Unknown2005-02-07 20:18:25
QUOTE(SirVLCIV @ Feb 7 2005, 12:03 PM)
DrDino (Dr. Hovind's) proof of creationism dispelled - http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind/howgood-dr.html
44257
That dispelled nothing. That was nothing more than an editorial. Oh my Gosh, he used 30 proofs that have been used by other creationists. The fact that they all stick with the same story says nothing bad about any of them.
Edited out of respect for Raan and to save my soul from eternal damnation.
(I believe God has a sense of humour.)
Unknown2005-02-07 20:20:38
Alyvia - this appears to be a response to Hovind's questions.
________________
Questions directed to scientific creationists, young-earth creationists and others in opposition to conventional science:
Introduction
This is a collection of questions which many people who support conventional science wonder about when confronted with those who oppose conventional science in the name of creationism. The questions are grouped in these categories: what is creationism; what is conventional science; how does creationism explain the evidence for conventional science; theological questions. Within each category there are numbered specific questions, surrounded by introductory or other explanatory material. These questions are repeated at the end of each category (sometimes paraphrased) for emphasis.
We begin with the more important questions, and answers to them are greatly desired in order to promote communication. Later questions may be considered to be about details.
A few comments about some terminology
The expression "conventional science" is used here as it is a neutral expression, and many people object to misunderstandings surrounding such expressions as "evolutionism" or "theory of evolution".
The other side is referred to as "creationist" as that appears to be the self-description of those opposed to conventional science in the ways of interest here. It is not intended to include all people who believe in creation.
What is creationism?
Many people find that the most important part of a theory is a clear description of what the theory says and does not say.
(1) Give a comprehensive statement of creationism. (There are questions below about conventional science, so please restrict your discussion here to the positive aspects of creationism.) This is the one question of over-reaching importance, so much so that you might consider many of the following questions merely asking for certain details of what makes up a comprehensive statement of creationism. It should be noted that many people prefer quantitative details where appropriate.
It is often a great help to communication if each party understands what the other means by certain critical expressions.
(2) Define technical terms and other words or expressions that are likely to be misunderstood.
(3) Include the evidence for creationism (please remember that merely finding problems with conventional science does not count as support for creationism, as there may be other theories which differ from both conventional science and creationism). A good example of evidence for creationism would be some observation which was predicted by it. That is much better support than merely giving an explanation for observations which were known before it was formulated. Far less convincing is evidence which has an alternative explanation.
In order to decide between conflicting theories, it is important that not only must the conflicting theories be well described, and that the evidence supporting the conflicting theories be proposed, but also that there be established some rules for deciding between the theories and evaluating the evidence.
(4) Can you suggest principles for so deciding and evaluating?
There are many alternatives to creationism. Some of the alternatives are: theistic evolution and old-earth creationism.
(5) Distinguish your theory of creationism from some of these alternatives and give some reasons for it rather than the others.
Many people find a theory which is open to change in the face of new evidence much more satisfying than one which is inflexible.
(6) Describe features of creationism which are subject to modification. Another way of phrasing it is: is there any kind of observation which, if it were seen, would change creationism? Is it open to change, and if so, what criteria are there for accepting change?
Exposition of creationism.
Definitions of terms.
Evidence for creationism.
Rules of evidence.
Distinguishing characteristics of creationism.
Evidence which modifies creationism.
How do creationists describe conventional science?
It is helpful in any discussion that both sides understand what the other is talking about. In answering the questions above, you have helped us in understanding your theory. Often communication is helped if each participant explains what he thinks the other person is saying. It should also help those who support conventional science to clarify their exposition. These questions are in a sense parallel to the questions asked before about creationism.
(7) Explain what you think some of the terms used in conventional science mean. Here are some which seem to lead to misunderstanding:
evolution
primitive
natural selection
theory
(8) It would also be helpful if you could give a brief description of your understanding of conventional science. Please do not state here what your objections are to conventional science - that can be talked about later. Just say what conventional science says.
