Evolution is a religion. Creation is a religion.

.

​

[This message has been edited by mark24, 02-21-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Christian1:

You think that by posting really long "tiresome" answers that it makes you inteligent? If you don't have my beliefs I don't think you are stupid, I only think your belief is stupid.

---

Your position IS stupid (since you use the word) because you can’t back up your claims.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Christian1:

​

I think your belief is stupid because there is no proof only what you believe is evidence.

---

Well, it goes like this, evolution has evidence & therefore a reason to come to that conclusion.There is no PROOF (not to mention evidence) of God.Ergo, believing in something with no evidence, over something that does, is again, stupid.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Christian1:

I'm sorry that you think that my mind isn't open and that I've been brainwashed. I stringly believe that infact you are the ones who've been brain washed.

---

Since you can’t back up your claims, there is really only one conclusion. You are asking for proof of evolution, yet cannot provide proof of the bibles divinity, yet believe in the bible.Brainwashed.I have evidence to back my position. Not brainwashed.See?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Christian1:

I don't fear science. You ask me for something you your self do not provide, and then attack me when I provide you with the same as you provide me.

---

1/ Science doesn’t do proof. There isn't a single scientific theory that has been "proven".2/ You haven’t provided me with the same as I have provided you. Can you give me evidence of the bibles divinity? No, I have gone one better than you, then, as regards evolution. (message 3).

quote:

---

Originally posted by Christian1:

I actually thought I evolved because of what I was taught in school and had a belief in God at the same time. I began to read, study, and understand the bible and discussed it with friends, needless to say I realized that I was wrong for believing in evolution. I would definately say that I do have an open mind, and I also think reasonably. Evolution is based on beliefs with no proof, the fact that you believe in it makes it a religion. The fact that you cannot accept any other option makes you religious.

---

Why don’t you discuss it here with us then? Instead of just providing us with the conclusion of those discussions (see rule 3, below).Why needless to say, this is the bit you need to explain.Evolution is based on evidence, reinterpret that evidence by addressing it, or shut up.I can accept other options. Until the weight of evidence (you do understand this, don’t you?) points to another conclusion, then the current theory stands. It is incumbent upon you to either provide this new evidence (bluster & assertion don’t qualify, if they did, I’d already be a YEC), or reinterpret the entire body of evidence that supports the ToE.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Christian1:

The reason Evolutionist's refuse to admit that thier belief is religious is becase it would not be able to be taught in schools, and would be thrown out on to the street the same as you have tried to do with God. Evolution is attempting to erase God. I'm sorry, God is going to erase Evolution. ...I wouldn't recommend attempting to engage in a debate with him.

---

Evolution isn’t attempting to erase God, it is attempting to find an evidence based reason to explain extant organisms, including us.If that contradicts Christianity, tough. If God wanted to erase evolution, he shouldn’t have put all that false evidence there, to lead us astray.Now, prove you’re not brainwashed by backing up your claims in accordance with rule 3 of these forums (Assertions should be supported with either explanations and/or evidence for why the assertion is true. Bare assertions are strongly discouraged.) You can do this by answering the questions I have asked repeatedly, & are best summarised in message 32.So far you haven't adhered to rule 3, all you've done is restate your position. To be in accord with rule 3, you must give an explanation.Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Christian1:
You think that by posting really long "tiresome" answers that it makes you inteligent? If you don't have my beliefs I don't think you are stupid, I only think your belief is stupid.

---

How tolerant .. Jesus would be SO proud!!

quote:

---

Originally posted by Christian1:

I think your belief is stupid because there is no proof only what you believe is evidence.

---

Hang on ... so you accept that there IS evidence behind the
theory of evolution ?That's a good start. We DO NOT BELIEVE in evolution.
We examine the evidence critically against the theory, and MAKE
UP OUR OWN MINDS as to whether or not the theory holds up in the
face of that evidence.This is NOT BELIEF, this is rational thinking.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Christian1:

I'm sorry that you think that my mind isn't open and that I've been brainwashed. I stringly believe that infact you are the ones who've been brain washed.

---

Who were these friends who convinced you that evolution was wrong
and that the Bible was 100% literal truth ?What convinces you of that literal truth ?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Christian1:
I don't fear science. You ask me for something you your self do not provide, and then attack me when I provide you with the same as you provide me.

