The Religion of Evolutionism ~ discussion and CIVILIZED debate

The point remains that creationism and evolutionism are not religions.

They are beliefs held and shared by a number of religions, but are no more religions in and of themselves than the belief homosexuality is right (believe) or wrong, or that murder is right or wrong(believe).

Otherwise my religions would be Homosexualist, Evolutionist, Christian, Anti-Murderist etc. etc.

By definition , a religion is a set of supernatural beliefs.

Anti-murderism or homosexualist aren't religions because they don't have supernatural doctrines or beliefs.

Creation is a supernatural belief , therefore it can be a religion.

If you believe in Christianity , then you probably believe in a set of different religions , such as judaism or abrahamism .

A religion is a religion , the first it makes an appearance in the supernatural category .

If you only believe in creation , and nothing else , then you are part of the creation religion.

If you believe in Judaism and Islam , then you are probably a Muslim , because Islam is made of different beliefs.

There is no religious term for a christian that believes in evolution , but it is a religion.

Originally Posted by Majoradorf

By definition , a religion is a set of supernatural beliefs.

Anti-murderism or homosexualist aren't religions because they don't have supernatural doctrines or beliefs.

Creation is a supernatural belief , therefore it can be a religion.

If you believe in Christianity , then you probably believe in a set of different religions , such as judaism or abrahamism .

A religion is a religion , the first it makes an appearance in the supernatural category .

If you only believe in creation , and nothing else , then you are part of the creation religion.

If you believe in Judaism and Islam , then you are probably a Muslim , because Islam is made of different beliefs.

There is no religious term for a christian that believes in evolution , but it is a religion.

Nothing is super natural in evolution.

Originally Posted by Majoradorf

ERNNN!!

I see nothing fallacious with what I said. Evolution is supported by cold hard evidence. Whether someone believes in it or not does not mean it ceases to remain true. The evidence for exists whether or not you or anybody else chooses to acknowledge it.

I'd like to know what in my post set you off onto a rant about abiogensis?

Also, what exactly about abiogensis is supernatural? I actually think there is some truth to that statement. I look at the formation of this solar system. Our sun was born out of the compression of dust and gas in a nebula, the remaining particles that didn't become the sun began to orbit around it and formed the planets. Our little rock just happened to have the right stuff that several millions of after the Earth formed life began. I believe in this like a doctrine, I accept it as true because the best available evidence tell me so.

Let reiterate that last bit 'the best available evidence'. You realize what that statement means? It means that if new evidence comes up that disproves what I have already taken to be true, I will change my opinion and embrace the new evidence as long as it answers all of the question the previous theory answers and improves on them.

I know.

Super natural applies to the unknown , and that can't currently be explained by science.
Evolution itself has nothing supernatural.

But origin of species , be it genesis or abiogenesis , is supernatural , because not all of it can be explained by science.

I see nothing fallacious with what I said. Evolution is supported by cold hard evidence. Whether someone believes in it or not does not mean it ceases to remain true. The evidence for exists whether or not you or anybody else chooses to acknowledge it.

I'd like to know what in my post set you off onto a rant about abiogensis?

Also, what exactly about abiogensis is supernatural? I actually think there is some truth to that statement. I look at the formation of this solar system. Our sun was born out of the compression of dust and gas in a nebula, the remaining particles that didn't become the sun began to orbit around it and formed the planets. Our little rock just happened to have the right stuff that several millions of after the Earth formed life began. I believe in this like a doctrine, I accept it as true because the best available evidence tell me so.

Let reiterate that last bit 'the best available evidence'. You realize what that statement means? It means that if new evidence comes up that disproves what I have already taken to be true, I will change my opinion and embrace the new evidence as long as it answers all of the question the previous theory answers and improves on them.

But Phool wasn't really talking about Evolution.
Phool may think so .
By "Evolution" Phool was talking about "Abiogenesis".
It's a common misconception.



And as far as I am concerned , from what you were saying , you should believe in creation right now.
There is evidence that goes against abiogenesis.

I bet what you meant , is that there is no proof that Creation disproves abiogenesis.

Well there is no proof for either to disprove eachother , but there is evidence.

The only things that TRY to disprove Creation, is Age dating , which has been proven inaccurate before.

You could point out fossils , DNA , Geographic collum , and evolution's span of change , but I could always counter with a biblical reason for those things.

I suppose I should have clarified it as scientific evidence, because I don't believe in a god. So I can't accept the belief that one simply willed creation into existence. So I can't accept any Biblical reasoning for what appears in nature, because I don't consider that to have any scientific weight in the argument. As far as I am concerned your putting more into the Bible than what is really in there.

Originally Posted by Majoradorf

The only things that TRY to disprove Creation, is Age dating , which has been proven inaccurate before.

You could point out fossils , DNA , Geographic collum , and evolution's span of change , but I could always counter with a biblical reason for those things.

OK, I'll try. Explain why we can see the Andromeda Galaxy when it is 2,500,000 light-years away, and light from Andromeda, like all light, can only travel 1 light-year per year.

Dazzle me.

Originally Posted by Majoradorf

The only things that TRY to disprove Creation, is Age dating , which has been proven inaccurate before.

You never responded to my last post about radioactive dating in the "Your stance on everything" thread, so I'll repeat it here:

Originally Posted by Astarael

Of course we can use "3-dimensional objects to measure the fourth dimension" - we do it all the time!

Do you know what an atomic clock is? They are the best time-keeping devices that we have. One second is defined to be the duration of 9, 192, 631, 770 cycles of emission, corresponding to an electron making the transition between two energy levels in a caesium-133 atom. That is how precise the atomic clock is.

In fact, if you have a digital watch, inside it is a tiny quartz crystal. The piezoelectrical effect is employed to set up a series of electromagnetic pulses, which are used to keep time.

Now, of course, the half-life decay rate isn't as precise as an atomic clock (note the difference between precision and accuracy) - but statistically speaking, it's still sufficiently precise to give an approximate age. The error is mostly accounted for in the error bars, which must always be included in any given measurement. For instance, the measurement 4.53 +/- 0.08 Gya means:

"This sample gives us an age of the meteorite of 4.53 billion years, give or take 0.08 billion years."

Furthermore, ages have been calculated for different meteorite samples, using different elements for the radioactive dating method - and they all agree!

For instance, Uranium-238 has a half-life of 4.47 billion years. When sampling a meteorite, it is usually found that a little more than one half-life has elapsed (ie. the ratio between parent and daughter is close to 50-50), indicating an age of a little more than 4.5 billion years. For Rubidium-87, the half-life period rather bigger, at 47 billion years. Comparing Rb-87/Sr-86 ratios to Sr-87/Sr-86 ratios usually indicates an age of around 4.5 billion years. You can check this website if you want to see the exact calculations.

The fact that measurements of radioactive elements with different half-lives yield a consistent age for the Solar System is very strong evidence that the radioactive decay method works.

