Evolution is a religion. Creation is a religion.

EVOLUTION is not proved.Neither has gravity in the same sense as Evolution hasn't been proven fully yet.EVOLUTION is not a FACT.Yes, it is a fact, again in the same sense that gravity is both a fact and a theory at the same time as well.Evolution is a Fact and a Theory

I agree to that under those definitions, but at the same time isn't Christianity a scientific fact by the same reasoning? Neither can be proved with absolute certainty because they are based on probabilities and 'best solution' logic. Christianity too looks for answers and has theories about the origin of the world that are being changed to better suit observations.No, Christianity isn't the same since it doesn't have any credible, verifible, nor unbiased evidence in it's favor in regards to the existence of its god.If Christianity were to be classed under any such thing it would be under pseudo-science (The same as Creationism is). With pseudo-science when the facts don't fit what the theory states than the facts are discounted and dismissed since belief and faith are far more important than actual facts in this regard.In other words Christians constantly ignore the mountains of evidence against their belief in the existence of their god.[This message has been edited by nos482, 10-20-2002]

Originally posted by gene90:Be sure to ask Nos what that evidence is.

​

I always hear Creationists claim they have "mountains of evidence" but they never seem to share it. I suspect this is more of the same. That's another difference, we do share it. How about sharing some evidence for the existence of your "spirit witness"?

Originally posted by Phantom Mullet:Evolution involves evidence and probabilities:What probabilities? The thing is that most creationists don't understand the concept of probabilitiy theory either. They believe that it speaks in absolutes, or certainties, when it only speaks in chances. Just because something may seem highly unlikely doesn't mean that it won't happen in the next second or so.Evolution is a scientific fact however because it has survived for a long time without refutation:Of course.From Philosophy, Quest for Truth
by Louis P Pojman
fourth edition
Wadsworth Publishing Company

​

Argument from Ignorance This kind of argument occurs when I claim that because you cannot prove a proposition false, I am justified in believing that it is true. For example because you can't prove that God doesn't exist, I am free to believe that he does exist. Or because you can't prove that we do not have a soul, I am free to believe that we do.It seems to me that the argument for evolution being true contains one of the fallacies of reasoning from my philosophy text.Maybe for just one thing, evolution is not philosophy. There is hard evidence in its favor, there is none for creationism.Evolution may be a scientific fact, but believing this scientific fact is not a result of common sense, but involves believing in an argument containing fallacy.Please define "common sense" in this context? Belief is irrelevant in this situation. Is it any wonder that philosophy is not a hard or exact science. Word and mind games are not proof in and of themselves.[This message has been edited by nos482, 10-21-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl:
And of course, because evolution is about science, it has nothing to do with the existence of God, or the truth of Christianity.

---

What truth about Christianity? There is no (Whoops) objective evidence for Christianity.[This message has been edited by nos482, 10-22-2002]

Originally posted by blitz77:Do you understand probability theory either? In that case, most evolutionists don't understand the concept of probability theory either. ('Most' in this case used to indicate the general populace).The difference is that evoltuinists don't try to misuse it as creationists do. We know that it doesn't actually deal in absolutes and certainties as creationists want to think it does. And we're not speaking of the general populace either.Just like the heliocentric model?Do you have any proof that the Sun isn't at the "center" of our solar system? The old Earth centered model was Church imposed.[This message has been edited by nos482, 10-23-2002]

If you want to inhabit a universe composed only of that which is subject to scientific analysis, then feel free. But existence is bigger than that.Do you have any credible, verifible, or unbiased evidence which shows that the universe is more than it actually appears to be?

Originally posted by Karl:You mean scientific? Do I have any scientific evidence that there is more to the universe that that with which science concerns itself? Erm, no. Of course not. For the same reasons that I have no historical evidence for things that are nothing to do with history.Science "concerns" itself with everything which exists in the natural world (Universe) since that is all there is.What I do have is my own and other peoples' experience of the presence of God.In other words nothing real. A slight chemical imbalance produces the exact same results.I can't prove it's anything other than sentiment, make-believe and wishful thinking. Nor can I prove it isn't. It is what it is. You can make it a starting point for spiritual exploration, or not.Sounds more like that so-called New Age nonsense so many scam artists are making money off of.

