Jump to content


Why Is Evolution Singled Out?


  • Please log in to reply
95 replies to this topic

#1 Guest_FrankH_*

Guest_FrankH_*
  • Guests

Posted 03 November 2009 - 11:03 AM

Of all the sciences, Evolution is the one most reviled and attacked.

Many say that evolution doesn't mention any god or creator deity in it doing anything.

Neither does:

Physics
Chemistry
Astronomy
Medicine
Biology
Geology
any combo of the above, ie Astrophysics to Biochemistry to Planetology (Astro-geology)

Evolution, actually a subset of Biology and other disciplines, is just as falsifiable just as Einstein's Relativistic Physics is.

So why is Evolution singled out more than any other?

#2 Guest_Taikoo_*

Guest_Taikoo_*
  • Guests

Posted 03 November 2009 - 12:10 PM

Of all the sciences, Evolution is the one most reviled and attacked.

Many say that evolution doesn't mention any god or creator deity in it doing anything.

Neither does:

Physics
Chemistry
Astronomy
Medicine
Biology
Geology
any combo of the above, ie Astrophysics to Biochemistry to Planetology (Astro-geology)

Evolution, actually a subset of Biology and other disciplines, is just as falsifiable just as Einstein's Relativistic Physics is.

So why is Evolution singled out more than any other?

View Post




Of course all those fields and more contribute to and reinforce the ToE in their own ways.

if thru one of them, the ToE could be falsified, by some physicist, say, he would oh so gleefully show what a bunch of fools those evolutionarians are and what an embarrassment to science they are.

Since pretty much all scientists contribute directly or indirectly to the ToE, they all have to be ad homed sooner or later for it.

Course it could be, as one told me, that all scientists are minions of satan and
involved in a world wide conspiracy to disprove creation and sink Christianity.

Then again, maybe there is some more plausible explanation.

#3 Yorzhik

Yorzhik

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 233 posts
  • Age: 42
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Michigan

Posted 03 November 2009 - 05:13 PM

Of all the sciences, Evolution is the one most reviled and attacked.

What? Christians revile and attack Physics, Chemistry, Astronomy, Medicine, Biology, and/or Geology but to a lesser extent? I'd say you need more evidence to establish that first.

Evolution is reviled and attacked because it is bad science.

Evolution, actually a subset of Biology and other disciplines, is just as falsifiable just as Einstein's Relativistic Physics is.

So why is Evolution singled out more than any other?

View Post

Do you disagree withe the statement that nothing makes sense in biology except in the light of evolution?

#4 AFJ

AFJ

    AFJ

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1625 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Baton Rouge, LA
  • Interests:Bible, molecular biology, chemistry, mineralogy, geology, eschatology, history, family
  • Age: 51
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Baton Rouge, LA

Posted 03 November 2009 - 05:33 PM

Of all the sciences, Evolution is the one most reviled and attacked.

Many say that evolution doesn't mention any god or creator deity in it doing anything.

Neither does:

Physics
Chemistry
Astronomy
Medicine
Biology
Geology
any combo of the above, ie Astrophysics to Biochemistry to Planetology (Astro-geology)

Evolution, actually a subset of Biology and other disciplines, is just as falsifiable just as Einstein's Relativistic Physics is.

So why is Evolution singled out more than any other?

View Post

First, Darwin made a great discovery. He showed that species can change. In that time many people of science believed in species fixity. This is now known to be wrong. Nothing wrong with common descent--but Darwin did not stop with common ancestors within kinds--everybody could have accepted that--he had to go on to THE ORIGIN of species--one common ancestor of all things. This challenged thousands of years of faith and history, as well as common sense.

Second, anyone can work within most of the sciences you listed regardless of their personal convictions about our origin, or their philosophy of life/ worldview. The reality of it is that most facts set before us can be separated from the ultimate origin issue.

#5 AFJ

AFJ

    AFJ

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1625 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Baton Rouge, LA
  • Interests:Bible, molecular biology, chemistry, mineralogy, geology, eschatology, history, family
  • Age: 51
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Baton Rouge, LA

Posted 03 November 2009 - 05:44 PM

Of course all those fields and more contribute to and reinforce the ToE in their own ways.

if thru one of them, the ToE could be falsified, by some physicist, say, he would oh so gleefully show what a bunch of fools those evolutionarians are and what an embarrassment to science they are.

