Evolution a Religion

originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: Abednego
Science and religion are practically the same other than one has evidence, is repeatable and is falsifiable. So really not the same at all.
Also you have got it completely wrong about what a theory is in science. It is quite different from the everyday usage of the word and requires evidence greater than what would normally be referred to as proof.

I will say that both of them has evidence in their own "context". Science has it books, and religion has it books. Is hard to compare them, because they have different methods of proofing. But in essence they are similar. Both of them are repeatable and falsifiable.

I'm well aware of what theory is in science;
A scientific theory summarizes a hypothesis or group of hypotheses that have been supported with repeated testing. If enough evidence accumulates to support a hypothesis, it moves to the next step—known as a theory—in the scientific method and becomes accepted as a valid explanation of a phenomenon.

If I apply that definition to religion; I can say that a Higher being exist. The group of hypotheses will be the many religions that says that God exist and that you need to pray in order for this Being to help you. The repeated testing will be the many times a priest has put their hands over sick people, or the many times any believer pray for help. The evidence will be the many sick people that got cure and the many times someone receive what he pray for.

I think I got off topic.

a reply to: OperationBlackRose

Just a conversation starter.

Not a particularly well thought out one, or a particularly original one.

The fact is that evolution is a religion, not science

You could present some evidence of this "fact".

There is no evidence for this "theory", but still a big percentage of people believe it to be true.

There's a large amount of evidence for evolution, and therefore evidence to the contrary of your "fact" that "evolution is a religion, not science".

a reply to: OperationBlackRose

I have done my own research for many years, so I can share some with you. The theory of evolution requires millions of years. Without that, evolution can not happen. The truth is that the earth is less that 10 000 years old.

And this research has been presented for some kind of peer review? I'd love to see what you've published thus far. I'm sure it's original and hasn't been debunked yet.

The moon is pulling away form the earth by about 1 foot per year. Now it you take that back, reverse the pulling away, you will find that the gravitational pull from the moon, (that effects the tides), will increase according the Inverse-square law. Then you go back in time, about 10 000 years, the tides created by the moon will create title waves of 700 feet, every 3 hours. Now if that was true, everything would be killed every 3 hours, so nothing could evolved.

Looks like I got my hopes up prematurely. The least you could do is keep up with the evidence and research that's been around for the last thirty or so years.

That is just one of the proofs against evolution.

If this is indicative of the quality of your proofs, you need to do more research.

a reply to: Abednego
I don't think there is any real comparison. If a science book tells you the time it takes a ball bearing to drop 100feet you can go out and confirm this yourself. Repeatability is key and this applies to all science its just a matter of scale and complexity. Religious texts at best give anecdotal evidence of events that may or may not have occurred centuries past.
There is no evidence that miracles do occur or that if they did they are the result of a benign higher power.
Just to add thanks for you polite and well thought out reply (even through I disagree) especially as my first post was a little tetchy.

a reply to: OperationBlackRose

Not all scientists believe evolution...

First, evolution doesn't require belief; it's an observable phenomenon. Second, the number of scientists that don't accept evolution is smaller than the number of scientists that do who are named Steve. There will always be dissenters, and that's a good thing for science. We should always question and look for more and more evidence to understand our world. But in order for it to really be dissent, it needs evidence. Which is something the anti-evolution crowd seems to be unable to come up with.

a reply to: WakeUpBeer

Interesting, but I assume you believe the accepted rate of sedimentation as stated by uniformitarianism?

If evolution is a religion, what god do evolutionists worship?

If evolution is a religion, what salvation does it offer?

If evolution is a religion, what rituals do its believers practice?

a reply to: ScepticScot

Hmm, it's a tough one, because to a purely "rational" thinker any evidence for miracles would be dismissed as "science will work this one out eventually".

originally posted by: Astyanax
If evolution is a religion, what god do evolutionists worship? Time

If evolution is a religion, what salvation does it offer? I would say it offers salvation for those who don't want to feel culpable to a higher power.

