Evolution a Religion

a reply to: Dem0nc1eaner

That would be geology not evolution neighbour.

a reply to: theultimatebelgianjoke

Why yes a falsely attested statement on the interwebs ends a game every time ....

originally posted by: Dem0nc1eaner
I was called ignorant before we even got this far, so yes, that got my back up, maybe you should direct your comment to the person who tried to insult my belief system without knowing what that belief system was.

Anyway...

"absolute bull s# to be Blunt. Neanderthal is a 19th century find. Work done by the Leakey's in the 50's and 60's was groundbreaking to say the very least but he was doing important work at Olduvai as far back as the 1920's. Denigrating a scientific because it knows more today than it did 30,40,50 or 100 years ago is absolutely asinine. Name e a singe scientific discipline that does NOT know more currently than 50 years ago. "

This is still based on assumptions of the age of the Earth. The 30/40 year comment was stating that recently genetic information had provided some credible points to debate, that weren't based solely on fossils, who's cause of origin can't be verified.

One cause of origin I can't accept is that they dropped to the ground and were slowly fossilised at the speed it's accepted the strata would have formed around them.

"showing that something CAN occur under laboratory conditions isn't in he same ballpark as showing that it DID happen in the real world that way under natural conditions. if that were the case then abiogenesis wouldn't still be a hypothesis"

Isn't that the same basis that macro-evolution is based on? Because minor adaptations within a species CAN be observed, then it MAY be possible for this to happen to a greater extent, if we have enough time. How is this any different? Also, we have examples of fast strata formation in the natural world, on a smaller scale, so why is it impossible for you to imagine it happening on a larger scale? Especially when there are countless records from across the entire planet, from almost every civilisation, that state there was a gigantic flood that covered the majority of the Earth.

We have a situation where it has been proven that vast quantities of water moving at speed with varying current's will produce strata much like we see in the real world, we also have many accounts from history of this happening. So I think that's a pretty good hypothesis.

How can you reconcile your beliefs that the fossil record has been created slowly over millions of years, just because it MAY be possible? Which I don't even think it is.

Like I said before, fossilisation requires (in most all cases) the body to be entombed. How do we even have a fossil record, that appears to be regulated in some fashion across the planet, unless there was an event which entombed many animals all at once, across the entire planet.

Why do we find fossilised trees straddling strata? Why do we find entire schools of fish and large groupings of animals in one spot. Do fish return to graveyards to die like elephants? Or does it seem more likely that the whole school was impacted and entombed at once.

And lastly, just look around you for pete's sake. Does the natural world support uniformitarianism or catastrophism?

Maybe this is a copout, but I spent years studying this before I got a degree that took years to achieve and continue to study to this day in hopes of finally obtaining the holy grail of graduate degrees and basically you want me to wrap up decades of education and research into a paragraph or blurb and from multiple disciplines from biology, to genetics to anthropology to geology no less. I just can't play this game anymore especially when your reply will be yet a other incredulous dismissal of it all. Do some research, provide citations that support your thesis and then we can have a conversation because I'm not going to continue to try to address hyperbolic rhetoric based on your personal understanding or in my opinion, misunderstandings, of multiple disciplines some of which I am quite conversant in, some I would be bold enough to call myself an expert in and some I'm not really qualified to discuss so I actually research it before I reply only for you to dismiss it with a wave of the hand and and an Incredulous misrepresentation of data. Best of luck to you and maybe someone with more patience will be willing to play along.

a reply to: peter vlar

That of course predisposes that they want someone to explain it? It seems that we have a group of people who want to seem "open minded" but who will ignore anything they can't refute, then re-erect these goal posts they love somewhere else and go "why are you over there, its over here"....

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: deadeyedick



At least you admit to coming to a debate unarmed, but that still doesn't make it right or you what you are saying true. Seems rather odd to me that you would write a topic off as a matter of faith without fully investigating it. Doesn't sound very open minded to me.

truth is truth and these things are not for me to know here. alchemy is the true nature here and even though i'm no expert one should not quickly dismiss my knowledge. i try to be humble and let those who have suffered gaining knowledge know even though it will fail them here it will help them in another life.