Since pretty much all scientists contribute directly or indirectly to the ToE, they all have to be ad homed sooner or later for it. 

Course it could be, as one told me, that all scientists are minions of satan and
involved in a world wide conspiracy to disprove creation and sink Christianity.

Then again, maybe there is some more plausible explanation.

View Post

No Taikoo, I don't believe that evo scientists are Satanic. But I do believe that "the natural man receives not the things of God." Men in their natural state, not "born of the Spirit," (John 3) are left only with their natural and sensory means. "Unless a man be born again, he can not SEE the kingdom of God." Jesus in John 3 to Nicodemas

As far as ToE--creationists interpret data differently or attribute different causes to present results--just like two police detectives can see the same evidence and create different hypothetical causes/scenarios/suspects for the evidence. This is what is going on with both evos and creats.

For instance we have been talking about the massive mineral crystallization in the crust. Evos attribute groundwater/subterranean water as the primary cause. Most creats would say these are a secondary cause, and that creation and the flood were primary cause for this.

#6 Guest_FrankH_*

Guest_FrankH_*
  • Guests

Posted 03 November 2009 - 06:28 PM

First, Darwin made a great discovery.  He showed that species can change.  In that time many people of science believed in species fixity. This is now known to be wrong.  Nothing wrong with common descent--but Darwin did not stop with common ancestors within kinds--everybody could have accepted that--he had to go on to THE ORIGIN of species--one common ancestor of all things.  This challenged thousands of years of faith and history, as well as common sense.

Second, anyone can work within most of the sciences you listed regardless of their personal convictions about our origin, or their philosophy of life/ worldview.  The reality of it is that most facts set before us can be separated from the ultimate origin issue.

View Post

Wow. I like that you were honest.

Questions though:

1: Why does ToE challenge "common sense"? Quantum Theory, trust me, turns thing inside out far more effectively and along with Relativistic Mechanics, has nothing to do with "common sense". I won't even get into if "common sense" was what sounds like....

2: What is a "kind"?

#7 Guest_Taikoo_*

Guest_Taikoo_*
  • Guests

Posted 03 November 2009 - 06:59 PM

No Taikoo, I don't believe that evo scientists are Satanic.   But I do believe that "the natural man receives not the things of God."  Men in their natural state, not "born of the Spirit," (John 3) are left only with their natural and sensory means. "Unless a man be born again, he can not SEE the kingdom of God." Jesus in John 3 to Nicodemas

As far as ToE--creationists interpret data differently or attribute different causes to present results--just like two police detectives can see the same evidence and create different hypothetical causes/scenarios/suspects for the evidence. This is what is going on with both evos and creats. 

For instance we have been talking about the massive mineral crystallization in the crust.  Evos attribute groundwater/subterranean water as the primary cause.  Most creats would say these are a secondary  cause, and that creation and the flood were primary cause for this.

View Post



No AF, I dont suppose that you do! That is out near the edge of madness, like the person i talked to who literally prays every day for a sign to begin killing people like me. Wrong race, and an atheist.... nothing worse.

I have of course noticed that creationists interpret data differently than people in science to.

Id have to disagree with your detective analogy tho.

For the most part the creationist proponent shows a profound lack of knowledge of the most basic stuff. Dont even know what a scientific theory is. Just grade school level understanding and mistakes. I often have wondered, if they really knew what they are talking about, would they still think the same way?

So the detective analogy involves one seasoned detective, and one amateur, maybe he's a druggist or a coach.

In the exceedingly rare instance that you have a creationist who has a strong background in science, the comparison still breaks down totally on this important point:

One detective comes in already "knowing" who did it, when, and how. All he looks for or at is evidence that confirms this. The very first thing he does is to in effect break his "Hippocratic Oath" and discard the first most basic thing about science.

He HAS to do it that way; if ever his culprit was found to have absolute proof of innocence, our detective's world would collapse around him. You do know what i am saying dont you?

He will never ever admit that there is a way that the guy could be innocent. No evidence under the sun will convince him. He operates with a forgone conclusion that cannot be falsified.

As you well know, when the going gets rough, he will simply introduce magic.

The other detective comes in and just wants to piece it together, see where the evidence takes him, and its his deepest obligation to remain absolutely neutral and uncommitted until he has done his utmost due diligence. his "Hippocratic oath".

And THEN when he is done, he will say that this is his theory. A falsifiable
theory.

This is his data, the support for it; all the time acknowledging that it isnt proof, and there could yet be some evidence overlooked.

But it doesnt really matter to him if the guy is innocent or guilty. Either way he did his best, and has nothing personal to lose. No agenda but to do the best job he can.

So what i am saying is that there is the most profound sort of difference between a scientist and a creationist. You just cannot in any reasonable way say that they are equivalent on any level of research.

Please think this thru carefully!

#8 scott

scott

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1749 posts
  • Age: 21
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • mississippi

Posted 03 November 2009 - 08:07 PM

There is absolutely no difference between a scientist and a creationist. A creationist can be a scientist. An evolutionist can be a scientist. The only difference between the two are their beliefs in how the earth began, and the age of the earth.

That's it ... and maybe Christianity, but alot of scientist are christians anyways but don't believe in Creation simply because evolution is the mainstream belief.

Creation cannot be verified through the Scientific Theory of tests and trials, because it is history. You can look back and find evidence, but you can't re-create the event over and over again.

The same with Old Earth Evolution. You can look back and find evidence, but you can't re-create the event over and over again. You actually can't use the Scientific Theory on the TOE either, because it's not repeatable.

Both the TOE and Creation belong in the history books, because both are historical, and you can't completely verify something like history, because like George Washington, or the Civil War, you just can't re-create it accurately with the same people and movements over and over again. It's just not possible.

You can't completely verify it in the present, therefore it belongs in the history books. Neither Creation or Old Earth Evolution belongs in the Science class. Just like Archeaology, and Paleontology... it is historical.

Opinions may vary since neither is completely verifiable, especially when the Scientific Theory cannot repeat the historical events accurately over and over again. Especially when the conditions of the environments of those times in history aren't even known.

#9 Guest_Taikoo_*

Guest_Taikoo_*
  • Guests

Posted 03 November 2009 - 08:27 PM

There is absolutely no difference between a scientist and a creationist.  A creationist can be a scientist.  An evolutionist can be a scientist.  The only difference between the two are their beliefs in how the earth began, and the age of the earth.

That's it ... and maybe Christianity, but alot of scientist are christians anyways but don't believe in Creation simply because evolution is the mainstream belief.

Creation cannot be verified through the Scientific Theory of tests and trials, because it is history.  You can look back and find evidence, but you can't re-create the event over and over again.

The same with Old Earth Evolution.  You can look back and find evidence, but you can't re-create the event over and over again.  You actually can't use the Scientific Theory on the TOE either, because it's not repeatable.

Both the TOE and Creation belong in the history books, because both are historical, and you can't completely verify something like history, because like George Washington, or the Civil War, you just can't re-create it accurately with the same people and movements over and over again. It's just not possible.

You can't completely verify it in the present, therefore it belongs in the history books.  Neither Creation or Old Earth Evolution belongs in the Science class.  Just like Archeaology, and Paleontology... it is historical.

Opinions may vary since neither is completely verifiable, especially when the Scientific Theory cannot repeat the historical events accurately over and over again. Especially when the conditions of the environments of those times in history aren't even known.

View Post



There are other things in your post to address but i will just talk about the first one.

Yes, a creationist CAN be a scientist.

Right up until he looks at something that involves a conflict with his religion. Then he has no choice but to go in with preconceived ideas and reject any and all evidence that contradicts it. Call that what you will but it is NOT science.

You are absolutely wrong that the only difference is their beliefs.

A scientist is willing ready eager to give up his old ideas for new improved ones.
He does not have 'belief" and "faith".

For a creationist, to change his belief is to give up faith, to give up eternal life, to give up his entire construct of what the universe is about. In the face of absolute irrefutable evidence, would you do it? What can you do?

That my friend is about as profound a difference as there is.

Do you agree?

#10 scott

scott

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1749 posts
  • Age: 21
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • mississippi

Posted 03 November 2009 - 09:37 PM

I am not absolutely wrong, because you cannot show me irrefutable proof of the TOE. Evolutionist have failed to show their irrefutable proof, and is why Creationist stick to their beliefs.

Evolutionist don't have the evidence they claim to have. Most of their supposed evidence already belongs to the Creationist side. It's just open to interpretation by both sides.

TOE is not Science, it's history, and doesn't belong with Scientific Theories, because it cannot be consistently tested, because again it is history.

