Evolution vs Religion

[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:

 

1- To be able to survive the harsh weather.

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

3- To be able to trasnfer the food to energy.

4- To get dispose the wast.

5- To multiply or split to two.

 

I have those form memory but they were oringanly mentioned in a book called the blue print of a cell.

To get this to happen instanly is like having win blowing buy a junkyard and bits and peices of it start creating a a 747 plan ready to fly.

 

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

[Tormod]

Majed - welcome to our forums.

 

Your line of arguments has a major flaw: there is no evidence that life started out as a cell. It took many, many years (like 1,3 billion years) from the first organic compounds turned into something as advanced as cells.

 

This is a site full of clever articles:

http://www.onelife.com/evolve/cellev.html

 

Here is a good introduction to evolution in general, albeit a bit basic:

http://science.howstuffworks.com/evolution.htm

 

Tormod

[Freethinker]

Originally posted by: TINNY

possibly God created chance, and so the creation of man by chance is also by god. but that's from our materialistic perspective, but from god's perspective, that's how God intended it to be, God did not accidently create man unexpectedly.

 

And here we have the "god of the gaps".

 

First the claim was made that god created everything and is responsible for everything that happens. Then we learned that lightning is an electrical discharge, thunder made by air molecules, that the sun and stars are balls of gas, ... Each time SCIENCE has replaced religious superstition with REAL KNOWLEDGE, there is another restructuring of what god is, trying to fill the gaps of knowledge not yet filled by solid science. The gaps keep getting fewer and smaller. God keeps having less footing as an explanation.

 

Many of us can easily see this and stop trying to invent reasons to stuff god into a gap. We realize that "I don't know" is not a good reason to stop using logic. And it is definately not an excuse to claim a god exists.

[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_century_science/lectures/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

[IrishEyes]

Tormod, thank you for your honest discourse.

I do understand that there are many different theories of evolution. I understand that change is also considered evolution. I truly am not a blind believer. When I asked for an actual factual example, I was hoping that someone could give one, not just state another theory. It amazes me that evolutionists are very quick to defend their theories and try to point out how silly creationism is, but always fall back on 'intellectual' arguments when asked to prove their own theories. Yes, we see evolution every day here in America- take a look at our politicians :>) How can anyone here say that evolution isn't happening? Have you ever listened to a politician before an election and after? I agree that it is change.

However, saying that evolution is change still does not explain accepting this theory as the basis for the beginning of life. Yes, birds evolving from dinosaurs may be a very common theory these days, but it is not a fact, just a theory. You also mentioned the butterfly changing colors, and I am certain that I already addressed this one. You are speaking of the peppered moths, right? At the beginning of the study, there were light and dark moths. At the end of the study, there were light and dark moths. No genetic change occurred. I fail to see the reasoning for this as a proof of evolution.

Just because things (stars, the universe) change, does not mean that evolution is the answer to the beginning of life. That's my point. I AGREE with you that evolution is change. I AGREE with you that the universe as a whole is constantly changing, and if you want to label that evolution, go ahead. But to discredit creationism because you know how to make the meaning of a single word fit into your idea of the formation of life, that's just a bit much. I am not saying that there is no such thing as evolution, BY YOUR DEFINTION (change). I am saying that the common interpretation of the meaning of evolution as a basis for the beginning of life is not something that can be scientifically proven. Using your methods, there is no proof against creation.

I will post more, as I am enjoying how you are challenging me to actually THINK again, but for now I must return to my reality and chosen profession of parent.

Thank you!

[IrishEyes]

Freethinker, I came back to this discusion thanks to Tormod, and I wanted to address a few of your points. I hope you don't mind. I almost would like to quote your entire post from 3/30 2:59pm, but I know that would be excessive. I appreciate how thorough your arguments are, but I still have to disagree with your conclusions.

You spent quite a bit of time picking apart the post by Majed, line for line. I'd like to respond, although I think Majed could also respond for himself. But I've had too much coffee today and am awake, so here goes...

I DO understand that "Evolution explains CHANGE over time for EXISTING entity." I agree with you on this point.

"They (Abiogenesis and evolution) are very different scientific fields. I usually find that people that attack Evolution don;t really understand what it is." I do understand that evolution is change and abiogenesis is "The formation of life" (as stated by you later in this post). What I'm seeing in your argument is semantics (word games). You are saying that since Majed is arguing against evolution when he should be saying abiogenesis, he is obviously wrong.