Originally posted by Karl:Unsupported assertion.Prove me wrong.Nothing real if that which science can concern it with is all there is. But that may not be so.Prove it.I don't recall suggesting you send money anywhere. Jesus said a lot of things, but He never said people should make money out of Him.But many do anyways. Either directly or indirectly. The Church doesn't have to pay its share of taxes. But like I said, it's your call. I cannot argue you into believing, and I don't see why you would be so concerned to argue me into atheism. Why not just leave it at that?I'm not trying to argue into atheism since I'm not an atheist. I'm an agnostic. You can't call when the number is not listed. You can only dial at random and hope the party answers eventually.[This message has been edited by nos482, 10-23-2002]

Originally posted by gene90:But preachers do. At least in the US.Is that from recognized churchs or not?Then why have you repeatedly asserted (without evidence, of course) that all religions are "Fairy Tales" and that there is no God.That their beliefs are fairy tales. They have no evidence otherwise. There is a difference. They can't know if a creator of all actually exists or not. A real god wouldn't have to play such games as faith. Faith would be irrelevant and unnecessary to a real god.[This message has been edited by nos482, 10-23-2002]

Originally posted by gene90:Prove it.Take a science course.Then why can't you prove that religious experiences are always the result of chemical imbalances? Also, how are these chemical imbalances happening on demand? And not when religious activities are not taking place? Remarkable selectivity.You are confusing cause and effect. The human mind is a weird and wonderful thing.Can you prove that that "nonsense" (which I do not believe in) really is nonsense? Yes, it is nonsense, the same as your so-called "spirit witness" is.

Originally posted by blitz77:You're thinking about the wrong thing. The sun being at the center of the solar system has been observed.So has evolution to a certain extent.You can make very accurate predictions with it. Evolution is totally different. It isn't a predictable science. Evolution doesn't have a model from which you can make accurate predictions or even observations (you'd need to live a long time?). Anyway, you have misconceptions about Galileo and the church.Evoultion is biology, the solar system is physics, two difference sciences. What does Galileo have to do with this?-His book that was condemned in the trial, "Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief Systems of the World", had received the official imprimatur of the church, and had been approved by the official Roman censor, Father Niccolo Riccardi.
-Galileo was a personal friend of both major popes that ruled during his lifetime.
-The trial represented a brief portion near the end of Galileo’s long and productive life, during which he gained wide fame for his discoveries and his books across Europe, and within the Catholic church. Contrary to popular perceptions, most churchmen, including Pope Urban VIII, were delighted with Galileo’s discoveries with the telescope.Yeah, and it only took the Church around 450 years to pardon him. They must of really liked him to move that fast.Of course, you might then ask why had Galileo been put on trial.

​

-Pope Urban VIII was in a bad mood at the time of the trial. The papacy had gone to his head, and he had spent fortunes on self-aggrandizement. In addition, he was accused of being soft on heretics by not acting stronger against the Reformers. The Thirty Years War was giving him great stress. Galileo’s Dialogue came at a very inopportune time. The pope trusted what others said about it, without reading it himself. He was led to believe, contrary to the facts, that Galileo had double-crossed him by going against explicit orders. These factors tended to make him inflexible against his former friend.
--Using information from world's greatest creation scientists from y1k to y2kI'm not about to believe ANYTHING from a creationist's site. They are known liars and worse. You are forgetting that he was "interviewed" by the Inquisition as well.

Originally posted by blitz77:How can science prove something outside the realm of science? To prove something means that you have control/mastery of it.Who told you this?To be able to prove God exists we must have power over God. Anyway, science deals with physical rules. You can't use the physical to prove something that is spiritual. Its like trying to make complex numbers from only real numbers.In other words you can't use the real to prove the imaginary.He asked can you prove that what you call "nonsense" is nonsense and you respond by saying again that it is nonsense?If anyone told you that they were hearing voices in their head you would think that they were crazy and tell them to seek help.

quote:

---

Originally posted by blitz77:
Sure, you don't have to believe them. Just watch some TV.

quote:

---

A PBS documentary admitted that the usual slant is quite incorrect. Astronomer and historian Owen Gingerich, often one to debunk historical inaccuracies, has researched the incident and challenges the science vs religion spin. And a recent (1999) new historical biography by Dava Sobel, Galileo’s Daughter (an award-winning, captivating, original work we highly recommend) sheds refreshing new light on the life, times, and legacy of this giant of early science, Galileo Galilei.

---

​

---

The fact still remains that he was made to recant his beliefs. The politics behind it are irrelevant.