Evolutionary Science-v- Creationism

[wolf]

Not according to the Council of Nicea, I believe. Women just barely got souls, animals lost.

Catholic Version Pope John Paul II now says that animals do have souls. He is infallible, therefore they must.

Protestant Version - No

Islamic View - No, but the author would like them to, based on personal experience.

The Methodists - Succinct, to the point, no.

[tw]

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

Evolution is science, whether you choose to understand it or not. Creationism is religion, whatever pseudoscientific trappings they try to dress it in. Science has a place in science classes, and religion does not.

Not exactly. Religion was really nothing more than man's early attempt at science. Much later, principles (new tools) important to science - the need for both theory and experiemental confirmation - was added to the body called science. Science during the bible's time had no such tools. Today those who blindly believe the bible must then deny what a fact really is. How to create facts was not understood back when the bible was written. In the meantime, science has move forward beyond the bible - using new tools that did not exist 2000 years ago.

Demonstrated in this discussion is a 'denial of facts' - from those who give the bible way too much credit and credibility.

The bible was a good attempt at explaining many sciences that mankind needed to build a civilization. Much early science was based mostly on parables. But in all good sciences (including those that grew from Islam and Buddhism), mankind advances: learns more of god's laws everyday. Unfortunately, there are these ostriches who say, "Everything we need to know is in the bible". Reality does not work that way. People who worship a real god learn more of god's laws every day. That means the bible has been replaced repeatedly with better science books.

And so we arrive at the real definition of religion. Early attempts at learning how the world works is worshipped by people who fear change. Worshipped by people who fear to learn from god's newest disciples.

OnyxCougar has a problem. All facts were written a few thousand years ago? There are no more prophets because only the bible can be correct? We call such people anti-innovative.

Reality. Name more of god's prophets. Einstein. Newton. Hilbert. Gauss. Franklin. DaVinci. Keppler. Sigmund Freud. These too are god's prophets. They all discovered more of gods laws. They used god's laws from previous prophets to learn more god's laws. They innovated.

Today we hold god's prophets to higher standards because our newest bibles are chock full of more "god's laws" including new tools such as scientific challenge. God's prophets must prove their discoveries of what god teaches. As we learn more of god's tools, we even use them to discover which of god's prophets better understood god.

Science demonstrates a god that Onyxcougar worships is really nothing more than a pagan. No wonder god must appear in human form. God in that time was the best that man could comprehend. Today we know many of those prophets could have easily been Capt Kirk from a starship named Enterprize. No wonder her god is so pathetically limited as to have will, opinons, and love. No wonder her god has his chosen people - and president. All characteristics of gods found in every pagan religion. To worship her pagan god, she needs a science book that says nothing more need be learned. She calls it the bible.

Why do religious extremists deny science such as evolution? It means their one and only book has been obsoleted. Parables that were revised as we have learned more of gods laws. We study the bible to better learn our history. How things did and did not work. Parables on how man could be so mistaken as to destroy and how man can advance by learning more of gods laws. We learn science to move forward - to better understand god. Notice that this god is truly supreme. Not so limited with human emotions as the bible's god. Our books are constantly being updated and revised as god's prophets discover more of god's laws.

Christianity provided principles on which we have developed the sciences of law, civil rights, chemistry, psychology, physics, and other sciences. Bible was but an early attempt. And like all early sciences, it is chock full of errors, myths, fallacies, and misinterpretations. For example, the bible was written by humans who did not yet have one important tool (to exist, a fact must have both underlying theory and experimental evidence). Early prophets did what they could with so many limited tools. They used parables - one of the most powerful tools of learning during that time.

God's prophets today use new tools of science - such as what a fact really is - to teach us all more of gods laws. When was the last time interpreters of the bible told us that 8% of all species are gay? Those who cannot learn (worship the bible) even promote hate of gays. How do they promote hate and yet call themselves god's choosen people? Probably for the same reason that god told George Jr to 'Pearl Harbor' Iraq. He too is god's choosen president - if one blindly worships a pagan god.

[OnyxCougar]

Originally Posted by Troubleshooter

Ok, the root of the argument here appears to be not whether mutation and speciation occur but what is the First Cause of man, correct?

