Evolution and Creationism. Are they really different?

[viole]

No, I don't and I don't know any one who does. Do you? I actually didn't hear it from any one other than you. Why would any one makes such meaningless, purposeless claim? On the other hand, I know that billions of people, believe in God and that historical accounts conveyed knowledge about God. I have reasons to believe in God, but no reason to believe in a ridiculous teapot floating in space. It's not the same at all.
.

Being "ridicolous", "meaningless", "purposeless" depends on the point of view. I find, for instance, what I read on the classical Holy Books to be an inexhaustible source for comedy and humor. That is the only purpose I see in them. But that's me. Others might believe they contain smething profound.

I think that if I give any official Holy Book, the Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster and a Fairy Tale to a young kid without telling what is what, and ask him to judge which one is real, he could not tell the difference. They are all equally "plausible", with the evidence available (zero). So, there is really no reason to favor one against the others, if not because of external cultural influence and indoctrination.

And your "evidence" or "counter evidence" rely heavily on ad populum arguments. There was a time when all western civilization believed in Apollo and Poseidon, or their Roman equivalents, and many still believe today that black cats bring bad luck. So, yours is not an argument that increases God's plausibility, or decreases the FMS plausibility, by any amount. Unless you believe that things like Poseidon or the FSM become magically more real if many people believe in Them. Actually, these kind of ad-populum arguments are only good to explain why you believe and worship God X and not God Y: because you were not born in Greece at the time of Plato.

So, if you do not agree with the existence of Zeus, you should have the burden of proof that He does not exists, according to your logic. Actually, you should have the burden of proof to demonstrate that an infinity of things do not exist. It is not difficult to make up any kind of beings that escape observation, by definition. In the same way God is conveniently defined to be outside space and time (despite listening to what people murmur to Him in space and time, allegedely).

So, what is your proof that Poseidon and Zeus do not exist? You have the burden, if you do not agree in their existence.

Ciao

- viole

 

[NoorNoor]

The latitude of Paris, France is 48.864716, and the longitude is 2.349014. Anyone can simply go there and confirm its existence

You provided info (made a claim). Some people may or may not trust you. definitely, many will not go there. Does some one need to see and touch Paris as the the only way to confirm that Paris actually exists? Many will accept info conveyed to them through the experience of others without ever going to Paris.

The only transfer of knowledge necessary are the coordinates themselves.

Again, Not every one can or would go to confirm what actually exists at these coordinates. Yet they will accept the info without the need to see or touch Paris. As long as there is no reason to deny it.

There are six literary genres, fables, fairy tales, folktales, legends, myths, and tall tales, you need to learn to identify each one and to differentiate each one from history

If historical accounts of religions have been witnessed/documented and the knowledge have been conveyed among billions of people. So if you personally deny it, would that make it fable? Other than your claim, What are your basis to classify or claim this widespread knowledge as fables? Yes, deviations and alterations found its way to religions, yet all religions assert the existence of a Diety. You can't simply Claim all religions in its entirety as fables.

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

How things appear to us is not what things really / ultimately are. For example, a TV may show images/sounds but beyond the TV, it's only electromagnetic waves of different frequencies.

Not a reasonable analogy. Not at all.

We know what radio frequencies are. We don't know what "god" is. We know what electricity is. We don't know what "spirit" or "soul" are. We can measure the transmission waves. We can't measure "god" waves. Your analogy is more akin to a practitioner of witchcraft insisting that s/he has a spell that can make him/her fly; after all, airplanes fly!

 

[NoorNoor]

You are incorrect in assuming that history is simply "transferring the knowledge of other people" or that there are no "observations" for history.
Ever heard of Archaeology?
Paintings?
Literature?
Official documents?
Hieroglyphs?
Artifacts?
Photos?

Obviously, you presuppositions makes you fail to understand that all of that (with the exception of photos) exist in the case or religions

To answer your question, the one who contradicts the negative claim regarding the existence of Paris is the one who holds the burden of proof.

The point is, if a claim is negative, it doesn't necessarily means its rational.

 

[NoorNoor]

Not a reasonable analogy. Not at all.

We know what radio frequencies are. We don't know what "god" is. We know what electricity is. We don't know what "spirit" or "soul" are. We can measure the transmission waves. We can't measure "god" waves. Your analogy is more akin to a practitioner of witchcraft insisting that s/he has a spell that can make him/her fly; after all, airplanes fly!

