Evolution is a RELIGION and not Science

2hot4me said:

Both completely and absolutely wrong, the only time and I mean the ONLY time faith is used is in religion, never but never will we use faith for anything else.

Before you tell me I am wrong please think about it, in every other aspect of our lives we trust through experience,
even to sitting on a chair, we use our eyes to see if it will hold our weight and having sat on countless chairs before we use our past experience.
Faith is reserved solely for religion, silly really when you think about it because supposedly the most important message we will ever get relies only on faith, which tells me that the message is bogus.

Click to expand...

You win, as I am not allowed anymore to disagree with the religion of evolution or the science of evolution. I have been warned.

Pity, evolution must be forced on students and debate can not be allowed against it.

Davidjayjordan said:

You win, as I am not allowed anymore to disagree with the religion of evolution or the science of evolution. I have been warned.

Pity, evolution must be forced on students and debate can not be allowed against it.

Click to expand...

Sensible debate is completely allowed. Evolution is there to be questioned, as is every scientific theory and hypothesis. Saying that evolution is "not science" or "there is no evidence for evolution" or "evolution is forced on students" and repeating it over and over without support is not a debate, and no matter how many times you repeat it, it doesn't make it true.

CabVet said:

Sensible debate is completely allowed. Evolution is there to be questioned, as is every scientific theory and hypothesis. Saying that evolution is "not science" or "there is no evidence for evolution" or "evolution is forced on students" and repeating it over and over without support is not a debate, and no matter how many times you repeat it, it doesn't make it true.

Click to expand...

Yes, its more than just silly, but hows a lack of reasoning.
People miss the point about SZcience, in that they have come to be so under its spell in the Information Age that they ignore the point of Science.

SZcience is just an aergument
.

It is the appeal to our sense of logical connections and deductive reasoning.

Science does claim to prove anythong.
It merely sets out definite acceped facts (peer reviewed), and uses those facts to build an argument for a particular idea, like Evolution, in this case.

Religion uses intuition to build up an idea that can be so convincing that people believe in it.

Soime people believe in the intuition, usually long established before the Science arguments that others believe in because they use logic, mathematics, and formal reasoning.

cupid dave said:

Yes, its more than just silly, but hows a lack of reasoning.
People miss the point about SZcience, in that they have come to be so under its spell in the Information Age that they ignore the point of Science.

SZcience is just an aergument
.

It is the appeal to our sense of logical connections and deductive reasoning.

Science does claim to prove anythong.
It merely sets out definite acceped facts (peer reviewed), and uses those facts to build an argument for a particular idea, like Evolution, in this case.

Religion uses intuition to build up an idea that can be so convincing that people believe in it.

Soime people believe in the intuition, usually long established before the Science arguments that others believe in because they use logic, mathematics, and formal reasoning.

Click to expand...

Although I cannot agree with what you have stated here, I do not disagree with what it seems you are trying to say. If you substitute the word "model" for the word "argument," then we are in agreement.

The entire EvC debate is driven by Creationists, and they have set the parameters of the debate. They have made the assumption that the ToE must be either true or false, and then they set out to "prove" it is false, leaving "Darwinists" the task of "proving" the ToE to be true.

But the ToE, like any scientific theory, is a model, and as such is neither "true" nor "false." A model of a natural system is either useful or not in letting us visualize and quantify nature and her laws, but it is not the natural system itself, and so it is not "true" no matter how useful it is, and it is not "false" when it has been superseded by another model.

OllieFranz said:

A model of a natural system...

Click to expand...

Sounds like it's all on paper to me.

And for the record, I don't accept macroevolution, so I don't consider it a 'natural system' -- except on paper.

Evolution is a religion: theosophy, theistic evolution.

GrowingSmaller said:

Evolution is a religion: theosophy, theistic evolution.

Click to expand...

Just keep repeating it. That'll make it come true.

AV1611VET said:

Sounds like it's all on paper to me.

And for the record, I don't accept macroevolution, so I don't consider it a 'natural system' -- except on paper.

Click to expand...

As I used the term in my post, a natural system is whatever actually occurs in nature. As you used the term in your post ("I don't accept macroevolution") macroevolution is a theory or model of the system, not the system itself, so of course it is not a natural system -- it's a model. You are confusing a model for the thing it models. Of course you can't go swimming in a map of a lake.