(9) It might be helpful if you explain why you think that conventional science came to its present position, and why people hold to conventional science. (And once again, please restrict this to a description, as debate can come later.)
Many people who support conventional science feel that those who oppose it do so because of unwelcome consequences.
(10) What are the consequences of accepting conventional science?
What are the meanings of the terms used by conventional science?
What is does conventional science say?
What is the evidence for conventional science?
What are the consequences of accepting conventional science?
How does creationism explain the evidence for conventional science?
In answering the earlier questions, you have described your theory and given us evidence for it. Now we ask for your opinions on the evidence for conventional science.
Many people hold to conventional science because they believe that it has been developed over centuries, driven by discoveries. They wonder how any person could explain the evidence any other way. Here is a very brief list of questions about evidence which many people find convincing.
(11) Why is there the coherence among many different dating methods pointing to an old earth and life on earth for a long time - for example: radioactivity, tree rings, ice cores, corals, supernovas - from astronomy, biology, physics, geology, chemistry and archeology? These methods are based on quite distinct fields of inquiry and are quite diverse, yet manage to arrive at quite similar dates. (This is not answered by saying that there is no proof of uniformity of radioactive decay. The question is why all these different methods give the same answers.)
(12) Explain the distribution, seemingly chronological, of plant and animal fossils. For example, the limited distribution of fossils of flowering plants (which are restricted to the higher levels of the fossil record). Here we are considering the distribution which conventional science explains as reflecting differences in time - the various levels of rock.
(13) In the contemporary world, different animals and plants live in different places. Why is there the present distribution of animals and plants in the world? For example, how is it that marsupials are restricted to Australia and nearby islands and the Americas, monotremes to Australia and nearby islands, and few placental mammals are native to Australia? Or why are tomatoes and potatoes native to the Americas only? (This is not a question merely of how they could have arrived there, it is also of why only there.)
(14) There is a large body of information about the different species of animals and plants, systematically organized, which is conventionally represented as reflecting genetic relationships between different species. So, for example, lions are said to be more closely related to tigers than they are to elephants. If different kinds are not genetically related, what is the explanation for the greater and less similarities between different kinds of living things? That is to say, why would special creation produce this complex pattern rather than just resulting in all kinds being equally related to all others?
Coherence of many different dating methods.
Chronological distribution of fossils.
Spatial distribution of living things.
Relationships between living things.
Theological questions
It is the impression of many people who support conventional science that many people who are creationists are so because of religious reasons. This is puzzling to people who consider themselves to be religious, yet accept the findings of conventional science.
For example, some people feel that it is necessary to give naturalistic explanations for the wondrous events described in the Bible. Other people are curious as to why there should be a search for naturalistic explanations for these events, rather than acceptance of these events as signs from God, outside of the normal.
(15) If you feel that the events of the Bible must be explained as the normal operation of natural phenomena, please explain why.
Some people who believe in God find it difficult to accept that God would mislead people by giving evidence for conventional science.
(16) Why is there all the evidence for an earth, and life on earth, more than 100,000 years old, and for the relationships between living things, and why were we given the intelligence to reach those conclusions?
Why should the wondrous events described in sacred writings be given naturalistic explanations?
Why does the plain reading of nature seem to support conventional science?
Summary
These questions are intended to clarify the debate about creationism versus conventional science. As mentioned above, many of the questions are intended to explore what creationists think about the issues in a way that allows each side to understand better what is involved. I believe that they are fair questions to ask in achieving that end, but if anyone has objections to the content, tone or presuppositions, comments are certainly welcome.
_______________________________
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/stumpers.html
________________
Questions directed to scientific creationists, young-earth creationists and others in opposition to conventional science:
Introduction
This is a collection of questions which many people who support conventional science wonder about when confronted with those who oppose conventional science in the name of creationism. The questions are grouped in these categories: what is creationism; what is conventional science; how does creationism explain the evidence for conventional science; theological questions. Within each category there are numbered specific questions, surrounded by introductory or other explanatory material. These questions are repeated at the end of each category (sometimes paraphrased) for emphasis.