Your description of our own physical reality doesn't create any limits to the ultimate reality. It only identifies the limits of our perceived reality.

 

[Sapiens]

Actually God is not the exception. supernatural/metaphysical existence is not about God only.

How things appear to us is not what things really / ultimately are. For example, a TV may show images/sounds but beyond the TV, it's only electromagnetic waves of different frequencies. a TV would be tuned to a specific frequency. If we consider a frequency as an analogy to a reality, then changing the frequency would enable a TV to interface with totally different reality/channel. Similarly, electromagnetic light waves/ compression waves are perceived by humans as images and sounds. We are tuned to specific visible spectrum and range of hearing, we can't change that tuning to perceive totally different realities that would exist beyond our perception. What if that tuning can be changed? What would we see? If our TV is tuned to one channel only? Does this mean, all other channels don't exist? What realities would ultimately exist beyond our limited perception. What would ultimately exist beyond our perceived reality and beyond the limits of spacetime itself?

The metaphysical existence is not limited to God.

Just another argument from ignorance.

No, I don't and I don't know any one who does. Do you? I actually didn't hear it from any one other than you. Why would any one makes such meaningless, purposeless claim? On the other hand, I know that billions of people, believe in God and that historical accounts conveyed knowledge about God.

Just another argument argumentum ad populum.

I have reasons to believe in God, but no reason to believe in a ridiculous teapot floating in space. It's not the same at all.

Ah ... but it is exactly the same thing. You think it absurd, right? I think your belief in god to be even more absurd, you not only claim god's existence, you worship it. Now ... that is truly absurd.

If I make totally unknown, meaningless, purposeless claim that totally contradicts established knowledge that was transferred through generations, among billions of people, then, I would definitely have the burden of proof.

Just another argument argumentum ad populum, is that your featured logical fallacy today?

Nonetheless, I don't say that God's existence has no proof but rather the proof can be viewed/interpreted differently by different people.

Proof is proof is not subject to the vagaries of individuals. But ... there is no proof, right?

For example, Michio Kaku has his own interpretation of the God of order similar to Einstein's belief in God of Spinoza (not a personal God). On the other hand, it doesn't make sense to a theist to accept God's existence and limit him to a passive role. Atheist would totally reject the existence of God.

evidence don't necessitate belief or disbelief but rather the individual interpretation of that evidence shapes the unique belief of that individual.

Whoa man, like ... everything is, like, everything, right man?

 

[Sapiens]

You provided info (made a claim). Some people may or may not trust you. definitely, many will not go there. Does some one need to see and touch Paris as the the only way to confirm that Paris actually exists? Many will accept info conveyed to them through the experience of others without ever going to Paris.

But ... the proof is in the coordinates. If you doubt ... go and see for yourself.

Again, Not every one can or would go to confirm what actually exists at these coordinates. Yet they will accept the info without the need to see or touch Paris. As long as there is no reason to deny it.

Because it is a reasonable, ordinary, claim.

If historical accounts of religions have been witnessed/documented and the knowledge have been conveyed among billions of people. So if you personally deny it, would that make it fable? Other than your claim,

It might. The claim is neither reasonable nor ordinary thus requiring extraordinary evidence. Despite that, argumentum ad populum does not carry the day. You make the claim, I tell you that my BS detector is sounding off, you do what? You say, "but everyone says so." I suggest that your mother must have told you that just because everyone jumped off the bridge, that does not mean that you should do so too. Listen to your mom's advice.

What are your basis to classify or claim this widespread knowledge as fables?

Lack of evidence.

Yes, deviations and alterations found its way to religions, yet all religions assert the existence of a Diety. You can't simply Claim all religions in its entirety as fables.

I can't? They all share one feature, a complete and utter lack of evidence.

 

[NoorNoor]

Being "ridicolous", "meaningless", "purposeless" depends on the point of view. I find, for instance, what I read on the classical Holy Books to be an inexhaustible source for comedy and humor. That is the only purpose I see in them. But that's me. Others might believe they contain smething profound.

Your are entitled to your view whatever it is but its good for you only not for any one else. Nonetheless, I understand what you are talking about. Existing alterations and errors in addition to total disconnect from religion would sure create such view.

