Evolution vs. Creation Myths/other scientific theories

[munik]

A note on why it would be nigh impossible for the world to stop turning.

 

Enrico Fermi has a simple way to come up with the circumference of the earth, figuring that a time zone is about 1000 miles wide. Which would roughly make the circumference of the earth 24,000 miles. So, if it takes 24 hours to make one complete rotation, and doing so travel a distance of 24,000 miles, you would roughly be moving at 1,000 miles per hour. Now, if the earth were to stop moving, considering the fact that you are not attached to the earth, you would continue to move at 1,000 mph because of inertia (the tendency of a body in motion to remain in motion).

 

It's similiar to riding in a car travelling at 60mph. If that car hits a tree and stops, you will go flying out the windshield at 60mph, unless of course you are wearing your seatbelt.

 

So, if the earth stopped, the one who asked god to stop it would go flying away. Unless god in his omnipotence altered that as well. And there are other problems as well, probaly the top of layer of the earths crust would rip off and everything on it would go away.

 

No one back then knew that everything did not rotate around the earth. If they did, he would have asked god to stop the world from turning, instead of stopping the sun. In fact, stopping the world from turning and altering all the variables to compensate for it is a much more awesome act then stopping a sun that revolves around the earth.

[C'jais]

Originally posted by Reborn Outcast

Ok here we go. Take this verse into context. He's having a vision. Do visions always go with what we can see and do in real life? No.

 

(And by the way, it's King Nebuchadnezzar's Dream, not Daniel's.)

 

Do I daresay that people could have visions of Him? He is God, is he not? He could appear in multiple places at once.

 

"The four corners of the earth" is an expression that is still used today to express something like "all over the earth."

 

Once again, look at the context. In verse 14 it says, "There has never been a day like it before or since, a day when the Lord listened to a man."

 

Are you sure that you're interpreting this correctly?

 

Once again, are you sure that you're interpreting "established" correctly?

 

Reborn, you speak so much of context, metaphors and interpretation. How do we know where to read the Bible literally, or take it as a metaphor for something else?

 

Have you thought about how the vast majority of Christians around the world thinks the Genesis should be read as a metaphor, and taken as context. It doesn't make the slightest sense if we interpret it literally, does it?

 

Why do you believe that you have to read the Genesis a specific way in order to be a true Christian?

[Cosmos Jack]

Originally posted by C'jais

Why do you believe that you have to read the Genesis a specific way in order to be a true Christian?

All Christians think you have to read the bible a certain way to be a true Christian. That's why there are so many denominations and they all think they are going to heaven and the others aren't.

[C'jais]

Originally posted by Cosmos Jack

All Christians think you have to read the bible a certain way to be a true Christian. That's why there are so many denominations and they all think they are going to heaven and the others aren't.

 

Rhetorical questions aren't meant to be answered

 

 

 

Still, I can't believe Reborn thinks he'd be missing out on heaven if he thought of Genesis as a metaphor.

[Cosmos Jack]

Originally posted by C'jais

Rhetorical questions aren't meant to be answered

[munik]

Originally posted by Reborn Outcast

Once again, look at the context. In verse 14 it says, "There has never been a day like it before or since, a day when the Lord listened to a man."

 

God is allpowerful. And it says that he did it. So, if he's allpowerful, he could stop the Earth and Sun. Thus does NOT mean that they thought that the earth was the center of the universe. In fact, I don't really see where it implies it.

I don't understand how Joshua 10:14 puts the previous verse into context. Does it also put Second Kings 20:11, another verse I listed, into context? Isaiah asked almost the same thing of god, and he did it for him.

 

Joshua asked god to stop the sun and the moon. In reality, one moves and the other does not. This was unknown back then, though. So, if instead of stopping the sun (which isn't reasonable, considering the sun doesn't move) god stopped the earth, which would extend the length of daylight. By default, god would also have to stop the moon, to preserve the lunar cycle. He would also have to stop an assload of other things as well, a few that I mentioned in my previous post. So, do you believe that Joshua asked god to stop the moon as well so as to keep the lunar cycle normal? If that's the case, wouldn't he also ask god to stop inertia from acting on them and flinging them away? Of course he didn't ask for those, because he did not know the earth was spinning, and rotating around the sun. He believed in the exact opposite.

