Evolution is a religion. Creation is a religion.

I don't actually think Creation is a religion.Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Himduism, etc. these are
religions.They have some form of scripture and belief structure which
is taught, and taken almost entirely on faith by their
followers.Creation (in the sense of creationism i.e. in the context of THIS
forum) is a premise founded in Judeo-Christian belief systems.The main point of these discussion threads is NOT to debate the
religous context of creationism, but the claims of some proponents
that creationism is scientific.A part of that discussion is the defence of evolution.Evolution is NOT a religion.Evolution is a premise founded in observations of the natural world,
in the fields of biology, geology, and chemistry. It is concerned
ONLY with the diversity of the biological world.Supporters of evolution may be passionate, but they are
open to rational discussion, and if presented with sufficiently
credible evidence will abandon/re-examine parts (or all) of their
theory.Supporters of creation TEND (and I stress TEND) to be fervent in
their faith, and accept no evidence no matter how credible
that is contrary to the doctrines of their faith.Provide me with incontrovertable evidence against evolution
and I will say 'How did I not see that! Of course that's wrong!'Provide a creationist with incontrovertable evidence (and I'm not
saying their is any) and some will be likely to say 'Ah yes, but
if God wanted you to think that, you would, wouldn't you.'Consider your own position.Is it founded (as mine is) in a life-long study of science AND
religous belief, OR does it come from the things handed down to you
by your parents and ministers/priests/rabbis or whatever your faith has ?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Christian1:

Creation is a religion, Evolution is a RELIGION, Science is what we can observe and test to be true. My religion is proved over and over and over and over and over and over and evolutionists cannot offer even an shred of solid proof. Yet they call evolution "science". Please do not get this mixed up.

​

If you have proof of evolution "a scientific experiment, in a complete form with facts and without doubts or other theories" I'm going to tell you where you can get $250,000 for it. Please visit http://www.drdino.com to collect.

​

Those of you who believe in God and Evolution should watch Dr. Hovind's videos which can be found on the "money link" or even read and understand the bible. The mear fact that evolutionists chalk their religion up as being "science" is painfully mistaken, there is no proof or science experiment that supports the theroy of evolution. I've seen the bible proven to be acurate time and time again and untill it is proven wrong, I will continue have my beliefs as a True Christian and creationist. And keep in mind that God created "TIME" as well, proof is spoken in the book of genius.

​

[This message has been edited by Christian1, 02-12-2002]

