***HAPPY NEW YEAR***

Originally posted by googlefudge
I am sorry to bust in on your message of peace and understanding but there is definitely reason
for disrespect between evolution and creationism.

Creationism is for starters NOT a theory, it doesn't even pass the test for a scientific hypothesis.

Evolution is backed up by more evidence than almost any other theory in history, it is not just the ...[text shortened]... supporting evidence.

So I am sorry but there is ample reason for disrespect for creationism.

Creation does not need to be a theory. There is no logic in this. Religion is faith. Where did religion ever have to pass any type of scientific hypothesis for your evolution faith. There is no evidence of the big bang and what started evolution, but by believing this you have faith. Yes faith. If you were not there, then you faith that the evolution theory is right, thus by looking at another remark and I quote...

"And I will never respect someone's decision to believe anything on faith."

... I conclude you don't even respect yourself.

You claim evolution has a lot of evidence but daily people find this theory ridiculous when they come to realize the lie. Evolution is false. And for the sake of correctness the Bible also describes how life formed on earth, making evolution not the "ONLY description".

You want everything to be passed by some scientific method which can not be done in all the cases.

Plus, if you want me to ignore your incorrect grammar, then the same goes for you...as if I care anyway if you don't.

Originally posted by googlefudge

Use the words in their correct meaning or be relegated to the court jester spouting meaningless
gibberish for the amusement of the crowd.

advice delivered too late, he is already considered a court jester.

Originally posted by googlefudge
Creationism is for starters NOT a theory, it doesn't even pass the test for a scientific hypothesis.

You object to the word 'theory' that you find to be a scientific word.

In science it is of course a scientific word. But creationism isn't science. So the word theory doesn't apply there.

Creationsim is religion, evolution is science. If they (the creationists) has told you that creationism is science, then you have been fallen into their trap. Don't treat creationism as a science, and let them prove to you that it is science. It's their job to prove to you, not your job to accept their nomenclature. You don't have to accept it is a science only because they tell you so.

In wikipedia we can read "The defining characteristic of a scientific theory is that it makes falsifiable or testable predictions" but there isn't any definition of unscientific theory.

As creatinism is a religious 'theory' they play in their religious domain. Evolution plays in the scientific domain. And they will never meet. Religion and science never mix.

Originally posted by FabianFnas
You object to the word 'theory' that you find to be a scientific word.

In science it is of course a scientific word. But creationism isn't science. So the word theory doesn't apply there.

Creationsim is religion, evolution is science. If they (the creationists) has told you that creationism is science, then you have been fallen into their trap. Don' ...[text shortened]... in the scientific domain. And they will never meet. Religion and science never mix.

Christians don't have to prove anything. I haven't heard a single Christian claiming religion to be science, maybe Dasa but not Christians.

Religion and science will always mix, and the main reason for this is that science has become part of a type of religion (taking in consideration - Evolution) thus forms part of all we are debating/fighting about. If this isn't true, then please let everyone take all the Evolution discussion to the Science forum so we can keep this forum Spiritual like it is suppose to be.

Originally posted by Nicksten
Christians don't have to prove anything. I haven't heard a single Christian claiming religion to be science, maybe Dasa but not Christians.

Religion and science will always mix, and the main reason for this is that science has become part of a type of religion (taking in consideration - Evolution) thus forms part of all we are debating/fighting about. If ...[text shortened]... discussion to the Science forum so we can keep this forum Spiritual like it is suppose to be.

True, christians don't have to prove anything. It's religion which in its very essence is unprovable.

You cannot use scientific methods to prove religious matters. If you disagree, then prove the very foundation about the christian religion: Prove gods existance! Doesn't work. Neither is it possible to use religious methods in scientific work: Try to pray that an uranium atom will split, and you will fail.

So either you have religion and thus no science, or religion thus no religion.
Religion and science cannot mix.

When creationists say that evolution is not science, then they are not scientific in their claim. Telling that creationism is science, without using scientific methodology, is their religion, nothing more.