Our minds and our mathematics cannot encompass all of creation at once. So we have to break it down into manageable chunks and simplify the math. This is modelling. Our math cannot solve the three-body problem in the theory of gravity, so we can't properly describe the orbits of the Sun, the Moon and the Earth around one another, so we have to approximate it. We do this by considering the orbits of the Earth and the Moon without the Sun, and the orbits of the Sun and a hypothetical planet with the combined mass of the Earth and the Moon, and finally superimposing the first on the second. We know it's not exact, but it's the best we can do at the moment. In the future, it is possible that our math may advance, and specific measurements will almost certainly become more exact, and we will refine our model when either of these happen.

I'll correct Creationist PRATTs, and clear misunderstandings of science, but I refuse to engage in their debates over the "truth" of the ToE, or pay attention to any ID "science." Argument by Design is philosophy, not science.

OllieFranz said:

As you used the term in your post ("I don't accept macroevolution") macroevolution is a theory or model of the system, not the system itself, so of course it is not a natural system -- it's a model.

Click to expand...

When people like you talk like you do, unfortunately it makes people like me have to repeat myself ... with a little more, shall we call it, emphasis?

Therefore, let me rephrase: macroevolution can take a hike.

We did not come from a common ancestor; we came from a common designer.

And our minds and mathematics and anything else can take a backseat to what God did in Genesis 1.

I'd like to see mathematics explain the Trinity, or Jesus feeding the 5000; or your 'manageable chunks' explain Jesus walking on water.

AV1611VET said:

When people like you talk like you do, unfortunately it makes people like me have to repeat myself ... with a little more, shall we call it, emphasis?

Therefore, let me rephrase: macroevolution can take a hike.

We did not come from a common ancestor; we came from a common designer.

And our minds and mathematics and anything else can take a backseat to what God did in Genesis 1.

I'd like to see mathematics explain the Trinity, or Jesus feeding the 5000; or your 'manageable chunks' explain Jesus walking on water.

Click to expand...

Your personal incredulity can take a hike. God or not, we humans evolved from a single common ancestor. You don't like it to bad. That's the way it is.

AV1611VET said:

When people like you talk like you do, unfortunately it makes people like me have to repeat myself ... with a little more, shall we call it, emphasis?

Click to expand...

Putting more emphasis on a deliberate confusion of terms does not make the confusion go away. It just proves the "big lie" theory: if you repeat a lie enough times and loudly enough, you may get some people to believe it. But that still does not make it so.

Therefore, let me rephrase: macroevolution can take a hike.

Click to expand...

In other words, "I don't want to hear it" -- the flip side of the "big lie" theory. If I can't hear it, I don't have to consider it.

We did not come from a common ancestor; we came from a common designer.

Click to expand...

"We came from a common Designer," is not science, it is philosophy. Philosophy I happen to agree with, but philosophy that has no business in a discussion of science.

"We did not come from a common ancestor," is a statement for which you have no scientific evidence. All evidence points to evolution, and all reasonable models of evolution imply common descent. You even implicitly agree with the models pointing that way when you "explain away" the evidence with your "embedded age" claims.

I agree with those that say that we weren't there, and so we can't be sure of what happened. But any scientific theory (model), if it is to be scientific, must fit all of the evidence, and should be parsimonious (see Occam's Razor). Your embedded age claim is neither. It is not scientific.

And our minds and mathematics and anything else can take a backseat to what God did in Genesis 1.

Click to expand...

Genesis is not a science textbook.

As a Christian I agree that God created the heavens and the Earth, as per Genesis 1:1. But the stories in Genesis 1 & 2 are stories. The first story is a hymn of praise to God the Creator of all, Genesis 2 is a parable answering the question of why we have a sinful nature if we were created by a perfect and loving God. Neither is the literal, physical, or historical "Gospel truth."

I'd like to see mathematics explain the Trinity, or Jesus feeding the 5000; or your 'manageable chunks' explain Jesus walking on water.

Click to expand...

You are asking Science to do something that it not only was not designed to do, but it was specifically designed not to do. Science studies the laws of nature. Miracles are suspensions of the laws of nature. That is why they are called supernatural.