​

---

Sigh, this is getting frustrating, the usual bluster & runaround.I have asked you to answer four points, no less than FOUR times in message 3, 11, 14, & in this message. I shall again summarise :"1/ Give me proof of the divine nature of the bible. 6 Day Genesis would be nice. Since it has been "proved over and over and over and over and over and over", it shouldn't be too tricky.2/ Explain the genetic evidences in a way that fits creation, not the scientific consensus. Here are two papers : http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/96/18/10261"Phylogenetic relationships among cetartiodactyls based on insertions of short and long interpersed elements: Hippopotamuses are the closest extant relatives of whales." http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/96/18/10254"Constructing primate phylogenies from ancient retrovirus sequences."I ask only that you deal with one.3/ Explain why the Theory of Evolution isn't science, & how it doesn't meet the scientific method.4/ Lastly, since you hold Hovind in such high regard, explain Hovinds ridiculous claims about cytochrome c, & what organism is allegedly closer to humans, instead of a chimpanzee. Giving the reason he makes his conclusions. If you can do this & make sense, you'll get a nobel prize."I'll even make the cytochrome c question easy for you. Hovind claims that sunflowers are more closely related to humans, if cytochrome c similarities are used, & not chimpanzees after all. http://home.mmcable.com/harlequin/evol/HovindLie.html"Well, now, hold it. If you want to just pick one item and that's supposed to prove relationship, did you know that human Cytochrom [sic] C is closest to a sunflower? So really the sunflowers are our closest relative folks. It depends what you want to compare. If you want to compare the eyes, we are closest to an octopus. Not a chimpanzee. Pick something. What do you want to compare? Human blood specific gravity is closest to a rabbit or a pig. Human milk is closest to a donkey. It depends on what you want to compare. Pick something. If there were not some similarities between us and other animals we could only eat each other. So God designed all animals from the code so we could eat other plants and animals and digest them. Not proof for evolution. It's proof of a common Designer! "Care to comment?"Now, the reasons I asked those four questions are :1/ You said the bible has been proved over & over. You have made an extraordinary claim. So I am asking you to back up the divine nature of the bible with those proofs. Failure to do so means you are lying. Has that got your attention?2/ You have claimed evolution is belief. I am showing you it is evidence based, & not belief in the religious sense that you are trying to imply. So, I have presented you with the evidence, along with the conclusions. If you cannot refute that evidence, then the claim that evolution is belief (in the religious sense that you are attempting to imply) is false.3/ You have claimed evolution isn’t science, it has been pointed out to you that evolution fits the scientific method, & is science. If you want to discuss this, & what science does & doesn’t do, please do. Failure to discuss this means your words are empty.4/ You have held Dr Hovind up as being of good enough character to take on his word. I have asked you to explain one of his lies, so as to show you he is an out & out intellectual buffoon. Failure to discuss the good doctors claims means you are simply believing what you want because it fits your world view, & not because of any evidential basis. You are, of course, free to believe what you want, but Dr Hovind claims evidence that he cannot provide. This is the nature of his lie.I have asked four things of you, & given four reasons for doing so.Are you going to respond?Can you?Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

​

[This message has been edited by mark24, 02-13-2002]

Rule 3 of the Forum Guidelines requests that debaters back assertions with evidence. I'd like to see this thread adhere to this guideline a bit more closely.I'd also like to see Rule 2, respect for your fellow debaters, better adhered to.Informed discussion requires agreement on terminology. The word proof has been thrown around a lot, and it's not always clear what is meant. In the context of science, proving something can only mean offering strong supporting evidence. In a more formal and strict sense, there is no such thing as proving something in science - that is the realm of mathematics.Debate on this topic can easily become overheated and nonsensical, and it is the role of the moderator to keep discussion focused and dispassionate. I've also found that pleading with debaters to "Please be nice" almost never works, so there won't be any pleading on my part, I'll just hand out 24-hour bannings. Please make my job easy. Thanks.--Percy (moderator)

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pete:
I don't actually think Creation is a religion.

​

Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Himduism, etc. these are
religions.

​

They have some form of scripture and belief structure which
is taught, and taken almost entirely on faith by their
followers.

​

Creation (in the sense of creationism i.e. in the context of THIS
forum) is a premise founded in Judeo-Christian belief systems.

​

The main point of these discussion threads is NOT to debate the
religous context of creationism, but the claims of some proponents
that creationism is scientific.

​

A part of that discussion is the defence of evolution.

​

Evolution is NOT a religion.

​

Evolution is a premise founded in observations of the natural world,
in the fields of biology, geology, and chemistry. It is concerned
ONLY with the diversity of the biological world.

​

Supporters of evolution may be passionate, but they are
open to rational discussion, and if presented with sufficiently
credible evidence will abandon/re-examine parts (or all) of their
theory.

​

Supporters of creation TEND (and I stress TEND) to be fervent in
their faith, and accept no evidence no matter how credible
that is contrary to the doctrines of their faith.

​

Provide me with incontrovertable evidence against evolution
and I will say 'How did I not see that! Of course that's wrong!'

​

Provide a creationist with incontrovertable evidence (and I'm not
saying their is any) and some will be likely to say 'Ah yes, but
if God wanted you to think that, you would, wouldn't you.'

​

Consider your own position.

​

Is it founded (as mine is) in a life-long study of science AND
religous belief, OR does it come from the things handed down to you
by your parents and ministers/priests/rabbis or whatever your faith has ?