 

Look, I accept the fact that those who believe in god and the bible do so with faith. Faith is necessary, or else it just wouldn't work. But, does the bible state that it is infallible? Does god say it is? Do you have to believe that the bible is infallible to be a christian? If not, how come you cannot accept that maybe something in the bible is wrong, or false, or never happened? If faith is your reason for believing, then does it matter if anything in the bible is false?

 

It is not necessary to try and explain all the illogical things in the bible, and put a christian spin on them. If it looks like bullsh*t, smells like bullsh*t, and feels like bullsh*t, then it probaly is bullsh*t. You don't have to try and find a reason to say it's true. Just say, "Yep, that sure doesn't sound feasible, probaly some tall tale that guy wanted to put in the bible". No one will jump down your throat, or throw it in your face. Because you believed by faith before, there is no reason that the realization that some things in the bible are wrong should make your faith falter.

 

In fact, that is a definition of faith, to believe in something that has no logical proof.

[Homuncul]

Some questions are relevant here

 

Does evolution theory really explains better than Bible "theory"?

What's really a difference. Both evolution and Bible discribes our reality. Evolution and science use entities as causality and logic, Bible - faith and sometimes common sense. All of them are considered axioms in different groups. These enteties even posess similar properies:

Logic is closed, faith is blind, causality is infinitly dependent on ultimate cause (call it god), common sense is subjectively dependent on us (humans).(mixing them purposely).

 

Although logic excludes faith and faith excludes logic there's a link.

 

True logic is dependent on how accurate its multiplyers are difined (physically), true faith is dependent on the accuracy of an explanation (of a prophet, messiah). So it comes to how accurately can we tell that either evolution took place or biblical myth was explained implicitly right?

 

Evidence gives nothing to evolutionists to prove faith keepers are wrong cauze these rely on faith which excludes logic. Evolutionists can't rely on predictions (of Hell or Heaven) because they know via logic that predictions don't prove a theory.

 

So...

 

I can't see any accuracy in Bible, it discribes things differently in different parts. And I can't see why faith even should be mentioned. Some so called heresies say one thing, bible says the other and whether words of God are true or not is difined by the holy church. So it's really hard to say (if not impossible) what's really been spoken by god and what was made up by people. (if biblical god assumed).

 

Evolution is accurate on the contrary. It's positions are very accurate taking in calculation every aspect of our nature. It's predictions don't prove it but they're are very very accurate at least. I hope noone would argue that or I'm lost

 

That's why I can say that evolution discribes our reality better than bible. Either we have to invent a better conception of god either admitt bible is wrong. Now choose... but do it wisely... ha ha

 

In the end I don not exclude god I believe in it but not biblical one. It's too simple there to be true. Maybe it's just one side of it.

[C'jais]

Originally posted by Homuncul

Evidence gives nothing to evolutionists to prove faith keepers are wrong cauze these rely on faith which excludes logic.

 

I thought the act of proving was based on logical inference?

 

If we have established through definition that flying is gliding on air currents, and I suddenly see a bird do just that, can I not logically conclude that the bird is flying?

 

Evolutionists can't rely on predictions (of Hell or Heaven) because they know via logic that predictions don't prove a theory.

 

What exactly do you mean with this?

 

As I understood it, Evolution is a collection of theories, and these theories are tested to see if they hold true. We must have set some predictions for them to be tested against.

 

Example: Some paleonthologists speculated that the origin of feathers was started on land living, dinosaur predators, such as the velociraptor. The earliest form of feathers were used as insulation (in lieu with fur), and these feathers were later evolved to fit small tree-top gliding dinosaurs. This was later proved to be correct, when a fossil that resembled such a creature gliding from tree top to tree top (think flying squirrel) was found. Is this now how it works? I mean, if they had found a sea living creature with the early form of the feather, that theory would have been ruined, and a new one would have been established in its place.

