You are confused that many Christians who accept evolution do not have problems with evolution theory in respect to their beliefs on some points, with your opinion that they should not have any problems.Nature red in tooth and claw is a generally accepted metaphor within the scientific community as well. Your opinion that this should not be accepted is besides the point of the facts of the matter.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

What? LOL There may be some problem in translation but is there any meaning in that statement? If you want "Red in tooth and claw" try the Bible. I don't really care whether it it is an accepted metaphor or not, it's a silly statement.What does it have to do with the TOE?But, IIRC, the topic is to show or support the contention that Evolution is not a Science but a Religion. Once again, nothing in your post has anything to do with the topic.The issue is really simple.Can you show an example of Creation Science where the line isobservation ----> hypothesis ----> theory -----> test ----> conclusion?Remember, in this line, the conclusion can not be known until the filnal step. That means God, Bible, Designer and all the other possible conclusions get thrown out until all other simpler ones are tested.edited to add mandatory spelling errors.This message has been edited by jar, 07-19-2004 03:14 AM

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

It means that many people who accept evolution theory, still have problems with it in regards to their Christianity, regardless if you think they should have problems with it or not. I think you are simply failing to understand because you don't like to hear it, rather then that I'm being that unclear.As before the method of creationism is to trace back to the root cause, as the creation event, which had the effect of making the thing appear. It applies to anything, and is not just confined to what is in biblehistory. It is strange that you question a way of investigaiton which you probably practice every day.The reason is it on topic is because the denial of evolutionists of creation is political / religious, which makes evolution a religion rather then a science in the context of the creation vs evolution controversy.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

Sorry, butobservation ----> hypothesis ----> theory -----> test ----> conclusion!notconclusion ----> theory ----> hypotosis ----> observation.The theory of Evolution is Science.Creationism is Religion.You have yet to show in any way or form.I think that it has been mentioned before, but just in case it was overlooked...

the Theory of Evolution does not deal with how things started.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Well I'm not a fellow Christian, eventhough Islam incorporates much of Christianity. I'm not inclined to doubt concepts such as creation, because it is too much work.It seems very risky to try to assimilate Christianity to evolution, because it can easily give credibility to racist conceptions of Christianity in the process. I think they better exist wide apart, for people who accept both.Where mystery typically enters into it, is with choice, when I arrive at a root cause. When something is a neccessary effect of what happened before, then that's not much of a mystery in my opinion.To make an argument you have to show that evolutionists don't deny or ignore creation in general. It is ok if they ignore biblical creation, much as it is ok for people to ignore the atheist, materialist, social darwinist ideology in evolutionist discourse.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

I think you're mindlessly using a preformatted debate script here, which doesn't actually address my argumentation.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

This from the person still claiming that evolutionary theory justifies racism, and still trying to drag it into any debate topic even minutely related and many that aren't at all.When it comes to the preformatted debate script Syamsu, you wrote the book.TTFN,WK

I see you have failed to reply to my post, though I won't dog you on this because I'm sure you're busy and feel you might have replied through your replies to others. No big deal.

quote:

---

To make an argument you have to show that evolutionists don't deny or ignore creation in general. It is ok if they ignore biblical creation, much as it is ok for people to ignore the atheist, materialist, social darwinist ideology in evolutionist discourse.

---

Assuming I understand you correctly, I fail to see how you must show this to make an argument. Evolutionists can deny or ignore creation all they want, it should have no bearing on their studies.I have a challenge for you. Show me some evidence regarding creation that interferes with the TOE. The fact is, everything we trace back to creation can be explained alongside of evolution. The two are not dependant on each other! This is speaking strictly in terms of scientific evidence and observations, of course, and not in terms of stories or writings about how we were created.

Okay, then as a fellow believer in the God of all three abrahamic religions I would ask you to do so but I see you're not interested. But your reason is that it's too much work? That doesn't seem like a very good reason to neglect the possibility that your idea is wrong, does it? Whoa now, hang on. A little off-topic, but Jesus didn't preach racism. Modern Christians do out of IGNORANCE, but they're wrong and that's not what our doctrine is all about. Sorry if Christians in the past have been racist to you or anyone you know. Yes, I realize that the way things are now are a necessary effect of the creation story, but from the look of current science that type of creation didn't happen. Just because we're a necessary result of something that could've happened doesn't mean it happened. There is more than one way to cook food, but the inevitable result is that it's hot from any of the cases. Thing is, you can study the food to see how it was cooked; if it looks like it was fried to the experienced chef, it probably wasn't baked. I don't have to by any means. You're basically saying that because they're opposed to creation and don't agree with it they're an opposing religion? An atheist disagrees with every religion, that doesn't make him religious; it makes the person quite the opposite by the definition of the word 'atheist'.