I think that if I give any official Holy Book, the Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster and a Fairy Tale to a young kid without telling what is what, and ask him to judge which one is real, he could not tell the difference. They are all equally "plausible", with the evidence available (zero). So, there is really no reason to favor one against the others, if not because of external cultural influence and indoctrination.

If your thinking is correct (equally "plausible"), then I wonder why we don't see this type of flying lasagna Gospels around? But yes, if you give the Gospel of transforming monkeys to some kids, they couldn't tell if it's real. Hopefully they may do better when they grow up but I definitely agree with you about the external cultural influence. any way, if you try that experiment, let me know the results.

And your "evidence" or "counter evidence" rely heavily on ad populum arguments. There was a time when all western civilization believed in Apollo and Poseidon, or their Roman equivalents, and many still believe today that black cats bring bad luck. So, yours is not an argument that increases God's plausibility, or decreases the FMS plausibility, by any amount. Unless you believe that things like Poseidon or the FSM become magically more real if many people believe in Them. Actually, these kind of ad-populum arguments are only good to explain why you believe and worship God X and not God Y: because you were not born in Greece at the time of Plato.

You and many others keep repeating "ad populum". Your reference to it, is out of context. I am referring to people with different beliefs but they all share the understanding of a Deity. Their numbers don't dictate or explain my own belief in X vs Y. My belief is not necessarily the belief of the majority.

Its logical that a judge may trust a testimony if he hears the same testimony from many witnesses. In that sense, the number does make a difference to support a credibility of a testimony.

The number of theists today indicates that significant events of proportional significance, should have happened in the past. The number does play a role in the confirmation of the historical accounts. For example, Do you think that Jesus and the historical records of the witnessed supernatural events ever happened? Yes, no, why?

So, if you do not agree with the existence of Zeus, you should have the burden of proof that He does not exists, according to your logic. Actually, you should have the burden of proof to demonstrate that an infinity of things do not exist. It is not difficult to make up any kind of beings that escape observation, by definition. In the same way God is conveniently defined to be outside space and time (despite listening to what people murmur to Him in space and time, allegedely).

So, what is your proof that Poseidon and Zeus do not exist? You have the burden, if you do not agree in their existence.

If no one believes that Poseidon exists, if there is no reason to believe that Poseidon exists. Why do you see a need to prove that he doesn't exist? Prove it to whom? I am not aware of any one that believes in Poseidon but I am aware of many who believe in God.

It's not really about who has the burden. Whoever makes a claim, should have reasons to support it. Especially if the claim is against widespread understanding (whatever it is). I am not saying God existence should be accepted without evidence. But I think its not enough to challenge an established concept (whatever it is), without providing Supporting evidence.

God's existence or nonexistence can be Because of external cultural influence. Same data would be viewed /interpreted differently by different people. the claim that the understanding of God is a historical myth, is not true. Many of the greatest influential scientists of all times, have their own understanding of God in one way or another. It's not an old myth and it's not against science.

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

The point is, if a claim is negative, it doesn't necessarily means its rational.

I didn't say otherwise. The debate is not about whether claims (positive or negative) are rational; the debate is about who holds the burden of evidence. Stop changing the topic until we have come to some sort of agreement or impasse on the first topic.

Obviously, you presuppositions makes you fail to understand that all of that (with the exception of photos) exist in the case or religions

As we are talking about history and the evidence we use to decipher history, your rebuttal makes zero sense to me.

I clearly understand that throughout all recorded history, people have engaged in various religions, religious beliefs and religious practices. But, and I say again and again and again (and many others with me) that people believing a certain thing to be true is far, far different from that given thing being true. I don't really care how many millions "believed" in Zeus. I only care about whether or not Zeus is real.

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

You and many others keep repeating "ad populum". Your reference to it, is out of context.

NO, it is not. Your inference, repeated and insistent, continues to be, "Well, millions of people have believed in a deity; therefore, there must be a deity!" That is argumentum ad populum classical definition and obscene example.

 

[Zosimus]

What mind-body problem? The mind is what the brain does, there is no problem. Here is some evidence:

Orpwood, Roger (2007). "Neurobiological Mechanisms Underlying Qualia". Journal of Integrative Neuroscience 06 (04): 523–33.

Orpwood, Roger (2013). "Qualia Could Arise from Information Processing in Local Cortical Networks". Frontiers in Psychology 4: 1–10. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00121

István Aranyosi A new argument for mind-brain identity. (Physical constituents of qualia.