 

The problem with religious dogma is that it can never be proved wrong or right. It's just there, and faith is not to be questioned.

[Cosmos Jack]

Originally posted by C'jais

The problem with religious dogma is that it can never be proved wrong or right. It's just there, and faith is not to be questioned.

Makes me think of line from the Terminator movie "Doesn't require a shred of proof. Most paranoid delusions are intricate, but this is brilliant." Dr. Silverman

I think that best somes up how religion is. To me it's just a fad started by a delusion.

[Homuncul]

If we have established through definition that flying is gliding on air currents, and I suddenly see a bird do just that, can I not logically conclude that the bird is flying?

 

That's a paradox of faith/logic. Like wave/particle duality can we now call it faith/logic duality? Just fooling around...

Okey you're right. Proving isn't right. Let's use convincing. This word was used through history.

 

Example: Some paleonthologists speculated that the origin of feathers was started on land living, dinosaur predators, such as the velociraptor. The earliest form of feathers were used as insulation (in lieu with fur), and these feathers were later evolved to fit small tree-top gliding dinosaurs. This was later proved to be correct, when a fossil that resembled such a creature gliding from tree top to tree top (think flying squirrel) was found. Is this now how it works? I mean, if they had found a sea living creature with the early form of the feather, that theory would have been ruined, and a new one would have been established in its place.

 

Predictions can only prove something wrong. For me evolution is proven not because we found some fossils that fit these theories because we predicted them to exist but out of observation of how it actually is happening. Those fossils only help us test evolution in a long term.

 

Imagine Darwin thinking about: "Oh damn! What a great idea I established lately, I've observed several species of finches and found them to be very alike. But how can I prove my idea/theory. Maybe I should analyse some other species. Oh yeah! I found a species which are very alike to both different and alike creatures I analized before. I think it's a link between them . Now that I know a lot about that idea I can predict that between dinosaurs and birds must be some link, subspecies, half dinosaurs half birds. I wonder if anyone can prove my idea to be right and to discover what I predicted to be trully so."

 

Now imagine Cuvier thinking: "I assumed evolution carefuly and classified 4 basic groups of animals observing their bone planning: vertebrates,molluscs, articulates and radiates. I think it's right cause i see and can explain every living being. But it's not proven yet. Yeehaa dudes! I found the proof. Let's observe an embryo of any being. Everything is similar. I think it's my ultimate proof. All of this together."

 

And in the end ladies and gentlemen sir Julian Huxley:"A child of two can tell a pig from a man, a hen from a monkey, an elephant, from a snake... When they are early embryos, they were so alike that not merely the average man but the average biologist would not be able to distinguish among them". So you see the true proof is quite accurate.

 

The problem with religious dogma is that it can never be proved wrong or right. It's just there, and faith is not to be questioned.

 

But they change. Some truths become heresies. Some heresies reabilitate and become dogmas. We can see that through history. These things are finite and if they are then why they can not be changed?. I believe this is what will happen with time, religion would have to adapt to evolution understanding futileness of it's contradiction with such a powerful theory. Then perhaps we could measure even god but that's far away from where we are now.

[Jah Warrior]

damnit deduct one from the no count, i didnt read the question properly:rolleyes:

 

Evolution is the only sane answer there. the other answers hit a brick wall when logic is brought into the equation.

[Cosmos Jack]

Originally posted by Homuncul

Predictions can only prove something wrong. For me evolution is proven not because we found some fossils that fit these theories because we predicted them to exist but out of observation of how it actually is happening. Those fossils only help us test evolution in a long term.

A theory is an educated guess. The way you go about supporting theories is to make a assumption test it observe the results and if they support your assumption or they prove it wrong. From there you either keep your original assumption or you make a new one if it was proven wrong.

 

The theory of the origin of feathers was a educated guess. They tested it by looking for a dinosaurs with feathers. The guess was proven right by finding the proof. The idea of Dinosaurs evolving into birds was really a hard one to get support for. Now it is widely excepted as fact. We have proof that they developed feathers and now a lot of art work depictions of dinosaurs have animals like Velocirapters with feathers.

