Is macroevolution a religion? Should we rename it evolutiontarianism?

TO: LoudmouthIf one wants to say that purely naturalistic causes created the life and that macroevolution occured you cannot run from the abiogenesis issue. It is a foundation. If the evidence is not credible that abiogenesis occured then materialism never makes it in the ballpark in order to be up at bat in regards to macroevolution. It is a sequential process. Darwin was not a abiogenesis theorist to a large degree so I know you cannot say I am using a genetic fallacy. Lastly, I really have no desire to discuss this further.Sincerely,Ken

So Ken your argument is that anyone who beleives that abiogenesis happened cannot "run away from the issue" and that therefore abiogenesis is a part of macroevolution. That is a clear non-sequitur.If you want to discuss abiogenesis you can start a seperate thread to do so. On this thread you should drop the illogical excuses and actually discuss matters.

quote:

---

If one wants to say that purely naturalistic causes created the life and that macroevolution occured you cannot run from the abiogenesis issue. It is a foundation.

---

First of all, to most scientists macroevolution is the same as speciation. Speciation is the only known barrier to biodiversification, and crossing this barrier can be considered macroevolution. We have numerous examples of speciation events. The large changes in morphology, or shape, seen in the fossil record is explainable as a consequence of numerous speciation and adaptive events through evolutionary mechanisms. The evolutionary mechanisms that I speak of are random mutations and selection. Notice, that to describe the diversification of life I do not mention abiogenesis. That is because abiogenesis does not factor into how life diversifies. The theory of evolution deals with diversification.For example, to make a car do you have to know where iron came from? To sort out a deck of cards into 4 suits do you have to know who made them? Of course not. Evolution is INDEPENDENT of origins. Time travelling humans could have come back in time and created life on earth, which would close a causal loop. This still has no bearings on the mechanisms that cause speciation and biodiversity.Evolutionists run away from abiogenesis like they run away from particle physics or black hole physics. Neither of these things are cogent to thier field. How about this, until you can name the author of Genesis, you can't claim that it is authoritative on questions of origins. You do not know the specifics on the origin of Gensis, so why should I take that seriously? No one has ever claimed authorship. We can only make assumptions from oral traditions that may or may not be true. In fact, you can't claim, beyond your own faith, that Genesis was inspired by a diety.The book of Genesis is very important for creationists, because this is the foundation of creationism. Without Genesis, there wouldn't be creationism. Creationism and Genesis are DEPENDENT on each other, while abiogenesis and evolution are INDEPENDENT. It seems that creationists have a larger problem with origins than evolutionists have.

Hi Ken, hope you are well.I feel your logic is somewhat flawed - you could just as well extend this thinking back to the big bang and demand that that is proven before ANY science has validity. Gravity doesn't require an explanation of the big bang in the same way evolution doesn't require an explanation of abiogenesis.

To: ALLI am back.TO: LindumI am expecting to answer your post in about 7-14 days.Sincerely,Ken[This message has been edited by kendemyer, 03-11-2004]

I believer the darwin fish is an example that shows the evolutiontrarianism is very much a religion or at the very least like a religion. You simply do not see scientific laws, theories, or hypothesis preached on cars for the most part like you do in regards to darwin fish.Sincerely,Ken[This message has been edited by kendemyer, 03-20-2004]

In what way is the Darwin fish an example that evolution is a religion?It has been long practice for many Christians to display a fish as a symbol of Christianity. The Darwin fish came out as a parody of this.

Hilarious!!!!! I fell off my chair laughing at this! Ken, how can you totally misunderstand something, not have a clue what its about, then construct your very own brand of pseudohypothesis and keep a straight face at the same time? Or maybe you're laughing now at your wee joke. I really hope you are! Surely you weren't serious.....were you?

To: TrixieYou are forgetting that I am ignoring you. You never go beyond vague statements, bluster, and the sidestepping of issues. I am willing to engage some others though. So far Percy gets my vote for the best post which attempted to address a post of mine although I think his post was too far reaching (Popper).Sincerely,Ken[This message has been edited by kendemyer, 03-20-2004]

Ken, spell projection.I take it that you also consider sport to be a religion because some people have their team's sticker on the back of their cars!

Demonstratably false. thinkgeek | Search Results | GameStopthinkgeek | Search Results | GameStop404: Not Found - Hotplugs UK - Online Server & Storage Specialists404: Not Found - Hotplugs UK - Online Server & Storage Specialists404: Not Found - Hotplugs UK - Online Server & Storage Specialistsand from www.maxmatic.com - BUMPER STICKERS, a collection of science bumper sticker slogans:

quote:

---

If this bumpersticker looks blue to you, you're driving too fast.

​

Civilization is entropy in drag

​

Heisenberg may have slept here

​

Alcohol & calculus don't mix. Don't drink & derive!

​

186,000 miles/sec: Not just a good idea, it's the LAW.

​

If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate!

​

All those who believe in psychokinesis raise my hand.

---

Are we supposed to believe that chemistry is religion because you can buy a coffee mug with a caffiene molecule on it? Please.

I said:"You simply do not see scientific laws, theories, or hypothesis preached on cars for the most part like you do in regards to darwin fish."So I said:1. Preached on cars2. Like you do ( comparable in number, for example)So you did you not demonstrate anything.Darwinism is preached on cars in a much bigger way than any other pseudoscience or science issues. For example, memory tells me that I have seen far more darwin fish than UFO bumperstickers.Sincerely,Ken

You get back what you put in, Ken. I just decided to reply to you in the same vein that you reply to others. Futile, isn't it? That's why you think you get "vague statements, bluster and the sidestepping of the issue"

Anecdotal evidence from someone with an obvious bias ... worthless.

To which I:1) Gave examples of other scientific slogans on a number of things, including bumper stickers2) Game more examples than you did (i.e. my severalbumper stickers to your single Darwin Fish)Ergo, your claim is disproved. Restatement of original claim without new evidence. Against forum guidelines. Anecdotes are not proof. You still have the single example of the fish compared to my several examples of bumperstickers and other paraphenelia. Your claim is refuted.