Austen Clark (1985). A physicalist theory of qualia

Dennis Nicholson (ms). How qualia can be physical.

István Aranyosi (forthcoming). A new argument for mind-brain identity.

Pwned!

Ciao

- viole

Well, I asked you to explain blindsight, but you didn't do so. In fact, you didn't say anything at all. You just threw out a bunch of "research." Since I had no idea what I was looking for, I picked one at random and started reading.

The one I picked makes the argument that physicalist descriptions of qualia need not be circular. While this is an important step along the way to making a physical description of qualia, even if true, it does not refute the claim that qualia are not physical.

I read the article with some interest until I got to the claim: "Discriminability is a purely physical notion."

I dispute this claim. If someone is unable to discriminate between seeing a person and hallucinating a person, how is that purely physical? If someone is unable to discriminate between actually seeing a supernatural being and hallucinating a supernatural being, how is that purely physical?

Additionally, if I see a red fire engine or I just imagine a red fire engine, the red qualia exists even though I can discriminate between imaginging X and seeing X.

In short, I find the argument uncompelling. Which part of these arguments did you find compelling? Perhaps I should just read that one.

 

[viole]

It's not an old myth and it's not against science.

So, God split humans and chimps from a common ancestor 6 million years, ago. And made things so that humans and pigs have a common ancestor, too.

Is that so?

Ciao

- viole

 

[NoorNoor]

So, God split humans and chimps from a common ancestor 6 million years, ago. And made things so that humans and pigs have a common ancestor, too.

Is that so?

Ciao

- viole

Maybe this what you believe not me. May I ask, why do you believe it?

You will say Creationism denies scientific evidence. I would call it data not evidence (data+ interpretations= evidence). The specific "interpretation of data" is what makes data considered as evidence. Its true that data/observations could be considered as solid scientific findings. It may not be disputed. But the Interpretations of the data are "product of intellect" that can be disputed. Scientific advancements keep providing new interpretations/understandings (of the exact same data) to the contrary of what was previously established or assumed to be solid scientific understanding (similar to the example of Einstein vs Newton).

Creationism doesn't deny the data itself but denies the imposed interpretation of the data. Creationism doesn't acknowledge the theory of evolution as the correct or the only interpretation of available data.

Science is much older/broader than the TOE. Rejection of the TOE is not equal to rejection of science at all. Some would like to but it this way to claim that, if you reject TOE, then you reject science in its entirety which is totally false.

That said, it's not my intention to engage in an ignorant fight regarding my statements. it's a fact that people may hold different views. In case some one wants to argue specific evidence for the TOE, then I would clarify if I have an answer or different understanding. Otherwise, I am not interested in "god of the gabs" or "bugs in the bag" kind of arguments.

 

[NoorNoor]

I didn't say otherwise. The debate is not about whether claims (positive or negative) are rational; the debate is about who holds the burden of evidence. Stop changing the topic until we have come to some sort of agreement or impasse on the first topic.

If some one makes a claim that Paris doesn't exist, being a negative claim, is not enough to justify that there is no need to provide reasons for such claim? Do you think all people that Believe Paris exists, would owe him an explanation but he doesn't? If some one makes a claim that contradicts established widespread knowledge, then he should explain his reasons. Regardless, I think any one who makes a claim of any kind (positive or negative) should provide his reasons.

As we are talking about history and the evidence we use to decipher history, your rebuttal makes zero sense to me.

I clearly understand that throughout all recorded history, people have engaged in various religions, religious beliefs and religious practices. But, and I say again and again and again (and many others with me) that people believing a certain thing to be true is far, far different from that given thing being true. I don't really care how many millions "believed" in Zeus. I only care about whether or not Zeus is real.

It's not that people engaged in religions throughout recorded history but rather the "Religions" itself is a part of the documented history. The number is not intended as a reference of what is true but rather a reference that supports the credibility of the historical records of religions.

 

[Sapiens]

Maybe this what you believe not me. May I ask, why do you believe it?

Because there is sufficient evidence to make that conclusion the most likely one.

You will say Creationism denies scientific evidence. I would call it data not evidence (data+ interpretations= evidence). The specific "interpretation of data" is what makes data considered as evidence. Its true that data/observations could be considered as solid scientific findings. It may not be disputed. But the Interpretations of the data are "product of intellect" that can be disputed. Scientific advancements keep providing new interpretations/understandings (of the exact same data) to the contrary of what was previously established or assumed to be solid scientific understanding (similar to the example of Einstein vs Newton).

