Is Evolution a science or a faith?

[bennyboy]

Polecat's beliefs guide his judgement. It's a problem with people like that.

The problem is people such as yourself who take things at face value without actually doing the research. I have a stronger backing in evolution than any of you. Like I know the flaws of the Bible (of which none of you have actually been able to mention), I also know the flaws concerning the assertions made to support evolution.

Fine. You have the floor. Enlighten us, since you know more than all.

[Bad Wolf]

Too much drivel, stopped reading. If I wanted less unscientific BS than that, I'd go to a dive bar.

Unscientific? You arrogant, simple, pig headed, little man. You really have no idea do you? God it must be aweful to live in that little mind of yours. Do you know what the scientific method is? Do you even know what the theory of evolution is?

---

The problem is people such as yourself who take things at face value without actually doing the research.

You fucking hypocrite, you filthy fucking hypocrite, you make me sick.

I have a stronger backing in evolution than any of you.

Oh really and what would that be? Did your pastor tell you that evolution is a lie made up by evil baby eating atheists?

Like I know the flaws of the Bible (of which none of you have actually been able to mention), I also know the flaws concerning the assertions made to support evolution.

Well then fucking address them you coward.

[ignoramus]

Polecat's beliefs guide his judgement. It's a problem with people like that.

The problem is people such as yourself who take things at face value without actually doing the research. I have a stronger backing in evolution than any of you. Like I know the flaws of the Bible (of which none of you have actually been able to mention), I also know the flaws concerning the assertions made to support evolution.

Then why are you still religious?
The only logical explanation I can think of is you are a product of successful indoctrination. To which now there is no point in trying to reason.

[Mr.wizard]

I don't understand why creationists bother with trying to discredit evolution? Even if they could prove the theory of evolution wrong it gets them no closer to proving creation. I also don't know why they bother posting their objections to evolution on an atheist forum, go post your bad understanding of evolution on a biology forum. Reading the headline of this thread made my blood boil, if you have to ask if evolution is based on faith then you either are completely ignorant of how science works or you are trying to denigrate science in order to bring it down to the level of your unfounded faith based position of creation.

[Harris]

But I don't claim that an explanation in terms of law and mechanism rules out the agency of a creative god. I am agnostic but also apathetic where such claims are concerned.

I've never been satisfied with any description of a god which I've heard so far. Some claim a god blinked everything into existence from nothing at all. But that is only one aspect of gods and I can't show that no gods exist just by showing that no god was necessary for the universe as we know it today - even if I could (which of course I can't). Likewise, just by pointing out that an explanation in terms of law and mechanism does not rule out gods, you haven't established the necessity of gods.

Now I'm not invested in demonstrating that an adequate account of everything is possible without gods .. anymore than I think it necessary to show that such an account is possible without accounting for unicorns or trolls. I just don't care about those things. They don't prick my imagination as being important or even relevant. But by all means, include any of them that you like in your own musings. As I said originally, that just isn't the way I roll but I have no agenda for the way you should proceed.

Normally, agnostics and Atheists are more inclined to the scientific reasoning because the assumption of scientific materialism is effective in many contexts only because it directs our attention to a certain class of problems that lend themselves to analysis within this framework. However, scientific materialism is less successful when addressing issues of teleology and when trying to develop a comprehensive, integrated picture of the universe as a whole. This is because the explanation of the origin of universe transcends the materialistic domain.

For example. Gravity affects physical bodies and science is good in studying the cause and effect of gravity on those bodies but it cannot define gravity itself because of its immaterial characteristic.

Likewise, each human being is composed of two main elements, physical body and life. Science can only deal with the physical bodies but when question arises regarding Sense, Feelings, emotions, thoughts, mind, etc., it fails to give justification as all these properties are immaterial.

However, we know that these immaterial attributes (like gravity) are the main driving forces behind our appropriate physical actions in different situations of our lives. Therefore, to have proper knowledge about how to manipulate with these immaterial features are vital for a calm and peaceful life. Any person in his entire life is not capable to capture all moral aspects through his personal efforts without having a proper guidance. So from where to get appropriate moral knowledge when science does not deal with it? That, as well, invalidates the question whether God is important for our physical lives. The only available source we are left with is the scripture.

There is no conclusive scientific proof of the existence, or non-existence, of God mainly demonstrates that the existence of God is not a scientific question. It is irrelevant to and beyond the domain of science.