Science does not deny the supernatural, but it does ignore it. Not out of contempt, or disbelief, or any other negative motive, but again, because we need to break Creation into manageable chunks to understand it. Science is what we call those disciplines that look at the chunks involving the laws of nature. There are other disciplines (philosophy, theology, soterology, etc) that examine supernatural chunks.

OllieFranz said:

"We came from a common Designer," is not science, it is philosophy.

Click to expand...

No, it is not philosophy -- it is history; more specifically: His_story.

CabVet said:

His point is (I think) that if there ever was, in the history of the world, one single theory in science that was wrong, then there is something fundamentally wrong with science and evolution must be wrong (and probably gravity too).

Click to expand...

... and that therefor Christianity is true, the KJV the only true version of the Bible (even more true than the original Hebrew bibles), Adam and Eve spoke English and that after the Flood a unicorne gave birth to all the animal species that weren't on the Ark.

this is all true becaus the Phlogiston theory is wrong. Or because Pluto isn't a planet anymore, Challenger exploded or because Thalidomid wasn't a wonderdrug after all.

driewerf said:

this is all true becaus the Phlogiston theory is wrong.

Click to expand...

And yet I can still give it some dignity:

AV1611VET said:

Phlogiston theory, as Becher proposed it, may not exist -- okay, doesn't exist -- but I don't think it is going offbeat to associate the Lake of Fire with phlogiston; if not just to get the idea across that it is indeed a lake of fire.

I like to use phlogiston, so as to prevent someone from saying it is just water with gasoline or some other combustible burning on the surface.

In short, it is not phlogiston as we know it, but some other as yet unidentified liquid.

Click to expand...

And here you thought I was antiscience?

Science is our friend, but it can be our enemy too.

Davidjayjordan said:

You win, as I am not allowed anymore to disagree with the religion of evolution or the science of evolution. I have been warned.

Pity, evolution must be forced on students and debate can not be allowed against it.

Click to expand...

Really? This old strawman? "Poor, poor me, I can't disagree with you."

Except you're more than welcome to disagree with scientific findings. Just not by silly pedantic means. Please do disagree. Post ideas that are contrary. How else do we learn?

In the meantime we'll continue to educate students with what the evidence suggests. Until you can show us how it suggests something else...

AV1611VET said:

And yet I can still give it some dignity:

And here you thought I was antiscience?

Science is our friend, but it can be our enemy too.

Click to expand...

Now, replace the word, "science" with anything.

"government" is our friend, but it can be our enemy too.

"religion" is our friend, but it can be our enemy too.

"organized labor" is our friend, but it can be our enemy too.

"a toddler" is our friend, but it can be our enemy too.

Sorta takes the steam out of it when you realize it applies to everything.

Phred said:

Sorta takes the steam out of it when you realize it applies to everything.

Click to expand...

You just keep in mind that I said 'science is our friend', the next time you see someone ranting that I said 'science can take a hike.'

You might even find yourself disagreeing with that person, eh?

AV1611VET said:

You just keep in mind that I said 'science is our friend', the next time you see someone ranting that I said 'science can take a hike.'

You might even find yourself disagreeing with that person, eh?

Click to expand...

Oh don't worry AV... after the rantings of Davidjayjordan I've come to appreciate you quite a bit more.

You may be opinionated but you're mine.

Phred said:

Oh don't worry AV... after the rantings of Davidjayjordan I've come to appreciate you quite a bit more.

You may be opinionated but you're mine.

Click to expand...

so true, at least AV consistently follows the Bible, ops, I mean, KJV1611. Well, that's when he doesn't say that Adam and Eve spoke English .

CabVet said:

so true, at least AV consistently follows the Bible, ops, I mean, KJV1611. Well, that's when he doesn't say that Adam and Eve spoke English .

Click to expand...

--The following comment never took place and if you repeat it I'll deny it.--

Look, after all these years of butting heads I've come to believe some things about some of the folks around here. AV... well, I believe he's a decent man. He may be stubborn, opinionated and rigid here on the boards. But he's a decent guy. He tries to do what is right and really, can we ask anything more of each other?

When I evaluate a person I generally ask myself, "If I had to run out for a couple of hours, could I leave my kids with them?"

I'm of the opinion that AV would watch them, care for them and they'd come out unharmed.

I can't say the same thing about everyone.

--back to our regularly scheduled programming.--