evolution or religion ?

[Xendel]

I believe in both. If a being can master all possible dimensions or beyond, that being could be perceived as a Deity among regular life forms. That includes going back to the beginning of time, and monitoring how we we've developed since then.

Religion was probably thought up in the bible with information that humans could only understand at the time.
Lets give an example:
If you were to pop a modern day Helicopter to someone from the Medieval era, they would probably consider your Helicopter to be a dragon, write it down as a dragon for history to remember, even if it isn't a dragon.

Humans didn't understand the concept of evolution so it was poorly explained. One thing that is in the bible, however, is how One day to God could be perceived as Thousands and Thousands of years. So in the creation of "man" that could have taken one day to create, which in reality is millions of years through the process of evolution. One day is still true to something who's conception of time is infinite.

[Xiam]

I don't recall if I've posted in here before, but I know I've answered this question before. Oh well.

Yeah, as far as I'm concerned, there shouldn't be any problem with acknowledging both. As far as I'm concerned, growth is a natural process in the universe. Stars fuse matter, then die and release the resulting new elements into space, to later form new suns, and even planets. The human being develops from the primitive fetal shape into a complex organism of all those same elements fused in a long-dead star.

I don't see why life cannot evolve over time, and to be honest... I don't see why there can't be a "God" of a sort in all this. We're not simply dead matter combining to become some stupid meat robot. Even if it's all just chemistry and electric pulses, it's done one hell of a job for a star corpse. But as far as I see it, this is a natural process, like a tree growing and bearing fruit. The Universe is alive, and I don't see why it can't have grown so advanced that it has developed its own consciousness.

[Sneaker Pimps]

I choose "science meets spirituality". Makes sense to me anyway.

[The New Wineskin]

YS nash

which do you believe in

Both.

[The_science_master]

To me religion is for the lay people who want comfort in whatever they perceive to be the most simple and logical answer from what they know as a human being. And to add, the church was very powerful back in the medieval era and really acted as the scientific mind back then. So it's not hard to believe why so many people take creationism to heart.

Evolution is probably the most misunderstood scientific theory. Thank you social media. Evolution is merely the change of genetic information or genotype which in turns translates to phenotype. this concept needs an understanding of genetics and is not always easy to understand.

[Haibane13]

The theory of Evolution, is by definition, a religion.

Religion is any belief that requires one to to assume it's thesis in the lack of any substantial physical or mathematical proof.

Proof is anything can is open to public viewing and vigorous scientific scrutiny.

[Everlasting Radiance]

Well, it's hard to deny evolution.

I accept evolution, and not religion or spirituality.

[Vryko Lakas]

Haibane13

The theory of Evolution, is by definition, a religion.

Religion is any belief that requires one to to assume it's thesis in the lack of any substantial physical or mathematical proof.

Proof is anything can is open to public viewing and vigorous scientific scrutiny.

Which is why museums and universities keep everything related to biology under tight lock and key, letting only the initiates through their doors.

[Haibane13]

Vryko Lakas

Which is why museums and universities keep everything related to biology under tight lock and key, letting only the initiates through their doors.

That's more or less true. The "fossiles" and models in museums that are available to the public are, more often than not, cast replicas of those in major universities, which are not available to the public and remain under lock and key. Go ask the Smithsonian to see the originals, they will not let you.

Everlasting Radiance

Well, it's hard to deny evolution.

I accept evolution, and not religion or spirituality.

You can accept evolution if you like, that's your choice. That however does not make it a scientific fact.

Merriam-Webster's Dictionary

SCIENTIFIC METHOD
: principles and procedures for the systematic pursuit of knowledge involving the recognition and formulation of a problem, the collection of data through observation and experiment, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses."(http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/scientific method)

The core tenants of evolution(one specific species evolving into an entirely different species) have never been observed, failing to remain valid under the "Scientific Method" and therefore must be accepted on the faith that such a thing did happen.

This is the same type of belief that every major religion requires of those who follow it; an explanation that cannot be directly proven or disproven and must be taken at face value.

I'm all well and good with anyone that wants to accept Evolution, but please do not call it science.

[Everlasting Radiance]

Haibane13

You can accept evolution if you like, that's your choice. That however does not make it a scientific fact.

Evolution is actually widely accepted as a fact. The only thing about it that is a "theory" is the mechanism of evolution. "Fact" does not mean 100% certainty, FYI. It's just means that there is a great deal of evidence, and it looks to be highly improbable that it is false. If you're going to deny it, you're going to need evidence and a theory to replace it if you wish to be taken seriously.

You compare it to a religious belief, but that is ridiculous. There's a HUGE difference between 'faith' in something with loads of evidence that has been shown to be most likely true but doesn't have 100% certainty, and having faith in something which only relies on faith as evidence. They're two completely different definitions of the word 'faith'.

[Doubtful Dreamer]

Haibane13

That's more or less true. The "fossiles" and models in museums that are available to the public are, more often than not, cast replicas of those in major universities, which are not available to the public and remain under lock and key. Go ask the Smithsonian to see the originals, they will not let you.

You can purchase the majority of fossils available. Museums and universities often keep the rarest fossils, but that is because they are rare and very difficult to obtain for anyone. If cost is the issue, then this line of reasoning would also lead you to the conclusion that radio astronomy is a religion because they won't let you walk in off the street and use Arecibo.

Quote:

You can accept evolution if you like, that's your choice. That however does not make it a scientific fact.

Except that it has been observed multiple times. It is a fact that the allele frequency in a population changes over time.

