Evolution is a religion. Creation is a religion.

That was excessive and for the most part, off-topic. This is Evolution vs. Creationism, not Atheism vs. Christianity or "Let's See Who Can Get The Most Posts" (Heh, I'm already way ahead of you there anyway) or "Who Can Get The Last Word". Yes, some Creationists believe that all "real" Christians are Creationists but let's not feed this misconception by taunting personal religious beliefs and let's not polarize our own side by waging war against religion at large.As for Christian1, you have still presented no evidence and have only repeated your arguments. If you are not going to participate in a debate there are other relevant sub-sections here, including "Coffee House" which is for discussion rather than debate, or "Topical Discussion", which to the best of my knowledge, is a moderated debate but is not judged. Debates in this group, "The Great Debate", will be judged by the administrator when they become inactive and your work will be critiqued based upon how you answered criticisms brought to you, the quality of logic used by yourself and your opponents, and the quality of evidence you cited. So far, none of these criteria appear to be to your advantage and while I am happy to disagree with you, doing so in a formal on-line debate right here is not helping. In any case, this thread cannot be resolved until you present something more substantive.

​

[This message has been edited by gene90, 02-14-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Christian1:

After reading all your counters and beliefs. I still draw the same conclusion.

​

---

But you haven’t entered into a debate. I’ve posted four questions four times & not got a response, (five times now).Your main contention is that evolution isn’t science. There are many definitions of science, of course, & all of them are correct, in their contexts. What goes on in a science classroom is science, even if it isn’t using the scientific method. However, what YOU mean science to be, uses the scientific method. The definition of science that uses the scientific method, is in fact the most difficult definition for something to attain, to be considered science. It is NOT the easy way out.

quote:

---

Originally posted by mark24:

Using the same online dictionary you yourself have used.

​

http://www.m-w.com/

​

Science.

​

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

​

Scientific Method.

​

Function: noun
Date: 1854
: principles and procedures for the systematic pursuit of knowledge involving the recognition and formulation of a problem, the collection of data through observation and experiment, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses

​

That was 1854, this is now (very simply):

​

http://teacher.nsrl.rochester.edu/phy_labs/AppendixE/AppendixE.html

​

The scientific method has four steps

​

1. Observation and description of a phenomenon or group of phenomena.
2. Formulation of an hypothesis to explain the phenomena. In physics, the hypothesis often takes the form of a causal mechanism or a mathematical relation.
3. Use of the hypothesis to predict the existence of other phenomena, or to predict quantitatively the results of new observations.
4. Performance of experimental tests of the predictions by several independent experimenters and properly performed experiments.
(To this I would add peer review)

​

---

Every scientific theory that we have today has been through the scientific method wringer. When I say evolution is science, this is what I mean. This is what Gravity, Relativity, Boyles Law, Newtons Laws Of Motion, (& NONE of them have been "proven" 100%, they are all tentative to some degree) have been through to be considered scientific, & for the purpose of this discussion it is the definition we must use. I repeat : It is the definition you yourself are inferring, & I maintain that the Theory of Evolution meets that criteria.Now, this is one of the points you need to debate. If you don’t think that evolution meets the scientific method, & is therefore unscientific, then present your argument why. Just handing me your conclusion is not good enough. These are forums for debate, not unsubsatiated conclusions, OK?Now, on to the continued lack of substantial answers to messages 3, 11, 14, 32.

quote:

---

Originally posted by mark24:
FROM MESSAGE 32

​

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, you have made claims, I have challenged those claims, & your faith in Kent Hovind. I think I can reasonably ask for a substantial reply to those four points, & the one I make regarding the nature of science (point 5, if you will). Again, I don't want "After reading all your counters and beliefs. I still draw the same conclusion". I want to know WHY you disagree. This is the nature of debate, & you are on a forum for debate, OK?Now, regarding my first post, I said :

quote:

---

Originally posted by mark24:

Not that prick Hovind, AGAIN?
Tell me, using cytochrome c similiarities, what is the closest organism to humans, according to Hovind? Sorry to everyone else who've seen this before, but this is a favourite of mine.
Don't give him any clues!!

