Evolution: A religion?

[gonzo_for_civ]

Originally posted by Combat Ingrid


In other words, what scientists refer to as "evolution" is really animal instinct and the real meaning of the word "evolution" would be the popping out of men from monkeys?

Its hard to disprove something that doesn't exist. There is no science involved in creationism. However the world is billions of years old and that is more enough evidence that the ICR is wrong as they insist the world is only around 6000 years old.

Im not gonna go into it as I am not a preacher or a profound believer in common creationism. But read the damn bible and you'll find the answer.

No species has split for fun. Its from enviromental pressure and isolation.

Is that like peer pressure?

Only if you believe they are telling you the truth

I never said they were, i simply said they could prove it..

[SKILORD]

Originally posted by Ethelred


No species has split for fun. Its from enviromental pressure and isolation.

really, can you prove that any such "pressure and isolation" ever happened?

However the world is billions of years old

Is it really? prove it.

Why indeed? Most likely they weren't lying just ignorant. Now the ICR is big on lies. They lie frequently. The Bible has many innaccuracies as well. The Flood never happened. The world is not 6000 years old. There was no Tower of Bable.

How can you disprove any of those things? btw, you sound like a coverup agent is there something you don't want us to know?

[Combat Ingrid]

The problem with creationism is that it cannot be disproved, you already know for certain it is true, no matter what science tells you.

I can always go back to my "moon is made of cheese" argument to show you how silly this becomes. There is nothing you can tell me that for certain disproves the moon is made of cheese, thus the moon is made of cheese! The same can be applied to creationism.

[Boris Godunov]

The Flood has been disproven in many ways. Many times.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html

[gonzo_for_civ]

wow boris, that's your third reference to talkorigins.com, a little shameless advertising I suppose.

And i've read that, and it in no way takes in account the details of the flood or disproves it. Keep in mind, I've been to the site and read it all, and still it sounds to circumstantial even when it tries to make a point to convince me...

[Combat Ingrid]

I read somewhere that the black sea area was flooded some 6-7000 years ago. Sounds like a good real-life inspiration for the flood story

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by gonzo_for_civ
wow boris, that's your third reference to talkorigins.com, a little shameless advertising I suppose.

It's a site that has pretty much every answer to Creationist arguments, or lack thereof. Why shop elsewhere when it's all collected into a convenient (and well-documented and researched) place.

.And i've read that, and it in no way takes in account the details of the flood or disproves it. Keep in mind, I've been to the site and read it all, and still it sounds to circumstantial even when it tries to make a point to convince me...

You're lying, as you haven't read it all, nobody has. Creationists shouldn't lie, it's a sin.

And there is nothing circumstantial about the fossil record. Nor the fact that several civilizations lived through it unscathed without even noticing it. Nor that the very act of fitting 25,000+ species of mammals into a 450 foot long wooden ship for 40 days and nights is a physical impossibility. Nor that the Bible explicitly says all living creatures not inside the Ark were killed, which doesn't explain why we still have fish and whales and other aquatic life, now does it?

If you think the geologic evidence is circumstantial, then we'll have to had geology to evolution on the list of things you have no idea what you're talking about.

[SKILORD]

The problem with creationism is that it cannot be disproved, you already know for certain it is true, no matter what science tells you.

The problem with evolutionism is that it cannot be disproved, you already know for certain it is true, no matter what science tells you.

I accept that you are a distortionist. I never said anything remotely cult like and only the active ignorance that is needed by creationists could possibly have generated that ridiculous statement of yours.

alright then what does this mean? Active ignorance eh? i could say the same of you.

quote:


maybe a cult then, a vast cult dedicated to chance?

