Would you rather live in a world without science...or in a world without religion? Showing 7,601-7,650 of 12,463

[Gary]

Jade wrote: "What is life without religion...? How would i know my purpose in life, my priorities, why i was created...? no. I really prefer life without science... than religion"

Would you really prefer to live without shelter, agriculture and medicine?

Fair enough.

May I ask you though, what is your purpose of life with religion?

So far I have never heard this answered better than the idea we have been created to serve and worship and that we should be obedient in order to be rewarded or avoid terrible punishment. In all it seems a rather depressing purpose.

Without religion I feel I have my own purpose, to try to help build the society that I want to be part of, showing due consideration to others as I would want them to do to me and my loved ones, and taking personal responsibility for my mistakes and seek forgiveness of people I wrong, not seek forgiveness of a conveniently invisible third party. Finally the purpose of trying to explore and understand the nature of existence for the time I am part of it.

[[deleted user]]

Gary wrote: "From the basic mathematical logic of heredity and variation, to the physiological, DNA, palaeontological and other masses of mutually supporting evidence.

cHriS wrote: "Evidence for religion? Look all around you religion is everywhere, to much maybe, what more evidence do you want? Maybe you mean God."

Evidence there exists religions, yes, evidence that this means religion is right - quite the opposite. The existence of myriad, mutually exclusive hypotheses that religion puts forward is actually mutual evidence against any religion being right. "

I've always, since I can remember, believed in evolution. I say "believed in" for a reason. I have, literally, no memory of why I believed it. I know I learned about evolution in school, but don't remember anything about what I learned.

I still believe in it, as it makes sense, in my gut. However, given out discussions regarding "belief" and what that word means, I'd have to say I believe it. That will be the case until I do research into the evidence pointing to this.

Looking at the above, .... I know I have issues with math, but .... I'm having a hard time viewing "basic mathematical logic of heredity and variation" as evidence. I know. I'm likely very, very wrong on that point. But, for me, mathematical logic of heredity seems like a prediction versus evidence. So, that's not going to work for me, personally. DNA. Well, I accept DNA as evidence. I want to find information regarding DNA and evolution. Now, cHriS mentioned that Neanderthal DNA exists in humans or certain humans today. True? I think I might have seen that in the headlines. If that's true, would that be proof for evolution or wouldn't it? I will attempt to find info on DNA evidence.

Regarding the fact that ... "The existence of myriad, mutually exclusive hypotheses that religion puts forward is actually mutual evidence against any religion being right," ... well, I'm not feeling the love on that one.

Various people in various parts of the world, multitudes of people, thought the world was flat. Did that mean the world was flat?

Various people, people from almost every culture on the planet had "flood" stories and believed the world was destroyed due to .... Does that mean they're right, given the fact that everyone believed it to be true?

Heck. Almost every single one of my students believe in Big Foot. Almost every single one. I could even say every single student, given the fact that I've never heard one say Big Foot doesn't exist. (Smaller group than the others, I know.) Does that mean Big Foot exists, since so many teens in New England believe?

Okay, here's a better one. Almost all New Englander's believe we have cougars/catamounts/mountain lions. If we were to ask almost anyone, they'd say they're here. The government and Fish and Game say there are none. By the government and Fish and Game, I mean, every once in awhile, there's an article in the paper about a sighting and the reporter says, "A Fish and Game official says there are no catamounts in this area." (Really?) Does the fact that almost everyone believes they're here, with very few people claiming otherwise, mean they're here?

I don't think any of that is evidence. None of it. I also don't think the fact we have various religious beliefs is evidence that God doesn't exist. Nor would I purport that the fact that we have religion is evidence of God. None of this is evidence, in my opinion.

[Gary]

Shannon wrote: "I've always, since I can remember, believed in evolution. I say "believed in" for a reason. I have, literally, no memory of why I believed it. I know I learned about evolution in school, but don't remember anything about what I learned."

"Believe in" or "accept". There is a big difference, at least to me. Accepting a scientific theory doesn't mean you believe in it, as if a more complete theory is discovered or if clear conclusive evidence overwhelms the theory would you still accept it anyway.

Shannon wrote: "I'm having a hard time viewing "basic mathematical logic of heredity and variation" as evidence."

Ok we know (a lot from ancient times);

1. That children inherit traits from the parents.
2. That children receive a variable amount of the traits each generation.

Therefore mathematically speaking we know that traits will form a bell curve of variation from the average traits of their parents. (E.g. two short parents will often have a short child, but the precise height may vary).

Taking that formula and applying it from generation to generation we know that if we select a particular trait and allow only those with the desired traits to breed then the bell curve will tend to shift in favour of the trait.

This has been known for tens of thousands of years of agriculture and animal husbandry.

So that mathematically shows the way variation happens. Then if we know that sufficiently different DNA will not result in viable offspring then mathematically we know that if we allow two populations to randomly change in isolation from each other, then eventually they are far more likely to have less genes in common than if they are swapping genes in the same population. So it is highly likely that two separate populations will eventually lose the ability to successfully interbreed should they meet each other, therefore that accounts for speciation.

The only thing that Darwin actually added in the end was the mechanism that causes the selection pressure outside of a breeder selecting desired traits.

This alone is plenty of evidence for the basic theory of evolution.

Shannon wrote: "I know. I'm likely very, very wrong on that point. But, for me, mathematical logic of heredity seems like a prediction versus evidence."

A misconception of how science works there. One of the important bits of science is making predictions and then finding the evidence that corroborates that prediction. So evolutionary theory predicts that going back in time there should be hominids with traits similar to both ape and human. (Some will be direct ancestors but most will be related to those ancestors). Fossils like 'Lucy' confirm the prediction made by the theory.

Shannon wrote: "So, that's not going to work for me, personally. DNA. Well, I accept DNA as evidence. I want to find information regarding DNA and evolution."

One of the best pieces of evidence is that all members of Hominidae except humans have 24 pairs of chromosomes. Humans have only 23 pairs of chromosomes. This means that if human DNA evolved from the same ancestor of other members of Hominidae, then either a chromosome must have been lost (unlikely) or some must have fused. Human chromosome 2 is widely accepted to be a result of an end-to-end fusion of two ancestral ape chromosomes due to the presence of vestigial centromeres and telomeres, and the similarity of the chromosome to 2 ape chromosomes.

Is it absolutely 100% certain this is true, no, but it is strong evidence that this is a direct fusion or perhaps some other related phenomena.

Shannon wrote: "Now, cHriS mentioned that Neanderthal DNA exists in humans or certain humans today."

It certainly seems possible, the specifics are still unclear but the evidence is good.

Shannon wrote: "If that's true, would that be proof for evolution or wouldn't it? "

"Proof" is a loaded term. It would certainly be part of the evidence, but if it wasn't true it wouldn't be evidence against evolution just evidence against that particular evolutionary path.

Serious scientists do not need to use this as "proof" of evolution as their is plenty of established evidence. What those scientists are more interested in is the path evolution took rather than trying to defend themselves from pseudoscience. A bit like scientists are looking at moon rock to try to discover the origin of the moon rather than trying to disprove the hoaxed moon landing conspiracy.