Yes. Finally. Someone read the phrase "evolution as it relates to the origin of man" that I posted so many times.

That being the case, I believe that the argument dies when we realize that the current evolutionary paradigm is putting the pieces of evidence together to create a theory as to the most likely cause of our current state of evolution and that the bible says "God says it happened this way."


Science deals in trends and degrees of likelihood, the *insert appropriate religious text here* says with 100% certainty it happened this way.

Creationists and evolutionists, Christians and non-Christians all have the same evidence—the same facts. Think about it: we all have the same earth, the same fossil layers, the same animals and plants, the same stars—the facts are all the same.

The difference is in the way we all interpret the facts. And why do we interpret facts differently? Because we start with different presuppositions. These are things that are assumed to be true, without being able to prove them. These then become the basis for other conclusions. All reasoning is based on presuppositions (also called axioms). This becomes especially relevant when dealing with past events.

We all exist in the present—and the facts all exist in the present. When one is trying to understand how the evidence came about (Where did the animals come from? How did the fossil layers form? etc.), what we are actually trying to do is to connect the past to the present.

However, if we weren’t there in the past to observe events, how can we know what happened so we can explain the present? It would be great to have a time machine so we could know for sure about past events.

Christians of course claim they do, in a sense, have a ‘time machine’. They have a book called the Bible which claims to be the Word of God who has always been there, and has revealed to us the major events of the past about which we need to know.

On the basis of these events (Creation, Fall, Flood, Babel, etc.), we have a set of presuppositions to build a way of thinking which enables us to interpret the evidence of the present.

Evolutionists have certain beliefs about the past/present that they presuppose, e.g. no God (or at least none who performed acts of special creation), so they build a different way of thinking to interpret the evidence of the present.

Thus, when Christians and non-Christians argue about the evidence, in reality they are arguing about their interpretations based on their presuppositions.

It’s not until these two people recognize the argument is really about the presuppositions they have to start with, that they will begin to deal with the foundational reasons for their different beliefs. A person will not interpret the evidence differently until they put on a different set of glasses—which means to change one’s presuppositions.

As to how either of those is presented in a school environment, I can see where a teacher, or even the text, would gloss over the topic of evolution and just say that "scientists say that this is how it happened." That is not a failing of the scientist or the theory, but of the teacher or the publisher.

And my contention is that since ORIGINS is completely unprovable, leave it out entirely.

Again, evolution, when presented correctly, is science, and creationism, no matter how you present it, is religion.

So mote it be...

No, ORIGINS is not science. Any way you try to slice it. ORIGINS is religion, by whatever means you try to explain it.

[OnyxCougar]

Originally Posted by Torrere

Does this mean that cats go to Heaven?

Let me check on nephesh and get back to you.

[OnyxCougar]

Wow. That's pretty wordy. Lets go a little at a time.

Originally Posted by tw

Not exactly. Religion was really nothing more than man's early attempt at science.

Although the bible does have science in it (however crude we view it today), I would say religion as an institution was misused from the beginning as a tool of power and profit and control.

Much later, principles (new tools) important to science - the need for both theory and experiemental confirmation - was added to the body called science. Science during the bible's time had no such tools.

You're going to have to define "the bible's time". Do you mean when it was written? If so, please prove that theory and experimental confirmation was not in existence during the time of, lets say, Moses. Cite.

Today those who blindly believe the bible must then deny what a fact really is. How to create facts was not understood back when the bible was written.

Uh...please prove this statement. So facts weren't facts back in the days of Jacob? When, exactly, then, did facts become facts?

In the meantime, science has move forward beyond the bible - using new tools that did not exist 2000 years ago.

Demonstrated in this discussion is a 'denial of facts' - from those who give the bible way too much credit and credibility.

You are incorrect. I'm not denying ANY facts. I'm denying a specific set of interpretations based on the facts. It is my belief that a different set of interpretations of the same facts can explain creationism JUST AS WELL as the interpretation posited by evolutionist origins.

