|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Evolution is a religion. Creation is a religion. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
gene90 Member (Idle past 3853 days) Posts: 1610 Joined: |
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]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5225 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
quote: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
TrueCreation Inactive Member |
"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. ------------------
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jeff Inactive Member |
quote: 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: 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 wonderDo 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
quicksink Inactive Member |
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 you I hope this isn't off topic. If it is, delete it and I'll put it in my "evidence" topic.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Peter Member (Idle past 1509 days) Posts: 2161 From: Cambridgeshire, UK. Joined: |
quote: Theories in evolution arise from observable facts. The same asin any scientific enquiry. It's a bit of semantic juggling to say that evolution is foundedin 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 Idon't think dictionaries are going to be useful here). To me a BELIEF is a conviction held on faith, which requires NOevidence 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 thetheories are ammended/discarded as approriate. Changing someone's beliefs is next to impossible. Changing someone's opinion of a theory simply requires crediblerefutation of the theory. I am an evolutionist, but provide me with evidence to refute (oreven 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 similarconcept ... why do you believe that Bible contains absolute fact? I can list (in some detail) the evidences that convince me thatevolution 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
quicksink Inactive Member |
kudos to you, peter and jeff, kudos
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Christian1 Inactive Member |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
quicksink Inactive Member |
I used to be christian. I no longer believe in a god. I know some of the bible.
there And 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: 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.htm i'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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
quicksink Inactive Member |
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...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Christian1 Inactive Member |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5225 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
quote: 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: 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: 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. Mark ps SIX times now I have asked you for evidence of creation. Good grief. ------------------Occam's razor is not for shaving with.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5225 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
quote: 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]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Peter Member (Idle past 1509 days) Posts: 2161 From: Cambridgeshire, UK. Joined: |
quote: It is IMPOSSIBLE to PROOVE anything outside of maths and computerscience. What evidence for evolution do you consider 'mumbo jumbo' ? Not understanding something is not really a firm foundation forsuggesting that its wrong. I HAVE read the bible, and being a reasonably intelligent, well-educated, well-read individual I feel that I do understandmuch 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 emergenceof life. It is dangerous in the extreme to take ANY text as the literaltruth above all others. Especially so the Bible. Even if SOME of the translators of the Bible have been touchedby 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 nowadaysis 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 Evolutiondebate, then do so. If your intent is to preach, whilst paying NO attention to thosewho 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 wasthat the scriptures did not reflect modern life (modern in his time) and that the priesthood were mis-representing God's teachings.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
quicksink Inactive Member |
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 absence You 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.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024