Evolution is a Religion.

I can also see why you and I are BOTH at a conspiracy site too Gaz!
Just messin'....hehehe

regards
seekerof

Originally posted by Seekerof
Maybe I am wrong here but isn't Evolution:
"A scientific theory which explains, in detail, how everything in the universe came into being -- slowly.

No. That's not correct.

Evolution deals ONLY with living creatures: Dire wolf to dog.

The "theory of evolutions" are so perfect and flexible in its ability to explain virtually all observable phemomena or opinions that it would be impossible to even conceive of an experiment capable of disproving it."

That's the "Unified Field Theorem" and not "evolution." UFT explains a lot of things, however it doesn't explain evolution. That's like asking a musical composer to give a literary critque of James' Joyce's "Ulyssees" using only musical notes.

If it, ultimately, doesn't deal with "origins"? What science does "primordial soup" fall under?

Biochemistry.

Evolution may be a observable fact...I just find it a bit odd that most of the proofs for evolution turned out to be fakes or frauds.

You mean, like Lucy, like the Australopithecine fossils, like the T-rex fossils, like the homo Heidelbergensis fossils, like the Neanderthal fossils, like homo habilis, like the shark fossil series, like the archaeopterxy (there are a number of these fossils... not just one, I should add), like the therapsids (intermediate forms between reptiles and mammals) and all these fossils listed here: www.talkorigins.org... ?

They're all frauds? Really? Care to explain how these skulls are all frauds, too? I find that very hard to believe.


Furthermore, if you'l check around, you'll find the creationists have fabricated a LOT of evidence, including the famous "Paluxy man tracks" (the sculptor later confessed... and in either case, he'd made the tracks upside down in the rock.)

But since Evolution has become the 'bedrock' foundation of all modern life science over the past 100 years,

I beg to differ. It certainly hasn't been the bedrock foundation of biochemistry or anatomy or botany or a number of other branches of life science -- no more than the Krebs Citric-Acid Cycle has become the foundation for anatomy or biology.

Creationists have TRIED to claim that it is, but in doing so they reveal how little they know about it. They have one idea (that it means "The atoms go BANG and then apes show up and humans come from apes!") and it's hard to get them to actually READ what is really said about evolution and how it's simply one mechanism (like hydrodynamics) that explains some of the goings on in a very broad science field (like hydrodynamics to the study of physics.)

And we do get tired of them saying the equivalent of "Hydrodynamics is a religion!!!"

I'm sure you can see how ridiculous that statement is.

Same's true of evolution. Not a religion and they are so afraid of being "sucked in by evil" that they don't actually bother to find out about what it really is.

I can also see why you and I are BOTH at a conspiracy site too Gaz!
Just messin'....hehehe

*screams and flings poo at Seekerof*

[Edited on 29-9-2003 by Gazrok]

Thank you Bryd for further enlightment.....and no...I was refering to 'Piltdown Man.'

Thank you though for the education...no wonder I never went the science route.

regards
seekerof

There ARE some science forgeries (they're rare, but they do exist and some aren't uncovered for a bit) and we do change our opinions about how things move and stand as we get better skeletons.

BTW, there's a nice series of 'meat-eating-dino evolving to T-Rex bones'... that's part of the proofs as well. It was on the Discovery channel (I think) tonight.

Originally posted by William

Originally posted by Seekerof
"evolution by natural selection" deals ultimately with 'origins'.

No it doesn't. It deals with the systemic progression (advancement or regression) of physical attributes of plant and animal species. Evolution as a science, does not dabble in origins at all. It's the creationists who attempt to discredit evolution science by inaccurately marrying it with cosmology and earth science... thus using the so-called "absurdity of the big bang" as a means to discredit evolution in the eyes of theists.

I think this is only in response to Evolution Science's denial of a Creator who made all things as they were and those who believe this to be true.
The belief in a Big Bang event without giving credit to a creator God is a denial of the creator God, and thereby denies His existence and belief system in Him. The two are at odds no matter. Darwin was a believer, lost his faith and theorized evolution ....it remains just that, a theory that I personally find offensive. I did not evolve. The 3% of my genes that seperate me from primates is more than enough- why is 97% subjectively viewed as dominate in determining human relations to primates.
Evolution has long been used to discredit a belief in a creator God and his creation by atheist and humanist alike for years- if man is still evolving to our "Higher Self" we have no need for God and His plan for us. We are free indeed............still running around in the Garden like bad children making excuses.....

Originally posted by Seekerof
1. Belief in a "Big Bang," that they have no proof of.

