If i were to build a foundation with a skyscraper in mind,but than preceded to build a 2 car garage on that foundation,that would be just totally rediculus right? I mean its wrong because it does not belong there,and it's obvious that it does not belong there. Now with the creation/evolution issue its also that way.The foundations are built to accommondate the structure in which they want to build. All other designs conform to that structure.The problem that most of us have is that ,in debating each other with our evidence,we try to take a piece of our structure and try to fit it on the others structure,well it will be obvious that it just will not fitt ,becuase the designer didnt have that design in mind when he built his structure. Now the matierals he has presented to the other are the same matierals that both structures use, but they are designed differently. Ya see the (GTE) Has a foundation that says the structure that i am about to construct must conform to the idea that all things came through time,chance and natural processes hence they need millions of years to make it seem reasonable.Creationist have a foundation that says God created ,the fall of man /the diversity of nations at the tower of babel/the flood of noah,the savior of the world. And the structure they build must also conform to the foundation.SO thats why i say this is not a battle of science vs. relgion But the science of one religion vs.the science of another religion. Neither one of us has all the answers But we are unwaivering with our foundations. I hope and pray that some of you understand where the real battle between creation/evolution , really is Rob
-
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
-
CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.
I need to clear some things up
- Thread starter Freedom777
- Start date
Eh?
Science starts with no structure other than reality; the evidence available to us. From this, they try to find the model that best matches and predicts elements of these bits of evidence. That model does not include Biblical creationism.
Creationists work it the other way. Start with the Bible, assume it contains facts, find evidence that supports the already existant structure. That's why creationist 'evidence' doesn't usually work in scientific literature - They're going at the problem from the wrong direction.
THAT'S the problem. You're taking the problem with creationist 'science' and saying everyone does it. Not true.
Science starts with no structure other than reality; the evidence available to us. From this, they try to find the model that best matches and predicts elements of these bits of evidence. That model does not include Biblical creationism.
Creationists work it the other way. Start with the Bible, assume it contains facts, find evidence that supports the already existant structure. That's why creationist 'evidence' doesn't usually work in scientific literature - They're going at the problem from the wrong direction.
THAT'S the problem. You're taking the problem with creationist 'science' and saying everyone does it. Not true.
Upvote
0
Again, you are falsely equating evolution and science with religion (with respect to Christian theology).
The only way to actually classify either evolution or other aspects of science with religion is to render the definition of "religion" as virtually all-emcompassing and therefore, useless.
The "battle" (if you can call it that) is one of theological doctrine versus scientific discovery. It always has been and it always will be.
The only way to actually classify either evolution or other aspects of science with religion is to render the definition of "religion" as virtually all-emcompassing and therefore, useless.
The "battle" (if you can call it that) is one of theological doctrine versus scientific discovery. It always has been and it always will be.
Upvote
0
Unfortunatly evolution isnt a religion.
This is a common thing that creationist groups try to make you think. They do all sorts of things like rewriting the theory of evolution (see as the GTE isnt really evolution) to try to trick people into thinking evolution is something it is not.
Evolution is based on observations of the environment, that isnt a religion as a religion normally requires a faith in the unknown. Evolution does require a sort of faith. The faith that what we see is real and not a dream, however that gets into philosophy. All the claims that evolution makes are dirrectly backed up with actual physical evidence. Creationism isnt backed by that evidence, so creationist organizations try to twist evolution into being equal with creationism, when it really isnt.
Evolution is not a religion.
This is a common thing that creationist groups try to make you think. They do all sorts of things like rewriting the theory of evolution (see as the GTE isnt really evolution) to try to trick people into thinking evolution is something it is not.
Evolution is based on observations of the environment, that isnt a religion as a religion normally requires a faith in the unknown. Evolution does require a sort of faith. The faith that what we see is real and not a dream, however that gets into philosophy. All the claims that evolution makes are dirrectly backed up with actual physical evidence. Creationism isnt backed by that evidence, so creationist organizations try to twist evolution into being equal with creationism, when it really isnt.
Evolution is not a religion.
Upvote
0
Upvote
0
Yes freedom, it isnt a religion. No matter how many time creationist groups claim it is, it isnt. Your version of the GTE is wrong.
Creationism is based on a religion, Evolution is Not. So creationist groups try to equate evolution with religion because it makes it on a level playing field, however they are not on a level playing field. Evolution has real evidence to support it.
Creationism is based on a religion, Evolution is Not. So creationist groups try to equate evolution with religion because it makes it on a level playing field, however they are not on a level playing field. Evolution has real evidence to support it.
Upvote
0
Freedom777,
Like I've said before, if evolution is a religion, then so is gravity, quantum mechanics and France (as per the same criteria needed to classify evolution as a religion).
If you really and truly cannot see the flaw in this line of reasoning, then I don't know what else to say.
Like I've said before, if evolution is a religion, then so is gravity, quantum mechanics and France (as per the same criteria needed to classify evolution as a religion).
If you really and truly cannot see the flaw in this line of reasoning, then I don't know what else to say.
Upvote
0
One very basic difference is that evolutionary biology, like the rest of science, is a method-driven process whereas creationism is a result-driven process. If creationists didn't have the stuff in the Bible to tell them the answers they needed to reach, they'd be lost when presented with the data.
Upvote
0
Here is a good overview:
http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution
It includes information about creationism too, I would consider it an unbaised source of info. I would suggest reading it.
Although I would consider it more biased, www.talkorigins.org is a very good site that goes more indepth and also adresses creationist claims. It is also much larger than the brief overview given at Wiki, and would take awhile to read half of their stuff.
The Theory of Evolution is different than what you posted in the General Theory of Evolution thread.
http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution
It includes information about creationism too, I would consider it an unbaised source of info. I would suggest reading it.
Although I would consider it more biased, www.talkorigins.org is a very good site that goes more indepth and also adresses creationist claims. It is also much larger than the brief overview given at Wiki, and would take awhile to read half of their stuff.
The Theory of Evolution is different than what you posted in the General Theory of Evolution thread.
Upvote
0
Freedom - I just noticed you sig line. The irony of you using that as your signature is astounding!
Upvote
0
Follower of Christ
Literal 6 Day Creationist<br />''An Evening and a
Interesting...
So you dont believe in anything that you cant prove absolutely?
You dont have ''faith'' that all the evidence points to evolution, but cannot PROVE it?
At least we are men enough to admit we believe in something that we cant prove.
If I cant get one evolutionist to admit that he has ''faith'' in that which he cannot prove, I will die a happy man
Upvote
0
LOL Follower, thanks for putting words into my mouth...
Ironically my religion (philosophy, whatever) requires quite a bit of faith. I just dont pretend that it has anything to do with science. I keep it seperate.
Quite frankly it requires more faith than literal biblicalism, because there are less things defined so perfectly.
Ironically my religion (philosophy, whatever) requires quite a bit of faith. I just dont pretend that it has anything to do with science. I keep it seperate.
Quite frankly it requires more faith than literal biblicalism, because there are less things defined so perfectly.
Upvote
0
It is not faith, and by calling it faith ya'll are trivializing the foundation of your belief system.
I do not have faith the sun will rise tomorrow, I have reasonable evidence that it will since it has every day of my life and the millions of days before my life began. I have the ability to verify if I wish in that I am chatting with someone online who lives in the other hemisphere who can verify the sun is up there. We do not have faith in evolution, we have evidence that indicates it happened and theory that explains how it happened...until or unless evidence is produced that falsifies it I will accept it as the most likely explanation.
I do not have faith the sun will rise tomorrow, I have reasonable evidence that it will since it has every day of my life and the millions of days before my life began. I have the ability to verify if I wish in that I am chatting with someone online who lives in the other hemisphere who can verify the sun is up there. We do not have faith in evolution, we have evidence that indicates it happened and theory that explains how it happened...until or unless evidence is produced that falsifies it I will accept it as the most likely explanation.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
