:
|
Actually, Creationism technically is a science, or sciences and religeon can be grouped together, as they are both explanations we use to explain.
|
No, Creationism is
not a science because it does not conform to scientific requirements, as I have explained.
:
|
Actually, we accept that nearly all science we know is wrong, in fact, that's the point, we keep on trying to get closer to the truth, by presenting more accurate theories with our increasing technoligies.
|
Pretty close. We accept scienctific theories as being the best current explanation for the applicable natural phenomenons based upon the available evidence.
:
|
Take ancient science, when they thought the earth was the center of the galaxy/ universe, technically this was influenced by religeon (Even though it is never mentioned in the bible, so then again, technically it isn't) , but it was still science, and as proved, wrong, yet they thought and believed it was right at the time.
|
I guess, but then we have a prime example of the modern scientific method in action.
:
|
I don't think the theory of evolution is a complete load of crap, maybe mostly crap, but not completly, and that's becuase in how diverse things have become, how things have such design, and yet the similarites are astonishing with say a dolphin to a shark (You could say this is becuase they have adapted, but becuase the process is random, then why the hell are they so alike? Shouldn't there be much more different forms that are just as efficient).
|
The input is random, the process and output are not. Do not forget natural selection (that is the part that Darwin contributed after all). Similarities from convergent evolution are astonishing, but so are the differences retained. The fusiform shape is really the only body shape that works for pelagic organisms (we even use it for submarines). Most aquatic body shapes are variations of this design, from plesiosaurs through eels to squid.
:
|
For me the theory of evolution is full of wholes, like the theory that the universe can fold and through worms wholes we can go through the middle, the big bang theory has a few holes, but it seems more believable than the other previous two theories.
|
The argument from personal incredulity is about as watertight as a sponge.
:
|
I just can't believe this is all random.
|
No one believes it is all random. Do you understand evolution at all?
:
|
Oh, and Science still hasn't come up with an answer on how to create life, and seems very far off, so Religeon is as real as Science if not more IMO.
|
Not so far off as you think, actually. Besides, it is better to acknowledge our ignorance and then actively try to do something about it, than to embrace our ignorance and choose the first "explanation" that comes by regardless.
:
|
Even if it did, that wouldn't even prove that our Religeons (Well Christianity, I'm not going to speak for the others ones becuase I don't know them that well) would be false.
|
No it would not. Well, it would cause more problems for fundies, but since when did they care what science has discovered?