Is Evolutionist Science worth believing?

[Mr.Ho_chia]

the main topic says, evolutionist science... is it worth believing? i believe so, yes. but we have to originate from something because there is no evolution of nothingness. if nothingness were to evolve, it will still be nothing. ('c',) but if at a point of origin, a "spark" has happened, then that should evolve/grow/develop into something more complex. then it will create/replicate/reproduce into other complexities. and so on and so forth.

i believe creation and evolution are two sides of the same coin. they compliment each other. not exactly opposites but interdependent. it should represent harmony. ('c',)

i wish i could say the same thing inside the forum. ('c',)

but i think somewhere along the line, the two sides will eventually come to an agreement. and perhaps a truce. ('c',)

I wish I could agree with you, but creation totally is in itself sufficient.... meaning to say it explain everything even if we exclude evolution (the Macrol evel). while evolution cannot support everything in existence. it can't even try to explain origin, and other most glaring reality in our universe, further more evolution claims to have scientific basis behind it but in reality science can't even support the theory in which until now there are a lot of other questionable concepts that is far from being explained rationally.

I must admit though that in creation the faith of the believer is always reinforced seeing how rational thinking would lead one to grow faith in believing that indeed there is GOD, otherwise everything will make no sense.

Evolution does not support creation nor creation support evolution. THe Bible talks about 6days in creating what we have now, while evolution talks about billions of years.

if you look at our universe now, one understands that certain organisms need certain organisms to complete their life cycle, as well as in the plants kingdom, for one to evolve first and the other to follow make no sense. unless they evolve simultaneously. but that in itself will be doubling the already impossible "by Chance" argument.

In humans who evolve first? the man or the woman? simultaneous again? as what i have said before, each human enzyme that makes the DNA that makes the genes that makes who we are now and to have randomly evolve by chance is 1 in every 10 to the power of 40,000. that is more than the atoms in this universe of ours. can you imagine that and for it to evolve exactly as it is with humans now is pure impossibility. and to make two complete evolution a man and a woman...... what will it be then? impossible impossibility?

that is the reason why evolution draw so much questions, because no empirical science can prove it. it is always a suggestion of possibilities.... it is wrong then? of course not, only if substantial evidence that directly show organism tranfoming to another kind will the objection cease, because evolution have invoked science, but if it is hope and faith as well... then that will be another story.

I am not saying that in creation we have empirical science as well, not at all, but it makes perfect sense! but one should have faith in GOD the creator.

At least this is what i think.

[Tattva]

the main topic says, evolutionist science... is it worth believing? i believe so, yes. but we have to originate from something because there is no evolution of nothingness. if nothingness were to evolve, it will still be nothing. ('c',) but if at a point of origin, a "spark" has happened, then that should evolve/grow/develop into something more complex. then it will create/replicate/reproduce into other complexities. and so on and so forth.

i believe creation and evolution are two sides of the same coin. they compliment each other. not exactly opposites but interdependent. it should represent harmony. ('c',)

i wish i could say the same thing inside the forum. ('c',)

but i think somewhere along the line, the two sides will eventually come to an agreement. and perhaps a truce. ('c',)

Creatio ex nihilo? NO


Nothing as in no existence whatsoever? its impossible because how can nothing produced something?

It must start from something. Why cant it be God? because, if we are to invoke the power of science, there are no traces where science can investigate.

But if we are to invoke religion then thousands of god can be possible for the cause and that cause is solely base on faith.

[Mr.Ho_chia]

but science can never explain origin. so does it mean we stop and accept it as is? isn't it the very reason why evolution was espoused by darwin is to attempt to answer human quest to know their origin and the beginning? now we are saying it will be fine to assume there are something floating and that is the beginning?

It make no sense at all.

and If we do involve religion, evolution then will self destruct that's why, unless it will also transform itself from being a science to now a religion also.
because in the first place it required one to have faith to belive that it was possible to create life form out of a rock.

[Tattva]

A simplified definition of evolution is...The explanation of how LIFE evolves from one specie to another.

It doesnt say how life STARTED out from nothing, because thats religion and evoltuion is not a religion.


If people wants to talk about the ULTIMATE origin of how life started then they should discuss abiogenesis or BBT.


I dont understand why some people would like to drag evolution down to abiogenesis or BBT.

If we define the word BACHELOR to mean unmarried then one should stop asking if he has a wife.


If Evolutionary theory excludes abiogenesis and BBT then one should stop asking about it when evolution is being discussed.

[Tattva]

Is evolution religion?


some attributes of religion...

*Religions explain ultimate reality. Evolution stops with the development of life (it does not even include the origins of life).
*Religions describe the place and role of humans within ultimate reality. Evolution describes only our biological background relative to present and recent human environments.
*Religions almost always include reverence for and/or belief in a supernatural power or powers. Evolution does not.
*Religions have a social structure built around their beliefs. Although science as a whole has a social structure, no such structure is particular to evolutionary biologists, and one does not have to participate in that structure to be a scientist.
*Religions impose moral prescriptions on their members. Evolution does not. Evolution has been used (and misused) as a basis for morals and values by some people, such as Thomas Henry Huxley, Herbert Spencer, and E. O. Wilson (Ruse 2000), but their view, although based on evolution, is not the science of evolution; it goes beyond that.
*Religions include rituals and sacraments. With the possible exception of college graduation ceremonies, there is nothing comparable in evolutionary studies.
*Religious ideas are highly static; they change primarily by splitting off new religions. Ideas in evolutionary biology change rapidly as new evidence is found.