​

---

I agree that people base the theory evolution on scientific facts. That does not make Evolution science. Most of evolution is beliefs and theories. The same as creation. This is the most difficult thing for such "smart" people to understand. Another word for it is "Blindness".

[QUOTE][b]Most of evolution is beliefs and theories.[/QUOTE][/b]Much of science is theories (and "beliefs" of sorts) because it is the job of science to not only collect empirical data but to compose theories to explain that data. Atomic theory and the Theory of Gravity are both theories, and science, just like evolution, but I don't see anyone complaining about them. That's because there is currently no substantial religious bias against the Theory of Gravity or Atomic Theory. The core of this argument is "My religion contradicts evolution, so evolution must be (1) wrong and (2) itself a religion." Right now we seem to be focusing on (2), an argument that will ultimately be determined by the determining whether or not evolutionary biology is consistent with methodology of science. I think it is and I ask that someone bring us specific examples that imply that it is not. I feel right now that there is a misunderstanding of what science is. Science is not only pure empiricism or cataloguing information, it is also categorizing that information, inventing intellectual models to explain that information (and those should be based on information already available), and to predict the outcome of the next observation or experiment to verify that model. (Now for the sake of better comprehending this post, let Model=Theory)Creationism and "Creation Science" are not science because they start with a prior assumption and manipulate evidence to support the assumption; the assumption itself can never be discarded, however, contradictory evidence can be (See the Answers in Genesis Statement of Faith, Part F, URL at the bottom.) Creationism *could* make predictions but the methodology used by Creationists prevents any predictions from ever making Creationism false. Also Creationism precedes science, so that it cannot be correctly called, "a model to explain evidence, based upon evidence". http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/about/faith.asp

​

[This message has been edited by gene90, 02-13-2002]

I believe Gene is referring to the last point on the page he linked to, which says this:

F. By definition, no apparent, perceived, or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the Scriptural record. Of primary importance is the fact that evidence is always subject to interpretation by fallible people who do not possess all information.

If evidence of evolution is "always subject to interpretation by fallible people who do not possess all information," isn't the same true for the evidence of scripture? When evidence from the natural world conflicts with the evidence from scripture, in light of human fallibility how does one judge which interpretation is correct and which is incorrect?--Percy

quote:

---

Originally posted by gene90:

​

Much of science is theories (and "beliefs" of sorts) because it is the job of science to not only collect empirical data but to compose theories to explain that data. Atomic theory and the Theory of Gravity are both theories, and science, just like evolution, but I don't see anyone complaining about them. That's because there is currently no substantial religious bias against the Theory of Gravity or Atomic Theory. The core of this argument is "My religion contradicts evolution, so evolution must be (1) wrong and (2) itself a religion." Right now we seem to be focusing on (2), an argument that will ultimately be determined by the determining whether or not evolutionary biology is consistent with methodology of science. I think it is and I ask that someone bring us specific examples that imply that it is not. I feel right now that there is a misunderstanding of what science is. Science is not only pure empiricism or cataloguing information, it is also categorizing that information, inventing intellectual models to explain that information (and those should be based on information already available), and to predict the outcome of the next observation or experiment to verify that model. (Now for the sake of better comprehending this post, let Model=Theory)

​

Creationism and "Creation Science" are not science because they start with a prior assumption and manipulate evidence to support the assumption; the assumption itself can never be discarded, however, contradictory evidence can be (See the Answers in Genesis Statement of Faith, Part F, URL at the bottom.) Creationism *could* make predictions but the methodology used by Creationists prevents any predictions from ever making Creationism false. Also Creationism precedes science, so that it cannot be correctly called, "a model to explain evidence, based upon evidence".

