«

[Lizard]

Evad

Lizard, with religion, I would use the word faith, or belief instead of theory

I know.I just lacked better word to say it.Thanks k:

Danny252
Mankind has a ugly habbit to ask why? and how?There is an universe and we are all in it,but WHY there is an universe and WHY we are in it.And also HOW was universe created? When human cant answer it with his experience and knowledge, than came things like religions, philosophies and unproofable scientific theories on scene.

[Danny252]

can I just kill everyone? No man, no probem

[Yobor]

Killing everyone WOULD solve the problem. However, that is not legally feasable :bleh:

All in all, one thing I myself cannot stand is ignorance. So thank you Sly for correcting me on the points of the Bible that I screwed up k:

[Rogue]

I missed most of this discussion (later I might show and why), but today I tried to read it, and stoped at Sly's comment.

Only one question for Sly, who seems to know a lot of about religion:

How old is human kind by the bible?

Answering that question, you'll ansert all other questions, including variation in color of the skind in human race.

People are able to believe to many things..

[Sly]

Science is the study of things we can observe, study, and test. Generating a theory about anything (evolution, creation, the moon is made of cheese), is creating a view what some one believes has happened. Creation and Evolutionism both start with philosophical assumptions.

Evolutionists (traditionally atheistic) start with the assumption that God has no intervention in this world. This isn't a testable conclusion; they didn't come to this conclusion by science. And I also say traditionally, because there are a number of Christians out there that believe that God used evolution, but I won’t go there as that is opening a whole other can of worms. LOL

Creationists have the philosophical position that God has partaken in the history of this earth, and that He has revealed the true history of the earth through His infallible word. This isn’t a testable conclusion either, yet this only is viewed as religious to some people. Why?

You don’t need a god to have a religion. A person’s religion is a set of beliefs on how you view and explain the world, no matter what those beliefs are, god or not. Even an atheist has to believe there is no god. There is a major difference in what you belief is true and what science can prove conclusively to be true. This goes for any belief. If science cannot prove it conclusively, then it is a religious belief, even if there is no god involved. If science hasn’t proven it, you can’t state it as a fact. That may be your opinion or belief, but it is not honest to state it as a fact.

As you can see, both Creation and Evolutionism start with philosophical premises, and both are testable in certain areas and un-testable in others. Both are inconclusive and therefore religious beliefs. Evolutionists may not want call their view religious, but it is no more conclusive than the creationist’s view (which evolutionist’s only want to call religious). Both groups use the words “probably”, “would have”, “could have”, etc to explain things. That is not science. But if both groups use those words to explain things, how can one and not the other be viewed as religious? My point of contention is that evolution is no more scientifically conclusive than creation is. Believe it or not, there is scientific evidence out there to support the biblical account of the creation, the flood, etc, but I still admit mine is a religion, because it is inconclusive to prove entirely scientifically. Why some people will admit that evolution cannot be proven entirely scientifically yet will state their beliefs, that cannot be proven by science, as FACT and cannot see their views as religious is beyond be.

***TO ALL READING THIS THREAD***
MAIN POINT- If you are going to use the “probably”, "might", “would have”, “could have” “took too long or takes too much time” stuff to support evolution, then you are no worse than a creationist using the same wording trying to explain the things of God. Don’t state is as science because it isn’t science. It is faith plain and simple. You are guilty of using faith as much as a creationist believer does. I can talk theology all day too. Only scientific evidence counts here folks, not hearsay.

I am not here to defend the biblical accounts. But if you would like your biblical questions answered in a theological way I’d be glad to answer them. But I do not present them as fact, they are beliefs. One thing that I have done since I’ve joined this thread was admit my view was a religion and explain why it is viewed as such.

When man inspects the earth, the biosphere, the world around us, we formulate a hypothesis as to how things came to be as they are today. After data is brought in and analyzed, we can test our hypothesis and see what outcomes we're given. Both of evolution and creation are subject to the same scientific method.

[Sly]

Originally posted by Yobor@Mar 25 2005, 09:04 AM
All in all, one thing I myself cannot stand is ignorance. So thank you Sly for correcting me on the points of the Bible that I screwed up k:

No problem buddy k:

[Rogue]

Nice post, and no answer.... :blink:

[Sly]

Originally posted by Anubis@Mar 25 2005, 02:30 PM
Nice post, and no answer.... :blink:

Sorry I haven't got to your question yet.

[Rogue]

Oh, sorry....

[Sly]

Originally posted by Anubis@Mar 25 2005, 09:46 AM
How old is human kind by the bible?

The bible teaches the entire creation to be roughly 6,000 years old.