I haven't seen this irrefutable proof for evolution, because when I see the fossils I see the evidence of a World Wide Flood. Even though I do keep an eye out for that mysterious Geological Time Column.

Evolution by itself can be a theory, but not the belief of the TOE. No that belongs with philosophy, and history just as much as Creation, Paleontology, and Archaeology.

In other words: Can you show me those White Socks for TOE?

#11 CTD

CTD

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2059 posts
  • Age: 44
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Missouri

Posted 03 November 2009 - 11:23 PM

Right up until he looks at something that involves a conflict with his religion.  Then he has no choice but to go in with preconceived ideas and reject any and all evidence that contradicts it.  Call that what you will but it is NOT science.

Scare tactics. Not the case at all.

It is noteworthy that "Naturalism" is a preconceived idea - do you object to that one also?

For a creationist, to change his belief is to give up faith, to give up eternal life, to give up his entire construct of what the universe is about.  In the face of absolute irrefutable evidence, would you do it?  What can you do?

View Post

Further scare tactics. I was a creationist before I became a Christian. What would I have had to give up if I had hypothetically discovered something consistent with evomyth?

And after one is saved, according to scripture, one need not fear "to give up eternal life". God opposes those who abandon the love of truth. We are told to prove all things. We are instructed more than once to be bold. We are to trust God under all circumstances, including times when doubts arise.

You should learn about what the Bible actually says before taking the word of scoffers. You'd have an easier time avoiding these pitfalls, even if you only refrain from repeating their agenda-driven assertions.

#12 AFJ

AFJ

    AFJ

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1625 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Baton Rouge, LA
  • Interests:Bible, molecular biology, chemistry, mineralogy, geology, eschatology, history, family
  • Age: 51
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Baton Rouge, LA

Posted 03 November 2009 - 11:36 PM

There are other things in your post to address but i will just talk about the first one.

Yes, a creationist CAN be a scientist.

Right up until he looks at something that involves a conflict with his religion.  Then he has no choice but to go in with preconceived ideas and reject any and all evidence that contradicts it.  Call that what you will but it is NOT science.

You are absolutely wrong that the only difference is their beliefs.

A scientist is willing ready eager to give up his old ideas for new improved ones.
He does not have 'belief" and "faith". 

For a creationist, to change his belief is to give up faith, to give up eternal life, to give up his entire construct of what the universe is about.  In the face of absolute irrefutable evidence, would you do it?  What can you do?

That my friend is about as profound a difference as there is.

Do you agree?

View Post

No, because if you gave me absolute irrefutable proof the earth was old I would become an old earth creationist. In fact I used to be one--have you ever heard the gap theory--some conservative Christians believe this.

But now I could never be a theistic evolutionist. I've read the Bible too many times and I understand it's doctrine--not saying I know all--but I shy away from liberal theology--which is basically what theistic evolution is.

On the other hand you have a model that you aren't too willing to veer from it seems. Are you willing to say cretaceous rock is 4000 years old if the tracks are real in the Paluxy? Or would you bring dinosaurs to a million years or would you move man back to 65 million. I don't see too much adjustment in the geo timescale.

#13 Guest_Taikoo_*

Guest_Taikoo_*
  • Guests

Posted 04 November 2009 - 05:58 AM

No, because if you gave me absolute irrefutable proof the earth was old I would become an old earth creationist.  In fact I used to be one--have you ever heard the gap theory--some conservative Christians believe this.

But now I could never be a theistic evolutionist.  I've read the Bible too many times and I understand it's doctrine--not saying I know all--but I shy away from liberal theology--which is basically what theistic evolution is.

On the other hand you have a model that you aren't too willing to veer from it seems.  Are you willing to say cretaceous rock is 4000 years old if the tracks are real in the Paluxy? Or would you bring dinosaurs to a million years or would you move man back to 65 million.  I don't see too much adjustment in the geo timescale.

View Post



Hmm. Saying "No" sounds like you disagree with my entire post?

lets make sure. "Right up until he looks at something that involves a conflict with his religion. Then he has no choice but to go in with preconceived ideas and reject any and all evidence that contradicts it. Call that what you will but it is NOT science."

Do you disagree with that?

Then I said that a scientist can change his ideas to adapt to data, and a theist cannot.... at least, not past a point.