​

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/about/faith.asp

​

​

[This message has been edited by gene90, 02-13-2002]

---

Main Entry: science
Pronunciation: 'sI-&n(t)s
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French, from Latin scientia, from scient-, sciens having knowledge, from present participle of scire to know; probably akin to Sanskrit chyati he cuts off, Latin scindere to split -- more at SHED
Date: 14th century
1 : the state of knowing : knowledge as distinguished from ignorance or misunderstanding
2 a : a department of systematized knowledge as an object of study b : something (as a sport or technique) that may be studied or learned like systematized knowledge
3 a : knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method b : such knowledge or such a system of knowledge concerned with the physical world and its phenomena : NATURAL SCIENCE
4 : a system or method reconciling practical ends with scientific laws
5 capitalized : CHRISTIAN SCIENCE

​

Main Entry: Christian Science
Function: noun
Date: circa 1867
: a religion founded by Mary Baker Eddy in 1866 that was organized under the official name of the Church of Christ, Scientist, that derives its teachings from the Scriptures as understood by its adherents, and that includes a practice of spiritual healing based on the teaching that cause and effect are mental and that sin, sickness, and death will be destroyed by a full understanding of the divine principle of Jesus's teaching and healing

​

Ok, you tell me where it sais that it is to BELEIVE??? Here is the meaning of believe.

​

Main Entry: believe
Pronunciation: b&-'lEv
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): believed; believing
Etymology: Middle English beleven, from Old English belEfan, from be- + lyfan, lEfan to allow, believe; akin to Old High German gilouben to believe, Old English lEof dear -- more at LOVE
Date: before 12th century
intransitive senses
1 a : to have a firm religious faith b : to accept as true, genuine, or real
2 : to have a firm conviction as to the goodness, efficacy, or ability of something
3 : to hold an opinion : THINK
transitive senses
1 a : to consider to be true or honest b : to accept the word or evidence of
2 : to hold as an opinion : SUPPOSE
- believer noun
- not believe : to be astounded at

​

Main Entry: religion
Pronunciation: ri-'li-j&n
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English religioun, from Latin religion-, religio supernatural constraint, sanction, religious practice, perhaps from religare to restrain, tie back -- more at RELY
Date: 13th century
1 a : the state of a religious b (1) : the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2) : commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance
2 : a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices
3 archaic : scrupulous conformity : CONSCIENTIOUSNESS
4 : a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith
- religionless adjective

​

if you don't believe me, look it your self. http://www.m-w.com

First of all, dictionaries as a general rule are not adequate to define science, you're better off looking up the Scientific Method.But I'll play with these dictionary entries put the parts that deal with theories in science and tentativity in belief in bold. [/QUOTE]Main Entry: science
Pronunciation: 'sI-&n(t)s
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French, from Latin scientia, from scient-, sciens having knowledge, from present participle of scire to know; probably akin to Sanskrit chyati he cuts off, Latin scindere to split -- more at SHED
Date: 14th century
1 : the state of knowing : knowledge as distinguished from ignorance or misunderstanding
2 a : a department of systematized knowledge as an object of study b : something (as a sport or technique) that may be studied or learned like systematized knowledge
3 a : knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws, especially as obtained and tested through scientific method b : such knowledge or such a system of knowledge concerned with the physical world and its phenomena : NATURAL SCIENCE
4 : a system or method reconciling practical ends with scientific laws
5 capitalized : CHRISTIAN SCIENCE

​

Main Entry: believe
Pronunciation: b&-'lEv
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): believed; believing
Etymology: Middle English beleven, from Old English belEfan, from be- + lyfan, lEfan to allow, believe; akin to Old High German gilouben to believe, Old English lEof dear -- more at LOVE
Date: before 12th century
intransitive senses
1 a : to have a firm religious faith b : to accept as true, genuine, or real <2 : to have a firm conviction as the goodness, efficacy, or ability of something
3 : to hold an opinion : THINK transitive senses
1 a : to consider to be true or honest b : TO ACCEPT THE WORD OR EVIDENCE OF 2 : to hold as an opinion : SUPPOSE - believer noun
- not believe : to be astounded at

​

(b capitalization by me)

​

[QUOTE][b]if you don't believe me, look it your self. [/QUOTE]

​

[/b]

​

To you, the same.