The bible was a good attempt at explaining many sciences that mankind needed to build a civilization. Much early science was based mostly on parables. But in all good sciences (including those that grew from Islam and Buddhism), mankind advances: learns more of god's laws everyday. Unfortunately, there are these ostriches who say, "Everything we need to know is in the bible". Reality does not work that way. People who worship a real god learn more of god's laws every day. That means the bible has been replaced repeatedly with better science books.

I don't know who views the bible as a book of science. Again, there are ideas of science in the bible, but it is hardly a science text. Your premise is flawed.

And so we arrive at the real definition of religion. Early attempts at learning how the world works is worshipped by people who fear change. Worshipped by people who fear to learn from god's newest disciples.

Really? I thought the real definition of religion was:

Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English religioun, from Latin religion-, religio supernatural constraint, sanction, religious practice, perhaps from religare to restrain, tie back -- more at RELY
1 a : the state of a religious <a nun in her 20th year of religion> b (1) : the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2) : commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance
2 : a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices
3 archaic : scrupulous conformity : CONSCIENTIOUSNESS
4 : a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith
- re·li·gion·less adjective

But you know, all those pesky dictionaries MUST be wrong...

OnyxCougar has a problem. All facts were written a few thousand years ago?

Huh? Who said that? I thought you said there were no facts a few thousand years ago? You're contradicting yourself....

There are no more prophets because only the bible can be correct? We call such people anti-innovative.

Who is "we"? You got a mouse in your pocket? Who said only the bible can be correct? Don't put words in my mouth that I never said and then tell me I'm wrong.

[OnyxCougar]

Reality. Name more of god's prophets. Einstein. Newton. Hilbert. Gauss. Franklin. DaVinci. Keppler. Sigmund Freud. These too are god's prophets. They all discovered more of gods laws. They used god's laws from previous prophets to learn more god's laws. They innovated.

Although I'm not sure of your usage of the word "prophet" here, I can agree with the idea here.

Today we hold god's prophets to higher standards because our newest bibles are chock full of more "god's laws" including new tools such as scientific challenge.

Newest bibles? Last I checked there was a group of writings that was agreed upon a couple hundred years or so ago, and that was then termed "the Bible". Full stop. Your statement is based upon the flawed premise that the Bible is a textbook of science, which (for the third time) it's not.

God's prophets must prove their discoveries of what god teaches. As we learn more of god's tools, we even use them to discover which of god's prophets better understood god.

More metaphor based on flawed premise.

Science demonstrates a god that Onyxcougar worships is really nothing more than a pagan. No wonder god must appear in human form. God in that time was the best that man could comprehend.

huh? You lost me here....

Today we know many of those prophets could have easily been Capt Kirk from a starship named Enterprize.

If you're going to use pop culture references, at least spell them correctly. That's Enterprise.

No wonder her god is so pathetically limited as to have will, opinons, and love.

? Please explain how having will, opinions and love is pathetic or limited.

No wonder her god has his chosen people - and president.

I don't believe my God chose George Bush. Bush may think that, some fundies may think that, I don't. So please refrain from linking me to your religio-political overgeneralizations.

All characteristics of gods found in every pagan religion. To worship her pagan god, she needs a science book that says nothing more need be learned. She calls it the bible.

Again (4th time) the bible is not a science book. That's YOUR straw man. Also, the bible doesn't say "nothing more need be learned". So please, stop making these ridiculous statements.

Why do religious extremists deny science such as evolution?

I'm hardly a religious extremist. And evolution as it relates to origion of man is not science. It's guesswork. And it shouldn't be taught in school any more than creationist origins should.

It means their one and only book has been obsoleted.

I disagree. First, the bible (specifically the old testament) is the cornerstone and foundation of Christian, Judaism and Islamic faiths. Within it are timeless concepts that will never be obsolete, as much as you wish they were. Granted, there are some things (like stoning people) that western society considers obsolete now, but the western justice system was based off of Christian laws and punishments within the bible. We don't stone people now, we imprison them. And as we have seen, imprisonment isnt much of a deterrant, is it? But that's another thread entirely....

Parables that were revised as we have learned more of gods laws. We study the bible to better learn our history.

