Religion doesn't make sense, but neither does evolution?

Question

This is a serious question, just so all of you will know. I'm not trolling this time.

None of the religions make much sense to me. Christianity seems to be as likely to be right as Islam, and God sure doesn't help out by hiding his existence.

However, I've done online studying on evolution (I go to a private Christian school where creationism is taught) and honestly, I haven't found any experiments of solid evidence for it. I would really appreciate if someone here would give an example of strong evidence for a common ancestor among species that isn't "all the animals look alike. Therefore, they all have a common ancestor".

I've seen other people ask questions against evolution and a bunch of people seem to attack them the same way the sociopath chick I almost dated attacked me when I caught her lying.

I say all this from an Agnostic/Atheist viewpoint. If I see some conclusive evidence, I'll change my mind on this.

Answer 1

Like all scientific theories, the theory of evolution must make predictions that are testable. Testing a prediction means that you predict what evidence you should find if the theory is correct, and then you look to see if you actually find that evidence. So what does the theory predict we should find, and do we actually find it?



First of all, the theory predicts we should see examples of populations of one species evolving into new species. Do we? Yes we do. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_species



Secondly, the theory predicts the existence of a Tree of Life. The Tree of Life is a family tree, of which every single living thing that has ever existed on the planet is a member. The existence of the Tree of Life (if true) would mean that the differences between living things would be organized into a nested hierarchy, such that two recently separated species would share numerous characteristics, of which a portion would also be shared by all species sharing a more distant common ancestor, of which a portion would also be shared by all species sharing an even more distant common ancestor; and so on. The Tree’s existence would also mean that two species branching from a common ancestor should be located in places that populations of the ancestor could have reached. It also means that the fossils we find should fit into the general pattern of hierarchical similarity, location, and timeframe established by the Tree. Finally, the hierarchical patterns of similarity established by present and past species on the Tree should be roughly the same regardless of whether we are comparing morphological characteristics, or genes, or non-coding DNA, or endogenous retroviruses, or proteins. We say “roughly the same” rather than “exactly the same” because various processes such as convergent evolution or fluctuating population sizes can somewhat throw off the hierarchical patterns established by the different traits being compared.



So what do we find? The Tree of Life is continually vindicated by study after study. Morphologically, humans are most similar to other apes, and some of those similarities are shared by monkeys, and some of those are shared by all primates, and some of those are shared by all mammals, and so on. We could as easily find the same treelike pattern starting from house finches, or from any other species. Comparisons of DNA sequences confirm and provide additional information regarding the treelike organization shown by morphological comparisons. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/03/060303111420.htm An important point to remember about DNA comparisons is that only about 2 percent of the genome codes for proteins, and another 2 percent regulates transcription, so that leaves about 96 percent of the genome essentially independent from morphological considerations. So we can't argue that DNA must be similar because morphologies are similar. They are independent tests. Independently derived models of the tree tend to converge and reinforce one another, including models based on many different DNA sequences http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html#independent_convergence , models based on endogenous retroviruses http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section4.html#retroviruses , and models based on fossils http://anthropology.si.edu/humanorigins/ha/a_tree.html . Essentially, wherever we look, however we look, the Tree is there.



If the Tree is real we would also expect to find at least some examples of fossil species that could have been common ancestors of major branches, and we’d expect to find them in specific geological strata. We do in fact find them, and they are where they ought to be. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html#morphological_intermediates http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14952-missing-link-fossil-stuck-its-neck-out.html?feedId=online-news_rss20



These are just a few basic predictions of the theory of evolution and some of the evidence supporting them. See here for some more: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/ .

Answer 2

Gobsmacked here... I had a answer ready then read the PS. Problem is I suspect that my comments will not be believed - no mater what I say regarding proof of Evolution (& the fossil record pretty well proves this) or the claim that there's more evidence of the late lamented JC than Julius Caesar (not correct spelling) (which is totally insane). There is little evidence of JC - outside the written records from his followers (some of which actually met the man). Compared to the mountain of physical/written/etc evidence of an Roman Emperor who's exploits CREATED the "known world" that Xity ruled... Yep another prophecy proven - over 1500 years ago .

Answer 3

Well, evolution doesn't mean that creatures are changing to suit their environment, it's more that those who are best suited to survive are able to live in greater numbers and breed more. This is called Natural Selection. Remember, individuals do not change, species do. What I mean by that is that the population of the species thrives if the surviving members of the species reproduce, and pass on these better qualities to their children. These differences are caused by Mutations in DNA. Positive changes are called adaption. So, species evolve through their ability to adapt.

Fun fact, since you added religion, the Quran does describe evolution; Here's where I found out: http://www.parvez-video.com/insight/islam/evolution_quran/index.asp



Evolution can be proved through Fossils and Carbon dating, as well as forming a 'family tree' where all the species are, and you can connect how species change over time. Plus, you can look at DNA, and the similarities among species in their DNA now, as well as over time.