We begin with the more important questions, and answers to them are greatly desired in order to promote communication. Later questions may be considered to be about details.
A few comments about some terminology
The expression "conventional science" is used here as it is a neutral expression, and many people object to misunderstandings surrounding such expressions as "evolutionism" or "theory of evolution".
The other side is referred to as "creationist" as that appears to be the self-description of those opposed to conventional science in the ways of interest here. It is not intended to include all people who believe in creation.
What is creationism?
Many people find that the most important part of a theory is a clear description of what the theory says and does not say.
(1) Give a comprehensive statement of creationism. (There are questions below about conventional science, so please restrict your discussion here to the positive aspects of creationism.) This is the one question of over-reaching importance, so much so that you might consider many of the following questions merely asking for certain details of what makes up a comprehensive statement of creationism. It should be noted that many people prefer quantitative details where appropriate.
It is often a great help to communication if each party understands what the other means by certain critical expressions.
(2) Define technical terms and other words or expressions that are likely to be misunderstood.
(3) Include the evidence for creationism (please remember that merely finding problems with conventional science does not count as support for creationism, as there may be other theories which differ from both conventional science and creationism). A good example of evidence for creationism would be some observation which was predicted by it. That is much better support than merely giving an explanation for observations which were known before it was formulated. Far less convincing is evidence which has an alternative explanation.
In order to decide between conflicting theories, it is important that not only must the conflicting theories be well described, and that the evidence supporting the conflicting theories be proposed, but also that there be established some rules for deciding between the theories and evaluating the evidence.
(4) Can you suggest principles for so deciding and evaluating?
There are many alternatives to creationism. Some of the alternatives are: theistic evolution and old-earth creationism.
(5) Distinguish your theory of creationism from some of these alternatives and give some reasons for it rather than the others.
Many people find a theory which is open to change in the face of new evidence much more satisfying than one which is inflexible.
(6) Describe features of creationism which are subject to modification. Another way of phrasing it is: is there any kind of observation which, if it were seen, would change creationism? Is it open to change, and if so, what criteria are there for accepting change?
Exposition of creationism.
Definitions of terms.
Evidence for creationism.
Rules of evidence.
Distinguishing characteristics of creationism.
Evidence which modifies creationism.
How do creationists describe conventional science?
It is helpful in any discussion that both sides understand what the other is talking about. In answering the questions above, you have helped us in understanding your theory. Often communication is helped if each participant explains what he thinks the other person is saying. It should also help those who support conventional science to clarify their exposition. These questions are in a sense parallel to the questions asked before about creationism.
(7) Explain what you think some of the terms used in conventional science mean. Here are some which seem to lead to misunderstanding:
evolution
primitive
natural selection
theory
(8) It would also be helpful if you could give a brief description of your understanding of conventional science. Please do not state here what your objections are to conventional science - that can be talked about later. Just say what conventional science says.
(9) It might be helpful if you explain why you think that conventional science came to its present position, and why people hold to conventional science. (And once again, please restrict this to a description, as debate can come later.)
Many people who support conventional science feel that those who oppose it do so because of unwelcome consequences.
(10) What are the consequences of accepting conventional science?
What are the meanings of the terms used by conventional science?
What is does conventional science say?
What is the evidence for conventional science?
What are the consequences of accepting conventional science?
How does creationism explain the evidence for conventional science?
In answering the earlier questions, you have described your theory and given us evidence for it. Now we ask for your opinions on the evidence for conventional science.
Many people hold to conventional science because they believe that it has been developed over centuries, driven by discoveries. They wonder how any person could explain the evidence any other way. Here is a very brief list of questions about evidence which many people find convincing.