Quote:

The core tenants of evolution(one specific species evolving into an entirely different species) have never been observed, failing to remain valid under the "Scientific Method" and therefore must be accepted on the faith that such a thing did happen.

Except there are plenty of observed instances of speciation: Source. Furthermore, that is not a core tenant of evolution. The theory of evolution is meant to explain the mechanism by which allele frequency in a population changes in time. This would include repeatedly observed phenomena, such as why human guided selective breeding is done in various animals.

The only thing described by the theory of evolution is mechanism which results in the observed instances of evolution. And as far as the general population goes, the theory may well be regarded as fact as well

[Kiumaru]

Haibane13

The theory of Evolution, is by definition, a religion.

Religion is any belief that requires one to to assume it's thesis in the lack of any substantial physical or mathematical proof.

Proof is anything can is open to public viewing and vigorous scientific scrutiny.

That is a very broad definition of religion. Does that mean that freedom and equality are religions?

[Shokushu]

Haibane13

Vryko Lakas

Which is why museums and universities keep everything related to biology under tight lock and key, letting only the initiates through their doors.

That's more or less true. The "fossiles" and models in museums that are available to the public are, more often than not, cast replicas of those in major universities, which are not available to the public and remain under lock and key. Go ask the Smithsonian to see the originals, they will not let you.

Everlasting Radiance

Well, it's hard to deny evolution.

I accept evolution, and not religion or spirituality.

You can accept evolution if you like, that's your choice. That however does not make it a scientific fact.

Merriam-Webster's Dictionary

SCIENTIFIC METHOD
: principles and procedures for the systematic pursuit of knowledge involving the recognition and formulation of a problem, the collection of data through observation and experiment, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses."(http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/scientific method)

The core tenants of evolution(one specific species evolving into an entirely different species) have never been observed, failing to remain valid under the "Scientific Method" and therefore must be accepted on the faith that such a thing did happen.

This is the same type of belief that every major religion requires of those who follow it; an explanation that cannot be directly proven or disproven and must be taken at face value.

I'm all well and good with anyone that wants to accept Evolution, but please do not call it science.

List any core tenant of evolution around here and we can flood you with links about when it's been observed.

More strikingly and based on my experience with people that say that, I don't think you can name the core tenants of evolution. You've heard that phrase from somebody you trust and you just throw it around because it agrees with your distrust of science.

Of course I'm speculating so by all means, go ahead and show me that I'm wrong by demonstrating you even know what evolution is.

[Haibane13]

Everlasting Radiance

...

Let's debate semantics then. Something that is fact is, by definition, 100% true, all the time, absolutely, forever.

If you wish to debate this, then you must already have accepted the thesis; "There is no such thing as absolute truth." Are you absolutely sure about validity of this precept?

I do not need another theory or concept to replace one that is incorrect. If I state that "evolution is, by definition, a religion;" that is my argument, or logical statement, which I am proposing as fact, or truth, I do not need to supply an alternate belief system.

Doubtful Dreamer

...

Once again we are arguing semantics.
I am not disagreeing with population diversity, and said change in frequency in said populations over time.

What I am stating is that, Darwinian Evolution, which introduces the "transmutation of species," transitions from one species to another, and equates it with general population diversity with the same term; evolution. However, they are not identical principles. It's the same principle as asking for the "mass" of a sample in chemistry or physics class; one could mean either the atomic weight of the element of the sample in question, or the measurement in units of weight of the sample as a whole. To make things more precise, I'll clarify my terms. Macro-Evolution is the transmutation of species. Micro-Evolution is the change in diversity of a species. I am stating that, Darwinian Evolution, or Macro-Evolution, is equivalent to a religion.

In addition, the widely publicized belief of many radio astronomers that there is just too much space for there to not be another sentient species is, in fact, a religion. I think their results and studies of stars and distant solar systems are very valid and significant data; but said data does nothing to prove their belief in aliens true.

Kiumaru

Haibane13

Religion is any belief that requires one to to assume it's thesis in the lack of any substantial physical or mathematical proof.

That is a very broad definition of religion. Does that mean that freedom and equality are religions?

Does the definition of freedom or equality need you to believe things without proof? A slave knows that he is not free, or equal with his master, yet he knows and values the opportunity of freedom and equality with other men. He knows and understands it because his life is the antithesis of freedom even though he may have not experienced it.

Shokushu

...Of course I'm speculating so by all means, go ahead and show me that I'm wrong by demonstrating you even know what evolution is.

This is by all means, a lazy answer. You assume much about my own personal beliefs and views without asking first. You have neither proof, or evidence that I believe in any religion.

Let me clarify again; I am not promoting any system of thought or reasoning, other than logic, nor am I pushing, trumpeting, or demanding of anyone to follow any religious path. I am merely stating that Darwinian Evolution has never been observed, failing to follow the "Scientific Method," and therefore cannot be science by definition. Since it requires belief in occurrences that cannot be proven(by observation), it is a religion.

Humans are not without fault. They make errors, mistakes, and fail to noticed important details. Science, by human observation, can therefore only be as perfect as the humans recording the observation. I personally love science, but at the same time, I do not trust the "laws" or "theories" of science any more than I do my fellow man. The "Laws of Thermodynamics" are probably the best example in this matter. The more humankind studies the universe the more we find that they're more like guidelines not "laws" that never fail to be true.

If you wish to show source matter on the recent observation of the transmutation of a species, please by all means, show me. I'll be very interested.

@All Above: For clarity of definitions for the sake of ease of discussion;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwinism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution