Evolution is not science, its a religion

[RufusAtticus]

Originally posted by Badfish
Yep, no scientific proofs of evolution.

Of course not, since there are no such things as scientific proofs.

Proof is for mathematics and philosophy. Science deals with evidence, data, and explainations. Evolution has all three of these, which any sort of competant biology course should cover.

If you actually want to learn some of the science behind evolution including the evidence, data and, explainations, I suggest you go to a library and find these two books.

Pulitzer-prise winner, Beak of the Finch by Jonathan Weiner
Textbook, Evolutionary Biology by Douglas Futuyma
What Evolution is. by Ernst Mayr

If you have problems locating those, PM me and I'll give you some more ideas.

 

[blader]

Originally posted by jcdiedforall


Do you know EVERYTHING? If the answer is no, is it possible, just maybe, possible that God exists in the part you don't know?

Completely possible, but also completely unrelated to this discussion. Replace "God" with anything you want, and the argument still works.

As I have pointed out to you:

Do you know every there is to know about evolution? Then how can you say there is "NO" evidence for evolution?

 

[jcdiedforall]

Originally posted by HazyRigby


Hello? The quail ARE two different species. They are NOT the same kind.

Um, they're both quail! Um, same kind. You just said it, quail aren't two different species. They are quail. A horse is a horse (of course) and a donkey is a donkey. Different species ... let's be real here and quit trying to slide around the truth

 

[HazyRigby]

How is the Bible evidence for any theory? Does it provide a testable theory within it? No, which is why it is religion rather than science.

And do religious leaders constantly go about publishing their own theological findings in reputable journals, asking anyone who can disprove them to do so? Is questioning theological "truths" even encouraged? Do priests set up councils to research the most basic tenets of religion? No. Science has a system of checks and balances, and someone who comes up with a new and better theory is lauded and rewarded. But in the annals of religious history, we find that those who dare to even question more likely than not ended up burned at the stake, beheaded, or tortured.

This is why I find science to be much more trustworthy than religion. Can you imagine a group of scientists gathering together and going to burn someone's house down (or, in the modern-day equivalent, circulating a petition or politically slaughtering someone) for trying to disprove, say, the Theory of Relativity? It's laughable.

 

[blader]

Originally posted by jcdiedforall
I'm sorry ... calling an explanation of something evolving from nothing science? Sorry, it's a religion. Just because you try to explain it with scientific methods does not make it science. You can use the same scientific methods with creation to theorize, and it's still religion. They are equal. They both require faith on the person's part. So then the big question ... because one is right and one is wrong ...

Wrong. Creation can not be explained with scientific methods. Evolution CAN. This is why one is scientific and the other is not.

Tell me, do you know what the scientific method IS?

 

[RufusAtticus]

Originally posted by jcdiedforall
I'm sorry ... calling an explanation of something evolving from nothing science? Sorry, it's a religion.

So what, that's not the science of evolution. Thus you still haven't shown that evolution is not a science.

 

[jcdiedforall]

How can evolution be "explained" by scientific methods and "creation" not?

 

[armageddonman]

Originally posted by jcdiedforall
 
Ah, so the evidence for evolution is plenty. Cool. Please enlighten us. Please use facts only, and please document thoroughly, because, after all, we must be scientific.

www.talkorigins.org

Will you look at the evidence THIS time? 

 

Do you know EVERYTHING? If the answer is no, is it possible, just maybe, possible that God exists in the part you don't know?

Of course it is possible. If you think that God should be mentioned in a scientific theory, feel free to develop one.

 

 

[jcdiedforall]

Adolf Hitler, Christian ... kind of like Darwin recanting his findings of evolution on his death bed ... admitting the hoax...LOL

 

[armageddonman]

Originally posted by jcdiedforall
How can evolution be "explained" by scientific methods and "creation" not?

Because noone has tried to explain creation scientifically, yet.

 

[armageddonman]

Originally posted by jcdiedforall
Darwin recanting his findings of evolution on his death bed ... admitting the hoax...LOL

Darwin never did that. If you think so, can you prove it?

 

[blader]

Originally posted by jcdiedforall
Adolf Hitler, Christian ... kind of like Darwin recanting his findings of evolution on his death bed ... admitting the hoax...LOL

No, it's not at all like that. That's been proven to be a hoax. Even AnswersInGenesis admits this.

http://www.freeinquiryofcf.org/darwin.htm

 

[blader]

Originally posted by jcdiedforall
How can evolution be "explained" by scientific methods and "creation" not?

Because there is no "theory" of Creation at all. If there is, please show it to me.

 

[jcdiedforall]

Believe me, as soon as one shred of evidence supporting evolution is found to be true and scientifically proven, it should be taught in all the schools and applauded over and celebrated. Until that time, get it out of the schools. If Creation isn't allowed, then neither should evolution.

 

[jcdiedforall]

Here's the theory of Creation: God created the heavens and the earth. It cannot be proven otherwise, so we must entertain it. You said the scientific method involves inventing and theorizing, so I did.

 

[blader]

Originally posted by jcdiedforall
Believe me, as soon as one shred of evidence supporting evolution is found to be true and scientifically proven, it should be taught in all the schools and applauded over and celebrated. Until that time, get it out of the schools. If Creation isn't allowed, then neither should evolution.

How do you know every single piece of evidence supporting evolution is false and not one has been proven true? Have you examined them ALL?

 

[RufusAtticus]

Originally posted by jcdiedforall

Um, they're both quail! Um, same kind. You just said it, quail aren't two different species. They are quail.

There are at least eight common species of quail in existance today.

Bobwhite (Colinus virginanus)
Chinese Painted (Button) Quail (Coturnix (Excalifactoria) chinensis)
Coturnix (Japanese or Pharaoh) Quail
Gambel's Quail (C. gambelii)
Mearn's Quail (Cytonyx montezuma)
Mountain Quail (Oreortyx pictus)
Scaled Quail (Callipepla squamata)
California Valley Quail (C. califormica)

Source

A horse is a horse (of course) and a donkey is a donkey. Different species ... let's be real here and quit trying to slide around the truth

So you want to talk about the truth? Okay. Here are some facts for you.

Donkeys and horses are of the same kind, they are both equids, perissodactyls, mammals, amniotes, tetrapods, vertebrates, cordates, deutrostromes, animals, eukaryotes, and biots. Clearly they are the same kind.

 

[jcdiedforall]

but one's a horse and one's a donkey, and all your list there is quail. um .... next

 

[armageddonman]

Originally posted by jcdiedforall
Believe me, as soon as one shred of evidence supporting evolution is found to be true and scientifically proven, it should be taught in all the schools and applauded over and celebrated. Until that time, get it out of the schools. If Creation isn't allowed, then neither should evolution.

Why don´t you addres the answers given to you? Why do you evade them and instead bring arguments that have been disproven to YOU already? Are you interested in discussion or are you a troll? It has been explained to you more than once that evolution is based on scientific research and creation is not, thus making evolution the matter of science and creation the matter of religion.

 

[LewisWildermuth]

Scientific evolution eliminates belief in God or special creation

Scientific evolution does not in the least bit eliminate belief in God, yes it may cause one to doubt special creation, but no where in the bible are we told to interpret the creation story literaly. The literal interpretation is just that, an interpretation made by men not God.

and ascribes the origins of all life to the action of random chemical and physical forces.

The chemical and physical forces are not random, they do exactly the same things today as they did yesterday as they will do tommorow. They are quite predictable realy, which is why your great grandma's bread recipie still works after nearly one hundred years.

The Bible does coincide with this belief and does not teach evolution. The Bible does teach an act of creation by God of a universe out of formless void, and then individual acts of creation in an ascending order from the simpler forms of aquatic life to the mammals and finally to a creature made in God's image - man. Human beings did not evolve out of the primordial ooze. They are the special creation of an all-powerful God.

This is all fine and dandy, but who said it was to be taken literaly? Man, not God.

The only faith creationists practice is that the bible *has* to be literaly true and perfect, if it is noe their belief system crumbles like a house built on sand. Is it no wonder why they are so afraid of loosing to science, they have no faith that God would still love them no mater what, they have faith in one thing, a mans interpretation of the bible.