Evolution is a religion. Creation is a religion.

[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]

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]

[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:

---

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]

[QUOTE][b]I understand the meanings. Who gave you the right to change the meaning to more closely fit with your belief.[/QUOTE][/b]We didn't change the meaning, we're trying to explain to you what the meaning of science is. How about the Scientific Method? [QUOTE][b]Evolution is based on belief, it cannot be proven, and your tests only prove that "The planets were once spinning faster", "Something died", and you love the words "Millions of years" and my personal faveroite "POOF".[/QUOTE][/b]More argument by repetition. You are not advancing your point by stating it over and over again without supporting evidence.

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]

Christian1,If you're not here to debate, then perhaps you should find another website to post in. After all, we are all here to debate and I, for one, am not much interested in hearing from a person who believes ideas should only move in one direction.For you to stay around here just telling us we're wrong is (1) pointless (2) will probably just get you harrassed and therefore (3) degrade the quality of the forum.

​

[This message has been edited by gene90, 02-15-2002]

And for the record, quicksink, you can click the "Edit" button at the bottom of messages you have posted and edit your messages, without having to make additional messages that also degrade the quality of the forum.

[QUOTE][b]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.[/QUOTE][/b]That's an inappropriate attitude. [QUOTE][b]I don't fear science.[/QUOTE][/b]Because anything in science you find inconvenient to your belief system you label "religion", correct? [QUOTE][b]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.[/QUOTE][/b]Despite the fact that rather than researching evolution, you just read some English translation of the Bible and asked some friends of yours, who probably don't have well-informed opinions of evolution either. That's not open-mindedness. [QUOTE][b]Evolution is based on beliefs with no proof[/QUOTE][/b]You repeat yourself over and over and make no significant responses to our points. [QUOTE][b]...I wouldn't recommend attempting to engage in a debate with him.[/QUOTE][/b]I'm sorry, but did you just claim that God agrees with you?

[QUOTE][B]In other words Christians constantly ignore the mountains of evidence against their belief in the existence of their god.[/QUOTE][/B]Be sure to ask Nos what that evidence is.I always hear Creationists claim they have "mountains of evidence" but they never seem to share it. I suspect this is more of the same.

[QUOTE][B]The Church doesn't have to pay its share of taxes.[/QUOTE][/B]But preachers do. At least in the US.Then there are churches like mine, that don't pay their preachers in the first place. [QUOTE][B]I'm an agnostic.[/QUOTE][/B]Then why have you repeatedly asserted (without evidence, of course) that all religions are "Fairy Tales" and that there is no God.You're an atheist, trying to be agnostic. I have no idea why.

[QUOTE][B]Science "concerns" itself with everything which exists in the natural world (Universe) since that is all there is.[/QUOTE][/B]Prove it. [QUOTE][B]A slight chemical imbalance produces the exact same results.[/QUOTE][/B]Then why can't you prove that religious experiences are always the result of chemical imbalances? Also, how are these chemical imbalances happening on demand? And not when religious activities are not taking place? Remarkable selectivity. [QUOTE][B]Sounds more like that so-called New Age nonsense so many scam artists are making money off of.[/QUOTE][/B]Can you prove that that "nonsense" (which I do not believe in) really is nonsense?