Like you said, you could be a OEC. But never a theistic evolutionist. See?
Never no matter what. Opposite to science.

In any case, I dont think you could do it really. Once you see that there is this long long sequence of geological time, and the organisms of the past represented in them, the evolutionary sequence is really undeniable.

As for cretaceous, 4000 years and so forth, here is the deal.

I have studied way too much historical geology etc to think that a 6000 or so year old earth is remotely reasonable. So veering from that is not something to every afternoon! I dont think anyone could study geology and keep the belief in YEC.

I actually ran across someone who studied enough geology to have to accept that the earth shows beyond a doubt that it is very old, but he had a tidy way of dealing with it. "Embedded age'. God simply created time forward and backwards from a chosen point, 6000 years ago.


Of COURSE the rocks show this age! God built it in. Another had kind of the same realization about historical geology, but, according to him, God just ran time at high speed for a while. Intellectually dishonest, I thought, but it shows what a person will do to rationalize

As for me? A real human footprint in with dino stuff would be of the greatest interest and i would for sure change my ideas. Change to what? I dunno yet.
I would have to see the data, and think about it, and see what others said, etc.

But yeah, i would change what i think. Im willing to change any belief in the direction the evidence points. I dont that that is true of any theist.

#14 Guest_FrankH_*

Guest_FrankH_*
  • Guests

Posted 04 November 2009 - 06:22 AM

What? Christians revile and attack Physics, Chemistry, Astronomy, Medicine, Biology, and/or Geology but to a lesser extent? I'd say you need more evidence to establish that first.

One point, I did not single out Christians. There are other faiths and beliefs that attack science as well.

Astronomy: Along with Astrophysics show an ancient Universe about 13.5 Billion Years old.

Medicine: As we have seen with people who refuse to take their children to doctors because "pray will cure them", that still occurs.

Geology: Ever hear of the "Flat Earth Society'?

Evolution is reviled and attacked because it is bad science.

Actually it is one of the most documented and supported sciences we have.

Do you disagree withe the statement that nothing makes sense in biology except in the light of evolution?

View Post

I think Evolution is the best way we can understand how all life is linked and interacts with each other. Without Evolution science, we would be completely clueless how bacteria develop anti-biotic resistances.

#15 Guest_McStone_*

Guest_McStone_*
  • Guests

Posted 04 November 2009 - 06:48 AM

First, Darwin made a great discovery. He showed that species can change. In that time many people of science believed in species fixity. This is now known to be wrong. Nothing wrong with common descent--but Darwin did not stop with common ancestors within kinds--everybody could have accepted that--he had to go on to THE ORIGIN of species--one common ancestor of all things. This challenged thousands of years of faith and history, as well as common sense.

Second, anyone can work within most of the sciences you listed regardless of their personal convictions about our origin, or their philosophy of life/ worldview. The reality of it is that most facts set before us can be separated from the ultimate origin issue.


and yet, despite your protestations, approximately 40% of your genes have othologs in prokaryotes. It only takes a little bit more thought to make the connection:

variation within "kinds" -> criticial level of variation + ecological isolation -> evolution of new "kinds"

I find it so funny that, however hard Creation science has tried to invalidate macroevolution, it has not yet shown any mechanism, genetic or otherwise, that limits the possibilities of variation. It's just that the idea is theologically untenable.

#16 Seth

Seth

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 277 posts
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Chicago

Posted 04 November 2009 - 08:01 AM

I find it so funny that, however hard Creation science has tried to invalidate macroevolution, it has not yet shown any mechanism, genetic or otherwise, that limits the possibilities of variation. It's just that the idea is theologically untenable.


How is "possibilities" NOT faith?

No one's EVER seen a macro occur, ever! It's only through "faith", evo's faith, that such an occurrence is "believed" to be "possible". You've just left science and who can blame you since there is no science to support such nonsense so all you're left with is your own belief that it's "possible".

#17 Guest_FrankH_*

Guest_FrankH_*
  • Guests

Posted 04 November 2009 - 08:23 AM

How is "possibilities" NOT faith?

No one's EVER seen a macro occur, ever! It's only through "faith", evo's faith, that such an occurrence is "believed" to be "possible". You've just left science and who can blame you since there is no science to support such nonsense so all you're left with is your own belief that it's "possible".

View Post

Logical deduction is not faith. Unless you consider "faith in one's own abilities" to be faith.