But what you are suggesting is that a mysterious something has affected the decay rate of every one of these elements, rendering them unusable. Not only that, but this force has changed each half-life by precisely the right amounts - so they all conveniently ended up with an age of 4.5 billion years.

Originally Posted by Majoradorf

But origin of species , be it genesis or abiogenesis , is supernatural , because not all of it can be explained by science.

But that is other subjects - evolution does not deal with anything supernatural.

Originally Posted by Majoradorf

But origin of species , be it genesis or abiogenesis , is supernatural , because not all of it can be explained by science.

Abiogensis is not supernatural. In fact, the explanation behind it is quite simple if you have a decent understanding of chemistry.

In a nutshell, abiogenesis explains how simple organic molecules come together to form more complex organic molecules. A phospolipid bilayer is simply a collection of many phospolipids which are molecules possessing both hydrophobic and hydrophilic regions and on contact with water, they align themselves with the hydrophobic ends together and the hydrophilic ends at opposite ends in contact with the surrounding water molecules. When you get enough of these together, they form a micelle which is the basis of a cellular membrane.

DNA started off as single stranded RNA. Back in the early earth, molecules such as H2 gas, Methane, cyanide, ammonia and others were abundant in the primordial atmosphere, and it has been shown that under conditions similar to those of the primitive earth, they react to form the nucleotide bases. In one experiment, they produced adenine, using only compounds and conditions that would have been present in the early atmosphere. Other experiments showed how the nucleotide basis bond to phosphosugar frame and form the basis of an RNA nucleotide molecule. Under certain conditions, the nucleotides polymerize to form poly-nucleotide chains in a condensation reaction. This forms a simple RNA molecule. Eventually then RNA molecules gain complementary nucleotides which polymerize to form a complementing chain with the original RNA molecule. That is the formation of DNA.

DNA and RNA molecules can self replicate because of how the nucleotide basis match up only with their complementary basis. Adenine to thiamine, cytosine to gluanine. Since each nucleotide can only bond with its complementary base, they are forced to produce the same sequence in a multistep polymerization.

When a free floating RNA/DNA molecule is picked up by a free floating micelle, it forms a basic cell. The micelle provides protection to the RNA molecule and it can replicate.

While alot is still unknown about how abiogenesis works, mostly how the more complex protein structures formed, its a very strong theory in science and has nothing to do with the supernatural. While is may seem counter intuitive for simpler compounds to form more complex ones one their own (second law of thermodynamics) under certain conditions, the molecules are actually more stable when they form the more complex compounds.

The universe works as a balance between opposing forces. In this instance, the opposing forces are energy and stability. When energy is applied to the system, stability is achived when the molecules become more complex. Remove the energy, the molecules won't bond because they are already at their most stable configuration.

Its all very simple once you have a grasp of organic chemistry

Abiogensis is not supernatural. In fact, the explanation behind it is quite simple if you have a decent understanding of chemistry.

No one hasn't tested abiogenesis.

If I live to see the day that a scientist could create life in a lab , can make that life form evolve from one species into another , and can prove to me that the universe began randomly , then I would confirm the fact that it isn't supernatural .

No scientist has ever created life in a laboratory.
No one has ever created a universe .

To see these things , you would need a time machine , or an immortal life.
Even if you had one of those 2 things , it will probably never happen.

DNA started off as single stranded RNA. Back in the early earth, molecules such as H2 gas, Methane, cyanide, ammonia and others were abundant in the primordial atmosphere, and it has been shown that under conditions similar to those of the primitive earth, they react to form the nucleotide bases. In one experiment, they produced adenine, using only compounds and conditions that would have been present in the early atmosphere. Other experiments showed how the nucleotide basis bond to phosphosugar frame and form the basis of an RNA nucleotide molecule. Under certain conditions, the nucleotides polymerize to form poly-nucleotide chains in a condensation reaction. This forms a simple RNA molecule. Eventually then RNA molecules gain complementary nucleotides which polymerize to form a complementing chain with the original RNA molecule. That is the formation of DNA.

Have you seen these things occur millions of years ago.
If you can't test any of these things that help prove the idea of abiogenesis , then I am going to say that it probably didn't happen.

I bet you can say "My mom sat next to a dinosaur in 5th grade"

Scientific fact is based on proof , not a make belief set of events that you think occurred a few billion years ago.

But that is other subjects - evolution does not deal with anything supernatural.

Did I say that it did?

Phool was talking about the idea that we all evolved from a common ancestor , which is Abiogenesis.

I suppose I should have clarified it as scientific evidence, because I don't believe in a god. So I can't accept the belief that one simply willed creation into existence. So I can't accept any Biblical reasoning for what appears in nature, because I don't consider that to have any scientific weight in the argument. As far as I am concerned your putting more into the Bible than what is really in there.

I don't recall quoting scripture .

You don't believe in God , therefore you don't believe in any amount of evidence that Creation puts forth.

I believe in creation , because I see the evidence put forth.

Your arrogant lifestyle is rediculous.
To claim that you know that there is no God , would be like saying you are mentally ill.
No one can claim to know what they don't know , or else they would be considered closed minded.

Of course we can use "3-dimensional objects to measure the fourth dimension" - we do it all the time!

Do you know what an atomic clock is? They are the best time-keeping devices that we have. One second is defined to be the duration of 9, 192, 631, 770 cycles of emission, corresponding to an electron making the transition between two energy levels in a caesium-133 atom. That is how precise the atomic clock is.

In fact, if you have a digital watch, inside it is a tiny quartz crystal. The piezoelectrical effect is employed to set up a series of electromagnetic pulses, which are used to keep time.

Now, of course, the half-life decay rate isn't as precise as an atomic clock (note the difference between precision and accuracy) - but statistically speaking, it's still sufficiently precise to give an approximate age. The error is mostly accounted for in the error bars, which must always be included in any given measurement. For instance, the measurement 4.53 +/- 0.08 Gya means:

"This sample gives us an age of the meteorite of 4.53 billion years, give or take 0.08 billion years."

Furthermore, ages have been calculated for different meteorite samples, using different elements for the radioactive dating method - and they all agree!

For instance, Uranium-238 has a half-life of 4.47 billion years. When sampling a meteorite, it is usually found that a little more than one half-life has elapsed (ie. the ratio between parent and daughter is close to 50-50), indicating an age of a little more than 4.5 billion years. For Rubidium-87, the half-life period rather bigger, at 47 billion years. Comparing Rb-87/Sr-86 ratios to Sr-87/Sr-86 ratios usually indicates an age of around 4.5 billion years. You can check this website if you want to see the exact calculations.

The fact that measurements of radioactive elements with different half-lives yield a consistent age for the Solar System is very strong evidence that the radioactive decay method works.

But what you are suggesting is that a mysterious something has affected the decay rate of every one of these elements, rendering them unusable. Not only that, but this force has changed each half-life by precisely the right amounts - so they all conveniently ended up with an age of 4.5 billion years.

Try measuring a 3 dimensional object with a 2 dimensional object.