(This doesn't mean that scientists wouldn't look at an alternative hypothesis to evolution if strong evidence showed that that alternative was right. However trying to present minor discrepancies or differences in opinion on specifics as evidence that the theory is completely wrong is disingenuous.

Shannon wrote: "Various people in various parts of the world, multitudes of people, thought the world was flat. Did that mean the world was flat?"

That's pretty much my point. Just because people believed in things doesn't make it true.


Shannon wrote: "I don't think any of that is evidence. None of it. I also don't think the fact we have various religious beliefs is evidence that God doesn't exist. Nor would I purport that the fact that we have religion is evidence of God. None of this is evidence, in my opinion. "

I agree. My point was that the existence of multiple exclusive religions shows that religion itself is not good evidence of a god. Furthermore that religion as a methodology is a poor method of even addressing that religion. I agree that multiple religions do not provide evidence on the existence of god, however it provides evidence on the likelihood that any particular religion is right or if faith alone is a good guide to the truth.

[[deleted user]]

Gary wrote: ""Believe in" or "accept". There is a big difference, at least to me. Accepting a scientific theory doesn't mean you believe in it, as if a more complete theory is discovered or if clear conclusive evidence overwhelms the theory would you still accept it anyway."

I don't know. If one doesn't know why or understand why she accepts something, isn't it a belief? I'm pretty sure that's a belief.

Thanks for writing the info on math and DNA. I need to read through it again tonight. Regarding the math, I thought I was with you up to a particular point, then ... poof, I wasn't sure. So, I need to look at that again.

Yes, I agree that just because people believe in things doesn't make them true. For sure. I thought you were taking that a step farther. I thought you were saying ... if many people believe in different things, that's proof the thing doesn't exist. I don't think so. If many people believing in different things, religions, is proof that the thing, "God", doesn't exist, one could say the opposite. If everyone believed one thing, it would be proof that one thing exists. Neither are proof.

[Gary]

Shannon wrote: "I don't know. If one doesn't know why or understand why she accepts something, isn't it a belief? I'm pretty sure that's a belief."

To me the difference is that with something like science the "authority" in question (scientists) refer to a body of knowledge that is ultimately independent of that authority. Therefore you can either trust the expertise of those who choose to work in that field, or you can even choose to enter the field and examine evidence yourself and come up with ways to confirm or deny the findings of others.

Obviously not everyone has the time or inclination to investigate fully, but the idea is it can be investigated and thousands of people around the world do so, using the same evidence regardless of personal culture or opinion.

Yes sometimes incorrect ideas are continued, but in general the fruits of the correctness of the ideas is usually in the results. For example evolution actually gives us important guidelines when studying the propagation of disease and drug resistance, and important principles in agriculture. Evolution has even entered into computer science, programming and even physical engineering, where "evolving" solutions can result in superior solutions to actual design.

Shannon wrote: "Thanks for writing the info on math and DNA. I need to read through it again tonight. Regarding the math, I thought I was with you up to a particular point, then ... poof, I wasn't sure. So, I need to look at that again."

Please be aware I am neither a biologist or unfortunately much of a mathematician. I would also advise caution in trying to comprehend a discipline and its theories from the perspective of a brief examination. For example physics describes the atom to basic learners as like a "mini solar system" with electrons as planets and the nucleus as the sun. As they say this model is quite descriptive whilst being completely wrong and misleading on almost every level. Unfortunately, it takes comprehension of much more advanced physics to understand why that model is wrong and yet why it is also a good analogy.

To try to explain it another way though we know about;
* Hereditary traits
* Natural variation mutation
* Selection pressure

All of the above are pretty well established. It is hard to see how logically the above doesn't lead to evolution. Even creationists have to admit what they call "micro-evolution" but their is then no mechanism that can step in to stop repeated steps in micro-evolution becoming macro-evolution. The only reason to even think that there is some arbitrary uncrossable boundary mechanism is just to fulfil the "each according to their kind" line in biblical literalism.

Shannon wrote: "Yes, I agree that just because people believe in things doesn't make them true. For sure. I thought you were taking that a step farther."

I understand the miscommunication.

Shannon wrote: "Neither are proof. "

To be fair the proliferation of religions means that they cannot all be right. Most monotheistic religions realise this discrepancy and are thus forced to explain the existence of "incorrect" faiths by virtue of some adversarial mechanism (Satan or Human Conspiracy) or some deliberate deception on the deities part due to some form of testing or experiment in credulousness. The trouble with all these in monotheistic dogmatism is that they then unavoidably undermine the logic of the assumed omnipotence, omniscience and/or omni-benevolence of the deity in question.

I find it hard to imagine why a deity would allow multiple religions to come into being if religion itself was so important. This is why I feel the existence of multiple exclusive religions undermines the concept of a deity as imagined by those particular religions.

[Travis]

Shannon wrote: "Gary wrote: "From the basic mathematical logic of heredity and variation, to the physiological, DNA, palaeontological and other masses of mutually supporting evidence.

cHriS wrote: "Evidence for ..."

Let me butt in for a sec...

How come nobody told me about this mountain lion thing?
I'm going outside at night to see what's knocking over my garbage cans missing this kinda important bit of info!

So, forget the DNA stuff. We need to get to the bottom of this mountain lion issue!

[cHriS]

Gary If you are trying to say that Lucy is the only evidence for human evolution then you are staggeringly wrong. The evidence from human evolution is incredibly strong. From the basic mathematical logic of heredity and variation, to the physiological, DNA, palaeontological and other masses of mutually supporting evidence.
"..."

Evidence for human evolution is incredibly strong.Yes it is. Now if I can explain again what I am refering to without Travis injecting religion into every sentence.

In brief: something came out of the trees started to walk upright and evolved into you and me, Shannon and Travis, according to 'science'.

Wiki: Lucy is estimated to have lived 3.2 million years ago,and is either directly ancestral to humans, or evolutionarily close to our ancestor, hence it is classified as a hominin.

According to the programme I watched it was a baby skull they called Dikika Baby dated before Lucy, that seemed to add that bit more evidence because of the skull size. There was room for the brain to grow bigger than an apes.

This is very weak evidence if one is claiming that Lucy is directly ancestral to humans.

Evolutionarily close, I will go along with; but I guess that makes her evolutionarily close to a chimpanzee as well; or maybe she was a chimpanzee.

Humans have evolved, yes, but from what? I think we are still waiting for evidence.

Most likely we climed down out of the tree as walked upright is not the same as saying we did.

[cHriS]

Shannon wrote: . I've always, since I can remember, believed in evolution..."

Most of us do, I would think, we are evolving now. Each generation is getting taller, for example.

So man is part of evolution, but that is not the same as saying....'he evolved from'....????

[Gary]

cHriS wrote: "Evidence for human evolution is incredibly strong.Yes it is. "

Fair enough, my apologies for mistaking your intentions.

cHriS wrote: "In brief: something came out of the trees started to walk upright and evolved into you and me, Shannon and Travis, according to 'science'."

