Evolution is a Religion - VIII

Proof of your statement other than your say so and your wishful thinking would be nice if you continue to make such a declarative statement.

 

There is the University of Berkeley that agrees with my statement dealing with evolutuon.

What is crazy, it is with their college degree as being an "Evolutionary Biological professional".

Read their crap - evolution101...

 

This means nothing. Your post has no meaning... What died - died... During the extinctions - what lived did bot evolve...

There has been five (5), what evolved into ehat after the extinctions? Or... Or...

Did the species that survived stay the same? You tell me?

 

Loof folks...

Unless you give any "Scientific" evidence of evolution... It is FAITH... IT IS YOUR RELIGIONS BELIEF...

Evolution is a Religion to put reluctant minds on their beliefs in God. Who knows if God is real. But, we know Evolution is not real.

If you can find a lifeform that evoleved after a Major Extinction, then I will listen.. If not...

Evolution is your religion...

 

I haven't read but a few posts in this thread, but they remind me that today I viewed some images of bugs "frozen" in amber estimated to be 60-80 million years old. Same bugs we have around today -- wasps, bees, mosquitoes, ants. In all that time, they apparently haven't evolved. By all outward appearances, they are identical to the wasps, bees, mosquitoes and ants that are in your yard.

What does this mean? Did they reach their evolutionary zenith those many millions of years ago or as many more millions of years before that, or before that, and so on, going back to forever? And with no reason to further evolve from their state of evolutionary perfection beautifully locked up in amber, are we now among what really are perfect life forms that we don't appreciate and actually vilify as a lot of unwelcome biting, stinging pestilence because our brains haven't yet evolved enough wisdom or sense of aesthetics to appreciate them, or whatever?

Raid is not my religion, but I do use it quite a bit and keep it in a special place.

 

Did we come from dust or did we come from black mud?

 

Did you know that humans co-existed with dinosaurs as recently as one million years ago? It is true. They made movies about it. https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0060782/ I wonder why there were no dogs or horses or chickens around at that time?

 

Who knows... It can't be proven where we came from. If one is to believe The Bible, however, it mentions that God formed Adam and Eve from the dust of the ground.

 

Here you go:

https://fivebooks.com/best-books/evolution-jerry-coyne/

When you've read, understood and digested them, come back and tell everyone that evolution is a correct description of the process.

 

Whenever we don't know, some of us say "I don't know" which is the truth and the beginning of investigation. Others of us say "god did it" - which is the end of all inquiry.

In this case, there is very clear evidence of our origins.

 

The Cambrian Explosion was 540 million a years ago, and not a SINGLE new Phyla has emerged during that entire period.

BECAUSE IT’S JUST ANOTHER WOKE WHITE PEOPLE CULT: Why Extinction Rebellion seems so nuts.

The more dogmatic environmentalism becomes, the more it loses touch with reality.


Young People will participate in just about anything that they think will make it more likely that they will get laid.

One of my favourite political events this year was the Battle of Canning Town. This was the moment when Extinction Rebellion decided to send its painfully middle-class agitators to a working-class part of East London early in the morning to lecture and inconvenience people who just wanted to get to work. What could go wrong?

Quite a lot, it turned out. There were many wonderful moments. The two posh greens who climbed on top of a Tube train at Canning Town were mocked and eventually dragged down. A commuter can be heard branding one of the protesters a ‘ponytail weirdo’. Elsewhere on the Tube system that day, commuters pointed out that the London Underground is run on electricity and is therefore pretty eco-friendly. ‘Are you that ****ing stupid?’, one asked a smug-looking couple of XR agitators. ‘No wonder you can’t get jobs…’​

 

Others will say "I don't know, but it's definitely not God" - which is a write-off of a very real possibility.

In the end, we simply do not know, and have no way of 'proving' anything of the sort. My belief is that The Bible is accurate. Other people believe differently.

 

Phylum is a creation of science used to categorize what has been found in nature. So, it is artificial, unlike "species" which has stronger definition in at least some usages.

The composition, creation and deletion of phyla change reasonably often as more is discovered.

There is enough change that the use of Phylum in classification could be dropped in favor of a different method of categorization - cladistics.

Using this as a measure of evolutionary progress doesn't make much sense to me.

 

As an answer to a question about how something in this physical universe works your first sentence is a mixture of science and relgion - which I see as a bad idea. Religion and science don't share anything, so they should be kept separate.

We DO have science, which allows us to answer questions about how this universe works.

And, we have religion that does not have the tools for doing that. In fact, religion doesn't have the tools for gaining agreement on questions about god, as can be seen by the vast number of religions and denominations of those religions - not that surprising given the difficulty level.