​

---

I don’t retract the Hovind comment, but I do concede the rest of it was hasty, & not a little childish.In message 32, I said :

quote:

---

Originally posted by mark24:

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?

---

Now, in calling you a liar, I was wrong.Now, there, I’ve said it. Two retractions in one post.Do you wish to retract any claims, that on second thought may have been rash? I’m referring particularly to point 1/ , but conceding Hovind lied would be good (or at least addressing the contention). If you could do that, then, if nothing else, we’re among friends. That then leaves points 2/ & 3/ , but one thing at a time..Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

​

[This message has been edited by mark24, 02-14-2002]

​

[This message has been edited by mark24, 02-14-2002]

"PROVING THE BIBLE CORRECT. READ THROUGH IT ALL. OR COME BACK LATER. TRUST ME. ITLL END ALL DEBATE."
--What would you like to presume is not historically or scientifically accurate, make it conceivable.------------------

quote:

---

Originally posted by Christian1:

When you are stuck with the question of unknown answers, ask your self.... Do I believe everything I see on TV? Everything I read? If the president of the US told me to give him my underpants, would I conform? From everything you've shown me, I can not believe that we came from a rock, or that we just "poof" became. I was created, so were you. God made time for you, now MAKE TIME FOR GOD!

---

Is this it ? You have been reduced to preaching in a debate ? So you’ve been cornered by the facts, see no way out but to circle the wagons and lead us in a revival.
Halleleuya !So now I must wonderis THIS the material that should be discussed in a science class ? Is this what you’d teach in place of science?

quote:

---

When you are stuck with the question of unknown answers

---

Why should anyone presume that science or religion can answer all questions ? It takes a mighty ego to pretend you know all the answers. I’m too humble to share that soap box with you. But it makes me wonder
Do you believe everything you see on TV ? Everything you read ?So far, all your recommendations urge people to ‘believe’ rather than think. Hardly a suitable subject for science.
So what about all the scientists at work: Biologists, Physicists, Geologists and Astronomers that may one day provide a medical break throughor a more efficient energy source ?
should they all quit their jobs ? Should ALL scientific endeavors cease ?Wellif you have all the answers, why should we bother funding science ? An inquisitive nature is vice.
Just stay fat, dumb and happy.Some of us can’t live that way.So, if you refuse to discuss the topic, provide evidence for your position — could you at least address this question ?If you were put in charge of a school’s curriculum,
WHAT material would you present to a science class to support creationism — WITHOUT making reference to the Bible ?Regards,jeff

It is false that evoltution is a religion.Evolution is,#1, not based on a book written by men during a mystical and superstitious age. It is based on the proven and sometimes disputed findings of men. Creationism is based solidly on a book and questionable discoveries (these discoveries do not expand our understanding of the universe, but merely attempt to prove the bible correct.) Note that despite the continuous expansion of science, creationism does not change. That is because it cant. Changes would contradict the Bible, which is the very foundation of creationism . In essence, they would be contradicting the root of their entire argument.Science on the other hand, is changable, as nothing is taken for complete fact. Debate is welcome and is in fact the very meaning of science. Change is happening every day.Note that despite everything science has proved, creationism has not changed the slightest (except when their beliefs are completely absurd, like the earth being flat [there are still people out their who believe that]). they are therefore holding on to a belief that was very possible when people didn;t know about science (gravity, physics, etc. etc.)Creationism has never made a breakthrough that shattered science. Science has made plenty of breakthroughs, though, ones that were so frightening that the pope took the time to ban them and threaten or even kill their believers.#2 Creationism "science" has not made any contributions to the scientific world. In fact, it's quite the contrary. Religion attacks science when its discoveries threaten traditional christian beliefs. It has not expanded our understanding of the universe in any way.#3 Evolution is actually very flexible. many people believe there is a god, and that he created man and all other life through evolution. therefore, any one from any religion can believe in evolution. So in a way it is a religion, a religion that can be universally aceepted, except by those who can't accept that their bible is simply a book of lessons.Thank youI hope this isn't off topic. If it is, delete it and I'll put it in my "evidence" topic.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Christian1:
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".

