If evolution is a religion and not a true science by definition, why is it...

[Sunumo Yaoban Lin]

...taught in our public schools? Interestingly, the Yahoo! trolls deleted this question because I seemingly asked the right (or wrong) questions, the evolutionists could not answer and thus felt threatened. Also worthy of mentioning, the questions I asked made not a single mention of "God," "the Bible," or anything religious whatsoever yet were immediately accused of as being "cut and paste" from "creationist web-sites." Rather, these 6 questions were clear, thought provoking questions from the young developing mind of my 15 year old son- questions that his science teacher could not answer. It seems to me, if a 15 year old can debunk the evolution curriculum that his school teaches as factual with my tax money, he should at the very least have the right to question something that has yet to be proven. What do you think? I will paraphrase the questions shortly and hope to get some clear answers.
1. Since there are untold millions of "non-transitional fossils" in existence and available, why are there no "transitional fossils" between the various species?
2. How did invertebrates, with their "bones" on the outside, manage to evolve into vertebrates with their "bones" on the inside? Furthermore, for what purpose does this serve since the oceans are rife with life?
3. According to new data discovered by various genome projects, why are common cows more closely related to dolphins than their own phylum member, the horse if they evolved from a common ancestor?
4. Why are all of the so called observable "evolutionary changes" either sideways or downward toward extinction?
5. What catalyst is accredited with the sudden explosion of life during the Cambrian period?
6. Which came first, the chicken or the egg? (A seemingly simple question, yet one that has vast consequences for evolution)
Notice how none of these questions make any reference to a creator and should be asked by evolutionists if they really believe it- which brings me back to the point which initiated this question, that evolution is not a true science by definition but rather a religion. How does the theory of evolution meet any of the criteria of the scientific method? It simply does not. Even a book written by evolutionist Carl Sagan, stated "when...we take the side of science [in spite] of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated commitment to materialism. We are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counterintuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door."
The amount of bitterness expressed by most answers leaves me to believe that atheism (thus a belief in evolution) is a result of religion, and for good reason. Religion is the cause of most problems in this world. However, again my question has absolutely nothing to do with religion. These are only simple questions I want answered.
Ralphy- I'm afraid your attempt to answer the question befits your avatar. Only 10 fossils in total of the Archaeopteryx for example, have ever been discovered. Perhaps you can enlighten the audience on exactly how many of these fossils have been found? Better yet, you can include the partial remains (one damage skeleton) of Changchengornis in your findings.
Fryguy- you bring up two more points I didn't even mention: DNA composition and epigenetics. Both I believe are too complex to discuss here. But I doubt we need to go that deep to answer the 6 simple questions I asked.
Marky-1"there ar etransitional fossils - thousands of them." Have you seen any? For all tense and purposes, paleontologists should be finding thousands of "missing links" along with dinos."
2"why could they not have had a common ancestor with NO bones." LOL.Now your imagination is getting ahead of you.
3"would like you to cite this, but why could the cow not be closer related to the dolphin than the horse?" Surely-http://www.genome.gov/12512874
4"eh? what rubbish is this?" Thank you for proving my point.
5"we don't know - techtonic activity? major changes in the world's oceanic currents? asteroid? ice age?" When was the last time destruction brought about anything of order?
6."the egg, obviously. that's a nonsense.eggs have been around LONG before chickens." This is your best answer yet. So the egg developed all by itself without hatching? Did it have a Siemens incubator or a General Electric? Cleary, "evolutionists do more harm than good, but they still need to counter ID..."
What amazes me is that not only have there been 31 responses in less than 3 hours time, not a single one addressed the questions at hand. Rather, most sidestepped the questions with responses that are not only off topic but in some ways prove the people who actually believe in evolution know very little about it themselves.

[~Smirk~ Resurrected]

Hmmm... thousands of Biologists or your 15-year-old son? WHO should I believe???? *conundrum*

[tylerdurden714]

religion is:
http://atheism.about.com/od/evolutionreligionreligious/p/EvolutionRelig.htm
Belief in Supernatural Beings:
Perhaps the most common and fundamental characteristic of religions is the belief in supernatural beings — usually, but not always, including gods. Very few religions lack this characteristic and most religions are founded upon it. Does evolution involve belief in supernatural beings like god? No. Evolutionary theory neither encourages nor discourages it. Evolution is accepted by theists and atheists, regardless of their position on the existence of the supernatural. The mere existence or nonexistence of supernatural beings is ultimately irrelevant to evolutionary theory.

