Evolution: A religion?

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by gonzo_for_civ


Glaciers could be affected by too many things for accuracy. And i've seen MANY scientists that disagree with carbon dating methods. In fact, most creationists don't run around talking about it either...

I have only seen creationists make significant disagreemants with C14 dating on general princaples. The only thing that other scientists worry about with C14 is contamination and that can usually be shown to exist or not. Some cases its ambiguous as in the case of a pre-Columbian site on the East Coast that may or may not be 14,000 years old depending on whether there was contamination for a local coal deposit.

C14 dateing works on carbon that is of atmospheric origin. Consequently it can't be used for dating life from the sea as much of the carbon there comes from disolved carbon compounds and not atmospheric CO2. Which is why Creationist like to bring up shells. Shells can't be dated accuratly by C14 but trees can. So can bones if they are from land animals that didn't eat a lot of sea food.

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by monkspider
You anti-theists are just being silly though.
Surely an all powerful diety can create a world that appeared as old as he saw fit. Don't ya think?

Sure it could. It could just as easily tell lies to the authors of the Bible though. Either way you are claiming a god that is hiding the truth. I admit I don't care for such a god so I won't assume one.

You go right ahead in worshipping a god you can't trust though.

Do this give you an idea why the ICR does make this claim. It clearly requires a dishonest god. One that could lie in the Bible just as easily in the world.

And even if he didn't see fit, there is no reason not to think that seven days of genesis didn't mean seven epochs of time. There are passages in the bible that say "a day to god is like a thousand years" and stuff like that.

That still doesn't patch the flood and it makes this thread wrong. Given that time evolution MUST occur given the fact that mutations do happen.

[MarkG]

mutawhat? dont use difficult words ethel

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by gonzo_for_civ
Sounds like evolutionists don't know the definition of proven. If it's proven, it cannot be disproven, it is a fact! Therefore if it cannot be proven it is theory and nothing more.

The claim was that it was disprovable not that it had be dispoven. Of course the Flood is disprovable and it has been disproved.

YAAAAWWWWWNNNNNNNNNN!!!!!!!!!!

Such a brilliant response. I am astounded by your wit and wisdom. Why I am so profoundly affected that I must run down to the Crystal Cathedral and ask Schuler to hire me on as a window washer as penance for ever going on evidence instead of a book written long ago by men that didn't know what the heck they were saying.

Nah. Instead I will wait to see some shred of this evidence that you and Skilord claim exists.

Where is some?

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by gonzo_for_civ


You missed the point. Good luck figuring it out. Good night!

I can't miss a point if you don't make it.

I am waiting for evidence to support the Bible.

Claiming the world is a lie is not the same as showing evidence. Its a sad thing that you must descend to this sort of nonsense.

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by MarkG
it's always fun reading these threads...

gonzo

If it's proven, it cannot be disproven, it is a fact!

it depends on the definition of "can"

Well in this case the "can" is actualy 'could' as it is now past tense. Too late for them to dispove as its proven now. They had their chance and they failed.

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by SKILORD

it would have been dishonest had he not told us. he probably needed an adault world to support your pathetic life and billions more like it, and what's more he said in genesis that he created an adault world.

Actually he said no such thing. Even the real authors did not claim that Jehovah or Elohim created the world to look billions of years old. You said that not the Bible.

Elohim by the way is plural for god. At least some of the people that wrote the Bible weren't monotheists.

i meant evidenca against evolutionism bozo. night.

I am waiting for some. All you have managed is to call your god deceptive. That does not exactly constitute evidence against evolution. Nor even rational thought of any kind.

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by MarkG
mutawhat? dont use difficult words ethel

I don't know as you didn't quote it.

I am sorry my spelling and typing isn't better though. I know far more words than my fingers can deal with accuratly. I even deliberatly avoid using some that I can never get right.

Like

Neccissarily
Blatent but I use it blatantly anyway.
Concieve or is it concave that I meant to type
Too, to and two but I can't get away skipping over those
The which my fingers often spell hte

And I leave out words a lot. Important words like "not". Thats a really bad one to leave out.


I have this awfull feeling that when I look at this thread tommorow it will so large I won't be able to reach the end of it before it gets closed for reaching 500 posts.

[Combat Ingrid]

You know, evolution can still be disproved, otherwise it wouldn't be scientific anymore
However, current evidence gives strong support to it, so in my mind it's the "truth", at least for the moment

[Ethelred]

All that I know is tentative and subject to change based on future evidence.

No matter how much I rant about it presently.



I can and have changed my mind I just need a good reason. For instance I no longer think that electrons orbit the nucleus of atoms. For a long time I thought the idea of an amorphous cloud of probable postions as opposed to a fixed orbit was a mere mathematical construct. I now know this was wrong. It just took the right bit of evidence. Orbiting electrons would emit sychrotron radiation.

[-=Vagrant=-]

The Flood= Stolen story from the Saga of Gilgamesh
Jesus Christ= Stolen story from Mithras, he was born from a virgin too!

Creationists, tell me how did God create creatures? Did he assemble them atom by atom or molecule by molecule?

Thanks,

[Ethelred]

Did he asseble them atom by atom or molecule by molecule?

Sometimes by transmutation apparently. The Bible says Adam was made from clay. Clay is mostly silica and alumina. Not much carbon or hydrogen there and we are almost entirely hydrogen, carbon, and oxygen.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Ned
If evolution is religion, then religion is evolution.
But evolution is science.
Then science is religion, and religion is science.
But science is fact.
Then fact is religion, and religion is fact.
But religion is God.
Then fact is God, and God is fact.

Something is wrong here.

Nothing is wrong.

Your *cough* logic *cough* shows that If evolution is religion, thn God is fact.

But since God is not fact, evolution is not religion.

[Urban Ranger]

Re: Evolution: A religion?

Originally posted by SKILORD
I personally beleive it is. Evolution cannot be proven, it requires one to have faith in it, and therefore meets my standards for a religion.

First of all, your definition is screwed up. There are also Flat Earthers who believe that the Earth is flat, but that doesn't make it a religion.

Secondly, evolution is a fact. This summary gives a number of observed instances of speciation. That alone should destroy Creationism. [Didn't somebody assert that he read everything on the website? This proves him lying.]

Thirdly, there are a whole lot of threads on the same topic. Search the Off-Topic forum and the archives. Stop making the same old lame flame-baiting crap every month

[Aeson]

A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.

I've always thought of science as a belief system. I also view religious concepts as primitive forms of scientific theory. Both are an attempt to explain natural phenomenon. Our ability to explain things is better now than in the past, and will be better in the future (hopefully).

The quoted definition for religion could fit evolution. There certainly are supporters of evolution who would fit the "pursued with zeal or concienteous devotion." The scientific process could also fit the definition regardless of the individual supporter's mindset. While there is no devotion to any given theory, there is devotion to the advancement of knowlege. A very well placed devotion if you ask me.

That said, it really doesn't matter how we categorize evolution. It's validity is the same whether we call it a religion or science. Someday we may look back at evolution in the same light as we look back on theories about a flat earth or zeus up on a mountain hurling lightning bolts. We'll have better and more complete explainations.