The Religion of Evolutionism ~ discussion and CIVILIZED debate

Yes, Evolution is a religion. They may tell you that it's science but that, my friends, is a pure, openly deceptive lie. Science is what we can study by seeing and observing. We have never seen or observed evolution happening. We have, in fact, no proof that it ever did happen.

Instead of creating a blog-like first post, I have decided to dive straight into the discussion, since that always proves more than the first post. So, I claim that Evolutionism is not scientifically provable, and that to believe in it requires faith. I also state that the educational system of the world is strongly biased toward the religion of Evolutionism, and that the reason that the 55% majority of the scientific community believes in Evolutionism is that it is what they were taught, and were never given the opportunity to consider anything else until they had grown old enough to be adamant in their beliefs, unwilling to consider anything but what they already believed (no one on ZU is like that, of course). I would also like to point out that the religion of Evolutionism is government endorsed and tax-supported. What ever happened to separation of church and state here?

I submit these things for discussion.

I would like to state, just as a fun fact, that Charles Darwin was not a scientist; he flunked out of school.

I don't know, or have ever seen, someone who considers them an Evolutionist. Darwinism is another thing altogether though...

We have tons, and tons, of evidence. Observation include esxperiments done to find indirect evidence you know.

An example, please? How can you prove that life came from no life and that it changed and mutated to become what it is now or that the universe is billions of years old or any aspect of evolution?

Originally Posted by Phool

Yes, Evolution is a religion. They may tell you that it's science but that, my friends, is a pure, openly deceptive lie. Science is what we can study by seeing and observing. We have never seen or observed evolution happening. We have, in fact, no proof that it ever did happen.

Instead of creating a blog-like first post, I have decided to dive straight into the discussion, since that always proves more than the first post. So, I claim that Evolutionism is not scientifically provable, and that to believe in it requires faith. I also state that the educational system of the world is strongly biased toward the religion of Evolutionism, and that the reason that the 55% majority of the scientific community believes in Evolutionism is that it is what they were taught, and were never given the opportunity to consider anything else until they had grown old enough to be adamant in their beliefs, unwilling to consider anything but what they already believed (no one on ZU is like that, of course). I would also like to point out that the religion of Evolutionism is government endorsed and tax-supported. What ever happened to separation of church and state here?

I submit these things for discussion.

I would like to state, just as a fun fact, that Charles Darwin was not a scientist; he flunked out of school.

You are just wrong... about everything.

And if you want evidence of observed speciation, There is a flavobacterium that consumes nylon. Nylon being an entirely man made compound which didn't exist until the 30s would not have had organism which could have metabolized it without evolving to do so. In fact, these bacteria were discovered only 40 years later. It shows how natural selection works. A factory which was producing nylon was dumping nylon waste into a pond outside the facility and it was discovered many years later that bacteria had evolved to consume nylon as a food source. How else would bacteria adapt to use a completely man made material as a food source without evolution?

Originally Posted by Phool

Yes, Evolution is a religion.

Incorrect. Evolution is based on a wealth of evidence: fossils, genetics, experimental, homology, vestigial organs and structures, etc...

How much reading have you done on evolution?

Science is what we can study by seeing and observing.

Not necessarily. Science is about building a framework or model of the world based on evidence.

We have never seen or observed evolution happening.

Not quite true. Evolution is change or mutation over time. There have been some experiments shown that, given changes in environment, a species will gradually change to compensate. Look up Richard Lenski's experiment with E. coli bacteria, for instance, or observations of lizard evolution in the Caribbean.

Also, the domestication of animals, for instance, is a form of evolution via human selection, rather than natural selection. Indeed, sheep have been so radically altered from their wild counterparts that speciation has occurred - they can no longer breed with wild sheep.

We have, in fact, no proof that it ever did happen.

Nonsense. In science, evidence is a form of proof, and we've got a wealth of evidence backing up evolution. Just look up the facts.

I also state that the educational system of the world is strongly biased toward the religion of Evolutionism, and that the reason that the 55% majority of the scientific community believes in Evolutionism is that it is what they were taught, and were never given the opportunity to consider anything else until they had grown old enough to be adamant in their beliefs, unwilling to consider anything but what they already believed (no one on ZU is like that, of course).

Hmm, I would've thought that a much greater proportion than 55% of scientists "believes" in evolution. This is because evolution is as well-established as basically any other scientific theory, such as plate tectonics.

I would also like to point out that the religion of Evolutionism is government endorsed and tax-supported. What ever happened to separation of church and state here?

Evolution is no more a religion than the theory of plate tectonics or any other theory in science.


Oh, and as for evidence of the advanced age of the Solar System...

Originally Posted by Astarael

The oldest rocks on Earth only date back to about 3.8 to 3.9 billion years, since crustal erosion (and the fact that the early Earth's surface was likely molten) has destroyed the very oldest rocks. Nevertheless, some minerals have been found in Australia that are 4.4 billion years old, so this sets the lower limit on Earth’s age. However, radioactive dating of meteorites (which are not subject to erosion, weathering and deformation, unlike Earth rocks) gives us a very good estimate of the age of the Solar System. Here are some sample ages from Wikipedia:

St. Severin:
- Pb-Pb isochron: 4.543 +/- 0.019 Gya
- Sm-Nd isochron: 4.55 +/- 0.33 Gya
- Rb-Sr isochron: 4.51 +/- 0.15 Gya
- Re-Os isochron: 4.68 +/- 0.15 Gya

Juvinas:
- Pb-Pb isochron: 4.556 +/- 0.012 Gya
- Pb-Pb isochron: 4.540 +/- 0.001 Gya
- Sm-Nd isochron: 4.56 +/- 0.08 Gya
- Rb-Sr isochron: 4.50 +/- 0.07 Gya

Allende:
- Pb-Pb isochron: 4.553 +/- 0.004 Gya
- Ar-Ar age spectrum: 4.52 +/- 0.02 Gya
- Ar-Ar age spectrum: 4.55 +/- 0.03 Gya
- Ar-Ar age spectrum: 4.56 +/- 0.05 Gya

Also, here are some more from talkorigins.org (sorry they're a bit blurry, but they're still visible):






As you can see, they all centre at roughly 4.55 billion years. These are truly spectacular results! It doesn’t get much more conclusive than this - our Solar System has been in existence for almost 4.6 billion years.