Well out of the trees and onto the savannah and then perhaps evolved into us. As I understand there are several extinct hominids that followed this path but humans are the only ones to survive, possibly because they adopted meat eating which allowed for a larger brain compared to our grazing contemporaries of the time.

cHriS wrote: "Humans have evolved, yes, but from what? I think we are still waiting for evidence.

Most likely we climed down out of the tree as walked upright is not the same as saying we did. "

Well there is plenty of evidence that we did, whether specific fossils are in our direct lineage or are an offshoot of that lineage is a matter of debate, however fossils of ape like ancestors of man (who are man like ancestors of apes) are exactly what we expect. What we wouldn't expect is to only find fossils of a direct sequence of ancestors. The "tree of life" undergoes heavy pruning from natural selection so the chances of finding a fossil closely related is much higher than direct lineage, but closely related is still exactly what the theory predicts we will find.

[Travis]

cHriS wrote: "Gary If you are trying to say that Lucy is the only evidence for human evolution then you are staggeringly wrong. The evidence from human evolution is incredibly strong. From the basic mathematical..."

I'm fascinated by this stuff, so I'll just sit over here and listen.

When you are ready to present religion's 'weak evidence', let me know.

[cHriS]

Travis wrote:
Why did you keep saying religion when you meant god?
careful, that could get mistaken for changing direction mid flow.
.."

I tend to say religion because this thread is science / religion. I can seperate god from religion but Hazel says I can't because religion came first, or something like that, and we only have a belief in god because of religion. I don't agree.

Would the world be better off without religion, even though, I believe, it gave us morals, yes maybe. But not without a belief in god.

Me typing this on my new pc is not the same as where did man come from, but it's all science of sorts. Same as all religions good or not so good is all god of sorts.

[Maria]

I don't think evolution is all that far fetched - in some ways it does make more sense than the creation story, but in other ways - I just don't see how it could have been.

Gary, you make good points in favor of evolution - and I am nowhere near as knowledgeable on the subject - so -

Question (not being funny, this is a real question I have) - how is it that evolution has stopped? I don't mean people getting taller, smarter, etc. I mean why haven't humans evolved into any other (more advanced) species? And why did some apes stay apes and some evolve into humans?

One more - why can we not, if each "round" of evolution improves the species, immunize ourselves from cancer and other diseases? Why can't we become immortal, somehow increasing life spans so that we get rid of death altogether?

I'll stop now because my mind is boggled by this.

All responses are welcome!

[Hazel]

and once again, CSp proves he doesn't pay attention to what people are saying. What I said to him was that one of the definitions of religion is belief in a higher power, such as god, so, yes there's religion that is an institution, but there is religion that is simply belief in god, as such simply having a belief in god means that you are religious. Its not that hard a concept, yet 20 or so pages on and he's still not getting it.

Evolution hasn't stopped Maria, its ongoing all the time,and is observable. Evolution is not far fetched, its correct, the vast amounts of evidence show this.

Maria, did you know that one aspect of evolution is incorporating DNA/RNA from viruses, the piece of DNA in humans that codes for the prevention of the female body rejecting an embryo (ie, makes it so that the foreign object of the embryo isn't treated like any other foreign body, like say, small pox ) came from a virus that is from the same family as HIV.

Why would we want to get rid of death? Isn't there enough of an over population problem already? There is a jellyfish, called Turritopsis nutricula that is, as far as we can tell, technically immortal.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11...

personally, I don't want to live forever, it would get really really boring.

Evolution is not working with an aim, there is no agency in evolution. Simply, what happens is that spontaneous changes occur in DNA during replication for reproduction, caused by things like repeating a section, or the addition or removal of a, or a number of, base pairs of DNA. SOme of these changes have positive results for individuals, some have negative results, and some are neutral, and don't really do anything.

Now, by positive I mean increases the success of the individual. And by success, we mean lives longer, produces more offspring, succeeds in raising them to adulthood, etc etc. As such ,it stands to reason that more successful individuals pass their genes to a larger percentage of the next generation, thus those genes become more widespread in the population, and those who are less successful pass on their genes to a lower proportion of the next generation, and over several generations, the successful genotypes become the dominant type. Thats evolution at its simplist.

Success of a gene depends on other factors, including the climate, habitat, etc.

Now, speciation. Again its a simple concept. If you understand the stuff I put above, then you should be able to appreciate that if two groups of individuals of a same species become separated in some way, usually by a physical barrier (river, mountains, ocean and such like, or for smaller species, it could be the top of a tree compared to the bottom, or soils of different acidities), then the genotypes, the spontaneous changes that occur, and the alterations that happen go in a different direction in each group, as the habitat niches mean different changes are more successful, so over many generations the two groups change in different ways until eventually they're so different they can no longer interbreed, and are considered to be different species. A good example of how habitat causes such changes is that DNA evidence shows us that the elephant and the manatee are very closely related, and the hyrax is related to both of these.

If you want to have something in more detail, but still easy to understand I recommend Why Evolution Is True by Jerry Coyne. I've read it myself, its very good.

[Travis]

Maria wrote: "I don't think evolution is all that far fetched - in some ways it does make more sense than the creation story, but in other ways - I just don't see how it could have been.

Gary, you make good poi..."

As far as i understand it, evolution is not a continual/ always happening process, it works on the basis of making a creature 'good enough'.
As long as something evolves enough to overcome a problem and breed the next generation then it doesn't go much farther than that.
There is no ultimate evolution, there is just evolving enough to not get killed and to have sex.

Basically, it's a pretty slipshod system considering it was intelligently designed.

Plus, it takes a pretty long time to happen and we have only been trying to observe it for a (in the grand scheme) short time.
It happens more quickly in simple lifeforms ( viruses and germs) but the more complex the thing, the longer it seems to take, or the more generations it'll take before something is breed that has noticeable evolved.

It blows my mind and I don't fully understand half of it.

There's a great quote ( which I make no promise I'm getting right) about how if you aren't stunned and amazed by science they odds are you didn't understand it.

and personally, I'd try the immortality thing.
My one complaint about there being no afterlife, is at some point, this all ends, and I'm having too much fun ( and have so many books in my 'to be read' pile) to want it to stop at a measly 90 years.

[Travis]

cHriS wrote: "Travis wrote:
Why did you keep saying religion when you meant god?
careful, that could get mistaken for changing direction mid flow.
.."

I tend to say religion because this thread is science / r..."

Why can you give up religion but not belief in god?

Not being snide, this one really makes no sense to me.

[Hazel]

Travis, you've got something slightly wrong. Evolution isn't about making things good enough, its not got an aim at all, it is simply the result of the inherently unreliable replication process of DNA. It does mean that there is direction, but its not a chosen direction, its the result of competition between individuals of a species. Evolution doesn't have anything about making things good enough, evolution just is.

If this is what you meant, I apologise for not realising that.

[Travis]

Hazel wrote: "Travis, you've got something slightly wrong. Evolution isn't about making things good enough, its not got an aim at all, it is simply the result of the inherently unreliable replication process of ..."