Answer 4

If the best evidence for evolution that your "research" has turned up is "all the animals look alike. Therefore, they all have a common ancestor", then you have done an extremely poor job of researching. There is a ton of evidence for evolution in the fossil record as well as in genetics. All peer reviewed biology papers for the last 80+ years have presented evidence for evolution.



Basically, from your question, it is not the evidence for evolution that is lacking, but your idea of research that is wanting.

Answer 5

Why don't use just read a book? You can read the Origin of Species in a couple of days. It's free online. There are also lots of good modern books on evolution for beginners:

"Climbing Mount Improbable", by Richard Dawkins

"Evolution", by Mark Ridley

"Evolutionary Biology" by Douglas Futuyma



You can find them all on Amazon, Coles, Barnes & Noble, or your library. Used copies sell for under $2 online and the library is free. Audible.com will have most of these in Audio form if you really can't stand reading for a few days.



That's why folks write science books. To explain theories to people.

Answer 6

I appreciate your question. Here is my answer to you; Religion has often misrepresented what is in the scriptures. There is much division. Accounts of evolution is just a lot of speculation. They make it appear as if they have "facts" but it is only theories. We as mere imperfect humans are not going to know or even understand exactly "in detail" how we came into existence. With that said, the Bible tells us everything we need to know. If you look at Genesis 1 & 2 it gives the order of creation. Gen 2:7 says: And Jehovah God proceeded to form the man out of dust from the ground and to blow into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man came to be a living soul.



That my seem rather simplistic but think about it for a moment. Does it have to go into a lot of detail to be the truth? When you die, you turn to dust. God's spirit or active force is what gives us life, enables us to move, just like electricity does for an appliance. Once that active force is with a person or animal even, they are a living soul. So, that is a definite fact that you can take to the bank.



More questions, go to: http://www.watchtower.org/

Answer 7

Read anything about biology. You won't get the correct answers in your school so you may have to do some research yourself. A public library will be full of information explaining evolution. If you understand something about it, it will make perfect sense.



Many religious people know and believe in evolution. It is incontrovertible fact.

Answer 8

How about domestication of plants and animals?



We've been selectively breeding plants and animals for centuries and watched them change before our very eyes.



For instance, the broccoli, the cabbage, and the califlower are all descended from the wild cabbage.



But, by selectively breeding the wild cabbage, we humans have made three genetically and phenotypically distinct plants which originated from the common ancestor, the wild cabbage.

Answer 9

The evolution is always trying to evolve, has proven much.

Religion has not always been stuck in a time of bible of bronze, the most likely explanation of evolution, are studies of the bones found.

Answer 10

Here's a favorite quote that I've found. I've used it a couple of times on my blog but it fits so well here that I'm going to trot it out still another time.



“"Creation science" is a contradiction in terms. A central tenet of modern science is methodological naturalism--it seeks to explain the universe purely in terms of observed or testable natural mechanisms.” Scientific American Magazine, July 2002



I think it's funny that the quote begins by saying that creation science is a contradiction in terms. You'll see how ironic that is in a moment. Anyway, please consider the quote carefully. It states first that methodological naturalism is a central tenet of science. It then sort of summarizes what is meant by methodological naturalism – that is, it seeks to explain the universe purely in terms of observed or testable natural mechanisms. Am I putting words into their mouth? Are they not saying they demand observed or testable natural mechanisms? Are we all agreed? OK, let's move on.



Please show me evidence where this principle is observed or testable! I expect “scientific evidence” only please. Take your time. I'll be here when you get back.



Do you see what's going on here? Put another way, secular science demands explanations that are observed and testable but begins with a presupposition that is neither observed nor tested! And they say “creation science” is contradictory?! My irony meter has just exploded!



Now, everyone has presuppositions. I admit that I have them. However, our presuppositions should be rational. To believe in a world view that requires everything be observed or testable without such a view being observed or testable is self defeating. It's a contradiction. It is irrational.



Of course, scientists (both Christian and secular scientists) have done a pretty good job in describing processes. They have learned to apply physical laws in practical ways. Take our first trip to the moon, for example. We had to create a method to leave earth's atmosphere, land on the moon, lift off the moon, and return the astronauts safely to earth. A million and one things had to be taken into consideration but here's one thing I've not heard discussed: how did the scientists know that the physical laws we understand on earth would be the same on the moon? We had never been to the moon before. We've never observed or tested physical laws there. They merely assumed they would be the same.



Scientists never really talk about it but they don't have an explanation for the origin of physical laws. Where did gravity come from, for example? They don't know; they just know that it exists. It must have poofed itself into existence. If they don't know where physical laws came from, what rational reason do they have to expect them to continue to operate in a predictable way?



Along those lines, how do scientists know that physical laws operate the same everywhere? We've not been everywhere to observe or test them. Ultimately, scientists have to assume they do. It's another one of those faith-like things that scientists practice.



Finally, how can scientists have confidence in their own senses as they make observation? After all, if evolution is true, then our brains are simply the products of millions of years of mutation and selection and our thoughts are merely chemical reactions in our brains. Even our memories could not be relied upon. Yet scientists assume their senses are reliable.