Sacred vs Profane Objects, Places, Times:
Differentiating between sacred and profane objects, places, and times helps religious believers focus on transcendental values and/or the existence of the supernatural. Some atheists may have things, places, or times which they treat as "sacred" in that they venerate them in some way. Does evolution involve such a distinction? No — even a casual reading of explanations of evolutionary theory reveals that it involves no sacred places, times, or objects. Distinctions between the sacred and the profane play no role in and are as irrelevant to evolutionary theory as they are to every other aspect of science.

Ritual Acts Focused on Sacred Objects, Places, Times:
If people believe in something sacred, they probably have rituals which are associated with that which is considered sacred. As with the very existence of a category of "sacred" things, however, there is nothing about evolution which either mandates such a belief or prohibits it. Most important is the fact that there are no rituals which are part of evolutionary theory itself. Biologists involved with the study of evolution engage in no incantations or ritual acts of any sort in their research.
end excerpt (continues at link)

how does that relate to evolutionary theory at all???

edit:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional/part1a.html#gaps
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils

evolution is viewed as the branches of a tree. in this way horses and cows can have a common ancestor but because their common ancestor is further in the past than the common ancestor between cows and dolphins they can be more genetically similar.


please show evidence that ALL evolutionary changes have resulted in sideways movement or indeed to extinction. it's simply not true.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?xml=/earth/2008/01/20/scitusk120.xml
the above link discusses the evolution of african and asian elephants who've been observed to grow shorter tusks than they did since the mid 19th century. this is due to ivory hunters killing members of the elephant community that had the longest tusks. this created an environment where the elephants with the longest tusks weren't surviving to pass their genes to the next generation. natural selection now favors elephants with smaller tusks as they were more likely to survive. in the environment the elephants find themselves in they have been rendered more successful by evolving. this is not sideways or towards extinction. they now have a clear advantage in their ecosystem that they didn't have before.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13845002/
the link above discusses the very same finches Darwin himself witnessed when he set foot on the islands during his Beagle voyage. In this case genetic mutations governing the beaks of the finches have made them better able to gather and eat smaller seeds. This has made them better equipped to survive for two reasons. 1. the invasion of another species of finch that is bigger and began using up all the resources,
namely, larger seeds. 2. a drought in 2003 incongruently affected the trees that produced the larger seeds further limiting the available seeds. A genetic mutation within the smaller species of finch made their beak smaller and better able to collect the still plentiful smaller seeds. This version of the individual was made more successful in it's habitat compared to the the version of the species with larger beaks. The result is that the smaller beaked version was able to be healthier at all times being generally better fed and so better able to attract a mate and pass it's genetic component down to subsequent generations. Indeed, the effect is so stark that nearly all the species of the finch now have smaller beaks. also clearly not lateral or downward movement.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nylonase
the link above describes a certain strain of bacteria discovered in 1975 by a team of Japanese scientists. it was found living in ponds containing waste water from a factory producing nylon that was capable of digesting certain byproducts of nylon-6 manufacture even though those substances are not known to have existed prior to the invention of nylon in 1935. further study revealed that the three enzymes the bacteria were using to digest the byproducts were novel, significantly different from any other enzymes produced by other strains. the mutation in the bacteria rendered it better able to pass on it's genetic component to subsequent generations. natural selection occured. the bacteria evolved. this too is clearly not lateral movement nor is it downward.
more can be found here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peppered_moth_evolution
and for comparison, an example of downward movement here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orange_(fruit)#Navel_orange
(navel oranges are sterile (no seeds) thereby rendering them unable to propagate. if we didn't cultivate them they'd have gone extinct immediately)
find more here: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/04/index.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambrian_explosion#Possible_causes_of_the_.E2.80.9 Cexplosion.E2.80.9D
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origins_of_life
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RNA_world_hypothesis

please keep in mind that just because some things like the origins of life are unclear to science is no reason to posit supernatural origins. if we can trust science to do anything it's to debunk the supernatural origins of things. it may take time but it always happens.
flat earth, thunder, lightning, rain, fire, crops, conception, DNA, germ theory of disease, relativity, heliocentrism, and of course evolution.

[Nina, BaC]

Evolution theory is a theory. It is not a religion.

[GreyFox]

Evolution is a fact. Even the most staunch creationists acknowledge that evolution happens, and can be reproduced by mankind. Great danes and teacup chihuahuas prove evolution. If you killed off all other dog breeds, those two would, by definition, become two seperate species (cannot naturally mate, and exhibit different physical characteristics)....and how VERY different they are...and all from darwin's "natural selection" being done by humans in only a few thousand years time.

[qxzqxzqxz]

"Evolution is a 'theory', just like gravity. If you don't like it, go jump off a bridge."