(11) Why is there the coherence among many different dating methods pointing to an old earth and life on earth for a long time - for example: radioactivity, tree rings, ice cores, corals, supernovas - from astronomy, biology, physics, geology, chemistry and archeology? These methods are based on quite distinct fields of inquiry and are quite diverse, yet manage to arrive at quite similar dates. (This is not answered by saying that there is no proof of uniformity of radioactive decay. The question is why all these different methods give the same answers.)
(12) Explain the distribution, seemingly chronological, of plant and animal fossils. For example, the limited distribution of fossils of flowering plants (which are restricted to the higher levels of the fossil record). Here we are considering the distribution which conventional science explains as reflecting differences in time - the various levels of rock.
(13) In the contemporary world, different animals and plants live in different places. Why is there the present distribution of animals and plants in the world? For example, how is it that marsupials are restricted to Australia and nearby islands and the Americas, monotremes to Australia and nearby islands, and few placental mammals are native to Australia? Or why are tomatoes and potatoes native to the Americas only? (This is not a question merely of how they could have arrived there, it is also of why only there.)
(14) There is a large body of information about the different species of animals and plants, systematically organized, which is conventionally represented as reflecting genetic relationships between different species. So, for example, lions are said to be more closely related to tigers than they are to elephants. If different kinds are not genetically related, what is the explanation for the greater and less similarities between different kinds of living things? That is to say, why would special creation produce this complex pattern rather than just resulting in all kinds being equally related to all others?
Coherence of many different dating methods.
Chronological distribution of fossils.
Spatial distribution of living things.
Relationships between living things.
Theological questions
It is the impression of many people who support conventional science that many people who are creationists are so because of religious reasons. This is puzzling to people who consider themselves to be religious, yet accept the findings of conventional science.
For example, some people feel that it is necessary to give naturalistic explanations for the wondrous events described in the Bible. Other people are curious as to why there should be a search for naturalistic explanations for these events, rather than acceptance of these events as signs from God, outside of the normal.
(15) If you feel that the events of the Bible must be explained as the normal operation of natural phenomena, please explain why.
Some people who believe in God find it difficult to accept that God would mislead people by giving evidence for conventional science.
(16) Why is there all the evidence for an earth, and life on earth, more than 100,000 years old, and for the relationships between living things, and why were we given the intelligence to reach those conclusions?
Why should the wondrous events described in sacred writings be given naturalistic explanations?
Why does the plain reading of nature seem to support conventional science?
Summary
These questions are intended to clarify the debate about creationism versus conventional science. As mentioned above, many of the questions are intended to explore what creationists think about the issues in a way that allows each side to understand better what is involved. I believe that they are fair questions to ask in achieving that end, but if anyone has objections to the content, tone or presuppositions, comments are certainly welcome.
_______________________________
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/stumpers.html
Unknown2005-02-07 20:21:16
QUOTE(SirVLCIV @ Feb 7 2005, 12:15 PM)
Our knowledge of the universe is incredibly thin, and there's a marvelous theory of the omniverse (how the Big Bang was caused by external forces). The fact that we exist is not proof that there's something miraculous about our existence. There may be other life forms in the universe (or omniverse) - we simply don't know.
Until -proof- exists that disproves evolution, I'm inclined to believe it is -the best- theory to explain our world and universe at the present time. It is not infallible (although it has not been proven false), and it is not 'law', it is 'theory'.
Until -proof- exists that disproves evolution, I'm inclined to believe it is -the best- theory to explain our world and universe at the present time. It is not infallible (although it has not been proven false), and it is not 'law', it is 'theory'.
44259
That's the point I was making that led to this topic being opened. People say evolution is thoery, people says creation is theory. Why is evolution given weeks worth of study in a high school biology class and evolution is given a column? Until anything is proven, I feel it should be given equal class time.
Unknown2005-02-07 20:24:09
QUOTE(Alyvia Gladheon @ Feb 7 2005, 03:18 PM)
That dispelled nothing. That was nothing more than an editorial. Oh my God, he used 30 proofs that have been used by other creationists. The fact that they all stick with the same story says nothing bad about any of them.
44263
Did you click 'Next'?