Yeah, I stated that badly.
My thought was concerning Maria asking about why evolution doesn't keep going and how it's not a continuous thing and I was trying to comment on that when it occurs it is in response to certain conditions/problems/whatever you want to call them, so when those are met, there isn't a reason for it to still be evolving.

Also, I'm using the phrase 'good enough' not as a literal thing, but to imply that evolution is not moving towards a perfect or ultimate form.
I probably didn't say that part any better, but hopefully it makes more sense this time.

I have more enthusiasm for science than I do expertise.

[Hazel]

indeed, I got the reason for using the term good enough. Have you read the book I recommended in my post above? If not, I really recommend it.

[Travis]

I've heard of it and there's a good chance that either my wife or I have it, buried in the dark depths of our respective 'to be read' piles.

If I find it, manage to brush off the dust and have a chance to read it, I'll let you guys know.

[Maria]

Thanks, guys. I would love to be immortal - lots of things still to do. And maybe eventually we'll evolve such that we will use our entire brain - imagine the possibilities!

Did anyone here reads Galapagos by Kurt Vonnegut? Kind of a reverse evolutionary tale....?

[Gary]

Maria wrote: "Thanks, guys. I would love to be immortal - lots of things still to do.

Immortality would be unlikely to evolve as immortality would halt evolution and leave the people unable to adapt to new environments. A short lifespan may have been an early evolutionary adaptation that allowed organisms to clear away old DNA and make room for new combinations. (This is also why life tends to undergo a burst of evolution after a major extinction event.)

It's also not true evolution has stopped. In fact because of the size of the human gene pool, and the medical help in aiding normally poor gene combinations to survive can lead to quicker evolution. The only reason it seems to have 'stopped' is first that you are somehow expecting to witness gradual events over millions of years happen in only how long? A few decades?

Also a lot of evolution happens "under the hood" because if a form is sufficiently adapted it is unlikely to change much, like that of a shark or dolphin. However, a modern shark isn't genetically identical to one that lived 100Ma ago. It's DNA will contain adaptations to deal with modern diseases, to fight off modern viruses and to cope with changing composition of sea and air. In evolutionary terms you need to do a lot of running just to stand still.

Major changes to the form of organisms tends to only happen if a new environmental niche is available for an organism to spread into. If the niche is already dominated by a well-adapted lifeform it is unlikely that unadapted organisms will survive to flourish and evolve to fit the environment.

Finally the

Maria wrote: "And maybe eventually we'll evolve such that we will use our entire brain - imagine the possibilities!"

This is a popular misconception based on early brain imaging techniques. First the "only using 10% of our brain" is misleading, we use a lot more however we use different parts for different tasks. Trying to increase brain activity beyond a certain point would likely just result in a jam of information to the parts that make decisions.

There are ways to take full advantage of the capabilities we have, but the idea that everyone could evolve to be 10x smarter is based on some erroneous assumptions. Like imagining a person with access to 10 laptops would write a book 10 times faster than a person with 1 laptop.

[Gary]

Oh and just to help (though Hazel and Travis have made good responses too. I thought I would summarise for you.

Maria wrote: "how is it that evolution has stopped?"

It hasn't. We are changing with each generation, but not necessarily in ways you would imagine. For example we are likely evolving a resistance to HIV, unfortunately HIV currently has a faster generational cycle so its out performing us. Fortunately though HIV is also evolving to be less lethal as the only goal for HIV is self-replication which means that not killing its host would be better.

One of our recent evolved traits for example would be the ability to retain our ability to digest milk into adulthood. Most animals lose this ability not long after weaning, but since western cultures started to dairy farm the ability to continue to digest milk continues in most western adults, so much so that we regard the condition not to do this as a defect.

Maria wrote: "why haven't humans evolved into any other (more advanced) species?"

"More advanced" is a subjective term. There are creatures that we call "more primitive" than us that have better eyesight, hearing, ability to digest grass, etc. We are not "more advanced" we are just different.

Maria wrote: "And why did some apes stay apes and some evolve into humans?"

We did not evolve from apes, we evolved from an "ape-like" ancestor, just as apes evolved from a "human-like" ancestor. Speciation usually occurs when a population divides into two or more groups that no longer exchange DNA. After a certain amount of isolation those two groups will acquire more random mutations in their DNA until they are less and less likely to successfully interbreed if they do mate (or their offspring will be in-viable like mules.

So the reason apes are still around is because one "family" split into two, and both have changed, just some changes have been more obvious than others.

Maria wrote: "if each "round" of evolution improves the species,"

Each round doesn't improve the species. It allows it to change and the bad changes do not tend to survive. "Improvement" only happens if one of these changes fits the organisms environment better.

Maria wrote: "immunize ourselves from cancer and other diseases?"

I deal with this in two parts, because cancer in particular is not like other diseases.

First we do adapt to diseases, but only if those diseases tend to kill us or stop us having babies. If we survive to reproduce then there is no selection pressure to become more resistant. Second as we evolve so do the bacteria and viruses that attack us. So it's like an arms race between us. Finally viruses and bacteria actually don't "want" to make us ill, they just "want" to reproduce. This is why the most effective diseases evolve to be minor or even innocuous so that the host continues to provide them with a place to reproduce. In the long term weird things like DNA transfer can happen and other strangeness.

Hundreds of millions of years ago amongst all other bacteria and single celled organisms a new type of creatures evolved, but these creatures actually seemed to be formed either of big cells that engulfed small cells and didn't eat them, or they were small parasites that infected bigger cells. Eventually these creatures, called Eukaryotes, became symbiotic, the little cells helped the bigger cells power themselves in return for being kept safe inside them. This allowed this new hybrid creature to evolve many new forms, including multicellular forms, and eventually became plants, animals and fungi.

As for cancer, the problem here is that cancer usually occurs through genetic damage, so there is no external agent to defend against, its our own DNA going wrong. Also cancer tends to attack people who are older meaning the majority have already passed on their genes, so their is no selection pressure to become immune to cancer. However there is the Naked Mole Rat that is a strange little mammal that does appear to be entirely immune to cancer. Is this an adaptation or a simple stroke of luck? Or is it an adaptation to something else that has a lucky side effect?

Finally some diseases we have actually evolved! For example, sickle cell anaemia often effects black people who are obviously better adapted to live in the tropics (due to the UV protecting pigment of their skin). But why do they have this genetic flaw? It turns out that you inherit the condition if you inherit two flawed copies of a certain gene from your parents. So why does this flaw exist? It seems that having the one flawed gene gives a heightened resistance to the malaria parasite found in the tropics, so the majority who only get one flawed gene enjoy protection, but the unfortunate side effect is a minority suffer a different disease.

Maria wrote: "Why can't we become immortal, somehow increasing life spans so that we get rid of death altogether?"

I covered this above, but again what selection pressure is there to evolve immortality if evolution is driven by the variation of each generation? Actually we may evolve longer lives to some extent if the trend for having babies in later life in modern culture continues. Then there will be some selection pressure for those who have healthy babies late in life to pass on their genes.

If we did become immortal though our genes would be stagnant and at great risk of a new disease evolving to jump species and wipe us out.