Originally Posted by Phool

An example, please? How can you prove that life came from no life and that it changed and mutated to become what it is now or that the universe is billions of years old or any aspect of evolution?

Evolution explains the diversity of life, not the origins of it. That is abiogenesis. And the origin and age of the universe is in the realm of cosmology.

Originally Posted by Astarael

Hmm, I would've thought that a much greater proportion than 55% of scientists "believes" in evolution. This is because evolution is as well-established as basically any other scientific theory, such as plate tectonics.

Its more like 98-99.8% accept it.

Originally Posted by Phool

An example, please? How can you prove that life came from no life and that it changed and mutated to become what it is now or that the universe is billions of years old or any aspect of evolution?

None of those were parts of evolution, first off.

A piece of indirect evidence can be seen in the fossils of whales.

Life coming from inorganic matter is called Abiogenesis, and the universe being billions of years old isn't really related at all. They have ways of estimating the age of the universe. Look here.

Originally Posted by shadowofhyrule

Its more like 98-99.8% accept it.

I thought so. 55% sounds more like the proportion of the general public that acknowledges evolution as a correct and sound theory, rather than scientists.

Originally Posted by Phool

Yes, Evolution is a religion. They may tell you that it's science but that, my friends, is a pure, openly deceptive lie. Science is what we can study by seeing and observing. We have never seen or observed evolution happening. We have, in fact, no proof that it ever did happen.

With that logic, the belief that the Earth has a solid core now qualifies as a religion.

Let's just deny climate change while we're here.

Originally Posted by Phool

Yes, Evolution is a religion. They may tell you that it's science but that, my friends, is a pure, openly deceptive lie. Science is what we can study by seeing and observing. We have never seen or observed evolution happening. We have, in fact, no proof that it ever did happen.

Wut? Evolution is not a religion. What makes you think it is a religion? It is just a scientific principle...like the Theory of Gravity.

Originally Posted by Phool

Yes, Evolution is a religion. They may tell you that it's science but that, my friends, is a pure, openly deceptive lie.

wow, I'm laughing already.

Science is what we can study by seeing and observing. We have never seen or observed evolution happening. We have, in fact, no proof that it ever did happen.

it's amazing how wrong you are here. I'm astonished. There's so much proof of evolution that it is completely absurd of you to say otherwise.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

Evolution happens all the time. I even have a couple of lists full of observed instances of speciation.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html

Instead of creating a blog-like first post, I have decided to dive straight into the discussion, since that always proves more than the first post. So, I claim that Evolutionism is not scientifically provable, and that to believe in it requires faith.

absurd. It's already been scientifically proven. Faith plays no part in it.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA612.html

I also state that the educational system of the world is strongly biased toward the religion of Evolutionism,

the educational system is "strongly biased" toward evolution because it is the job of the educational system to teach proper scientific theory.

and that the reason that the 55% majority of the scientific community

statistics with no source are useless.

believes in Evolutionism is that it is what they were taught, and were never given the opportunity to consider anything else until they had grown old enough to be adamant in their beliefs, unwilling to consider anything but what they already believed (no one on ZU is like that, of course).

that does sound a lot like religion.

I would also like to point out that the religion of Evolutionism is government endorsed and tax-supported. What ever happened to separation of church and state here?

Separation of Church and State is as strong as ever, which is why we have our schools teaching science instead of religion.

I submit these things for discussion.

I would like to state, just as a fun fact, that Charles Darwin was not a scientist; he flunked out of school.

you can be a scientist even if you never go to school. Charles Darwin studied science; that makes him a scientist.

Originally Posted by Phool

Yes, Evolution is a religion. They may tell you that it's science but that, my friends, is a pure, openly deceptive lie. Science is what we can study by seeing and observing. We have never seen or observed evolution happening. We have, in fact, no proof that it ever did happen.

I will confess that since I have never directly observed the birth or death or overall mating/child rearing success of any animal that I, personally, have not directly observed natural selection in action.

However, evolution has been observed directly many times. In labs in some cases, in nature in others.

Further, the Merriam-Webster dictionary defines a religion as follows:
1 a : the state of a religious <a nun in her 20th year of religion> b (1) : the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2) : commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance
2 : a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices
3 archaic : scrupulous conformity : conscientiousness
4 : a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith.

1-3 in absolutely no way reflect science or the theory of evolution.
4 doesn't either. "Held with ardor and faith" means, to me, at least, that the thing is believed without any regard for evidence. If evolution was a religion then there could be no evidence that would ever make the "believers" doubt it. Yet there are countless things that could disprove the theory.

Instead of creating a blog-like first post, I have decided to dive straight into the discussion, since that always proves more than the first post. So, I claim that Evolutionism is not scientifically provable, and that to believe in it requires faith. I also state that the educational system of the world is strongly biased toward the religion of Evolutionism, and that the reason that the 55% majority of the scientific community believes in Evolutionism is that it is what they were taught, and were never given the opportunity to consider anything else until they had grown old enough to be adamant in their beliefs, unwilling to consider anything but what they already believed (no one on ZU is like that, of course). I would also like to point out that the religion of Evolutionism is government endorsed and tax-supported. What ever happened to separation of church and state here?