Measure a circle with a flat plane.
You couldn't do it.
If that plane is unbendable , then it is impossible.
The rules of the second dimension forbids itself from being able to make a non-flat shape.
By simulating the second dimension , measurement of the 3rd dimension is possible , but inaccurate.
If you are a carpenter , and you need to measure something , your measurement was probably a little off , by a few thousand billion atoms.
We measure with a thing called judgement.
Even if you measure with a nice ruler , your pencil mark will never hit the exact spot right.
A unit of measurement is a judgement of how long something is.
We can't measure the distance from a molecule and another molecule , because there is either no ruler for it , or measurement would be inaccurate.

Measure a fourth dimensional object with a 3 dimensional object.
Clocks don't measure time.
Time is an illusion that we create.

If a clock says 5O'Clock , then it would be that time , no matter how much time you spent.

A clock just counts the number of ticks.
Each tick is always different from another.

Do you know what an atomic clock is? They are the best time-keeping devices that we have. One second is defined to be the duration of 9, 192, 631, 770 cycles of emission, corresponding to an electron making the transition between two energy levels in a caesium-133 atom. That is how precise the atomic clock is.

IMPOSSIBLE!
You can't accurately measure a second , because each second is different.
Second is a count in a pause of time between the alarm , just like a clock tick.

Saying that it takes 9, 192, 631, 770 cycles of emission , is saying that is how long a second is.
But seconds vary , depending on the measurement of time you are using.


The process of creation , which took about 6 days , would be what the human mind would have perceived.
Angels could have looked at the Earth form before their eyes instantaneously.

For example, I could have been frozen in time for millions of years , which would have probably looked like an hour or a minute.

A creator could have created Earth for billions of years , or could have sped the universe up.
A spectator would have watched as if it took one single day to create.
As soon as the creater put life on the planet , the universe was slowed down , so the life forms would have the perspective of everything being created in 6 days , rather than 4+1x+1y
Either way , God said that he would allow people to be deceived in the end times.

Originally Posted by Majoradorf

I don't recall quoting scripture .

You didn't quote scripture, but you did say that you had Biblical proofs that would answer what we observe in nature.

Originally Posted by Majoradorf

You don't believe in God , therefore you don't believe in any amount of evidence that Creation puts forth.

Yes, because the evidence they put forth doesn't jive with what I observe.

Originally Posted by Majoradorf

I believe in creation , because I see the evidence put forth.

Good for you.

Originally Posted by Majoradorf

Your arrogant lifestyle is rediculous.
To claim that you know that there is no God , would be like saying you are mentally ill. No one can claim to know what they don't know , or else they would be considered closed minded.

You what is really ridiculous? Your spelling and grammar.
I really don't appreciate you attacking my character. Calling me mentally ill just because I disagree with you about the existence of God is no way to have a civilized debate. I haven't attacked your character. I haven't called you 'mentally ill' because I disagree with you. I have looked at the evidence presented and I have come to a different conclusion.

That last phrase, you're going to have to clarify what exactly you mean by it. I've been looking at for a while and I still don't understand the point you were trying to make.

By definition , a religion is a set of supernatural beliefs.

A religion does not have to be supernatural. Humanism is a religion but is not supernatural. The same with many sects of Buddhism.

Anti-murderism or homosexualist aren't religions because they don't have supernatural doctrines or beliefs.

See above. And they are if you believe it is a supernatural being who orders 'murder is wrong' or 'homosexuality is permissable' or 'salt tastes good'.

Creation is a supernatural belief , therefore it can be a religion.

No it can't by your own definition to begin with- a Religion is a 'set of beliefs'. It's like saying one jigsaw piece is a jigsaw puzzle.

If you believe in Christianity , then you probably believe in a set of different religions , such as judaism or abrahamism .

Christianity stemmed from Judaeism, much did Islam. Several others have also stemmed from those two including Mormonism and Some Sikh sects that emphasise the Muslim elements rather than SAikh elements. I am NOT a Jew, however, despite me sharing tha majority of their views- I am CHRISTIAN. In the same way Muslims are NOT Jews despite having the same origin.

A religion is a religion , the first it makes an appearance in the supernatural category .

If you only believe in creation , and nothing else , then you are part of the creation religion.

But there is no religious philosophy in this. You can not JUST believe in creationism without believing in a creatOR. And who this creatOR is defines your religion to a great extent. Creationism is NOT a religion.

If you believe in Judaism and Islam , then you are probably a Muslim , because Islam is made of different beliefs.

You'd be hard pushed to find someone who believes in both- It is a misnomer to assume so and your understanding of these topics is so simplistic and childish it borders on offensive.

There is no religious term for a christian that believes in evolution , but it is a religion.

The term is CHRISTIAN. And there are several DENOMINATIONS within Christianity that accept evolution. This belief may determine your DENOMINATION, or certainly which you best fit into (no two Christians are likely to believe in the same things- hence why there have been so many schisms over the years.)

I honestly think, Majoradorf, you should do some research on this. I don't know where you got the 'information' you have, but what little there is that's correct is far too simplistic to be of any relevance and much is plain and simply wrong.

Originally Posted by Majoradorf

Try measuring a 3 dimensional object with a 2 dimensional object.

Okay. Let's consider a three-dimensional object, a cube:



I have a (roughly) two-dimensional measuring apparatus - a ruler:



I need to measure the dimensions of that three-dimensional cube with this two-dimensional object, somehow. And this is how I do it:



Just use the ruler to measure the cube's height, width and depth!
Wait, does this mean I've actually managed to measure a 3-dimensional cube with a 2-dimensional object? Amazing, isn't it?

(Yep, I know I'm being a tad facetious, but I'm in the mood for it)

Measure a circle with a flat plane.
You couldn't do it.
If that plane is unbendable , then it is impossible.

Do you know the relationships between a circle's circumference, area and radius?

Circumference = 2*pi*radius
Area = pi * radius^2

If you know the circle's radius (which, of course, you can measure using a 1D or 2D object), you know both its circumference and its area.

The rules of the second dimension forbids itself from being able to make a non-flat shape.
By simulating the second dimension , measurement of the 3rd dimension is possible , but inaccurate.
If you are a carpenter , and you need to measure something , your measurement was probably a little off , by a few thousand billion atoms.
We measure with a thing called judgement.

Of course it's unlikely that a carpenter is going to be able to measure the length of an object right down to the last atom, since his/her tools aren't . However, it's not necessary for a carpenter to be able to measure anything this precisely - nanoscientists, on the other hand, actually can measure a distance down to the atomic scale.

However, moving away from the analogy and going back to what we were actually discussing, what you're suggesting is that the inaccuracy of a radioactive dating technique is such that a 6000 year-old object (according to you) is so astonishingly bad that somehow, we end up, consistently, with an age of 4.5 billion years! This is ludicrous.

Even if you measure with a nice ruler , your pencil mark will never hit the exact spot right.
A unit of measurement is a judgement of how long something is.
We can't measure the distance from a molecule and another molecule , because there is either no ruler for it , or measurement would be inaccurate.