We may never see a Macro to occur. Then again, we've never seen an atom or an electron. We've never seen Hydrogen fuse into Helium in the Sun's interior. We've never seen the Sun's interior.

"Macro" Evolution, speciation actually, is slow. Speciation basically is when two almost identical animals can't produce viable offspring and even that is not 100% correct, witness donkeys and horses.

What happens when a population gets cut off from the main pool of animals is they change as to better adapt to the area they are in. How much adaptation depends on how different the ecology of the sites differ. So at some point, if the ecologies are different enough to cause selective pressures in different areas of the genetic code of the animals, there will be a "speciation event".

At some point, an individual will born born to the cut off group that if mixed back into the original population, it will not be able to produce a viable offspring with any individual in the "old group". this will be even though its parent both could have done so. Even still this is not write in stone. There is still a good chance that it may have offspring with a member of its group that when placed back into the "old group", this offspring of a non-viable subject could still mate with a member of the "old group".

Only when there is enough separation and the need to even look different is there going to be a speciation event. And yes, that takes a very, very long time.

#18 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 04 November 2009 - 11:02 AM

Yes, a creationist CAN be a scientist.
Right up until he looks at something that involves a conflict with his religion.  Then he has no choice but to go in with preconceived ideas and reject any and all evidence that contradicts it.  Call that what you will but it is NOT science.

View Post

Pretty much the same as the religion of evolution, so, I’ll have to agree with you there. Anyone who puts their religion in front of the facts (including the exclusion of ALL explanations) is not being fair to science.

You are absolutely wrong that the only difference is their beliefs. A scientist is willing ready eager to give up his old ideas for new improved ones.  He does not have 'belief" and "faith". 

View Post

No, you are the one who is incorrect on that subject. Everyone has preconceived ideas, and any scientist that rules out ALL possible answers, is basing that dismissal on his/her old ideas and faith

For a creationist, to change his belief is to give up faith, to give up eternal life, to give up his entire construct of what the universe is about.  In the face of absolute irrefutable evidence, would you do it?  What can you do?

View Post

No more than it is for an evolutionists to do the same with his/her religious faith.

#19 AFJ

AFJ

    AFJ

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1625 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Baton Rouge, LA
  • Interests:Bible, molecular biology, chemistry, mineralogy, geology, eschatology, history, family
  • Age: 51
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Baton Rouge, LA

Posted 04 November 2009 - 11:23 AM

Adam I was challenged to make creationist predictions in the "creation scientists" post.

My understanding of science is probably only undergrad--I made some anyway. I think that's what science people do right?

I don't think these guys have read from our PhD's.

#20 Guest_Taikoo_*

Guest_Taikoo_*
  • Guests

Posted 04 November 2009 - 11:31 AM

Pretty much the same as the religion of evolution, so, I’ll have to agree with you there.  Anyone who puts their religion in front of the facts (including the exclusion of ALL explanations) is not being fair to science.
No, you are the one who is incorrect on that subject. Everyone has preconceived ideas, and any scientist that rules out ALL possible answers, is basing that dismissal on his/her old ideas and faith
No more than it is for an evolutionists to do the same with his/her religious faith.

View Post



Well Ron, I have heard the moldy canard that the ToE is a religion. I understand need that some people have to say it and believe it. Needing it to be a religion doesnt make it one.

Everyone has preconceived ideas, and any scientist that rules out ALL possible answers, is basing that dismissal on his/her old ideas and faith

A scientist who ruled out all possible answers would be a very strange person.
A scientist who goes on faith or preconceived ideas is no scientist. The person you are describing probably does not exist, certainly is not representative of scientists.


If ToE were 'a religion" of course, it would be an embarrassment to the respectable sciences like geology (or i guess that would have to be a religion too tho) or maybe physics (no, another religion) or chemistry... maybe. Thing is tho that in no science can anything ever be found to demonstrate there is anything wrong with the ToE...... So are they all religions?

If someone wishes to define the idea of religion down to where it includes most anything that people do, thats their deal but it doesnt convert everything into being something it isnt.

Thing is if ToE were so absurd as to be a religion, it would be an embarrassment and someone in a real science would be oh so delighted to poke a hole in their bubble Anyone could do it. But nobody has, so it must not be so easy.

But you know, if you want to believe that ToE is a religion you will, despite any and all facts to the contrary.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users