The Theory of Evolution isn't a religion. There is no set of beliefs, no infrastructure, no ranks, no worship, no metaphysics, no supernatural concepts, nothing.

Further, do you know the best way to become a famous scientist? What made Einstein, Galileo, Newton, Feynman, Hawking, Darwin, Curie, Bohr, Kelvin, Hooke, and all the other scientists you've ever heard of household names? They disproved commonly accepted ideas. They said: "Wait a second, the universe doesn't actually work that way at all! All you other's have got it completely wrong! Look, here's my notes!"

That's the only way to become a famous and highly-respected scientist: Overturn an old idea. Understand one aspect of the universe better than anyone else ever has before. Challenge orthodoxy! Defy conventional wisdom! Shine lights into dark places! Question! Argue! Doubt! Take nothing for granted! Accept nothing without analyzing it from the ground up!

That is what makes a great scientist, and what could make you greater than disproving evolution? Overturning the one theory that has tied together all of biology for centuries! It would be as big as Newton figuring out how gravity works, or Einstein correcting him! It would earn you a Nobel Prize easy, and get you tenure at the university of your choice. It would be the equivalent to finding out that just underneath your backyard is the largest diamond deposit in the world.

Yet, oddly enough, none of them have so much as poked holes in it in a hundred and fifty years. Oh, sure, small issues have been found, and the theory has been adjusted to take them into account, but nothing inexplicable has ever been observed.

I would like to state, just as a fun fact, that Charles Darwin was not a scientist; he flunked out of school.

Darwin was indeed a scientist, and he did not flunk out of school, he graduated 10th in his class (out of 180 or so) in university.

Darwin was also a very keen naturalist. Joining student clubs dedicated to the natural sciences and collecting beetles as a hobby (and being the first to discover a wide variety of them as a consequence.)

Further, one does not need an education to be a scientist. It's almost impossible to be one without a PhD now, but that's simply due to how much we already know; to push the boundaries of knowledge further you have to know where they currently are. Still, it's not impossible that someone, somewhere, will have a sudden insight that will turn most of what we know on its head and that this person will have no education. It's not likely, but not impossible.

Originally Posted by Phool

An example, please? How can you prove that life came from no life

That would be abiogenesis, not evolution.
The two are separate theories.

and that it changed and mutated to become what it is now

That one's pretty simple. But I must ask, is every person you know an exact clone of one of their parents? No? Then you accept that mutations occur and that they change how animals look, yes?

Then what, exactly, do you dispute about evolution?

or that the universe is billions of years old or any aspect of evolution?

This is also not an aspect of evolution. The theory this is probably most tied to is the Big Bang Theory, which is wholly and completely separate from both Evolution and abiogenesis.

I don't enjoy just popping into a topic and making a snarky comment, but...

Holy Allah (Subahanawa'tallah), Sustainer of the Two Easts and Two Wests, is it just me or does the TC sound like your cookie cutter creationist? I mean, he even has the unnecessary polemic against Darwin...but he uses a deceptive veil over his polemic by using the phrase "fun fact" and even twists and oversimplifies Darwin's situation.

I don't really feel like debating the meaning of "religion," because I have a loose definition of it, but seriously.

First of all, Darwin didn't "flunk" out of any school. Even if he did, there are differing circumstances behind schooling in his day and schooling in our day.

Secondly, Darwin was definitely a scientist. Just because you don't have a formal degree does not exclude you from the field of science. It just means that it's harder for the already established to take you seriously. Darwin also learned everything he knew under an apprenticeship in Taxonomy, the equivalent of an internship. So, he not only had a formal, and probably practical education, he definitely "did science."

Phool, before you go and criticize other people (before your topic starts no less) about logic, get your facts straight and don't post imbecilic things.

I love when people say we have never observed evolution. I work in a biology lab, where bacteria quite often evolve. Even if it were necessary to personally witness evolution happening (and it's not), we have still done it. Many times. Macroevolution too.

No. Just no. I mean, you're allowed your opinion, given, but I'm allowed to dispute it so...no. Evolution is all but undeniable. I mean...it's there. I'm not sure how else to say that.

You know what I just realized? ZUers are stubborn mules when it comes to serious discussion. I reminded myself on numerous occasions not to start another thread like this, but I gave in and did it. Neither one of us will ever gain any ground because you are unwilling to consider the possibility of anything that you disagree with.

Anyway,

Carbon dating is an extremely inaccurate measurement. It is based on an assumption of how much carbon 14 was originally there. There's no way to know that. I am aware of instances where one part of an animal has been dated one age, and another part of the same animal dated thousands of years later. Talk about a slow birth.

Where did that figure of 98-99.8% come from? Your imagination? Show me exactly where you found that. Have you ever heard of the movie Expelled?

Where have you seen evolution take place? Explain to me in detail what you have observed.

Gravity is a law, not a theory. Evolution is a theory, not a fact.

The age of the universe is, indeed, an aspect of evolution. The universe and life couldn't have evolved into what it is now without at least billions of years... right? If the universe is only 6,000 years old like I say, then how could all these species evolve? For that matter, how could they all evolve in 6 billion years, even?

That one's pretty simple. But I must ask, is every person you know an exact clone of one of their parents? No? Then you accept that mutations occur and that they change how animals look, yes?

Then what, exactly, do you dispute about evolution?

Yes, there are variations in genetic structure, but these are not mutations. Mutations are "a sudden departure from the parent type in one or more heritable characteristics, caused by a change in a gene or a chromosome." (Dictionary.com) You see, when a man and a woman fall in love... well, you know that part . The child will be a combination of the two parent's genes, not a new species. No new genes can be added. If it does, then that's a mutation.