Well, actually, we can, as I've said. It's amazing what nanoscientists can do these days. They work with distances less than a nanometre - that's of around the same order of the bonds between atoms within a molecule! The smallest distance we can practically measure is around one angstrom, or 10^-10 metres: 0.0000000001 metres!

I implore you to read up on this further.

Measure a fourth dimensional object with a 3 dimensional object.
Clocks don't measure time.
Time is an illusion that we create.

If a clock says 5O'Clock , then it would be that time , no matter how much time you spent.

A clock just counts the number of ticks.
Each tick is always different from another.

What nonsense!
So you would honestly deny that no time has passed at all, even as you grow old and your beard gets ever longer, just as long as your broken clock keeps its hands firmly on 5'o clock?

IMPOSSIBLE!
You can't accurately measure a second , because each second is different.
Second is a count in a pause of time between the alarm , just like a clock tick.

Saying that it takes 9, 192, 631, 770 cycles of emission , is saying that is how long a second is.
But seconds vary , depending on the measurement of time you are using.

One second is DEFINED to be the time it takes for 9, 192, 631, 770 cycles of emission of a Caesium 133 atom. This has been the international standard definition of a second since 1967.

Household clocks, of course, aren't as accurate as this. However, that's because they don't need to be, just as the carpenter didn't need to know that he/she's a few thousand angstroms off from the "exact" measurement.

By contrast, using an even better analogy, by suggesting that a 4.5 billion year measurement should actually be 6000 years, you're suggesting that a carpenter has somehow measured a 6 metre long plank of wood - and come up with a value of 4.5 million metres due to the inaccuracy of their apparatus! Utter nonsense.

The process of creation , which took about 6 days , would be what the human mind would have perceived.
Angels could have looked at the Earth form before their eyes instantaneously.

Eh?

For example, I could have been frozen in time for millions of years , which would have probably looked like an hour or a minute.

A creator could have created Earth for billions of years , or could have sped the universe up.
A spectator would have watched as if it took one single day to create.
As soon as the creater put life on the planet , the universe was slowed down , so the life forms would have the perspective of everything being created in 6 days , rather than 4+1x+1y
Either way , God said that he would allow people to be deceived in the end times.

Have you heard of a principle called Occam's Razor?

It states that the simplest explanation is probably the best one.

So, let's suppose we have two events in spacetime, separated by temporal distance T (ie. one event ocurs time T seconds after the other), as measured by a precise clock.

Now, suppose we have to choose one of the following two options.

a) We believe, based on what our clock has measured, that time T has passed.

b) We believe that a big invisible fairy waltzed in while the experiment was occurring, waved her magic wand and changed the fabric of space-time itself, so that 112392093012930192 x T seconds somehow passed, while our clock could only measure time T.

Which one do you think most people would choose?

A religion is a system of human thought which usually includes a set of narratives, symbols, beliefs and practices that give meaning to the practitioner's experiences of life through reference to a higher power, deity or deities, or ultimate truth.[1] Religion is commonly identified by the practitioner's prayer, ritual, meditation, music and art, among other things, but more generally is interwoven with society and politics. It may focus on specific supernatural, metaphysical, and moral claims about reality (the cosmos and human nature) which may yield a set of religious laws, ethics, and a particular lifestyle. Religion also encompasses ancestral or cultural traditions, writings, history, and mythology, as well as personal faith and religious experience.

^WIKI


Creation can be a religion , because it has a set of beliefs that give meaning to the one being religious to creation.

Abiogenesis or Phool's "Evolutionism" is a religion , because it is made up of historical fictional beliefs , which give meaning to the practitioner .

Christianity stemmed from Judaeism, much did Islam. Several others have also stemmed from those two including Mormonism and Some Sikh sects that emphasise the Muslim elements rather than SAikh elements. I am NOT a Jew, however, despite me sharing tha majority of their views- I am CHRISTIAN. In the same way Muslims are NOT Jews despite having the same origin

Islam is not Judaism , because Islam says Judaism is wrong.

Christianity is Judaism because it is a mix of Judaism and messianic beliefs.
If you are a Christian and you say that Judaism is wrong , then your religion is not part of Judaism.

Of course you aren't a Jew.
To be a Jew , you have to believe in the Hebrew bible , and no other religious doctrine.

To be a Christian , you must believe in the Hebrew bible as well as the testaments of the disciples of Jesus.

But there is no religious philosophy in this. You can not JUST believe in creationism without believing in a creatOR. And who this creatOR is defines your religion to a great extent. Creationism is NOT a religion.

Creation is Genesis.
Genesis does include God .

Abiogenesis is an agnostic religion.

If you believe in Abiogenesis , then you are not a Jew or Christian , because you must believe in Genesis to be either.

You'd be hard pushed to find someone who believes in both- It is a misnomer to assume so and your understanding of these topics is so simplistic and childish it borders on offensive.

Believing in Islam and Judaism , is Islam.

The term is CHRISTIAN. And there are several DENOMINATIONS within Christianity that accept evolution. This belief may determine your DENOMINATION, or certainly which you best fit into (no two Christians are likely to believe in the same things- hence why there have been so many schisms over the years.)

I honestly think, Majoradorf, you should do some research on this. I don't know where you got the 'information' you have, but what little there is that's correct is far too simplistic to be of any relevance and much is plain and simply wrong.

What I was saying , is that the term is not exactly "Christian" , but rather more to it than that.

Further more , you cannot identify yourself as a Christian , because you must believe in Genesis.
You cannot pick and choose what you want to believe.
You can't even believe in Jesus , because Jesus is a direct descendant of Adam and Eve , as we all are.
If you don't believe in Genesis , then you don't believe in the genealogy from Adam to David.
If you don't believe in David , then you can't believe that David had a descendant named Jesus.
If you don't believe in Jesus or Genesis , then you don't believe in sin , which Jesus died for.

You what is really ridiculous? Your spelling and grammar.
I really don't appreciate you attacking my character. Calling me mentally ill just because I disagree with you about the existence of God is no way to have a civilized debate. I haven't attacked your character. I haven't called you 'mentally ill' because I disagree with you. I have looked at the evidence presented and I have come to a different conclusion.

That last phrase, you're going to have to clarify what exactly you mean by it. I've been looking at for a while and I still don't understand the point you were trying to make.

Sorry , I am typing too fast for my own good.
I might mix "too" with "to" , and I might mix "their" with "They're".
Your sentence is missing a "Know" , btw.

I didn't say that you were mentally ill.
I was just saying that stating that you "KNOW" there is no God , would be like saying you are mentally ill , because you can't know what you do not know.

Judging my intelligence based on my grammatical knowledge , is like what you accused me of doing.


Closed minded people offer not to change , but instead, they call their knowledge "the truth" as if nothing else mattered .

Originally Posted by Majoradorf

No one hasn't tested abiogenesis.

