Conclusion: evolution is a religion?

Question

Based on answers to my first two questions, no one knows enough about evolution to actually defend it rationally or to offer better data. (Granny A opted for a much SMALLER fossil record than the one I offered and took on faith that the fossils in Montana and Mongolia would naturally yeild support for evolution, though they have not been studied! That's what I call faith!)

Another answer stated that there's no such thing as "devolution". That's' a failing grade automatically.

Christians base their beliefs on personal observation--a personal relationship with God, we they say we're crazy!

Evolutionists have far less basis launch into untested assumptions to defend their religion.

For all of you bragging about being in the science disciplines, you've made a very poor showing!

Answer 1

Untested? Umm... Have you ever picked up a History book? They teach evolution in school now, college, and just about everywhere else possible. For some reason you never learned. Oh, I'm sorry, you were home schooled weren't you? I bet your father was the pastor of the town too wasn't he? Did you mother teach you how to read?


Examining the Fossil Record
A crucial prediction made by the theory of evolution is that one should find a general progression of increasingly diverse and complex life forms when one examines the fossils in progressively higher strata if sedimentary rock. While creationists should expect the oldest strata of sedimentary rock to yield fossils of very complex life forms (like mammals), since their God presumably created all life within a short period of time, evolutionists specifically expect the fossil record not to. Thus, had God wished to supply evidence refuting evolution and proving His status as Creator, He could easily have done so by depositing, preerving, and later exposing to paleontologists numerous mammalian fossils in the oldest rock strata. In fact, a God powerful enough to create an entire universe would surely find it a trifle to invert the whole sequence of fossils, placing the simplest life forms in the most modern strata and the most complex life forms in the earliest strata, thereby disproving evolution. Yet, when we look at the fossil record, we find the one sequence of life forms that evolution predicts -- not one of the many sequences that would have demolished evolutionary science. One must wonder why the creationist's God has failed to seize such a beautiful opportunity to refute evolution.

Another prediction made by the theory of evolution is that the fossil record should yield transitional forms -- special creation, on the other hand, predicts a complete absence of transitional forms. As it turns out, transitional forms do exist, despite the attempts of creationists to deny them out of existence with wishful thinking. Archaeopteryx lithographica, displaying a distinct blend of major reptilian and avian characteristics and highly resembling the theropod reptiles of its time, is unquestionably a transitional form. Basilosaurus isis is the name given to a whale whose 40-million year old fossilized skeleton features a small pelvis with hind legs. The rhipidistians link the crossopterygian fishes to the icthyostegid amphibians through a clear temporal progression of vertebral and skull characteristics. Diarthrognathus sports both reptilian and mammalian jaw joints. Tetraceratops links the pelycosaurs to the therapsids (the pelycosaurs and therapsids are themselves reptile-mammal transitional forms). Creationists honest enough to acknowledge that the listed creatures exhibit obvious transitional characteristics and exist at precisely the right time periods and in precisely the right places where evolutionists would expect to find them, have no route left but to assume that God created all of those creatures directly. But why would God create creatures that lok so much like transitional forms, unless He wated to trick man into believing in evolution and rejecting Him as Creator -- or unless He actually instituted the process of evolution. But this runs counter to the will of the creationists, who wrongfully wish to portray evolutionists as atheistic sinners who reject the "obvious truth" of special creation out of wicked, godless pride.

Examining Genetic Material
If God created all life, He could have used a fraction of His boundless power to endow each "kind" with a different form of genetic material. But all life forms on Earth use DNA and RNA as genetic material, which is what one would expect had all life evolved from a common ancestor. Moreover, DNA does not appear to have been engineered for functionality. Species that look virtually identical and live in equivalent climates on seperate continents often exhibit highly dissimilar DNA -- their DNA actually more closely resembles that of more different species living in adjacent environments. This is impossible to reconcile with the expectation that God would design the DNA of every species to enable it to best function within its environment. However, what we find makes complete sense in the light of evolution: adjacent species have similar DNA because one species diverged from the other and adapted to a new environment. Similar-looking species with dissimilar DNA are the product of convergent evolution -- they are not necessarily related, but they adapt in the same manner to their environments, resulting in similar appearance.

As if all this were not enough, the DNA of many organisms also contains introns. Introns are segments of genetic material that are transcribed into mRNA, but are then excised before the mRNA is translated into protein. In plain English, introns constitute genetic garbage. We might expect some meaningless but non-harmful sequences to accumulate in an organism's genes as it evolves, but there is no reason for a creator to have put nonfunctional sequences in any creature's genes. Surely a God that wishes us to believe in special creation would have eliminated all of the evidence for evolution that we acquire through genetic research.