So you agree it's also got history in it. History that has never been DISproven. We may not be able to prove all the history, but what secular history we can verify time and time again agrees with biblical history. So since it hasn't been DISproven, why not believe it all? Again, another thread, but definitely a product of the EvCvID debate.

How things did and did not work. Parables on how man could be so mistaken as to destroy and how man can advance by learning more of gods laws. We learn science to move forward - to better understand god.

Perhaps back in the day that was true. Now, many scientists learn science in an attempt to prove god doesn't exist, and to get other people to doubt god as well. What's the best way to do this? "Prove" that the primary and fundamental statement "In the beginning God created" is wrong, by advancing this UNPROVABLE notion that man evolved from primordial soup. If the Bible is wrong, then you can't trust any of it, and therefore, the foundation of 3 of the world's major religions is GONE. That's why this is such an important issue to Christians, indeed, it should be a major issue to Muslims and Jews. The theory of Evolution as it relates to origin of man is completely opposite of the bible. And you have to take a stand. Do you believe in the word of God or fallible man? Both theories are equally unprovable, and therefore, religious in nature, and should NOT be taught in school.

Notice that this god is truly supreme. Not so limited with human emotions as the bible's god.

Tee, you are the ONLY person who I've ever met (virtually or otherwise) that thinks emotion is a bad thing, or limiting, or pathetic.

Our books are constantly being updated and revised as god's prophets discover more of god's laws.

Again, I'm not so sure of your use of "prophets" here.

Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English prophete, from Old French, from Latin propheta, from Greek prophEtEs, from pro for + phanai to speak -- more at FOR, BAN
1 : one who utters divinely inspired revelations; specifically often capitalized : the writer of one of the prophetic books of the Old Testament
2 : one gifted with more than ordinary spiritual and moral insight; especially : an inspired poet
3 : one who foretells future events : PREDICTOR
4 : an effective or leading spokesman for a cause, doctrine, or group

A scientist could be called a prophet, by def. 4, but I would say that "god's prophets" would be more apt to lift god up, so to speak, as opposed to many scientists, who try to tear him down.

Christianity provided principles on which we have developed the sciences of law, civil rights, chemistry, psychology, physics, and other sciences.

Not just Christianity, but all 3 major OT based belief sets.

Bible was but an early attempt. And like all early sciences, it is chock full of errors, myths, fallacies, and misinterpretations.

Depends on the interpretation. Strictly exegetical, no it's not.

For example, the bible was written by humans who did not yet have one important tool (to exist, a fact must have both underlying theory and experimental evidence).

But just a little while ago you said they had facts... stick with one story Mr. Kerry!

Early prophets did what they could with so many limited tools. They used parables - one of the most powerful tools of learning during that time.

Jesus used parables. And it was obvious when he used them because the style of writing changed and he SAID he was using a parable.

God's prophets today use new tools of science - such as what a fact really is - to teach us all more of gods laws.

You need to define what a fact is and figure out if a fact is a fact all the time, or if a fact is a fact only after a certain time. Please be consistant on when a fact is a fact. Until then, I'm ignoring your Kerry-ish argument about facts.

When was the last time interpreters of the bible told us that 8% of all species are gay?

Those who cannot learn (worship the bible) even promote hate of gays.

Firstly, "worship the bible" is not something that people are supposed to be doing. Those who use the bible as a foundation for their faith are supposed to "worship" God (by whatever name each faith might use).

Secondly, I reject that if one believes in the bible that they cannot learn. And I do NOT promote hate of gays. I don't promote hate of anyone. That was a completely out of hand and inflammatory statement. And made to ilicit an emotional response. Be careful, Tee.

How do they promote hate and yet call themselves god's choosen people?

Last I checked, gods chosen people are the Israelites. And those are Jews. So you're saying Jews promote hate? huh?

Probably for the same reason that god told George Jr to 'Pearl Harbor' Iraq.

Prove that.

He too is god's choosen president - if one blindly worships a pagan god.

A nonsense statement.



EDIT: changed exegisial to exegetical. Yeah. I can spell.

[OnyxCougar]

Originally Posted by wolf

Not according to the Council of Nicea, I believe. Women just barely got souls, animals lost.