Again, as with Tormod in another thread, I am going to say that I think you are trying to evade the point using technicalities that most people will not consider as relevant. Yes, abiogenesis and evolution are different. However, from a layman's standpoint, the scientific theory that explains the origin of life IS evolution. Whether or not it is actually abiogenesis is not relevant. Of course, you will insist upon its relevance as a way to disprove creation, and i don't blame you, I often did the same. My attitude was -"Silly jesus freaks can't even use the correct words, of course they don't know what they speak!" (That was MY attitude, not projecting that on to you at all)

I agree with your responses to #1 & 2, the responses are factual. However, your blanket response of "This is known as "the Argument from Personal Incredulity". In other words, you refuse to accept because YOU do not understand it." for # 3-5 is a bit much. So basically you are saying that I have to accept things that others say on faith, because I do not understand them, right? So science's answer to unexplainable questions (or even those difficult but not impossible to understand) is to say: you must accept this answer because we say it is possible? I'm really not sure that I follow how that is not a belief based on faith, and would love to hear your explanation.

Your definition of life is pretty accurate in relation to taking a mineral supplement. I guess I fail to see the problem. What is life? Well, the answer to that question is far beyond this thread, and probably not something anyone really wants to debate.

Your view of the formation of life/abiogenesis as a process really brings you back to refute your earlier argument in a sense. You earlier state that abiogenesis (as how we got the first living cell) is separate from evolution (an explanation of change for an existing entity). Yet you state that abiogenesis was a process, not a spontaneous instant. So abiogenesis was an evolution?

See where I'm going? Talking in circles will be able to confuse some people, and may even get them to agree with some of your theories. But not all of us can be dazzled by word games. You want proof of God, and I want proof of evolution (or in this case, proof of abiogenesis). Neither of us will find that proof here, but it has been immeasurably fun for me to hear your arguments.

By the way, I do not believe in abiogenesis either, as it can be refuted mathematically. Granted it takes a while, and the numbers get really big, but it was a pet project of my husband's, and it can be done. Of course, most evolutionists do not want to see the math either. I guess math is not scientific enough?

See, the big words you use to refute creationism don't intimidate me. I have no problem admitting that I don't know everything, and that I can't explain everything. The main difference I see is that while unexplainable things for science require s

[IrishEyes]

Ok, I have to finish up here then shut off the computer for the next few days, or my brain may explode. I haven't had this much of a challenge since trying to explain the difference between "new" and "old" math to my 6th grader. lol!!

Tormod, I'm going to hit on those 'extraordinary claims' real quick (yeah right- quick!).

I've read Hutton. Wow, rough reading, and if you actually made it all the way through "The Theory of the Earth" then you are AWESOME! To call his 'conclusion' of an earth that is infinitely (or even extremely) old a provable fact is a stretch. Most evolutionists will refer to Hutton, and say how he "proved" evolution and the true age of the earth. All Hutton did was try to disprove the then current belief of geology based on a belief in the Great Flood theory. (The Flood theory exists as a separate theory from Creation, but does fit with Creation very well, see Genesis 6-8) Was Hutton correct in his findings? I'll bet we don't agree on that answer, as one will lead to evolution and the other will not.

There are many instances in the fossil record that are "unexplainable" according to evolutionists. I will not list every single instance that I have found, for time's sake, but a few that I know of are as follows: Permian Strata, Robldeo Mountain site (NM, USA), and also the Zapata site (I think in TX, but my memory is hurting on this!) {these were human/dinosaur and human/unknown, respectively}; Mesozoic strata (Turkmenia) {again, human/dino}; ok, I could go on and on with these, but I don't think they will "prove" anything to you. My point is that "evolution" (I'm using the word in the most general of ways) can not be proved on the basis of the fossil record, but the fossil record can disprove many of the beliefs held by evolutionists.

Concerning the geologic column - I have also been to places where many of the earth's layers are evident. Yes, some are very fascinating, and very beautiful. You go back to Hutton again at this point, and I already discussed him. I don't feel Hutton is a strong argument for your theory. The geologic column is still a theory, as it does not exist anywhere as a whole.

"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." Ok, I don't know how else to say that you proved my point besides saying "You proved my point". Yes, I know some of the methods for dating. Yes, some are very reliable, but not all. Again though, and you agree, the results are up for interpretation. Does this mean that you are right and I am wrong, or the opposite?