The Theory of Evolution isn't a religion. There is no set of beliefs, no infrastructure, no ranks, no worship, no metaphysics, no supernatural concepts, nothing.

Their set of beliefs can be found in any school science textbook. A religion does not need ranks; there are none in Christianity. There's plenty of hero-worship. No metaphysics, you say? Don't even get me started. What do you define as a supernatural concept? I think it has plenty. You're right when you say that it has nothing, though.

Yet, oddly enough, none of them have so much as poked holes in it in a hundred and fifty years. Oh, sure, small issues have been found, and the theory has been adjusted to take them into account, but nothing inexplicable has ever been observed.

Oh, it has been reasonably questioned and disproved several times, yet any who try to disprove it are outcast from the respected scientific community. I must recommend the film Expelled once again. And like you said, whenever one theory is disproved they make a whole new theory of evolution. We can never completely disprove it, because you can never run out of imagination. Also, Christianity has never been disproved either, and we haven't changed our teachings at all for about 2000 years. And yet you have changed your theory of evolution many times in about 150 years.

That would be abiogenesis, not evolution.
The two are separate theories.

Then how did life come to be? Doesn't evolution include abiogenisis? By the way, abiogenesis is one of the oldest theories in existence. It has changed alot over the times, but it has maintained the basic concept that life can come to be without God. One of its older names was Spontaneous Generation.

you can be a scientist even if you never go to school. Charles Darwin studied science; that makes him a scientist.

I'm taking 10th grade biology. Am I a PhD Biologist?

the educational system is "strongly biased" toward evolution because it is the job of the educational system to teach proper scientific theory.

Stop vehemently insisting that its true and prove it. Our entire public school system is based on a theory. Does that sound like good science

Let's just deny climate change while we're here.

I have already done that on numerous occasions.

You are just wrong... about everything.

Prove that I'm wrong.

Separation of Church and State is as strong as ever, which is why we have our schools teaching science instead of religion.

I grow tired of repeating myself. Its not observational science, its a theory.

I hereby submit to you a few more arguments:

Who did the first human marry? If evolution is correct, then there was only one, right?

Why are some planets, stars, even whole galaxies spinning the wrong way? According to the law of conservation of angular momentum, since everything started as one spinning mass, when the big bang hit, all matter should be spinning in the same direction; the direction that the original mass was spinning, but they're not.

How can we still have a moon? As the moon orbits the earth, it is slowly moving away from the earth, at a rate of a few feet per year. This may be difficult to understand, so try to stay with me. If the moon is moving away from us, then that means that it used to be closer to us. With me so far? estimations show that about one million years ago at the rate the moon has been moving now, it would have been orbiting just above the surface of the earth. That explains what happened to at least the tall dinosaurs. They got mooned.

Polystrate fossils? Anyone care to explain them?

How did matter get so perfectly organized?

How can mutations (recombining of the genetic code) create any new, improved varieties? Recombining English letters will never produce Chinese books.

Natural selection only works with the genetic information available and tends only to keep a species stable. How would you explain the increasing complexity in the genetic code that must have occurred if evolution were true?

When, where, why, and how did:

* Single-celled plants become multi-celled? (Where are the two and three-celled intermediates?)
* Single-celled animals evolve?
* Fish change to amphibians?
* Amphibians change to reptiles
* Reptiles change to birds? (The lungs, bones, eyes, reproductive organs, heart, method of locomotion, body covering, etc., are all very different!)
* How did the intermediate forms live?

When, where, why, how, and from what did:

* Whales evolve?
* Sea horses evolve?
* Bats evolve?
* Eyes evolve?
* Ears evolve?
* Hair, skin, feathers, scales, nails, claws, etc., evolve?

Which evolved first (how, and how long; did it work without the others)?

* The digestive system, the food to be digested, the appetite, the ability to find and eat the food, the digestive juices, or the body’s resistance to its own digestive juice (stomach, intestines, etc.)?
* The drive to reproduce or the ability to reproduce?
* The lungs, the mucus lining to protect them, the throat, or the perfect mixture of gases to be breathed into the lungs?
* DNA or RNA to carry the DNA message to cell parts?
* The termite or the flagella in its intestines that actually digest the cellulose?
* The plants or the insects that live on and pollinate the plants?
* The bones, ligaments, tendons, blood supply, or muscles to move the bones?
* The nervous system, repair system, or hormone system?
* The immune system or the need for it?
There are many thousands of examples of symbiosis that defy an evolutionary explanation. Why must we teach students that evolution is the only explanation for these relationships?

How would evolution explain mimicry? Did the plants and animals develop mimicry by chance, by their intelligent choice, or by design?

When, where, why, and how did man evolve feelings? Love, mercy, guilt, etc. would never evolve in the theory of evolution.

I've got more, if you want it.

Christ. Let me try and respond to this full.

Originally Posted by Phool

You know what I just realized? ZUers are stubborn mules when it comes to serious discussion. I reminded myself on numerous occasions not to start another thread like this, but I gave in and did it. Neither one of us will ever gain any ground because you are unwilling to consider the possibility of anything that you disagree with.

Why would we consider something that blatantly defies the definition of religion. Consider that, despite all evidence, the Earth is 6000 years old and ID is the explanation for everything. We don't have to agree with you, or even say you have a valid point if that's not what we think. We tell you why we don't think it. I think it should be clear that I and my fellow board members are NOT unwilling to accept the possibility of things they disagree with. We are however, NOT willing to accept something with no evidence. What reason is there? We might as well believe in everything that has no evidence that is another 'possibility'.

Anyway,

Carbon dating is an extremely inaccurate measurement. It is based on an assumption of how much carbon 14 was originally there. There's no way to know that. I am aware of instances where one part of an animal has been dated one age, and another part of the same animal dated thousands of years later. Talk about a slow birth.