We don't have to argue about crenationism/evolutionism if we just concider that one of them is religion, the other one is science. Then what is there to argue about?

You have all the right to believe in creationism. I have all the right to believe in evolution.

Originally posted by FabianFnas
True, christians don't have to prove anything. It's religion which in its very essence is unprovable.

You cannot use scientific methods to prove religious matters. If you disagree, then prove the very foundation about the christian religion: Prove gods existance! Doesn't work. Neither is it possible to use religious methods in scientific work: Try to p ...[text shortened]... have all the right to believe in creationism. I have all the right to believe in evolution.

True, christians don't have to prove anything. It's religion which in its very essence is unprovable.
Good. I don't agree.

You cannot use scientific methods to prove religious matters. If you disagree, then prove the very foundation about the christian religion: Prove gods existance! Doesn't work. Neither is it possible to use religious methods in scientific work: Try to pray that an uranium atom will split, and you will fail.
I totally agree with you and seriously have no reason to pray for something like that.

So either you have religion and thus no science, or religion thus no religion.
Religion and science cannot mix.
I don't agree. I am Christian and believe in science. I just don't believe in the evolution science. To me, there is a gap between the two.

When creationists say that evolution is not science, then they are not scientific in their claim. Telling that creationism is science, without using scientific methodology, is their religion, nothing more.
I agree.

We don't have to argue about crenationism/evolutionism if we just concider that one of them is religion, the other one is science. Then what is there to argue about?
I agree. Evolution discussions must go to the Science forum.

You have all the right to believe in creationism. I have all the right to believe in evolution.
I agree.

Originally posted by Nicksten
Christians don't have to prove anything. I haven't heard a single Christian claiming religion to be science, maybe Dasa but not Christians.

Religion and science will always mix, and the main reason for this is that science has become part of a type of religion (taking in consideration - Evolution) thus forms part of all we are debating/fighting about. If ...[text shortened]... discussion to the Science forum so we can keep this forum Spiritual like it is suppose to be.

the main reason for this is that science has become part of a type of religion

yes it has! All hail the God of science!

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
the main reason for this is that science has become part of a type of religion

yes it has! All hail the God of science!

no no no, not all, only the idiots - you know .......the evolutionists 😉

Originally posted by Nicksten
[b]True, christians don't have to prove anything. It's religion which in its very essence is unprovable.
Good. I don't agree.

You cannot use scientific methods to prove religious matters. If you disagree, then prove the very foundation about the christian religion: Prove gods existance! Doesn't work. Neither is it possible to use religious method ht to believe in creationism. I have all the right to believe in evolution.
I agree.[/b]

FabianFnas says: "So either you have religion and thus no science, or religion thus no religion."
Religion and science cannot mix.
Nicksten says: "I don't agree. I am Christian and believe in science. I just don't believe in the evolution science. To me, there is a gap between the two."

If this is the only thing we don't agree in, then our views are quite the same in this respect.

You believe in science, and you believe in religion. And you do that in the same time. Good.

But you cannot believe something science says that disproves a detail of your religion. In this detail you dismiss either scietific detail or this religius detail because they are in this case excluding eachother.

In this sense science and religion are incompatible.

When you say to robbie "only the idiots - you know .......the evolutionists" then you put a label in the forehead of yourself: "IGNORANT". Was that a slip or do you really think that scientists are idiots?

Originally posted by FabianFnas
You object to the word 'theory' that you find to be a scientific word.

In science it is of course a scientific word. But creationism isn't science. So the word theory doesn't apply there.

Creationsim is religion, evolution is science. If they (the creationists) has told you that creationism is science, then you have been fallen into their trap. Don' ...[text shortened]... in the scientific domain. And they will never meet. Religion and science never mix.

I know the word theory doesn't apply, which is why I objected to you using it.

to quote you said...

"There shouldn't be disrespect between the two theories, creation and evolution,...."

"... between the two theories ..."

Now you are either using theory here in it's scientific or its common vernacular definitions.

Either way it's wrong.