You don't know enough about science to make the claims that you do. FOr example, Einstein did not simply reexamine Newton's data and reach a more probable interpretation. According to Gabor Kunstatter of the Physics Department at the University of Winnipeg, Newtonian physics had three problems that needed to be dealt with without destroying all of the Newtonian model that worked.

1. Why is gravitational force proportional to inertial mass?
2. Instantaneous gravitational force violates special relativity.
3. The Newtonian calculation of the perihelion shift of Mercury is off by 43 seconds of arc per century.

Newton's laws of mechanics and universal gravitation worked wonderfully well in describing virtually all terrestrial phenomena as well as the motions of the moon and the planets. In this sense Newton provided a beautiful synthesis of two previously distinct sets of phenomena: the terrestrial and the celestial. However, as with all theories and combination of experimental results and conceptual reasoning ultimately forced Newton's gravitation theory to be modified and replaced by Einstein's theory of general relativity. There were essentially three problems with Newton's theory. First of all, there was a conceptual problem. In Newtonian gravity, the strength of the gravitational force between two bodies was proportional to the product of the inertial masses of the bodies. Inertial mass was therefore doing double duty: by definition, it was a measure of the resistance of an object to a change in velocity. In addition, inertial mass seem to also play a role as the "gravitational charge". In much the same way that electric charge determines the strength of electrostatic forces between two charged objects, the inertial mass (a.k.a. the gravitational charge) determines the strength of the corresponding gravitational force. This is the reason that, as found by Galileo, all objects fall to Earth at precisely the same rate. The reason for this double duty is a complete mystery in the context of Newtonian mechanics, but is essentially a trivial consequence of Einsteinian gravity. The second problem with Newton's theory was that it described gravity as an instantaneous force of attraction between two massive objects. Consequently, if you move one of them, the other knows about the move immediately due to the change in gravitation, irrespective of the distance between them. Finally, and most importantly, there was a discrepancy, albeit very tiny, between the predictions of Newton's theory, and experimental observation for the precession of Mercury's orbit

Newton's data had problems, Einstein fixed them.

Creationism doesn't deny the data itself but denies the imposed interpretation of the data. Creationism doesn't acknowledge the theory of evolution as the correct or the only interpretation of available data.

Creationism, by contrast, does deny the data itself and by doing so denies all the fruits of the data. Creationism does offer a model that works better, that makes more accurate predictions, that provides better interpretations, all that creationists do is stick their fingers in their ears and run in circles shouting "God did it." Bloody waste of good skin.

Science is much older/broader than the TOE. Rejection of the TOE is not equal to rejection of science at all. Some would like to but it this way to claim that, if you reject TOE, then you reject science in its entirety which is totally false.

Wrong again modern evolutionary thought begins about the same time as the idea of modern science, both with Aristotle.

That said, it's not my intention to engage in an ignorant fight regarding my statements. it's a fact that people may hold different views. In case some one wants to argue specific evidence for the TOE, then I would clarify if I have an answer or different understanding. Otherwise, I am not interested in "god of the gabs" or "bugs in the bag" kind of arguments.

No, you seem hell bent on inflating your show of ignorance way, way beyond simply the "god of the gabs" or "bugs in the bag" kind of arguments to errors of cosmic proportion.

If some one makes a claim that Paris doesn't exist, being a negative claim, is not enough to justify that there is no need to provide reasons for such claim? Do you think all people that Believe Paris exists, would owe him an explanation but he doesn't? If some one makes a claim that contradicts established widespread knowledge, then he should explain his reasons. Regardless, I think any one who makes a claim of any kind (positive or negative) should provide his reasons.

Fine, lets go back to back, I am armed with the Lat/Lon of Paris and you are armed with the best approximation of the location of your god. We each take ten step turn and present. I give you that Lat/Lon of Paris, if you do not believe me, you can go there and see for yourself. You do what? Spout logical fallacies in support of the ontological argument?

It's not that people engaged in religions throughout recorded history but rather the "Religions" itself is a part of the documented history. The number is not intended as a reference of what is true but rather a reference that supports the credibility of the historical records of religions.

Actually I'd say that all it supports is the hypothesis that there is (or at least was) an evolutionarily mediated survival advantage to having religion. Ain't that a kick in the head?