I don't have a problem with people having religious beliefs, but we have to recognize which toolset is appropriate for the question at hand. Science doesn't answer questions of religion. And, religion doesn't answer questions of how this physical universe works.

 

I don't think they should be kept separate necessarily, but I do think that it is VERY important to clearly define and distinguish between the two, as many people love to make religion into "science".

...to an extent. And, to add, we don't even know whether or not this is a universe, nor do we know the shape of the universe (Does it extend outward forever? Is it curved? Etc.) Any beliefs regarding those things are religious beliefs.

All religion is is an initial circular argument (ie, an "argument of faith") with other arguments stemming from it. This is the category that unfalsifiable theories fall under. Religion doesn't make use of proofs. It does, however, make use of consensus and supporting evidence.

Science, on the other hand, is simply a set of falsifiable theories. Science only addresses that which is falsifiable. Science does not make use of proofs (unless the theory gets formalized into a law, usually by way of mathematics). Science does not make use of consensus nor supporting evidence either, as those things are what religion makes use of. Science, on the other hand, makes use of conflicting evidence. If a single null hypothesis test fails, then the theory is completely and utterly destroyed.

I agree with this.

I agree with this too.

Depends on whether the theory is falsifiable or not. If it is falsifiable, then it can be addressed by science. If it is not falsifiable, then science cannot address it (thus that only leaves religion to address it).

 

If science and religion are mixed, the result is sure to be nonsense. The problem is that the two have very different foundational assumptions, different ideas on what kind of questions may be inestigated, different ideas of what is evidence, different methodology, and even differences in what a result might look like.

I'm not saying that a person with religious beliefs can't use science. That is perfectly possible as long as the person sticks to scientific methods. Darwin was religious. Galileo was religious. I would guess that most of our famous scientists did have religious beliefs - they just didn't allow that to affect their science.

I think you need to be careful with that last paragraph. Simply having science not be able to address a question doesn't necessarily mean that religious methods are the correct approach.

For example, science is not capable of addressing string theory. There is no way of testing it today. That doesn't make religion a proper choice of toolset - it would be total nonsense for religion to attempt to address string theory.

The proper choice should have more to do with the nature of the toolset. Roughly speaking, science addresses how this physical universe works and religion addresses the supernatural. Both toolsets may find questions that are not possible to answer, but that doesn't necessarily mean the other toolset should be used.

 

Are you saying that you believe in magic dust instead of in magic black mud?

 

Science says humans came from the dust of the ground, too.

(I'd point out that the Bible doesn't have Eve coming from dust.)

 

Science can't address the unfalsifiable. Religion is the ONLY option at that point.

 

You'll note that I state that repeatedly.

The reaal problem comes when the tools of science and religion are mixed or when they are used to address problems which they are not qualified to investigate.

They need to be kept separate - like Darwin, Galileo and so many others have done.

 

I am saying that it cannot be proven where we came from. Our origin can only be believed, not proven.

 

Okay.

Correct. The Bible has Eve coming from Adam's rib. I should've said "man" or "Adam" instead of "Adam and Eve" in the other post.

 

And I've specified that it is important to correctly define and distinguish between the two, so as to not attempt calling religion "science".

 

Science has the theory of evolution, constantly tested over the last 200 years and accepted universally as the foundation of all biological sciences. Like with all science, "theory" is the strongest form of truth available, and all are free to propose scientific alternatives or prove this theory to be false - neither of which have been acomplished.

I agree we don't know what came before the "big bang", but in science we say "I don't know" rather than suggesting one should have a "belief" about that. Strictly speaking, "belief" is a religious term though we sometimes use it to simply indicate a best guess.

 

Not Science, but religion. Evolution is not falsifiable. We don't know what happened all of those years ago. We weren't there.

The null hypothesis has not been tested. It is not accessible. Modern humans did not exist at the time. "Universal acceptance" is not Science, either, but simply a made up number.

Theory is not truth. Theory is simply an explanatory argument.

And never will be accomplished, because the theory is a RELIGIOUS theory, not a scientific one. It cannot be falsified.

Precisely. We don't know. It's simply a religious belief.

One need not hold ANY belief about it. One can simply say "I don't know" and leave it at that. That's what I do with regard to Evolution and the Big Bang Theory, for example. I just say 'I don't know what happened all those years ago'. I don't make any claim that either theory is true or false.

Belief is simply the acceptance of an argument as 'true'. That says nothing about the actual truth or falsehood of the argument, but is merely saying that one has made the choice to accept a particular argument as 'truth'.