Evolution is a Religious Issue

Usually, this is because of new data. In some cases, we are not certain of where a fossil hominid, for instance, fits into the scheme of things. Most actual dates are considered tentative until a level of cofirmation is reached. Once again, perhaps you could provide an example? So a robust theory that can explain so much must be wrong? Your problem is that the theory of evolution is so robust that it can accomodate large amounts of evidence and put it all into a coherrent picture. Maybe you could show us where a principle of some kind has been violated in putting an evolutionary explanation together. That would go a long way toward supporting your argument. Better yet, perhaps you could give us an alternative...

Well, then, you should consider the fact the evolution has already done this. THat is why it is the overwhelmingly accepted theory on the origin of the diversity of life. Yeah, kind of obvious, wasn't it? The point here is that if you want to beat the champ, you need to win decisively. YECs still haven't figured this out yet. Ah, you have an alternative then. Very good. I'm looking forward to reading it. Well, not yet. You have to present something. But I am waiting. I have never done this. Yeah, speciation is a specious argument. Please find where any evo here has said that speciation 'proves' evolution. Now, it may be compelling evidence to that person, but 'proof'??? I think most of us know that proof is for math and alcohol. Hmmm, humor must be the main course for anti-evos this week... Actually, as far as I know, the numbers haven't really changed all that much in the last several decades. Do you have a poll or something to support your assertion?By the way, what are you selling? Do you employ unsound, illogical and wild overstatements? But then you might have to tell us what you actually believe! Silly me!Added by edit: this has been fun, but I do have things to do tomorrow. Ciao!This message has been edited by edge, 05-29-2005 11:30 PM

Hah! That's essentially his argument, isn't it? "Evolution is so right it can't be right."

You guys claim speciation is proof of evolution. I have heard it here, hear it elsewhere, and that's what kids are taught in school as well, but that's bogus.Sorry but it is. It's proof of evolution in the broad sense, but no one disagrees with evolution in the broad sense.It's not proof of common descent. because evolutionists insist on relying on this overstatement in order to try to get people to believe in their ideas, I cannot respect their scholarship and approach, and consider it harmful to the mind and more or less a form of religious (anti-religious) indoctrination.As far as what I believe about origins, I think we have not progressed enough to tell pretty much. Whatever happened, I believe God did it, whether evolution from common descent, multiple origins for descent with modification, evolution via assistance (Intelligent Design), Old Earth Creationism where God creates man via special creation, God making the earth and universe look old (YEC), we are in a multi-verse and this universe only appears to have evolved one way based on our current level of consciousness, a mix of the above, etc,...If you want to know specific ideas, not a grand theory, then I can answer your question, but personally I think an answer of we don't really know yet is better than trumped up ideas on steroids so to speak which rely on gross overstatements (common descent).I can tell you how I think things happened, but that is as much based on my subjective experience with God and biblical theology as scientific proof, although science has often verified what I believe God showed me concerning the nature of reality.I do not believe in a static past. I don't accept Newtonian paradigms of physical reality as comprehensive.This message has been edited by randman, 05-29-2005 11:44 PM

"Hah! That's essentially his argument, isn't it? "Evolution is so right it can't be right." "No, it's too elastic to be called real science, or as valid science as you guys claim. I guess it's science, but not really a testable hypothesis.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

No, of course it isn't. Man, you're pretty confused, aren't you?Substantiating common descent requires evidence of two basic things - that natural selection and random mutation can give rise to any new species, and that they did do those things.Speciation proves the first. Genetics and the fossil record prove the second.Clear? We've already established that you have absolutely no familiarity with the scholarship behind the theory of evolution.

You mean like gravity, or atomic theory? Since when did flexibility disqualify science? It's passed every test so far.

Here some quotes from robinrohan."Ever since I first heard the distinction, it seemed obvious to me that if one accepted microevolution it would logically follow that one would accept macroevolution. One would naturally lead to the other. If a species can change a little bit then there's no reason it can't change more.""JonF, would you agree that if one accepts microevolution you would logically also have to accept macroevolution? That's what I've been arguing"http://EvC Forum: If Evolution was proved beyond doubt... -->EvC Forum: If Evolution was proved beyond doubt...More significantly, all of us were taught the peppered moth story natural selection, etc,....with the inference that micro-evolution and speciation are particularly strong evidence, exlusive evidence for evolution.I like the way one evolutionist said it. Evolution is a fact, and went on to explain how speciation is a fact, but typically, and you cannot deny this is what evolutionists do, he was really saying common descent is a fact.You can't have it both ways. It's propaganda. Frankly, I don't even care if common descent is true. But to go around and use, in educational materials, the term "evolution" to refer both to speciation and common descent and then to say common descent but use the term "evolution" is true because lookee here, we see speciation is propaganda, and that's what evolutionists rely on.Heck, evolutionists should not even use the term "evolution" to refer to TOE. They should use the term the theory of common descent. They don't because they don't want to lose the emotional and psychological affect of mixing the terms up.Rather than simply educate, they are indoctrinating.heck, just look at phrases like "descent with modification" to refer to the TOE.Well, who disbelieves that? All of us descend from our parents with modification. But that's not TOE. That's not equivalent with common descent, but hey it's more convinving to say "descent with modification" so let's use that instead of being frank and honest.This message has been edited by randman, 05-30-2005 12:21 AM