Carbon Dating is used on things for about 60,000 years old. Older than that I believe they use other forms, notably Uranium dating for millions and billions.

Where did that figure of 98-99.8% come from? Your imagination? Show me exactly where you found that. Have you ever heard of the movie Expelled?

It was an estimate most likely, probably not far off either. Expelled has been exposed you know.

Where have you seen evolution take place? Explain to me in detail what you have observed.

You can observe bacterium observing in biology experiments I believe.

Gravity is a law, not a theory. Evolution is a theory, not a fact.

Um, no, gravity is a theory. Until they manage to find evidence that the theories of gravitation apply to the extremes of space, it will remain a theory.

The age of the universe is, indeed, an aspect of evolution. The universe and life couldn't have evolved into what it is now without at least billions of years... right? If the universe is only 6,000 years old like I say, then how could all these species evolve? For that matter, how could they all evolve in 6 billion years, even?

No it isn't the age of the Earth perhaps, but not the universe. Evolution is about life on Earth. That's all. Change in life on Earth. Done.

Yes, there are variations in genetic structure, but these are not mutations. Mutations are "a sudden departure from the parent type in one or more heritable characteristics, caused by a change in a gene or a chromosome." (Dictionary.com) You see, when a man and a woman fall in love... well, you know that part . The child will be a combination of the two parent's genes, not a new species. No new genes can be added. If it does, then that's a mutation.

It wouldn't make a new species. A new species means it cannot reproduce with the species it diverged from.

Their set of beliefs can be found in any school science textbook. A religion does not need ranks; there are none in Christianity. There's plenty of hero-worship. No metaphysics, you say? Don't even get me started. What do you define as a supernatural concept? I think it has plenty. You're right when you say that it has nothing, though.

Then every science is a religion according to that logic. I'd be more than happy to worship the sun. It is the source of all life after all .

Oh, it has been reasonably questioned and disproved several times, yet any who try to disprove it are outcast from the respected scientific community. I must recommend the film Expelled once again. And like you said, whenever one theory is disproved they make a whole new theory of evolution. We can never completely disprove it, because you can never run out of imagination. Also, Christianity has never been disproved either, and we haven't changed our teachings at all for about 2000 years. And yet you have changed your theory of evolution many times in about 150 years.

Because those damn scientists get a chubby for Darwin and will do anything to defend him and his theories. Which is bogus. If something actually came along and disproved evolution, they would drop it like a hot potatoes and move on. They do additional research in order to explain the anomaly. Hole filled.

Then how did life come to be? Doesn't evolution include abiogenisis? By the way, abiogenesis is one of the oldest theories in existence. It has changed alot over the times, but it has maintained the basic concept that life can come to be without God. One of its older names was Spontaneous Generation.

Abiogenesis is separate from evolution. Evolution is change in living organisms, abiogenesis is organic matter from non-matter.

I'm taking 10th grade biology. Am I a PhD Biologist?

No, but how did you think the field got started? How did anything get started? Anyone is capable of making strides in science, regardless of education.

Stop vehemently insisting that its true and prove it. Our entire public school system is based on a theory. Does that sound like good science

A theory in science is generally accepted as fact in general. Most people consider gravity a fact don't they? Most people consider plate tectonics a fact don't they? Yes.

I have already done that on numerous occasions.

Why?

Prove that I'm wrong.

Burdens on you bro.

I grow tired of repeating myself. Its not observational science, its a theory.

Indirect observation is observation.

Who did the first human marry? If evolution is correct, then there was only one, right?

Marriage isn't eternal. It was man made, long after humans as we know them appeared on Earth.

Why are some planets, stars, even whole galaxies spinning the wrong way? According to the law of conservation of angular momentum, since everything started as one spinning mass, when the big bang hit, all matter should be spinning in the same direction; the direction that the original mass was spinning, but they're not.

Cite an example before making assertions.

How can we still have a moon? As the moon orbits the earth, it is slowly moving away from the earth, at a rate of a few feet per year. This may be difficult to understand, so try to stay with me. If the moon is moving away from us, then that means that it used to be closer to us. With me so far? estimations show that about one million years ago at the rate the moon has been moving now, it would have been orbiting just above the surface of the earth. That explains what happened to at least the tall dinosaurs. They got mooned.

It moves around 3.8 meters every 100 years. Let's just assume it formed with the Earth 4.5 billion years ago, and parted at that rate since then. Doing some simple calculations,

(4.5b/100/3.8m/1000 = 11842km) That's less than 10,000 miles, not that much at all, and no where near the Earth's surface.

Polystrate fossils? Anyone care to explain them?

Rapid sedimentation.

How did matter get so perfectly organized?

Billions of years of fine tuning.

How can mutations (recombining of the genetic code) create any new, improved varieties? Recombining English letters will never produce Chinese books.

Let's just say all matter is in the same 'language'. It creates new mutations through various ways, genetic mutation being one of them. Through natural selection only the best survive, genetic mutation and provide advantages which usually survive to the next generation. They keep piling on over the years. That's just one method though.

Natural selection only works with the genetic information available and tends only to keep a species stable. How would you explain the increasing complexity in the genetic code that must have occurred if evolution were true?

What increasing complexity? It's just more information is it not?

When, where, why, and how did:

* Single-celled plants become multi-celled? (Where are the two and three-celled intermediates?)
* Single-celled animals evolve?
* Fish change to amphibians?
* Amphibians change to reptiles
* Reptiles change to birds? (The lungs, bones, eyes, reproductive organs, heart, method of locomotion, body covering, etc., are all very different!)
* How did the intermediate forms live?