Yes they have. The Juan Oro Experiment produced Adenine using compounds and conditions that would have been present in the primordial earth. This has been well documented. The Miller-Urey experiments have been shown to produce simple proteins using primordial conditions. The basis of abiogenesis have been shown in the lab and are well documented.

If I live to see the day that a scientist could create life in a lab , can make that life form evolve from one species into another , and can prove to me that the universe began randomly , then I would confirm the fact that it isn't supernatural .

Well, be prepared because they have, at least semi living organisms. Scientists have produced viruses completely from basic organic compounds. While viruses aren't technically "alive" since they don't undergo metabolism, they are in fact biological organisms.

No scientist has ever created life in a laboratory.

See above ^^

No one has ever created a universe.

Including "God"

To see these things , you would need a time machine , or an immortal life.
Even if you had one of those 2 things , it will probably never happen.

No, you only need to apply logic and and deduce what happened. Science is a detective process which uses evidence to put together what happened. A homocide detective doesn't need to witness a crime to be able to figure out what happened and how it went down.

Have you seen these things occur millions of years ago.
If you can't test any of these things that help prove the idea of abiogenesis , then I am going to say that it probably didn't happen.

Again, you don't need to be there, and they have tested it with astounding results.

I bet you can say "My mom sat next to a dinosaur in 5th grade"

*Ques some kind of yo momma joke*

Scientific fact is based on proof , not a make belief set of events that you think occurred a few billion years ago.

Wrong, scientific fact is based in evidence. A Proof is a concept in mathematics.

You don't believe in God , therefore you don't believe in any amount of evidence that Creation puts forth.

I believe in creation , because I see the evidence put forth.

Please put forward your evidence, we would be thrilled to see it.

No one can claim to know what they don't know , or else they would be considered closed minded.

Exactly, so why do creationists find it imperative to try to disprove evolution without knowing a damn thing about it? On that note, creationists always make the "closed minded" argument, when in fact, they are the ones who are ignoring the evidence because they don't want to hear how their holy book is dead wrong.

Try measuring a 3 dimensional object with a 2 dimensional object.

Ok *grabs ruler*

Measure a circle with a flat plane.
You couldn't do it.

Watch me

circle radius = r

Circumference = c

pi = 3.14

c=3.14 r * 2

Circle is measured.

However, a circle is a 2 dimensional object so I will do you one better with a sphere.

surface area of a sphere

Sa=pi(4)r^2

Volume of a sphere

V= 4/3 * pi * r^3

To measure a 3 dimensional object with a 1 dimensional device, you need only to make 3 measurements, 1 from each dimension.

We can't measure the distance from a molecule and another molecule , because there is either no ruler for it , or measurement would be inaccurate.

Wrong, we do know the distances between molecules. They are measured in picometers or angstroms.

Measure a fourth dimensional object with a 3 dimensional object.
Clocks don't measure time.
Time is an illusion that we create.

What does this have to do with evolution anyways?

If a clock says 5O'Clock , then it would be that time , no matter how much time you spent.

A clock just counts the number of ticks.
Each tick is always different from another.

Your point is?

The process of creation , which took about 6 days , would be what the human mind would have perceived.
Angels could have looked at the Earth form before their eyes instantaneously.

What about the creation of Jupiter? its day is only 8 hours long. Who's days are you going off of here?

A creator could have created Earth for billions of years , or could have sped the universe up.
A spectator would have watched as if it took one single day to create.

As you said before, there were no spectators around when it was created so why do you trust the written words of men who were not there, to contrive your belief in the origin of the universe?

Either way , God said that he would allow people to be deceived in the end times.

God also said:

Ezekiel

4.12 Eat the food as you would a loaf of barley bread; bake it in the sight of the people, using human excrement for fuel.
4.15 Very well, he said, I will let you bakeyour bread over cow dung instead of human excrement".

Deuteronomy

22.28-29 If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered he shall pay the girl's father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the girl, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives.

Yeah, god sounds like just a great guy.

Further more , you cannot identify yourself as a Christian , because you must believe in Genesis.
You cannot pick and choose what you want to believe.
You can't even believe in Jesus , because Jesus is a direct descendant of Adam and Eve , as we all are.
If you don't believe in Genesis , then you don't believe in the genealogy from Adam to David.
If you don't believe in David , then you can't believe that David had a descendant named Jesus.
If you don't believe in Jesus or Genesis , then you don't believe in sin , which Jesus died for.

This is actually pure crap. It is perfectly possible to be an Evolutionist Christian because to many Genesis is a poem or analogy for God's input into creation. I don't believe Genesis was ever intended to be taken literally.

Jesus has three DIFFERENT Geneologies depending on the gospels- do you believe them all? Did he have three human fathers now? No. So why should we accept just 'Adam to David'? There may well have been an 'Adam', but he's not the first figure to many.

And sin is deeper than just eating a piece of fruit. We eat our proverbial apples every day.

^WIKI

As soon as you quote Wikipedia, you're out. Though I'm sure if you look up Creationism you will see that it's NOT A RELIGION. It is a belief that is part of many religions, it is NOT a religion in itself any more than a belief in anything.

Originally Posted by Majoradorf

Abiogenesis or Phool's "Evolutionism" is a religion , because it is made up of historical fictional beliefs , which give meaning to the practitioner .

You just admitted that religion is made up of historical fictional beliefs. So does that count for the Christian religion as well, or are you just going to ignore that inconsistency with your logic?

Islam is not Judaism , because Islam says Judaism is wrong.

Islam says females wearing jeans is wrong, yet says blowing ones self up to smite the "infidels" is right. I think we can pretty much ignore what Islam has to say about anything.

To be a Christian , you must believe in the Hebrew bible as well as the testaments of the disciples of Jesus.

To be a christian you need only to believe in Christ and his teachings which for the most part were good and even secular. You don't have to jump into all the hocus pocus and BS of all the other bible stories.

Genesis does include God.

While Sega fans may agree, Im afraid my SNES has something to say about that.

Abiogenesis is an agnostic religion.

Abiogenesis is a scientific theory, not a religion.

If you believe in Abiogenesis , then you are not a Jew or Christian , because you must believe in Genesis to be either.

Wrong, most christians accept evolution, in fact the catholic church even accepts it.

One of the key witnesses in the Kitzmiller v Dover trials in 2005 which was a law suit filled against Dover area schools for attempting to teach ID in class rooms, was Dr. Ken Miller. Miller is a biologist at brown university and a strong proponent of evolution. He testified against intelligent design and disproved Dr. Behe's hypothesis of irreducible complexity which was ID's best card. Dr. Miller is in fact a devout roman catholic, and he accepts evolution, and has even testified under oath against creationism.

Believing in Islam and Judaism , is Islam.

Double standard much?

Further more , you cannot identify yourself as a Christian , because you must believe in Genesis.

BS

You cannot pick and choose what you want to believe.

But for some reason, all religions seem to do that.

You can't even believe in Jesus , because Jesus is a direct descendant of Adam and Eve , as we all are.