If evolution is a religion, what rituals do its believers practice?

Erm, dusting off fossils and circle-jerking over the supposed age.

a reply to: Astyanax

It isn't so all your questions are not applicable to evolution.
As you know of course.

I think the point he is trying to make is, that just like how the old churches wouldn't allow you to read the actual bible, but would just interpret it through a priest and all followers would then believe and base their future actions on these interpretations, we have a similar thing going on in the scientific community. Very few people work on the ground and have conducted their own tests, but because the theory of evolution is logical, they still accept it as gospel, without testing it for themselves.

And even if they could, the knowledge is based on years of other research that could have just as easily been doctored etc. but we believe it cos a man in a white suit told us to.

I firmly believe that there is no such thing as proof unless something can be physically observed happening and it shouldn't be treated as such. For instance, you may provide what you would consider proof of evolution, maybe for example the joining of the chromosomes that was predicted in monkeys (chimps? summat or other) however, couldn't it just as easily be that the Creator has used DNA as a biological engine to make all life and as monkeys and humans are observably similar, would it not also make sense that the programming would also be similar.

originally posted by: Dem0nc1eaner
a reply to: ScepticScot

Hmm, it's a tough one, because to a purely "rational" thinker any evidence for miracles would be dismissed as "science will work this one out eventually".

Before you even get to that stage you would have to have some evidence for miracles at all. The reason science doesn't explain miracles is that they don't exist.

a reply to: Dem0nc1eaner

just like how the old churches wouldn't allow you to read the actual bible, but would just interpret it through a priest and all followers would then believe and base their future actions on these interpretations, we have a similar thing going on in the scientific community.

I'm not a member of the scientific community, but I've never had trouble finding information about evolution. It's all over the internet; even if you insist on reading only original material there's plenty of the science out there.

I don't think scientists are in the business of hiding their results. Their work is often difficult to understand, though. Unfortunately, that can't be helped. If scientists tried to explain their results in language simple enough for Joe Public to understand, then (a) every scientific paper would be as thick as a dictionary and (b) the whole thing would have to be distorted and oversimplified anyway. The barrier you're complaining about wasn't put there by anyone; that's just the way it is.

originally posted by: OperationBlackRose
a reply to: WakeUpBeer

I have done my own research for many years, so I can share some with you. The theory of evolution requires millions of years.Without that, evolution can not happen.

not quite. it took millions of years for divergent evolution to produce Chimpanzees and Bonobos as well as modern day humans from a common ancestor sure, but Evolution is about all the intermediate steps just as much as it is the sum of all genetic variation over time. For example, the last likely common ancestor of HSS, HSN and HSD live a little over 400,000 BCE and on top of just those 3 divergent lines of the genus Homo, there is an amazing amount of genetic variability in modern day HSS... and there would be even more were it not for the genetic bottleneck event after the Toba eruption roughly 70,000 BCE that's a lot of genetic drift in a short amount of time, not millions of years.

The truth is that the earth is less that 10 000 years old.

well thank god you came and posted this unsubstantiated tidbit. Now we can throw away a century and a half of geologic data and just ignore it like you apparently.

The moon is pulling away form the earth by about 1 foot per year. Now it you take that back, reverse the pulling away, you will find that the gravitational pull from the moon, (that effects the tides), will increase according the Inverse-square law. Then you go back in time, about 10 000 years, the tides created by the moon will create title waves of 700 feet, every 3 hours. Now if that was true, everything would be killed every 3 hours, so nothing could evolved.

