Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Is Evolution Science Or Religion?

evolution biology charles darwin genetics

  • Please log in to reply
49 replies to this topic

#1 grote

grote

    Curious

  • Members
  • 1 posts

Posted 19 May 2015 - 07:17 PM

Ever wonder why the theory of evolution is such a controversial topic? Do some people simply refuse to admit evolution is a fact? But how can anyone not admit to a concept if it's been proven? Or has it?

Why is it that you never hear anyone denying Mars exists? How come no one ever claims there are no rings around Saturn? Why doesn't anyone ever deny the North Pole exists? That's because there is such an abundance of clear evidence that Mars, the rings around Saturn and the North Pole exist that attempting to contradict these facts would be sheer lunacy.

And therein lies the problem with evolution.

If evolution were the "fact" that those who believe in it claim, no one in his right mind would even attempt to deny its validity. The mere fact that there is controversy surrounding evolution shows it obviously is not a clear, proven fact.

The theory of evolution has not been proven in the over a century that it's been around. So why do some people still swear by it?

Log on to an evolution-supporting forum and you'll likely find the answer. On such a forum you'll seldom see a scientific discussion on the pros and cons of evolution. Scientifically valid contradictions to evolution are never met with "overwhelming evidence" that prove evolution's validity. They're usually met with insult and ridicule.

Even if you never mention religion, you'll almost always be accused of being a "fundie" (religious fundamentalist) and often even be subjected to ridicule of Jesus, despite the fact that they know nothing about your religious background or if you even believe in Jesus.

Belief in evolution seems to be very much psychologically tied to adverse or rebellious religious convictions. Science seems to have little to do with it. Evolutionists probably spend more time thinking of religion than some religious people, certainly more than those who bring up legitimate scientific contradictions to evolution

The bottom line is, the kind of clear and overwhelming evidence that supports the existence of Mars is simply not found to support evolution. Support for evolution seems to have more to do with ideology than evidence.

But what is probably most disturbing to evolutionists is that there is clear and overwhelming evidence that evolution never happened. Ironically, the very fossil record that's often cited in support of evolution is precisely what tells us beyond any question that evolution could not possibly have happened. For every viable looking fossil, there should have been millions of fossils of disfigured life forms that natural selection weeded out.

The only other explanation for fossils of mostly functional-looking life forms and relatively few deformed one is that the genetic process, which itself had to evolve, got all life forms right the first time. The fossil record shows it pretty much did. That's not evolution. Evolution is little more than a stubborn religion that opposes scientific findings with dogmatic principals.
 



#2 sanctus

sanctus

    Resident Diabolist

  • Administrators
  • 4105 posts

Posted 20 May 2015 - 02:05 AM

There is also plenty of evidence for a non-flat earth, but you still have people believing in flat-earth...so there is what you call sheer lunacy.

 

You know, I never dug much into pros and cons of evolution I just use the basic scientific approach: "there is no final theory of reality just the one that explains reality best so far" (eg. Newtonian mechanics->relativoty->General Relativity; Newtonian mechanics is not wrong (we use it every day) just a bigger approximation than the following theories).

Now applying this to evolution, the theory is by far the one which approximates best reality and is a scientific theory (meaning it can be falsified), not like almost all the competing ideas out there, eg.: creationism, ID, etc.



#3 sman

sman

    Questioning

  • Members
  • 229 posts

Posted 20 May 2015 - 10:32 AM

The evidence for the existence of Mars, Saturn’s rings, or the north pole is easy to understand. The evidence for evolution is not. The fossil record is not a hi-definition photo of the Darwinian algorithm like the kind we have of Mars and Saturn. Anyone not technically trained is bound to misunderstand it – the way you do, and worse. Misunderstandings abound.

 

The mere fact that there is controversy surrounding evolution shows it obviously is not a clear, proven fact.


I disagree with this. Controversy is not falsification. There are avid opponents of the theory of relativity, yet that idea is just as well supported as if there were none.

I completely agree with you, however, that insult and ridicule is not the appropriate response to questions or contentions about evolution, and I’d like to apologize for any such experiences you’ve had elsewhere. I hope you’ll find it different here.

#4 Moontanman

Moontanman

    Unobtainium...

  • Members
  • 9008 posts

Posted 20 May 2015 - 11:04 AM

Ever wonder why the theory of evolution is such a controversial topic? Do some people simply refuse to admit evolution is a fact? But how can anyone not admit to a concept if it's been proven? Or has it?