However...Evolution may be considered a religion under the metaphorical definition of something pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion. This, however, could also apply to stamp collecting, watering plants, or practically any other activity. Calling evolution a religion makes religion effectively meaningless.

[Tattva]

Science stops where evidence stops. No room for speculations.

Abiogenesis explains how life started and BBT explains how our universe started.

The theory of abiogenesis was not totally refuted by pasteur. On the contrary it made the argument of abiogenesis even stronger.


In science common sense sometimes is not a good companion. It clashes with scientific findings. For example common sense will tell you that the earth is flat and not spinning at 1000 miles per hour but this is not so. Common sense will tell you that a creature with wings can fly but further investigation shows that not all winged creatures can fly.Common sense will tell you that bowling balls fall faster than marbles but science will tell you otherwise.

life coming from chemicals or non-living matter whoa,hehe. Too way out, dont you think? but again science can prove just like the above examples with evidence that life can indeed come from non-living energies. This may sound very illogical but again in the field of science there are cases where science and common sense clashed each other but in the end science was ABLE TO EXPLAINED IT WELL WITH SUPPORTING EVIDENCE.

[forester]

To all whom this words may come:
Let us just consider all our arguments as a healthy exercise of the intellect and treat all provocations as a purifier of our maturity. Baus-baus lang gud sa kaisipan, maayo bausa'g maayo, maayo usahay bausag bati, bati sad bausag bati, or dili ba, bati bausag maayo, all are in arguments. OK?

Allow me to RENEW the title of this thread.

IS EVOLUTIONIST SCIENCE WORTH BELIEVING?

My answer, PERHAPS.


Go..........

[Mr.Ho_chia]

It is in the context of how one view evolution that created chaos. for some they limit their understanding of evolution only on organism evolving to another kind of organism.

well the big bang theory and abiogensis is part of how evolutionist view existence. because evolution of organism didn't start only from evolving from a primitive organism to an all new and improve one.

It is part and parcel of evolution as a science. any evolution book by fore runners of evolution will connect it. I don't understand why delineate the two connecting parts. but even on evolution of existing organisms, it is still an assumption. All evolution is saying is a suggestion of possibilities, that it could be.... because this point suggest it, that thst part could be the appendages of a previous appearance... when will we stop the speculation? certainly our imagination have no limits. For as long as it is a suggested possibilities then there is no stopping.

might as well, affirm X-men, mutant ninja turtles and the likes... Is it reality then? what would stop us from assuming such possibility in the name of genetic mutations, natural selections all in macro evolution level?
The answer is NONE... except grounded and sound logical reasoning, that such an assumption has no place in science. unless factual evidence is seen and not just observable data in small amount translated to a greater magnitude.

[NASYO]

HUMANs are species from outer space..

OUR ancestors landed here on earth around 1 billion years ago..

[Mr.Ho_chia]

Science have never proven that an elephant came from a fly. nor chemicals like hydrogen produces your manganese or uranium because it is impossible! and common sense will actually tell you that.

but guess what, assumptions were made in an exponential capacity. It speculates that a fly undergo mutation undergo mutation becomes an elephant mutated again and becomes a monkey and mutated again and whala.... grand papa is standing.

Science? or Assumptions? well, there was a calculation made in this respect that suggest the greatest impossibility ever known to men.

that is why our imagination have no limits that even impossibility is taken aside in the hope that out from a single cell organism came the humans. worst from a rock came we are. too bad.

life coming from non-living things, the mind cannot comprehend but science can they say. Is this really science? or hope and assumption that it will? sounds religion now. no scientific evidence have shown any form of living things transformed from non-living things, the law of biogenesis directly contradicts spontaneous generation, it does not support it.

science has been the basis of common sense. this is because we can make predictions and assertions based on the proven scientific facts. that why common sense tells us that even though the world is round we will not fall because of the law of gravity.

that no life form will be produced from non-living things like a dirt, a rock a mud because we have the law of biogenesis.


this is the reason why we stick to proven science before we welcome other claims unless proven with evidence. other wise we can make assumptions that will challenge the known scientific law.

can we now disclaim the law gravity and change it with the theory of possible levitation because we saw cris angel walking on air from one building to the other? surely no! the same with the law of Biogenesis.

==========================
* Evolution hope that life comes from a rock without scientific fact. Religion employs great belief in the absence of factual evidence in the creation of everything.

* Evolution says things evolve from a single cell even without evidence we see.Religion says I have faith that GOD created every kind of Life form even without evidence we see.

Sounds familiar to me. oh yee of great Faith? this time