Evolution is a Religion - VIII

Literally every day.

So you don’t know anything about science. That explains your confusion.

 

Evolution is reproducible. We do it every day in the lab.

You confuse your ignorance of science with problems with evolution. There isn’t any problems with evolution.

 

Chistians go around saying "respect religion" as a mantra then use it as a slur against evolution. It makes no sense. But then again, neither does anything else about their beliefs.

For me a religion needs temples, a clergy, behavioral guidelines, and supernatural claims. So evolution doesnt fit my definition of a religion.

 

Your definition of a religion is wrong. Religion doesn't require any of those things. All it requires is an initial circular argument with other arguments stemming from it. Religion addresses what Science cannot address. Religion addresses the unfalsifiable.

 

What about all those hominid fossils, transitional between humans and apes, we found? Homo Erectus, Neanderthals (DNA included), Homo Habilis, etc?

 

So basically any belief thats not falsifiable is a religion? Thats silly.

 

I think you are at least conflating the two ... and the existence of albino's does not falsify genetic mutations resulting in evolution.

We don't need to have been there when some small mutation happened to an chimp - making it more human like. We see this happening all around us today. Mutations happen - and this causes a slight change to an organism. The changes that increase survival chances tend to be kept and those that do not have less of a probability of being carried on.

I think you are confusing "evolution" - changes in an organism through mutation - with how life came to be in the first place. Evolution is a change in the DNA through mutation. This however, does not explain how DNA came to be in the first place - albeit it may be part of that equation but, only a small part.

At the end of the day - we know the Bible is wrong. While we were not there to witness the big bang .. or the creation of the earth. We know that there were no humans on the earth at the time of creation - and for billions of years after the earth was created.

The atmosphere of the earth was hydrogen sulfide - not oxygen -for the first few billion years. Slowly the atmosphere was transformed by cyanobacteria. Prior to this transformation - there were no mammals - all of which need oxygen to survive.

Primitive forms of life - multi cellular life - comes into being around 900 million years ago. Bugs - arthropods - around 600 million years ago.

Dinosaurs around 250 Million years ago and Mammals around 200 million years ago.

The first primates 50 million years ago ... and finally - humans diverge from their closest relatives - Chimps- around 7 million years ago.

https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17453-timeline-the-evolution-of-life/

 

No, I'm not.

Correct. The Theory of Evolution and the Theory of Natural Selection are two completely separate theories. The falsification of Natural Selection does not falsify Evolution in any way. All it means is that Evolution is not being driven by Natural Selection, since Natural Selection has been falsified due to what I said earlier. Evolution, on the other hand, is not falsifiable. It is a religion.

Yes, we needed to have been there. The fact that mutations occur today does not mean that mutations have always occurred in the past, or that we are then the result of mutations of past, more primitive, life forms. We simply do not know the answer to this conundrum. You hold a religious belief that Evolution is true, which is perfectly logical and fine, but don't pretend that Evolution is science when it is anything BUT...

So the albino trait in mammals "increases survival chances"? The genetic mutations which cause cystic fibrosis in humans "increase survival chances"? [Insert numerous other examples to the contrary here]. Natural Selection simply isn't true. All it takes is one example to completely destroy (falsify) the theory.

No, I am not. I have clearly defined how I am using the term, which is similar to how you are defining it, but more precise than simple "mutations of DNA".

Evolution (the theory) is the theory that current life forms are a result of mutations of earlier more primitive life forms. Correct that it doesn't explain how DNA came to be. A different religion would need to address that question, such as the Big Bang Theory, Intelligent Design, etc...

No, we don't. It is a religion (Christianity) akin to Atheism, akin to Evolutionism, akin to Big Bang, etc... There is no way to prove the Bible true or false. The Bible can only be accepted/rejected on a faith basis. You have faith that the Bible is wrong. Others have faith that the Bible is correct.

We don't know that either. That is simply more religious belief. I agree that there were no humans on the Earth at the time of creation, but it is still religious belief nonetheless.

More religious belief on your part... We don't know any of this. We weren't there.

More religious belief on your part. We don't know any of this. We weren't there.

'Holy link' dismissed on sight. False Authority Fallacy.

 

Sort of.

It's not the belief itself, but rather, the specific Argument of Faith which is being believed.

For example, "god(s) exist" is a religion (called Theism). It is an Argument of Faith of which additional argumentation is dependent upon. Same applies to the inverse of this religion, known as Atheism. "God(s) do not exist" is also an Argument of Faith.

 

It doesn't falsify natural selection either. Natural selection is reality - I see it every day and use it in my work in the field of microbiology. Regardless - if you want to make such a claim - then back it up with something.

Your claim that mutations did not happen in the past is absurd - Do you know how mutations happen ? There are may ways but a stray gamma ray can cause a mutation. Are you saying there were not stray gamma rays in the past ? You are making stuff. This is a false claim.

These do not increase survival chances. How does the existence of such traits falsify natural selection ? On the contrary cystic fibrosis proves natural selection. People having cystic fibrosis decreases survival chances - which decreases the likelihood that that this person will find a mate or live long enough to produce offspring. That is natural selection.

Evolution is "mutations of DNA" we agree on this .. what more do you have to say.