 

 

 

 

 

 

Evolution is a fact, every last bit of evidence supports evolution. Yes some people refuse to admit things change over time. You do not have an operating understanding of what the word theory means in science. 

 

In science the word theory means a body of knowledge, in science the goal is not to prove anything but to disprove and what ever is left is considered factual until better evidence comes along. Right now evolution is the most well supported theory in science and is the backbone of biology. 

 

The only thing about evolution at this point that could be questioned is the mechanism for it, at the moment natural selection has all the evidence and no other ideas are supported in any way. 

 

BTW evolution could be proven false quite easily, the fact that is has not been is quite amazing. 

 

Belief in evolution seems to be very much psychologically tied to adverse or rebellious religious convictions. Science seems to have little to do with it. Evolutionists probably spend more time thinking of religion than some religious people, certainly more than those who bring up legitimate scientific contradictions to evolution

 

 

Possibly you would like to point out some of those "legitimate scientific contradictions to evolution"

 

Even if you never mention religion, you'll almost always be accused of being a "fundie" (religious fundamentalist) and often even be subjected to ridicule of Jesus, despite the fact that they know nothing about your religious background or if you even believe in Jesus

 

 

 

Ridicule would  be against the rules, your beliefs and religious background are irrelevant to the evidence of science. 

 

Belief in evolution seems to be very much psychologically tied to adverse or rebellious religious convictions. Science seems to have little to do with it. Evolutionists probably spend more time thinking of religion than some religious people, certainly more than those who bring up legitimate scientific contradictions to evolution

 

 

Evolution has nothing to do with god or religion, in fact the vast majority of people who accept evolution are or claim to be christian.  

 

The bottom line is, the kind of clear and overwhelming evidence that supports the existence of Mars is simply not found to support evolution. Support for evolution seems to have more to do with ideology than evidence.

 

 

Not true, changes in allele frequencies has been demonstrated in the lab over and over, these observations are just as rock solid as observations of Mars... 

 

But what is probably most disturbing to evolutionists is that there is clear and overwhelming evidence that evolution never happened. Ironically, the very fossil record that's often cited in support of evolution is precisely what tells us beyond any question that evolution could not possibly have happened. For every viable looking fossil, there should have been millions of fossils of disfigured life forms that natural selection weeded out.

 

 

 

This is part of where your problem lies, you expect every life form to be fossilized and the fact is that fossils are quite rare and the idea of a disfigured life form is bogus as well. Nothing ever reproduces and produces anything but what it's parents were, all changes are far too trivial and gradual to be recorded as "monstrous changes"  
 

The only other explanation for fossils of mostly functional-looking life forms and relatively few deformed one is that the genetic process, which itself had to evolve, got all life forms right the first time. The fossil record shows it pretty much did. That's not evolution. Evolution is little more than a stubborn religion that opposes scientific findings with dogmatic principals.

 

 

I would like to see your evidence for this assertion, the fossil record does in fact show life developed and changed slowly over time, you will see no bunny rabbits in the burgess shale. 


Edited by Moontanman, 20 May 2015 - 11:07 AM.


#5 Ryndanangnysen

Ryndanangnysen

    Advanced Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 60 posts

Posted 20 July 2015 - 05:16 AM

Well, evidently there is NO EVIDENCE for (macro) evolution.

 

Besides that, it is very easy to see that (macro) evolution is statistically impossible!

 

No, I am not a creatonist,.

 

If people knew where the evolution hoax really started.....

 

 

Oh and btw science EQUALS religion!

 

It is just like another religion trying to look sincere, logical and truthfull.....it isn't.


Edited by Ryndanangnysen, 20 July 2015 - 05:24 AM.


#6 Moontanman

Moontanman

    Unobtainium...

  • Members
  • 9008 posts

Posted 20 July 2015 - 01:01 PM

Well, evidently there is NO EVIDENCE for (macro) evolution.

 
Well evidently you are incorrect: http://www.talkorigi...g/faqs/comdesc/
 

Besides that, it is very easy to see that (macro) evolution is statistically impossible!


Please see above!
 

No, I am not a creatonist,.


Doesn't matter what you are all that matters is evidence..
 

If people knew where the evolution hoax really started.....


Perhaps you would be kind enough to enlighten us?
 

Oh and btw science EQUALS religion!


