Evolution a religion?

[Southtown]

Can one define evolution as a religion?

No. Abiogenesis, common descent, and Pangea are what requires effort for maintaining a straight face when force-fed without any other persuasion than authority.

[Southtown]

What has that got to do with the age of man and his records? That's more than a billion years before the earliest hominid fossils dated via radiometric dating of the rock samples.

Specifically? Because the moon could not have been captured, nor could it be created by collision. This limits the age of the earth as well, at least in its present orbit.

 

Purposefully forgotten by whom? Are you saying the earliest homospaiens of 160,000 years ago purposely negleted to pass down their origins so that it could be recorded in the earliest writing that only goes back 5500 years? And that they knew their origins?

No I said "purposefully ignored possibility" that radiometric dating could be contaminated, and the bible correct. If you need qualification, note the refusal of others to even read the hydroplate evidence and discuss it with some level of objectivity.

[C1ay]

Can one define evolution as a religion?

That depends on the xtent and applications of one's concept of evolution.

 

IMO, evolution is only a religion when someone attempts to make it more than it is. We know for a fact that species adapt and mutate. To that extent evolution is not just a faithful belief, it is a fact.

 

Regarding speciation, things drift into a gray area. For those that are honest with themselves they realize that evolution is merely a theory about speciation, not a fact. I personally do not believe it explains all speciation but I don't believe that it doesn't either. I believe it is a theory that may or may not provide the answers we seek and we are looking for evidence that will support or refute it. For me it is not a faithful belief and therefore not a religion.

 

There are some though that choose to believe that it is, in fact, the answer for speciation. The evidence does not support this conclusion. For this group I suppose you could categorize it as religious belief because it is based on faith.

 

Then there are those that persist in the evolution vs creation argument. For one reason or another they don't seem to realize that evolution is not a theory about the origins of life at all, yet they insist on arguing about it. I think it's their religion to argue :)

[C1ay]

Specifically? Because the moon could not have been captured, nor could it be created by collision. This limits the age of the earth as well, at least in its present orbit.

 

 

No I said "purposefully ignored possibility" that radiometric dating could be contaminated, and the bible correct. If you need qualification, note the refusal of others to even read the hydroplate evidence and discuss it with some level of objectivity.

Quite simply you are trying to make evolution something that it is not. Evolution is not a theory about the formation of the Earth or the moon, it is a theory about the developement of species through mutation and adaptation. That some use therm "evolved" regarding the formation of planets from a plantary proto-disk is not a reference to Darwin's theory of evolution, they simply mean developed from. You might ask cwes to clarify but I did not get the impression this thread was about this convoluted application of the term evolution.

[Pyrotex]

IMO, evolution is only a religion when someone attempts to make it more than it is. We know for a fact that species adapt and mutate. To that extent evolution is not just a faithful belief, it is a fact....For those that are honest with themselves they realize that evolution is merely a theory about speciation, not a fact....:)

 

Some folks look on "belief" as a binary status. Yer either fer it or agin it!!! :)

Not so. Among those trained in the sciences there can be "belief" when the evidence is over-whelmingly convincing; "disbelief" when the evidence is over-whelmingly against (or better supports a competing theory); and various stages of "well, let's see" when the evidence is not conclusive.

 

There are some who think that scientists are a singular and homogenous group who dare not look at evidence that may threaten their ivory tower solitude and unanimity. Boy, howdy, is that WRONG! :)

 

Every graduate student knows that their easiest ticket to fame and fortune lies in finding the right evidence and logic to DISPROVE Darwin, Newton, Einstein, Feynman, Plank, whoever! We all sat up late over our beers in grad school discussing openly exactly this point. And trying to figure out a way of knocking off one of the "biggies". It is NOT as easy as some of you obviously think.

[Tarantism]

evolution is no religion, its a complex scientific theory, the thing that keeps religion from being a scientific theory is lack of visible evidence/data/study.

 

you can study religion, but you cant test it, you can build a timeline full of fairy tales but that is it.

[Stargazer]

evolution is no religion, its a complex scientific theory, the thing that keeps religion from being a scientific theory is lack of visible evidence/data/study.

 

you can study religion, but you cant test it, you can build a timeline full of fairy tales but that is it.

