quote:
I do believe science falls in "my" definition of a religion. A group of ideas/beliefs which explain life.
You are entitled to use your own personal definitions of things, but not to have people accept them.
I think your definition of science is terribly inaccurate at best and self-serving at worst.
quote:
For those who don't understand how this does relate, Creationism is (supposedly) derived from the creator. Once you believe this to be true; you understand that creationism was here first(without that name of course) and has a totally different method (knowing the truth first and then trying to prove it).
But Creationism has never been right about anything relating to the natural world.
Any sort of test against the natural world we subject Creationism to shows it to be in error.
So, if what Creationists
say is true about the natural world doesn't actually end up being true about the natural world, then it seems that Creationism is wrong, doesn't it?
Creationists stagnate. They unchangeingly continue to believe, despite the evidence right in front of them, they know the "truth", while science
actually continues to get righter and righter.
Creationism contributes nothing to our understanding of the natural world, even though it claims to have "the truth". It has developed no technology, no medical understanding, no ability to predict any future occurance in nature whatsoever. It is ueselss.
The reason it is useless is because it is wrong.