Your view on Creation and the Creator?

Page 3 of 9 [ 131 posts ] Go to page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 ... 9 Next

Previous topic | Next topic

lau
Veteran
Veteran

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

10 Mar 2008, 7:09 pm

iamnotaparakeet wrote:

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.

The information on using Greasemonkey is in the FAQ. So far as I know, it is complete(-ish). I'll update some details.

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

Griff
Veteran
Veteran

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

10 Mar 2008, 7:14 pm

iamnotaparakeet wrote:

Griff wrote:

iamnotaparakeet wrote:

Orwell wrote:

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.

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

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.

Darwin stated the fossil record was abominable for lack of proof on his part,

I don't give a hoohah what Darwin said. It is commendable that he broke the ice on the issue, and he researched it well. This is what I give him credit for. Millions of scientists since his time have researched the idea with more than equal dedication, though, and a great deal has changed since his death.

His admission that the fossil record was insufficient, however, clearly supports that he did not suffer from conviction bias. Even so, it would have been more appropriate for him to have said, "although present findings are insufficient, future discoveries may support the interlinkage of phylae if present trends continue."

Quote:

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....

Leck mich im Arsch! Lasst uns froh sein! Murren ist vergebens! Lalalalala! You can't make my brain hurt, boy! I'm already psycho! WHERE ARE THE ALIENS, BOY!? I love reading about aliens for the same reasons that I love reading about dragons: for the moment, they're purely hypothetical beings to which multifarious attributes may be ascribed. However, I'm not counting my chickens before they've hatched.

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, 7:18 pm

iamnotaparakeet wrote:

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.

so what would you be going to church for? if it was proven man had evolved over time (wich im shure is what really happend) instead of a supernatural being making him and everything else, why would you bother? would you still believe god made everything?

Orwell
Veteran
Veteran

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

10 Mar 2008, 7:31 pm

iamnotaparakeet wrote:

Orwell wrote:

iamnotaparakeet wrote:

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.

Well, I don't take a literalist approach to the Bible. A lot of it is just plain boring if you think it is just a literal recording of history- I would rather Thucydides History of the Peloponnesian War. In my view, there is more symbolic and metaphoric meaning which makes the Bible actually worth the time to study. Jesus always spoke in parables, so I take that as support for the opinion that biblical events should be examined for a deeper meaning than the literal.

_________________
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, 7:33 pm

richardbenson wrote:

iamnotaparakeet wrote:

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.

Because the cosmological, teleological, and moral arguments are not dependent on the Bible. If that were actually how things happened, which I do not see it as being so, you would still have "religious" people, however sincere they would be.

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, 7:37 pm

iamnotaparakeet wrote:

richardbenson wrote:

iamnotaparakeet wrote:

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.

i think you will find most christians believe in the creation myth of genesis dude. but i also think you will find that people will still think thier wishfull thinking is the truth even if it was disproved otherwise. human tradition is a hard if not almost impossible thing to break, i donno i guess if i find out something to be false i wouldnt take it seriously anymore. but i doubt it would be the same way with religion, but not because it would be proven to be false, but because its a nice money maker for alot of people

Orwell
Veteran
Veteran

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

10 Mar 2008, 7:41 pm

iamnotaparakeet wrote:

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.

Nope, evolution does not trump religion. (WOW, I'm agreeing with iamnotaparakeet in the middle of an evolution/creation debate

) I accept the scientific validity of evolution while maintaining my Christian faith. So does the Pope. As do numerous Protestant denominations (I don't know about Greek Orthodox and I'm too lazy to go look it up right now). The Presbyterian Church (USA) (of which I am a member) released a statement in 1969 (PC(USA) - Theology and Worship - Evolution Statement) in which the church leaders essentially acknowledged that they were not qualified to judge scientific fact but that, since our denomination does not interpret scripture literally, they saw no conflict between being a Christian and accepting modern ideas about evolution. John Calvin, who provided much of our theological base, made a similar comment (in relation to astronomy- heliocentrism vs geocentrism) in his own commentaries on Genesis.

John Calvin wrote:

"To my mind, this is a certain principle, that nothing is here treated of but the visible form of the world. He who would learn astronomy and other recondite arts, let him go elsewhere." (Genesis Commentary — on Chap. 1, verse 6).