Evolution and Atheism?
Sometimes the creationists drop their scientific pretenses and reveal their religious motivations by attacking evolution on the grounds that it is an "anti-religious" or "atheistic" theory. The creationists would have one believe that evolution is atheistic, because it contradicts their naively literal interpretation of the Book of Genesis in the Bible. However, evolution is not atheistic. Evolution is a scientific finding, and science tells us nothing about metaphysical issues such as the existence of God. We know through science that evolution is a reality. Whether a God exists who used evolution to create life is an open question.

The Bible Refutes Creationism
The creationists have sought hard to conceal from the public a fact that completely shatters the case for believing that a literal reading of the Book of Genesis reveals the true origin of life. The surprising fact is that a literal reading of Genesis results in self-contradiction, because there are two mutually exclusive creation stories in the Book of Genesis.

The first chapter of Genesis describes a six-day creation: on the first day, God created light. On the second day, God created Heaven by making a division between the waters which apparently engulfed the universe. On the third day, God created dry land by gathering together the waters beneath Heaven, then created the seas, grass, herbs, and fruit trees. On the fourth day, God put the sun, the moon, and the stars in Heaven, beneath the upper layer of the waters which he had divided on the second day. On the fifth day, God created sea creatures and birds. On the sixth day, God first created land creatures, and then He created man.

Of course, we know that there are no waters above the stars, and that fruit trees did not exist before the first aquatic creatures, and that the earth (much less grass, herbs, and fruit trees) did not exist before the sun or the stars. But lets put aside all of these problems with a literal Genesis 1, for the moment, and focus on how Genesis 1 compares with the next creation story in the Book of Genesis.

The second chapter of Genesis states that God first created man, then created trees, then made the animals, and finally created woman. All of this happened in one day -- the same day that God created the heavens and the earth, as described in Genesis 2:4. Not only is the sequence of creation different, but the time span is different as well.[1]

At most, only one of the two stories can be literally correct. Creationists use all sorts of rhetorical and interpretive ploys to try to deny the contradiction between the first two chapters of Genesis, thereby violating their own precept that the Bible must be read literally. Modern biblical scholars agree that Genesis 1 and 2 do conflict. The two accounts were, after all, written centuries apart, and in very different cultural contexts. To believe in a completely literal rendition of the Book of Genesis is thus to claim that God inspired a self-contradictory set of writings. Apparently the creationists, as much as they claim to worship God, actually believe Him to be exceedingly stupid.

When the two creation stories in the Book of Genesis are appreciated for what they truly are -- allegories inspired by God, or myths designed by the ancient Hebrews -- only then does the Book of Genesis no contradict itself or the discoveries of science.

The Verdict on Creationism
The notion of a good, intelligent creator that wishes us to believe in special creation, yet stupidly or deviously creates evidence that points towards evolution, and nevertheless expects us to believe in a self-contradictory literal rendition of a set of ancient writings, is illogical, untenable as a scientific theory, and too blasphemous to be a valid religious belief. Why would a good God give us five senses and a mind with which to explore the physical world, and then deceive us, that He might condemn us for being deceived? If God exists, He must surely find such creationist nonsense insulting.[2]

If we cannot trust science, which rigorously tests its hypotheses and unceasingly double-checks its own conclusions using the tools of observation and logic, then it is evident that we cannot trust anything. The creationists say they can trust their literal rendition of the Bible, but if they reject observation and logic, how can they be certain that the things they see in the Bible are not as much a "deception" as they claim evolution to be? Surely they cannot base their beliefs on faith, because many Christians base their beliefs in an allegorical Genesis on faith. Indeed, one can have faith in anything at all.[3] In order for us to have any objective knowledge whatsoever, we must at least trust science.

To the rational Christian, science is a way of using the God-given gift of intelligence to understand how God actually does things. Christians used to think that the sun revolved around the earth, because they thought that the Bible revealed this "truth." But science revealed that the earth revolves around the sun. Although they resisted this discovery bitterly at first, most Christians eventually understood that God did not set up things the way that they had thought, and that, at the very least, they had misread the Bible. Where fact is revealed, faith must often give way. One can use science to better understand one's religion -- and vice versa -- but it is sheer folly to insist upon a religious doctrine when scientific evidence indicates its falsity. Creationism contradicts scientific fact, and its religious basis contradicts itself. But the creationists, like the geocentrist Christians of the Dark Ages, cling to their falsified beliefs, unwilling to admit that perhaps they have made a mistkae in interpreting the "Word of God." The time will hopefully come when the creationists join the geocentrists of old, and set aside their pride and their dogmas so that they may learn the great wonders that science teaches of the universe, and -- if he exists -- of God.