Macroevolution is speciation, not the historical model of common descent. So, you're saying it's not honest to refer to evolution in the present and evolution in the past with the same word? How does that make any sense? Are we supposed to draw the same distinction in other sciences, too? Is it dishonest to use the same word when we use physics to describe the past as when we use it to describe the future?The evolutionary processes that occured in the past are the same ones that occur now. Where's the dishonesty in employing the same terminology for both?

The dishonesty is the use of the term "evolution" as synonymous with "common descent" meaning all of life evolving from a common ancestor. Evolution is a proposed mechanism for the theory of common descent. It is not equivalent to the theory of common descent.When one speaks of the theory of evolution, they are speaking of the theory of common descent, that we all descended from a common ancestor, but "evolution" does not show that. It merely shows the possibility of that.So when one proves to students or the public that evolution is true, meaning it occurs, they are subtly and not subtly saying common descent is true when those are 2 different things entirely.Natural selection, for example is true, but natural selection being true does not rule out Intelligent Design. It does not rule out even special creation, and does not rule out just about anything.So arguing that evolution is true, giving examples of "descent with modification" is really a bit of propaganda.Now, you may say but the propaganda is true, and I say then all the more reason to quit using it, and just present the truth without the propaganda tricks.The fact that a field of science relies on propaganda is strong evidence that creationists are correct in their criticism of evolutionism.This message has been edited by randman, 05-30-2005 01:11 AM

Common descent isn't a theory, though. What you're talking about is the simply the recognition that the processes of evolution that occur today have occured in the past. I don't even know what we'd call that, except evolution. Circular reasoning. You only conclude that it's propaganda because you already believe the criticisms are true.

I'm confused as to what your point is.If evolution results in speciation then we have more than one species with a common ancestor. Thus speciation and common descent go hand in hand. What is the problem exactly?I don't understand your seeing speciation as propaganda. Most creationist organization have accepted speciation and even higher levels of taxonomic splitting (that is wider common descent). Could you explain what you mean?The descent with modification part I don't understand either. It actually does appear that you are saying that speciation doesn't happen.

Of course, you are right that they are separate. We could very well have evolution of several separate lines going back to multiple ancestors.However, calling this "dishonest" is a silly over statmentn. Since ALL the evidence suggests that we have only one surviving line of descent being a bit careless in the terms and mixing the two is only careless not dishonest.In searching back I seem to see that you are not talking about universal common descent but against any commonality of descent even at the species level. Could you clarify?As for the inclusion of ID. It may well be that this all got kicked off by a designer, it may also be that it was designed to evolve by the mechanisms that we have come to understand. That is the view of the majority of Christians.Are you arguing something different from them?

Ned, I don't think you are following me.1. I am referring to universal common descent, the idea that all of life evolved from one common ancestor, which is really the theory of evolution but probably should be called the theory of common descent since evolutionists insist on referring to speciation and micro-evolution as "evolution."2. I see the use of the term evolution as dishonest because so often evolutionists will say, in defense of evolution, that evolution is a fact and show some aspect of natural selection or speciation whereas that in no way proves "evolution", the original meaning of the theory in debate.In fact, evolutionists are dishonest in suggesting that alternative views are disproved by speciation. In arguing speciation as definitive evidence in this context, they fail to inform the hearer, in my experience, that even YECers accept speciation, that their critics do not disagree with materialist evolution because they think speciation did not happen, but that speciation alone does not support universal common descent.

quote:

---

You cannot claim speciation is proof of common descent when it could just as easily be proof of YEC. If you want to say YEC is wrong because the earth is old, fine, but the whole argument that speciation proves common descent is totally specious on the face of it, and one reason I have to laugh.

​

Maybe the fundies are winning over large segments of the population not because they are brainwashing them but because the methods and approach and claims of evolutionists in arguing for evolution are unsound, illogical, and are based on wild overstatements!

---

Randman, do you accept DNA paternity testing as accurate?