Quran says the same. Please pay attention to the verse No. 4

1: Say: He is Allah, the One and Only;
2: Allah, the Eternal, Absolute;
3: He begetteth not, nor is He begotten;
4: And there is none like unto Him.
Al Ikhlash (112)
-Verse 1 - 4

The fourth verse say, “And there is none like unto him”

This verse means that no one can compare anything with God because God is irreplaceable. By religious logic, created things cannot be metaphor of God in any sense. This verse has shut the doors of science through which one might be able to peep into the outlook of God or even to have a glimpse into the characteristics of God. The only available knowledge about God is through Religious Scripture. However, if you are sceptic about scripture then the only way to God is Logic.

One of the great sceptic David Hume put his logic like this:

“Look round the world: contemplate the whole and every part of it: You will find it to be nothing but one great-machine, subdivided into an infinite number of lesser machines, which again admit of subdivisions to a degree beyond what human senses and faculties can trace and explain. All these various machines, and even their most minute parts, are adjusted to each other with an accuracy, which ravishes into admiration all men who have ever contemplated them. The curious adapting of means to ends, throughout all nature, resembles exactly, though it much exceeds, the productions of human contrivance; of human design, thought, wisdom, and intelligence. Since therefore the effects resemble each other, we are led to infer, by all the rules of analogy, that the causes also resemble; and that the Author of Nature is somewhat similar to the mind of man; though possessed of much larger faculties, proportioned to the grandeur of the work, which he has executed. By this argument a posteriori, and by this argument alone, do we prove at once the existence of a Deity, and his similarity to human mind and intelligence.”
Hume, David (1779). Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion (The Second ed.). London: s.n. pp. 47–48.

“Would you not say to yourself, “Some super-calculating intellect must have designed the properties of the carbon atom, otherwise the chance of my finding such an atom through the blind forces of nature would be utterly minuscule.” Of course you would… A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question.”
Hoyle, Fred (November 1981). "The Universe: Past and Present Reflections". Engineering and Science: 8–12.

Derham says:
"For it is a Sign a Man is a wilful, perverse Atheist, that will impute so glorious a Work, as the Creation is, to any Thing, yea, a mere Nothing (as Chance is) rather than to God.”
Weber, AS., Nineteenth-Century Science: An Anthology, Broadview Press, 2000, p. 18.

Quran according to Islam is the dialect of God Himself. It is unlike other scriptures, which are more or less holy stories in the words of apostles and historians.

As well, in Quran, there are Holy stories similar to what Jewish and Christian Scriptures hold but they are all told by the word of God himself.

Keep this thing in mind and then read the following statements of God in Quran. See what logic Quran is proposing for us to ponder.

Now I know you might be thinking, “here we are again The Scripture,” but only for a moment try to connect these verses with what different people of eminence had said.

Were they created of nothing, or were they themselves the creators?
Ath-Thuur (52)
-Verse 35-

3: Who has created the seven heavens one above another, you can see no fault in the creations of the Most Beneficent. Then look again: "Can you see any rifts?"
4: Then look again and yet again, your sight will return to you in a state of humiliation and worn out.
Al Mulk (67)
-Verse 3-4

These verses were revealed over an illiterate person about 1400 years back in the culture where people had no sense of science and logic and immorality was at its peak.

[Thumpalumpacus]

It's a science.

Next.

Evidence please!

---

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

Sharpen your pencils, bud; you're obviously in for a lot of work.

[The Grand Nudger]

So,

-"I like science except when it approaches my holy cow"
-"I will be arguing by force of fiat"
-"I will then extrapolate on the contents of what I have argued into existence by fiat for 90% of the post"
-"I think these people are really smart, and so have chosen to emulate their non persuasive style"
-"Miracles and shit, also, lumping some things I don't like together"

That about cover it?

[Harris]

@Harris: What if I said that I do not believe in the existence of "God" (or any god)? What then?

My job is to give you convincing logic for the existence of God. Once I conveyed that message to you, my job is done. Further, you are free to choose whatever you like.

[The Grand Nudger]

Might take you awhile to do that, seeing as you don't seem to possess any. Is there any way to speed this up, so that you feel that you have "done your job"?

[Thumpalumpacus]

As for the "evolution has never been observed" trope:

http://sciencepicks.wordpress.com/2011/1...es-emerge/

http://triblive.com/usworld/world/548337...z36kjOnkNX

http://www.wired.com/2009/11/speciation-in-action/

etc

All these links have took me to junkyard only. If you are so sure then bring livescientific evidence that apes transformed into humans.

---

If you don't even understand cladistics, what makes you think you can mount a legitimate challenge to the rest of the science? Perhaps you needs to explain why you're right and Gould Dawkins et al are wrong? What are your credentials, aside from church attendance? "Goddidit" is not a curriculum vitae. Any dumbfuck can read a religious text. Show that you understand the science you're striving to dismantle.

Also, let us know when you get your Pulitzer.