Not chance. Environment. Evolution is not merely by chance. It is directed by the environment every bit as much as breeding dogs is directed by the breeders.

you did not say it wasn't a cult, only that it's focus was "Enviroment" as opposed to "chance"

[gonzo_for_civ]

"And there is nothing circumstantial about the fossil record. Nor the fact that several civilizations lived through it unscathed without even noticing it. Nor that the very act of fitting 25,000+ species of mammals into a 450 foot long wooden ship for 40 days and nights is a physical impossibility. Nor that the Bible explicitly says all living creatures not inside the Ark were killed, which doesn't explain why we still have fish and whales and other aquatic life, now does it? "

Wrong, it said all land animals, even in that document.


"You're lying, as you haven't read it all, nobody has. Creationists shouldn't lie, it's a sin. "

How...mature....and false, i think plenty of people have read it all.


"If you think the geologic evidence is circumstantial, then we'll have to had geology to evolution on the list of things you have no idea what you're talking about."

All right! Topic change number 400,000!! And how can geological methods be proven? I suppose your an expert on this of course.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by SKILORD


The problem with evolutionism is that it cannot be disproved, you already know for certain it is true, no matter what science tells you.

This is a bull**** bit of illogical catchphrasing. Evolution can indeed be disproved, as it is a scientific theory. Any scientific theory can be tested by scientific means and observation. So far, evolution has not been disproven. In fact, the plethora of fossil evidence has show it to be a truth.

Creationism is not scientific, and ergo cannot be tested scientifically, and thus cannot be disproved by science.

Herein we see Creationists still haven't learned the definition of 1) Theory or 2) Science.

[SKILORD]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov


It's a site that has pretty much every answer to Creationist arguments, or lack thereof. Why shop elsewhere when it's all collected into a convenient (and well-documented and researched) place.

if not just a little biased.

And there is nothing circumstantial about the fossil record.

The fossil record of which you speak was gained through a process proven time and again to be inaaccurate: unless of course you have something other than carbon dating backing it up. perhaps you were there?ldman:

If you think the geologic evidence is circumstantial, then we'll have to had geology to evolution on the list of things you have no idea what you're talking about.

geologic evidence may not be. but lets say that evidence was gathered by evlutionists. people who would take their own beleifs into account as they pretty much guessed at the date.

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by gonzo_for_civ

Im not gonna go into it as I am not a preacher or a profound believer in common creationism. But read the damn bible and you'll find the answer.

I read Genesis and Exodus. That was more than enough evidence to show the Bible is wrong on many things. There was no flood but its in the Bible. There was no Tower of Babel but its there as well. Nothing in the Bible can make those fantasies true.

Is that like peer pressure?

Its like environmental pressure. Peers are part of the enviroment. So with humans it is possible that actual peer pressure resulted in isolation for some groups of humans.

Don't play LOL instead of thinking with me. I can use to help my postition. Try thinking a bit.

I never said they were, i simply said they could prove it..

Creationists can't prove anything. Thats why they make up nonsense.

[Combat Ingrid]

Originally posted by SKILORD


The problem with evolutionism is that it cannot be disproved, you already know for certain it is true, no matter what science tells you.

No, it can certainly be disproved! The reason I think evolution is correct is because the scientific evidence supports it. If there was strong scientific evidence against it, I would conclude it is wrong.

[monkspider]

Interesting post Skilord, I think that the some of the rigid evolutionists have a certain zeal for defending it that make it seemto resemble religion in everything but name. And of course, the fact that it requires a degree of faith also makes it very religion-esque.
My stance on evolution you ask? Micro Evolution: certainly, macro evolution: possibly, in some form or another. Evolution, the final answer to everything in biology? Most certainly not.

[gonzo_for_civ]

"Creationism is not scientific, and ergo cannot be tested scientifically, and thus cannot be disproved by science. "

Your little neato site there sure tries...

"Herein we see Creationists still haven't learned the definition of 1) Theory or 2) Science."

Theory = A belief, but not called that by anti-creationist scientists. Assumed because it seems likely.

Science = The practice of questioning everything until you become so blind you can't see the answer staring you in the face.