No, religion requires faith, science requires evidence and rejects faith.
 

It is just like another religion trying to look sincere, logical and truthfull.....it isn't.


No, science has repeatable results religion has nothing but faith backed up by nothing..

#7 Ryndanangnysen

Ryndanangnysen

    Advanced Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 60 posts

Posted 20 July 2015 - 02:26 PM

 
Well evidently you are incorrect: http://www.talkorigi...g/faqs/comdesc/
 

Please see above!
 

Doesn't matter what you are all that matters is evidence..
 

Perhaps you would be kind enough to enlighten us?
 

No, religion requires faith, science requires evidence and rejects faith.
 

No, science has repeatable results religion has nothing but faith backed up by nothing..

 

 

Nope, that is NO EVIDENCE, you gave a DESCRIPTION

 

A far as I know is a DESCRIPTION not the samen as EVIDENCE

 

Please show me E V I D E N C E, you just very simply can't.



#8 Ryndanangnysen

Ryndanangnysen

    Advanced Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 60 posts

Posted 20 July 2015 - 02:29 PM

And yes, science is really just a disguised religion to control the masses!

 

Once religion was used to control the masses, but when that didn't work very good anymore, the same

 

people that invented the religions invented........science!

 

 

Why did you fall for this rubbish? Probably because at school they told you indirectly to follow this religion, right?



#9 A-wal

A-wal

    Explaining

  • Banned
  • 813 posts

Posted 20 July 2015 - 03:02 PM

There's tons of supporting evidence for evolution. The way creatures devolope in isolated enviroments, the fossil record showing gradual changes over time and the fact that lions don't like water and tigers do despite being genetically so similar that they can cross breed because the lions that did like water were eaten by crocodiles, to name just a few.

 

Two tigers are sharing the same enviroment and competing for food. The one with the better camaflage is the one that's more likely to reproduce. That gentic mutation that gave it better camaflarge gets passed to it's offspring at the expense of the tiger with inferior camoflarge.

 

Two girraffes are sharing the same enviroment and competing for food. The one with the longer neck is the one that's more likely to reproduce. That gentic mutation that gave it a longer neck gets passed to it's offspring at the expense of the girraffe with a shorter neck.

 

You can do this for every single trate of every living thing. If you want to refute evolution then you need to provide a mechanism that prevents natural selection.



#10 Ryndanangnysen

Ryndanangnysen

    Advanced Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 60 posts

Posted 20 July 2015 - 11:47 PM

There's tons of supporting evidence for evolution. 

 

 

No, there isn't any for macro evolution. OR show me!

 

The way creatures devolope in isolated enviroments????

 

Duh????

 

the fossil record showing gradual changes over time

 

 

It doesn't OR show me the evidence. Writing that there is evidence is different from showing evidence

 

And then there is THIS

 

 

“No fossil is buried with its birth certificate. That, and the scarcity of fossils, means that it is effectively impossible to link fossils into chains of cause and effect in any valid way... To take a line of fossils and claim that they represent a lineage is not a scientific hypothesis that can be tested, but an assertion that carries the same validity as a bedtime story—amusing, perhaps even instructive, but not scientific.” 
― Henry GeeIn Search of Deep Time: Beyond the Fossil Record to a New History of Life

 

 

 

 

And This:

 


 


 

  'I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book.  If I knew of any, fossils or living, I certainly would have included it.… I will lay it on the line.  There is not one such fossil for which one might make a watertight argument.'"

 

 

 

 Dr. Colin Patterson, Director of the British Museum

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

and the fact that lions don't like water and tigers do despite being genetically so similar that they can cross breed because the lions that did like water were eaten by crocodiles, to name just a few.

 

Duh???

 

Two tigers are sharing the same enviroment and competing for food. The one with the better camaflage is the one that's more likely to reproduce. That gentic mutation that gave it better camaflarge gets passed to it's offspring at the expense of the tiger with inferior camoflarge.

 

 

Genetic mutation leads to destructiveness, NOT a better adopted way! AND you are mixing up macro and micro evolution!

never a new animal will be produced!

 

Two girraffes are sharing the same enviroment and competing for food. The one with the longer neck is the one that's more likely to reproduce. That gentic mutation that gave it a longer neck gets passed to it's offspring at the expense of the girraffe with a shorter neck.

 

 

 

Again, you are mixing up micro and macro evolution. I am only talking about macro evolution as having no evidence.