Catholic Version Pope John Paul II now says that animals do have souls. He is infallible, therefore they must.

Protestant Version - No

Islamic View - No, but the author would like them to, based on personal experience.

The Methodists - Succinct, to the point, no.

This is one reason why I'm trying to learn hebrew and greek. I want to see what the text says and read it in an exegetical context, so that I can interpret it, instead of somebody interpreting it for me.

And I don't even want to go into catholicism.

[Clodfobble]

You never answered my question, OC (although it was awhile back and I think it may have ended up in a different thread...):

No molecules-to-man, ok. But if you agree that speciation happens, is there a reason you can't accept the possibility of apes-to-man (other than the fact that the Bible says they were created at the same time?)

[Beestie]

This is the first time I have viewed this thread and have only one thing to say:


OnyxCougar's fingers have got to be getting tired.

[OnyxCougar]

Originally Posted by Clodfobble

You never answered my question, OC (although it was awhile back and I think it may have ended up in a different thread...):

No molecules-to-man, ok. But if you agree that speciation happens, is there a reason you can't accept the possibility of apes-to-man (other than the fact that the Bible says they were created at the same time?)

Sorry, clod, didn't see it.

Yes, even with mutation and speciation, which is observable and experimental (and can thus be proven), I do not believe molecules to man (I'll shorten Molecules to Man theory to evolution in this post) happened. Let's examine some of the principle portions of the theory and counter with creationism (please understand I'm not a scientist, and this is really dumbed down becuase I'm not one of those technical type people. If you want a technical answer go to AiG's website....they have molecular biologists and people who are WAY smarter than me that can answer your question:

1. Evolutionary Theory posits that the "big bang" occured (life from non-life), and that the stars (and sun) were created BEFORE the earth and the planets.

1. Creationists posit that in the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth, and that the earth was made first, with the sun being made after, to separate the night from the day.

2. Evolutionary Theory posits that on the primordial earth, there was a mixture of chemicals and compounds in the waters and air of the earth and somehow (no one quite knows) life spontaneously occured, and the first cells appeared. (Here's HM's "magic".)

2. Creationists believe that God made all the flora and fauna and they were all vegetarians...no animal ate any other. He looked around and "saw that it was good".

3. ET says that one magic cellular organism (the one that spontaneously appeared from non-life) then reproduced itself and then there were two magic life-forms. (How did a cell have all of the components to survive and reproduce if it spontaneously generated from non-life? Reproductive systems are incredibly complex, even asexual reproduction isn't easy... yet somehow this magic cell managed it...)

3. Creationists: See #2

4. So from this really smart cell that spontaneously burst onto the scene able to reproduce itself, ETists say that more cells came about and more and more and then for no reason at all, TWO cells went from asexual reproduction to sexual reproduction. They had cellular sex. Now HOW their "bodies" changed to have a "sperm" and an "egg" type of cell, no one knows. You're just supposed to buy this. No cells have EVER been seen to be able to spontaneously appear. No cells have EVER been seen that can come from an asexual reproduction and suddenly become sexual reproducers.

This form of evolution, "evolving up" means there must be an addition of information. Some how, some way, the cells HAD to learn to divide and/or go from asexual to sexual reproduction.

There has NEVER been any record of information GAIN in any life form scientists have studied. Mutation and Speciation happen, but these involve LOSS or CORRUPTION of EXISTING material.

In other words, all the genetic material is already there to start with, and speciation and mutation LOSE genetic variability as they "adapt" to their environment.

Evolution Theory posits that some how, some way, those single simple cells GAINED information to form multiple celled organisms, and those "evolved" to a HIGHER form of life.

But since what we actually observe is the OPPOSITE of this effect, the evolutionary theory cannot be proven.

Here: http://www.answersingenesis.org/home...faq/origin.asp is a AiG page on cellular origins and primordial soups.

Here: http://www.answersingenesis.org/home...infotheory.asp is an AiG page on Information Theory.

If this doesn't answer your question, Clod, please forgive me, my brain is tired from Tee-Dub's post.

