Evolution is a False Religion not Proven Science.

[sealybobo]

????....same place I started, with a faith choice.....however, you're left without a scientific basis that you've claimed all your life......

Faith means having to reject science. Plainly delusional.

faith doesn't require one reject science. fundamentalism does.

To have faith you are believing something that you have zero scientific proof of.

 

[Zmrzlina]

like abiogenesis and macro-evolution, intelligent design is not a scientific theory......if you stop pretending your faith choices are science, you too can be relieved of the necessity of scientific testing......

Abiogenesis is a separate field of study from evolutionary biology.

that might explain why I used "and" between them....

Macro-evolution is well established empirically in the fields I mentioned earlier.

yes...."well established".......no scientifically proven.......just established, in the minds of its believers........

Nothing is proven in science. The door is never shut completely. That is what separates science from dogma. You fundamentally do not understand the scientific method if you believe something has to and can be proven 100%. For example, all micro-processing technology is based in quantum physics a theory that has huge holes that have not been filled in yet. Doesn't change the fact that we know enough to make technology from application of the theory that are well established empirically.

 

[THE LIGHT]

You aren't getting it.

Chemicals naturally form chemical compounds all the time.
Simple structures are formed from chemical compounds.
Complex structures are formed from simple structures.

That is how it works.

You are making the erroneous assumption that complex structures suddenly form all by themselves.

Hilarious.

You're stating PRECISELY why it can't happen by chance.

The ODDS of molecules randomly forming amino acids and then having them line up perfectly in the only one useful combination are beyond astronomical

Molecules naturally form acids. Acids tends to form from a single source. You won't find a random molecule of sulphuric acid forming out of nowhere. Instead you will find lots of sulphuric acid where rain falls on volcanic vents.

When you have lots of acid forming in the same place having them recombine in different ways to form peptides is ceetainly feasible in a couple of billion years and then it is a baby step to proteins.

Straightforward chemical reactions performed in enough random permutations over a long enough period and it happens. The mathematical odds substantiate that it is feasible given how easily chemicals combine and the end result is life as we know it.

But evolution worshiping "scientists" can't even make this happen in a lab.

 

[THE LIGHT]

The odds of randomly forming compounds which are themselves made of subsidiary compounds might as well be infinite!

Evolution is NOT a random process so your logic is flawed. The key is natural selection a non-random process.

Do you agree that you have put forward a strawman that has nothing to do with thevolution or can you show where the theory of evolution says there are only random processes involved?

Natural selection requires something to select from. It only narrows down preexisting options. It does not and cannot create new options.

If you start with nothing, there is nothing to select.

 

[THE LIGHT]

Maybe you can tell us what a transitional form would look like so we'd know it when we saw it? You can describe a fossil (e.g., say a feathered animal that is clearly not a bird) or a living creature (e.g., two species that can mate but won't have viable offspring). Good luck.

Maybe you can explain the transitional steps between a monkey and a man?

No hoaxes please.

And while you are at it, perhaps you can explain how the giraffe evolved.

??

 

[THE LIGHT]

Miillions of "micro" evolutionary changes can result in "macro" evolution.

...but this has never been observed, thus leaving macro-evolution as a religion based on the hopes that it actually happened according to the way that you imagine it did.

A "religion" based on physical evidence right beneath your feet. If you opened your eyes you'd see for yourself but you're blinded by your faith.

I see the same rocks and the same Grand Canyon that you do. Only I see it for what it is, while you see it for what you wish it was.

 

[Kondor3]

...If you believe in god, that's an irrational thought...

There is no conflict between logic and reason, theoretical or applied, and the existence of God, if one grasps the limitations of logic, reason and faith.

...And if you don't really believe the Adam and Eve story is factual, and don't really believe the Noah story happened, then why would you believe Jesus was born by a virgin, performed miracles and rose from the dead after a few days of being dead?...

Because for Creation and The Flood, we're talking about macro-level issues borne-out or disproven by scientific evidence, whereas the Jesus issues dwell on the micro-level and pertain more to individual spirituality, in which logic and reason are next-to-useless?