[cHriS]

Travis wrote: Why can you give up religion but not belief in god?

Not being snide, this one really makes no sense to me.
..."

To me, if there is a god then that god is here in spite of religion and not because of it.

God may have nothing to do with religion.

Religion like science may only be generic name for things that any species who is able to think will think and do.

For example,

To think, what will happen if I do this....is science.

To Think, where did we come from...is religion.

[cHriS]

Gary wrote: The "tree of life" undergoes heavy pruning from natural selection so the chances of finding a fossil closely related is much higher than direct lineage, but closely related is still exactly what the theory predicts we will find.
."

I agree, and it is the heavy pruning that eradicates evidence.

Theory relies on facts that have been repeatedly confirmed and the problem with Lucy and her kind is that those facts are not there as yet and if at all.

[Travis]

Gary wrote: "Maria wrote: "Thanks, guys. I would love to be immortal - lots of things still to do.

Immortality would be unlikely to evolve as immortality would halt evolution and leave the people unable to ad..."

According to 'Mythbusters' we actually use roughly between 35 to 50 percent of our brains.

[Gary]

cHriS wrote: "To me, if there is a god then that god is here in spite of religion and not because of it.

God may have nothing to do with religion."

That I can actually agree with, in fact if you could find clear evidence and falsifiable tests that overwhelmingly supported the "God Hypothesis" above other hypotheses then than would not be religion, it would be science.

However, believing in a god without such evidence is religion, whether it is formalised or not.

cHriS wrote: "Religion like science may only be generic name for things that any species who is able to think will think and do."

Agreed. A good example is communism or fascism. Both are effectively "secular religions" where the belief in the supremacy of the state or government eclipses that of rational evidence.

Indeed denial of evolution happened under communism as it was believed to be ideologically unsound idea based on capitalism and competition.

cHriS wrote: "To think, what will happen if I do this....is science.

To Think, where did we come from...is religion. "

Unfortunately this is completely wrong however. If you believe that we were created by god that is religion, if you don't believe and instead investigate our evolution that is science. The reason being that we don't need belief for evolution. We know all about adaptation and hereditary thanks to thousands of years of agriculture. We have overwhelming evidence of common ancestry of creatures. We have observed evolution taking place both within a lab and without. Therefore it is a logical deduction to reason we arose by the same principles and this would mean evidence of creatures in the past that shared our traits with other branches of the tree of life, and this prediction has been borne out repeatedly in the fossil record.

So no. To ask the question "where did we come from" is science. It is only religion if you answer this question with belief not evidence and reason.

cHriS wrote: "I agree, and it is the heavy pruning that eradicates evidence."

Evidence of what? Evidence of specific creatures in the record, yes, evidence of the process, no.

cHriS wrote: "Theory relies on facts that have been repeatedly confirmed and the problem with Lucy and her kind is that those facts are not there as yet and if at all. "

Yes they are. The theory predicts that pre-dating the modern era their should be creatures that share both ape and human characteristics. Some of these creatures may be fossilised. Not finding the fossils would only mean that perhaps they weren't fossilised, finding such creatures are strong evidence of human evolution. This is exactly the evidence we have.

Remember the tree of life is more of a bush with many branches. The fossilised snapshots may not be of the specific line that leads to us, but evidence of creatures of similar shared lineage is exactly what we expect and we have.

[[deleted user]]

Gary wrote: "However, believing in a god without such evidence is religion, whether it is formalised or not. "

My sociology professors (scientists?) in college would disagree with this point quite strongly.

Or, ... was it history? I think sociology.

[Gary]

Shannon wrote: "My sociology professors (scientists?) in college would disagree with this point quite..."

Why?

Religion is a system of beliefs. Belief is a conviction without clear evidence.

Sometimes people try to say "X" is a religion but "Y" isn't but then you start to get into semantics. Is Scientology not a religion because it believes in aliens instead of gods? Is Christianity not a religion because it believes in a human that has been deified? Is Wicca not a religion because it doesn't have churches or scripture?

Religion is a systematised grouping of beliefs, whether those beliefs involve gods, aliens, the force etc.

[[deleted user]]

Gary wrote: "Shannon wrote: "My sociology professors (scientists?) in college would disagree with this point quite..."

Why?

Religion is a system of beliefs. Belief is a conviction without clear evidence.

So..."

I think this has come up before, so people who might be bored by my repeating this will need to forgive me.

I'm almost positive this was discussed in my sociology class. This was during the early '90's. (Has anything changed? I don't know.)

The term "religion" is very specific, so said my professors. As I mentioned before, we had some rip-roaring discussions regarding this point, with some students arguing your point as well as various points.

The professors would NOT bend. It was a class taught by three different professors. They took different days.

At any rate, they said for something to be considered a religion, it needed to meet certain criteria. Period. There were three or four points.

I can't remember all of the points. The two I remember dealt with number of followers and the amount of time people practiced that particular faith.

The bone of contention, for some, came when the professors wouldn't recognize Mormonism as a religion. They said it was a cult. Certain students went wild; the professors were being discriminatory.

The professors explained it had literally nothing to do with personal feelings and opinions regarding specific faiths. To be considered a religion, a faith HAD to meet all categories. Mormonism had enough followers, had the 3rd thing (?), but had not existed long enough to be considered a religion. They explained that they considered Christianity to be a cult, until it met the criteria. Every spiritual belief system is a cult, so say the sociologists per labels and defining terms, until the "system" met the categories.

[Travis]

Shannon wrote: "Gary wrote: "Shannon wrote: "My sociology professors (scientists?) in college would disagree with this point quite..."

Why?

Religion is a system of beliefs. Belief is a conviction without clear ..."

Religion is the organized belief in a deity.
i think there is a size of membership cut off between a religion and cult and it helps if your founder is dead.
(So, scientology makes the cut, Jedi not yet)

you can say, I can have a god without religion, but only if you have your own personal, individual deity.
If it's the same one as a whole bunch of other people, it's religion.

To me the whole god/religion thing feels like a dance to avoid debate or dodge tough questions.

If you want to distance yourself from a specific religion, i can see that, but to hear people constantly say 'there's a god, but mine isn't that one those guys have' just makes the religion crowd sound like they can't get their story straight.

[Hazel]

CS still doesn't get it. I never said that god would need religion in order for god to exist, I entirely agree that if there is a god, it could exist without anyone having religion, and without anyone believing in it, but as one of the definitions of religion is belief in god then if you believe in god, you are, by definition, religious. Belief cannot exist without religion, as belief is religion. Once again, he has constructed a strawman to knock down, instead of addressing whats actually being said.

[cHriS]

Gary wrote:The theory predicts that pre-dating the modern era their should be creatures that share both ape and human characteristics. Some of these creatures may be fossilised. Not finding the fossils would only mean that perhaps they weren't fossilised, finding such creatures are strong evidence of human evolution. This is exactly the evidence we have.
..."
No I don't think this is strong evidence of human evolution.

As I said above...theory relies on facts that have been repeatedly confirmed, at least thats what i thought science insists on, and the problem with Lucy and her kind is that those facts are not there as yet and if at all.