​

[This message has been edited by gene90, 02-13-2002]

You quoted Gene's entire message instead of just the part you're replying to, but perhaps this gives a hint of what part you're focusing on:

---

Christian writes:
Ok, you tell me where it says that it is to BELEIVE??? Here is the meaning of believe.

---

It seems you're saying that if science includes beliefs that it must therefore be religion. But Gene only uses the term beliefs as a parenthesized modifier of theory: (and "beliefs" of sorts). He's trying to meet you halfway by saying you're not wrong to say that science includes beliefs, but this use of the word is more along the lines of your definition 3 under intransitive senses:

to hold an opinion

or definition 1b under transitive senses:

to accept the word or evidence of

For example, we believe the natural laws of the universe will hold as well tomorrow as they do today, that they are constant over time. Our evidence for this is that these laws have always held in the past without variation to the extent we've been able to establish, and so we believe they'll hold true tomorrow. This is a belief, if you like, but it is a belief supported by evidence and is not in the nature of a religious belief such as definition 1a under intransitive senses:

to have a firm religious faith

--Percy

Percy,Indeed, I alluded to this in message 32 "You have claimed evolution is belief. I am showing you it is evidence based, & not belief in the religious sense that you are trying to imply. So, I have presented you with the evidence, along with the conclusions. If you cannot refute that evidence, then the claim that evolution is belief (in the religious sense that you are attempting to imply) is false."This is the problem. Two meanings of belief are taken, & only one is used in relation to evolution.1/ Belief in the religious, sans evidence sense.2/ Belief in the evidence sense, as one of likelyhood, based on weight of evidence.Too many creationists try to get away with 1/ , when 2/ applies to evolution. If evolution was religion, there would be no weight of evidence.Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

quote:

---

Originally posted by mark24:
Percy,

​

1/ Belief in the religious, sans evidence sense.

​

Do you have evidence that there is no eveidence of creation or that the bible is right? If you can't prove evolution, why do you disprove creation?

2/ Belief in the evidence sense, as one of likelyhood, based on weight of evidence.

You claim there is evidence when all there is are beliefs and guesses.

Too many creationists try to get away with 1/ , when 2/ applies to evolution. If evolution was religion, there would be no weight of evidence.

​

Mark

​

Main Entry: religious
Pronunciation: ri-'li-j&s
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English, from Old French religieus, from Latin religiosus, from religio
Date: 13th century
1 : relating to or manifesting faithful devotion to an acknowledged ultimate reality or deity
2 : of, relating to, or devoted to religious beliefs or observances
3 a : scrupulously and conscientiously faithful b : FERVENT, ZEALOUS

​

Where do you see your definition? I've even heared evolution referd to as the "Ultimate Reality"

​

oh, and here is the meaning"s" of belief.

​

Main Entry: belief
Pronunciation: b&-'lEf
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English beleave, probably alteration of Old English gelEafa, from ge-, associative prefix + lEafa; akin to Old English lyfan
Date: 12th century
1 : a state or habit of mind in which trust or confidence is placed in some person or thing
2 : something believed; especially : a tenet or body of tenets held by a group
3 : conviction of the truth of some statement or the reality of some being or phenomenon especially when based on examination of evidence

​

And before you go off on meaning #3, keep this in mind, there is no proof the the evidence you have shown is true. Then refer back to my original interpretation of science or look at the meaning we found in the dictionary.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Christian1:

---

science is purely evidence based and christianity requires faith and trust. of course one hand washers the other and they can help eachother prove things about the other. however creation and evolution are opposites but they are both scientifical theories and creation should be based on our faiths and trust in christ not what weve found, thats what science is for. einstein explained that very well with "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."------------------
"Overspecialize and you breed in weakness" -"Major" Motoko Kusanagi