If its the common vernacular version then it doesn't apply to evolution because evolution is not a theory
in the common vernacular sense of the word. (it might not apply to creationism either but the common
version is so fuzzy as to it's meaning that you could probably stretch it to do this, which is why science
doesn't use common vernacular definitions.)

If it's scientific then it doesn't apply to creationism as creationism (or its dressed up modern version I.D.)
Isn't a scientific theory.

I took it to mean the scientific definition, and thus responded by saying that creationism isn't a theory
by that definition, and is no rival for evolution.

I don't (ever) treat creationism as science and have many times pointed out exactly how and why creationism
can't ever be science (even if it were true).

And I object to the idea that religion CAN offer explanations of how the world works.

Originally posted by Nicksten
Christians don't have to prove anything. I haven't heard a single Christian claiming religion to be science, maybe Dasa but not Christians.

Religion and science will always mix, and the main reason for this is that science has become part of a type of religion (taking in consideration - Evolution) thus forms part of all we are debating/fighting about. If ...[text shortened]... discussion to the Science forum so we can keep this forum Spiritual like it is suppose to be.

Stop trying to ban the teaching of evolutionary theory in science classes, or claiming it isn't true,
or that it has no evidence, or that it is a religion... then evolution will stay on the science forum.

Actually it rarely gets brought up in science because there isn't any debate as to whether it's true or
not in the science community, it's only between science and religion that it's an issue,
which is why it gets brought up here.

Originally posted by Nicksten
[b]Just because you happen to believe in Christianity is no reason for me to give it special treatment.

What about respect?
You have no respect to any theist and if I can quickly think of one to mention is by referring to God as "it". A bit lame for someone that can sometimes keep nagging to other people about using the right words/terms. It a blata ...[text shortened]... cial treatments from any side, but what we (me included) have failed to do is keeping respect.[/b]

Really? I have no recourse but to call "God" an "It" .
This is the only way it can make sense to me. But I never knew that saying that was offensive like the way you made out. Is that a trend ?

Originally posted by karoly aczel
Really? I have no recourse but to call "God" an "It" .
This is the only way it can make sense to me. But I never knew that saying that was offensive like the way you made out. Is that a trend ?

If someone called a member of your family an it, do you think
any of your family would consider that offensive? Do you ever
call your mother or father, it? What did it get for Christmas?

Originally posted by RJHinds
If someone called a member of your family an it, do you think
any of your family would consider that offensive? Do you ever
call your mother or father, it? What did it get for Christmas?

So it's ok for you to spew vicious hatred towards religions you don't follow, but if somebody calls your god 'it' rather than 'him' you feel offended?

Originally posted by FabianFnas
FabianFnas says: "So either you have religion and thus no science, or religion thus no religion."
Religion and science cannot mix.
Nicksten says: "I don't agree. I am Christian and believe in science. I just don't believe in the evolution science. To me, there is a gap between the two."

If this is the only thing we don't agree in, then our views are ...[text shortened]... rself: "IGNORANT". Was that a slip or do you really think that scientists are idiots?

I love science and it is wonderful what science has proved to date.
What I do not like that some scientist do is to try put enough evidence in place to back an idea that something is scientific when it is in fact supernatural.

Lets take one good example of such an idea: Abiogenesis.
In a nut shell it claims the origin of life. This is a ridiculous statement which can not be proven that from this same source humans came from. This is where I have the problem with science because they just can not accept it as supernatural and then to avoid critics come up with a word Abiogenesis and make idiotic statements of what they think to be origin of live. This is in fact just a mockery towards Christians in the sense that the start of everything is mentioned in the first book of the Bible Genesis. Both words rhyme quite well.

This is about to name one 😉

If you ask me about the fact that we have found something that travels faster than the speed of light (the Neutrinos Particle(s)) I will say wow, good damn work for finding it. Maybe this will tell us that we didn't think science to prove itself wrong but hey, lets start to look deeper, further and closer. We can not sit back.

I like to believe of it that maybe it was time that God revealed something more - something that is shocking and when we believe that it is ultimate, the core of it will be shaken too cause of a newer and better discovery.