Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Is Evolution a Religion?

page: 3
3
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 9 2012 @ 05:00 PM
link   
reply to post by MyOath
 


Your first statement sounds more like creation not evolution, since the simplest form of life has all it needs to serve its purpose, why did it evolve. The simplest creatures after all are the ones that are most likely capable of adapting and surviving an extinction type of catastrophe.

The fact that evolutionist simply cannot provide the evidence that this step in the process even can happen means that evolution is still at best an unproven theory. The fact that it remains an unproven theory should be obvious to all those who claim evolution as fact.

The more complex we get the less we are able to adapt. Funny how true that is since Evolution is the study of adaptation and change mostly assumed to have occurred for some sort of necessity.

Then you got the whole gender thing to worry about. How is sexual reproduction considered evolution? After all isn't asexual reproduction more effective? And how is it that an asexual being developed separate male and female organs to reproduce. How did they become attracted to each other? How did they know how to use their newly developed sexual organs? Should we just assume that we don't have all the answers to this but still consider it a fact? Why? Evolutionists attempt to answer these questions is somewhat, well, humorous.




posted on Dec, 9 2012 @ 05:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by sacgamer25
reply to post by MyOath
 


Your first statement sounds more like creation not evolution, since the simplest form of life has all it needs to serve its purpose, why did it evolve. The simplest creatures after all are the ones that are most likely capable of adapting and surviving an extinction type of catastrophe.


It evolved by means of genetic mutation. Occasionally a mutation occurs that gives the organism a competitive advantage over the others, so the mutation persists.

en.wikipedia.org...


Originally posted by sacgamer25
reply to post by MyOath
 

The fact that evolutionist simply cannot provide the evidence that this step in the process even can happen means that evolution is still at best an unproven theory. The fact that it remains an unproven theory should be obvious to all those who claim evolution as fact.


See link above.


Originally posted by sacgamer25
reply to post by MyOath
 


The more complex we get the less we are able to adapt.


Citation needed.


Originally posted by sacgamer25
reply to post by MyOath
 

Then you got the whole gender thing to worry about. How is sexual reproduction considered evolution? After all isn't asexual reproduction more effective? And how is it that an asexual being developed separate male and female organs to reproduce. How did they become attracted to each other? How did they know how to use their newly developed sexual organs? Should we just assume that we don't have all the answers to this but still consider it a fact? Why? Evolutionists attempt to answer these questions is somewhat, well, humorous.


Asexual reproduction exposes a species to potential extinction when a suitable pathogen is able to attack successfully due to complete likeness of the species genetics. Sexual reproduction allowed the introduction of greater diversity to the genetic code. Organisms that worked out how to sexually reproduce had an advantage over those that couldn't and their genes were passed on.

Do you consider gravity a fact? We don't know very much about that. We have no idea why it works at large scales but does not work when dealing with the very small. We have no explanation for what happens beyond the event horizon in a black hole. We have no idea how the whole gravity thing works at all... and yet it does.



posted on Dec, 9 2012 @ 05:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by MyOath

Asexual reproduction exposes a species to potential extinction when a suitable pathogen is able to attack successfully due to complete likeness of the species genetics. Sexual reproduction allowed the introduction of greater diversity to the genetic code. Organisms that worked out how to sexually reproduce had an advantage over those that couldn't and their genes were passed on.


And this is where faith comes in. You stated all of that as fact, yet this is completely theory. It is in fact a theory that is used to support another theory, with the assumption that the first theory is correct. Since you cannot prove the first theory, any subsequent theory based on the principles in the first theory actually deviate further from the facts.

This is the flaw with evolution. You must have faith in the first theory in order for the second theory to make any since. The fact that sexual reproduction actually has some benefits to survivability has nothing to do with evolution. You have simply taken a provable fact and inserted into your theory. I like how you say worked out. That is a lot to work out don't you think? It's not like you can just walk around and accidently make someone pregnant. Did they just float together because of dumb luck?

I will agree the arguments for Evolution can sound quite convincing. The problem is there is simply way too much scientific data, you know the real stuff that multiple scientists in multiple labs can reproduce and thus confirm as accurate, facts we will call them, that suggest that evolution as it relates to speciation, is impossible and that a living organism cannot come from non living organic matter. And yes I realize that Evolution is not a theory of origins.