 

Predictions prove things right and prove things wrong that just what happens in scientific method, however; you can think what you want.

[Homuncul]

Predictions are merely some of the consequences that we deduce from the explanation of a theory.What makes theory of evolution through natural selection so important is not that it can predict half dinosaurs half birds which "classical" biology could not but that it receals and explains previously unsuspected aspects of reality like our true origin from a single cell organism and many others.

 

The theory of feathers is a tested prediction of a deeper theory of evolution.

 

Some people today consider that the main purpose of a theory is not to explain but to make predictions, furthermore they consider that any consistent explanation that a theory may give for its predictions is as good as any other or any explanation. Instrumentalists they are called cauze they consider theory an instrument for making predictions while it's really IS an explanation for our reality.

[Cosmos Jack]

All I did is state for the most part what I learned from my Biology Professors a little ways back. I pretty much agree with how they see it.

 

The idea you have which is close just isn't what's going on, but as I said you can think what you want.

[SkinWalker]

[Cosmos Jack]

lol:p

[Homuncul]

I'd like to talk about subject that has a connection to evolution/creation conflict which I think is worth to mention. That's why I 've posted it here instead of starting a new thread.

 

Let's think about creationists first. While my thoughts may appear offensive I didn't mean to offend (or I did but that's not the point.)

I can understand why they by any means can't adopt evolution (faith is not to be questioned by logic) but what I can't get is why they don't want to understand it.

 

I think nowadays creationists are inconsistently dependent on theory of evolution. The most obvious evidence for that is that holy church has to accept some of its positions and I want to make some thought about that.

 

The common thought of creationist (but some even would not admit it) is: "World was created 6 thousand years ago but from the place where we're now it looks like millions of years of evolution took place". This point of view is futile and I can guess why and then lead to another thing I really ment to talk about

 

Any theory is basicly about questions what?, how? and then why? Also any theory is a problem solving process. And there was a problem in science before evolution was introduced - some unsuspected things that science could not answer what they are and why they are. At some point a new explanation for it appeared in opposition to a main theory of that time (divine): a theory of evolution through natural selection which explained why do we see these dinosaur fossils and how a single cell has evolved into us and many other major things. And church felt that somehow it needs to defend itself from a looking-like-better-explanious-theory of evolution. That's when it takes its fatal posittion. So the question with creationism and evolutionism is not merely barried by faith but also by the question what explanation is more satisfactory and better discribes reality at present moment. Creationism explains why world looks like evolution took place through god but it doesn't explain why god would want to do that in any way. The main point here is that creationism introduces itself through another theory and this is it's fatal weakness, it fails to solve the problem it was supposed to solve. It can not explain things now without using the complexity of evolution theory. And as I can see now it's just excessively complex to be taken as adequate by common sense which church accepts. In that manner faith barrier becomes nothing more than a justification and really it has nothing to do with not accepting logic (logic here I think is irrelevant).

 

The subject I wanted to discuss is hidden in the words "present moment". I guess creationists problem is also in their overwhelming perfectionism. It's like they long for something that can't yet get any explanation from. They try to jump over their heads.

Our explanations change from time (like Newtonian gravity was replaced by general relativity) and so change the criteria for what to consider real improving our understanding of it. If that is our main goal then we must find satisfactory to classify some things as real and others as illusory or imaginative? On the other hand as we do consider Newtonian gravity to be illusory we still use it sometimes not to waste time for example when high accuracy of predictions is not important.

 

Real is merely a word to discribe our external surroundings and not the matter of whether it exist at all like in solipsism theory. After all it's a theory that doesn't explain better than others do that's why it is abandoned. If it was otherwise it would probably overwhelm all others. That's why I prepose to consider evolution real and creation illusory and imaginary for now (but I prefer to think it to be for a very long time til a better explanation of god comes).