Unknown2005-02-07 20:25:18
QUOTE(Alyvia Gladheon @ Feb 7 2005, 03:21 PM)
That's the point I was making that led to this topic being opened. People say evolution is thoery, people says creation is theory. Why is evolution given weeks worth of study in a high school biology class and evolution is given a column? Until anything is proven, I feel it should be given equal class time.
44265
Evolution has evidence supporting it, and can logically be disproven. It is a -scientific- theory.
Creationism is not a -scientific- theory, as it can not be logically disproven, no matter how much contradictory evidence is given.
Unknown2005-02-07 20:26:46
QUOTE
The most obvious feature of the fossil record is that there are a lot of fossils of clam-like species. If one focuses on the remaining fossils, it becomes clear that the fossils are sorted by geological age. Deep rock layers generally contain the remains of simple creatures; the upper layers have evidence of more complex animals. By studying the entire fossil record, one can determine in what order various species first appeared and when they apparently became extinct.
The sorting of fossils is complete. Dinosaurs have never been found in the same layer as trilobites; trilobites have never been seen together with human remains; dinosaur remains have not been found with human remains. And so on for perhaps a million other combinations. There are literally millions of pairs of species which have never been found together in the same rock layer. One simple example may clarify this. There is a thin layer of clay containing a high concentration of Iridium which was laid down between the Cretaceous and Tertiary rock layers -- apparently about 65 million years ago. 9 Because it is found in so many places around the world, it is a very useful date marker. There are thousands of species whose fossils are only found lower in the fossil record than this layer; there are thousands of species which are only found higher. This is overwhelming proof that the rock layers, and the species they contain, were laid down over long periods of time. In order to disprove evolution, it would be necessary for creation scientists to prove that all species co-existed together, and were somehow precisely sorted into layers by species. We are unaware of any efforts by young-earth creation scientists working in this area.
The sorting of fossils is complete. Dinosaurs have never been found in the same layer as trilobites; trilobites have never been seen together with human remains; dinosaur remains have not been found with human remains. And so on for perhaps a million other combinations. There are literally millions of pairs of species which have never been found together in the same rock layer. One simple example may clarify this. There is a thin layer of clay containing a high concentration of Iridium which was laid down between the Cretaceous and Tertiary rock layers -- apparently about 65 million years ago. 9 Because it is found in so many places around the world, it is a very useful date marker. There are thousands of species whose fossils are only found lower in the fossil record than this layer; there are thousands of species which are only found higher. This is overwhelming proof that the rock layers, and the species they contain, were laid down over long periods of time. In order to disprove evolution, it would be necessary for creation scientists to prove that all species co-existed together, and were somehow precisely sorted into layers by species. We are unaware of any efforts by young-earth creation scientists working in this area.
How can evolution be disproven?
Edit: Mis-link
http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_disp.htm
Raan2005-02-07 20:33:36
QUOTE
That dispelled nothing. That was nothing more than an editorial. Oh my God ....
Sorry this is a HUGE pet peve of mine... No judgement intended (seriously)
7 Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in bvain; for the LORD will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain.
I wouldnt have said anything if this discussion wasnt religious related to begin with.
Unknown2005-02-07 20:35:31
"What would make you doubt that creationism is true? What scientific proof, evidence or observation could change your mind?"
http://evolution.mbdojo.com/creationism_not_science.htm
http://evolution.mbdojo.com/creationism_not_science.htm
Unknown2005-02-07 20:36:52
Anything that is not true can be disproven. You do that by proving the opposing side is the truth. In law the accuser has the "burden of proof." It is the same here. Someone got the idea of evolution, now it is up to the evolutionists to prove it. I have not seen one bit of proof that makes me believe in evolution. I never said creation was science. Evolution is religion. There is not enough for it to be fact, there is only faith.
Creationists believe that in the beginning there was God, and He created everything you see.