Answer 2

Oh I missed the first questions are we talking serious evolution where all the land masses formed one very large continent that then split apart to for the current continents. From that point we can trace the diffrent species that occupy the varios continents at the moment.
Diffrent creatures evolved in diffrent ways and the evolution was over hundreds of thousands of years. That is why there are diffrent types of spiders in South America to the spiders found in Europe. Why penguins are only found on the south pole. Why mamouths are found in Canada and Russia. How the dinosaurs moved across the earth and how the great meteorite hit the Gulf of Mexico to kill the dinosaurs off and leave the earth ready for the repopulation of many smaller mamals which then led to the forming of Man.

Answer 3

Hmm, well let's find out, shall we?

"re·li·gion

a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe"

Nothing there. The theory of evolution doesn't even make a guess about the beginnings of the universe, it's not about that at all. Let's keep going:

"esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies"

Certainly not. Nope, nothing here either.


"usually involving devotional and ritual observances"

Nope

"and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs."

Uh-uh.

Hmm. Seems that contrary to your assertion, it doesn't fit the definition of a religion very well at all. I'm sorry, I know how much you wanted to make everyone think the same way as you, so that maybe you could understand people better and not be so scared all the time. Oh well, there's always next time.

Answer 4

Aw, poor little boy. He can't or doesn't want to face the tons of proof the evolution exists. Do you want a lollipop?

What personal observation did Christians see, hmm? Did they see god himself? No, they didn't.
But we have seen the changes in skeletons of the past. We have seen, for example, the horse. Small skeletons have been found of horses with four toes. Skeletons VERY similar to the modern horse. Whats more, the horse has something on its leg called a chestnut, a bony growth that used to be a toe. Evolution worked with horses, give me one reason it shouldn't have with people too. Sorry, but minor mutations in the animal to help it suit its environment is way more realistic than some guy saying 'Gee, I think I'll make a human today,' and with a magical poof a human appeared. Even today, for example, Sherpas of Nepal are better adapted to high altitudes than people born at lower altitudes. They can breath easier in high mountains than people born at sea level. It is such a small difference, but that is evolution at work.

Now please state the 'personal observation' that Christians have with their god. Have they seen God? No. Has god come down and spoken to them? No. Is there one shred of scientific evidence god exists? Once more, the biggest NO of all.

Answer 5

Still others point to some genetic engineering taking place at some point along side the evolution. As a possible theory it has not been disproven, scripturally nor scientifically. So how do we come up with the definite fact, that it occurred one way or the other?

Answer 6

You write:
>Christians base their beliefs on personal observation--a
>personal relationship with God, we they say we're crazy!

No, you're not crazy. You have religious beliefs, is all.. and they are just that: BELIEFS, not verifiable facts.

Evolution, on the other hand, has been observed in nature and in the lab. There is verifiable evidence for evolution. "Evolution" is a scientific theory, not a religion.

Answer 7

if you wanted your car fixed would you take it to a cheese shop, no you would take it to a garage. did you expect a full and meaningful defence of evolution here. it would take more than the 4 days your question would last to construct and write a fully comprehensive explanation of evolution, it's a complex subject that cannot be explained fully and satisfactorily on YA. visit the Berkeley evolution site, read books and post your observations on Richard Dawkins site. this iste is mainly for tormenting the gullable or venting frustration. you didn't take it seriously did you?

Answer 8

Yes, and those scientific peer reviewed journals are the Bibles. And umm, the genetics lab? That's church. Evolutionists go weekly and sing hymns from the National Academy of Sciences, which is kind of like the Vatican.

Answer 9

Your right!
It is a belief that has been engrained upon them by other peoples opinions. There is NO solid evidence behind evolution. Non, naught, zip, zero et all. Therefore it is a great leap of faith to belive that everything came from nothing, and mankind owes its existance to happenstance at the odds of ten-katrillion to one.

Answer 10

that you there is a rational person on anwsers

Answer 11

Revisit your premises.