 

Maybe then I'm too hard on the creationism so I'd like to aologize and speak about evolution. At present moment I think there're some correctives to make there (or I'm wrong).

 

The overwhelming understanding among scientists about evolution now is this: We have one biological language on earth that apparently every lifeform speaks. We can see it's alphabet in so called genetic adapters. But there could exist many other languages at the dawn of life. The main point of evolution was that the fittest overwhelmed the others and so it's the most adequate and maybe I can even assert why these theories about aliens looking morhically alike us in every part of our universe appeared. But it looks like this position now is abandoning. The main purpose of a cell: consume and multiply. And late researches tell us that actually any language and not the fittest one could survive but the one which accidentally outnumbered and consumed all the others and that evolution bagan not with natural selection but by natural election. What do you think about that?

[Solbe M'ko]

I'm sorry I don't have time to read every post in this thread.

 

 

I think that evolution is perfectly plausible, given the information we have right now. However, religion gives us some great clues as to our past. Many religions make reference to floods and many make reference to regular people being communicated with by things that are not explained by any scientific theory. I think of most religions as a type of science/history that developed to explain things that couldn't be explained otherwise.

 

I, for one, don't accept arguments that are made by people about, say, the Bible, who didn't learn of the Bible on their own. If you go to church every week since your childhood and someone tells you that God created everything, you won't learn to question it. If you don't compare theories, you will never be able to grow out of what you believe to be "fact" (whatever that is).

I recommend that you read "A Brief History of Time" by Stephen Hawking, no matter what your belief system. I also recommend "Chariots of the Gods", although you really should be critical of some of the evidence in that one...

 

And yes, predictions only eliminate possibilities, they don't make definitive conclusions. We can't do that until we understand every possible outcome, which, as we have seen with things like evolution, are far beyond human capacity, and therefore considered "endless" in number.

[Homuncul]

I recommend that you read "A Brief History of Time" by Stephen Hawking, no matter what your belief system. I also recommend "Chariots of the Gods", although you really should be critical of some of the evidence in that one...

 

I read them already a long time ago. Maube you mean I must reread them. Perhaps I'll do but it doesn't change my opinion about evolution as I had nothing rather then these mass culture, pop books to compare with the ideas I picked up in other books.

 

 

And yes, predictions only eliminate possibilities, they don't make definitive conclusions. We can't do that until we understand every possible outcome, which, as we have seen with things like evolution, are far beyond human capacity, and therefore considered "endless" in number.

 

Not necessarily we need every possible outcome to be justified with prediction to say evolution is right. It's a instrumentalistic thought which I always try to fight with. We don't need to know and understand every possible outcome and observe it factual truth through prediction. Although I do not like the word, we have to extrapolate intentively explanation of a theory on all of it's possible predictions. Of course there may be mistakes, than a theory is abandoned. But sometimes even the most competent theories give us a pig. Sometimes we get right predictions from a wrong theory (for a not very long time).

 

Of course we may want to make predictions to see a theory is proven, to make a research and the capacity of that theory but these are all finite numbers. And we're finite and work by finite means.

[SkinWalker]

Originally posted by Solbe M'ko

I also recommend "Chariots of the Gods", although you really should be critical of some of the evidence in that one...

 

... because that one is utter rubbish. I read Von Daniken when I was a mere child and, unfortunately, very immpressionable. I actually bought into his nonsense about UFO's and, if I recall, that Earth once orbited the Sun in 288 days as recorded by some ancient civilization. Kepler's third law was fortunate enough to enlighten me, since it dictates that for this to be possible, the Earth would have to have been much closer to the Sun... around the vicinity of Venus.

 

A better choice for you would be A Demon Haunted World by Carl Sagan. I consider this to be my bible, and it sets a very sensible foundation for anyone interested in expressing their intellect or examining the intellect of others.

 

Homuncul, I've got your book about three down this list I've some other ideas to slide past you, perhaps in this thread or maybe I'll dig up the "parallel universes" thread.... keep looking.

