Evolution vs Religion

[Freethinker]

Originally posted by: Majed
To get evolution you need the first life and that is a problem. To get the first living cell then it has to do the following form the start:

Here we see someone that does not understand what Evolution IS. Evolution explains CHANGE over time for EXISTING entity.

To get the first living cell

is called Abiogenesis.

They are very different scientific fields.

I usually find that people that attack Evolution don;t really understand what it is.

1- To be able to survive the harsh weather.

"harsh weather" is subjective. There are many organisms that exist without problem in environments we would find totally incompatible with our existence. Thus this is irrelevant.

2- To be able to get it food form the surounding environment and absorb it.

Again "food" is subjective. We ahve found organisms that exist on the Ocean floor. in pressures that would kill all other known life instantly. "Eating" the sulfer that spews from volcanic cracks in the ocean floor. "Food" that would kill any other living organism on earth.

3- To be able to trasnfer the food to energy.
4- To get dispose the wast.
5- To multiply or split to two.

While YOU might have problems with all of this. Scientists don't. This is known as "the Argument from Personal Incredulity". In other words, you refuse to accept because YOU do not understand it. NONE of these items is a problem for Evolution. In fact they are some of the strongest elements guiding Evolution.

If we can prove that life can start instantly then God is not needed.

1) Define "life". What makes one atom part of a "life" and another not? Or even more so, what makes one atom not part of life at one point, then part of life for a while and then not part of life again? This is what happens when we consume something. Let's say we take a mineral supplement. The individual atoms of the minerals are inorganic (not life?). As they are absorbed by the body, they become part of organic molecules in our bodies (become life), Then we pass them. (become non-life again).

2) Define "instantly". The formation of life (Abiogenesis, NOT Evolution) was a PROCESS, not a spontaneous instant.

Setting up an unreealistic requirement does not disprove Evolution. Especially when you are not even discussing Evolution. You are discussing Abiogenesis.

If not then we should not doupt the idea that he created man in full form rather evolve him form an ape as Darwin clames .

And once more, "I don't know" is NEVER proof of something. But it is very simple to reject out of hand any claim that humans were created whole as existing today.

[OpenMind5]

HEY! I ask all of u to visit the discusion of GOD in the humanities section of what ever u call it! LOL IT is TITLED "GOD"! can't miss it...join the convo...

THANKS
OP5

[IrishEyes]

I totally understand the need for many people to grasp at, or even cling to, the false hope of evolution. If evolution is true, then there is no God, and the "atheists" are all ok. My personal belief is that NOONE dies an atheist, but again, that's just my personal belief. Many "atheists" have admitted that the reason they cling to evolution is that if evolution is not true, then creation must be, and if creation is true, then <gasp> there IS a God. Of course, if there is a God (and there is, my friends) then there is also ABSOLUTE RIGHT AND WRONG. Oh no... not THAT!! Most big evolutionists have been quoted saying something to the effect that the reason they want to believe in evoltuion is that the thought that there is a God terrifies them. If God exists, then they will have to answer for how their lives have been lived. Ouch! That just hurts, doesn't it? Anyhow, I have quotes, and facts, but most "atheists" will just toss them off as "silly religious rants". However, this discussion can be ended very quickly. For all of the true "atheists" and believers in evolution, just give me one real example of evolution that has actually been proven to be true. Don't try the moth thing, I'm not buying it, as there was no actual evolution from one species to another. I want an actual recorded case of one species actually evolving into another. Do you have one?

[rileyj]

i believe in god and evolution

[rileyj]

I want an actual recorded case of one species actually evolving into another. Do you have one?

dinosaurs to birds maybe be one

[rileyj]

"you refuse to accept because YOU do not understand it"

sounds like something you would do freethinker

[IrishEyes]

Dinosaurs to birds may be one???

I'm not trying to be picky, but that's really not an actual recorded fact. I mean, is there any actual eveidence in the fossil record to support the theory of evolution? Somebody mentioned fruitflies, not sure if that was in this thread or another on this site, but that's like the moth thing. The fruitfly experiment did produce mutations, but they died. Is this proof of the 'survival of the fittest'? Somehow, I doubt it. I want an actual, factual, recorded evidence of one species 'evolving' into another. I don't mean one species adapting characteristics that allow it to thrive. I mean an actual indication that one species of animal can change into another species, such as a dog changing into a cat, or a fish becoming a fox, or something along those lines. is there actual fossil proof for evolution?

Also, how can someone believe in both God and evolution? Does that preclude a belief in the Bible? Or is the Bible just a bunch of stories made up a few hundred years ago?

[IrishEyes]