2. Belief in life which resulted from chemical processes, of which they have no proof.

3. Belief in an old Earth, for which no convincing proof has ever been found.

4. Belief in macro-evolution without producing any transitionary forms.

5. Belief in uniformitarianism, that all environmental processes have always been the same on Earth, with no proof of that hypothesis.

Well, IMO, judging by the rest of the entire universe, which is constantly evolving, why would earth be any different? You call that a religion? There isn't one thing in the entire universe that doesn't evolve in one way or another. If you think there is, name it. Everything is moving, and everything is changing, constantly. Any matter that appears to be stationary, is merely molecules condensed to a slow vibration....each of which is constructed of even smaller particles that also have an evolutionary process of their own. Any slight change in anything (caused by chance or any other force) causes something else to change. This is evolution. You say there's no proof of it??? The entire universe and it's physics is the proof! I've never seen such a desperate attempt to place religion at the center of all things.
This has to be the biggest (security) blanket statement I've ever seen!

Originally posted by Byrd
No. That's not correct.

Evolution deals ONLY with living creatures: Dire wolf to dog.

Bullocks! Since when? Can no other kind of energy evolve? Look the word up. It's just a process. It has nothing to do with life or creatures specifically. Solar systems can evolve, just as universes can evolve, just as sub-atomic particles can evolve. Evolution does not discriminate!

Tyriffic,
Often times things are so damn obvious, but certain people just don't want to believe them. Such stubbornness!!! It'll never cease to amaze and yet disappoint me!

[Edited on 10-2-2003 by Satyr]

Built into the theory of evolution is the theory of common descent (which is really just
another name for the theory of evolution). The theory of common descent states that all
life on earth has descended from a single species of organisms (perhaps even just one
organism) that arose on the earth some billion or so years ago. The proof used to
substantiate this theory is the fact that the DNA structure of all living creatures is
remarkable similar and the cell chemistry of all living creatures is similar (all living
creatures use the same 29 amino acids). The advocates of the theory of common descent
do not seem to find this single source of all life to be particularly remarkable; they just
accept it as a given fact. When ask, they simply state that the common descent does not
address the issue of how life first arose on the earth; it begins with this single source and
cares not how that source came to be.

On the other hand, the theory of how life first arose on the earth suggests that primitive
life forms would be formed over a period of time due to random formation of ever more
complex molecules formed from naturally occurring organic compounds. After millions of
years of intermediate forms, the first single cell organism arose on the earth. However this
theory would suggest that there should be more than one kind of life on the earth. That in
the primordial seas, several different kinds of organisms with completely different
chemistry and structure would occur. Also this theory would suggest also that this would
not be a �one time event� and we should have seen several generations of such primitive
life forms. In short the theory of formation of life suggests that we should see several
sources of common descent and that these sources would have variation in their geologic
age. In short we should be able to trace one set of creatures to organism A beginning say
1.5 billion years ago, another set of creatures to organism B beginning say 1.25 billion
years ago, another set of creatures to organism C beginning say 750 million years ago, etc.
My question is this. If life arises randomly from the conditions of the early earth, why is it
that today we can trace all life to a single instance of generation. Why is it that we do not
see creatures with basically different body chemistry which can be traced to several
instances of generation spaced of the duration of the earth?

I have posed this question before and have never received an answer. Perhaps our posters
with training in the biological sciences could hazard an answer.

My question is this. If life arises randomly from the conditions of the early earth, why is it
that today we can trace all life to a single instance of generation.

When has this actually been done with any degree of undisputable accuracy? What exactly are you referring to?

Why is it that we do not
see creatures with basically different body chemistry which can be traced to several
instances of generation spaced of the duration of the earth?

This could have something to do with this planet, it's environment, and the requirements to live here. Don't you think? Another planet that sustains life could be completely different.

[Edited on 10-2-2003 by Satyr]

Douglas Theobald, Ph.D. in his monograph "The Scientific Case for Common Descent" presents the scientific evidence for a single species of organism as the starting point for all life on earth:

www.talkorigins.org...

Originally posted by Tyriffic
I think this is only in response to Evolution Science's denial of a Creator who made all things as they were and those who believe this to be true.
The belief in a Big Bang event without giving credit to a creator God is a denial of the creator God,

No, your assumptions are wrong. There are several hundred scientists that believe these methods (big-bang, evolution) may have been among the tools used by a creator.

I did not evolve.

Correct. You did not.

Evolution has long been used to discredit a belief in a creator God and his creation by atheist and humanist alike for years-

Actually, history shows the reverse. Humanity has a great deal of experience observing the religious leaders attempting to discredit science for hundreds of years. While some scientists often take things too far for personal gain, the vaste majority of the efforts of scientists are to simply look for answers among what can be observed. Since God cannot be "observed", a supreme being is normally not in the answers of science.


