to spread out. To make this principle clear, an example may be given. ‘let us take a string of skaters and let us try to whirl the string around with high speed. The skater at the other end of the string has a large centrifugal force on us: a force that pulls outward with a force proportional to the square of the speed. Kalvin argued that, on cooling, the molten earth-spinning much faster than now-would have let a huge bulge in the equatorial region and, so, the continents would have formed mainly in the equatorial region rather than going more in the north and less in the south as they stand now. The continuents would have circled the earth round its equator. Moreover, the bulge, which would have formed because of rotation and great centrifugal force, and which would have been part of those continents round the equator, would have been 40 miles higher than any continent at present is. But since the continents, at present, are not encircling the earth at the equator and the bulge is not that high, it shows conclusively that neither the earth was, previously, a molten mass or part of a nebula nor is it billions of years old but rather the earth is much younger in years.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top