Is science a religion?

First, my post was in response to BelFry's post, not yours.Then, I can tell by the way you are posting that you are an evolutionist, correct? No doubt in my mind.Everything I posted had every bearing and bore much value to my statements. Read my posts again, I'm sure you would be able to see that.Don't ignore the facts like those in Dover do. "Observe".

>All false, but again off topic. Unless the admins want to allow it. Can I get a ruling?Huh??? I guess you just want to disqualify anything you don't want to believe??? I guess this discussion is over. You seem to also want to "ignore" facts and "believe" what you want. Alright then, we can't have an intelligent discussion.No need to talk to an already closed mind. Good bye.

Hi MrEd, welcome to EvC.As others have mentioned, we try to keep our topics as clean as possible. The topic of this thread is "Is science a religion?". Please try and address you replies to that particular topic.The rest of your posts, while interesting, do not belong on this particular thread. If you look around the cosmology, dates and dating, and evolutionary biology fora I'm sure you will find more appropriate threads to post your claims in.As far as jar replying to your post to Belfry, this is an open board and other than our Great Debate forum, threads are generally open to replies from any member.Again, I want to welcome you to EvC and also to suggest that you look through the threads linked in my signature box. Please pay attention to our Forum Guidelines and things will run smoothly.

---

AdminAsgara Queen of the Universe

http://perditionsgate.bravepages.com

Actually, no, I'm a Creationist. One who is willing to explore how GOD really did it, and the answer is not the myths in the Bible.But the total bankruptcy of Biblical Creationism, the outright lies of the supporters of ID at Dover, the continued wilfull ignorance of those who support Biblical Creationsism are not the topic of this thread.This thread is about "Is science a religion" and is in the science forums. Here you are expected to do more than just bring in nonsense allegations from AIG or ICR. You are expected to provided evidence related to the question, something you have totally failed to do.Deal with the topic. We can discuss the absurdity of Biblical Creationists in the apporpriate thread.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

>Here you are expected to do more than just bring in nonsense allegations from AIG or ICR. You are expected to provided evidence related to the question, something you have totally failed to do.Ok, smarty-pants. Provide "evidence" that the "so-called" allegations from AIG or ICR are "nonsense"?

I already explained to you that this is not the thread to go over PRATTs.This thread is on "Is science a religion". We await your evidence related to that question.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

You will see that you have attracted the attention of the Queen, AdminAsgara. She was very polite in reminding you about what is accepted behavior here.I'll be a bit more blunt: do not call people any derogatory names! Especially do not do so when you have exhibited enormous ignorance of the subjects under discussion; it tends to make you look foolish.Stay on topic. Respond nicely to people attempting to help you learn things. Supply evidence for assertions made in the science threads.Do those things an you will get to continue posting.

quote:

---

If you look at how the scientific method actually begins...you would realize that evolution isn't even that. It isn't observed, which is how the scientific method begins.

​

On the contrary, science has aquired the "knowledge" that evolution never occurred and that creation did. Looks as if the Dover guys have gotten amnesia about the "laws" that nature demonstrates.

---

I think your confusion comes from the fact that evolution is largely a historical science, a direct result of which is that it isn't directly observable. Rejecting evolution as nonscientific on that basis would render archaeology and geology not sciences as well, when they clearly are sciences.There is no evidence for the creation model and much worse, it's wrong. The creation model postulates that the earth is 10,000 years old, when it is demonsterably older. Just look at island chains, can those really form in a few thousand years? Hawaii's been constantly spewing for years and it's only made miniscule progress in making more island. We can calculate the rate and direction at which Plate Tectonics are moving and infact extrapolate that backwards. Based on those calculations we know how long ago the continents were together, it was hundreds of millions of years ago. And I haven't even mentioned radiometric dating yet.
Creationism has no mechanism... oh I'm sorry it does it's *POOF*!!!
Science can only deal with natural explanations, you can't diss evolution for being untestable and unobservable if you are a creationist because God is untestable and unobservable.
What evidence would you postulate that would definitively prove God? What evidence would convince you that evolution occured?

So it seems you are the type that plays dodgeball huh? Oh well.

Since I don't know how the peek option works I'll have to respond in this way:>There is no evidence for the creation model and much worse, it's wrong. The creation model postulates that the earth is 10,000 years old, when it is demonsterably older.Ok. show evidence that creation didn't happen and that the earth is older than 6,000 years.

Sigh!There is a "Peek" button at the bottom right of each posted message. It shows you the unformatted text.Incidently, that shaded quote above was done with:[qs]Since I don't know how the peek option works ...[/qs]"qs" stands for "quote shaded". The "help" on dBCodes, to the left of the edit window, gives you more options.

---

Sigh!Like this?Sneek, copy/paste, press the back button, and then reply?

You can peek at various messages, to learn how people get particular effects.When replying, you can click in the "Peek Mode" option for the message you are responding to (below the edit window). That allows you to see the raw text there, and perhaps copy/paste.Now let's get back to the topic "Is science a religion?"

---

BBC - History - TimelinesOk for starters we have human remains and evidence of culture and stucture building back and beyond 8300BCE at the very least (almost 10.5 thousand years ago, Neolithic). Even if the universe was only 6000years old, with the amount of survivals we have for ancient cultures, then we have absolutly NO time available for the bible events to take place IN.

---

Dendrochronology has produced a continuious record of treerings that strech back over 10 thousand years.

---

Speed of light is the distance traveled by light in a year. If the universe was only 6000 years old we would not be able to see anything of the universe more than 6K light years away. We can, by many hundreds of thousands of light years, and thus the universe has to be far, far older than 6K years.

---

We have fosils, we have geological structure...

---

Actually there is so much evidence, much of it mutually supportive I urge you to go find it. It shouldnt be too hard. the book store and library shelves should contain plenty (in the science section, not the religion section)Edited by ohnhai, : No reason given.

My understanding of the world is evidence-based. You have presented none for your assertions, which go against the understandings of scientists in many fields. Nor should you present it here, because the topic here is, "Is science a religion."The assertions you're making are not new to those of us who have been involved with the EvC debate for a while. I invite you to restart one of the existing threads on them, or start some of your own, so we can respond to them and you can defend them. (ETA: ) The reason for the topic restriction is that Evo vs. Creo discussions have a tendency to quickly snowball out of control (and lose the original topic) following a post like yours that brings in many individual new topics.Edited by Belfry, : No reason given.Edited by Belfry, : Typos, marked addition.