Darwin's theory of evolution was formed around 1859, right? This was before the theory of Spontaneous Generation was proven false. We know now that frogs do not grow from stagnant water and maggots do not just appear in rotted food, but Darwin probably did not when his theory was first formed. Since then, Spontaneous Generation has been proven incorrect by science, yet the theory of evolution still stands. How is it that 'scintists' can discount spontaneous generation yet still cling to it as the basis for all life, in the form of the theory of evolution? I mean, there had to be a 'first life' in order to evolve into other things, right? Oh are we back to Panspermia again?
Darwin stated (My Life and Letters, Vol. I, p 210) that "Not one change of a species into another is on record... We cannot prove that a single species has changed". Hmmmm, doesn't sound too good, huh? In "Natural Selection" Charlie proposed a theory for the survival, not the ARRIVAL, of the species.
Colin Patterson, Senior Principle Scientific Officer of the Paleontolgy Dept. of the British Museum of Natural History, (as quoted by Luther Sunderland in Darwin's Enigma:Fossils and Other Problems, pg 89) stated "I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustrations of evolutioary transitions in my book. If I knew of ANY, fossil or living, I certainly would have included them... There are no transitional forms...There is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument."
Professor Lois T. Moore, a vocal evolutionist, stated in 'The Dogma of Evolution' (p.160)- "The more one studies paleontology, the more certain one becomes that evolution is based on faith alone".
Mendel disproved Lamarkism, which was an evolutionary-type theory stating that acquired characteristics could be passed on through genetics.
How about the Big Bang? Well, that theory starts with all energy and matter already in existence. So where did it come from?
Geologically, the actual evidence points to layers being laid down rapidly by a global flood, not gradually over millions of years. And that Geologic Column? It's a theory. It doesn't actually exist in a single place. Different layers are found in different places of the world and stacked in a theoretical column. The layers are determined and dated by the fossils found in them, which are dated by the layers in which they are found. This is science? This is actually all based on the assumption that evolution is true, and the assumed order of the evolution of creatures found in the fossil record. What about instances where trilobytes, dinosaurs and man were all found in the same strata?
How many different ways are there to 'date' things? 5? 10? 50? Over a hundred? How many of those ways show the earth being millions of years old? Do the math- that means that HOW MANY different scientific dating methods offer a relatively young planet? So the 5 or 6 scientific dating methods that support a very old planet are better than the other hundred or so that support a young planet, right?
Another evolutionist, Sir Arthur Kent, admits "Evolution is unproved and unprovable. We believe it because the only alternative is special creation, which is unthinkable".
I have more, if anyone cares to hear them. I gues it's not so much the proof of creation, but the disproof of evolution. Both can not be correct, so one must be wrong. If evolution can not be poven, then the alernate is that we were created. That leads to God being an actuality. Geez, I can't seem to stick to one thread, as I see them as interchangeable, sorry.

[Tormod]

IrishEyes,

"I want an actual, factual, recorded evidence of one species 'evolving' into another."

"Not one change of a species into another is on record... We cannot prove that a single species has changed" (Darwin)

Both of these statements make we wonder - what do you think evolution IS? Transmogrification?

I have written this many times in these forums now: Evolution is not a single theory, it is much, much more than that. Evolution is what happens when something *evolves*, ie - something changes.

If I have an idea, say "birds have wings". I then think some more, and think "that probably means that birds can fly". My concept of birds will have changed (evolved). It might not be correct, but my view has changed. Yet - the original idea still exists ("birds have wings"). So now there are two ideas, although they are still part of the same concept. Ideas evolve into concepts. Populations of people evolve - the United States did not exist 300 years ago.

So it is with evolution. It is not about turning dogs into chicken.

Evolution is what happens, usually over long periods of time, when species change due to on or several factors. These can be environmental, genetic, accidental - or a combination.

That birds evolved from dinosaurs is in fact a quite common theory these days.

Some times evolution happens over very short timespans. A well known study showed how butterflies changed color as the area they lived in got more and more polluted - making them blend in better with their surroundings. (Here is a brief comment on that example: http://zebu.uoregon.edu/~js/21st_cen...res/lec09.html)

Survival of the fittest is a theory, yes. It is a strong theory which has many followers. But there are also other aspects of evolution. Even if you dislike Darwin there are still many other ways to explain how species evolve.

Evolution is not only Earth-bound, and it is not even bound to biology and ideology. Stars evolve. How do we know this? By observing them. Older stars have very few heavy metals (if any). They consist of hydrogen and helium. New stars have an abundance of heavier elements. (Read, for example, "The Magic Furnace" by Marcus Chown).

The universe evolves. We observe vast galaxies, gaxy clusters and even superlarge structures which are millions of light years across. The Hubble Space Telescope has given us a completely new way to study the world outside Earth. And it shows that no matter how hard we discuss evolution as it happened to life on earth (or not, as you like it), it does not matter an inch to the universe.

You repeat what everyone else seem to do here: making a lot of claims. Thankfully you provide some references, but you still make extraordinary claims:

Exactly which strata can you mention where human beings, trilobites and dinosaurs? I can only think of one: the present day strata (because we dug up those fossils).

Does the big bang theory say that all matter an energy already exists? Which big bang theory are you referring to?

The geologic column is a theory, yes. But how did this idea come about? Through painstaking research over many years (James Hutton, the father of modern geology, comes to mind). It may be true that you cannot find an entire geologic column anywhere on earth (I know nothing about that). I have however studied some geology and know that there are places where the stratas show incredible, magnificient displays of ancient Earth (and I have seen some of them. Quite fascinating).

Sir Arthur Kent is unknown to me. But just because he says he chose theory over dogma doesn't mean everyone who studies evolution do it because they deny there is a god.

Can you list the methods of dating objects? I know a couple. They are all known to be quite reliable, even though the results are sometimes up for interpretation.

You claim our planet is relatively young. James Hutton proved the opposite. He was so astonished by the ancient earth he unravelled at the turn

[Tormod]

Originally posted by: rileyj
"you refuse to accept because YOU do not understand it"

sounds like something you would do freethinker

I shall let Freethinker speak for himself (I think he prefers that) but you are dead on. Freethinker refuses to accept anything if he cannot understand how it works. If he is like me, he can accept a theory for a while, but it needs testing and proving before it is understood and eventually confirmed.

And...please...comments like that, jriley, are off topic.

Tormod