Uniform laws, predictability, and repeatability are all necessary in science. Scientists assume these things are true but really have no reason to expect them according to their own theory.



Now, here's the cool thing about Christianity. I have a worldview that God created us and has given us His revealed word – the Bible. The Bible affirms itself to be true – unlike the secular worldview which contradicts itself. The Bible says that God not only created the universe but He also sustains it. Since God is everywhere, I have a rational reason to believe that His physical laws will be the same everywhere. Since God doesn't change, I have a rational reason to believe His physical laws will always continue to operate in predictable ways. Since God created us in His image, I have a rational reason to have confidence in my senses that I can observe and understand His creation.



The secular worldview really cannot make sense of the universe. The Christian worldview does. Indeed, it is the Christian God that even makes science possible. As I've said, though, secular scientists can do a decent job in describing the universe; if their worldview is so arbitrary, contradictory, and self defeating, how are they able to do that? It's only because my worldview is true!! Cool, huh!?

Answer 11

hello, look, Islam is the right and true religion, Christianity, and Jew-ism are wrong, there is only Islam, and if you choose another religion, you go to hell! there are proofs that justify this religion!!if you have any questions abt ths religion, contact me on msn and fb on [e-mail]!

You have to become Muslim, it is the right and only way to become beside God in the afterlife!!!

everyday you live another religion you are making God angrier each day

Answer 12

Time has two properties.



Progress(related to evolution) and Event(related to Creation) by turns.

and Probability exist between two properties.



Mobius strip explains it very well. (one progress, one event, one probability)



Look at this!

Chicken (event) Egg (progress) & Egg (event) Chicken (progress)

Schrodinger's cat was placed between one properties, just event. So, probability can not exist.

The reason, Wave-particle duality of light. I think so...



Progress / Event / Probability is a time. This is my trinity.

--------------------------------------…

Does time have the shape? Does soul have the shape?



Everything has the shape but these two in the world.



So, I made a great assumption "Time is soul(thinking, knowledge, memory, etc.)".



It was the beginning of my UNIONTERA.



We know...

To our great discouragement, these doesn't have one way by us.

Time walked to science's way. Soul walked to religion's way.



Now, I propose a great reconciliation.



Light up candle for a second. A second of light exist permanently or not?

--------------------------------------…

Einstein deceive our world. Where is our common sense?



I mean, why he didn't tell us this so easy common sense.



The only base which can be the cause of Einstein's assumption...



[Assumption] "principle of constancy of light velocity".



[The only base] "Time of light is different from the starting point time."



This base is not an assumption but a common sense. Can you see?



In my opinion, he already knew this base.



This common sense is a certain evidence for me.



This is my uniontera.

Existing is the time expressed by light itself. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AN1jTwHUC7E



- Key Point -

1. Arrow A is the laser work. (Same time work)

2. Arrow B is the reason of gravity. (also, Higgs boson individually / Different time work)

3. The rose line is the beginning light. (result from Bible)

4. The existing of different time. (result from relativity of light)

5. 2 dimension is not a space. (result from 2-axis, math)

6. Universe came from nothing. (result from No.5 / cf. Playing with bubbles)

6-1. A barrier[posititon] exist between the inner and outer bubbles. But universe do not have that barrier. (Cause of Inertia)

7. Progress / Event / Probability is a time.

8. Wave-particle duality of light (result from No.7)

9. Coalescing of different time (Cause of Rotation)

10. Your so-called black hole is a wholly condensed time. (cf. Kerr spacetime, math)

11. The reason of "your so-called magnetic field" (result from step3 and 4)

12. The reason of "your so-called electric field" (result from the crack of time / Same time's crack is a different time's coalescing. / Cause of Static electricity)

13. Your so-called "space" is a crack of time. (result from No.12 / Cause of Lightning)

14. Boundary is a crack of space. (result from No.13 / Same space's crack is a different time's contact. / cf. Fractal)

15. Boundary is nothing. Your so-called hole is a boundary itself. Also, nothing is K=0 temperature. (result from No.14 / cf. Calabi-Yau Space, math)

16. This is a wall of your so-called fire. (result from No.15) - copyright ⓒ uniontera



Our nonsense came from one time. Uniontera is a KEY.



English is not my first language, sorry!



If it is difficult to understand, just remember & enjoy "Hand touching everything is a time". This is the only one result of uniontera.

Answer 13

I was agnostic for many years but I had a yearning for the truth. I did both research on evolution and creationism. The P value is so low for evolution and creationism it would need to be in googol years rather millions to even make a difference. 10 to the 100th power. 10, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000



Evolution and creation are one in the same. Evolutionist need "millions" of years" to hide the flaws any they know it.



Intelligent Design in my opinion is obvious after any unbiased research. Christianity is closest to this.

Answer 14

God never hid his existence. He is revealed through Jesus; meaning Jesus is 100% God.

Answer 15

Your question doesnt make sense either.................