[QUOTE][b]
Do you have evidence that there is no eveidence of creation or that the bible is right?[/QUOTE][/b]Evidence that there is no evidence of something? Isn't that rather redundant? Generally, if you feel that a model is true, it is your responsibility to cite evidence for that model. Is there evidence that there is no evidence of Creation? That is like asking, "is there evidence that there is no evidence of invisible elephants in suburban Atlanta?" Well I don't know of any, does that mean there are elephants lurking in Georgia? Probably not. To do the best to answer your question, I don't know of any solid evidence of Creation, I know many of the Creationist arguments but they're not difficult to refute, in fact, many of them so frequently used and then shot down that they've become trite. [QUOTE][b]If you can't prove evolution, why do you disprove creation? [/QUOTE][/b]Well we've already pointed out that in science that nothing is ever "proven", at least not in the mathematical sense. Everything is tentative, with the understanding that as our knowledge base grows new ideas and evidences are likely to emerge to change old concepts.But it is even harder to prove a negative. In fact, last I heard, to prove a negative was considered impossible.I would say that the evidence is stacked high against Creationism. Most of the modern-day YECreationist arguments were effectively wiped out back in the early days of uniformitarian geology, through the natural process of the uniformitarian view overtaking catastrophism as a result of our increased knowledge regarding geologic processes. I would say that the fossils in the geologic column effectively rule out all living things being created in a week, and even rules out the order in which those living things were supposedly made in according to Genesis. (fruiting plants first? fish and birds the same day?) Then we have a global flood for which there is no evidence. (This is the part where you are supposed contradict me with evidence of a Flood and we discuss that evidence) [QUOTE][b]You claim there is evidence when all there is are beliefs and guesses.[/QUOTE][/b]Mere assertion (a logical flaw), also apparently contradicted by a quick look around this website. The evolutionists here spend quite a lot of time posting URLs, articles, and news snippets that would seem to be evidence in favor of evolution. [QUOTE][b]And before you go off on meaning #3, keep this in mind, there is no proof the the evidence you have shown is true.[/QUOTE][/b]Theories don't require "proof", they require a body of evidence.
"Proof" in science doesn't exist, the closest we can get to proof is "overwhelming evidence". That definition could quite possibly cover evolution. [QUOTE][b]Then refer back to my original interpretation of science or look at the meaning we found in the dictionary.[/QUOTE][/b]I think "what is science" is better demonstrated by the scientific method than your dictionary reference (though it's a good one). Perhaps you could respond to my concern?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Christian1:

1/ Belief in the religious, sans evidence sense.
Do you have evidence that there is no eveidence of creation or that the bible is right? If you can't prove evolution, why do you disprove creation?

---

1/ How can I have evidence that there is no evidence?2/ I never claimed to disprove creation.3/ I never claimed to prove evolution.What I do claim is that extant organisms are MUCH better explained by evolution, than 6 Day genesis. Now, if you have evidence of genesis, then fire away. I have provided you with TWO scientific papers, either you show me why the conclusions are wrong, or I have evidence of evolution.If I have two evidences of evolution, that’s two more than for 6 day genesis, right?So, which is evidentially better supported?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Christian1:

2/ Belief in the evidence sense, as one of likelyhood, based on weight of evidence.

​

You claim there is evidence when all there is are beliefs and guesses.

---

The evidence in the two papers is provided by repeatable experiment.See above.Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

​

[This message has been edited by mark24, 02-13-2002]

quote:

---

by KingPenguin
however creation and evolution are opposites but they are both scientifical theories

---

...Which is a direct contradiction of the next part of his sentence

quote:

---

and creation should be based on our faiths and trust in christ not what weve found, thats what science is for.

---

Creation and evolution are both scientific theories? I disagree.Creation should be based on faith rather than evidence, because "that's what science is for", therefore creation is not science? Well I agree on the last part, that creation is not science. [QUOTE][b]einstein explained that very well with "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."[/QUOTE][/b]I think what Einstein meant was that a society needs both science and religion. I do not think that Einstein felt we should mix science and religion, like Creationists do.

​

[This message has been edited by Percipient, 02-13-2002]