Basically, the Bible is not a science textbook. It has its own wisdom to instill, but you won't find out how to construct a structurally sound bridge by studying Deuteronomy.

_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH

Orwell
Veteran
Veteran

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

10 Mar 2008, 7:45 pm

richardbenson wrote:

No. As I just posted, the Catholic Church and most mainline Protestant denominations either endorse some form of theistic evolution or state that there is no contradiction between evolution and Christianity. And when proved wrong, people do eventually change their opinions. We no longer have a geocentric solar system, and it's only a matter of time before this debate is resolved in a similar fashion. Heliocentrism was bitterly fought for centuries, give a new idea time to gain acceptance on its own merits.

_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH

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, 7:46 pm

Orwell wrote:

I accept the scientific validity of evolution while maintaining my Christian faith

how can you do that? since the bible pretty much goes against anything evolution is about

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, 7:50 pm

Orwell wrote:

And when proved wrong, people do eventually change their opinions. We no longer have a geocentric solar system, and it's only a matter of time before this debate is resolved in a similar fashion.

i dont think so dude. not when it comes to religion. people arent going to be willing to change thier view about god and compairing religion to people finding out the earth isnt the center of the universe isnt the same, not when god is involved

Orwell
Veteran
Veteran

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

10 Mar 2008, 7:50 pm

richardbenson wrote:

Orwell wrote:

I accept the scientific validity of evolution while maintaining my Christian faith

how can you do that? since the bile pretty much goes against anything evolution is about

For about the third or fourth time just in this thread, I don't interpret the Bible literally. When I used to be an atheist, I used evolution as an excuse. It seems to me that that is fairly common, as evolution is often used as an argument against Christianity. However, I see no contradiction between Christianity and modern evolutionary science. See the quote below:

Galileo Galilei wrote:

The Bible teaches us how to go to Heaven, not how the heavens go.

The Bible is not a science textbook. If it were you could reject Christianity on the basis of the omission of Newton's laws of motion. It teaches moral lessons. It explains the "why" rather than the "how." We have science to (attempt to) explain the "how."

_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH

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, 7:53 pm

well if you dont interpet the bible literally i dont know how you can call yourself a christian. i wouldnt even see a point in going to church if you didnt do so. but thats ok catholics and protestants alike are a friggin joke. they tend to change things anyways so i dont know how you can take anything they value, say as truth

Last edited by richardbenson on 10 Mar 2008, 7:53 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Orwell
Veteran
Veteran

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

10 Mar 2008, 7:53 pm

richardbenson wrote:

Orwell wrote:

And when proved wrong, people do eventually change their opinions. We no longer have a geocentric solar system, and it's only a matter of time before this debate is resolved in a similar fashion.

Um, that was the point of that allusion. If you don't remember your history, Galileo was excommunicated for promoting a heliocentric solar system. Astronomy was once a religious issue. Not so anymore. I was predicting that history would repeat itself, but apparently you did not know enough medieval church history to catch the reference.

_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH

monty
Veteran
Veteran

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

10 Mar 2008, 7:55 pm

iamnotaparakeet wrote:

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.

We always will be missing a lot of transitional fossils. But enough have been found to confirm the concept of evolution. Along with DNA evidence in living organisms, and observed differentiation/speciation in animals with very rapid life cycles.

Orwell
Veteran
Veteran

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

10 Mar 2008, 7:56 pm

richardbenson wrote:

well if you dont interpet the bible literally i dont know how you can call yourself a christian i wouldnt even see a point in going to church if you didnt do so. but thats ok catholics and protestants alike are a friggin joke. they tend to change things anyways so i dont know how yopu can take anything they value, say as truth

I explained that in a previous post, and I would appreciate it if you did not insult my religion. Fundamentalism is not the only possible view of Christianity, nor is it the most common or the one most supported by religious history. I don't interpret the Bible literally because I believe it to be more allegorical, much like the many parables Jesus told throughout his ministry. Your last sentence I can't even respond to, you have such terrible grammar that it is completely unintelligible.

_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH

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, 7:59 pm

Orwell wrote:

richardbenson wrote:

you have some pretty thin skin if you think me calling your religion "a joke" is offensive

Page 3 of 9 [ 131 posts ] Go to page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 ... 9 Next

Jump to:

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

Your view on Creation and the Creator?