Is evolution a religion?

Originally posted by KellyJay
What you are suggesting is that a life form over time through random
mutation get very small changes that after awhile build up into a big
change. All the while not breaking or robbing any key organs or systems
already functioning properly

I'm saying that for those individuals that survive, obviously everything worked well enough
for them to reproduce, but problems arise all the time. Anything from environmental
disasters to genetic diseases, killing off far more mutations than those that survive. This is
evident by looking at nature. For those organisms that can survive with a primitive
circulatory system (for instance) the foundation for new mutations to take hold is there,
and it can take one generation or a million generations before the next successful
mutation takes place, all the while that species is doing quite well for itself. The examples
of organisms with more primitive versions of our organs (even lacking some) is clear
evidence that you're wrong. You don't need every organ to evolve into existence at the
same time, maintaining a complex interdependence from day one. That would truly be
miraculous. Instead, different organs can evolve during different times as long as its
incremental in very small steps. But, yeah, genetic defects occur all the time, often with
lethal results. All evolution requires is that any given organism survives long enough to
reproduce.

Originally posted by KellyJay
What they do have works for that lifeform. Not sure what you are
suggesting here, or why?

I'm saying that more primitive species like the ant demonstrates that any species we have
evolved from could have survived with only some of the organs we have, and much more
primitive ones at that.

Originally posted by C Hess
I'm saying that more primitive species like the ant demonstrates that any species we have
evolved from could have survived with only some of the organs we have, and much more
primitive ones at that.

You are connecting dots here, how do you know it demonstrates that?
For all we know ants have been around just like every other life form,
with some small varitions. Again, seeing something simple does not
mean it came before something more complex, it only means it is
simpler. Having insects with compound eyes, human eyes, and
something else alive with just light senitive spots does not automatically
mean the light sentivie spots were first and the other two eyes were not
always around, that they came from the these types of spots! We see
different types of eyes, we see different types of life, suggesting one
comes from another is a statement of faith in my opinion, it cannot be
disproved.
Kelly

Originally posted by C Hess
I'm saying that more primitive species like the ant demonstrates that any species we have
evolved from could have survived with only some of the organs we have, and much more
primitive ones at that.

You have a lot of "could haves" in your belief system.
Kelly

Originally posted by C Hess
I'm saying that for those individuals that survive, obviously everything worked well enough
for them to reproduce, but problems arise all the time. Anything from environmental
disasters to genetic diseases, killing off far more mutations than those that survive. This is
evident by looking at nature. For those organisms that can survive with a primitive ...[text shortened]... results. All evolution requires is that any given organism survives long enough to
reproduce.

"You don't need every organ to evolve into existence at the
same time, maintaining a complex interdependence from day one."

I am saying there is a lot of interdependence, a lot of start stops, a lot of
things that must be correct for it to funciton. I think having it all made at
once is much easier than by chance getting it to form or over time
without any plan, purpose, or design involved.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
You have a lot of "could haves" in your belief system.
Kelly

And those 'could haves' prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that your claims that they 'could not have' are false.

Originally posted by KellyJay
You are connecting dots here, how do you know it demonstrates that?
For all we know ants have been around just like every other life form,
with some small varitions. Again, seeing something simple does not
mean it came before something more complex, it only means it is
simpler. Having insects with compound eyes, human eyes, and
something else alive wit ...[text shortened]... g one
comes from another is a statement of faith in my opinion, it cannot be
disproved.
Kelly

It doesn't prove that evolution happened, it proves that evolution could happen. You claim
that complex organisms couldn't have evolved from simpler ones, because the simpler
versions could not survive. The simpler organisms we find in nature proves you wrong
about that.

Originally posted by C Hess
It doesn't prove that evolution happened, it proves that evolution could happen. You claim
that complex organisms couldn't have evolved from simpler ones, because the simpler
versions could not survive. The simpler organisms we find in nature proves you wrong
about that.

Really, I can give you it could have and that means could have?
I'm not sure I'd buy into that, some could haves more than likely are
really NOPE NEVER, but if it is far enough in the past, cannot disprove it.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
Really, I can give you it could have and that means could have?
I'm not sure I'd buy into that, some could haves more than likely are
really NOPE NEVER, but if it is far enough in the past, cannot disprove it.
Kelly

The problem with you eye before light sensor idea is there is clear fossil evidence for sensors like light sensors and electric field sensors way before any vertebrate came about. The sensors came first, there is no doubt about that. Eyes showed up hundreds of millions of years later.

Here is a piece by Scientific American on the subject:

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/evolution-of-the-eye/

Since biological developments come piecemeal, first there were single cell organisms and then multicell forms. Those first multicellular forms would not have had much in the way of light sensors or much of anything else except the ability to take in energy and reproduce and maybe wiggle around to move a bit. Only later when these things got more complex could sensors develop.

Eyes are WAY to complex to have come first if I read what you said right.

Evolution is an experimental thing. Hearing didn't develop full blown, first were cilia that could wiggle around a bacteria to help it move, and only after much trial and error would those cilia be clumped together to allow hearing. Same with eyes.

Originally posted by sonhouse
The problem with you eye before light sensor idea is there is clear fossil evidence for sensors like light sensors and electric field sensors way before any vertebrate came about. The sensors came first, there is no doubt about that. Eyes showed up hundreds of millions of years later.

Here is a piece by Scientific American on the subject:

http://www.s ...[text shortened]... ter much trial and error would those cilia be clumped together to allow hearing. Same with eyes.

I'll read your link
KJ

Originally posted by sonhouse
The problem with you eye before light sensor idea is there is clear fossil evidence for sensors like light sensors and electric field sensors way before any vertebrate came about. The sensors came first, there is no doubt about that. Eyes showed up hundreds of millions of years later.

Here is a piece by Scientific American on the subject:

http://www.s ...[text shortened]... ter much trial and error would those cilia be clumped together to allow hearing. Same with eyes.

The problem you have is speculation that claims it all happened by chance with no one to direct it or control it.

We have historical records that says just the opposite and that makes more sense to us, so go peddle your nonsense somewhere else.

Originally posted by RJHinds
We have historical records that says just the opposite and that makes more sense to us, so go peddle your nonsense somewhere else.

Let me guess, the bible?

Originally posted by C Hess
Actually, this thread isn't about evolution so much as it is about what constitutes a religion.
What are the requirements for calling some belief religious? If any belief that can't
immediately be verified, but takes some work on the part of the "believer" to be understood
and verified is a religion, doesn't that belittle what's traditionally considered ...[text shortened]... he same as having a religious belief? Or is there something more to
having a religious belief?

A religion is; any system of rites, rituals, ceremonies and dogma designed by man for the purpose of establishing a relationship with God based on man's own efforts.

It began with Cain who trod a path that is now broadened by usage, as apposed to the narrow way that few find.

Faith is the mechanism by which man has access to a relationship with God, which faith is given by God to the one that believes in the way that God has established for the purpose of reconciling man to Himself.

Christ. All of Him, nothing of us.

Originally posted by josephw
A religion is; any system of rites, rituals, ceremonies and dogma designed by man for the purpose of establishing a relationship with God based on man's own efforts.

It began with Cain who trod a path that is now broadened by usage, as apposed to the narrow way that few find.

Faith is the mechanism by which man has access to a relationship with God, wh ...[text shortened]... stablished for the purpose of reconciling man to Himself.

Christ. All of Him, nothing of us.

Soooo, evolution is not a religion. I agree.

Originally posted by C Hess
Soooo, evolution is not a religion. I agree.

Evolution is a theory of how the universe came into existence and evolves through time.

It's science, not religion.

Yet some adhere to it religiously.