---

Eh ? Don't understand what you are saying above.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Christian1:
I actually thought I evolved because of what I was taught in school and had a belief in God at the same time. I began to read, study, and understand the bible and discussed it with friends, needless to say I realized that I was wrong for believing in evolution.

---

Why were you wrong ?Sounds an awful lot like peer pressure to me.Think for yourself ... question why you used to equally believe in
God and accept evolution. If you did don't you think some
evolutionists might ?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Christian1:
I would definately say that I do have an open mind, and I also think reasonably.

---

Re-read some of your own posts and critically assess what you
say above.Open minded people, in general, listen to arguments put in front
of them, and respond to those arguments, rather than simply
re-iterate what you have been saying all along as though none of
us are here.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Christian1:
Evolution is based on beliefs with no proof, the fact that you believe in it makes it a religion. The fact that you cannot accept any other option makes you religious.

---

And here you ARE completely wrong.I accept evolution as a credible explanation for observable
phenomena in the real-world.There IS evidence which supports evolution ... the proof (in laymans
terms) that you deny even exists is there ... read the rest of
this forum ... do some web-searches and look at NON-CREATIONIST sites
too.We, as rationale individuals CAN accept other possibilities ...
provided that they BETTER EXPLAIN the phenomena that we observe.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Christian1:

The reason Evolutionist's refuse to admit that thier belief is religious is becase it would not be able to be taught in schools, and would be thrown out on to the street the same as you have tried to do with God.

---

Only in the USA. In all other western countries it is perfectly
legal (and common practice) to teach religous beliefs in school.The USA is large, but it is NOT the whole world!!Check the evolutionsists who debate here, there are manuy from
outside the USA, and so there is no reason for US to claim that
evolution is not a religion (if indeed it were)!

quote:

---

Originally posted by Christian1:
Evolution is attempting to erase God. I'm sorry, God is going to erase Evolution. ...I wouldn't recommend attempting to engage in a debate with him.

---

If you believe that 'proof' of evolution would erase God, then I
see why you are worried.It will not erase God.Many believers accept evolution, and that the Bible is NOT
intended to be taken literally.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Christian1:
I began to read, study, and understand the bible and discussed it with friends, needless to say I realized that I was wrong for believing in evolution.

---

Sorry, it's not 'needless' to say that you realised that you were wrong for believing in evolution, since it's only a very small percentage of christians who feel that way. Most christians (including the people converted to it) realise that christianity is in no way contradicted by evolutionary theory, and don't have to 'abandon' it. So for you to say you were converted, it is certainly needed to say that you realised you were wrong to believe in evolution, if that is your point, because if you didn't say so, we would have no reason to believe that you did so. [QUOTE] [b]Evolution is based on beliefs with no proof, the fact that you believe in it makes it a religion. [/QUOTE][/b]
Sorry, but this sentence makes me think you don't even know what 'religion' means. Something believed in is not automatically religious. A religion requires a belief in a god, higher being, deity, etc. None of this applies to evolution. Check any dictionary - evolution does not fall under the definition of 'religion'. Sorry. [QUOTE] [b]The reason Evolutionist's refuse to admit that thier belief is religious is becase it would not be able to be taught in schools, and would be thrown out on to the street the same as you have tried to do with God.[/QUOTE][/b]
Sorry, the reason evolutionists refuse to admit that their belief [in it] is religious is because it isn't, and nobody but creationists tries to insist that it is. Check a dictionary (again).

quote:

---

Evolution is attempting to erase God. I'm sorry, God is going to erase Evolution.

---

Umm...sorry, evolution isn't trying to do anything of the kind. In America, the vast majority of scientists (99.999%) believe in evolution. Yet about 50% of them are also christian. Most christians believe in both. To say that evolution is trying to erase god, or stop people from believing in him is simply ludicrous. It is a scientific theory, which deals in no way whatsoever with any god or deity.

​

[This message has been edited by toff, 02-21-2002]

I just read this drdino site and have come to this conclusion.-This Hovind git is nuts (does he even have them is another question).
-The only one who'll burn in hell is Hovind for writing so much stupidity.
-Why do I even bother with this, whoever believes this guy also needs some help and a "first aid" college education.I'd excomunicate all creationists who side with Hovind.