I don't care what peoples faith is. We know for a fact that humans were not here for billions of years after the earth was created. We know this for a fact because we know for a fact that the atmosphere had a high hydrogen sulfide content which is lethal to humans at low parts per million. - and humans simply can not survive in such an environment.

You running around crying "false false false" - followed by running to the playground and sticking head deep in the sandbox of denial does not change this fact.

Are you one of those people that thinks the world is only 6000 years old - and that some global flood happened around 2300 BC which wiped out all land creatures ?

 

Sorry but evolution is a demonstrable fact. You can find thousands of examples with a simple google search. The usual problem with evolution deniers is that they want to make up there own definitions or they pretend that because changes over tens of thousands of years cannot be recreated that evolution as related to humans has not occurred.

 

Then everyone has dozens of religions. Any single belief in the supernatural AND non-belief in the anything supernatural would be a religion, thus encompassing everyone. If a definition of something is so broad that it emcompasses everyone, its worthless.

I think I'll stick with my definition.

 

Do you understand what DNS sequencing is?

 

I doubt you can cite a single example of a Christian doing that; but in any case...

...your definition is not the least bit cononsant with Christianity, so you should not be surprised that applying it to Christianity yields a nonsensical result.

 

Christianity doesnt have temples, a clergy, behavioral guidelines, and supernatural claims? Thats news to me.

 

Yes, everyone has multiple religions. What's wrong with that?

It's a very specific definition.

Your definition is wrong. It rejects logic.

 

evolution is provable in the same way gravity is

there is also a theory of gravity, doesn't mean gravity is not provable

you are referring the theory of how we evolved based on fossil evidence

some believe the devil put those fossils there to trick us, but we have to be realistic

 

no, wrong

that is like if someone cleans your house, and saying since you do not know the exact way they did it and in what order that your house was not cleaned

evolution is fact, we just do not know the exact order in which it took place, that is the theory based on fossil records

 

Just god's little joke!

 

It rejects logic? What does that even mean. Definitions aren't formed by logic. They aren't logical. Least logical of all would be one that includes absolutely every belief and dis-belief counted as a religion, despite an enite lingual history of not defining it that way. If you say about someone "they are a religious person" people generally know what that means. Your definition makes thw question silly, changes an enitire history of the way we've used the word, and is so broad that its pointless.

So good luck using 'religious' in that context in real life. See how well your 'logical' definition is understood.

 

No, religion as defined in the context of Christianity doesn't require any of that. As the Apostle James observed, religion pure and undefiled is this: to visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep one's self unspotted from the world.

And of course religion pure and undefiled implies the possibility of religion impure and defiled, so the idea that any Christian in his or her right mind would endorse everything that might be labeled religion is asinine.

 

Yes.

Logic is a closed functional system, defined by its axioms. If you do not adhere to that system, then you are rejecting it.

Some definitions are. In this case, though, the word 'religion' is defined by philosophy.

Yes, they are.

??? Compositional Error Fallacy. Religion doesn't include every belief/disbelief... It only includes beliefs which are based on unfalsifiable theories, such as the existence/non-existence of gods. There are also beliefs which are based on falsifiable theories, such as the laws of thermodynamics. A set of falsifiable theories is what is called "Science". Science is NOT religion; religion is NOT science.

Yes, the word is generally used when making reference to belief/disbelief in gods, but that is a VERY small portion of what religion as a whole actually is. Many people do not know the logic behind religious argumentation, and because of that, they don't realize that they make use of the same logical framework in other aspects of their lives...

No, it doesn't. You simply don't understand the logical framework behind religious argumentation.

When one forms a theory, they initially believe that theory on a faith basis (ie, "circular reasoning"). If the theory is falsifiable, and continues to survive null hypothesis testing, then the theory becomes and remains a theory of science (so long as it doesn't get falsified). If the theory is not falsifiable, then it cannot move beyond being an argument of faith; it cannot move beyond being a circular argument. Thus, it remains a religious belief. It remains a religion.

It is easily understood by those willing to learn about it.

 

Religion is based purely on non-provable beliefs and faith.

Evolution, and other scientific theories are educated guesses based on observation of the natural world and experimentation. They are not the same thing.

Now that is not to say that the theory of evolution is without flaws. There are several holes which have yet to be filled, and it's quite possible that in the future scientists could discover evidence that forced a rewrite of parts of the theory, but we know enough to say that the current theory of evolution is the closest we have.

 

This is more misunderstanding of evolution. Evolution does NOT suggest that every change is an improvement. The vast majority of mutations are rejected. The mutation results in death, the mutation results in less ability to compete, or whatever. Selection doesn't necessarily remove every mutation that isn't an improvement in terms of species survival. Your idea that selection would be perfect (thus falsifiable by finding one bad trait in humans) is just a gross misunderstanding.

And, evolution isn't done with us yet. Humans are evolving today. Over the last 20k years humans have gained the ability to digest milk as adults. We lost brain size by about the volume of a tennis ball (though presumably our brains improved in complexity).

 

Nature isn't a "closed functional system defined by its axioms". You seem to be thinking of math.

Scientific method has to be different from math in that unlike in math, we do NOT have a complete set of axioms.

And, that certainly does not mean that we can't use logic. We use logic every day.

It does mean that in the natural sciences one can't prove something to be true, like one can in math. However, it's totally possible to falsify hypotheses and theories.