My point to the topic here is simple and found in the terms and conditions of the forum. it states about this section being for those that have faith or religion. thereby when one comes in here spewing facts about science they have admited at that point that they have a faith or religion and that science is their faith or that the belief of no god is their religion. perhaps they do it not aware of what they say by their actions but it is still said. I have no problem respecting the religion of science or athiesm but let's not lie to ourselves.

a reply to: deadeyedick

I'm a spiritual person and a Scientist. My Faith does not contradict my science, nor my science contradict my faith. I've been one of the more prevalent posters in this thread. Thus your "point" is really not worth the pixels on the screen they take.

Further more I would suggest my knowledge is not going to fail me in this life thanks.

a reply to: deadeyedick

Stop trying to compare faith and science. They aren't the same thing. Science relies on empirical evidence to form conclusions about the universe. Faith just makes crap up and says it is true then relies on gullibility on the believer's part to not question the claims.

Science isn't a religion. No one worships science. No one prays to science. The only ritual science performs is the scientific method. There are no ceremonies with science. No dogma with science. And finally science is willing to correct itself if its claims are shown to be false.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

yes it is a religion that is far more changing in beliefs than any other.
Care to take a stab at the other part of my post?

a reply to: deadeyedick

No it isn't a religion. Religions are internationally recognized institutions. Evolution is just a scientific theory.

I've already addressed the second part of your post several times in this thread. I think it is insulting to compare Evolution to faith and religion. I said as much with the very first post in this thread. Obviously the mods feel it can stay here, so they at the least agree with the suggestion of the thread topic. I'm not a mod, so here it stays.

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: deadeyedick



I'm a spiritual person and a Scientist. My Faith does not contradict my science, nor my science contradict my faith. I've been one of the more prevalent posters in this thread. Thus your "point" is really not worth the pixels on the screen they take.



Further more I would suggest my knowledge is not going to fail me in this life thanks.

why is the debate in the faith section if it is not a faith topic based on as another poster stated conclusions?

a reply to: Krazysh0t
My intentions are not to insult. How about yours?

a reply to: deadeyedick

You shall have to ask the OP. However if you limit a non spiritual subject to spiritual based argument, then you are being dishonest. Your argument on this point is in of its self an admission of defeat.

a reply to: deadeyedick

Intention and result aren't always coupled together. When someone says something ignorant like "evolution is a religion" it is insulting to the people who have actually studied and understand evolution, regardless of your intentions.

a reply to: Noinden

you may be right cause i didn't quite grasp your point. Mine is that even though science is widely accepted the debate over it being a religion of its own is not and there is enough evidence to keep the topic in this forum. I believe the op was moved here from another place for that reason.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

yea and by me stating i am no expert you run with it claiming i know not enough to speak. my stance remains that science is a religion and it changes more than any other other wise we would not be conversing in this place. Sure you are convinced but everyone is not. When the thread with conclusive proof comes then we shall weigh the evidence but right now history shows otherwise.

a reply to: deadeyedick

The people who try to advance "science is a religion" generally have an axe to grind. Science is many things, but religion is not one of them. It has a philosophy, it has a series of methodologies, but its not a religion. This is evidenced by the people of many faiths (Abrahamic, Neopagan, Buddhist, agnostic, atheist etc) who work and study in the field.

The OP opens with an inflammatory statement viz "Scientists have discovered that you will believe anything if someone says scientists have discovered it. " as flame bait. You can not limit such a discussion to "just faith" at that point (nor does this statement say science is a religion). Even if you did, you must allow for people of all faiths and points of view to take part using their own understanding of spirituality. If you do not, it is a dishonest argument to start. I am leaning to it being that myself, but I'm a cynical Druid

a reply to: deadeyedick

Post conclusive proof that evolution is a religion (the title of the thread) and then we will talk Though you can't refute anything we post, so you are not really in a position to argue against it, in your own words "you are no expert". Some of us are in the areas we are talking about. For me its the genetics side of it. We've had an anthropology major as well.

a reply to: deadeyedick

There is no debate here. It's just you arguing with reality. The simple fact is that religions are human organizations and Modern Evolutionary Synthesis is a scientific theory. They AREN'T the same thing.

labcoats= priestly garments
labrats=animal sacrifice
rituals=expierments
study of source material
gatherings=worship
houses of science=churches

there is so much likeness the only part i see missing is prayer to hawking and others but i imagine some do it

a reply to: Noinden

are you claiming that science has mastered dna?