---

Theories in evolution arise from observable facts. The same as
in any scientific enquiry.It's a bit of semantic juggling to say that evolution is founded
in belief. One may find theories 'believable' in the sense of
'credible' or 'feasible', but that does NOT make them 'beliefs'.Perhaps you need to be more presise about your definitions (and I
don't think dictionaries are going to be useful here).To me a BELIEF is a conviction held on faith, which requires NO
evidence to support it. One believes in the texts of their faith
regardless of whether there is any direct evidence to support
the content. In general, one does NOT read scripture critically.A THEORY is an explanation for a set of observable phenomena.Theories are examined critically, and as new evidence arises the
theories are ammended/discarded as approriate.Changing someone's beliefs is next to impossible.Changing someone's opinion of a theory simply requires credible
refutation of the theory.I am an evolutionist, but provide me with evidence to refute (or
even cast reasonable doubt on) any area of the theory and I will
re-examine my own opinion ... potentially even agreeing that
that area is not right.I have asked before, and reiterate as you brought up a similar
concept ... why do you believe that Bible contains absolute fact?I can list (in some detail) the evidences that convince me that
evolution has occurred ... and this forum contains quite a lot
of that.If you wish to debate the Bible, find a Bible discussion group.If you wish to debate the scientific credentials of 'Creation Science'
open your mind to the possibility that it might not be, otherwise
debate is pointless.I doubt you would find a scientist who categorically 'believes' (in your sense) in evolution. Rather, most scientists find it credible,
and a likely explanation for the observable phenomena.

kudos to you, peter and jeff, kudos

TrueCreation,
Do you have a website? I'd like to check it out.
Email me, amk_tfc@hotmail.com.Evolutionist's,
You have seen the science that supports creation, I don't need to stick it back under your nose. The science that you claim supports evolution does not support anything to do with your belief. My intentions were not to enter into debate. It's not my fault that you are too "smart" to believe the bible, and too "smart" to interperate it correctly. If you were really interested in other solutions, you would read the bible with out skepticism and interpret it your self. As TrueCreation said, if you studied the Bible, there would be no debate.

I used to be christian. I no longer believe in a god. I know some of the bible.thereAnd christian1, your reply was nothing but a bunch of babble. you did not even respond to the immense evidence against creationism. you simply fell back to the old "spirituality and faith" argument. You nearly back off. You throw your hands in the air and send us some rubbish like, "oh it's useless arguing with you".Evolutionist's,

quote:

---

You have seen the science that supports creation, I don't need to stick it back under your nose. The science that you claim supports evolution does not support anything to do with your belief. My intentions were not to enter into debate. It's not my fault that you are too "smart" to believe the bible, and too "smart" to interperate it correctly. If you were really interested in other solutions, you would read the bible with out skepticism and interpret it your self. As TrueCreation said, if you studied the Bible, there would be no debate.

---

one word- ignorant.i may be being aggressive, but when i see this kind of trash, it really makes me mad. you people (or at least some- truecreation at least attempts to defend with reasonable statements) just throw away science, or you make hollow claims.Creation1, i regret that you fee being smart enough to think rationally is a bad thing.>Would you read a science book without skepticism? I doubt it. We approach any theory with an open mind. That's how science has always functioned. But when something fails, we flushh down the toilet. If someone could come up with evolution shattering evidence that was credible and widespread, we'd all convert to christianity. Or maybe all except a few fundamentalists, who would say to us "it's not our fault you're to smart to believe science, and too smart to interpret it corectly."they would be idiots.you can head to truecreation's site if this person has one. if not, go to this one- http://atheism.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?site=http%3A%2F%2Friceinfo.rice.edu%2Farmadillo%2FSciacademy%2Friggins%2Fthings.htmi'm sure the guy who made it will become satan's chew toy, and is a sacrilegious idiot who os too smart to believe in or correctly interpret the bible, but just listen, and READ IT WITHOUT SKEPTICISM (actually, you shouldn;t do this, for if you did, you would not be capable to point out mistakes) AND INTERPRET IT YOURSELF.Oh and please defend the tower of babble. I'd be interested to hear how satan erased the evidence of it.ps. why the hell would you come to a forum titled "Creation vs. Evolution; The Great Debate" if you had no intention to debate.
(Or maybe you just can't debate now because the odds are stacked against you)