Evolutionists believe there was a big bang, which created all the planets, Earth was nothing more than a rock, and for millions of years it rained on the rock, which created a soup of all of the stuff it takes to make life. Somehow an organism was made, and more and more, and they evolved to what you see today. There is no proof for this. Only belief in the unseen and unkown...faith.
I'm sorry, but I'd choose, "In the beginning God.." over, "In the beginning soup..."
Creationists believe that in the beginning there was God, and He created everything you see.
Evolutionists believe there was a big bang, which created all the planets, Earth was nothing more than a rock, and for millions of years it rained on the rock, which created a soup of all of the stuff it takes to make life. Somehow an organism was made, and more and more, and they evolved to what you see today. There is no proof for this. Only belief in the unseen and unkown...faith.
I'm sorry, but I'd choose, "In the beginning God.." over, "In the beginning soup..."
Unknown2005-02-07 20:39:07
QUOTE(raan @ Feb 7 2005, 12:33 PM)
Sorry this is a HUGE pet peve of mine... No judgement intended (seriously)
7 Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in bvain; for the LORD will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain.
I wouldnt have said anything if this discussion wasnt religious related to begin with.
7 Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in bvain; for the LORD will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain.
I wouldnt have said anything if this discussion wasnt religious related to begin with.
44273
No offence intended. We all have our sin, our vices.
Unknown2005-02-07 20:41:23
Evolution is a scientific theory for life on earth. Science can NOT be proven. It can not. Proofs are for Mathematics.
Evidence can be found to support it, but all it takes is one counterexample to disprove a scientific hypothesis or theory.
Science is a tool to explain the world. Newton found the LAW of gravity (a Law is a theory that -must- be accepted as an axiom if further theories are to be held up to the light of day - a law is not 'truth', but is axiomatic (much as a=a is an axiom of mathematics - it can't be proven)).
There is no way to prove evolution true, but it hasn't been proven false. There IS no way to prove Creationism false, and thus, it is not a science.
Evidence can be found to support it, but all it takes is one counterexample to disprove a scientific hypothesis or theory.
Science is a tool to explain the world. Newton found the LAW of gravity (a Law is a theory that -must- be accepted as an axiom if further theories are to be held up to the light of day - a law is not 'truth', but is axiomatic (much as a=a is an axiom of mathematics - it can't be proven)).
There is no way to prove evolution true, but it hasn't been proven false. There IS no way to prove Creationism false, and thus, it is not a science.
Raan2005-02-07 20:41:39
None taken, I hear it enough as it is 
Like I said, not judging at all, thats not my place. But I cant help but say something about it.. it really does make me twitch 
Like I said, not judging at all, thats not my place. But I cant help but say something about it.. it really does make me twitch Raan2005-02-07 20:43:12
QUOTE
There is no way to prove evolution true, but it hasn't been proven false. There IS no way to prove Creationism false, and thus, it is not a science.
And so who says it needs to be "science" for it to qualify?
Unknown2005-02-07 20:44:02
QUOTE(SirVLCIV @ Feb 7 2005, 12:41 PM)
Evolution is a scientific theory for life on earth. Science can NOT be proven. It can not. Proofs are for Mathematics.
Evidence can be found to support it, but all it takes is one counterexample to disprove a scientific hypothesis or theory.
Science is a tool to explain the world. Newton found the LAW of gravity (a Law is a theory that -must- be accepted as an axiom if further theories are to be held up to the light of day - a law is not 'truth', but is axiomatic (much as a=a is an axiom of mathematics - it can't be proven)).
There is no way to prove evolution true, but it hasn't been proven false. There IS no way to prove Creationism false, and thus, it is not a science.
Evidence can be found to support it, but all it takes is one counterexample to disprove a scientific hypothesis or theory.
Science is a tool to explain the world. Newton found the LAW of gravity (a Law is a theory that -must- be accepted as an axiom if further theories are to be held up to the light of day - a law is not 'truth', but is axiomatic (much as a=a is an axiom of mathematics - it can't be proven)).
There is no way to prove evolution true, but it hasn't been proven false. There IS no way to prove Creationism false, and thus, it is not a science.