 

[Etritonakin]

Even if our self-aware creative intelligences were caused by the intent of another, they came about by a process.

When considering evolution, we often think of physical structures rather than intelligence.
It may seem from our perspective that all that preceded us (all of element-based evolution) necessarily preceded intelligence -and some assume that we are the first of our kind....
but I have been wondering if intelligence, self-awareness, creativity, etc., could have evolved without that which preceded our own.
A spirit, for example, might be a similar intelligence, but acting through more basic energies or forces rather than acting through element-based bodies.
Could intelligence, etc., evolve from something else as long as there was something which could be arranged, encoded, represent something else, be referenced as memory, etc?

We also tend to think of the universe and all therein as a higher level of that which preceded it, but as that pertains to our bodies, the complex rules governing the elements -or enabling them to exist -which make up our bodies are actually the source of our limitations and vulnerabilities.

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

I would have to change my answer regarding whether or not Mary learned something. I would have to say that, yes, she did. I guess the line between "knowing" something and "experiencing" something is not as broad as I had originally supposed.

 

[Segev Moran]

To me both are some sort of belief systems. People simply choose to follow one or another not because they are scientists, theologians or have specific compelling evidence but merely because they are free to choose what they believe in and when they choose, most people mainly follow the thoughts or teachings of others that they think can be trusted (whether right or wrong). In that sense, both Evolution and Creationism are similar. What do you think?

Sorry... but "To me both are some sort of belief systems" is a wrong statement.
Belief is to consider something true no matter if there are no evidence what so ever to verify it.
Evolution have thousands of supporting evidence...

Now... i know the claim... but no one ever saw a specie (or "kind" as creationists say) turn into a different one...

The problem is that most theist don't even bother to check and learn the evidence rather arguing that the evidence is lacking...

The evolution OF: Theism and Science:

Fact: There is a Hugh round shiny thing in the skies whenever its night.

Era 1:

T: Oh my... that's such a round and beautiful thing in the skies.. Someone must have made it!
S: Wow.. that's a beautiful round thing in the skies... i wonder what it is and how it got there

Era 2:

T: Wow.. that thing in the skies is so amazing.. and so round... Only intelligent being could have made it!
S: That round thing seems to move all the time...Why is this happening?

Era 3:

T: But why is it there? why did that being created it?
S: Wow... it looks like it goes around our planet.. interesting.. lets calculate and test and see if it really does!

Era 4:

T: Oh... its dark at night.. so he must have put it there to make the night bright and lighten...
S: This thing shines differently every day.. and the shadow seems to indicate it is a sphere...

Era 5:

T: Wow... its so beautiful... The being that created this round thing must have also created the entire universe and everything in it !!!!
S: Based on the way it moves and the path it leaves It seems it orbits our planet and our planet orbits the big yellow thing.. So it seems everything follows a path around something... But how is it that it is not falling?

Era 6:

T: Its not falling because GOD is holding it in place So smart and intelligent...
S: it seems there is a force that pushes the moon yet keeps it in orbit.. some kind of a pull between the moon and earth...

Era 7:

T: Wow... its so beautiful... The being that created this round thing must have also created the entire universe and everything in it !!!!
S: This force pulling everything is gravity.. some kind of a Magnetic pull... And now we see countless of round planets all moving and sorrounding one another... We must learn how it works...

Era 8:

T: Wow... its so beautiful... The being that created this round thing must have also created the entire universe and everything in it !!!!
S: So if everything is in motion and is attracted to each other, what is pushing everything?

Era 9:

T: Wow... its so beautiful... The being that created this round thing must have also created the entire universe and everything in it !!!!
S: The observations and evidence all push towards the fact that the universe is expanding.. but how does it work?

And you get my point...

So while theists rely on nothing but stories and beliefs without a shred of proof..
Science is based on learning, understanding, testing, falsifying, proving, thinking...
There is ZERO belief in science... there is wonder, there is questioning, there is skepticism, but no belief...

Any theory that is based on belief only, is not considered scientific theory!

And please do not mix Scientific Idea with theological thinking...
Scientific idea is just is an idea.. not a claim that the idea is true UNTIL proven otherwise

 

[Zosimus]

There is ZERO belief in science...

I believe you are quite wrong about that.

 

[Sapiens]

For belief to be taken seriously it needs a track record of being correct and useful, sorry.