[OnyxCougar]

Originally Posted by Beestie

This is the first time I have viewed this thread and have only one thing to say:


OnyxCougar's fingers have got to be getting tired.

My fingers are fine, it's my brain that's tired.

I don't really believe I'm going to change anyone's mind, but I do hope I'm making them question the information they've been force fed.

If you do a thorough investigation and you really believe one non-provable theory over another, that's one thing. But research it a little, look at ALL arguements OBJECTIVELY, and then make your decision.

[Clodfobble]

OC, I understand your position on molecules-to-man.

What I'm asking about is just speciation from apes to man, forgetting all the earlier steps for a moment.

In your mind, could a group of apes speciate to the degree that they became indistinguishable from humans?



Edit to add: I'm in no hurry, so feel free to take a break for awhile before getting back to me. I won't be back online to read it until 6AM tomorrow anyway.

[OnyxCougar]

Originally Posted by Clodfobble

OC, I understand your position on molecules-to-man.

What I'm asking about is just speciation from apes to man, forgetting all the earlier steps for a moment.

In your mind, could a group of apes speciate to the degree that they became indistinguishable from humans?



Edit to add: I'm in no hurry, so feel free to take a break for awhile before getting back to me. I won't be back online to read it until 6AM tomorrow anyway.

"speciation from apes to man" assumes man "evolved" from apes, that apes are our ancestors. It has a starting assumption I don't agree with. It's inseparable from the molecules to man idea, because it's just the last few steps on that tree.

To answer your question more directly, no, in my little mind, speciation from apes to man can't occur because there are things men can do that apes can't (sometimes called "higher functions") and that is information GAIN, while speciation is information LOSS.

[wolf]

Originally Posted by OnyxCougar

But research it a little, look at ALL arguements OBJECTIVELY, and then make your decision.

This is one of those topics where you can really only look at things subjectively.

Therein lies the problem.

Now, folks, how's about this little tidbit ... showed up in my mailbox courtesy of one of my right-wing mailing lists.

Famous Atheist Now Believes in God

[tw]

Originally Posted by OnyxCougar

Wow. That's pretty wordy. Lets go a little at a time.
...
Although the bible does have science in it (however crude we view it today), I would say religion as an institution was misused from the beginning as a tool of power and profit and control.
...
You're going to have to define "the bible's time". Do you mean when it was written? If so, please prove that theory and experimental confirmation was not in existence during the time of, lets say, Moses. Cite.
...
Uh...please prove this statement. So facts weren't facts back in the days of Jacob? When, exactly, then, did facts become facts?
...
Really? I thought the real definition of religion was:
...
But you know, all those pesky dictionaries MUST be wrong...

The bible as a tool of influence can easily be a source of 'good' or of 'evil'. The same parable is told in another story called Star Wars. Parables were powerful tools to justify an action or 'prove' the king was chosen by god. But in biblical days, that is how most of mankind knowledge was proven.

Still something happened in Greece long before - and yet was little understood since most people could not read let alone understand Greek. Socrates was using something radical called logic to prove things such as that the gods were simply nothing more than extensions of human traits. Socrates indeed taught things never before comprehended because he was using a new tool – logic. If – then …. For if gods choose people, practice jealously or disdain, and exercise personal will, then gods were not infinite. Even though so much of our early logic and even concepts of social order can be traced to the Greeks, still, people even 1000 years later had no knowledge of the concepts. The tools that so many had to perform 'advanced' thinking were parables from the bible.

It indeed was a good book in its time. And yet its concepts could also be used by (was it the Dominicans?) to massacre another French Catholic people (the Jesuits?). (Does anyone have this story - I cannot find it?) It justified the Crusades – even resulting in the ransacking of Constantinople in 1205. Therefore 'good' was just as easily turned into 'evil' - which means good and evil are based more on emotions - not necessarily on facts. But that is how the bible was used (manipulated) throughout history. We used an early social science to make mistakes - and learn more laws of nature - or god's laws if you will.

People such as DaVinci rescued, demonstrated, and performed logic in a time we call the Renaissance. In the days of Moses, one would only say something - and his credibility was enough? Tools of logical thought were that deficient. As science advanced, the procedures to establish facts have advanced. Currently we use things such as peer reviewed papers, bibliographic citations, and mathematical theory to demand far more before we accept something as fact. At least that is what one who is not a junk scientist does.