BS

If you don't believe in Genesis , then you don't believe in the genealogy from Adam to David.

Kills two birds with one stone then right?

If you don't believe in David , then you can't believe that David had a descendant named Jesus.

No argument there.

If you don't believe in Jesus or Genesis , then you don't believe in sin , which Jesus died for.

Sin is subjective based on what you perceive to be right or wrong.

Judging my intelligence based on my grammatical knowledge , is like what you accused me of doing.

If you can't execute simple spelling correctly or put together decent syntax, why should we trust your knowledge on more complicated matters?

Closed minded people offer not to change , but instead, they call their knowledge "the truth" as if nothing else mattered .

Said the "Creation is the truth" guy.

Originally Posted by Phool

We have, in fact, no proof that it ever did happen.

Exact same thing with christianity, or any religion.

Originally Posted by Majoradorf

For it to be a religion , it must first have a set of supernatural beliefs.

exactly, which is why right off the bat we can already say that evolution is not a religion.

that's obviously what your point is, right?

First supernatural belief - Something comes from an expansion of nothing.
It is unexplainable , believable , yet lacks accurate scientific knowledge.

first supernatural belief of what? Creation, sounds like.

because this clearly has nothing to do with evolution. It might be a terrible misunderstanding of the Big Bang theory, I suppose, but since that's not how the Big Bang theory works either, it's out too. It doesn't say anything about something coming out of nothing; that's Creationism stuff. God spoke and suddenly stuff appeared.

Second supernatural belief - All life comes from non-living material.

whoa, wait, what? This isn't supernatural, this is abiogenesis. A well researched scientific theory with tons of completely natural observable evidence.

That is highly impossible , because a cell (Or even a simple cell) is made up of billions of vital pieces that it would die or become cancerous if one of the vital pieces were taken away.

highly impossible? How would know? You aren't a scientist. All the relevant scientists say it's not only possible but highly likely. So likely, in fact, that there are no currently accepted alternative scientific theories.

Not to mention that it has never been tested in a laboratory that life can spring from non-living materials.

sure it has. Ever heard of the Urey-Miller experiment? It proved that it is indeed possible to create organic materials (amino acids, the building blocks of proteins) from inorganic materials (water, methane, ammonia, and hydrogen) through chemical evolution in the same environmental conditions thought to exist on the Earth at the time.

now, no one has actually made life yet, since that would take an extremely long time, but we don't have to.

Making a cell from that kind of chance is like creating a nintendo ds out of thin air at the exact same time it takes for a pig to fly.

unless I see some statistics on this, I'm going to have to assume its false.

now, you have to remember, probability is never 0% and always becomes more likely with more time. Even if the probability is less than 1%, you could still make it happen if you had billions of years to work with.

now, this whole probability nonsense happens to be a common claim, so you might not be surprised to find that there have been some responses to it. Here's one:

Claim CB010:
The proteins necessary for life are very complex. The odds of even one simple protein molecule forming by chance are 1 in 10113, and thousands of different proteins are needed to form life. (See also Primitive cells arising by chance.)

Source:
Watchtower Bible and Tract Society. 1985. Life--How Did It Get Here? Brooklyn, NY, pg. 44.
Response:

1. The calculation of odds assumes that the protein molecule formed by chance. However, biochemistry is not chance, making the calculated odds meaningless. Biochemistry produces complex products, and the products themselves interact in complex ways. For example, complex organic molecules are observed to form in the conditions that exist in space, and it is possible that they played a role in the formation of the first life (Spotts 2001).

2. The calculation of odds assumes that the protein molecule must take one certain form. However, there are innumerable possible proteins that promote biological activity. Any calculation of odds must take into account all possible molecules (not just proteins) that might function to promote life.

3. The calculation of odds assumes the creation of life in its present form. The first life would have been very much simpler.

4. The calculation of odds ignores the fact that innumerable trials would have been occurring simultaneously.

Links:
Musgrave, Ian. 1998. Lies, damned lies, statistics, and probability of abiogenesis calculations. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob.html

Stockwell, John. 2002. Borel's Law and the origin of many creationist probability assertions. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/borelfaq.html

References:
1. Spotts, Peter N. 2001. Raw materials for life may predate Earth's formation. The Christian Science Monitor, Jan. 30, 2001. http://search.csmonitor.com/durable/...p2s2-csm.shtml

notice how this actually has a reference? That's so we know that someone actually did their research and knows what they're talking about. You should try it out sometime, so we can actually take you seriously.

see also (if you'd like to do a bit more reading on the probability of abiogenesis, which I'm sure you wouldn't but should anyway.):

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob.html

Since evolutionism (As you so call it)

only Creationists call the scientific Theory of Evolution "evolutionism."

is made up off supernatural ideas , it is deemed worthy of being a cult.

first of all, there are no supernatural ideas in any scientific theory. That's why it's called "science."

second of all, I don't think you know what a cult is anyway.

cult: A group or doctrine with religious, philosophical or cultural identity sometimes viewed as a sect, often existent on the margins of society and/or exploitative towards its members.

no.

A religion must have a specific set of teachings.

science can have teachings too, which is why teachers tend to teach science in school.

One of the teachings is that life will evolve for natural reasons , Natural selection , the process of survival of the fittest.

According to these "Evolutionists" ,the human race evolved from an ape-like animal in Africa , which is supposed to be like a common gorilla , except for a few major details , including the power to lift cars.

wow, what? No one says that. Scientists (not "Evolutionists") say that the human race evolved from a race of great apes (and still is in the family of the great apes(, probably in Africa (I honestly don't remember that detail). So, humans are still classified as apes and the creatures we evolved from were also classified as apes (not "ape-like"). Also, where the hell does "the power to lift cars" come in? I'm not even sure gorillas can do that, but even if they can, we aren't gorillas anymore are we. Just like we aren't covered in fur and don't walk on four limbs, we also aren't as strong. That's called evolution.

This religion both has a historical supernatural doctrine , and a set of beliefs .
So it can be called a religion , no matter how much scientific lack or gain it has.

nonsense. You haven't mentioned a single supernatural doctrine.

Originally Posted by Majoradorf

I can believe that God sent his son down to earth to be crucified , yet I could be a satanist , because I probably hate God.

what?

I could even be a satanist creationist.

sure, I guess.

If you believe in evolutionism alone , then your religion would be evolutionism.

well, whatever the hell evolutionism is, sure.

now, if you believed that the current scientific Theory of Evolution was a valid scientific theory based on valid scientific facts and evidence in the same way that the current scientific Theory of Gravity, Theory of Relativity, Theory of Plate Tectonics, Atomic Theory, Germ Theory of Disease, and every other scientific theory, you would simply be a rational and well-educated person.

But if you believe in Christ and evolutionism , then you are probably a Christian if you hold onto the belief that God had a son that died for the sins of mankind.

You could believe in many parts of Buddhism yet be a jew.

