|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Why I am creationist | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2135 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
There is no need to be a creationist to see of the flaws in evolutionary beliefs and reject them for what they are, a belief. Ultimately evolution is a religion masquerading as a science discipline Some definitions which may help: Science: a method of learning about the world by applying the principles of the scientific method, which includes making empirical observations, proposing hypotheses to explain those observations, and testing those hypotheses in valid and reliable ways; also refers to the organized body of knowledge that results from scientific study. Isn't it odd that the only folks who claim science is a religion are fundamentalist Christians? The rest of the world, including a billion or more non-fundamentalist Christians recognize science for what it is--a method for learning about the natural world. Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
Isn't it odd that the only folks who claim science is a religion are fundamentalist Christians? Even more, what are they really trying to say with that argument? That religion is something trivial that should be ignored? That religion is dangerous? That religious based beliefs are wrong? For the creationist, religious faith is all they have. Supposedly, it is the most important thing in their life. So why are they so willing to trivialize and defame the most important thing in their life? When creationists use the "evolution is a religion" canard it really is a Kamikaze type argument. They blow up themselves in the process, but they really don't seem to mind as long as the "enemy" is killed in the process. It's as if they see the creationist ship sinking so they want to take as many with them as they can.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
IchiBan Member (Idle past 4966 days) Posts: 88 Joined: |
My understanding of science and religion is quite grounded, thank you.
I dont know about the some people you refer to. But there are many well known evolutionists and ex-evolutionists who's observations that evolution is a religion which masquerades as a science discipline parallels my own.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
IchiBan Member (Idle past 4966 days) Posts: 88 Joined: |
True enough, any of a dozen brands of self-delusional personality will suffice. Without seeing your post history I'm gong to make a guess thats about as strong as your rebuttals get, or not very.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
IchiBan Member (Idle past 4966 days) Posts: 88 Joined: |
Isn't it odd that the only folks who claim science is a religion are fundamentalist Christians? Why dont you try responding to what I actually said rather than tearing down your strawman. Oh thats right, maybe you cant. There is no need to be a creationist (or a fundamental Christian) to see of the flaws in evolutionary beliefs and reject them for what they are, a belief. Ultimately evolution is a religion that masquerades as a science discipline .
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
My understanding of science and religion is quite grounded, thank you. I dont know about the some people you refer to. But there are many well known evolutionists and ex-evolutionists who's observations that evolution is a religion which masquerades as a science discipline parallels my own. Whether or not that is true, I am still interested in where you are going with this. What do you hope to do by calling evolution a religion? Do you consider "religion" to be a term of derision? Do you think that calling something a religion makes it trivial at best, and something evil at worst? What are you hoping to accomplish by calling evolution a religion?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
Why dont you try responding to what I actually said rather than tearing down your strawman. Oh thats right, maybe you cant. Why do we have to address claims backed by zero evidence? Do we have to disprove that the sky is falling just because some nut on the corner is holding a sign that says the sky is falling? When you marshal some evidence to back your claims then we will address those claims.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2135 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
There is no need to be a creationist (or a fundamental Christian) to see of the flaws in evolutionary beliefs and reject them for what they are, a belief. Ultimately evolution is a religion that masquerades as a science discipline
You make my point; the only folks who claim that science is a religion are fundamentalists. And I don't need you or any other fundamentalists to tell me what evolution is. I studied it at the graduate level, with an emphasis on fossil man, right up to my Ph.D. exams. Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
bluescat48 Member (Idle past 4218 days) Posts: 2347 From: United States Joined: |
There is no need to be a creationist (or a fundamental Christian) to see of the flaws in evolutionary beliefs and reject them for what they are, a belief. Ultimately evolution is a religion that masquerades as a science discipline . What flaws? Evolution is based on evidence not on belief. Evidence as fossils, varves, radioactive dating, tree rings etc. By using these ve arious techniques plus the genomes of living organisms with the physical evidence ie bacterial mutations etc. There is no belief in evolution but acceptance of the evidence. Belief is religion, there is no mythology in evolution that there is is in religion and no deities either. There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002 Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969 Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
IchiBan Member (Idle past 4966 days) Posts: 88 Joined: |
You make my point; the only folks who claim that science is a religion are fundamentalists. Yeh, keep making that claim. You have yet to back it up with anything, and given your pattern that aint never going to happen. Now I dont know about you and your claimed credentials because those are never backed up with any bonafides either. So in lew of that I will go to just a few quotes of well known & established evolutionists on the issue of evolutionism being an ideology, a world view, and yes a religion. Darwinian atheist Michael Ruse has even acknowledged that evolution is their religion!
Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religiona full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality. . . . Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today.
Sir Arthur Keith, a famous British evolutionary anthropologist and anatomist."Evolution is unproved and unprovable. We believe it only because the only alternative is special creation, and that is unthinkable." In fact, it seems that the Theory of Evolution is contrary to established science. George Wald, prominent Evolutionist (a Harvard University biochemist and Nobel Laureate) "When it comes to the Origin of Life there are only two possibilities: creation or spontaneous generation. There is no third way. Spontaneous generation was disproved one hundred years ago, but that leads us to only one other conclusion, that of supernatural creation. We cannot accept that on philosophical grounds; therefore, we choose to believe the impossible: that life arose spontaneously by chance!"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
IchiBan Member (Idle past 4966 days) Posts: 88 Joined: |
Isn't it odd that the only folks who claim science is a religion are fundamentalist Christians Actually what I find odd is that so many evolutionists are on a zealous crusade against any notion of a creator (except the ones made in their own image) .And for this cause they hijack science for their own ideological ends. In fact, you will fit this description quite aptly.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2135 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
You want proof that evolution isn't a religion?
In six years of graduate school, and many classes in those related fields: --Not once was I asked to take something on faith; Pretty much misses out on all the standard definitions of religion, now doesn't it? My question to you: why do fundamentalists have to lie about science? Are they that afraid of finding out what happened in the real world that they have to lie and distort what science finds, and even worse--what science really is? Sounds pretty insecure to me. Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2135 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
Actually what I find odd is that so many evolutionists are on a zealous crusade against any notion of a creator (except the ones made in their own image) .And for this cause they hijack science for their own ideological ends. In fact, you will fit this description quite aptly.
No, your real objection is that I don't kowtow to your particular version of religion. I don't have to: The Enlightenment happened. The Dark Ages are over. You can't even send the Inquisition after me any longer, and burning at the stake is so last millennium, so pass. Better get used to it. Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 313 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
The imaginary "quotations" from Keith and Wald are simply creationist lies: neither of them said any such thing. The quotation from Ruse is accurate but out of context --- he is arguing against attaching any religious significance to evolution, which he believes to be entirely compatible with Christianity. Oh, and he's a self-described agnostic, not an atheist.
Here's a little tip for you as you wend your way through life. When you see a creationist website claiming that a "prominent Evolutionist" has affirmed a halfwitted creationist dogma, then that website is wrong, because this is not what evolutionists, prominent or otherwise, actually do. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
IchiBan Member (Idle past 4966 days) Posts: 88 Joined: |
No, your real objection is that I don't kowtow to your particular version of religion.
What are you psychic now? No just more strawmen, thats all you got there babe.
The Dark Ages are over. You can't even send the Inquisition after me any longer, and burning at the stake
Thats laughable and you are a scientist with a PHD? But dont stop there with your strawmen , lets see just how far you will go with your ever so weak and goofy analogies.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024