I suggest every Evolutionist start looking at the real scientific examples that seem to prove that evolution is not possible and stop reading the wonderful ever evolving Evolution fairy tale. Once you start to realize that there are too many questions that Evolution can't answer when it comes to real science you will see that you have indeed believed in something that is even further from being factual than God. If you can still believe in evolution than believing in God should be easy.



posted on Dec, 9 2012 @ 06:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by sacgamer25

Originally posted by MyOath

Asexual reproduction exposes a species to potential extinction when a suitable pathogen is able to attack successfully due to complete likeness of the species genetics. Sexual reproduction allowed the introduction of greater diversity to the genetic code. Organisms that worked out how to sexually reproduce had an advantage over those that couldn't and their genes were passed on.


And this is where faith comes in. You stated all of that as fact, yet this is completely theory. It is in fact a theory that is used to support another theory, with the assumption that the first theory is correct. Since you cannot prove the first theory, any subsequent theory based on the principles in the first theory actually deviate further from the facts.


I have reread it. I can't see anywhere in there where I said it was fact.

No scientist describes a theory as fact. Any theory can be expunged as soon as a new theory is generated that provides a better fit for the data. At this time there is no better theory for speciation than evolution. Creationism is at best a hypothesis because it is unable to be tested by an experiment that is capable of replicating or refuting it, and it is unable to provide predictable outcomes.


Originally posted by sacgamer25


The fact that sexual reproduction actually has some benefits to survivability has nothing to do with evolution. You have simply taken a provable fact and inserted into your theory. I like how you say worked out. That is a lot to work out don't you think? It's not like you can just walk around and accidently make someone pregnant. Did they just float together because of dumb luck?


Not correct about sexual reproduction having nothing to do with evolution.

As for the 'dumb luck' - go here > en.wikipedia.org... and go down to the section on spawning.


Originally posted by sacgamer25

The problem is there is simply way too much scientific data, you know the real stuff that multiple scientists in multiple labs can reproduce and thus confirm as accurate, facts we will call them, that suggest that evolution as it relates to speciation, is impossible and that a living organism cannot come from non living organic matter.



Citations needed


Originally posted by sacgamer25

I suggest every Evolutionist start looking at the real scientific examples that seem to prove that evolution is not possible and stop reading the wonderful ever evolving Evolution fairy tale. Once you start to realize that there are too many questions that Evolution can't answer when it comes to real science you will see that you have indeed believed in something that is even further from being factual than God. If you can still believe in evolution than believing in God should be easy.


"Real scientific examples" - citations needed

I made no claim about not believing in god.



posted on Dec, 9 2012 @ 07:55 PM
link   
You go MY OATH!!!



posted on Dec, 9 2012 @ 09:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by spyder550
By your definition Evolution is not a religion

That is why I wrote in the post you quoted and responded to-



I agree that literally, evolution (or any scientific theory) cannot be catagorized as a religion.
But the content behind the form here... you surely know what that is?


But apparently you either didn't grasp the rest of what I pointed out, or pretended not to.
Maybe this will help





posted on Dec, 10 2012 @ 09:38 PM
link   
reply to post by winterkill
 


No, it is not a religion. There is no dogma and requires no faith. It is peer reviewable, testable science. It's a scientific theory that makes accurate, measurable predictions. It is not a theory in the colloquial sense any more than the theory of gravity. I have yet to hear any argument against evolution that withstands much scrutiny. I will grant skeptics that evolution doesn't solve every question, such as abiogenesis. It doesn't have to. If aspects of our understanding of it change, we amend the theory. The same cannot be said of most of the mainstream religions. What really bothers me is the threat that evolution is perceived to represent by so many religious people. Evolution doesn't prove or disprove god. It is merely a framework of how we know creatures change over time. What bothers me more is the main opposition to evolution don't seem to have any kind of understanding of it. Like the whole coming from monkeys thing (we share a common ancestor), the transitional forms argument ( we have many fossils of TF), that we haven't observed evolution in action ( we have, and can create speciation in labs), or that life can't come from non life ( has nothing to do with evolution, and science proves it can). It seems like willful ignorance to me.





new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join