I had no idea that this debate was still such a hot topic...I do have some objections to previous postings:Christians using the bible as proof is rediculous: it needs to be proved first, and if one uses God to prove it then we are using circular logic.Christians saying that the existence of a creator is obvious from what they see around them. This is not an argument, it is an opinion.Evolutionists that say evolution is NOT a religion make the same mistake that christians do when they say it IS a religion. In fact, it depends entirely upon what one defines religion as. I have seen above that evolutionists encourage creationists to actually look the word up. In fact I used this argument previously to support creationism. in short - is religion a belief IN the supernatural or CONCERNING the supernatural?Yes, this point goes a lot deeper too: the argument is more concerned with whether there is PROOF for beleiving in evolution or not, and sadly I haven't seen any real meat either way here. I would appreciate somebody posting a brief of the argument without sniping - here's my take to get you started 1) evolution believes in animals changing, over many generation, from one animal to another. The causes are mutation and selection, although selection fulfills only a subtractive force.2) mutation at a basic level can be studied scientifically and objectively.3) evolution in the past, consisting of the argued human chain of evoltion cannot... Every event in the human chain of evolution was unique, every generation signifigant. The process happened only once, cannot be duplicated or studied as it happened. Therefore the origins of humanity is not science, but history. As in history, evidence can be compiled and studied and opinions stated, but no dead certainties reached. This is the case with evolution.4) therefore evolution does not have certainty for believing it, it is a belief rooted in opinion. A religion.5) I would also like to hear how the accelerating universe theory has affected this argument, can somebody tell me what is up with that?

Phantom Mullet writes: Yes, this point goes a lot deeper too: the argument is more concerned with whether there is PROOF for beleiving in evolution or not, and sadly I haven't seen any real meat either way here.

The short answer is no, evolution has not been proven. No theory in science has ever been proven.If you've come to science looking for proof then you've come to the wrong place. Science is tentative, meaning it will change its views to accommodate new evidence or improved understanding. You don't really want to ask if science has proven something, but instead want to investigate the evidence supporting a given theory.--Percy[This message has been edited by Percipient, 10-20-2002]

well said, but that does not address my argument exactly.would I be correct to say that evolution is believing something without proof, and therefore a religion?After all, every man in this world who is not mad is always refining his world view based on empirical knowledge, so science in this view is nothing but a tool of the mind, just as much use to a christian as an atheist and an agnostic.If science cannot prove evolution or christianity then why not abandon it and accept that neither are believable on pure fact but on faith?I love ending with a question.Don't you?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Phantom Mullet:
well said, but that does not address my argument exactly.

​

would I be correct to say that evolution is believing something without proof, and therefore a religion?

---

No, there are other qualifications for a religion. Please do no oversimplify. There is no proof that my car will start in the morning, yet I believe it will. Are you willing to say this belief is a religion also?

quote:

---

After all, every man in this world who is not mad is always refining his world view based on empirical knowledge, so science in this view is nothing but a tool of the mind, just as much use to a christian as an atheist and an agnostic.

---

Correct. That is why atheists, believers and agnostics can believe in evolution. By the way, is there something wrong with a 'tool of the mind'?

quote:

---

If science cannot prove evolution or christianity then why not abandon it and accept that neither are believable on pure fact but on faith?

---

Because your definitions are wrong. Why have you gone from 'belief' to 'religion' to 'faith' without the least hesitation? They are all differenct but you conflate them.

Very good point. Vocabulary can often stop communication. According to me...a BELIEF is a personal opinion.
a RELIGION is a set of BELIEFS
FAITH is belief in that RELIGION.So FAITH is the belief in a set of personal opinions.I hope this helps you understand what i said. Because you seem to detest simplification I will reword my argument in lowest terms just for spite.a BELIEF is a personal opinion.
a FACT is a TRUE BELIEF. (descarte and berkely get off here...)
TRUE BELIEFs are determined to be FACTS only by PROOF
PROOF leaves no room for DOUBT
DOUBT comes from INDUCTIVE and ABDUCTIVE reasoning, but NOT DEDUCTIVE reasoning.
EVOLUTION happened in the past. It is supported by INDUCTIVE and ABDUCTIVE reasoning, but NOT DEDUCTIVE reasoning.
EVOLUTION has a degree of doubt.
EVOLUTION is not proved.
EVOLUTION is not a FACT.
EVOLUTION is an opinion.
EVOLUTION is a BELIEF, or set of BELIEFs.
EVOLUTION is a RELIGION.now, when you say

quote:

---

Because your definitions are wrong. Why have you gone from 'belief' to 'religion' to 'faith' without the least hesitation? They are all differenct but you conflate them.

