What Does the Religion of Darwinism actually have faith in?

[rightwinger]

So, a species on it's last generation before extinction can evolve enough to survive by the next generation?

If not, then the option is not "evolve or perish."

Those who have evolved will survive
Those who haven’t perish

 

[Seymour Flops]

Those who have evolved will survive
Those who haven’t perish

Since every species evolved that's pretty meaningless.

Just another vague generalization like Darwinists present as "evidence."

How does a species initiate a mutation needed for survival?

 

[bodecea]

It isn't a faith in Darwin as a man, nor faith in "science," meaning the people who claim to practice science and get the media's attention and approval. Their dogmatic approach and exclusion of critical thinking about their religion is how they keep Darwinism propped up, but those things are not what they have faith in.

But, they must have faith in something. How else could they believe (or for many pretend to believe), that all of the design that is so clearly apparent in the universe is actually the result of no design at all? What could allow them to even consider that all the complexity of life on Earth was created by a series of random events? In what do they have faith that could have allowed such an unlikely idea to be true?

The answer is the passage of time. We now know that there is much significance to the passage of time. Our second highest elected leader explained it thusly:



No matter how impossible it seems that a single light-sensitive cell developed (by random mutations) into the sophisticated vision systems that millions of different species possess, Darwinists explain it all by saying WTTE of, "well it took a long time, of course."

That is faith. If faith is to be admired for its own sake, it is an admirable faith, because it requires the believer to exclude so much evidence that is readily available for their observation.

It's not a religion.

 

[rightwinger]

Since every species evolved that's pretty meaningless.

Just another vague generalization like Darwinists present as "evidence."

How does a species initiate a mutation needed for survival?

Not when you look at the species that didn’t evolve and perished

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

So, the mutations are deliberate and purposeful?

Mutations are not evolution.

Sorry.

Example # 4,309 of you knowing less than nothing about evolution.

Pretty sad. You really should not even be commenting on this topic, much less starting threads about it.

 

[surada]

It isn't a faith in Darwin as a man, nor faith in "science," meaning the people who claim to practice science and get the media's attention and approval. Their dogmatic approach and exclusion of critical thinking about their religion is how they keep Darwinism propped up, but those things are not what they have faith in.

But, they must have faith in something. How else could they believe (or for many pretend to believe), that all of the design that is so clearly apparent in the universe is actually the result of no design at all? What could allow them to even consider that all the complexity of life on Earth was created by a series of random events? In what do they have faith that could have allowed such an unlikely idea to be true?

The answer is the passage of time. We now know that there is much significance to the passage of time. Our second highest elected leader explained it thusly:



No matter how impossible it seems that a single light-sensitive cell developed (by random mutations) into the sophisticated vision systems that millions of different species possess, Darwinists explain it all by saying WTTE of, "well it took a long time, of course."

That is faith. If faith is to be admired for its own sake, it is an admirable faith, because it requires the believer to exclude so much evidence that is readily available for their observation.

Do you believe in the supernatural? Scientists are intelligent enough to hold two thoughts simultaneously. Science is one thing. Religious beliefs are another.

 

[Seymour Flops]

Mutations are not evolution.

Sorry.

Example # 4,309 of you knowing less than nothing about evolution.

Pretty sad. You really should not even be commenting on this topic, much less starting threads about it.

Species evolve without mutations?

 

[Seymour Flops]

Not when you look at the species that didn’t evolve and perished

How does a species initiate a mutation needed for survival?

 

[rightwinger]

How does a species initiate a mutation needed for survival?

What makes you think a species initiates anything?

A species faces food availability, predators, environment
Major changes in any of them can jeopardize a species. Species best able to survive those changes will go on

 

[Seymour Flops]

What makes you think a species initiates anything?

A species faces food availability, predators, environment
Major changes in any of them can jeopardize a species. Species best able to survive those changes will go on

I get that's the "theory."

I'm asking how you think that It works. You said it isnt random. So how does the mutation needed to survive happen if it isn't random?

 

[alang1216]

Can you please offer an equally plausible explanation for a living cell being formed without design?

You make a common, anti-evolution mistake in assuming a cell was the first form of life. It wasn't, the first life was so simple you probably wouldn't recognize it as life. Cells probably took a billion years to evolve from the first life.

 

[Seymour Flops]

You make a common, anti-evolution mistake in assuming a cell was the first form of life. It wasn't, the first life was so simple you probably wouldn't recognize it as life. Cells probably took a billion years to evolve from the first life.

I didn't say a cell is the simplest form of life.

No one can provide a plausible explanation for the simplest form of life arising without design and most Darwinists admit that much.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Species evolve without mutations?

Indeed they do! Genetic drift, for example.

Mutations are not evolution. Neither is a hot environment. Evolution is a process that acts on the genotypes of a population.

 

[Seymour Flops]

Indeed they do! Genetic drift, for example.

Mutations are not evolution. Neither is a hot environment. Evolution is a process that acts on the genotypes of a population.

You don't know your own religion's dogma. It's the changes in genotype that supposedly produce evolution, not the other way around.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

It's the changes in genotype that supposedly produce evolution, not the other way around.

100% ass backwards wrong.

The mechanisms of evolution work on individuals and populations to change the genotypic makeup of a population, over time.

 

[alang1216]

No one can provide a plausible explanation for the simplest form of life arising without design and most Darwinists admit that much.

Then you haven't bothered to look. Atoms can self-assemble into crystals. Molecules can do the same. Imagine a molecule that is a long chain where the ends can self assemble additional 'links'. Growth. Once the chain reaches a certain size it breaks. Reproduction. Molecules that are better at self assembly will take the resources of other molecules. Natural selection. All the ingredients of life.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

No one can provide a plausible explanation for the simplest form of life arising without design and most Darwinists admit that much.

Shameless lies, arising from either abject ignorance or embarrassing dishonesty.

 

[SweetSue92]

It isn't a faith in Darwin as a man, nor faith in "science," meaning the people who claim to practice science and get the media's attention and approval. Their dogmatic approach and exclusion of critical thinking about their religion is how they keep Darwinism propped up, but those things are not what they have faith in.

But, they must have faith in something. How else could they believe (or for many pretend to believe), that all of the design that is so clearly apparent in the universe is actually the result of no design at all? What could allow them to even consider that all the complexity of life on Earth was created by a series of random events? In what do they have faith that could have allowed such an unlikely idea to be true?

The answer is the passage of time. We now know that there is much significance to the passage of time. Our second highest elected leader explained it thusly:



No matter how impossible it seems that a single light-sensitive cell developed (by random mutations) into the sophisticated vision systems that millions of different species possess, Darwinists explain it all by saying WTTE of, "well it took a long time, of course."

That is faith. If faith is to be admired for its own sake, it is an admirable faith, because it requires the believer to exclude so much evidence that is readily available for their observation.

It is preposterous. The whole of it. Laughable.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

It is preposterous. The whole of it. Laughable.

Those who would fail 7th grade science do not have opinions worth reading, when it comes to science. Sorry.

 

[ding]

Then you haven't bothered to look. Atoms can self-assemble into crystals. Molecules can do the same. Imagine a molecule that is a long chain where the ends can self assemble additional 'links'. Growth. Once the chain reaches a certain size it breaks. Reproduction. Molecules that are better at self assembly will take the resources of other molecules. Natural selection. All the ingredients of life.

I don't see anything inconsistent with believing in evolution and God. But you are vastly over simplifying "self assembly." Long chains of inanimate organic molecules must fold themselves in precisely the correct sequence. Do you understand the likelihood of that process?