[Homuncul]

Homuncul, I've got your book about three down this list I've some other ideas to slide past you, perhaps in this thread or maybe I'll dig up the "parallel universes" thread.... keep looking.

 

I'd like to call it "my" but unfortunately these are not at all my ideas I always annoy people about. I make a mixture of what I prefer and I always welcome healthy criticism as it is also a problem solving component of a theory development process. And it's really encouraging me that people try to think differently and even question their world view. Thanks Skin

 

About "some other ideas"... I'm looking:confused:

[Wanderer]

Exactly the the second point goes for me. Evolution with divine influence.

Look at all what is on earth...humans...animals...trees....

See how they develop...that there are rules for evolution...rules for having children (natural rules I mean).

Look at all this...

And then tell me this all is caused by random and we are the only people in the wide wide universe.

My point-> everything is made of divine energy in the end.

Evolution is real....that what science find out how life and things are developing needn't to interfere with the believing of divine influence....in my opinion both go hand in hand.

[lukeskywalker1]

Sorry i havnt posted in a while, ive been busy.

 

 

A man went to a barber shop to have his hair and his beard cut as always. He started to have a good conversation with the barber who attended him. They talked about so many things and various subjects. Suddenly, they touched the subject of God. The barber said: "Look man, I don't believe that God exists as you say."

 

"Why do you say that?" asked the client.

 

"Well, it's so easy, you just have to go out in the street to realize that God does not exist. Oh, tell me, if God existed, would there be so many sick people? Would there be abandoned children? If God existed, there would be no suffering nor pain. I can't think of loving a God who permits all of these things."

 

The client stopped for a moment thinking, but he didn't want to respond so as to cause an argument. The barber finished his job and the client went out of the shop. Just after he left the barber shop he saw a man in the street with a long hair and beard (it seems that it had been a long time since he had his cut and he looked so untidy).

 

Then the client again entered the barber shop and he said to the barber:

"You know what? Barbers do not exist."

 

"How can you say they don't exist?" asked the barber. "Well, I am here and I am a barber."

"No!" the client exclaimed. "They don't exist because if they did there would be no people with long hair and beard like that man who walks in the street."

 

 

"Ah, barbers do exist, what happens is that people do not come to me."

 

"Exactly!"- affirmed the client. "That's the point. God does exist. What happens is people don't go to Him and do not look for Him. That's why there's so much pain and suffering in the world."

 

 

 

K, lets say I walked down the street yesterday, no one saw me. Theres no proof that I was there or not. Does that mean it didnt happen, just cause I cant prove I walked down the street?

 

 

 

BTW, i wasnt talking about leap year when i posted about a missing day, it was something else.... I read it at church, maybe I can find a link somewhere.

 

 

I, for one, don't accept arguments that are made by people about, say, the Bible, who didn't learn of the Bible on their own. If you go to church every week since your childhood and someone tells you that God created everything, you won't learn to question it. If you don't compare theories, you will never be able to grow out of what you believe to be "fact" (whatever that is).

 

 

Didnt grow up in a church. Ive only been going to church for 2 years. And anyways, how much of the bible is taught in a normal public school? We are not told anything about it, only about evolution. In all my books, if they mention something about christianity, they leave stuff out, mainly the basis for christianity, that Jesus died, and rose again so we could be forgiven. So if you dont have any knowledge of christianity, even in school, your not told the "whole story" about it, basically, we are only given 1 belief, which is evolution.

 

 

Just a thought, couldnt you consider evolution as a religion. I mean, not all religions have gods or a god. None of them can be really proven (no, evolution cant be completly proven, if it is at all) Look at Athiesm.

 

You guys say, that some people could have just wrote stuff down. It goes both ways, how do you know some scientists dont just make stuff up? You dont. They are human, and can also lie. Just like gravity and things like that on other planets, how do they know? No one has been there. They could just make up numbers, couldnt they. What makes them so believable?

 

-lukeskywalker1

[SkinWalker]

Originally posted by Wanderer

Exactly the the second point goes for me. Evolution with divine influence.

Look at all what is on earth...humans...animals...trees....

