Your view on Creation and the Creator?

Page 2 of 9 [ 131 posts ] Go to page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 9 Next

Previous topic | Next topic

ouinon
Supporting Member

Joined: 10 Jul 2007
Age: 62
Gender: Female
Posts: 5,939
Location: Europe

09 Mar 2008, 6:00 pm

Orwell wrote:

My theology, which I would consider to be at least as valid as yours, does not compel me to reject science.

I feel somewhat similarly. My belief in god does not seem to require that i believe in a young earth, or anything else which is in direct contradiction with scientific theories in fact. Not yet anyway. :wink:

So what i'm wondering is, what is it about the standard scientific version of the origins of the universe which interferes with people's belief in god/God?

lau
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 17 Jun 2006
Age: 77
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,798
Location: Somerset UK

09 Mar 2008, 6:26 pm

iamnotaparakeet wrote:

My view is there will be no final conflict of data. Since God has convinced me of His existence at the age of 13 and with the research I've done, I've decided to favor the theologically correct view (as far as I can tell) of young earth creation rather than old earth creation. It is my hope that in the future technical issues will be resolved objectively.

If you have a compulsion to flame me or anyone else for expressing their views, I ask that you do not post.

I cannot see any conflict of data... theists have no data.

I didn't really follow most of the sentence about "His existence at the age of 13". I thought all theological views were "correct", these days. With a steady decline in believers, it makes sense for religions to "bury the hatchet" over any minor squabbles they have had in the past: spurious details like one god or many, and so on.

So far as "technical issues" are concerned, if this refers in any way to science, then they generally do get resolved objectively. Any use of this sentence in connection with theology is meaningless, as that is entirely subjective.

If you have any inclination to communicate with me about my expression of my views, I ask that you post.

_________________
"Striking up conversations with strangers is an autistic person's version of extreme sports." Kamran Nazeer

Last edited by lau on 09 Mar 2008, 6:27 pm, edited 1 time in total.

nominalist
Supporting Member

Joined: 28 Jun 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,740
Location: Lower Rio Grande Valley of Texas (born in NYC)

09 Mar 2008, 6:26 pm

ouinon wrote:

Orwell wrote:

My theology, which I would consider to be at least as valid as yours, does not compel me to reject science.

So what i'm wondering is, what is it about the standard scientific version of the origins of the universe which interferes with people's belief in god/God?

The underlying argument, which can be seen in all the creationisms (young earth, old earth, intelligent design, progressive, gap, etc.), is that hominids (humans) are not hominoids (apes). The various creationisms differ in their particulars, and some are more extreme than others (like young-earth creationism), but they all attempt to refute that same basic postulate of physical anthropology.

The intelligent design folks are slicker in how they make their claims, as in arguing that the human intellect could not have developed through random processes. However, the objective, to discredit the idea that humans have shared descent with other apes, is still there.

_________________
Mark A. Foster, Ph.D. (retired tenured sociology professor)
36 domains/24 books: http://www.markfoster.net
Emancipated Autism: http://www.neurelitism.com
Institute for Dialectical metaRealism: http://dmr.institute

Orwell
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 8 Aug 2007
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,518
Location: Room 101

09 Mar 2008, 6:53 pm

ouinon wrote:

So what i'm wondering is, what is it about the standard scientific version of the origins of the universe which interferes with people's belief in god/God?

In my view, nothing. That also happens to be the view of my church, which is a very large and well-established mainline Protestant denomination. This is why it offends me when people play "holier-than-thou" over evolution/creation. I believe in God, I believe in Jesus, my religion doesn't include specifics on any scientific field. We have scientists for those things. Religious leaders have finally gotten out of astronomy, they need to acknowledge a similar ignorance in biology.

_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH

iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

10 Mar 2008, 11:31 am

Orwell wrote:

iamnotaparakeet wrote:

Wow. So you're not even pretending not to suffer from confirmation bias. "Objectively?" No, you mean in the future technical issues will be resolved in such a way that vindicates your worldview. Be careful with claims of "theological correctness." My theology, which I would consider to be at least as valid as yours, does not compel me to reject science.

I think it is confirmed in part now already and further research will only confirm it more. If I didn't view the evidence as pointing to it, I wouldn't be a YEC. Also, a straightforward reading of Genesis would lead to the conclusion that the days are literal and the chronogenealogies don't have gaps, so I've found I can't contort it to say otherwise.

iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

10 Mar 2008, 12:19 pm

lau wrote:

iamnotaparakeet wrote:

We have data, but I'm not here to present it.

I have on other threads expressed why I'm not an agnostic after my dad died, so I tire of repeating it.