44282
I do believe I never said creation was a science...I said that evolution is religion. You're arguing against points I never made. And I don't agree with my money being used to teach someone else's religion when my God has no place in school anymore.
Unknown2005-02-07 20:44:31
That's why it isn't given equal time with evolution in science classrooms
Unknown2005-02-07 20:45:50
QUOTE(Alyvia Gladheon @ Feb 7 2005, 03:44 PM)
I do believe I never said creation was a science...I said that evolution is religion. You're arguing against points I never made.
44287
QUOTE
4. Evolution is just a religion.
How so? It has no deity. No worship. No priests. No sabbath. No commandments. No inerrant doctrine-- it is constantly undergoing revision. It has no reliance on the supernatural or miracles. It has no penalties for unbelief. Belief in evolution carries no promises of reward. It is acceptable for any deity, including Jehovah, to be inserted in the forefront, taking credit for the progression of evolution. How, then, is evolution a religion? Are other scientific theories, such as the theory of relativity, also a religion? How does one distinguish and determine this?
How so? It has no deity. No worship. No priests. No sabbath. No commandments. No inerrant doctrine-- it is constantly undergoing revision. It has no reliance on the supernatural or miracles. It has no penalties for unbelief. Belief in evolution carries no promises of reward. It is acceptable for any deity, including Jehovah, to be inserted in the forefront, taking credit for the progression of evolution. How, then, is evolution a religion? Are other scientific theories, such as the theory of relativity, also a religion? How does one distinguish and determine this?
http://evolution.mbdojo.com/evolution_debate.html
Raan2005-02-07 20:46:21
No, that is because of the general obsession of the seperation of Church and State.
Unknown2005-02-07 20:47:51
5 entries found for religion.
re·li·gion ( P ) Pronunciation Key (r-ljn)
n.
Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.
The life or condition of a person in a religious order.
A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.
A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.
7 entries found for theory.
the·o·ry ( P ) Pronunciation Key (th-r, thîr)
n. pl. the·o·ries
A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.
The branch of a science or art consisting of its explanatory statements, accepted principles, and methods of analysis, as opposed to practice: a fine musician who had never studied theory.
A set of theorems that constitute a systematic view of a branch of mathematics.
Abstract reasoning; speculation: a decision based on experience rather than theory.
A belief or principle that guides action or assists comprehension or judgment: staked out the house on the theory that criminals usually return to the scene of the crime.
An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture.
re·li·gion ( P ) Pronunciation Key (r-ljn)
n.
Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.
The life or condition of a person in a religious order.
A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.
A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.
7 entries found for theory.
the·o·ry ( P ) Pronunciation Key (th-r, thîr)
n. pl. the·o·ries
A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.
The branch of a science or art consisting of its explanatory statements, accepted principles, and methods of analysis, as opposed to practice: a fine musician who had never studied theory.
A set of theorems that constitute a systematic view of a branch of mathematics.
Abstract reasoning; speculation: a decision based on experience rather than theory.
A belief or principle that guides action or assists comprehension or judgment: staked out the house on the theory that criminals usually return to the scene of the crime.
An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture.
Unknown2005-02-07 20:49:40
If clear, contradictory evidence were given proving evolution false, I would cease in believing in it. I hardly see how my agreeing that the theory of evolution is our best means of explaining the world is the following of a religion.
Believing in a religion precludes any external focus. Unless Odin and Ra came down and told you Christianity was false, I doubt you would convert of your own volition.
Believing in a religion precludes any external focus. Unless Odin and Ra came down and told you Christianity was false, I doubt you would convert of your own volition.
Unknown2005-02-07 20:50:15
QUOTE
How so? It has no deity. No worship. No priests. No sabbath. No commandments. No inerrant doctrine-- it is constantly undergoing revision.
Main Entry: re·li·gion
Pronunciation: ri-'li-j&n
Function: noun
: a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith
Hmm....looks like you don't need all of that stuff to be a religion....