How we evolved is evident, where we evolved from, Africa, seems evident, but what we evolved from I feel, has a question mark over it.

Until we are sure of that we can't say with any certainty if morals evolved or were learned.

[cHriS]

..... maybe I didn't say it quite as eloquently as Hazel but the meaning is the same..... god can exist, full stop.

Or if you are on the other side of the pond, period.

[Gary]

Shannon wrote: "The term "religion" is very specific, so said my professors. As I mentioned before, we had some rip-roaring discussions regarding this point, with some students arguing your point as well as various points."

You seem to be describing a legal definition of religion rather than a general definition. Even then it's a poor definition as when someone asks you your religion you don't respond "I don't have a religion I have a cult".

Yes it is common for religious people to try to define away other religions, specifically so they can deny that rival religion rights both legal (tax breaks) and social (the right to be treated with solemnity by other religious people rather than by mockery.



Shannon wrote: "The professors would NOT bend. It was a class taught by three different professors. They took different days."

Where these professors by any chance Monotheists of some ilk?

People like President Bush have tried the same in the past, trying to define Wicca as "not a religion" so they could deny the right of Wiccans in the military to practice or have a chaplain.

Similarly people like - was it Billy Graham? - had Mormonism listed as a "dangerous cult" until Romney became the Republican candidate.

Shannon wrote: "The professors explained it had literally nothing to do with personal feelings and opinions regarding specific faiths. To be considered a religion, a faith HAD to meet all categories."

Conveniently defining away the need to respect those beliefs as a religion.

Shannon wrote: "Every spiritual belief system is a cult, so say the sociologists per labels and defining terms, until the "system" met the categories.
"

I don't buy it.

The word "religion" is defined in most dictionaries without such clauses and addendum. Lets face it when a "cult" reaches its 1,000,000th member or its bicentennial what has changed within the belief structure or the ideology? Nothing. Legally it may now have the social momentum to have to be defined as a religion, but this tells us nothing about the difference.

Lets face it most religious thinkers come in two categories. Inclusive and exclusive (or some mix of the two) Inclusive theists think that all religions are just imperfect reflections of the "true" faith (usually holding their own as the purest example) or they are exclusive defining other faiths as deceptions or delusions, often attributable to some aspect of their religion that explains their existence.

In the end though this means that if you define religion as requiring a certain number or certain age you can pretty much pick and choose which things to recognise as religion.

Mormonism fails because it's too young? Fine just define it as a reformation of Christianity or Abrahamism and gain 2-6000 years of vintage. Not enough members? They claim to believe in Christ which means that they believe they have up to a billion members who are just a little wrong.

Or we can go the other way. Baptists are a cult. Why? Because the scriptural literalness they proclaim only really got started at the turn of the century. Enough members? Really? I am pretty sure that most Christians have their own interpretation of what god meant in the bible, whether god loves or god hates, god demands we obey Jewish dietary restrictions or if he doesn't really hate the gays. Most religious Christians can be counted as part of a religion of billions or a religion of one.

Still it is all semantics. Religion is "a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs."

I am pretty sure the opening question of the thread means that if religions exist then they would have had to be cults at some point so the question of the relevance of the term "religion" is somewhat moot as every cult is a potential religion and every religion was a cult so therefore 'without religion' becomes quite clear.

[[deleted user]]

Travis wrote: "Religion is the organized belief in a deity."

Hey, Travis. I'm somewhat confused by your post.

My post regards the definition of religion and religions, and what I was taught in college. The professors were as serious about defining terms as some of the people who post to thread.

I was sharing information that sociology professors, trained in science, define religion in a certain way. Period. The "period" was stressed by the professors. (The leader being dead was not one of the criteria, to my memory.)

So, ultimately, that wasn't my argument. That was an argument made by the science of sociology. If someone wants to argue that, as the Mormon students did in my class, that's cool. But, you'd need to argue with sociologists, not me.

I felt like you believed I was making that argument given what followed ...

"you can say, I can have a god without religion, but only if you have your own personal, individual deity.
If it's the same one as a whole bunch of other people, it's religion.

To me the whole god/religion thing feels like a dance to avoid debate or dodge tough questions.

If you want to distance yourself from a specific religion, i can see that, but to hear people constantly say 'there's a god, but mine isn't that one those guys have' just makes the religion crowd sound like they can't get their story straight."

All of those "yous" .... In a post addressed to me. Again, not my argument. It was drilled into me by those professors; I follow that definition due to their insistence. I shared.

Regarding "God" without religion, which wasn't really what I was discussing when I told Gary my sociology professors would disagree and answered him when he asked for clarification, it's my opinion that one can believe in a higher power without religion.

Is it a dance in order not to answer tough questions? For you and the way you perceive things, it might be an act of prevarication. It isn't that for me.

I've answered all of the questions posed to me by the people who post here. I've done a considerable amount of thinking and exploring since I started taking part in this thread. I've shared, over and over, my various reasons for believing in a higher power but not belonging to a religion. It makes sense to me. But, I've gone over that in the past.

People sometimes say things like ... believers never explain why ....
That sometimes frustrates me, given how open I've been here. However, that is what that is. Non-believers might not understand how or why a person might believe in "God" but not be religious. To be fair, those very same non-believers often don't understand how or why a person might believe in God and belong to a church/religion.

Regarding "If you want to distance yourself from a specific religion, i can see that, but to hear people constantly say 'there's a god, but mine isn't that one those guys have' just makes the religion crowd sound like they can't get their story straight," ....

I've actually said I believe everyone's "God" is the same. I've gone on at length about that, so I won't do that here. I've also explained that I think the various religions are people's way of understanding "God" and that, in my opinion, all religions likely have glimpses into the meaning of "God" .... Again, I've explained my thoughts at length and have been questioned closely and have answered the questions on this point to the best of my ability. So, I won't go into that again here.

Else ... people might say I'm saying the same thing over and over but saying it in a different way ...

Even though you addressed that to me and constantly said "you", I'm guessing you meant something like ...

...all you believers ...

But, ultimately, I don't know and ....

This goes out to more people than Travis. This goes out ... in general. It's not even necessarily addressed to specific people. I think it would be a good thing to follow, in general.

I've said before that labeling people can be problematic, in my opinion. Yes, people have talked about how important it is to label in order to be able to communicate, but .... In my experience and throughout the history of humanity, labels can often lead to unfortunate results.

In addition, I'm not your average believer, for a lot of reasons. I'm at least not your average believer in terms of people who post to this thread.

That's not me being full of myself.

I don't think many of the believers who have taken part here, for example, have admitted there isn't evidence for the existence of "God". There are other examples of why I'm not your average believer-poster. I don't need to go into them.

So, .... (I'm feeling warm and fuzzy here ... not distraught and ticked, by the way) ....

I'd really appreciate it, to the bottom of my heart, if people would respond to me, who I am, and what I say instead of lumping me in with all of the other believers, etc.... That "you" ....