When, where, why, how, and from what did:

* Whales evolve?
* Sea horses evolve?
* Bats evolve?
* Eyes evolve?
* Ears evolve?
* Hair, skin, feathers, scales, nails, claws, etc., evolve?

Which evolved first (how, and how long; did it work without the others)?

* The digestive system, the food to be digested, the appetite, the ability to find and eat the food, the digestive juices, or the body’s resistance to its own digestive juice (stomach, intestines, etc.)?
* The drive to reproduce or the ability to reproduce?
* The lungs, the mucus lining to protect them, the throat, or the perfect mixture of gases to be breathed into the lungs?
* DNA or RNA to carry the DNA message to cell parts?
* The termite or the flagella in its intestines that actually digest the cellulose?
* The plants or the insects that live on and pollinate the plants?
* The bones, ligaments, tendons, blood supply, or muscles to move the bones?
* The nervous system, repair system, or hormone system?
* The immune system or the need for it?
There are many thousands of examples of symbiosis that defy an evolutionary explanation. Why must we teach students that evolution is the only explanation for these relationships?

How would evolution explain mimicry? Did the plants and animals develop mimicry by chance, by their intelligent choice, or by design?

When, where, why, and how did man evolve feelings? Love, mercy, guilt, etc. would never evolve in the theory of evolution.

I've got more, if you want it.

One thing you need to understand is that all of those things didn't come about all at once. They all had primitive forms. Those forms evolved, and formed what we see today. There isn't a list in the evolutionary changes of prehistoric mammal stomachs, sorry. Go Wiki that stuff, I won't bother to answer it all.

Man's feelings likely evolved because of their evolutionary benefit. The only thing I can't see evolving very efficiently is hatred. That stumps me.

Hoo boy, this is going to take some serious typing. This is probably going to be the longest post I’ve ever written. *flexes fingers* We’ll see who’s a “stubborn mule” after, eh?

Originally Posted by Phool

Carbon dating is an extremely inaccurate measurement. It is based on an assumption of how much carbon 14 was originally there. There's no way to know that. I am aware of instances where one part of an animal has been dated one age, and another part of the same animal dated thousands of years later. Talk about a slow birth.

Carbon-14 dating is actually quite a good measurement device, but it does have its limitations. It is only good for dating fossils and artefacts anywhere between a hundred or so years to about 60,000 years old. It is inaccurate for anything older or younger than this, simply because either there is too little carbon left for the test to be reliable, or not enough decay has occurred. If you want dating of rocks millions or billions of years old, you need radioactive dating (like uranium) instead.

Misconceptions often arise because people can’t seem to understand these limitations. This leads to people using the technique on specimens that are too old or too young – when the results obtained are obviously wrong, they then blame the carbon-14 technique. But the fact is, any technique will give spurious results if it’s used incorrectly, and carbon-14 is no exception.

So, how do we know that a particular result gained by using carbon-14 is accurate? By correlating the calculated age with ages found using other dating techniques – tree rings, for instance, or historical records. Since multiple testing of an object independently has consistently yielded the same age, carbon-14 is demonstratively a rather sound dating technique – provided it’s used correctly, of course.

Where did that figure of 98-99.8% come from? Your imagination? Show me exactly where you found that. Have you ever heard of the movie Expelled?

Let’s look at what Wikipedia has to say...oh, look:

The vast majority of the scientific community and academia supports evolutionary theory as the only explanation that can fully account for observations in the fields of biology, paleontology, anthropology, and others. One 1987 estimate found that "700 scientists ... (out of a total of 480,000 U.S. earth and life scientists) ... give credence to creation-science". An expert in the evolution-creationism controversy, professor and author Brian Alters states that "99.9 percent of scientists accept evolution".[22] A 1991 Gallup poll of Americans found that about 5% of scientists (including those with training outside biology) identified themselves as creationists.

Looks like 98% or more is about right, really.
I’ve never seen Expelled, no. I’ll look it up though...okay, it’s an Intelligent Design propaganda movie.
Well, since I haven’t seen it, and this post is going to be humongous as it is, I’ll let this site do the talking for me: http://www.expelledexposed.com/

Where have you seen evolution take place? Explain to me in detail what you have observed.

Well I’m a university student studying physics, not biology, so I haven’t personally observed evolution taking place.

I can give you plenty of reports and experiments published by people who are working in this area, however - if you’re willing to read them! Here’s a sample of one such experiment.

Lenski, R. E. (year). The E. coli long-term experimental evolution project site. http://myxo.css.msu.edu/ecoli

Lenski is a bacteriologist at Michigan State University. He and his team have been studying E. coli bacteria for over 20 years. The reason why they have chosen bacteria to study in order to test evolution is that new generations of bacteria arise within a few minutes or hours. Hence, in a relatively short time frame, it’s possible to witness thousands of generations, and thus the likelier it is that the scientists will observe mutations occurring.

Now, the bacteria are separated out into twelve flasks, each containing the same liquid of nutrients, glucose being one of the major ingredients. Initially, each flask contains identical bacteria – this is possible because E. coli reproduce asexually via cell division.

Every day, some of the nutrient liquid is poured into twelve new flasks, and a sample from each old flask is injected in a new one. That way, the population in each new flask, though small at first, will skyrocket throughout the day, levelling off by the time it comes to transfer some of the bacteria to the new flask. The amount of bacteria in each flask is limited by the quantity of glucose, the food supply, you see.

So, this experiment continues for many days and months, and thousands of generations of E. coli. However, even though the bacteria in the 12 flasks were initially identical, over time, they are found to change. This is because of spontaneous mutation. Such a mutation is rare, but we are observing thousands of generations, so gives plenty of time for them to occur. When such a mutation is advantageous, the mutant bacterium outperforms the other non-mutant bacteria, so the next flask will contain a disproportionately large sample of the “new” type of bacterium. Eventually, what we’ll get is a new population (or “tribe”) of E. coli altogether.