...And if all those stories are just made up to teach you right and wrong, then so was god. Sorry to break it to you.

And if those stories are actually a mix and match of macro- and micro-level issues, and if some are false and some are true or un-knowable, what then?

The nice thing about Matters of Faith is that skilled Believers can always utilize Logic and Reason to continue to move the goal-posts on you, so that you will never reach the point where the godhead does not exist.

Unfair? Maybe. But it's the price you pay for being in the minority, on a planet where most of the inhabitants are spiritual and/or religious, to some extent or another.

 

[BillyP]

...If you believe in god, that's an irrational thought...

There is no conflict between logic and reason, theoretical or applied, and the existence of God, if one grasps the limitations of logic, reason and faith.

...And if you don't really believe the Adam and Eve story is factual, and don't really believe the Noah story happened, then why would you believe Jesus was born by a virgin, performed miracles and rose from the dead after a few days of being dead?...

Because for Creation and The Flood, we're talking about macro-level issues borne-out or disproven by scientific evidence, whereas the Jesus issues dwell on the micro-level and pertain more to individual spirituality, in which logic and reason are next-to-useless?

...And if all those stories are just made up to teach you right and wrong, then so was god. Sorry to break it to you.

And if those stories are actually a mix and match of macro- and micro-level issues, and if some are false and some are true or un-knowable, what then?

The nice thing about Matters of Faith is that skilled Believers can always utilize Logic and Reason to continue to move the goal-posts on you, so that you will never reach the point where the godhead does not exist.

Unfair? Maybe. But it's the price you pay for being in the minority, on a planet where most of the inhabitants are spiritual and/or religious, to some extent or another.

On a planet where most people are fucking stupid. Coincidence?

 

[alang1216]

The odds of randomly forming compounds which are themselves made of subsidiary compounds might as well be infinite!

Evolution is NOT a random process so your logic is flawed. The key is natural selection a non-random process.

Do you agree that you have put forward a strawman that has nothing to do with evolution or can you show where the theory of evolution says there are only random processes involved?

Technically we were discussing the origin of life rather than evolution. CF believes that DNA is "evidence" of a "creator". The concept that a couple of billion years worth of chemical interactions coming up with amino acids seems to be beyond his grasp.

A lot of folk here believe the cell is the first living creature and are understandablely skeptical about how such a complex living thing could be evolved from non-living parts.

What they fail to realize is that "life" began with a simple molecule that was able to self-replicate. When it had that functionality it became subject to natural selection.

 

[alang1216]

Natural selection requires something to select from. It only narrows down preexisting options. It does not and cannot create new options.

If you start with nothing, there is nothing to select.

This may seem intuitive but it is incorrect. Take lichen for example. A lichen is a composite organism consisting of a fungus and a photosynthetic partner growing together in a symbiotic relationship. Since both benefit from the partnership they likely evolved to cement what was originally a random coupling. Viola, new options.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Hilarious.

You're stating PRECISELY why it can't happen by chance.

The ODDS of molecules randomly forming amino acids and then having them line up perfectly in the only one useful combination are beyond astronomical

Molecules naturally form acids. Acids tends to form from a single source. You won't find a random molecule of sulphuric acid forming out of nowhere. Instead you will find lots of sulphuric acid where rain falls on volcanic vents.

When you have lots of acid forming in the same place having them recombine in different ways to form peptides is ceetainly feasible in a couple of billion years and then it is a baby step to proteins.

Straightforward chemical reactions performed in enough random permutations over a long enough period and it happens. The mathematical odds substantiate that it is feasible given how easily chemicals combine and the end result is life as we know it.

But evolution worshiping "scientists" can't even make this happen in a lab.

Probably because "evolution worshiping scientists" don't actually exist.

On the other hand real scientists do exist and have established beyond any doubt that evolution exists and it is probably only a matter of time before they can replicate that in a lab. After all it was less than 25 years ago that science proved that there are planets orbiting other stars. The math said that those planets must exist but the actual means to detect them was not yet developed. The math works for the origin of life. Now we are waiting for the science to development the means to replicate that in a lab. I am confident that it will be achieved sooner or later.