It's been mentioned here that the term "atheist" isn't really the best term or isn't appropriate. It's been explained. I've done some reading myself, after Gary addressed that. Perhaps people have noticed that, not only do I not refer to Gary as an atheist, I no longer use that term. It's important to me to show that respect.

Travis, I hope this doesn't seem like I'm calling you out and being a jerk. That's really not my intention or in my heart. Given your message to me, it seemed a good time to raise this.

I believe in "God" and am a woman of faith. However, .... It's a pretty big however ....

[Gary]

Travis wrote: "Religion is the XXXorganizedXX (systematized is better because some religions eschew organisation) belief XXXin a deity.XXX" "In a deity" is specifically Monotheistic religion. We also have polytheistic religions and non-theistic religions (with belief but sans-deity)

[Travis]

Gary wrote: "Shannon wrote: "The term "religion" is very specific, so said my professors. As I mentioned before, we had some rip-roaring discussions regarding this point, with some students arguing your point a..."

I almost wish I still was religious just so I could use the answer 'No, I don't have a religion, I have a cult.'

Maybe I'll start a cult, just so I can use that line in conversation.

[[deleted user]]

Gary wrote: "Where these professors by any chance Monotheists of some ilk?"

Liberal college, public college, liberal state, .... If I remember correctly, one of the professors said he was a non-believer.

In truth, Gary, you remind me of them when you've talked about terms and needing to define terms appropriately. I don't mean that as an insult in any way. They were just all about the term and the appropriateness. It was recognized, and we needed to understand what we were talking about when we talked.

[Andreas]

I believe that organized religion is usually a bad thing, so I'm going for getting rid of religion if the choice had to be made. Religion has done a lot of good for a lot of people, but it's also done horrible things to just as many. (So has science, I know, but I think we have gained a LOT more from science) As far as I know all religions are excluding - as in they say "what we believe is right, all the other ones are wrong" How is that a good thing? And one more thing - the texts saying how you should live your life, i.e. the ten commandments - who needs them? The bible and all the other books should be one page where it says "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." Full stop. Do we really need anything more than that?

[Travis]

Shannon wrote: "Travis wrote: "Religion is the organized belief in a deity."

Hey, Travis. I'm somewhat confused by your post.

My post regards the definition of religion and religions, and what I was taught in..."

It wasn't a specific remark to you, just me adding my idea of the definition of religion to the list we seem to have growing here.

Sorry if my pronoun use made you feel I was putting you on the spot.
It was more me stating my take on this and where I am arguing from.
The whole mix and match I believe in god, I belong to 'fill in the blank' religion, I am spiritual, I have faith etc...wears very thin in general.
For there only being 'one true god', you think religious folk could get their story straight.

My view is if you believe in god, I'm going to put you in the religious box, with everybody else that believes in a man in the sky.
I'm more interested in the bigger questions then all the nitpicking that is done.

and I most likely am a jerk, if you are a religious type, as I make no excuses for my view that religion is just a bunch of grown adults with an imaginary friend.

It's just in this specific instance, If I appear jerk-ish, it's unintentional.

[Hazel]

Andreas wrote: "I believe that organized religion is usually a bad thing, so I'm going for getting rid of religion if the choice had to be made. Religion has done a lot of good for a lot of people, but it's also d..."

Science hasn't done anything bad to anyone. Science is a tool, people have used the results of science to do bad things, but those bad things cannot be attributed to science itself. Science doesn't kill people, people kill people.

[Hazel]

from the oxford online dictionary

Definition of religion
noun
[mass noun]
the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods:
ideas about the relationship between science and religion
[count noun] a particular system of faith and worship:
the world’s great religions
[count noun] a pursuit or interest followed with great devotion:
consumerism is the new religion

http://oxforddictionaries.com/definit...

There's the dictionary definition of religion, its the consensus definition, and the official one. If anyone wishes to argue with the definition, then they need to speak to the people who write, edit and update the dictionary.

[[deleted user]]

Hazel wrote: "If anyone wishes to argue with the definition, then they need to speak to the people who write, edit and update the dictionary. "

I'll be sure to tell my sociology professors if I ever see them again, Hazel.

[[deleted user]]

Travis wrote: "My view is if you believe in god, I'm going to put you in the religious box, with everybody else that believes in a man in the sky.

I'm more interested in the bigger questions then all the nitpicking that is done."

First, I didn't think you appeared jerk-ish. I was confused and still am, to a certain extent.

I have a few questions ....

Why would you put anyone and everyone who believes in "God" in the religious box?

Yes, I know you said you're more interested in the bigger questions. Well, .... What are those questions?

More specifically, can you truly find answers to those questions if you put everyone who believes in "God" in "the" religious box?

That would, after all, include Christians and Hindus ... Muslims and Buddhists. (I know some say Buddhism isn't a religion. I'm not so sure about that. I think Buddhists would fit my professors' definition and Gary's. They do believe in a source, do they not?)

There are some pretty big differences between the beliefs and practices of those religions. Might a Christian answer one of your big questions differently than a Hindu? I think that's a distinct possibility.

[Travis]

Shannon wrote: "Travis wrote: "My view is if you believe in god, I'm going to put you in the religious box, with everybody else that believes in a man in the sky.

I'm more interested in the bigger questions then ..."

All those guys you mention are religions. You believe in a god=religion.
Pretty basic. If people want to nitpick based on which religion, that's fine, but you are part of a religion.

All the 'I have faith/ belief/ I'm spiritual' people believe in god, but they just haven't picked a team.
So,they count on the side of religion.

on a thread that is debating science vs religion, I'm taking a black and white approach. If you are arguing for a god, then I won't be seeing you on the science side.

Big questions:

If god/religion is not a man made construct, give me an example of something that predates religion that can be attributed to god?

If there is no god, what changes about the world?

( and if you say 'morals go away', than that says more about you then the debate and I will probably take you off the 'potential babysitters' list)

In answering the question of 'life the universe and everything', why do people think choosing magic is the choice that makes sense or is the obvious/simple solution?

Bad stuff happens. Is god letting it happen, unable to stop it from happening or is he even paying attention?

If god just turns out to be aliens, will people be okay with that?

Those are a couple that have been on mind.
I have more if we get those solved.

[[deleted user]]

Travis wrote: "Big questions:

If god/religion is not a man made construct, give me an example of something that predates religion that can be attributed to god?

If there is no god, what changes about the world?

( and if you say 'morals go away', than that says more about you then the debate and I will probably take you off the 'potential babysitters' list)

In answering the question of 'life the universe and everything', why do people think choosing magic is the choice that makes sense or is the obvious/simple solution?

Bad stuff happens. Is god letting it happen, unable to stop it from happening or is he even paying attention?

If god just turns out to be aliens, will people be okay with that?"


Well .... Regarding my request and the box you've constructed, my request still stands. You can honor it or not.

Regarding your questions ...

Your first question...? As I've already told you, I don't think there is evidence to prove "God's" existence. By evidence, I mean evidence that people of science would accept. Scientific evidence.

Your second question ...? I guess that could be answered in a variety of ways. First, I'll ask this ... before answering.

You said,

"( and if you say 'morals go away', than that says more about you then the debate and I will probably take you off the 'potential babysitters' list)" ....