Every now and again, the bacteria in each flask are sampled, and the “fitness” tested. By fitness, I mean the bacteria performance relative to the ancestral population. You see, the great thing about bacteria is that they can be frozen without being harmed, so a sample of the old E. coli that was originally put in all 12 flasks is frozen specifically to test its fitness with later generations.

This page shows the increase in fitness of the bacteria in each vial over time: http://myxo.css.msu.edu/ecoli/relfit.html

What we are observing is evolution in action. It’s an incredibly instructive example, and a very beautiful experiment.

Gravity is a law, not a theory. Evolution is a theory, not a fact.

I think I’ll borrow some definitions given by Richard Dawkins for this one. There are two broad definitions of a theory:

Type 1: A scheme or system of ideas or statements held as an explanation or account of a group of facts or phenomena; a hypothesis that has been confirmed or established by observation or experiment, and is propounded or accepted as accounting for the known facts; a statement of what are held to be the general laws, principles, or causes of something known or observed.

Type 2: A hypothesis proposed as an explanation; hence, a mere hypothesis, speculation, conjecture; an idea or set of ideas about something; an individual view or notion.

Evolution is an example of a Type 1 theory, not a Type 2 theory.

Yes, there are variations in genetic structure, but these are not mutations. Mutations are "a sudden departure from the parent type in one or more heritable characteristics, caused by a change in a gene or a chromosome." (Dictionary.com) You see, when a man and a woman fall in love... well, you know that part . The child will be a combination of the two parent's genes, not a new species. No new genes can be added. If it does, then that's a mutation.

See information I’ve provided above about Lenski’s E. coli bacteria experiment. Spontaneous mutations give rise to net changes in the populations, based on natural selection favouring mutations that enable a bacterium to take advantage of its surroundings more efficiently than its competitors.

Oh, it has been reasonably questioned and disproved several times, yet any who try to disprove it are outcast from the respected scientific community.

No scientist has ever been able to reasonably disprove evolution. Where are you getting this from? Please don’t tell me it’s Expelled.

I must recommend the film Expelled once again.

Damn.

And like you said, whenever one theory is disproved they make a whole new theory of evolution. We can never completely disprove it, because you can never run out of imagination. Also, Christianity has never been disproved either, and we haven't changed our teachings at all for about 2000 years. And yet you have changed your theory of evolution many times in about 150 years.

You’re misunderstanding the fundamental process of how science works.

When an initial hypothesis is made, it is routinely tested and improved as more and more evidence is found. No evidence has yet been found that actually disproves evolution altogether – rather, each new piece of information helps to refine the theory, so it becomes a better model over time. The theory of evolution as a whole has not radically changed that much since Darwin first proposed it, but our understanding has become much more sophisticated.

Then how did life come to be? Doesn't evolution include abiogenisis? By the way, abiogenesis is one of the oldest theories in existence. It has changed alot over the times, but it has maintained the basic concept that life can come to be without God. One of its older names was Spontaneous Generation.

Evolution covers how life changes over time, not how it sprang into life originally. Abiogenesis is a different concept to that of evolution, and is one that should be dealt with separately.

I'm taking 10th grade biology. Am I a PhD Biologist?

So, armed with your 10th grade biology knowledge, you’re going up against 95-99% of the world’s scientists, including 72 Nobel Prize laureates, all of whom accept evolution as a scientific theory?

Who did the first human marry? If evolution is correct, then there was only one, right?

...are you serious?

Why are some planets, stars, even whole galaxies spinning the wrong way? According to the law of conservation of angular momentum, since everything started as one spinning mass, when the big bang hit, all matter should be spinning in the same direction; the direction that the original mass was spinning, but they're not.

Just what has this got to do with evolution, exactly?
Oh, and you need to undertake some lessons in astronomy. Not everything started as one spinning mass. In addition, although the total angular momentum of the universe has been conserved, this does not mean that everything has to be spinning in the same direction. Galaxies and matter within them interact, which affects the way they spin.

How can we still have a moon? As the moon orbits the earth, it is slowly moving away from the earth, at a rate of a few feet per year. This may be difficult to understand, so try to stay with me. If the moon is moving away from us, then that means that it used to be closer to us. With me so far? estimations show that about one million years ago at the rate the moon has been moving now, it would have been orbiting just above the surface of the earth. That explains what happened to at least the tall dinosaurs. They got mooned.

Oh, is this an argument about the age of the Earth again? Did you see the ages I posted earlier using radioactive dating methods on meteorites?

At any rate, I’ll still address this one.

First of all, the moon is moving away from us at a rate of 4 centimetres per year, as a result of tidal friction - not a few feet per year. Where did you get that from?

Anyway, the distance between the Earth and the moon is approximately 400,000 km.

For the moon to move this distance, when it’s only moving at 4 cm per year, we require a total of

400,000 x 1000 / 0.04 = 40,000,000,000 / 4 = 10 billion years

As it turns out, even this timescale is too short, because it hasn’t been moving away from us at a constant rate – the rate has actually been increasing over time.

Polystrate fossils? Anyone care to explain them?

Polystrate fossils...you mean upright fossils that extend through several strata? Polystrate is a term that was invented by creationists, rather than a geological term...but anyway. I can’t see what the problem is with polystrate fossils. They have a sound geological explanation. Basically, they occur when very brief periods of rapid sedimentation are laid down around a long, upright fossil, like a tree trunk.

How did matter get so perfectly organized?

Millions of years of natural selection. Simple.

How can mutations (recombining of the genetic code) create any new, improved varieties? Recombining English letters will never produce Chinese books.

See the E. coli experiment information again, it pretty much answers most of your questions.