If you would like to help me ignore a user, that would be appreciated. I've tried Greasemonkey and the WP Ignore feature, but they seem to do nothing.

ascan
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 22 Feb 2005
Age: 56
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,194
Location: Taunton/Aberdeen

10 Mar 2008, 2:47 pm

Odin wrote:

... scientists have the fossils and DNA sequences. You Creationists have nothing but blind faith...

This is true. It's impossible to convey just how amazed I am whenever I see people admit to believing in creationism. It fills me with despair, too.

Griff
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 16 Nov 2006
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,312

10 Mar 2008, 3:41 pm

iamnotaparakeet wrote:

Orwell wrote:

iamnotaparakeet wrote:

I think it is confirmed in part now already

This is what Orwell was pointing out. You're seeking out further conviction for your beliefs rather than objectively testing them against evidence and reasoning. This behavior can lead to profound disappointment or a type of cognitive insanity.

iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

10 Mar 2008, 4:29 pm

Griff wrote:

iamnotaparakeet wrote:

Orwell wrote:

iamnotaparakeet wrote:

I think it is confirmed in part now already

Darwin stated the fossil record was abominable for lack of proof on his part, but that with time more evidence would be uncovered. According to the Drake equation we should have already found intelligent alien life who are willing to communicate & c. We haven't. But with more time....

monty
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 4 Sep 2007
Age: 64
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,741

10 Mar 2008, 4:56 pm

iamnotaparakeet wrote:

Darwin stated the fossil record was abominable for lack of proof on his part, but that with time more evidence would be uncovered.

OK. Darwin took a predictive leap of faith. Which wasn't enough to hang a hat on when he made it.

But since it did prove correct, and since the evidence has gone from abominable to incredible, that reduces the probability that Darwin's theory can be reversed by science to .... very close to zero.

iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

10 Mar 2008, 5:01 pm

monty wrote:

iamnotaparakeet wrote:

Darwin stated the fossil record was abominable for lack of proof on his part, but that with time more evidence would be uncovered.

Still missing a lot of transitional fossils, so it's not so incredible in my opinion. The lack of these fossils was one of the reason for the development of punctuated equilibrium, where morphological changes occur too rapidly, due to environmental stress (like global warming???), for the fossil record to record.

ouinon
Supporting Member

Joined: 10 Jul 2007
Age: 62
Gender: Female
Posts: 5,939
Location: Europe

10 Mar 2008, 5:15 pm

iamnotaparakeet wrote:

Still missing a lot of transitional fossils, so it's not so incredible in my opinion.

Why do you not want Darwin's Theory of Evolution to be the correct one? I don't understand why human evolution from the apes/other primates would be intolerable to you.

iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

10 Mar 2008, 5:17 pm

ouinon wrote:

iamnotaparakeet wrote:

Still missing a lot of transitional fossils, so it's not so incredible in my opinion.

Why do you not want Darwin's Theory of Evolution to be the correct one? I don't understand why human evolution from the apes/other primates would be intolerable to you.

It's not a matter of my wanting it. I would tolerate it if I could convince myself of it.

nominalist
Supporting Member

Joined: 28 Jun 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,740
Location: Lower Rio Grande Valley of Texas (born in NYC)

10 Mar 2008, 6:26 pm

iamnotaparakeet wrote:

It's not a matter of my wanting it. I would tolerate it if I could convince myself of it.

For people who are drawn to biblical explanations of origins and other subjects, I usually recommend, for what it's worth, that they consider other approaches to interpreting the biblical texts. The historical approach, preferred by all fundamentalists and most evangelicals, is not the only game in town. There is, for instance, narrative theology, also called postliberal theology:

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m ... i_76697232

http://www.theopedia.com/Postliberal_theology

http://www.amazon.com/Transforming-Post ... 0567030342

richardbenson
Xfractor Card #351
$Xfractor Card #351$

Joined: 30 Oct 2006
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,553
Location: Leave only a footprint behind

10 Mar 2008, 6:29 pm

ouinon wrote:

Why do you not want Darwin's Theory of Evolution to be the correct one?

because then his religion doesnt mean anything think about it, everyones religion would be worthless

iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

10 Mar 2008, 7:07 pm

richardbenson wrote:

ouinon wrote:

Why do you not want Darwin's Theory of Evolution to be the correct one?

because then his religion doesnt mean anything think about it, everyones religion would be worthless

Even if evolution were scientifically valid it still wouldn't "trump religion". I'm sure Orwell will explain this further.

Page 2 of 9 [ 131 posts ] Go to page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 9 Next

Jump to:

Your view on Creation and the Creator? Post Reply New Topic

Your view on Creation and the Creator?