See how they develop...that there are rules for evolution...rules for having children (natural rules I mean).

Look at all this...

 

Natural selection.

 

There are billions of billions of galaxies in the known universe. This is true because we can observe it. Each of these galaxies has billions of stars and billions of planets. Mathematically speaking, our small bubble of existance isn't the only one!

 

It also amazes me how quickly people are to accept the idea that time will go on into the future infinitly, but not consider that it may also go on into the past with the same infinity. If we had more advance propulsion systems, I would not be surprised to find that for life NOT to exist elsewhere in the universe is rare indeed.

[SkinWalker]

Originally posted by lukeskywalker1

"How can you say they don't exist?" asked the barber. "Well, I am here and I am a barber."

"No!" the client exclaimed. "They don't exist because if they did there would be no people with long hair and beard like that man who walks in the street."

 

Strawman caricacture (client to the barber). The barber has a state issued license on the wall. One can collect hair samples from his floor. He can be observed in his natural state by independent observers. He can be captured on the video surveillance tape... etc., etc., etc.

 

Originally posted by lukeskywalker1

K, lets say I walked down the street yesterday, no one saw me. Theres no proof that I was there or not. Does that mean it didnt happen, just cause I cant prove I walked down the street?

 

If you were suspected of committing a crime, that would be a poor alibi. You would need a bit of evidence. Mulitple, independent witnesses, a receipt from the 7-11 where you purchased a 24 oz coffee, etc. The evidence against you would have to be in less preponderance than the evidence you provide for you alibi.

 

Originally posted by lukeskywalker1

And anyways, how much of the bible is taught in a normal public school?

 

Hopefully, none. Except as it relates to a discussion about the world's many religions. There is a separation of church and state in our country (he and I are both in the U.S.). As much to protect the religious freedoms of minority religions as anything else.

 

Originally posted by lukeskywalker1

We are not told anything about it, only about evolution.

 

This is because the preponderance of evidence is in favor of evolution rather than "other claims."

 

Originally posted by lukeskywalker1

... basically, we are only given 1 belief, which is evolution.

 

"belief" would be an inappropriate word. Hypothesis would be better. Evolution is but one hypothesis for how the world as we know it came to be. It just happens to be the most likely based on the evidence. Creation ideas of fundamentalists in many religions are other hypothesis, but they are extremely weak as they often are based upon oral and written traditions that fail to take into account new information. They are also based upon unbounded concepts of supernatural sources.

 

 

Originally posted by lukeskywalker1

Just a thought, couldnt you consider evolution as a religion.

 

No. Religions involve rituals, worship, etc. of unbounded concepts. Scientific theories involve bounded concepts, meaning that there are certain rules and constraints that cannot be violated without rewriting the rules. Constants such as gravity, light, nuclear bonds of atoms, etc.

 

Originally posted by lukeskywalker1

You guys say, that some people could have just wrote stuff down. It goes both ways, how do you know some scientists dont just make stuff up? You dont.

 

You do if you spend the time and effort to educate yourself rather than buy into fundamental aspects of a religion without questioning the world around you.

 

Originally posted by lukeskywalker1

They are human, and can also lie.

 

They would be caught in very short order, and have been. I have many examples of poor science that was debunked if you are ever interested. Scientists are peer reviewed and question EVERYthing. Before a theory is published, it goes through a thourogh and rigorous examination and testing by the postulator. Scientists and intellectuals who are successful in debunking, correcting, disproving, etc. the claims of another scientiest gain nearly as much prestige as the scientist whos claims survive such strict peer review.

 

Originally posted by lukeskywalker1

Just like gravity and things like that on other planets, how do they know? No one has been there. They could just make up numbers, couldnt they. What makes them so believable?

 

It would be beyond the scope of this thread, even this forum, to provide a physics or chemistry class. I suggest involving yourself in both if you are still in High School. Also, be sure to take trigonometry. If nothing else, take these so you can more thouroughly debunk the claims of those who tout science above religion. It would help to understand the basis for their arguments in order to structure your own efficiently.