Some religious claims can be tested, while others are simply not scientific in the first place, or they violate Ockham's razor and so on.

[Stargazer]

The site is not hogwash.

Explain.

 

You guys are just too "scientific" to evaluate it objectively.

That's just too funny. Too scientific to be objective? Is this the level on which this discussion board should be?

[Southtown]

Quite simply you are trying to make evolution something that it is not. Evolution is not a theory about the formation of the Earth or the moon, it is a theory about the developement of species through mutation and adaptation. That some use therm "evolved" regarding the formation of planets from a plantary proto-disk is not a reference to Darwin's theory of evolution, they simply mean developed from. You might ask cwes to clarify but I did not get the impression this thread was about this convoluted application of the term evolution.

No. It was intended to refute the age of the earth and fossil dating. As Will clearly pointed out, the age of the Moon's orbit cannot hold water until plate tectonics is refuted.

 

Adaptation and mutation occur, of course. But evolution claims this as a means for common descent theory. Adaptions are not passed to offspring. Adaptation shows us that capacity is present before it's necessitated. And mutations are selected against because they are nearly invariably detrimental, ask a doctor or veteranarian what mutations look like.

 

Every graduate student knows that their easiest ticket to fame and fortune lies in finding the right evidence and logic to DISPROVE Darwin, Newton, Einstein, Feynman, Plank, whoever! We all sat up late over our beers in grad school discussing openly exactly this point. And trying to figure out a way of knocking off one of the "biggies". It is NOT as easy as some of you obviously think.

It's impossible, but not for reasons you would assume. Ask Halton Arp why his ideas have been rejected for decades upon decades.

 

http://www.haltonarp.com/?Page=Abstracts&ArticleId=6

http://www.haltonarp.com/?Page=Abstracts&ArticleId=10

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-bib_query?bibcode=1994ApJ...430...74A&db_key=AST&data_type=HTML&format=

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-bib_query?bibcode=2001ApJ...549..802A&db_key=AST&data_type=HTML&format=

 

Also ask Dr. Walt Brown. (link below)

 

The site is not hogwash.

Explain.

You guys are just too "scientific" to evaluate it objectively.

That's just too funny. Too scientific to be objective? Is this the level on which this discussion board should be?

http://www.creationscience.com/HydroplateOverview.html

 

(Consists of more than that page—I don't imply that you can't figure that out, just that I have yet to read a comment that proves others can.)

[Erasmus00]

It's impossible, but not for reasons you would assume. Ask Halton Arp why his ideas have been rejected for decades upon decades.

 

http://www.haltonarp.com/?Page=Abstracts&ArticleId=6

http://www.haltonarp.com/?Page=Abstracts&ArticleId=10

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-bib_query?bibcode=1994ApJ...430...74A&db_key=AST&data_type=HTML&format=

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-bib_query?bibcode=2001ApJ...549..802A&db_key=AST&data_type=HTML&format=

 

Halton Arp's papers have been published. Consider the last two links, which point to abstracts of published papers. His interpretations of his data haven't been readily accepted because they are quite radical, and there may be other explanations. Consider that there is a lot of evidence in support of standard cosmology, and Harp has found one piece that doesn't fit. Most scientists believe that it is premature to throw the entire theoretical edifice out before examining other possibilities.

 

Also ask Dr. Walt Brown. (link below)

 

http://www.creationscience.com/HydroplateOverview.html

 

 

Brown hasn't been published or accepted because he isn't doing science (for reasons I've discussed with you many times). Many of the points he brings up have been refuted many times over. He also plays the selective quote game, where he find snipits of quotes from famous scientists and takes them out of context to make the scientists appear to support something they do not.

-Will

[Pyrotex]

Well, the assumption that modern observation and knowledge can eventually disprove a creator of any kind has to be completely taken on faith.

 

I have been a scientist and engineer for thirty years, and I am unaware of ANY assumption, published or otherwise, to the affect that it is the purpose, intent or even a side-affect of science to disprove a "creator".

 

Can you quote any published scientist to back up this claim, or are you just profoundly attached to a belief in this claim?

[Pyrotex]

It's impossible, but not for reasons you would assume. Ask Halton Arp why his ideas have been rejected for decades upon decades.