Natural selection only works with the genetic information available and tends only to keep a species stable. How would you explain the increasing complexity in the genetic code that must have occurred if evolution were true?

Ditto.

When, where, why, and how did:

Ick, this is going to take a while for me to go through each of these individually. I’m not quite sure why it’s even necessary for me to do so, given that I’ve given you concrete evidence for evolution.

Anyway, rather than going through each one individually and giving an explanation in my own words (I’m getting tired), I’ll just give you some links that provide some explanations.

* Single-celled plants become multi-celled? (Where are the two and three-celled intermediates?)
* Single-celled animals evolve?

http://evolutionofcomputing.org/Mult...llularity.html

* Fish change to amphibians?

http://chem.tufts.edu/science/evolut...transition.htm
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-...al/part1a.html (scroll down)

* Amphibians change to reptiles

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-...al/part1b.html

* Reptiles change to birds? (The lungs, bones, eyes, reproductive organs, heart, method of locomotion, body covering, etc., are all very different!)

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-...al/part1b.html (scroll down)

* How did the intermediate forms live?

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-...al/part1a.html
(“Intermediate form” is a bit of a misnomer, in my opinion. Technically, every living thing on the planet is an “intermediate form”)

When, where, why, how, and from what did:

* Whales evolve?

http://www.dickrussell.org/graywhale/history_page.html
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/li.../l_034_05.html

* Sea horses evolve?

http://theseahorseshop.com/2009/06/s...-breakthrough/
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...-stand-up.html

* Bats evolve?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/20.../bat.evolution

* Eyes evolve?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evoluti..._eye_evolution

* Ears evolve?

http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...tion-in-action

I’m getting a bit sick of this. Oh...wait...

* Hair, skin, feathers, scales, nails, claws, etc., evolve?

Which evolved first (how, and how long; did it work without the others)?
*The digestive system, the food to be digested, the appetite, the ability to find and eat the food, the digestive juices, or the body’s resistance to its own digestive juice (stomach, intestines, etc.)?
* The drive to reproduce or the ability to reproduce?
* The lungs, the mucus lining to protect them, the throat, or the perfect mixture of gases to be breathed into the lungs?
* DNA or RNA to carry the DNA message to cell parts?
* The termite or the flagella in its intestines that actually digest the cellulose?
* The plants or the insects that live on and pollinate the plants?
* The bones, ligaments, tendons, blood supply, or muscles to move the bones?
* The nervous system, repair system, or hormone system?
* The immune system or the need for it?

Heyyy... you’ve just copied and pasted someone else’s questions!:

http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives...8950.Ev.q.html

And there was me thinking you’d come up with these questions by yourself! I was just about to give you numerous links with all the answers. A pity you didn’t bother to look at the reply the questions were actually given:

http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives...8950.Ev.r.html

Oh, this looks familiar too...

http://godless.biz/2009/03/23/creati...ions-i-answer/:

Originally Posted by Creationist asks dumb questions, I answer

13. When, where, why, and how did
a)single-celled plants become multi-celled?
b)two and three celled ‘intermediates’ evolve?
c)single-celled animals evolve?
d)fish change to amphibians?
e)amphibians change to reptiles?
f)reptiles change to birds? (the lungs, bones, eyes, reproductive organs, heart, method of locomotion, body covering,etc are all very different!)
g)intermediate forms live?

Do some reading. Oh, and we are all intermediate species between out parents and our children.

14. When, where, why, how, and from what did
a)whales evolve?
b)sea horses evolve?
c)bats evolve?
d)eyes evolve?
e)ears evolve?
f)hair, skin, feathers, scales, nails, claws etc. evolve?

Do the research yourself. I am not going to hand you volumes of research on a silver platter when you could find it yourself. Besides, you probably wouldn’t read it anyway.

15. Which evolved first? (how, and how long, did it work without the others)
a)the digestive system, the food to be digested, the appetite, the ability to find and eat the food, the digestive juices, or the body’s resistance to it’s own digestive juice (stomachs, intestines, etc)?

All together.

b)The drive to reproduce, or the ability to reproduce?

Together.

c)The lungs, the mucus lining to protect them, the throat, or the perfect mixture of gases to be breathed into the lungs?

Together.

d)DNA, or RNA to carry the DNA message to cell parts?

RNA (from my understanding).

e)The termite, or the flagellates living in its intestines that actually digest the cellulose?

Together.

f)The plants, or the insects that live on and pollinate the plants?

Together,

g)The bones, ligaments, tendons, blood supply, or muscles to move the bones?

Together.

h)The nervous system, repair system, or hormone system?

Together.

i)The immune system, or the need for it?

Together.

Many of these are extensions of the predator/prey relationship.

16. There are many thousands of examples of simbiosis that defy an evolutionary explanation. Why must we teach students that evolution is the only explanation for these relationships?

Symbiosis (note correct spelling) are instances where predator/prey have “decided” that their chances of survival are best served when working together.

17. How would evolution explain mimicry? Did the plants and animals develop mimicry by chance, by their intelligent choice, or by design?

By chance, but selected for.

18. When, where, why, and how did man evolve feelings? Love, mercy, guilt etc. would never evolve in the theory of evolution.

Like many other species we work in communities to increase our chances of survival. In our case (and possible others) this has resulted in being able to predict the reactions of others to our actions.

Are any of your objections actually original, Aerem? Have you ever bothered to actually read the responses people have made to these questions, time and time again? Obviously not...I shouldn't have even asked that question, really.

I've got more, if you want it.

If that means more copy-pasting from religious websites, then please don’t bother, honestly.


Anyway, I hope you’ll actually read all of this.
I don't really know why I bothered writing such a lengthy reply...maybe I'm just a masochist?