---

Wanna feel God? Step onto the wrestling mat and you'd be crazy to deny the uplifting spirit. http://www.BadPreacher.5u.com (incomplete, but look anyway!)

The reason that evolutionists deny creation is the atheism, materialism, and social darwinism associated to the theory, evolution thereby becomes a part of those ideologies. In this sense it is a religion.Probably creation wouldn't be inconsistent with evolution. But you make no point with it, because evolutionists deny and or ignore creation.What do you think would happen if evolutionists openly supported the search for root causes, creation events where kinds of organism became a certainty to exist. The controversy would dissipate, because religion would have it's connection to creation within science, and would counterballance the atheism / materialism / social darwinism associated to evolution theory.It seems to me creation events strongly imply a spiritual realm, although if you just look at the start of a creation event, you see nothing. You must see nothing because a creation event can't be an effect of what went before.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

Ever hear of theistic evolutionists?

Well i did my best to keep it out of the thread by saying to ignore social darwinism, eventhough the thread is about evolution as a religion. But saying to ignore social darwinism leads the people here to say that social darwinism associated to evolution theory doesn't exist, so then I have to retort to that denial of reality.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

The Germanic christian sect maybe? Creation is not evolution, they are different concepts, as discussed before in this thread.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

Someone who accepts evolution to be true and still believes in a god, Christian or otherwise. Also they believe that god guided Evolution or set evolution in motion.

quote:

---

The reason that evolutionists deny creation is the atheism, materialism, and social darwinism associated to the theory, evolution thereby becomes a part of those ideologies. In this sense it is a religion.

---

No evolutionist can deny creation, as we indeed came from somewhere. To deny creation would mean denying our existence. That hardly makes sense! Now, denying the creation story given to us in Genesis, that's a different story. I see no support that the reason evolutionists deny this story is the atheism, materialism, and social darwinism associated with it, though. In fact, I only find those things associated with the evolution because many people from other belief systems will not accept it! Making this your basis for evolution being a religion is nonsense, however. This is like me saying that internet gaming is a religion because people that play internet games share similar views on things.

quote:

---

Probably creation wouldn't be inconsistent with evolution. But you make no point with it, because evolutionists deny and or ignore creation.

---

I only brought this point up because you try to disprove evolution's scientific background through creation. The two have no bearing on each other, and thus creation shouldn't even be a part of this argument. I still fail to see how evolutionists deny or ignore creation.

quote:

---

What do you think would happen if evolutionists openly supported the search for root causes, creation events where kinds of organism became a certainty to exist. The controversy would dissipate, because religion would have it's connection to creation within science, and would counterballance the atheism / materialism / social darwinism associated to evolution theory.

---

There has ALWAYS been a search for these "root causes". I'm sure some evolutionists are a part of it and some are not. The controversy will never dissipate as long as there are people willing to argue that the facts are not true because their religion will not allow for it. Religion can only have a connection to science insofar as data is shown to support its set of beliefs. I would argue that at this point there isn't much support, and that is why there is such a controversy in the first place.

quote:

---

It seems to me creation events strongly imply a spiritual realm, although if you just look at the start of a creation event, you see nothing. You must see nothing because a creation event can't be an effect of what went before.

---

Well, that is your opinion, and you are certainly entitled to it. Perhaps one day we will discover that creation came from a spiritual source. Until that day, however, I am inclined to support the facts (which, by the way, explain a good bit about the creation of life when you break down lifeforms into their respective elements).Summary:
You seem to have the impression that nobody has ever looked into the origins of life. I would say this is a horrible inaccurate view, as people have certainly been studying it for years upon years upon years. Your argument that evolutionists refuse to look into this is amusing at best, and cannot be used to support your view that evolution is a religion.Also, another view you seem to have is that life is only life because of some supernatural force. While I cannot prove this to be an incorrect view, you must understand that you cannot prove it to be a correct view, either (or, if you can, I would most certainly like to see your proof). You seem to think that studying the origin of life would bring up proof for this supernatural force, but you fail to recognize that people have been studying this for years, and no such proof has been found!And lastly, I will repeat something that has been said many times in a different form: CREATION CANNOT BE USED TO PROVE EVOLUTION IS A RELIGIONP.S.: If I ever become a notable scientist, and some fundie quote mines "EVOLUTION IS A RELIGION" out of my above sentence, I will personally hunt them down, slay them, feed them to my pets, and use their bones for my kitchen utinsels.This message has been edited by Glordag, 07-20-2004 04:23 AMThis message has been edited by Glordag, 07-20-2004 04:25 AM