 

At Mississippi State University, I volunteered to read through my Physics advisor's "slush pile". These are the letters that folks write asking questions or suggesting theories. About 20% asked questions and I would answer them. The rest were by-and-large asking for support to get their ideas for a new theory into the academic mainstream. Many of them opened their letters with stories about how the scientists were trying to suppress their ideas and make a laughingstock out of them. Sometimes it was really heart-breaking reading their letters.

 

The belief that scientists from all over the world have the power to suppress a good idea is as widespread as it is silly. How can they stop people (or even their own students and colleagues!) from reading the Internet, self-published books and pamphlets, or going to lectures?

 

Good ideas attract intelligent people like Spring flowers attract bees. You cannot keep the bees away, unless you kill them. So it is with valid theories or ideas that successfully explain what had heretofore been a mystery.

[Southtown]

Most scientists believe that it is premature to throw the entire theoretical edifice out before examining other possibilities.

Most scientists believe it is premature to examine other possibilities before they are proven regardless of the questionability of the entire theoretical edifice.

 

http://www.haltonarp.com/?Page=Abstracts&ArticleId=2

 

Brown hasn't been published or accepted because he isn't doing science (for reasons I've discussed with you many times). Many of the points he brings up have been refuted many times over. He also plays the selective quote game, where he find snipits of quotes from famous scientists and takes them out of context to make the scientists appear to support something they do not.

-Will

The heated atmosphere is questionable considering an initial 17% compression of fluid, supersonic ejection (severing the atmosphere), imminent ice meteors (and downdraft of ionosphere—see "The Day After Tomorrow, its writers understood the need for -150 degrees to freeze mammoths with food in their mouth), and the fact that evaporation is a cooling process (the heat of the water would be consumed in the state change).

 

Whether other scientists support the ideas or not, they are quoted as observing the same evidence and interpreting it similarly. He uses them as references to show that he's not just making the stuff up. Other observations have to agree with him, not other interpretations.

 

The "poorly sorted basaltic deposits" was never explained at all by either you or the talk.origins site that it came from. How can it be verified?

 

Brown should debate even though he was legally "man-handled" to include the bible. He could concede any points against the bible and still present his scientific evidence.

 

Did I miss anything?

 

And the spaces you put before your signoff are not displayed in your posts. (FYI)

Try

-Will

...

-Will

...

-Will

... ----------------------Will ... etc.

[Southtown]

Good ideas attract intelligent people like Spring flowers attract bees. You cannot keep the bees away, unless you kill them. So it is with valid theories or ideas that successfully explain what had heretofore been a mystery.

Thank you very much.

[Southtown]

I have been a scientiest for thirty years, and I am unaware of ANY assumption, published or otherwise, to the affect that it is the purpose, intent or even a side-affect of science to disprove a "creator".

 

Can you quote any published scientist to back up this claim, or are you just profoundly attached to a belief in this claim?

I may be pretty incoherent with my writing at times, but I don't think I made that claim. Are you sure you read me right? It's a detached statement, not a pointed accusation.

[Erasmus00]

Southtown, this thread isn't the place for this debate. I've sent you a private message.

-Will

[TRoutMac]

Well, the assumption that modern observation and knowledge can eventually disprove a creator of any kind has to be completely taken on faith. Until then, atheism should be considered a subjective view. But there are evos that believe in a creator. There is a distinction between science and projected conclusions.

 

There are definitely parallels between evolutionary theory and religion. I think what Southtown is alluding to is that since the claims of macro-evolution have no direct, observable evidence to support them, they are taken on the basis of faith (but under the clever guise of "science").

 

Secondly, in the strictest sense evolution is a product of naturalism. Sure, I realize that there has been, unfortunately, some capitulation and accommodation in Christian churches for evolution and so there are Christians who believe in evolution. They've bought the lie, thinking this must be how God created. But I'm talking about the roots under evolution… it is naturalism. And naturalism holds that there is no creator, there is no purpose, we are merely the result of eons of struggle for survival. Evil and suffering have always existed and will always exist. This is a philisophical view which has deep religious implications. Rather than preach morals about not stealing and things of that sort, naturalism would ultimately preach that you must do whatever is necessary to pass on your genes.