Oh and Christian1. Please enlighten me- how should I interpret millions of animals being taken from all over the world in a time when the world was not mapped, and put on a made boat by a few men during the bronze age over 100 yrs. This boat then managed to feed and maintain millions of animals for many, many days on a rough sea (including insects that would live for a maximum of three days, and required the fruit of fig trees to reproduce [figs were not aboard the ark]). The unicorn, which we have found no fossil records of, stayed on land and was washed away with the brackish water that would have wiped out all plants and fish that cannot tolerate both fresh and salt water. When the storm ceased, god actually made a rainbow IN A CLOUD (no rainbow has ever been seen IN A CLOUD), and promised that he would never create another flood that had been intended to punish humans, and had in the process wiped out all creatures on the planet (why didn't god just click his fingers and make all but a few humans disappear?). Then a few people who had apparently lived for 100 yrs in order to make a boat to save all the animal species on the planet (excluding the dinosaurs, who didn't esist during this day)somehow reproduced in Turkey and restored all cultures on the planet in their original forms, including the Egyptians and Chinese, who made no note of the great flood. Of course they restored all the cultures and the cities, including the pyramids. They then began farming a few years later in the salt soaked soil. At the same time, the two representatives of species in South America managed to head throught the deserts of the Mideast, the tundras of Siberia, the rockies of north america, and the blaring humidity of s. america back to their homes, which were stripped of all habitats. They managed to do this without eating any food, as all vegetation was killed, and did so without having one animal dying on the trail, as of course there have been no remains of koalas been found, in lets say asia. Meanwhile the fossils of only very primitive looking animals were fossilized, while other modern animals were not fossilized.Hmmm... on second thought, it all seems to make sense now...If you really ignore all common logic, it actuaally starts to seem possible. If only I wasa little more ignorant...

The Great Debate,If you read, study, and undestand the bible, there would be no debate. Why am I going to debate you, when you've been debated time and time again. You still pretend to understand the mumbo jumbo you call evidence, where there is no evidence that eveolution ever occured. What amazes me is that you find evidence of thing the bible has already talked about, and try to roll it all up to support evolution. There really is no debate and you can't prove evolution.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Christian1:
TrueCreation,
Do you have a website? I'd like to check it out.
Email me, amk_tfc@hotmail.com.

​

Evolutionist's,
You have seen the science that supports creation, I don't need to stick it back under your nose. The science that you claim supports evolution does not support anything to do with your belief. My intentions were not to enter into debate. It's not my fault that you are too "smart" to believe the bible, and too "smart" to interperate it correctly. If you were really interested in other solutions, you would read the bible with out skepticism and interpret it your self. As TrueCreation said, if you studied the Bible, there would be no debate.

---

More substance-less nonsense. You would be taken seriously if you actually addressed the issues people had to your posts, instead of just saying we're wrong, & not giving reasons.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Christian1:

My intentions were not to enter into debate.

---

LOL, so tell us something we don't know!If you have nothing to say other than I'm right, your wrong, then go someplace else.As i have asked previously FIVE TIMES!!!!!!!!! (now SIX!) Present the evidence of creation, stick it under my nose, Please do. I've yet to see ANY evidence that supports special creation.You won't of course, because you've proven yourself unable to reply to ANYTHING with reasoned argument.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Christian1:

"If you were really interested in other solutions, you would read the bible with out skepticism and interpret it your self."