 

You can do this for every single trate of every living thing. If you want to refute evolution then you need to provide a mechanism that prevents natural selection.

 

 

You are again mixing up the two. btw natural selection doesn't add anything!


Edited by Ryndanangnysen, 20 July 2015 - 11:53 PM.


#11 Ryndanangnysen

Ryndanangnysen

    Advanced Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 60 posts

Posted 21 July 2015 - 12:16 AM

I disagree with this. Controversy is not falsification. There are avid opponents of the theory of relativity, yet that idea is just as well supported as if there were none.

 

 

 

lol, I would say relativity is one of the most stupid theories that have ever seen the day of light!

Relativity is NOT supported, once you start researching you will find out!

 

 

But I digress. :)


Edited by Ryndanangnysen, 21 July 2015 - 12:18 AM.


#12 A-wal

A-wal

    Explaining

  • Banned
  • 813 posts

Posted 21 July 2015 - 10:09 AM

The way life forms that have been trapped in caves for thousands or millions of years have evolved to use chemosynthesis rather than photosynthesis, stuff like that. There's quite a few examples.

 

Most mutations are a disadvantage but those that carry them are eliminated from the gene pool because of that disadvantage. Those individuals lucky enough to have an advantageous mutation are more likely to reproduce because of that advantage that then gets passed down to the next generation, making each generation slightly more evolved than the last.

 

Macro evolution is micro evolution, just over a longer period of time. It's a series of small steps.

 

The lions that liked going in the water were eaten by crocodiles before the could reproduce so now lions have evolved to stay out of the water. Lions give another really good example, how friendly they are in the wild towards people despite being so aggressive to other animals, poor elephants. The African plains is where humans evolved so all the dangerous lions were killed by us before they could reproduce so lions evolved to like people because those are the ones that survived long enough to have cubs.

 

Relativity is based on one observation, that the speed of light is the same for all inertial observers regardless of the observer's velocity relative to each other. The only way multiple observers that are in motion relative to each other can measure light moving at the same speed is if they measure time and/or space differently to keep the speed of light constant. It really is as simple as that. If the speed of light isn't constant for all inertial observers then relativity is wrong.



#13 Moontanman

Moontanman

    Unobtainium...

  • Members
  • 9008 posts

Posted 21 July 2015 - 11:29 AM

lol, I would say relativity is one of the most stupid theories that have ever seen the day of light!
Relativity is NOT supported, once you start researching you will find out!
 
 
But I digress. :)


I would suggest you back that up with a citation please..

#14 Moontanman

Moontanman

    Unobtainium...

  • Members
  • 9008 posts

Posted 21 July 2015 - 11:29 AM

Nope, that is NO EVIDENCE, you gave a DESCRIPTION
 
A far as I know is a DESCRIPTION not the samen as EVIDENCE
 
Please show me E V I D E N C E, you just very simply can't.


I can and I did...

#15 Moontanman

Moontanman

    Unobtainium...

  • Members
  • 9008 posts

Posted 21 July 2015 - 11:30 AM

No, there isn't any for macro evolution. OR show me!
 
 
Duh????
 
 
It doesn't OR show me the evidence. Writing that there is evidence is different from showing evidence
 
And then there is THIS
 
 
 
 
 
And This:
 

 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Duh???
 
 
Genetic mutation leads to destructiveness, NOT a better adopted way! AND you are mixing up macro and micro evolution!
never a new animal will be produced!
 
 
 
Again, you are mixing up micro and macro evolution. I am only talking about macro evolution as having no evidence.
 
 
You are again mixing up the two. btw natural selection doesn't add anything!


I smell a troll..

#16 Moontanman

Moontanman

    Unobtainium...

  • Members
  • 9008 posts

Posted 21 July 2015 - 11:31 AM

And yes, science is really just a disguised religion to control the masses!
 
Once religion was used to control the masses, but when that didn't work very good anymore, the same
 
people that invented the religions invented........science!
 
 
Why did you fall for this rubbish? Probably because at school they told you indirectly to follow this religion, right?


Pure speculation, citation please!

#17 Ryndanangnysen

Ryndanangnysen

    Advanced Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 60 posts

Posted 21 July 2015 - 11:43 AM

I smell a troll..

 

 

That is a cheap shot,, mate!

 

Why do you say that?

 

I really mean every word I write here!