 

[alang1216]

Maybe you can tell us what a transitional form would look like so we'd know it when we saw it? You can describe a fossil (e.g., say a feathered animal that is clearly not a bird) or a living creature (e.g., two species that can mate but won't have viable offspring). Good luck.

Maybe you can explain the transitional steps between a monkey and a man?

No hoaxes please.

And while you are at it, perhaps you can explain how the giraffe evolved.

??

Sorry, guess I missed this. Monkeys and man are very far apart with too many tranitional steps, you'll have to Google that for yourself

You can also Google giraffe evolution but it is easy to imagine the ancestors of the giraffe browsed from trees. With natural variation some were taller than others. The taller ones could reach leaves the shorter ones could not so in times of famine they had a better chance of survival and got to pass their genes on.

 

[alang1216]

...but this has never been observed, thus leaving macro-evolution as a religion based on the hopes that it actually happened according to the way that you imagine it did.

A "religion" based on physical evidence right beneath your feet. If you opened your eyes you'd see for yourself but you're blinded by your faith.

I see the same rocks and the same Grand Canyon that you do. Only I see it for what it is, while you see it for what you wish it was.

OK I'll bite, what do you see the Grand Canyon as? (Please say evidence of Noah's flood, I love it when people tell me that.) Do you have any geological education or expertise I should know about?

 

[PostmodernProph]

Faith by definition is the belief in something without proof, which would require one to reject science.

gosh, that's a really stupid conclusion.....can you give me an example of something I would have to reject because I have faith?.....

Logic and rational thought.

you've rejected that and you say you aren't religious.....must be something else......

 

[BillyP]

gosh, that's a really stupid conclusion.....can you give me an example of something I would have to reject because I have faith?.....

Logic and rational thought.

you've rejected that and you say you aren't religious.....must be something else......

Oh, like, dinosaur fossils, evolution, the Big Bang. And believe in a flood that covered the earth then magically disappeared... you get the idea.

 

[PostmodernProph]

You fundamentally do not understand the scientific method if you believe something has to and can be proven 100%.

I get so tired of fucking idiots saying that.......experimentation, dumbfuck.....experimentation......if you don't have a fucking clue what the requirements of the scientific method are, don't accuse someone else of not understanding it, okay?......

 

[Derideo_Te]

You fundamentally do not understand the scientific method if you believe something has to and can be proven 100%.

I get so tired of fucking idiots saying that.......experimentation, dumbfuck.....experimentation......if you don't have a fucking clue what the requirements of the scientific method are, don't accuse someone else of not understanding it, okay?......

Never ceases to amuse me when those who claim to be religious resort to vulgarities because they are incapable of providing a convincing argument and/or rebuttal to support their position!

 

[PostmodernProph]

Logic and rational thought.

you've rejected that and you say you aren't religious.....must be something else......

Oh, like, dinosaur fossils, evolution, the Big Bang. And believe in a flood that covered the earth then magically disappeared... you get the idea.

but apparently you don't......I don't reject fossils.......I don't reject the fact that 37k different types of beetles evolved.......I accept the Big Bang as the result of God saying "let there be".......and a flood that killed all humans except one family didn't need to cover the entire earth, only that portion where humans lived at the time......so, again.....what do I have to reject of science to have faith in God?......

 

[Gadawg73]

10,000+ colleges and universities on the planet.

Hand full teach evolution is false.

Only those with a lack of faith in their religious beliefs and are weak believe evolution is a threat to them.

10,000 institutions that are all on the same page is not because of partisan political religious beliefs.
Something about the scientific method and facts, things religious fanatics can never comprehend.

 

[PostmodernProph]

10,000+ colleges and universities on the planet.

Hand full teach evolution is false.

Only those with a lack of faith in their religious beliefs and are weak believe evolution is a threat to them.

10,000 institutions that are all on the same page is not because of partisan political religious beliefs.
Something about the scientific method and facts, things religious fanatics can never comprehend.

so to be clear, you believe science proves humans and mushrooms have a common ancestor?......