Long ago, religion eventually accepted that the earth was not the center of things... but it took quite a struggle. I think we'll see the same thing with evolution science before too long.

Originally posted by Satyr

Originally posted by Byrd
Evolution deals ONLY with living creatures: Dire wolf to dog.

Bullocks! Since when? Can no other kind of energy evolve?

You seem to be mistaking thermodynamics with evolution. Thermodynamics is about energy and motion changes.

Look the word up. It's just a process. It has nothing to do with life or creatures specifically. Solar systems can evolve, just as universes can evolve, just as sub-atomic particles can evolve. Evolution does not discriminate!

Oh, I *HAVE* looked the word up. In fact, I taught Biology in the Texas school system. Evolution refers to living things and genetic changes.

Astronomical changes are not evolutionary in nature. You don't see a planet (Mars, for instance) start having babies (like some sort of gigantic cosmic tribble) and these babies having babies and eventually after thousands of generations of babies, the original planet offspring have changed from planets into bannana pancakes and matzoh balls that were incapable of breeding with each other, but could continue having baby bananna pancakes and baby matzoh balls.

THAT (absurd as it is) would be evolution.

Evolution deals with life. Thermodynamics deals with the transformation of energy... and so forth.

Originally posted by Tyriffic
The belief in a Big Bang event without giving credit to a creator God is a denial of the creator God, and thereby denies His existence and belief system in Him.

By these loose standards, it's also a denial of Marduk creating the universe out of the body of Tiamat after he defeated her in a mighty battle and belief in Marduk. It also is a denial of Sophia (who created the universe) and the evil Jehovah and his minions who created the earth (gnosticism). It's also a denial of the power of Smurfiness creating the universe. And, heaven forbid, it also denies that Great Mystery created it and Coyote placed the stars.

Or that the universe was started by tribbles.

Or that the universe was started by the Gods of Jello. Or He-Man.

Or Santa Claus.

Jagd are trying to address the issue of vertebrates vs. invertebrates with respect to evolution?

If memory serves, the predominant conclusions are that the matter of mass extinctions does play a major role.

For all intent and purpose the main point is in respect to survival of the fittest.

Any thoughts?

Toltec
You missed the point of my question by about 100 million light years. It was not even
considering the �vertebrates vs. invertebrates with respect to evolution� but was posed as
a technical question to people with training in the biological sciences. I will try to simplify
the question:
1. The theory of common descent (i. e., evolution) states that all living entities on earth
descended from ONE common ancestor (perhaps even a single organism). See Douglas
Theobald, Ph.D. "The Scientific Case for Common Descent" for details:
www.talkorigins.org...
2. The theory of abiogenesis (origins of life) would suggest that there should be several
sources of descent rather than just one. Also these sources should arise on the earth over
a period of time creating new lines of descent.
3. We seem to have a problem. Common descent says there was a single source
(organism) from which all life on earth descended. Theories of abiogenesis indicate that
there should be several lines of descent (several sources from which life descended).
4. Explain.

if you want to know about evolution vs. creationism, go to www.drdino.com -- it is a man who used to be a high school science teacher who talks about the differences, it is really interesting

Kent Hovind's "Dr. Dino" site is full of lies and deceit in an effort to promote "creation science". He should be ashamed of himself.

Originally posted by jagdflieger
Theories of abiogenesis indicate that there should be several lines of descent (several sources from which life descended).

There are several forms of life which likely sprung from different origins, which have survived.
vertebrates
invertebrates
Plant
Fungus/mold
Virus

I'd say that's not bad.

Dr.Dino's "science" is SO bad (and has been caught in so many bits of misinformation) that even the other creationist websites are distancing themselves from him. The better one is answersingenesis.org, but it's got a whole cartfull of mistakes on it, too.

Hovind's got a pretty bad reputation among Christians who discuss try to defend creationism. Evolutionists like to see people quoting his site because the evidence is so bad it's easily knocked over.

Originally posted by Byrd
Oh, I *HAVE* looked the word up. In fact, I taught Biology in the Texas school system. Evolution refers to living things and genetic changes.

Look again, then. Do you see anything that limits evolution to living things?

www.m-w.com...

Actually, only #4 refers to biological evolution. The other 5 aren't of any significance to you?

I know this is semantics, but understanding the word you're discussing is very important, IMO.

Checking multiple dictionary definitions, only one is in reference to biology in each.

Basically, as I said, evolution is merely a movement that is part of a set of ordered movements. This includes everything in the universe (and beyond), IMO.

[Edited on 10-3-2003 by Satyr]