When you said that, did you mean me? Or, are you talking in generalities again?

Regarding this ...

"In answering the question of 'life the universe and everything', why do people think choosing magic is the choice that makes sense or is the obvious/simple solution?"

I'd say it depends on each and every individual. Some might have an answer that mirrors that of the faith they were raised in. Some might have a more individual answer.

Would you like me to answer? I've answered this before, so likely not. I think culture will play into the answer. Therefore, I, personally, wouldn't put everyone in the same box.

Of course, the word "magic" might be rather problematic. Some would view magic as tarot and boards and spells. Those believers would say they don't choose magic, etc... making it more difficult to get the answers you're looking for.

Is "God" letting bad stuff happen? The answer to that question will vary between at least a few of the different faiths that I'm aware of. Further, it would likely vary between people within the "same" faith.

"God" as aliens. Would people be okay with that? What people? There are Native American tribes, spiritual people to boot, who have always believed we came from the stars. So, yeah, I imagine they'd be okay with that. There are some people who watch Ancient Aliens on The History Channel who would likely be okay with that. Don't know if the people who watch that show are believers or not. I'm guessing there would be others who wouldn't be okay with it, who would deny it.

Those answers, of course, don't solve your questions. But, I did want to answer them.

[[deleted user]]

Actually, regarding "God" as aliens. Don't believers in Scientology and Mormonism also have that as a component of the faith. Different beliefs there, but it just came to me that there's a link to aliens with the first and ... something ... with the second. I know there's something about other planets, just can't remember. At any rate, they might be okay with it and say they knew that all along. Don't know for sure.

[Gary]

cHriS wrote: "No I don't think this is strong evidence of human evolution."

People who study it almost universally disagree, and since the only alternative hypothesis is that we were magicked into existence, a hypothesis with no evidence and fails to explain the wealth of evidence that we are related to the ape family... well that hypothesis is worthy of the contempt it receives.

cHriS wrote: "As I said above...theory relies on facts that have been repeatedly confirmed, at least thats what i thought science insists on, and the problem with Lucy and her kind is that those facts are not there as yet and if at all."

Actually theory relies on sufficient evidence. Weasel words such as "facts" are something that conspiracy theorists and deceivers use as they can then define fact to be 100% certainty and 100% certainty does not exist in science, it only exists in belief because belief turns its back on even imagining it could be wrong.

So no, there is a wealth of evidence that we are of common descent of all animals.

cHriS wrote: "How we evolved is evident, where we evolved from, Africa, seems evident, but what we evolved from I feel, has a question mark over it."

Well what's your alternative to a common ancestor between apes and man? It is trillions upon trillions to one chance that our DNA just happened to acquire the same mutations as our ape cousins.

cHriS wrote: "Until we are sure of that we can't say with any certainty if morals evolved or were learned. "

Actually that's not true, because humans in isolation also tend to develop certain moral traits and certain moral traits have been shown to be fairly intrinsic in tests designed to challenge them. Humans have a theory of mind that not only enables them to understand others motivations, but also makes it hard for them not to empathise with others pain when observed.

Again what is the alternative hypothesis? That humans learned morality from religion. Two problems with that, first there is no evidence whatsoever for a source material that humans could learn from. Second, it does not account for the fact that humans seemed to have formed communities well before they had language, third it does not explain why apes and man share similar basic moralities if they have two different sources and finally - if you are trying to imply this leaves it open for religion to be a moral source - it does not explain why religious morality tends to lag behind out ethics rather than drag us ahead.

Again this does appear to be the "god of the gaps" theory. Try to throw doubt on an established theory to try to make room for a religious explanation, but even if there was a clear gap (which there isn't to people who understand the evidence) it does not mean that this gap will then automatically be filled by the religious alternative. To establish a competing hypothesis you don't need to just find flaws in the theory, you need to show how your hypothesis explains all the evidence for the original theory and all the evidence that the original theory cannot explain or gets wrong.

Creationists and other pseudo-scientists like to say "it's a mystery ergo its god" while a scientist will say "it's a mystery ergo we don't know... yet." The former is human hubris, the latter is true humility in the face of the unknown.

[Gary]

Shannon wrote: "In truth, Gary, you remind me of them when you've talked about terms and needing to define terms appropriately. I don't mean that as an insult in any way. They were just all about the term and the appropriateness. It was recognized, and we needed to understand what we were talking about when we talked. "

Oh no, I do get what you are talking about, and yes terms are important to establish so that people know you are talking about the same thing. In this specific instance though these professors seem to be talking about religion as a legally recognised body rather than a anthropological phenomena. However, I do think that sociology is a study of society rather than a study of human behaviour though I understand more rigorous scientific techniques have started to leak in from more scientific disciplines like anthropology.

Rather than belabour the point I would suggest that for the purposes of this thread, in general the word 'religion' when I use it covers the dictionary definition of the word, (out of respect for the international nature of our discourse use dictionary.com rather than the Oxford English, but the definitions are similar)

Religion
a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.

Cult
a particular system of religious worship, especially with reference to its rites and ceremonies.

I will happily accept the point that there is a legal difference to what is recognised as a religion rather than just a religious belief, but does not really change any of my attitudes to that religion.

A religion is based on belief, a belief is an axiom that is then 'reified' as being actually true, without necessarily requiring reason or evidence.

I did do some research looking for these four points you mentioned out of curiosity but the only thing I have found so far is from the court record of "Fellowship of Humanity v. County of Alameda"

After a sensitive consideration of first amendment concerns, the court concluded:
[t]he inquiry in such a case is the objective one of whether or not the belief occupies the same place in the lives of its holders that the orthodox beliefs occupy in the lives of believing majorities, and whether a given group that claims the exemption conducts itself the way groups conceded to be religious conduct themselves.
This approach is imperfect in that it uses traditional religions as its staring point, and thereby retains too much of the prejudice inherent in the "I know it when I see it" standard. However, the court in Fellowship of Humanity discussed four seemingly reasonable and neutral factors which it said should be examined in determining whether a qualified "religion" is present:

"(1) a belief, not necessarily referring to supernatural powers;
(2) a cult, involving a gregarious association openly expressing the belief;
(3) a system of moral practice directly resulting from an adherence to the belief; and
(4) an organization within the cult designed to observe the tenets of belief."

[Gary]

Shannon wrote: "Actually, regarding "God" as aliens. Don't believers in Scientology and Mormonism also have that as a component of the faith. Different beliefs there, but it just came to me that there's a link to aliens with the first and ... something ... with the second. I know there's something about other planets, just can't remember. At any rate, they might be okay with it and say they know that all along. Don't know for sure. "

I believe they do, though Scientology in particular is meant to be a 'mystery' religion so it is entirely possible the silly sounding stuff said about the religion is a deliberate ruse to conceal the real beliefs that the initiated eventually get told.

In essence though the beliefs are just a new age version of spiritualism. Arthur C Clarke said that "sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic" so belief in god, spirits or aliens is still at its core a belief in a superhuman power that we cannot entirely comprehend.