That is just one of the proofs against evolution.

its only proof of ignorance and confirmation bias. As has been pointed out by others, the numbers you print are incorrect which means the end result you base off of those incorrect figures is likewise faulty and incorrect. Can you support your point of view with citations? peer reviewed data? anything other than your own anecdotal quips?

what you did prove is one massive difference between religion and science, the religious minded individual begins with a conclusion and then builds a straw house for his strawman to live in around that conclusion thereby proudly crossing their arms with a smug smile and confidently stating that they are so totally right because we should just take their word for it whereas in science, others in their field will bend over backwards to try to poke holes in the science behind the hypothesis , theory or paper and check and recheck everything to make sure it all stands up to scrutiny and the data is legit. there is no faith, no ritual and nothing prayed to for assistance in this process.

a reply to: Astyanax

Ok, I agree with that.

But I see evolution as an exercise in lateral thinking. And a lot of science is and that's not even necessarily a bad thing, as we can only progress if we accept something. So why not accept something that we can argue is logical, until it's disproven, which is the essence of science.

For something to be treated as proof however, it needs to be observed. It shouldn't just make the most sense. Isn't "what makes sense" massively based on your cultural beliefs, upbringing, environment and so on. How can something be considered as proven, if you it takes millions of years to observe.

For instance, the fossil record. It clearly exists as it can be observed. It's there. Can it be used as the basis of proof that the fossils at the bottom of the stack are older than those at the top? Absolutely not.

So we have a whole community based around this premise now. We can't turn around and say, "ok so this french dude has laboratory proven that sedimentation can occur in weeks not millions of years and his work shows that the dating of the entire fossil record is essentially debunked as well as explaining all of the OOParts in the record" cos a lot of people would be out of a job.

And so this is where I have a problem, because I hear a lot of people talk about how science is falsifiable how it itself evolves dependant on new information etc. but this is simply not the case any more. Guy Berthault's findings have essentially never been glossed over by the establishment because he's a Christian? Because his theories support a flood?

Uniformitarianism - Everything has always been the same, even if "always" is millions of years. Sedimentation in every part of the globe will lay at rest at the same speed, forever, as it does when being deposited by water AT REST.

Catastrophism - Sometimes things change... Water can have massive currents which maaaaaaay just affect the rate of sedimentation.

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Dem0nc1eaner
a reply to: ScepticScot

Hmm, it's a tough one, because to a purely "rational" thinker any evidence for miracles would be dismissed as "science will work this one out eventually".

Before you even get to that stage you would have to have some evidence for miracles at all. The reason science doesn't explain miracles is that they don't exist.

What about people that can show positive medical tests of their sickness and later negative ones? Some may call it unexplained (science), others a miracle (religion). Depend on the perspective applied. By the way I have my own miracle.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

a reply to: Abednego

Or positive thinking.
The brain can do wonderful things but it isn't a miracle it is just chemistry of our brains.

originally posted by: boymonkey74
a reply to: Abednego

Or positive thinking.
The brain can do wonderful things but it isn't a miracle it is just chemistry of our brains.

According to Merriam-Webster online dictionary:
miracle: an unusual or wonderful event that is believed to be caused by the power of God

: a very amazing or unusual event, thing, or achievement


The origin of the word miracle is the Latin "miraculum";
1.wonder, marvel, miracle; a wonderful, strange or marvelous thing.
2.wonderfulness, marvelousness.

You been able to manipulate your body to cure your illness, that's a wonderful, strange or marvelous thing.
Still a miracle by definition.

originally posted by: OperationBlackRose
a reply to: ABeing

Just a conversation starter. The fact is that evolution is a religion, not science

There is no evidence for this "theory", but still a big percentage of people believe it to be true.

No this is a troll thread. The content in the OP is written with intent to incite people who actually know that evolution is true. Your OP contains no information worth debating and is HIGHLY insulting to the people who have studied evolution and understand its veracity. YOU on the other hand, haven't studied evolution. And if you did, you've used the wrong sources.

It's also very telling that you hid this thread in the Religion, Faith, and Theology forum instead of the Origins and Creation forum where it belongs. Though I'm sure a moderator will be happy to fix your "mistake" eventually.

a reply to: OperationBlackRose

Care to show some evidence for this? Just curious why you feel evolution is a religion.