That leads into the age of our planet. Here again, you cite Hutton. Your "Hutton says" is not a viable argument, when I start at the point of Hutton being incorrect. If you think that makes me narrow-minded, I may well be, but basing many of your claims on Hutton was the wrong way to go for me, as I am not a believer in Hutton's conclusions. They are a theory, yes, but they are not facts. You can't state them as such. As for "current dating methods", that also is up for interpretation. Yes, carbon dating can be made to fit into evolution, as can isotope dating (understand both as very simplified, general terms). Your scientists will interpret data one way, and mine will interpret it another. Is there an absolute? We shouldn't even go there, as you probably already realize I belive it's the basis for evolution. If there are no absolutes, then God will not exist, or man IS god, and therefore can live according to his own laws/desires.

Yes, I recognize that there are MANY different ideas of how the universe came into being. Some deny God, some incorporate a god/gods, some attempt to become gods. "Evolution" (again, term used loosely) as the basis for how the universe came into being can not be proven any easier than can creation.

I'm confused by your closing statement {Tt is something we observe, all the time, and which is documented continually by geologists, biologists, zoologists and paleonthologists (to ment

[Tormod]

IirishEyes, you talk about going round in circles and indeed you are.

"All Hutton did was try to disprove the then current belief of geology based on a belief in the Great Flood theory. "

It is not so simple. The prevailing idea of the time was that a catastrophe of sorts (the "flood") had filled the Earth with water. When the water withdrew, the landscape had got the shape it has today. The mountains, valleys, oceans, lakes, forests etc where thus created as a "second" creation by God. Hutton challenged this claim. He argued that there was no evidence supporting such a theory. Instead he argued that forces within the Earth shaped nature. These forces are earthquakes, landslides, erosion (by wind and water), and other natural causes. He suggested that the land could rise and sink, and that there must be some motion of the upper crust of the Earth (predicting plate tectonics about 150 years early). So his studies were vital in refuting the "catastrophy theory". As with *every single scientist* who ever lived, he did not get everything right. How could he? That is not how science works.

"My point is that "evolution" (I'm using the word in the most general of ways) can not be proved on the basis of the fossil record, but the fossil record can disprove many of the beliefs held by evolutionists."

Yet scientists use the fossil record all the time to prove evolution. Two or three examples of different bones found in the same strata would hardly be proof of anything. Tens of thousands of finds which support the geologic column stand a better chance.

"I don't feel Hutton is a strong argument for your theory."

Hutton was just the first in a long line of geologist who have proved that the earth is indeed built up by layers. He is a very strong argument. But a lot has happened in geology for the past 200 years so if you think I am basing my thoughts on geology on one book alone you are wrong (unlike some other people in this forum who manage to get by with a single book). For the interested: a great book on James Hutton is Jack Repcheck's "The Man Who Found Time" (available at Amazon.com).

I don't see how we agree on the dating problem. I accept the techniques used by scientists today. When I said some are up for interpretation I did not imply that they may miss by millions of years. Carbon-14, for example, is a very reliable way to date things. So I did not "prove your point".

For the interested, here is a good introduction to paleonthology and dating methods:

http://www.sciencenet.org.uk/database/archpal/archsublist.html

The age of the earth was not measured by Hutton. Like I said, he did not even come up with an estimate (he was probably shocked himself when he realized what he had discovered).

The age of the earth can be found in many ways. The most reliable is dating the rocks and elements, which give us an estimated age of about 4,53 billion years. I provided a link for that (I did not quote Hutton, like you claim).

Other ways are to measure the age of the earth is to measure the age of the sun, because the planets were formed out of the planetary nebula left over after the sun formed. This is not an extraordinary claim, however - all the planets show the same age as the Earth.

"Yes, I recognize that there are MANY different ideas of how the universe came into being. Some deny God, some incorporate a god/gods, some attempt to become gods."

And some do not even need gods (calling this "denial" is a nice trick, but hardly effective).

"You have already stated that evolution is simply change. Therefore, what do you see as needing to be proved? Does evolution happen? By your definition, yes it does. "

Like you point out, I have no need to prove evolution.

"However, in the very loosest form of the understood term, "evolution" can not be proven as the explanation of how the universe came into being."

I think that is stretching it, since none of us has