Edit:
Most atheists are not evolutionary biologists - some are. They would answer questions in the Biology section. Try asking your questions there - or are you worried about your "arguments" being shot down?

[Ralphy]

There are hundreds of transitional fossils....If only you had bothered to google for them...Pathetic....

Now listen to this Einstein..


Answersingenesis....the major creationist website had abandoned these arguments....But why do the Creationists in R&S continue using these arguments....?
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/dont_use.asp



“There are no transitional forms.”
“The speed of light has decreased over time.”
“There is amazing modern scientific insight in the Bible.”
“Evolution is just a theory.”
“Darwin recanted on his deathbed.”
“Archaeopteryx is a fraud.”
“No new species have been produced.”
“Paluxy tracks prove that humans and dinosaurs co-existed.”
“If we evolved from apes, apes shouldn’t exist today.”
“Ron Wyatt has found much archeological proof of the Bible.”
Some of Carl Baugh’s “evidences” for creation.
“Missing solar neutrinos prove that the sun shines by gravitational collapse, thereby proving a young sun.”
“Gold chains have been found in coal.”
“Creationists believe in microevolution but not macroevolution.”
“Earth’s axis was vertical before the Flood.”
“Women have one more rib than men

GET IT RETARD.....YOU ARE NOT ALLOWED TO USE THESE ARGUMENTS ACCORDING TO YOUR CREATIONIST MUMBO JUMBO WEBSITE.....


Next NOBODY GIVES A RATS **** ABOUT WHAT YOU AND YOUR SON BELIEVE IN...


The creationists have been trying to put their 6000yr old theory but have lost everytime.....


# 1968 Epperson v. Arkansas, United States Supreme Court[100]
# 1981 Segraves v. State of California, Supreme Court of California[101]
# 1982 McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education, U.S. Federal Court[102]
# 1987 Edwards v. Aguillard, United States Supreme Court[103]
# 1990 Webster v. New Lenox School District, Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals[104]
# 1994 Peloza v. Capistrano Unified School District, Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals[105]
# 1997 Freiler v. Tangipahoa Parish Board of Education, United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana[106]
# 2000 Rodney LeVake v Independent School District 656, et al., District Court for the Third Judicial District of the State of Minnesota[107]
# 2005 Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, US Federal Court[108]
# 2006 Hurst v. Newman US District Court Eastern District of California[10


That is why have repackaged their theory into INTELLIGENT DESIGN...
But ID too was discarded as a pseudoscience....


The American Association for the Advancement of Science, the world's largest general scientific society with more than 130,000 members and over 262 affiliated societies and academies of science including over 10 million individuals, has made several statements and issued several press releases in support of evolution


In 1986, an amicus curiae brief asking the US Supreme Court to reject a Louisiana state law requiring the teaching of creationism in the case Edwards v. Aguillard was signed by 72 US Nobel Prize winners, 17 state academies of science and 7 other scientific societies. This was the largest collection of Nobel Prize winners to sign anything up to that point.


In September 2005, 38 Nobel laureates issued a statement saying "Intelligent design is fundamentally unscientific; it cannot be tested as scientific theory because its central conclusion is based on belief in the intervention of a supernatural agent."[31] In October 2005, a coalition representing more than 70,000 Australian scientists and science teachers issued a statement saying "intelligent design is not science" and calling on "all schools not to teach Intelligent Design (ID) as science, because it fails to qualify on every count as a scientific theory".

One 1987 estimate found that "700 scientists ... (out of a total of 480,000 U.S. earth and life scientists) ... give credence to creation-science




FOR ONCE WHY DONT YOU ALLOW THE SCIENTISTS DO THE THINKING.....


http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html

Why dont you visit the link and see for yourself....One more thing..Millions of scientists believe in transitional fossils...The fact that you or your creationist henchmen dont believe in it does not disprove it...Its like I said earlier...NOONE GIVES A RATS....Sorry...

[fryguy]

evolution is not a religion its fact and its not based on god. Obviously you have no idea what dna is. I'm not pro or against religion. Tell him to try to debunk evolution of antiobiotic resistant germs. what happens if a sperm or egg cell gets infectected with a virus then that virus has injected its dna or rna into the cells where it stays then that extra dna will in fact be passed on to the newborn

[CrazyCat]

Tenicaly belife that evolution is true could be considered a religion yes....

but it's not a religion in and of itself.... it is a theory ....

A better question is why they teach several theories as if they are fact

[socrates4hemlock]

The premise is wrong. Evolution is a scientific hypothesis.

Atheistic / Naturalism, that can come (piggyback) with evolution is the religious / philosophical view.

I don't have a problem teaching children to think. Evolution and other theories should be taught to kids to give them balance and good sense.