---

you are partly right. Of course, you wouldn't want to call my opinions 'wrong' would you? That is not the purpose of a debate!If when you debate and you keep getting stuck on incongruous definitions, why not just take the basic meaning of words and forget all the little addons?In any case the importance of debate is to argue concepts. I hope mine are clear enough to inspect and critique.and yes incidentally i DO think that believeing that your car will start in the morning is religion. Sooner or later you will leave your lights on and cause a midlife...or midday...religious crisis. Faith in things of this world will only disappoint you.------------------
-Phantom Mullet

I mainly agree with what you are trying to say, except that I disagree with you saying that evolution is a religion. I think that the topic's name is wrong. It should say that evolution is a belief, and creation is a belief. Because if you say that evolution is a religion, what are they worshipping? The mechanism of natural selection? What is creation worshipping? The process of creation? Thus I think that evolution is not a religion, but a belief, just like creation.
Like edge said, I think you've confused belief and religion.Anyway, evolution is a theory for how organisms evolve and change. So I think that if you are talking about creation, you shouldn't compare it to evolution, but abiogenesis. Abiogenesis is a belief that organisms came about through natural processes. Creation is a belief that organisms came about through the process of creation by God.Sorry for the nitpicking, just my $0.02 [This message has been edited by blitz77, 10-20-2002]

Phantom Mullet writes: would I be correct to say that evolution is believing something without proof, and therefore a religion?

Believing something without proof is religion? Well, in that case, outside of mathematics, everything I believe is a religion, and I must therefore have hundreds of religions. I believe in the religions of physics, chemistry, geology, cosmology, basket weaving, stamp collecting, Dada art, and the sanctity of the National Football League.

If science cannot prove evolution or christianity then why not abandon it and accept that neither are believable on pure fact but on faith?

Science is tentative. We devise theories to explain bodies of evidence, and then we modify/replace these theories in light of new evidence or improved understanding. Science never proves anything, not in any of its many fields.--Percy

quote:

---

Originally posted by Phantom Mullet:
Very good point. Vocabulary can often stop communication. According to me...

​

a BELIEF is a personal opinion.

---

Okay so far.

quote:

---

a RELIGION is a set of BELIEFS

---

Sort of, but not a complete definition. My definition includes "concerning the cause, nature and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency ... usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often involving a moral code..."

quote:

---

FAITH is belief in that RELIGION.

---

Too all-inclusive here. Faith need not have anything to do with religion. I have faith in my friends and my car too. Does that mean they are part of my religion?

quote:

---

So FAITH is the belief in a set of personal opinions.

---

Well, I think this has been refuted.

quote:

---

I hope this helps you understand what i said. Because you seem to detest simplification I will reword my argument in lowest terms just for spite.

---

Actually, I know what you were saying. You were projecting your own style of faith and religion on science. Sorry, but that makes no sense at all. And yes, I detest simplification where it avoids details that are detrimental to your argument. This is a favorite creationist tactic and a well known propaganda technique.

quote:

---

a BELIEF is a personal opinion.
a FACT is a TRUE BELIEF. (descarte and berkely get off here...)
TRUE BELIEFs are determined to be FACTS only by PROOF
PROOF leaves no room for DOUBT
DOUBT comes from INDUCTIVE and ABDUCTIVE reasoning, but NOT DEDUCTIVE reasoning.

---

Not sure what you are saying here. Nothing about religion yet...

quote:

---

EVOLUTION happened in the past. It is supported by INDUCTIVE and ABDUCTIVE reasoning, but NOT DEDUCTIVE reasoning.

---

Perhaps more on this later, but I think you are wrong here.

quote:

---

EVOLUTION has a degree of doubt.

---

And so is the belief that my alarm clock will go off at the right time tomorrow morning. And yet it is a pretty good bet.

quote:

---

EVOLUTION is not proved.

---

Correct. However, it is supported by the preponderance of evidence.

quote:

---

EVOLUTION is not a FACT.

---

In a strict sense, yes. However, since it is supported by so much evidence it can be used as a premise for further sudies. This is where creationists lose the thread of logic. They think that a working hypothesis is necessarily assumed to be a fact. In the case of evolution, the theory has survived for so long without refutation that it is what we can call it a 'scientific fact'. By using this scientific fact as a premise we are not only causing scientific progress, we are actualy testing the theory as well. Every day.

quote:

---

EVOLUTION is an opinion.