Either way , evolutionism is a religion if you believe in more of it than any other religion.

once again, nonsense.

Originally Posted by River Zora

No. Your 'religion'' would be Atheism, in which is the principle of evolutionism.

there are so many things wrong with this. First of all, atheism is not a religion. It is the lack of belief in a deity. It is simply the state of not being a theist. Second of all, the Theory of Evolution is a scientific theory and has nothing to do with atheism. Atheism does not have any principals or any set of beliefs or any moral code or anything.

In the same way 'creationism' isn't a religion. It's a principle in several others.

Creationism is a religious belief.

Originally Posted by Majoradorf

Creation can be a religion if it is the only thing you believe in , religiously.

Evolutionism can be a religion , because it can be believed in alone.

I honestly don't know how you could believe in the Theory of Evolution "alone." What does that even mean? "Alone" as in not believing in any other scientific theory? That would be stupid. "Alone" as in not believing in any other "religion"? That doesn't make sense either, since evolution is not a religion.

Originally Posted by Majoradorf

You can hate God even if you don't believe he exists.

really?

I'm...not sure how that would work.

If I believed in a supernatural doctrine , lets say that Jesus Christ is the son of God and died for my sins , then I WOULD BE RELIGIOUS.
It's called Christianity.

probably.

If I believed that Moses is the Holiest of prophets , I am probably Jewish.

maybe.

If I believe that Muhammad was the last prophet , then I am probably a Muslim.

possibly.

If there is something to be taught , but is supernatural , then it is a religion.

meh, sort of.

If I believed in Evolutionism , I am an evolutionist.

yeah, sure, but what the hell is evolutionism and what exactly is supernatural about it?

I could be part of an evolutionist sect of Christianity , which would make me part of 2 religions , in the same way that a Cheristian believes in Buddhist reincarnation.

nonsense. A Christian who accepts the truth of current scientific theories is simply a smart Christian, not "part of 2 religions."

Originally Posted by Majoradorf

ERNNN!!

Evolution is the change of one species to another or the change from one breed to another.
Evolution through natural selection is survival of the fittest.
If you can survive long enough to have babies , then you have successfully fulfilled your part in evolution.
Evolution through artificial selection is the selection of the animals at random or purpose , most likely by humans , by means of breeding.

Evolution has been indeed proven to be true.

But evolution has NOTHING to do with where the universe comes from.
In fact , evolution has always been known to exist , even throughout ancient times.

What Charles Darwin suggested is that all life forms share a common ancestor , on Earth.

pretty much right up until this point.

That theory of Abiogenesis is not a scientific theory , and has absolutely no solid proof.

this is where you go wrong. First of all, common descent is a part of evolutionary theory, not abiogenesis. Second of all, abiogenesis is indeed a scientific theory, based on solid scientific evidence.

He also suggested that evolution happens , via natural selection , an idea that Charles Darwin was the first to theorize .

Natural selection is Charles Darwin's only proven theory.

Abiogensis ( Opposite of creation ) is just an idea and has no proof.

Abiogenesis is not the "opposite of Creation." You could believe in Creation and abiogenesis, if you really wanted to, or you could believe in some third belief instead. It's not a dichotomy. Also, like I said before, there is plenty of proof.

What Phool meant by "Evolutionism" is abiogenesis .

When Charles Darwin wrote his book "Origin of Species" , he wrote it in a manner that was supposed to be easily read by anyone , but most people cannot tell the difference between evolution and abiogenesis.

Let me clarify the difference.

Evolution just means change , which we all know can happen.

Abiogensis (A-anti Bio-biological Genesis-creation) means what it is.
Anti Biological genesis means , no creation of life or lack of creation of life.

actually, you have the etymology a bit off. It's from Ancient Greek, "ἀ" (a) meaning "not," "βίος" (bios) meaning "life," and "γένεσις" (genesis) meaning "origin, birth." It means "not born from life," since abiogenesis is the theory that life originated from non-life.

Evolution is a proven theory .

Abiogenesis is a supernatural doctrine , a religion.

nonsense.

Genesis is a supernatural doctrine , a religion.

I am a creationist that believes in evolution.

Noah can bring 2 of every kind , and the animals can evolve into even more species later.

not if Noah only existed somewhere around 6,000 years ago. All that evolution could not have happened in that time.

My theory is that the Earth was flooded when some of the atmosphere broke because of cataclysmic events.
Because of the small amount of radiation that poured in , people only lived 20-40 years instead of 100s of years.
Because of this radiation pouring in , large amounts of animals gave birth to deformed and different animals , which gave rise to these new various breeds and species.

oh, not this crap again.

Originally Posted by Majoradorf

By definition , a religion is a set of supernatural beliefs.

Anti-murderism or homosexualist aren't religions because they don't have supernatural doctrines or beliefs.

neither does abiogenesis.

Creation is a supernatural belief , therefore it can be a religion.

I don't think that Creationism by itself could be a religion. It's a religious doctrine.

Originally Posted by Majoradorf

I know.

Super natural applies to the unknown , and that can't currently be explained by science.
Evolution itself has nothing supernatural.

But origin of species , be it genesis or abiogenesis , is supernatural , because not all of it can be explained by science.

abiogenesis is a scientific theory. By definition that means it has a scientific explanation. Otherwise it couldn't be a theory.

And as far as I am concerned , from what you were saying , you should believe in creation right now.
There is evidence that goes against abiogenesis.

this is the first time I've heard this. Do you happen to know where I might find some of it?

I bet what you meant , is that there is no proof that Creation disproves abiogenesis.

well obviously, since there's no proof Creation happened at all.

Well there is no proof for either to disprove eachother , but there is evidence.

The only things that TRY to disprove Creation, is Age dating , which has been proven inaccurate before.

[citation needed]

You could point out fossils , DNA , Geographic collum , and evolution's span of change , but I could always counter with a biblical reason for those things.

"Biblical reason" meaning "come up with some bullcrap about the atmosphere and cosmic radiation since radiation solves everything and isn't mentioned anywhere in the Bible."

Originally Posted by Majoradorf

No one hasn't tested abiogenesis.

I haven't tested abiogenesis.

but something tells me you mean "no one has tested abiogensis." Which is wrong. See Miller-Urey experiment...again.

If I live to see the day that a scientist could create life in a lab , can make that life form evolve from one species into another , and can prove to me that the universe began randomly , then I would confirm the fact that it isn't supernatural .

because all the evidence somehow doesn't tell you it isn't supernatural.

probably because you ignore all the evidence and come up with alternative explanations that aren't based in sound science or reasoning.

No scientist has ever created life in a laboratory.
No one has ever created a universe .

well obviously.

To see these things , you would need a time machine , or an immortal life.
Even if you had one of those 2 things , it will probably never happen.

well obviously.

Have you seen these things occur millions of years ago.
If you can't test any of these things that help prove the idea of abiogenesis , then I am going to say that it probably didn't happen.

you don't have to create life or see life created to know that it happened and to figure out exactly how it happened. We study it and find evidence to explain it. The process is called "science." You probably don't know much about it.