Things we call junk science were common in biblical times. Anyone who saw Capt Kirk transport to earth would indeed call him god. Today, we call those 'facts', at best, a parable. Did a burning bush talk to Moses? Ever see a speaker created from the flame of a bunsen burner? Was it god, some electronic wizardry, or just a fairy tale that Moses used to provide credibility to his ten rules of social order? Was Moses nothing more than a great 'innovator' who appreciated a need for better rules? Well we do call him a prophet.

The principles that Moses set forth are historically important and well proven principles. How the principles were created could have been a lie - so common with parables. But what those rules accomplished can be defined as the early principles of a science called law. Ten Commandments (and not necessary the story) are important facts in mankind history.

Principles of creation met the criteria for fact in biblical times. But man has advanced. We no longer believe the principles of spontaneous reproduction because our requirements for facts have made spontaneous reproduction nothing more than a myth. Same can be said of creationism. It too no longer meets the criteria as fact. It too has fallen to the rank of parable or nursery tale. A tale important to mankind's history. But not valid in a world of a constantly advancing science. There is no factual basis for creationism. Only a … we will get to that definition of religion later.

Currently mankind is in another struggle. We can no longer explain a universe that is four dimensional - length, width, height, and time. As we continue to advance, we may learn that this universe is 7 or 10 dimensional. IOW as our tools get better, we must now learn how a particle simultaneously in NYC and one in London are the same particle. What does the bible say about this? Real sciences - the principles that advance mankind - must continue long beyond what is found in the bible.

IOW we develop and then use better tools to learn more facts. Yes many things taken for fact in the first hundred years AD were nothing more than myths. The stars did not 'talk' to us. In the meantime, much great wisdom such as 500 BC Sze Tzu is still not understood even by (corrupt) leaders today who are getting and presenting the Freedom Metal …. because they were ignorant of well proven military science. Go figure. How do you explain that fact? Too much religious beliefs imposed on other people by a president who ‘believes he is god’s chosen one’ … reality and knowledge be damned. More examples of how a Christian religion imposed on others can cause the deaths of about 98,000 Iraqis.

There still are many mysteries (ie junk science proclamations) in the world such as WMDs and aluminum tubes. Even when science says otherwise, still many will believe myths. Mankind still has much to learn.

You may not know anyone who views the bible as an early book of science. And yet is that not what Moses brought down from the mountain? Does the bible say which foods of that time should not be eaten? Right there we have the science of law and the science of nutrition. Where else do biblical people learn how to advance mankind - the purpose of science? The Quran even teaches trade rules. Economics. Another science (although some might argue economics is black magic).

A definition of religion says

3 archaic : scrupulous conformity : CONSCIENTIOUSNESS
4 : a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith

Therein lies my point. In biblical times, the bible was some of the best science (other religions had similar principles and books). But the bible is now an obsolete book. Religious means believing in those old and now obsolete principles. IOW beliefs held with "ardor and faith" - as called emotions. Parables not based upon the newer tools of science such as logic. In Christian religion, god's prophet existed only in biblical times. In religion, god has sent no more prophets? Nonsense. That makes god nothing more than a super human. Or the creation of a good fiction writer.

Religion even in that definition implies no change - no advancement - no discovery - that things will always be the way less educated people believed - only because that was written back then. Religion must be based upon emotions such as “ardor and faith”? It requires “scrupulous conformity”? Any prophets that say otherwise must be wrong because only the bible is correct. Things based only upon emotion and not based upon what we now require as fact.

How trusting must a religious person be? Scam artists recognize the most religious among us are easiest to scam. They are the most trusting. Less likely to ask 'embarrassing' or probing questions. Most easily influenced by junk science reasoning. IOW people with less appreciation for science and most appreciation for the now obsoleted science are better defined as religious. It a trend - not a rule.

That pesky dictionary is not wrong. It also implies what one must do to choose religion over facts, logic, and other tools of science. Use emotion rather than facts.
[Continues in next post]