---

You are projecting again. Evolution is a useful scientific theory. It is a scientific fact.

quote:

---

EVOLUTION is a BELIEF, or set of BELIEFs.

---

Not really. We believe in evolution, but it is not a set of beliefs. Or perhaps you could tell us what these beliefs are and we could discuss them.

quote:

---

EVOLUTION is a RELIGION.

---

Since you have redefined 'religion' you are absolutely correct. However, most of us including all dictionaries have a different definition of 'religion'.

quote:

---

now, when you say

​

quote:

---

Because your definitions are wrong. Why have you gone from 'belief' to 'religion' to 'faith' without the least hesitation? They are all differenct but you conflate them.

---

​

you are partly right.

---

Actually, I am completely right. Your defintion of religion is self-serving.

quote:

---

Of course, you wouldn't want to call my opinions 'wrong' would you? That is not the purpose of a debate!

---

Suuurrrrre. No one ever does this.

quote:

---

If when you debate and you keep getting stuck on incongruous definitions, ...

---

Which is just what you have done.

quote:

---

...why not just take the basic meaning of words and forget all the little addons?

---

Sure. Let's just avoid those annoying details.

quote:

---

In any case the importance of debate is to argue concepts. I hope mine are clear enough to inspect and critique.

​

and yes incidentally i DO think that believeing that your car will start in the morning is religion. Sooner or later you will leave your lights on and cause a midlife...or midday...religious crisis. Faith in things of this world will only disappoint you.

---

I am not surprised that you think this. You seem to be a bit careless in your thinking as I have shown above. Because of you tend to project, everything could be a religion.

EVOLUTION is not proved.Neither has gravity in the same sense as Evolution hasn't been proven fully yet.EVOLUTION is not a FACT.Yes, it is a fact, again in the same sense that gravity is both a fact and a theory at the same time as well.Evolution is a Fact and a Theory

Ouch, good points all of themWell. Cool. I guess I was misusing the terms religion and faith. OK, OK, I'll play the game.Religion: 1) A belief in a superhuman controlling power, esp in a personal God or gods entitled to obedience and worship. 2)An expression of this in worship. 3)particular system of faith and worship. 4)life under monastic vows. 5) Thing that one is devoted to.Faith: 1) complete trust and confidence, 2) firm, esp religious belief 3) religion or creed 4) loyalty, trustworthyness.Source:
The Oxford Dictionary of Current English
Second Edition
Oxford University Press, 1992By religion defintion #1 Christianity is a religion, atheism is NOT a religion.But by defintion 5 an atheistical world view IS a religion. I suppose I have to define devoted too though right?Devoted: loving, loyal.I doubt that this is what the previous 115 posts have been arguing. How about somebody tells me the 'real' definitions and an argument that evolution is not a religion.

quote:

---

Yes, it [evolution] is a fact, again in the same sense that gravity is both a fact and a theory at the same time as well.

---

-from nos, previous postingI agree to that under those definitions, but at the same time isn't Christianity a scientific fact by the same reasoning? Neither can be proved with absolute certainty because they are based on probabilities and 'best solution' logic. Christianity too looks for answers and has theories about the origin of the world that are being changed to better suit observations.From above,

quote:

---

In a strict sense, yes. However, since it is supported by so much evidence it can be used as a premise for further sudies. This is where creationists lose the thread of logic. They think that a working hypothesis is necessarily assumed to be a fact. In the case of evolution, the theory has survived for so long without refutation that it is what we can call it a 'scientific fact'. By using this scientific fact as a premise we are not only causing scientific progress, we are actualy testing the theory as well. Every day.

---

-this was from edge, back another postingI agree, but that too is a selfserving definition. Look at it this way, for a theory to become fact it needs to survive without refutation. I have never heard an argument that has destroyed my beliefs, so I feel they have not been refuted. It has been about six years personally. Is that enough time? Christianity has been around 2000 years, but at other times people believed slightly different Christianity as they believed slightly different forms of evolution. Is 2000 long enough?And yes I agree with your pragmatism, we should use the beliefs we have to cause scientific progress even though they are not absolute certainties and may be wrong in part.------------------
-Phantom Mullet