I bet you can say "My mom sat next to a dinosaur in 5th grade"

Scientific fact is based on proof , not a make belief set of events that you think occurred a few billion years ago.

which is why we believe that life originated from inorganic materials instead of suddenly appearing for no reason at all by the will of some mystical extradimensional being.

because abiogenesis is backed up with real scientific evidence and Creation isn't.

Your arrogant lifestyle is rediculous.
To claim that you know that there is no God , would be like saying you are mentally ill.
No one can claim to know what they don't know , or else they would be considered closed minded.

I don't know that there is no God but I am reasonably certain that there isn't. In the same way that I am reasonably certain that unicorns don't exist, since there isn't any evidence.

Try measuring a 3 dimensional object with a 2 dimensional object.

Measure a circle with a flat plane.
You couldn't do it.
If that plane is unbendable , then it is impossible.
The rules of the second dimension forbids itself from being able to make a non-flat shape.
By simulating the second dimension , measurement of the 3rd dimension is possible , but inaccurate.
If you are a carpenter , and you need to measure something , your measurement was probably a little off , by a few thousand billion atoms.
We measure with a thing called judgement.
Even if you measure with a nice ruler , your pencil mark will never hit the exact spot right.
A unit of measurement is a judgement of how long something is.
We can't measure the distance from a molecule and another molecule , because there is either no ruler for it , or measurement would be inaccurate.

you clearly don't know anything about basic geometry.

go back to elementary please.

Measure a fourth dimensional object with a 3 dimensional object.
Clocks don't measure time.
Time is an illusion that we create.

If a clock says 5O'Clock , then it would be that time , no matter how much time you spent.

A clock just counts the number of ticks.
Each tick is always different from another.

IMPOSSIBLE!
You can't accurately measure a second , because each second is different.
Second is a count in a pause of time between the alarm , just like a clock tick.

Saying that it takes 9, 192, 631, 770 cycles of emission , is saying that is how long a second is.
But seconds vary , depending on the measurement of time you are using.

wow I'm not even sure what you're trying to prove here.

The process of creation , which took about 6 days , would be what the human mind would have perceived.
Angels could have looked at the Earth form before their eyes instantaneously.

For example, I could have been frozen in time for millions of years , which would have probably looked like an hour or a minute.

A creator could have created Earth for billions of years , or could have sped the universe up.
A spectator would have watched as if it took one single day to create.
As soon as the creater put life on the planet , the universe was slowed down , so the life forms would have the perspective of everything being created in 6 days , rather than 4+1x+1y
Either way , God said that he would allow people to be deceived in the end times.

this is why we use Occam's razor to sort things out. So we don't have to come up with endlessly complicated theories to explain simple phenomena.

Originally Posted by Majoradorf

Abiogenesis or Phool's "Evolutionism" is a religion , because it is made up of historical fictional beliefs , which give meaning to the practitioner .

nonsense.

Abiogenesis is an agnostic religion.

no.

it.

isn't.

If you believe in Abiogenesis , then you are not a Jew or Christian , because you must believe in Genesis to be either.

no.

you.

don't.

Further more , you cannot identify yourself as a Christian , because you must believe in Genesis.

Christians do not have to believe in Creation.

You cannot pick and choose what you want to believe.

you do it all the time.

You can't even believe in Jesus , because Jesus is a direct descendant of Adam and Eve , as we all are.

you don't have to believe in Adam and Eve to believe in Jesus. Just like I don't have to believe in Adam and Eve to believe in Abraham Lincoln.

If you don't believe in Genesis , then you don't believe in the genealogy from Adam to David.

so that means you believe that someone messed up David's genealogy, not that David never existed.

If you don't believe in David , then you can't believe that David had a descendant named Jesus.

see above.

If you don't believe in Jesus or Genesis , then you don't believe in sin , which Jesus died for.

or maybe you can be a Christian who doesn't believe in sin. Certainly isn't impossible.

Closed minded people offer not to change , but instead, they call their knowledge "the truth" as if nothing else mattered .

the irony in this is staggering.

Islam says females wearing jeans is wrong, yet says blowing ones self up to smite the "infidels" is right. I think we can pretty much ignore what Islam has to say about anything.

This annoys me. The Qur'an explicitly forbids violence of any kind and 'Greater Jihad' refers to the struggle to achieve closeness with God and freedom from evil within oneself. Those 'extremists' who do the acts you suggest here are no more 'Muslim' than Hitler was Christian and the vast, vast majority of Muslims would agree. Also Christians and Jews are labelled 'Men of the Book' in Qur'anic law and counted to be respected and as 'fidels' for lack of a better word. So much so that any animal killed by a Christian or Jew regardless of killing method should be considered Halal by Qur'anic law.

I have a huge liking for Islamic doctrine in its truest form and the sooner Muslims stop being the scapegoat for the world's problems the better.

there are so many things wrong with this. First of all, atheism is not a religion. It is the lack of belief in a deity. It is simply the state of not being a theist. Second of all, the Theory of Evolution is a scientific theory and has nothing to do with atheism. Atheism does not have any principals or any set of beliefs or any moral code or anything.

I wish people wouldn't read a conversation half way through... I put 'religion' in inverted commas for a reason. I was talking within the contexts of Majoradorf's own ignorance of the issue. I am aware Atheism is not a religion, I was merely making more the point that it is significantly more worthy of the title than 'Evolutionism' or 'Creationism' which are beliefs but not religions by any definition. Elsewhere I used the phrase 'Atheistic religions' or mentioned specifics such as Humanism or Psychological Christianity.

Creationism is a religious belief.

Yes. So is believing women's faces should be covered in public. Doesn't mean it's a religion. This is the argument in question- if 'Creationism' and 'Evolutionism' are religions, and the simple is that no- they are not. They are beliefs that find themselves in a number of different religions and philosophies, but are not in any way 'religions' in and of themselves any more than the belief one shouldn't eat shellfish, or believing in gravity, or liking salt on your chips, or whether dogs have eyes.

Quote:

nonsense. A Christian who accepts the truth of current scientific theories is simply a smart Christian, not "part of 2 religions."

Agreed.

Because Creationism and Evolutionism ARE NOT RELIGIONS.

Majoradorf- your ignorance on this is actually painful. We are no longer arguing philosophy, but stuck on the terrible semantics of 'what is religion', and you are adhering to some strange definition of 'religion' I am hitherto unaware, much like the majority of those involved in this terrible linguistic debate.

Look up definitions of 'religion' in a book, on the internet, anywhere. Then look up 'Creationism'- even on your precious Wikipedia if you have to. If you can find anything congruous to your claims I owe you a hat eating.

I am an Anti-Murder, Pro-Diversity in Sexuality, Evolutionist, Anti-Abortion as Birth Control, Pacifist, Universalist, Anglican Christian, along with potentially thousands more titles and beliefs I could stick on.

Of all these things ONE is a RELIGION.

Christian