---

Well, I only "believe" things for reasons, so this is your big chance to convert me. Give me this evidence of creation.This preaching has gone on long enough.CHRISTIAN 1, PUT UP OR SHUT UP.Markps SIX times now I have asked you for evidence of creation. Good grief.------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Christian1:
The Great Debate,

​

If you read, study, and undestand the bible, there would be no debate. Why am I going to debate you, when you've been debated time and time again. You still pretend to understand the mumbo jumbo you call evidence, where there is no evidence that eveolution ever occured. What amazes me is that you find evidence of thing the bible has already talked about, and try to roll it all up to support evolution. There really is no debate and you can't prove evolution.

---

Either you prove the bibles divinity, like you say you can, or I don't have to buy toilet paper for a few weeks, OK?BACK UP WHAT YOU CLAIM, OR GO ELSEWHERE.This has nothing to do with evidence of evolution, it has to do with the fact you can't back up your claims YOU made IN THE FIRST POST in this thread, GOT IT?Most people require reasons for believing things, so provide the reason to believe the bible, that can be substantiated independently of the bible. If you can't do this, you have circular reasoning. The bible proves the bible. If you think that's OK, then I'm going to say evolution proves evolution with EXACTLY the same amount of intellectual clout.Do you understand the intellectual bankruptcy of attempting such a thing?Probably not, given the quality of your "replies".Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

​

[This message has been edited by mark24, 02-15-2002]

​

[This message has been edited by mark24, 02-15-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Christian1:
The Great Debate,

​

If you read, study, and undestand the bible, there would be no debate. Why am I going to debate you, when you've been debated time and time again. You still pretend to understand the mumbo jumbo you call evidence, where there is no evidence that eveolution ever occured. What amazes me is that you find evidence of thing the bible has already talked about, and try to roll it all up to support evolution. There really is no debate and you can't prove evolution.

---

It is IMPOSSIBLE to PROOVE anything outside of maths and computer
science.What evidence for evolution do you consider 'mumbo jumbo' ?Not understanding something is not really a firm foundation for
suggesting that its wrong.I HAVE read the bible, and being a reasonably intelligent, well-educated, well-read individual I feel that I do understand
much of what the Bible has to offer. And I think it does have
quite a lot to offer.The one thing it is NOT is an adequate explanation for the emergence
of life.It is dangerous in the extreme to take ANY text as the literal
truth above all others. Especially so the Bible.Even if SOME of the translators of the Bible have been touched
by God in their translation efforts ... there are just as many
who have attempted to corrupt God's word for their own purposes.We CANNOT categorically state that the Bible as we find it nowadays
is as it was intended to be when originally conceived (unless
we are particularly young and/or naive).Science has also found evidence for things believed in the past,
and shown that the beliefs were mis-placed. Ultimately, the Bible
is a work of man, and man (as the Bible itself points out) is
corruptible.If you wish to enter constructively into the Creation vs Evolution
debate, then do so.If your intent is to preach, whilst paying NO attention to those
who speak against you, then stop and re-think your reason for
being here.One of the main contentions that got Jesus nailed to a cross was
that the scriptures did not reflect modern life (modern in his
time) and that the priesthood were mis-representing God's teachings.

Ok- Christian1. you're right **. There isn't evidence of evolution. so what have you proved? Have you proved to me that the bible is true because evolution is false?absence of evidence is not evidence of absenceYou are a person in retreat and in denial. You talk about studying the bible with an open mind, and in the same breath proclaim evolution as a bunch of mumbo-jumbo.Tell me Christian1. Do you understand the theory of relativity? Is a Brown Dwarf proven to exist, or a theory? What is an event horizon? Whatis a quasar?Can't answer these? go and read your bible. That's something that you can understand (but not interpret)i find it almost amusing how you squirm and struggle. you seem almost angered by evolution. you don't respond to other posts. You just make baseless, senseless, claims.I'll never convince you that your precious bible is not true, but merely a fable. you'll just live your life as a lie.that's your choice.then again, you could open your mind.
** you know im not serious.